Todd Rose has advocated in the last several years for the “end of average,” making a case for how average is an ineffective–and even misleading–concept for understanding individuals. Todd Rose should know, as a former D- student and high school who became a Harvard instructor.
Part of his argument is that the concept of average limits our schools.
This will run afoul of generations of practice. We find average and averages to be intuitive. Average can offer the science to the art of teaching. Average lends a degree of certainty and concreteness by its mathematical precision to a profession that must measure fuzzy, messy concepts like success and skill and knowledge and understanding. And measure them expediently and frequently.
The problem with average, as Rose illustrates, is that it is an artificial, subjective construct drawn over group performances that bears no resemblance to any one individual performance.
Average is a holdover of the factory model of education from an era that valued conformity and compliance, an era in which our expectations were simpler for producing students to work, to vote, and to serve productively in their communities.
We produced for the norm because the norm, at least we perceived, covered most of the need. Few attended college; nearly 42% work in manufacturing and agriculture (Source: 1940-2010: How has America Changed?).
Today, America boasts a more diverse population, which has increased 133% over 1940, amounting to a larger workforce (+48%) and a greater proportion of the population (34% in 1940; 45% in 2010).
The norm is no longer easy to find. While education may still have some charge to impart basic knowledge and skills, basing our measure and determination of those norms should be immensely more difficult and complex, in not misguided.
