A Standard Validation Hypothesis

Building on a traditional conception of Theory and Praxis (Figure 1), this Standard Validation Hypothesis (SVH) first considers the concepts of “validation” and “best practice” and their presence or absence in Theory and Practice. (The convention of the ± symbol is used here, borrowing from the field of Linguistics, in which the ± symbol is used to indicate the presence or absence of specific articulatory characteristics of discrete phonemes.) In SVH, theory can be validated or not validated, and practice can be best practice or not best practice. In any case, one can influence the other.

Figure 1: Traditional Model of Theory and Practice

In the SVH model, standards are added to the traditional Theory and Practice model (Figure 2). Importantly in SVH, standards can be followed or not followed and validated or not validated. Additionally, multiple interpretations of standards can exist simultaneously. No matter how standards are followed, validated, or interpreted, they influence theory and practice, and vice-versa.

Figure 2: SVT Model of Theory and Practice

Importantly in SVH, just one method of validation is required in order to validate a standard. Generally, the more methods used to validate a standard, the stronger the argument for legitimate validation. Additional methods of validation can be applied over time, as theory and practice inform the validation process.

Figure 3: Standards and Methods of Validation

While all four methods of standard validation are used in Education, each method includes shortcomings and potential pitfalls, as explicated in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Examples and Potential Pitfalls of the Four Methods of Standard Validation

Reasons why a teacher might not implement the standards in the way they were intended

· Ignorance of standards

· Multiple interpretations of standards possible

· Professional experience supersedes standards

· Tradition supersedes standards

· Political pressures to ignore standards

· Teachers may recognize that standards have not been appropriately validated

· Lack of accountability regarding implementation of standards

· Implementation of standards could require a prohibitive investment of resources

As the reasons articulated above indicate, there are a variety of reasons why standards might not be implemented in the way they were intended to be implemented. Although one could argue that so much variation in the interpretation and implementation of standards is tantamount to not having a standard in the first place, this is only true under certain circumstances. In SVH, that a standard might be misinterpreted is not reason enough to invalidate a standard. Similarly, accurate implementation does not necessarily validate the standard either.

The iNACOL standards and the UC power standards together influence educational policy and curriculum for literally millions of students. Figure 4, below, describes the development of both sets of standards. An understanding of how both sets of standards came to be is essential to their evaluation.

Figure 4: History of Development of iNACOL standards and UC Power Standards

If we examine the history of the development of two sets of standards under review here (Figure 4) from the perspective of the four methods of standard validation (Figure 5), we can see the crucial role that the four methods played in standard validation.

Figure 5: The Four Methods for Standard Validation. A minimum of one method is required; use of more than one method strengthens the validation. Most standards contain elements of all methods. Important note: standards can and do exist without validation.

Taken together, SVH helps to explain the development of standards generally, and the iNACOL and UC Power Standards specifically. As a mere hypothesis, however, future research should explore the process by which standards are identified and validated in a variety of contexts and fields.