Rae Pica wrote an excellent column about the disconnect between current education policies and well-established principles of child development. Rae has written a book that I read last weekend in galleys, called What If Everybody Understood Child Development? (Corwin Press); it will be published in June.
In this article, she makes a straightforward point: Children develop at different rates. They are not identical. There is a range of “normal” development.
She writes:
Did you know that there are 90 reading standards for kindergartners under Common Core and that allkindergartners will be expected to read under these standards?
I don’t know why I’m surprised. In an interview on BAM Radio Network several years ago, noted early childhood expert Jane Healy told me, “We have a tendency in this country to put everybody into a formula – to throw them all into the same box and have these expectations that they’re all going to do the same thing at the same time.”
For the most part, that’s always been the case with education: expecting all children in the same grade to master the same work at the same level and pace. But since the inception of No Child Left Behind – and now with Race to the Top and the implementation of the Common Core Standards (“common” being the operative word) – it’s only gotten worse. The “box” has gotten even smaller. And the younger the children, the less room there is for movement inside it. (Play on words intended.)…
Standards are written by people with little to no knowledge of child development or developmentally appropriate practice. They’re written with too little input from people who do have that knowledge – like teachers and child development experts. In fact, of the 135 people on the committees that wrote and reviewed the K-3 Common Core Standards, not one was a K-3 teacher or an early childhood professional….
As an example demonstrating the large range of what is “normal” in child development, Marcy [Guddemi, of the Gesell Institute for Child Development] explains that the average age at which children learn to walk is 12 months – 50 percent before and 50 percent after. But the range that is normal for walking is 8-3/4 months all the way to 17 months. The same applies for reading. The average age at which children learn to read is six-and-a-half – again, 50 percent before and 50 percent after.
I suggest you pre-order a copy of Rae Pica’s book. It is filled with research-based, commonsense wisdom.

I agree with Diane and recommend reading virtually anything by Rae Pica. She has written a number of great articles in Young Children, a practitioner oriented journal published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which I’ve referred many minimally qualified teachers in child care centers to, especially when the practices in their centers are not developmentally appropriate.
Several of Rae’s articles can be found online for free by entering her name in the author search field located here: http://www.naeyc.org/yc/search
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane — and Teacher Ed. I’m honored beyond words.
LikeLike
The idea of national “language arts” standards was a lot more palatable when it was just a curmudgeonly notion that there should be a list of books that everyone should read in school.
LikeLike
I think it is time for parents and educators to demand that those formulating these silly useless tests be forced to sit, as they expect children to, and take their own tests. Maybe by doing exactly what they want children to do, they might accidentally see how foolish and destructive their tests are.
LikeLike
I worry about the tendency of people to grab on a number and use it as a proxy for everything. This is particularly concerning with the use of what is (essentially) a national scoring system for kids as young as 3rd grade.
If the Common Core tests are scored 1-5, where millions of kids will be assigned one of 5 numbers, won’t the natural tendency of people to over-simplify and reduce big concepts to smaller more manageable “shortcuts” end up using these scores as a kind of national ranking system for individual kids- in the same way people obsess over ACT/SAT scores?
LikeLike
So say you had a 3rd grader who scored poorly on the CC tests, but just had a bad week or whatever or maybe tests poorly. Now he’s a “1”. until he takes the test again.
If we didn’t trust teachers to have “high expectations” without these tests, why do we now trust them to use the tests simply as diagnostic tools and have “high expectations” for that child who scored a “1”?
Why do we trust them with THIS data when we didn’t trust them with the data their own tests/experience/observation generated? If they were operating on bias, if that’s the problem, won’t this just give them a officially sanctioned tool to express the same low expectations?
LikeLike
They don’t trust teachers with diagnostic data. Standardized test scores are not returned until the summer, after the children have moved on to other classrooms. It’s just a score that’s provided anyways. No information is given about which questions children got wrong. Teachers are not trusted to see the questions on the tests in public schools –though teachers in charters have reported having access to them.
