Transform Education

No Profit In Ending Poverty

2009-04-19T10:41:00.005-05:00

Here's an extremely sobering, depressing, thought-provoking interview with the creator of the acclaimed HBO series The Wire. David Simon was a crime reporter for twelve years with The Baltimore Sun before turning to a career in television. Here's an excerpt from the interview, conducted by the inimitable Bill Moyers.

DAVID SIMON: The people most affected . . . are black and brown and poor. It's the abandoned inner cores of our urban areas. . . . (E)conomically, we don't need those people. The American economy doesn't need them. So, as long as they stay in their ghettos, and they only kill each other, we're willing to pay a police presence to keep them out of our America. And to let them fight over scraps, which is what the drug war, effectively, is. . . (S)ince we basically have become a market-based culture and it's what we know, and it's what's led us to this sad denouement, I think we're going to follow market-based logic, right to the bitter end.

BILL MOYERS: Which says?

DAVID SIMON: If you don't need 'em, why extend yourself? Why seriously assess what you're doing to your poorest and most vulnerable citizens? There's no profit to be had in doing anything other than marginalizing them and discarding them.

Simon's solution?

I would decriminalize drugs in a heartbeat. I would put all the interdiction money, all the incarceration money, all the enforcement money, all of the pretrial, all the prep, all of that cash, I would hurl it, as fast as I could, into drug treatment and job training and jobs programs. I would rather turn these neighborhoods inward with jobs programs. Even if it was the equivalent of the urban CCC, if it was New Deal-type logic, it would be doing less damage than creating a war syndrome, where we're basically treating our underclass. The drug war is a war on the underclass now. That's all it is. It has no other meaning.

What Would Replace "Grade Level"?

2009-04-17T16:03:00.001-05:00

I think common sense says that any single measure that claims to assess something is always enhanced by a different kind of measure that attempts to corroborate its claims.

So if I want to know if my kid knows something about the Revolutionary War, I might give her a multiple-choice test. But I'd also want her write a 3-page paper on the cause of the war, give a presentation on the Battle of Bunker Hill, and write and act in a skit about George Washington. At the end of the unit, I'd want her to select items she worked on and place them in her portfolio and then write a meta-cognitive summary of what she learned, the challenges she faced in learning them, and how she overcame them.

Duh, right? Most good teachers do these sorts of things all the time. All of these assessments/measures focus on the question of what my kid knows. But each produces different information in different ways. And each involves different skills.

So go tell that to your state DOE. What will they say? Something like, "These classroom-based assessments are very nice, but they're certainly not reliable. We can't possibly accept your judgement about what students in your classroom know and can do."

THAT'S the problem.

Of course you can't accept the teacher's judgment if punitive high stakes are associated with the assessment, e.g., the teacher getting fired (thanks NCLB!) or the school getting shut down (thanks again, NCLB!) So there's an incentive (thanks Campbell's Law!) to cook the books and make things seem what they aren't.

It doesn't have to be this way. Ultimately, what we're really concerned about is (1) what do kids know? and (2) what can kids do? A single measure (usually a norm-referenced, multiple-choice test) that tells me if my kid is "at grade level" does not tell me what my kid knows and what my kid can do. It tells me if my kid's score is the same as her peers, below her peers, or above her peers. In short, it tells me zippety-doo-dah.

Multiple measures (such as the ones I mentioned above) are the evidence we need to answer the questions (1) what do kids know? and (2) what can kids do? These measures reveal nothing about "grade level," i.e., where these kids are "supposed" to be in relation to each other. Rather, these measures give a very real sense of where these kids ARE. Once we know where they are, we can help them get to the next place. How they get there and when they get there is an open question. But in the best circumstances, getting there is kind of fun. Anyone remember teaching and learning is supposed to be fun? It's different for each kid and for each teacher. It's what learning is all about, and what makes teaching a thrill.

Not On The Test

2009-04-17T00:33:00.002-05:00

Why We Need to Debunk "Grade Level"

2009-04-16T00:55:00.002-05:00

As we have seen from the Obama administration and so-called "progressives," NCLB is going to be tweaked, not fundamentally altered or discarded. I'd argue that it's being tweaked and not discarded because there is a very strong sense that there is a magical thing called "grade level." This magical thing called "grade level" is (1) very real, (2) can be measured empirically with a fine degree of validity and reliability, i.e., it really tells us something useful and is beyond repute, and (3) lots of low-income minorities are not at "grade level" and is therefore cause for concern, as it is our sacred duty to get them to this magical place.

But, as I have been discussing, we can show that "grade level" (1) is a phantasm, (2) cannot be measured accurately or reliably and does not yield any kind of useful information whatsoever, and (3) is therefore meaningless when we talk about the academic achievement of low-income minorities.

This is a foundational critique that, if successful, will raise the following questions:

1) If "grade level" is a phantasm and does not accurately measure what students know and can do, what are other means by which we can better understand what students know and can do?

2) If it's meaningless to say that low-income minorities are not "at grade level," then what is a meaningful way to talk about the disparity that exists between low-income kids and their more affluent peers?

If we get lots of folks asking these questions, then there's an opening for discussion of alternatives. But if folks are not asking them, then they still uncritically and unquestionably accept that "grade level" is real and will, therefore, always be caught in a box. They will design more assessments -- maybe even some pretty good ones -- but these assessments will all be for the purpose of determining if kids are at "grade level" or not. Ergo, we are still where we are now.

With all due respect to the work that everyone -- including me -- has tried to do on debunking NCLB, we have clearly not achieved our goals. So that's why I'm suggesting this tactic.

Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?

2009-04-06T22:31:00.002-05:00

At the heart of the "achievement gap" is the contention that lots of low-income minority kids are "not at grade level" and are often said to be several "grade levels" behind.

But what do we mean by "grade level"? Grade level is the score of the average child in a particular grade on a norm-based test. But, by definition, 50% of all children are always below grade level. When using standardized, norm-based tests, you always guarantee that half of the students taking the test are below grade level. So when we say that low-income blacks, for example, are not at grade level, aren't we overlooking the rather obvious fact that LOTS of kids -- in fact, HALF of all kids by definition -- are below grade level?

Further, aren't we overlooking the fact that standardized tests are rather poor measures of what students know and can do? And as a colleague of mine reminded me recently, "Most kids need family and adult support to become readers. And as we know, many kids don't have that support. Thus the need for schools --in loco parentis." So aren't we also overlooking the fact that low-income minorities often don't have this kind of family support, so their being "behind" is not all that surprising?

