Old Guard Curriculum, New Guard Engineering Problem

From "The Process Myth" on Rands In Repose:

...healthy process is awesome if it not only documents what we care about, but is willing to defend itself. It is required to stand up to scrutiny and when a process fails to do so, it must change.

 

Insist on understanding because a healthy process that can’t defend itself is a sign that you’ve forgotten what you believe.This whole article is a great read, and it strikes me as a very similar problem and set of approaches that college curricula face.

This whole article is a great read, and it strikes me as a very similar problem and set of approaches that college curricula face. The whole "Old Guard" problem can really get ugly and lead to little pockets of curriculum that are obviously out of place bits of cruft attached to someone's ego. I've always been one of the "New Guard" pains-in-the-ass that ends up making enemies by rebuilding as much curriculum as has been politically possible (what? you didn't know that college curriculum design can highly politicized? Let's have coffee.)

But now I guess I'm part of the Old Guard. Not the Dear-Christ-Will-You-Please-Just-Retire-Already Guard. If I'm now the one running the assessment process as Older Guard for curriculum change I lead as New Guard, how do I know I'm not biased and skewing the results? Interesting.