The purpose of the tests is solely to rank and fire teachers, grade and close schools and hand off those schools to privatizers, not inform instruction and help students to improve.
LikeLike
I agree that trust is the base issue. I think a lot of the push for national standardization and the rote methods that charters use is an attempt to “teacher-proof” schools. They use the same methods in manufacturing, under the “quality” umbrella. There they admit it, though. It’s an expressed goal. It’s making a process “employee-proof”.
LikeLike
ECE Professional, you are exactly right. Tests have value when they provide information to help and support children. When teachers are not allowed to see the students’ answers to the questions, the tests have no diagnostic value. They are used only for ranking of students, teachers, principals and schools.
LikeLike
What is ECE?
LikeLike
Early childhood education
LikeLike
I am very interested in their recommendations for all those failing children. How is schooling going to look different for a “1” versus a “4” or “5”? After all, they keep telling us these tests will be diagnostic and help teachers plan instruction.
LikeLike
The Common Core tests can never be diagnostic because teachers are not allowed to see how students answered specific questions.
LikeLike
I should have put snark alert on my post. Somehow I always forget that the way I am saying it in my head is not necessarily produced on paper. If the tests weren’t high stakes, teachers could ignore them since they provide no useful information for classroom application. While I was still teaching, I found myself ignoring supposedly useful information from various assessments simply because it was overkill. There is such a thing as too much data as well. PARCC wouldn’t have interfered with teaching to the same extent if they weren’t planning to whip us with the results. It would be much easier to ignore CCSS as well (test taking practice) in classroom practice if punitive consequences were not built- in.
LikeLike
It seems that the same thing applies to adolescent students. As a middle school math teacher, I see a wide range of algebra-readiness in my students. Under CCSS, all students are expected to master certain algebraic concepts by the end of eighth grade. I believe in challenging my students and exposing them to algebra, but requiring all of them master it is like requiring all 1-year-olds to walk.
LikeLike
The CCSS and all federal policies are based on the blank slate theory of learning. If students do not perform at grade level, it is because the teacher has failed to provide the instruction…failed to write on the slate or has poor handwriting.
The child who enters kindergarten is tested to determine what has been written on the slate. At the end of the year, the child must be college and career ready, meet all 90 standards. The teacher who has not written enough on the blank slate, with the necessary degree of clarity, is ineffective.
The child who enters grade 1 is assumed to have become proficient on the kindergarten standards. Grade 1 instruction will add writing to the slate and it must be specific for that grade, no backtracking and no rushing ahead.
I may seem to be facetious, but this structure, with mastery at each grade level, is exactly what the grade-by-grade CCSS puts in place for students and for teachers. The same criteria apply to the selection of CCSS-compliant instructional materials. One of the “drop dead criteria” for earning a CCSS seal of approval is no content from the prior year or following year.
If students get “behind” then the teacher is expected to add the interventions necessary for on-time performance. Tests are constructed to fit these grade level expectations. So are the dreadful SLOs.
Value added measures (VAM) are sustained by the assumption that the teacher, and only the teacher, is responsible for the test scores of students. Test scores are a proxy for the teacher’ s skill in “writing on the slate” during a fixed interval of instruction.
The architecture of the CCSS and the whole edifice of accountability is sustained by this theory that NO learning has or will occur beyond that provided in school and by the teacher-of-record for a given class at a specific grade level. The data gathering codes funded by Gates and the U.S. Department of Education affirm that this is the “proper” theory of learning for the 21st century.
This never-mentioned theory also explains why proponents of more rigor and higher standards are so eager to say that poverty does matter, and so eager to cite the Coleman report indicating that the teacher is the single most important IN SCHOOL determinant of learning. Perhaps, but you will rarely hear the complementary point…the teacher’s contribution to the variance in student test scores, as estimated by VAM, is between 1% and 14%. Those miserable stats also reveal how dumb most tests are in capturing the real influence of teachers on their students, often appreciated years after they leave school. The same can be said of painful memories of failure.
