Know Power, Know Responsibility: How to unleash the potential of every child in America

Part 1 — Chapter 3: Standards Based on Averages

Author’s Note: I will publish additional sections of this book each week. You can find previously posted sections at the following links: Note to Parents of School Age Children and Note to Teachers, School Administrators, and Other School Staff here; Introduction here; Prologues Part 1 and 2 here; Prologues Part 3 and 4 here; Part 1-Chapters 0 and 1 here; and Part 1-Chapter 2 here.

CHAPTER 3 — Standards Based on Averages

“‘The tendency to think in terms of the ‘average man’ is a pitfall into which many persons blunder’ Daniels wrote in 1952. ‘It is virtually impossible to find an average airman not because of any unique traits in this group but because of the great variability of bodily dimensions which is characteristic of all men.’ Rather than suggesting that people should strive harder to conform to an artificial ideal of normality, Daniel’s analysis led him to a counterintuitive conclusion that serves as the cornerstone of this book: Any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail.

“Daniels published his findings in a 1952 Air Force Technical Note entitled The ‘Average Man?’ In it, he contended that if the military wanted to improve the performance of its soldiers, including its pilots, it needed to change the design of any environments in which those soldiers were expected to perform. The recommended change was radical: the environments needed to fit the individual rather than the average.”

— The End of Average by Todd Rose (Rose, 2015, p. 8)

As noted in chapters 1 and 2, once students start school, they are expected to keep pace with their age-based cohort in all subjects and classes for the next thirteen years. That “pace” and corresponding measures are based on standards, which are built, for the most part, around averages.

Here’s how that works. Student outcomes are determined based on data showing an average reasonable expected outcome for a particular age of student in a given subject. This seems like a logical approach, since there are decades of student data available from standardized tests and other measures. Unfortunately, this approach is actually harmful because there is no such thing as an average student.

The quote at the beginning of this chapter refers to research conducted by Lieutenant Gilbert S. Daniels in response to a rash of plane crashes by US Air Force pilots following World War II. Prior to Daniel’s study, Air Force planes had cockpits designed based on average dimensions, and pilots were recruited specifically to fit within those dimensions.

However, Daniel’s research found that on ten dimensions used for designing cockpits, less than 3.5 percent of Air Force pilots met even three of the dimensions. In other words, a pilot for whom the pedals were at the correct distance might have one other control at the correct distance, but rarely would three controls be at the correct distance. Consequently, for over 96 percent of the pilots, at least eight controls were not within proper reach, and their ability to fly safely was then compromised. This only became a serious problem after World War II when the complexity and performance of planes increased.

In his book The End of Average, Dr. Todd Rose, a professor at Harvard University, shares this story along with substantial other research demonstrating that there are no average people. He goes on to explain why any system — including our educational system — that is based on averages is actually detrimental to those who are supposed to be served by it. This chapter will not attempt to capture all the important points from Dr. Rose’s book, but it will explain how the use of averages is another element of the problems with the factory model of schools. (Rose, 2015)

In our society, we have made countless decisions around averages, including how we design facilities, create businesses, develop movies, and build marketing campaigns. In many cases, this is not a problem, especially when the averages are applied in a narrow scope or the stakes are low. The problems arise when applying averages more broadly or in complex, high-stakes situations. I strongly encourage you to read Dr. Rose’s book or watch his presentations available online to see his outstanding examples. In the realm of education, here is how it plays out.

The problem of using averages in education

Let’s consider reading in third grade. Data from numerous sources can tell us that a certain level of reading is the average for all third-grade students. Reading experts then factor in other research and knowledge about reading abilities at given ages and the progression of reading abilities needed to achieve a certain level by high school graduation. All these factors are used to set a benchmark for proficiency at the end of third grade for all students.

We then develop other benchmarks throughout third grade that, if achieved, should result in a student meeting the end-of-third-grade benchmark. Throughout the school year, students are regularly assessed to determine if they are on pace. These assessments are often teacher observations and class assignments. Students lagging behind are given additional instruction or other interventions to get back on pace.

Within any narrow subject, this approach may be effective. But once all subjects start to be considered, it gets messy. Since no student is likely to be average in more than a couple subjects, almost all students need some sort of intervention (if they are behind the benchmark) or supplemental work (if they are ahead) in most subjects. Since providing this level of personalization in the current structure is not realistic, students must instead accept that they will always be either ahead or behind to some degree. As long as they are close enough and don’t become disruptive, they’ll get through. This dynamic leads to bigger challenges because small early gaps often grow year after year.

Developmental readiness

One factor in whether a student is at or near a benchmark is whether they are developmentally ready for that subject. In this example, a student whose brain is just not developmentally ready for reading at the expected level will struggle regardless of any interventions, while a student who is advanced may become bored and frustrated. One solution is moving the advanced student ahead a grade and keeping the struggling student behind a grade.

However, as Dr. Rose illustrates in The End of Average, almost no one falls near the average on more than two or three distinct measurements. So moving a student up or down a grade can only go so far in meeting that student’s needs. Once moved, the student may fall closer to the average in some subjects but may have moved further from the average in others.

The use of averages — and the corresponding academic benchmarks that are based on these averages — provides data that seems to validate our educational structure. Since most students (and, in some schools, almost all students) are meeting or exceeding the benchmarks, we consider the schools to be doing a good job. We even provide special recognitions to schools with high percentages of students exceeding the benchmarks. This validation is fine if our goal is to have all students meet or exceed a set of benchmarks based on averages. However, if our ultimate goal is to help all students approach their personal potential, this is a false validation.

We also use average-based benchmarks to identify students we consider in need of interventions, when they may just not be developmentally ready. We may require students to get additional instruction, take a summer course, or repeat a course. When the student eventually reaches the benchmark, we may falsely believe it was because of the interventions, when in fact it may just have been the student having now reached developmental readiness. Our current model of education does not provide any way of knowing what eventually allowed this student to achieve the benchmark.

MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL START TIMES

Averages also get applied to non-academic school elements that can significantly affect learning. Starting middle and high school classes later in the morning is a practice gaining significant traction in schools throughout the country. There is substantial research that later school start times lead to academic gains, improved student mental health, improved attendance, fewer discipline referrals, and even reductions in student traffic accidents. There is also scientific and medical rationale that explains why this occurs and that strongly supports these efforts. Consequently, many schools and districts have adjusted or are considering adjusting their schedules accordingly. (Whalstrom, 2018)

What these efforts fail to acknowledge is that while many students benefit from a later start time, other students thrive early in the morning. They go to sleep early, get up early, and are ready to be deeply engaged in learning early. These students may wane in the afternoon and have difficulty staying alert and engaged later in the day. By moving the schedule back, these students will suffer, but because they are the exceptions, they’ll just have to deal with it.

Fitting the school to each student rather than the average

As long as students are grouped with dozens of other students and subjected to a time-based curriculum and a set of benchmarks, they will be outside of average significantly more often than they will be on track with average. Our entire model is built on averages, yet there are no average students.

For every student to approach his or her potential, we need an educational structure that can adapt to each student and their unique circumstances. We need a model that meets each student where they are in terms of developmental readiness and current levels of ability within each subject area. As Lt. Daniels noted in his Air Force report in 1952, “Any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail.” The solution, as Daniels recommended to the Air Force, is that the environments must be designed to fit the individual, rather than the average (Rose, 2015). While our educational system built on averages has not failed entirely, it’s time to replace this model with one designed to ensure every student has the true opportunity to approach their potential.

Continue with the next section of Know Power, Know Responsibility (Part 1 — Chapter 4), here: