Assurance for a K-12 Education System: Conceptual Model

Standardization & Standards are not the same thing

I have been thinking recently about what 'assurance' for a K-12 education system really means. To what extent is public assurance achieved when a system has a high level of confidence (high trust) in an environment of low standardization? Alternatively, is the public (or an individual) assured only if an education system is defined by high levels of standardization (low trust)?

As I reflect on this issue, I consider the differences between standards and standardization, impact of trust (public confidence) on assurance, the importance of equity within a society (excellent education systems achieved through equity), what is accepted as evidence (measuring what matters) and the difference between accountability (ability to count) and the need for teachers and principals to have the ability to respond (responsibility) within more complex and diverse communities. 

To pull this all together, I am developing my thinking around a conceptual matrix on system assurance that places the notions of trust and standards on a continuum. What you find below is an early draft conceptual model to frame discussions of assurance, all of which tackles the fundamental issue of advancing high professional standards, without a narrow 'standardization'.

Which quadrant on the matrix fits with the responses to the questions below:

Is the public (or an individual) assured that their K-12 education system is of high quality only if it is defined by high levels of standardization (low trust)?

Is the public (or an individual) assured that their K-12 education system is of high quality only if it is defined by low levels of standardization (high trust)?

---

The additional layers of my thinking in the second matrix on assurance begins to probe how issues of professional judgement/autonomy, teacher confidence/competence or even equity might result in a particular position within the matrix.  For example, low perceived competence often leads to low trust and thus a desire for higher standardization (think scripted curriculum for non-certificated teachers).

I am also intellectually playing with the idea of framing system assurance in the same light as assessment for/of learning. It might help explain why one conversation I have on 'assurance of the system's excellence' elicits OECD-PISA results, while another conversation on 'assurance for the system's excellence' might focus on teacher assessment capacity building or a myriad of other time intensive resources/supports needed to reach high trust, low standardized spaces of system assurance.

The more complex conceptual model above also starts to push out diagonally in terms of increased complexity or simplicity, greater diversity (in all its manifest forms) vs polarization(s).  There are endless comparators that could be thrown into this continuum:
(Big) Data (small)
(short) Time (long)

Your thoughts?