## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Consistency and quality**: Establishing norms and templates maximises compatibility and reduces cognitive load > - **Infrastructure alignment**: Full benefits require coordinating entire system, not just individual components > - **Valley of Latent Potential**: Initial resistance occurs when integrating standardised processes without changing supporting infrastructure ## Definition **Standardisation**: Process of establishing norms, conditions, guidelines, or templates to maximise compatibility, consistency, and quality across educational practices. ## Connected To [[Centralised Lesson Planning]] | [[High-Value Task Structures]] | [[Use Booklets]] | [[Teaching is Not a Profession]] --- ## Benefits and challenges Standardisation produces consistency through uniform approaches across classrooms and teachers. This reduces duplication of effort and cognitive load, improving efficiency. Quality improves when effective, [[Teach Methods that Last|forward-facing]] methods are used consistently. Scalability enables systematic improvement and refinement across entire systems. ## Shipping container analogy The benefits of standardisation and the challenges in implementing it can be understood through the history of shipping containers (Levinson, 2006). Before standardised containers, goods loaded in sacks, barrels, and boxes by dockworkers. Modern rectangular containers with standard sizes stack efficiently, load with specialised cranes, and transfer to conforming truck beds. Experienced shippers initially thought standardisation terrible because they had mastered optimal arrangements for every good type. Ship owners had customers wanting partial container loads. People tried integrating containers without changing infrastructure, creating what might be called a valley of latent potential. Only after aligning the entire delivery chain, packaging, ships, harbours, was the full potential realised. ## Educational applications Educational standardisation applies to templates, structures, and curriculum design. Document templates use consistent formatting that enables easy copying between documents. [[Centralised Lesson Planning|Consistent structure]] in learning episodes streamlines planning and provides student routine. [[High-Value Task Structures]] reduce time explaining surface structure through standardised formats. Curriculum design benefits from [[Use Booklets|standardised materials]] that reduce [[Cognitive Load|extraneous cognitive load]]. Assessment formats employ consistent question types and layouts. Lesson structures create predictable routines that support learning (Rosenshine, 2012). ## Implementation challenges Educational standardisation faces predictable resistance and infrastructure challenges, just as with shipping containers. Educators may prefer individual approaches, raising concerns about teacher autonomy. The assumption that bespoke solutions always prove superior creates customisation beliefs that resist standardisation. Change fatigue produces resistance to altering established practices. Infrastructure requirements demand that all components work together for full benefits through system alignment. Staff must understand and implement standards consistently, creating training needs. Proper implementation requires time and materials through resource allocation. ## Success factors A whole-system approach changes supporting infrastructure, not just individual practices. Quality standards ensure standardised methods are evidence-based and effective. Professional development trains staff in rationale and implementation. Continuous improvement provides regular review and refinement of standards (Schmidt et al., 2001). ## References Lemov, D. (2015). *Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to college*. Jossey-Bass. Levinson, M. (2006). *The box: How the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger*. Princeton University Press. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). *Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning*. Jossey-Bass. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5