US proves that standardisation, without collaboration, doesn't work
In a recent article, the author provides an insightful critique of the standardisation of the American K-12 education system, with a particular focus on its failings at the high school level. He argues that the implementation of common core standards and Advanced Placement (AP) courses has led to an overly rigid and inflexible curriculum that lacks “grace” - one that is unforgiving for students and induces high levels of anxiety. Whilst these standards were ostensibly introduced to equalise academic outcomes between wealthy and underprivileged districts, they have manifestly failed to achieve this noble intention.
The core issue, the author contends, is that this regimented system does not enable teachers to tailor and adapt materials to suit the specific needs and abilities of their students. Time-poor educators are compelled to dedicate significant classroom hours to teaching formulaic essay styles and exam tactics, rather than stimulating young minds with inspiring, relevant texts. However, the author does identify one potential benefit to this homogenisation - the facilitation of collaboration between teachers across the country. Given that so many schools now work from identical curriculums, there is considerable scope for educators to pool supplementary resources through a centralised, open-access online portal, much like GitHub or Scratch. This teaching ‘commons’ could be transformative, enfranchising students and allowing customisations to meet local requirements.
Ultimately, though, the author laments the lack of flexibility and creativity fostered by standardisation. In an ideal world, he argues, we would empower teachers with the time and autonomy to excite students rather than confine them to inflexible frameworks. Still, he recognises current constraints and thus advocates the pragmatic approach of constructing an 'architecture of participation' on existing foundations. This would at least mitigate the most pernicious effects of standardisation. It is a thoughtful, nuanced perspective that highlights flaws in the system whilst exploring avenues for meaningful improvement.
The “current constraints.”
Me being me, I don’t accept the overall premise. Applying critical critical lens to arguments, we can critique the author’s pragmatic acceptance of working within the standardised education system as ultimately upholding BigEd’s interests as well as the oppression of students who don’t fit into “standard” boxes - like me.
The notion of an “architecture of participation” that enables teachers to share materials ignores the deeper power structures at play. Standardisation itself is a product of capitalism - it allows education to be streamlined, quantified, and commodified in service of business interests. Standardised testing generates profits for publishing corporations whilst conditioning students for compliant roles in the corporate workforce.
Educational philosophers and theorists like Pierre Bourdieu and Paulo Freire argued that education is a key “Ideological State Apparatus” that reinforces the ruling class’ hegemony by teaching obedience, routine, and acceptance of hierarchy. Standardisation strengthens this role, framing knowledge itself as something to be rationed and controlled from central authorities. Even if teachers share materials freely online, they still have to operate within prescribed standards that serve the needs of global neoliberal capitalism over the intellectual freedom of students and educators.
True liberation would require teachers and communities gaining autonomy over learning, oriented around students’ abilities and interests rather than top-down benchmarks. But the author’s compromise approach leaves the structures of exploitation intact. Without addressing underlying issues of social control and the commodification of education, any participation will be coopted to serve the interests of profit and the reproduction of class inequality. Genuine emancipation requires replacing the institutions of oppression altogether, not merely enhancing participation within them.
So whilst framed as pragmatic, accepting standardisation means accepting the capitalist domination of learning. Participation in such a system, however enhanced, cannot escape its ultimate role in maintaining oppression and denying human potential. The only route to liberation is through radical institutional transformation rather than reformist concession.