So why not accept that lots of low-income minority kids do not read at the level of their white, affluent peers and -- instead of pathologizing them for this and then handing them a dumbed-down, See Spot Run curriculum with lots o worksheets -- work with them from where they are and at their own pace? In other words, why not just accept that all kids learn differently and at different paces? Would this just be too ridiculously practical? Instead of giving them the dumbed-down curriculum, you give them all the support and encouragements and structure they need without framing their development as "behind" or "slow" or "impaired." It's just where it's at. They are where they are. Don't sacrifice PE and art and music so they can do more phonics drills. Give them a broad-based experience of schooling that still makes it fun and interesting. They may not read Moby Dick -- ever. But they may not want to read Moby Dick, even if they could. (Confession - I tried to read it once and gave up because I found it lethally boring.) Am I missing something here?

In the end, here's what I think this would accomplish. We'd reframe the "achievement gap" and replace it with what we know to be true of all kids (actually, all people): a continuum. We know that ability varies greatly on everything, and that some kids are simply better at reading than others. There's nothing wrong with this, in the same way that there's nothing wrong with the fact that some kids are better communicators than others or better dancers or better weavers or better at computer games than others. Reading is tricky, though, because it's seen as so foundational, and there's a belief (probably romantic) that while it's OK for kids to be better at some things and not others, ALL kids have to be equally good at reading. Maybe they just aren't? And, since reading is so heavily affected by socioeconomic factors, it only makes sense that affluent kids will be slightly better at it than low-income kids.

Given all of this, we'd see growth measures in place for each student and completely get rid of norm-based standards and measures and only measure students in relation to their own growth and development.

Holt and Kohl on Reading

2009-03-29T20:12:00.003-05:00

Some further thoughts on kids being labeled "learning disabled."

John Holt, the homeschooling/unschooling advocate, wrote that once a child really wants to learn to read for his own reasons, it takes about thirty hours of focused help from someone who knows how.

Holt argues in Instead of Education that we can't fathom this because "S-chools and T-eachers believe, and soon convince the children, that everything that is learned must be T-aught. So the T-eachers must spend hundreds of hours trying to cope with and outwit the kind of children's evasive tactics I wrote about in How Children Fail. They make children anxious and dependent and then say, rightly, how hard it is to deal with their anxiety and dependency. None of this need be."

Herbert Kohl makes a similar argument in Reading, How To. He writes in the preface,

There is no reading problem. There are problem teachers and problem schools. Most people who fail to learn to read in our society are victims of a fiercely competitive system of training that requires failure. If talking and walking were taught in most schools we might end up with as many mutes and cripples as we now have non-readers. However, learning to read is no more difficult than learning to walk or talk. The skill can be acquired in a natural and informal manner and in a variety of settings ranging from school to home to the streets.

Later, in Chapter 2, he writes, "If a youngster fails to acquire the skill or comply with the rules of learning, he or she is considered retarded or criminal, that is, in more polite school language, a learning or behavior problem."

Stop Pathologizing Children

2009-03-29T19:43:00.003-05:00

Kids — in fact, everyone — develop according to their own timelines. Some are faster at learning some things than others. For example, my son learned to walk when he was 13 months old, but my daughter didn't walk until she was 20 months old. We knew that this was perfectly normal and didn't worry.

But in school, if you take more time to learn certain things, esp. how to read and write, then you are labeled as “developmentally delayed.” It’s important not to look at delays in development as signs that kids are broken and need to be fixed. If you look at people as though they are broken and need fixing, a profound disconnection emerges between you and them. This is disturbing in any context, but it’s especially disturbing in a school setting, much less the very first school setting that children have, i.e., pre-school (where the stage is often set for children who are not as fast as some of their peers.)

My wife and I found this out first-hand. We sent our daughter to our local neighborhood school for pre-K, a school considered "low income" because it receives federal Title 1 money. We were alarmed at how anti-child it was, esp. with regard to recess, free time, and testing. I met with the principal and with the classroom teacher and expressed my concerns about the overly-academic orientation of the curriculum. I noticed the effect the school was having on my daughter’s attitude towards school and learning. So we decided to look elsewhere, knowing that the Kindergarten curriculum at our neighborhood school was even more anti-child, overly-academic, high stakes, test-centric, and highly structured. As I wrote about here, my daughter’s experience with writing her name before she was able to or willing to do so had a profoundly negative effect on her, and I still harbor bad feelings towards the school for forcing kids to be at the same “grade level benchmarks” at the same time.

Her current school was a real life-saver for her because the school honors the fact that different kids develop at different paces. She is now thriving there and really likes it. And not only is she writing her name, but she’s actually copying text out of books on her own, writing stories (most of which she dictates to me), and writing words she sees on a daily basis.

Had she stayed at our neighborhood school, she would have been labeled “a slow learner.” She would have been put into a slow group. She would have known right away that there was something wrong with her (at least, from the school’s perspective.) Of course, I’ll never know what may have happened in the long run if she had stayed there. But it’s not too much of a stretch for me to imagine her hating school, hating the fact that she had to write anything, and generally feeling like she was a failure.

These are high stakes here. We are talking about paving the future for the lives of children. This is especially critical for low-income and low-income minority children, who are disproportionately labeled "learning disabled" and who typically do not have parents with enough social capital to fight the system on behalf of their children.

Over on another blog called PPS Equity, I wrote about a school in Portland, OR called Rosa Parks Elementary. 91% of the kids at Rosa Parks are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The Kindergartners have 3 “specials”: drama, PE, and library. They are all 30 minutes each, and they are all offered back-to-back on Wednesdays. So for an hour and a half, the kids go from one to the other.

Then, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, they do nothing but the academic curriculum. No art, no music, no PE, no library, no nuthin’ for 4 out of 5 days.

They have a single lunch/recess period that lasts about 40 minutes. The kids eat lunch first and then go to recess. A Kindergarten teacher at Rosa Parks that I talked to estimated that recess was about 20 to 25 minutes long, depending on when the kids finish lunch. School starts at 8:30 and goes until 2:45. So that means for those 4 out of 5 days, they have 25 minutes to be goofy and run around and be little kids in a span of 6 hours. The rest is all business.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, students in the affluent neighborhood school of Ainsworth get not one, not two, but three recesses per day. At Ainsworth, Kindergarten kids get PE, music, art and singing once a week each. They get 30 minutes for PE and music and an hour for art. Singing happens every Friday.