LikeLike
Thanks, that’s really helpful. I just read the Ohio release on how they will use the Common Core tests to rank/sanction schools and while I understand that “bottom 5%” is relative to the whole, they’ll all drop so the “bottom 5%” should remain constant, I just cannot imagine how it will play havoc with Jeb Bush’s ridiculous A-F” grading system for schools that they swallowed whole.
They’re also claiming they will use the CC tests as the Third Grade Reading Guarantee test in 2015-16 and they can’t, because they can’t hold back 70% of third graders. They think they have problems now with the public and Common Core. Hold back 70% of 3rd graders and see what happens. Parents will storm the statehouse 🙂
LikeLike
Chiara, some states plan to use the CC scores for graduation. What happens when 70% can’t get a high school diploma? Do they become the reserve army of the unemployed and unemployable?
LikeLike
Besides the yahoos who knew nothing about child development, clearly, there was not even one educator on the CC team familiar with the importance of the spiral curriculum.
LikeLike
It is even worse in England. We are infected with the same school reform virus as you with “rigour” and “poverty of expectations” being trotted out as a response to anyone saying that these targets are completely developmentally inappropriate
Until relatively recently children started school in the term before their 5th birthday. They then spent a year in Reception – play based but within a school environment. Much the same as I imagine Kindergarten.
Now children start Reception in the September after their 4th birthday so you have children in school who are 4 years and a day old. They are taught phonics and assigned homework from the first week in school. There is no evidence this helps but plenty that it harms yet most people blindly accept it – oh well if they are doing it there must be good reasons behind it – but there aren’t. The “experts” who decided upon this are phonics scheme sales people and headline chasing government ministers who want to boast about our PISA rating.
LikeLike
Tim, that gave me shivers all over. When I think of 4-year-olds being drilled in phonics and forced to do homework, I just want to cry.
LikeLike
The people behind the push for unscientific, unreasonable “reforms” don’t care about child development research.
They are either 1) crackpots who would not know the difference between reality and fantasy if their life depended on it.
2) fundamentally dishonest (they have ulterior motives and the standards, testing and the rest are simply means to an ends ($$)
Either way, it’s not possible to reason with them. It’s a mistake to even try.
“Reasoning with the Unreasonable”
Reason only works
With reasonable folks
It doesn’t work with jerks
And doesn’t work with jokes
It doesn’t work on those
With evil moneyvations
Unreasonable to suppose
That reason rules relations
LikeLike
What has been done to our children and teachers from minute 1, is mandated MASTERY at every step. NCLB mandated 100% Mastery by 2014, and we all laughed, cursed, dismissed, joked and we knew this was never going to happen. Well, they went back to the gold-plated mohogany drawing table and excluded everybody who was considered an expert, hired rich economists & desperately-wanting-2-be-rich & will do anything for $M-policy wonks >> and stuck it to our children, teachers and parents.
No concerns about the future, harm, fall-out, consequences or social engineering of our society.
Results: 100% MASTERY ON EVERY SKILL, EVERY STEP, EVERY DAY, EVERY YEAR, EVERY COLLEGE, EVERY UNIVERSITY PROGRAM, EVERY DEGREE, EVERY JOB…or heads will roll!
Gates’ Billionaire Bottom feeders will be rewarded mightely, and they will collect the $M & data on all of us for years.
If this doesn’t scare the HE** out of us, not much will.
How do we stop the absolute madness?
There are no other countries to march in and liberate us – they are probably on Gates’ payroll, too.
We stood by and let it happen, while we ‘try to educate’ the abductors.
Teachers to the end.
We can’t help it, because we believe in the goodness of mankind, but it is womankind and children-kind they are after. The ones who typically leave on the lifeboat 1st, not get sacrificed for and by the rich billionaire boys club.
Depressing!
LikeLike
This type of lockstep thinking is not the way people grow and develop. Human development is not a linear process. Development often occurs in spurts and is flat at times.
LikeLike
If there is someone that feels this is nit-picking, so be it. Precision and accuracy are essential.
