One of the elements to be observed is that one can prepare for the test(s) by help from people who have studied the exams. I have taken SATs, ACTs, and a GRE without prep and recognize many years later the advantage I would have had if I had cooked the algorithm.

Another element to consider is that many intellectuals are talented in ways that make a standardized format difficult to perceive. They start assigning possible values to answers meant to be discarded out of hand. They know they are supposed to reject certain answers immediately but are not happy with the choice as a choice. People who are not afflicted with that propensity blow right past the others and finish the test on time.

I realize my remarks are not any help in regards to current debate. But my emphasis on testing is a different matter from standardizing curriculums. The different arguments I have seen have not done a great job of separating the issues.

Edit to Add:
As for proponents against universal curriculums, Ivan Illich put that forward as his criticism of modern society.

In the UK, there is Education Otherwise, a network of home schoolers.

A.S. Neill is probably the classic case you want.

J. Krishnamurti was also involved with education and several of his schools are still active.

John Holt is the American I am somewhat familiar with.

And there's Paulp Friere to represent S.America.

I think the key move is to eliminate all coercion and manipulation. Since children are naturally creative and varied, a standardised curriculum becomes impossible.

who would argue that Standardized Education is inherently the wrong choice, — James Riley

Which, as you describe it, amounts to the proposition that if you could "standardize" any sort of education - and never mind what all these words mean - then it would be inherently wrong.

Either something is wrong with education, or something is wrong with standardization - and those dogs won't hunt. Your friend needs a new thesis statement. Or he needs to hog-tie, kill, spit, roast, and serve it up as barbecue with a side of beans.

Since children are naturally creative and varied, a standardised curriculum becomes impossible. — unenlightened

Do they have to attend school (wherever it is, even if at home)? At some point the word "education" loses meaning.

Your friend needs a new thesis statement. — tim wood

The freshman text goes something like this:

"standardized education is not inherently bad but the way the system is executed is poorly done and neglects the interests and talents of many students. it also forces students to learn things they don't' care about as opposed to igniting an interest in learning"



Great. I will cut and paste for him. Thank you for your time.

On the topic as represented, I suggest your friend start with an, sit, quid sit, quale sit: is it, what is it, what kind of a thing is it, what are its special features? Working in with these A's four causes, material, efficient, formal, and final. The latter calling for some creativity. This kind of analysis of terms and subjects usually does such a good job of corralling various parts of an unruly subject that further discussion becomes constructively - and for a prof., impressively - constrained and guided.

Do they have to attend school (wherever it is, even if at home)? At some point the word "education" loses meaning. — tim wood

I've left some links and you can google the names if you are interested. One is always constrained by The law of the land, so I'm not sure what or who you are asking about.

"standardized education is not inherently bad but the way the system is executed is poorly done and neglects the interests and talents of many students. it also forces students to learn things they don't' care about as opposed to igniting an interest in learning" — James Riley

Great! Some standardized education sucks. As to the rest, interests, talents, igniting learning, that's all purple prose - maybe good for compost.

:up: Will pass it on. Thanks.

One is always constrained by The law of the land, so I'm not sure what or who you are asking about. — unenlightened

I think the key move is to eliminate all coercion and manipulation. Since children are naturally creative and varied, a standardised curriculum becomes impossible. — unenlightened

Not looking for an argument, or even much of a discussion. But it seems to me that with no carrot and no stick, no curriculum is possible. Unless it be the curriculum of what is happening at the moment.

But it seems to me that with no carrot and no stick, no curriculum is possible. Unless it be the curriculum of what is happening at the moment. — tim wood

Yes. that's what I said that you quoted. But actually, in practice kids love to learn almost anything just for fun, so all a teacher needs to do is be flexible and interesting. But standardisation is out. And that's the position of those folks I quoted, give or take a bit. Oh and I forgot to mention the free school movement of my misspent youth, that I was a small part of. That link explains a bit about the general philosophy and mentions A.S. Neill too so might be useful as a citation.

I forgot the main man - Ivan Illich.

A.S. Neill is probably the classic case you want. — unenlightened

When I was in my late teens, "Summerhill" had a big influence on my understanding of human nature and what it means for me to be person. Neill was a profound radical disguised as a teacher. That's a good thing. My respect and affection for him have not diminished. I gave one of my adult children a copy of "Summerhill" in the last few years. It was hard to explain to him why it meant, still means, so much to me.

I forgot the main man - Ivan Illich. — unenlightened

Came here to say this.

In short, who the hell would be against it, even if the curriculum was of their choosing and even if it was executed as they would have it done? — James Riley

Try this. See if this is what you're looking for:

Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them.

The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.

An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence. Unless, indeed, when society in general is in so backward a state that it could not or would not provide for itself any proper institutions of education, unless the government undertook the task: then, indeed, the government may, as the less of two great evils, take upon itself the business of schools and universities, as it may that of joint stock companies, when private enterprise, in a shape fitted for undertaking great works of industry, does not exist in the country. But in general, if the country contains a sufficient number of persons qualified to provide education under government auspices, the same persons would be able and willing to give an equally good education on the voluntary principle, under the assurance of remuneration afforded by a law rendering education compulsory, combined with State aid to those unable to defray the expense.

--JS Mill, On Liberty, Chapter V Applications

I'm going out on a limb and say that standardized education as it is now can be handled with ease by an ordinary laptop/PC. All you need to do is learn facts and formulae by heart and regurgitate it or apply it mechanically (respectively).

What do you think that means?

Thanks to all who helped out. The person turned their paper in last week and your insights helped.

I don't even know what the phrase entails and I'm not inclined to look it up. My last sentence in the OP just came from what I perceived as a state's understandable interest in having everyone be able to read and write the native tongue, as well as do some basic math and learn how to not kill others when you can help it. I'm all for individualization, but I'm also a little leery of letting some mom/pop pound the bible into their kids brain when they can barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Oh well, ship sailed.