5.9% (five point nine per cent) of the kids at Ainsworth are eligible for free and reduced lunch.

The upshot? Low-income students and low-income minority students are being given a qualitatively inferior education because they are said to be “behind” in reading and math.

We have to stop pathologizing children for being where they are in their development, stop robbing them of a broad-based educational experience in the name of raising their test scores, and stop punishing low-income kids for being at the effect of the ravages of poverty in the name of closing the so-called “achievement gap.”

Dumbing down the educational experience of low-income children does not help them in the long run. Pathologizing them as they're just beginning to take shape as learners virtually seals their fates.

Does KIPP Sanction Institutionalized Violence?

2009-03-24T15:30:00.002-05:00

If you're a KIPP fan, I'd like to know if you're following the story at KIPP Fresno. If not, check out Jim Horn's posts on this.

The experience at KIPP Fresno raises the specter of institutionally sanctioned violence, both physical and emotional. It also suggests a new tag line for KIPP: "Work hard, be nice . . . or else."

Is Poverty Just an Excuse?

2009-03-20T16:18:00.000-05:00

In the effort to fight the "poverty is no excuse" crowd, education researcher Dr. David Berliner reviews a half-dozen out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. Additionally, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and pre-school programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors.

Here's the link to the full policy brief. (712 KB PDF document)

Kindergarten Playtime Disappears, Raising Alarm About Children's Learning and Health

2009-03-20T16:10:00.002-05:00

A press release from The Alliance for Childhood.

Time for play in most kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing, according to results of three new studies released today by the nonprofit Alliance for Childhood. Classic play materials like blocks, sand and water tables, and props for dramatic play have largely disappeared in the 268 kindergarten classrooms studied. The findings are documented in Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School.

Researchers from U.C.L.A. and Long Island University found that, on a typical day, children in all-day kindergartens in Los Angeles and New York City spend four to six times as much time in literacy and math instruction and taking or preparing for tests (about two to three hours per day) as in free play or "choice time" (30 minutes or less). A third research team, at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, found that most of the activities available to children during choice time (a popular euphemism for playtime) are in fact teacher-directed and involve little or no free play, imagination, or creativity.

Child development experts have been raising alarms about the increasingly didactic, test-driven, and joyless course of early childhood education. "These practices, which are not well grounded in research, violate long-established principles of child development and good teaching," states the Alliance report. "It is increasingly clear that they are compromising both children's health and their long-term prospects for success in school."

The report summarizes recent studies and reports showing long-term gains from play and focused, playful learning in early education. It also critiques kindergarten standards, scripted teaching, and standardized testing and makes recommendations for change.

David Elkind, author of The Power of Play, calls the research findings "heartbreaking." In a foreword to the report, Elkind writes, "We have had a politically and commercially driven effort to make kindergarten a one-size-smaller first grade. Why in the world are we trying to teach the elementary curriculum at the early childhood level?"

The full text of Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School is available at www.allianceforchildhood.org.

Assessment On Planet Zarg

2009-03-04T18:25:00.005-06:00

I just came back from a visit to planet Zarg. We could learn a thing or two from these guys.

In the schools on Zarg, they measure kids, just like we do on Earth (well, in some places on Earth). The inhabitants of Zarg studied the views of former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. From her, the Zargians learned that "what gets tested gets taught." So, following her advice, they created assessments that measure all of these things:

curiosity
creativity
tenacity
honesty
compassion
ability to get along well with others

When parents meet with their kids' teachers on Zarg, they talk about test scores, just like we do here on Earth. But the tests aren't like the multiple-choice tests we use on Earth. Their tests ask students to work on projects, to create things of substance in collaboration with others, and then to report and reflect on the process they went through in creating them. The Zargians value curiosity, creativity, tenacity, honesty, compassion, and the ability to get along well with others. They believe that young people, endowed with these traits, stand a greater chance of being happy, successful, productive citizens. So they create measures to see how well students are acquiring these valued traits.

What do we on Earth value? No matter what we say we value, our tests speak louder than our words. So what values do our tests reveal? That learning can be reduced to a correct answer on a multiple-choice question.

Deep Knee Bends And Test Prep

2009-02-28T10:44:00.008-06:00

I understand the argument that "back-to-basics" supporters make: under-served kids have different academic needs, are further behind, and therefore need the extra time on reading and math skills. You don't have time to do everything, so you have to focus on the essentials because these kids need the essentials.

However, I don't buy this argument for two reasons:

short-changing these kids and depriving them of an experience that nurtures and develops their minds and bodies, as well as their creativity and passions, is not acceptable
there is no evidence that short-term increases in test scores is indicative of any deep or long-term learning

The so-called "nation's report card," the NAEP -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- reveals that test scores typically go up, plateau, and then fall around middle school. This is due to the fact that (1) basic skills drilled into kids when they are in the younger grades are not transferable because (2) the tests get more difficult as kids get older and the test prep they were given as younger kids no longer works.

Here's another way to look at it.

Imagine that a bunch of affluent kids and a bunch of low-income kids are training for a decathlon. The affluent kids eat a healthy variety of foods, get plenty of sleep and rest, and engage in a broad array of exercises and activities as part of their training regimen. The low-income kids focus on doing deep knee bends only. They don't eat healthy foods, and they don't get the amount of sleep and rest the affluent kids get.

Now, don't get me wrong. Deep knee bends are great. And they certainly help develop and strengthen leg muscles. But they don't do much for cardiovascular stamina, nor do they do anything for arm, back, and chest muscles.

Having a strong cardiovascular system as well as strong arm, back and chest muscles are crucial to ensuring success in a decathlon competition. Strong leg muscles are not enough.

So which group of kids is more likely to do well in the decathlon? The answer is obvious.

But now apply the analogy to the test-centric curriculum that low-income minorities are subject to. Loading up on academically-oriented tasks and discrete skill acquisition are the equivalent of doing deep knee bends. Eating well, resting, playing, and doing a broad series of exercises is the equivalent of a curriculum that exposes kids to art, music, drama, dance, and recess. The decathlon competition is the equivalent of life.

So which group of kids is more likely to do well in the decathlon of life? Unfortunately, for folks like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Barack Obama, the answer is not obvious.

Let me give you a glimpse at what this looks like here in Portland, OR.

At Rosa Parks Elementary, Kindergartners have 3 “specials”: drama, PE, and library. They are all 30 minutes each.

But wait: here’s the ringer — they are all offered back-to-back on Wednesdays. So for an hour and a half, the kids go from one to the other.

Then, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, they do nothing but the academic curriculum. No art, no music, no PE, no library, no nuthin’ for 4 out of 5 days.

They have a single lunch/recess period that lasts about 40 minutes. The kids eat lunch first and then go to recess. The teacher I spoke to estimated that recess was about 20 to 25 minutes long, depending on when the kids finish lunch. School starts at 8:30 and goes until 2:45. So that means for those 4 out of 5 days, they have 25 minutes to be goofy and run around and be little kids in a span of 6 hours. The rest is all business.

91% of the kids there are eligible for free and reduced lunches. The school is right smack dab in the heart of a new public housing project.

Meanwhile, in a highly-affluent part of Portland called the West Hills, Kindergartners at Ainsworth Elementary School have three (3) recess periods per day: morning recess, lunch/recess, and afternoon recess. Kids get PE, music, art and singing once a week each. They get 30 minutes for PE and music and an hour for art. Singing happens every Friday. They are also taken to the library once a week.

5.9% (five point nine per cent) of the kids at Ainsworth are eligible for free and reduced lunch.

Rosa Parks is rated as a “satisfactory” school by the state. Ainsworth is given an “exceptional” rating.

Something stinks here.

The poor kids do deep knee bends while the rich kids sing every Friday.

She Did It!

2009-02-26T15:27:00.003-06:00

In my post from yesterday, I talked about how difficult and frustrating it is to give my daughter space to choose. This has been difficult and challenging in so many ways, but I've maintained my convictions because I want my parenting to be in synch with my values. In other words, being a parent is a way for me to act on my beliefs.

One of the things I believe -- and lots of research studies support -- is that children develop according to their own timeline. When they're ready to read, they read. When they're ready to write, they write. Etc., etc. Of course, as teachers and parents, we can prime the pump a bit. We can read to them and encourage them to experiment. But they have to decide when they're ready. Some teachers and parents describe it, literally, as a light going on -- the moment their kid or student realizes something and is ready to go.

Yesterday, I had such a moment.

As I've written about before, my daughter had a mixed experience as a pre-Kindergartner. She liked being with her friends, but she froze up when asked to write her name and do all the other skills-oriented tasks. Nevertheless, my daughter came to school five days a week for an entire school year, and the very first thing she did when she got there was write her name. She must have written her name -- "successfully" -- at least 100 times. But when she started Kindergarten this year and was asked to write her name, she couldn't do it. Or, more accurately, she wouldn't do it. Why not? I guess I'll never know for sure. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that she was pushed too early to do something she wasn't ready to do. Ironically, although she had proven that she could write her name, she later decided that she could not.

Fortunately for her, we changed schools and enrolled her in a Kindergarten that did not push kids and did not hold random, norm-based standards above their heads. This school honors the fact that children develop at their own pace and need to be supported and encouraged, not pushed. I told her teacher about her not being willing to write her name, so he came up with the idea of giving her a bunch of stickers with her name on them. When she needed to give something to the teacher, she simply put a name sticker on it. Problem solved.

Now flash forward 5 months. After school, she came racing in with a big smile on her face and said, "Guess what, Daddy? I'm so clever. Look, I wrote my name and this, too. It says 'Mayan Pottery.'" I hugged her and congratulated her and told her I was very proud of her.

What if I had bribed her with candy and with gold stars when she told me she couldn't write her name? Would her smile have been as broad and as genuine? Or what if I had said, "Of course you can write your name. Now sit down young lady and write your name or else!" I didn't do either of these things because doing them would have been manipulative and coercive. I chose to let her take control of her own development. I let her be in charge of saying what she could and could not do. More importantly, she was in a classroom with a teacher who believed the same thing.

Of course, as a teacher and a parent, you're always wondering whether to push a student to try harder or go deeper. But when you push a kid, you have to be sure there's something there that can be pushed, that can respond to a push. Otherwise, the push becomes a shove. And when you get shoved and knocked down, sometimes you don't get back up again.

KIPP Revisited

2009-02-25T12:33:00.002-06:00

I think about KIPP a lot, so I write about KIPP a lot. My thoughts and writings are now part of a book by Washington Post reporter Jay Mathews. The book is called Work Hard. Be Nice.: How Two Inspired Teachers Created the Most Promising Schools in America.

Paul from Texas commented on my post called "Why KIPP Doesn't Serve as a Model for Urban Education." I responded to the post there, but I thought I'd post it as a new entry, too. So here is what I said.

Paul wrote, "As a middle class white, it is easy for Mr. Campbell to throw stones at the notion of punishments and rewards . . . No doubt, his children respond to the very system of incentives and consequences that any capable parent would provide."

So what does that mean?

Perhaps he's suggesting that I hang signs around my children's necks that say "Bench" or "Miscreant" if they misbehave? I don't. As a parent and educator, I find the notion of rewards and punishments to be extremely challenging. It's much, much easier to bribe kids with carrots and threaten them with sticks. But it also violates my own ethics and values, and it deprives kids and students of experiencing any sort of internal motivation.

In those instances when I've resorted to using bribes with my own daughter, I've always regretted it. Why? Because she's more interested in getting the goody for the behavior I'm trying to coerce her to perform. This also robs her of experiencing real consequences because she is not part of choosing the reward or the punishment. As much as I'd love, love, love to use time-outs as a way to punish her and manipulate her and coerce her to "be good"(or "work hard" or "be nice"), my wife and I don't use them because time-outs are . . . well, . . . manipulative and coercive. They also suggest that my love is conditional on whether or not I approve of her. Yuck.

As I say, I'd love to use them, though, because it would be SO much easier! But I choose -- perhaps masochistically -- to use other means. I talk to her. I explain what her choices are. I help her understand the consequences of her choices. And then I let her choose. I very often -- very often -- do not like the choices she makes. But she is a human being that is learning how to make good choices, so I allow there to be bumps in the road. Life is kind of like that -- bumpy.

But for the KIPP'sters and their ilk, there is only candy for good behavior and a sign around their necks for bad. Some choice . . .

Obama's Education Policy

2008-10-21T11:38:00.003-05:00

In the final debate between McCain and Obama, McCain brought up the issue of D.C. vouchers. It was embarrassing to watch Obama's response. He stood there in silence, looking down and nodding. It looked like he was being schooled. I fear that Obama will learn from McCain, and that the miniscule gap between their education policies will eventually close when Obama comes out in favor of vouchers. Hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

In the same debate, Obama pointed out -- as a way to give himself credibility -- his support of performance pay for teachers and said smugly, "This doesn't make me very popular with the teachers' unions." Obama believes in choice and competition, one of the major reasons why he wants to double the amount of charter schools. His support of vouchers would be consistent with his current beliefs, so don't be surprised.

Many edu progressives have said that vouchers would be a great idea if the amount of the voucher actually enabled a low-income family to attend an expensive private school. There is not a single voucher plan that I know of that does this. But even if there were, private schools can decide who they let in and who they decide to kick out -- with zero public accountability for either decision. And even if there were adequate funds to send every kid to Exeter and private schools were compelled to admit and retain a diverse body of low-income minority students, there's only so much room at the Exeters of the world. So when Exeter is filled to capacity, where do kids go to school? Vouchers feed the chasm that exists between have and have-not schools. If you're lucky enough to get into a choice school via a voucher, then God bless you. But if you're not so lucky?

The solution, of course, is to make every school a "choice" school. How do you do that? That's a tough question, but this is precisely the kind of tough question that Obama should be posing, not caving to a solution that only exacerbates the problem.

Accountability Meets the Corporate Achievement Gap

2008-08-15T09:45:00.006-05:00

The Associated Press ran a story on August 12, 2008, citing a report from the Government Accountability Office that revealed that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. And, according to the report, about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes altogether over the same period.

How ironic in the age of No Child Left Behind that the GAO - the Government Accountability Office - would be the one that would point out corporate America's lack of accountability when it came time to paying the bills in this country.

It's clear to me that we have a Corporate Achievement Gap here. What is the Corporate Achievement Gap? The Corporate Achievement Gap is the difference between what taxpayers paid into the general coffers -- for roads and bridges, for schools and fire trucks -- and what 25 percent of U.S. corporations did not put in. This gap is an achievement gap because it underscores the potential for achievement if only these corporations would help fill this gap.

But they are simply not doing their part, not shouldering their load, not paying their dues.

Right now, the US federal government pays for between 7 and 10 percent of the total budget for public preK-12 education. The other 90 to 93 percent is paid for by state and local taxpayers.

Imagine, if you would, what kind of impact there would be if the US federal government doubled its current investment in public education from about 10 percent to 20 percent. Imagine the difference this could make.

In his amazing book Class and Schools, Richard Rothstein wrote:

All told, adding the price of health, early childhood, after-school, and summer programs, (the) down payment on closing the achievement gap would probably increase the annual cost of education, for children who attend schools where at least 40% of the enrolled children have low incomes, by about $12,500 per pupil, over and above the $8,000 already being spent. In total, this means about a $156 billion added annual national cost to provide these programs to low-income children.

These are 2003 - 2004 data, and they're probably not completely accurate. But these numbers at least give you an idea of what it might take to actually close the educational achievement gap. They give you the sense that closing the educational achievement gap might actually be something that could be done.

But before we can close the educational achievement gap, we must first close the Corporate Achievement Gap.

Teachers and schools are being held accountable. It's time to start holding corporations accountable, too. We must demand that they contribute to the health and well-being of the country by paying their fair share.

How "Choice" Is No Choice at All

2008-08-11T12:40:00.002-05:00

In a national school system that has worsened -- not improved -- under NCLB, there are a few schools where good teaching and learning practices are in place. The Portland public schools system -- like many others across the country -- holds these schools out to parents through a "choice" process that involves a lottery.

Most parents who know about these schools and can afford to transport their kids there want what these schools offer. They still have an extended recess. They still have art and music and see them as intrinsic to healthy childhood development, not as frivolous extras that can come or go depending on the budget or the latest test data.

This past spring, parents in Portland flocked to these kinds of schools. At Emerson Charter School, there were over 200 applications for 12 spots in the K-1 classroom. Similar numbers were seen at Trillium, Opal, and Portland Village School.

But the approaches these schools take are usually not offered to us at our neighborhood schools. They certainly aren't offered at my neighborhood school -- a school that voluntarily subjects children to the DIBELS test and limits 5 and 6-year-old Kindergarten children to 20 minutes of recess and a sprinkling of PE, art, and music here and there.

So here's what the "choice" for parents looks like: (1) we can roll the dice and hope that we get lucky and get in to one of these schools, or (2) we can enroll our children in schools that follow test-centric, developmentally inappropriate curricula. The former is a desired outcome. The latter comes with a great deal of anxiety, trepidation, and bitterness.

Of course, we can choose to withdraw our children from the school system and homeschool them. But this is not really a choice, given the options. It's really a matter of necessity. With some degree of sadness and a great deal of disappointment, my wife and I decided to homeschool our daughter this year. We believe we had no other choice. Homeschooling will be fun and rewarding, and we're looking forward to it. But it often feels like we're making lemonade from lemons.

So does making the "choice" schools available to all parents make the other schools better? Absolutely not. Do all parents and children benefit from the "choice" schools? Absolutely not. Rather, other parents and their kids become your competition as you scramble and beg for the few crumbs thrown out. It's a sickening and heart-breaking process. It is morally and ethically stinky. You know that if you are lucky and get in, your kid is going to make it. You know that other kids will not get in. You are aware of this. And still you participate in the "choice" process.

I never liked "choice" because it's no choice at all. What "choice" does is effectively defang the opposition, as the few most vocal opponents of the status quo branch off and start their own charters and then attract others. The kids that make it into these schools are lucky, indeed. But the rest are not so lucky and must play the hand they've been dealt. My wife and I are in a postion where homeschooling is possible -- this year. But who knows about next year? And most parents are not in a position to be able to homeschool. They are stuck with the test-centric schools and must choose between them and nothing at all.

Some choice . . .

What is good assessment?

2008-08-10T13:49:00.002-05:00

Good assessment begins with the end in mind, i.e., you start off with what you want students to know and be able to do. So let's imagine for a moment what that might look like. Here's a starter:

1) we want all students to be able to read and love doing so
2) we want all students to have a fundamental grasp of numeracy and mathematical thinking
3) we want all students to be able to write persuasively on a variety of subjects

You might also wish to nurture and develop certain qualities in students, e.g., curiosity, compassion, creativity, confidence.

So now the question becomes: how do we determine that students know these things, can do these things, or have acquired these qualities? The trick is to use assessment to help students know them, do them, and acquire them. In other words, good assessment is indistinguishable from good instruction. Good assessment drives instruction because it provides rich, meaningful information that both students and teachers can use -- teachers to improve their instruction and students to improve their learning.

So here's the litmus test for the current battery of assessments that have hijacked our curricula: do they provide rich, meaningful information that both students and teachers can use?

I would say the answer is "no" because most of the assessments in use today via "data-driven assessment" practices produce information that is shallow and disjointed. But even worse, some of the assessments used produce information that is simply wrong.

To make this case, let's consider the DIBELS test. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is a set of one-minute measures: recognizing initial sounds, naming the letters of the alphabet, segmenting the phonemes in a word, reading nonsense words, oral reading of a passage, retelling, and word use. The measures are used to assess phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency in reading connected text, vocabulary and comprehension.

The DIBELS is used to assess more than 1,800,000 students from Kindergarten to grade 6. Students who do not meet the expected benchmark are given the DIBELS over and over, i.e., the test becomes the exclusive means by which progress in reading is measured.

Jay Samuels, a professor of education psychology and of curriculum and instruction at the University of Minnesota, served as a member of the National Reading Panel and coauthored the fluency section of the panel's report. The NRP's report has become the gospel on how reading is to be taught in this country, so Samuels' opinion carries some weight. Here is what he recently wrote about the DIBELS:

--begin excerpt from Reading Research Quarterly (2007-10-01)--

The DIBELS's battery of tests . . . aim to identify students who may be at risk of reading failure, to monitor their progress, and to guide instruction. With the widespread use of DIBELS tests, a number of scholars in the field of reading have evaluated them, and not all of their evaluations have been flattering. For example, Pearson (2006, p. v) stated,

“I have built a reputation for taking positions characterized as situated in 'the radical middle'. Not so on DIBELS. I have decided to join that group convinced that DIBELS is the worst thing to happen to the teaching of reading since the development of flash cards.”

Goodman (2006), who was one of the key developers of whole language, is concerned that despite warnings to the contrary, the tests have become a de facto curriculum in which the emphasis on speed convinces students that the goal in reading is to be able to read fast and that understanding is of secondary importance. Pressley, Hilden, and Shankland (2005, p. 2) studied the Oral Reading Fluency and Retelling Fluency measures that are part of DIBELS. They concluded that “DIBELS mispredicts reading performance much of the time, and at best is a measure of who reads quickly without regard to whether the reader comprehends what is read.”

If Riedel's conclusion that administration of subtests other than Oral Reading Fluency is not necessary for prediction of end-of-first- and second-grade comprehension, in combination with the critical evaluations of DIBELS by some of our leading scholars in reading is not enough to raise the red flag of caution about the widespread use of DIBELS instruments, I have an additional concern about the misuse of the term fluency that is attached to each of the tests. Because each of the tests is labeled as a fluency test, it is only fair game to see if that term is justified. I contend that with the exception of the Retell Fluency test, none of the DIBELS instruments are tests of fluency, only speed, and that the Retell Fluency test is so hampered by the unreliability of accurately counting the stream of words the student utters as to make that test worthless. Let us not forget that, in the absence of reliability, no test is valid.

Carl Chew's Statement

2008-05-02T11:59:00.002-05:00

Here is Carl Chew's statement on why he refused to administer the WASL, the state of Washington's standardized test used to measure AYP under NCLB.

On April 15, I refused to give the Washington Assessment of Student Learning to my sixth-grade students at a Seattle Public Schools middle school. I performed this single act of civil disobedience based on personal moral and ethical grounds, as well as professional duty. I believe that the WASL is destructive to our children, teachers, schools, and parents.

It is important for me to note that my disobedient action was not directed at any individual. I love being a teacher; my students are fantastic; my fellow teachers collaborate with and help me every day in numerous ways; and my school administration has always shown a willingness to listen to and support the teachers. I understand that my action has caused people pain, and I am truly sorry for that, but I could no longer stand idly by as something as wrong as the WASL is perpetrated on our children year after year.

Though my act of civil disobedience was individual, I do not stand alone in my strong beliefs. Any Internet search for high-stakes testing will reveal highly regarded educators, distressed parents and sensitive teachers with a wealth of thoughtful writing and case studies supporting my views.

The WASL is bad for kids.

To my mind the measure of successful childhood is that each child learns about who she or he is and how the world works, gains an assertive and confident self image and feels safe, well fed, and happy. Schools, along with parents and communities, need to contribute wisely to this goal. Unfortunately, the WASL creates panic, insecurity, low self esteem and sadness for our children.

It is written in the language of white, middle-and upper-class students, leaving all others behind.

It is presented to children in a secretive, cold, sterile and inhumane fashion.

There is no middle ground --children either pass or fail, which leaves them confused, guilty, and frustrated.

Numerous questions on the test are unclear, misleading or lacking in creativity.

It tests a very narrow definition of what educators know children need to become well-rounded human beings.

The WASL is given at a prescribed time regardless of a child's emotional or physical health.

The WASL is bad for teachers.

For meager pay, teachers are asked to work in extremely challenging situations, keep absurdly long hours and, when it comes to the WASL, function in an atmosphere of fear.

A majority of teachers loath the WASL but feel unable to speak out freely against it due to their fears of negative consequences for doing so.

Because administrators are constantly pushing to meet federal guidelines for yearly score improvements, their relationships with teachers can become strained and unpleasant.

Administrators and teachers suffer under the knowledge that if they do not achieve improvement goals (measured by WASL passage alone) they can be sent to retraining classes, lose their students to other schools, or have their "failing" school handed over to a private company.

Before administering the WASL teachers mandatorily sign a "loyalty" oath promising they will not read any of the test questions.

Teachers feel devalued by the amount of time most of them have to devote to test practice and proctoring --upwards of four weeks for actual testing and many more weeks for WASL prep in many cases.

Teachers feel used and depressed when, half a year after the test is given, they are presented with dubious WASL results --a mateurish and misleading Power Point charts and graphs telling them next to nothing about their students' real knowledge and talents.

Teachers' relationships with parents are compromised because they cannot talk freely with them about opting their child out or other WASL concerns.

The WASL is bad for parents and families.

Parents have been shut out of this costly process.

Most of them are misled by official statements about what the purpose of the WASL is.

Many of them do not realize that they have the right to opt their children out of testing with no consequences, though in practice schools have illegally put inappropriate pressure on parents and children who have opted out.

Many of them do not realize that teachers are, in many cases, not allowed to discuss any reasons why they might want to opt their child out. (Teachers in California went to court to secure the right to inform parents of their right to opt their children out of that state's testing.)

Like children, parents suffer from the same feelings of guilt and unhappiness when their children fail.

Parents are not informed that the test is biased, culturally insensitive and irrelevant and not a real measure of anything.

The WASL graduation requirement has kept thousands of families from knowing whether or not their students will be allowed to take part in graduation ceremonies and celebrations -- the culminating reward for 13 years of public school attendance and achievement -- with friends and families.

The WASL is bad for schools.

Even in the best of times purse strings are rarely opened adequately to public education. Where a private school needs to charge $20,000-$30,000 to educate a child well, public schools are given a third or less of that for each student. Simply, schools are strapped for cash, many of them struggling each year to fund their needs with an ever- shrinking pot of money.

While schools are generally underfunded, Washington will spend a projected $56 million in 2009 to have a private corporation grade WASL tests. These tax dollars are needed right in our schools providing more teachers, smaller classes, tutors, and diverse educational experiences for our students.

While the federal government requires that school districts use high stakes testing to qualify for federal dollars, tests are not fully funded by the federal government.

WASL is one of the most difficult tests used to fulfill the federal requirements, with one of the highest failure rates.

Instead of safe, exciting and meaningful places for our children to spend half of their waking hours, schools have become WASL or test mills bent on churning out students who are trained to answer state-approved questions in a state-approved manner.

The WASL is just bad.

Most, if not all, teachers will agree that assessment is vital. Wise teachers know that assessments which are also learning experiences for students and teachers are the best. The WASL categorically is not a learning experience.

I believe that individual students are entitled to their own learning plans, tailored to their own needs, strengths and interests. Teachers know it is definitely possible to do this in the context of a public school. The WASL categorically treats all children alike and requires that they each fit into the same precise mold, and state-mandated learning plans based on WASL scores fail to recognize individual strengths of students.

Passing the WASL does not guarantee success in college, placement in a job, a living wage or adequate health care.

WASL will decrease the high school graduation rate. Thousands of students who have completed all other requirements and passed all required classes will be denied diplomas because of WASL failure.

High-stakes testing has not proven beneficial to students, teachers, schools, or communities.

In the real lives of students, teachers, and parents the WASL is an ongoing disaster.

When I was a teacher at Graham Hill Elementary in Seattle, a number of my students received their WASL scores to find that they had "failed". When I looked at the notices being sent to their parents I saw that each student had come to within just a few points of actually passing and that their scores were well within the gray area, or "margin of error," for the test. The "test scientists" aren't sure whether the student passed or failed, yet the school tells the student he or she failed. These students cried when they saw the results.

When I first started teaching, Graham Hill could afford Americorps tutors, numerous classroom aides and had money for field-trip busses and ample supplies. By the time I stopped teaching there, Americorps was gone, there were no classroom aides except for parent volunteers, and everything else was in short supply.

Teaching and testing during my last year at Graham Hill was challenging. I was on my own in a room with 29 students, 10 percent did not speak English, 50 percent of them spoke another language at home, several of them were homeless, and many of them had severe emotional challenges due to parental pre-natal drug use, violence and abuse.

No one ever asked me or any of the teachers I know whether high-stakes testing was a good idea. In fact, we teachers are made to jump through seemingly endless hoops to prove our worthiness to be professional, certificated educators. Public school teachers are responsible for the educational lives of over a million students in Washington state, yet, in the end, no one actually wants to listen to what teachers have to say about what is best for the students in our care.

Carl Chew and Civil Disobedience

2008-05-02T11:38:00.003-05:00

"Every year, I said to myself this is the last time I'm going to do this."

Carl Chew

Carl Chew is a middle school teacher in Seattle. He was suspended in April for two weeks without pay for refusing to administer the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) in his classroom. This is Washington's state test that is used to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) as part of NCLB.

Here is why he did it:

I performed this single act of civil disobedience based on personal moral and ethical grounds, as well as professional duty. I believe that the WASL is destructive to our children, teachers, schools, and parents.

What are teachers saying about this? Check out this very interesting discussion on the Teacher Leaders Network. Here's one post that really stood out for me. It's from Cindy, who teaches in the D.C. suburbs. She wrote:

For some time now, I have commented to others that “I used to be a better teacher than I am now.” This year, especially, we have bubble tested and online tested students constantly. These are not brief summative assessments; they are tests that take most students 50-70 minutes to complete. We are supposed to be making data-driven decisions based on the results of these tests. And guess what—the same students who did poorly in September are for the most part doing poorly now.

Sam, in my honors class, contributes brilliant insights during literature discussions, can tell you anything you want to know about World War II, asks for help whenever he needs it, and always is ready and willing to assist classmates in any way he can. But he has had trouble all year with multiple choice tests, usually scoring in the 60’s. In working with him one on one, I realized early on that he was over-thinking every question. He has extensive background knowledge. He reads all the time. So we have worked to minimize how much time he spends thinking about each question. Did I do Sam a favor by teaching him not to think? He was a much better student before he learned how to “take” multiple choice tests.

What do we owe to Carl Chew? How can we add to his act of courage? How can we encourage other acts of civil disobedience?

Leaving My Daughter Behind

2008-04-22T13:23:00.002-05:00

Last night, about midnight, I heard whimpering. I put my ear up to the baby monitor. It was coming from my two-year-old son's room. It didn't sound desperate, so I figured I'd let him try to settle down.

But the whimpering kept going, so I went to go down to check on him.

On the way downstairs to my son's room, I glanced in at my five-year-old daughter. She was gone.

Panicked, I rushed downstairs. She was sitting with her knees pulled up to her face outside my son's door, whimpering.

I said, "Sweetheart, oh my goodness, what's the matter?"

She said, "You left me behind."

I said, "Oh, no sweetheart. I didn't leave you behind. I had my door shut so I wouldn't wake you up with the light. I would never leave you behind."

I picked her up and tucked her into bed next to me. She was glued to me the whole night. I didn't sleep very well, but she did.

She had a tough day yesterday. Went over to a friend's house, where her friend's mom reported that the friend had a melt-down. When I walked in, it was clear that a good time was not being had. She said she never wanted to go over to her friend's house again.

She later asked, "Daddy, what if you die?"

A little later, she asked, "What if mommy dies?"

My little girl is growing up.

Most of us have already grown up. Most of us are alive, but most of us are alive while drowning. This is the human condition - to avoid drowning for as long as possible.

How to hold my little girl and keep her afloat in a world where so few are saved from drowning? How to trust that she'll learn to swim, that avoiding drowning won't be so scary, that she'll get used to it, like we all do?

Too Much Too Early

2008-04-20T12:48:00.002-05:00

I'm reading Dr. David Elkind's 1987 book Miseducated. I read his book from 1981, The Hurried Child, a while ago. I'll be reading his latest book, The Power of Play (published in 2007), next.

Elkind has an impressive background. He has written more than 400 book chapters and articles, and several stories for children. His numerous books include Reinventing Childhood (1998), All Grown Up and No Place to Go (1998), and Ties That Stress: The New Family Imbalance (1994). From 1964 to 1965, Elkind was a national Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at Piaget's Institut d'Epistemologie Genetique in Geneva, Switzerland. Much of Elkind's work can be seen as an attempt to duplicate, build upon, and more fully explore Piaget's theory and research. Elkind's research has focused on cognitive, perceptual, and social development in children and adolescents, as well as the causes and effects of stress on children, adolescents, and families.

Here are few key quotes from an article Elkind wrote in 2001 called "Much Too Early!"

The deployment of unsupported, potentially harmful pedagogies is particularly pernicious at the early-childhood level. It is during the early years, ages four to seven, when children's basic attitudes toward themselves as students and toward learning and school are established. Children who come through this period feeling good about themselves, who enjoy learning and who like school, will have a lasting appetite for the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Children whose academic self-esteem is all but destroyed during these formative years, who develop an antipathy toward learning, and a dislike of school, will never fully realize their latent abilities and talents.

Evidence attesting to the importance of developmentally appropriate education in the early years comes from cross-cultural studies. Jerome Bruner reports that in French-speaking parts of Switzerland, where reading instruction is begun at the preschool level, a large percentage of children have reading problems. In German-speaking parts of Switzerland, where reading is not taught until age six or seven, there are few reading problems. In Denmark, where reading is taught late, there is almost no illiteracy. Likewise in Russia, where the literacy rate is quite high, reading is not taught until the age of six or seven.

Rewriting the Script

2008-04-14T11:04:00.002-05:00

The current issue of Rethinking Schools is out now.

The eight essays that make up our special “Rewriting the Script” section offer a devastating indictment of the sorry state of teaching and learning that No Child Left Behind has wrought. There is also hope for the future.
Seeking changes within the NCLB framework is not the way to begin the next four-year term, says FairTest’s Monty Neill in the lead essay, “Beyond NCLB.” Neill urges progressive educators and activists to think outside the NCLB box, to be audacious, to search for new language and demands that more adequately reflect what we want rather than merely what we think they can get. The special section includes work from Rethinking Schools editors Linda Christensen and Wayne Au, as well as teachers, activists, and teacher educators.
Buy this issue right now for $4.95. Or subscribe online and we'll send you the current issue as a welcoming gift.

The issue includes a revised version of my piece, "The Scripted Prescription: A Cure for Childhood."

Please visit the RS web site. Better yet, subscribe. This is a fantastic resource for everyone concerned about social justice and public education.

Sit! Stay! Read! More Stupid Pet Kid Tricks

2008-04-11T12:50:00.006-05:00

The most important thing, I think, is to make sure that they know that I am in complete control of everything going on, that there's not a step that I haven't planned in advance.

Sarah Scott
Elementary School Teacher, Houston, TX

I assume they just don't know anything.

Mary Abdel Sayed
Elementary School Teacher, Houston, TX

Here's a good example of kids in training using Direct Instruction.

Vomiting

2008-04-06T00:13:00.003-05:00

The political mania for inflicting high-stakes tests on students has reached such insanity that a couple of years ago when a teacher revealed that Harcourt, publisher of the widely used Stanford 9 test, sends out instructions on what a teacher should do when nervous children vomit on the tests (soiled tests cannot be discarded but must be returned to Harcourt), it wasn't even a three-day wonder. No group stepped forward and demanded that schools discontinue practices that make kids vomit.

Susan Ohanian

For many students, these Stupid Pet Kid Tricks -- as inane as they are -- are not easy. So why might this be the case? As part of the focus on simple, measurable skills, 4 and 5-year-old children are being asked to perform their knowledge in an environment in which their performance on these measures bears an extraordinary weight. The vast majority of children have their fate determined by them. As Monty Neill noted,

The long history of tracking in the US also suggests that students who enter pre-K or K "behind" will be assumed to be less capable of learning and thus put in "slower" classes through which the gap in learning outcomes will expand. "Intelligence" tests have long played that pernicious role, complemented by "achievement" tests. Through these instruments, race and class effects are instrumentalized as "scientific" or "objective."

High-stakes assessment, indeed. Starting in pre-K.

As I noted here, a lot of kids are being asked to do things they simply can't do. My daughter is one of these kids. I don't know what it's like from her perspective, but I imagine she looks around and sees one or two kids rolling over, fetching, and playing dead rather well and perhaps thinking to herself that she will never be able to roll over, fetch, and play dead as well as some of her friends can. And -- since school is the place where you are taught to roll over, fetch, and play dead -- that school is not the place for her or, at the least, a place where she will never be good at what is valued there.

For the students that don't excel at high-stakes displays of intellectual acumen/precociousness, learning and schooling become synonymous with anxiety. Reading becomes synonymous with anxiety, as does writing, math, etc., etc. But this is true even for the students who do excel in this context: reading becomes synonymous with anxiety, as does writing, math, etc., etc.

In other words, anxiety becomes the driver of learning even for those that excel in such a context, where the goal is to roll over, fetch, and play dead even better than you currently can.

And for those that do not excel, the physical expression of this lack of achievement comes in the form of the vomit they expel onto the bubble sheet of the standardized test they're forced to take.