Not letting children be children is for the vast majority aka students in public schools. For those imposing “education reform” on those children, an example of how they double down on everything—
Double talk. Double speak. Double standards.
From this blog:
[start posting]
This is an unintentionally hilarious story about Common Core in Tennessee. Dr. Candace McQueen has been dean of Lipscomb College’s school of education and also
the state’s’s chief cheerleader for Common Core. However, she was named headmistress of private Lipscomb Academy, and guess what? She will not have the school adopt the Common Core! Go figure.
[end posting]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/23/common-core-for-commoners-not-my-school/
Surely this is just an unimportant tidbit, right? You know, much ado about nothing by the “shrill” and “strident” owner of this blog?
From the beginning of a piece by Kim Chaudoin on the Lipscomb University website, 12/17/2014, “McQueen appointed Tennessee education commissioner by Gov. Haslam”:
[start excerpt]
Candice McQueen, senior vice president and dean of Lipscomb University’s College of Education since July 2008, has been named commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education, Gov. Bill Haslam announced today. McQueen begins her post Jan. 20, 2015.
In her role as senior vice president, McQueen was part of the university’s executive leadership team–overseeing the College of Education and Lipscomb’s Ayers Institute for Teacher Learning and Innovation–as well as Lipscomb Academy, a preK-12th grade institution affiliated with the university.
“At Lipscomb, Dr. McQueen has created one of the top teacher training and support programs in the country, and she has become a recognized leader in this field both in Tennessee and across the nation,” said Lowry. “The fact that the state has turned to Lipscomb for its next commissioner of education is not only a testament to Dr. McQueen’s influence, innovation and vision but also to the College of Education’s strong faculty and administrative team and to Lipscomb University as well. We look forward to the way she will continue to serve the state in the education arena in a significant way.”
Under McQueen’s leadership, the College of Education has been recognized at the state and national levels for excellence in teacher preparation and teaching outcomes. The college’s undergraduate secondary program is ranked No. 2 in the nation and its elementary program is ranked 14th in the nation by the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2014 Teacher Prep Review. Last year, NCTQ ranked Lipscomb’s teacher preparation program was named one of the top four in the nation.
[end excerpt]
Besides the sad [and unintentionally damning] seal of approval by the NCTQ on one of McQueen’s projects, note that Lipscomb Academy is a “preK-12 grade institution”—under her leadership literally opting out of CCSS and its associated hazing rituals known as high-stakes standardized testing.
At public schools—children are “our most precious assets” [Michelle Rhee].
At Lipscomb Academy and the like: children are children.
Need more proof of rheephorm hypocrisy? Just ask Bill Gates. About Lakeside School. Where he went to school. Where his own children now go to school.
And we don’t need ten more years to figure out if this “stuff” worked.
CCSS and its testing regimen: opt out.
Your honor, and the sanity of your children, will be the better for it.
😎
LikeLike
Correction:
“Double talk. Double speak. Double standards.” should read
“Double talk. Double think. Double standards.”
😎
P.S. Shirley Ende-Saxe: quite so.
And we ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ will be asked to accept, with steely grit and iron-willed determination, our lesser status. Numbers & stats don’t lie, do they?
All, of course, for our own good. Or at least that’s what they’ll say…
LikeLike
Children of lesser classes will be placed in a box, a small box. Our elite will make lots of $$$ from this. Children of the elite will be taught to ” think outside the box” and will have the opportunity to do so. Children of lesser classes will be asked to do the same but when they “fail”, there will be more testing. Works for them.
LikeLike
Children of the elite will never be put in the box. How embarrassing it would be to have your little legacy be labeled a “2” or a “3”. “1”s would be considered testing error.
LikeLike
This may all hinge on the definition of children. Before the child labor laws of 1938, the definition for children wasn’t that much different from the one for adults over the age of 18.
,
Don’t forget that in 1900, 40% of all Americans lived in poverty and desperate parents could sell their children as young as seven into servitude i factories, coal minds and even prostitution.
I think the reformers want to bring back the definition of children that existed before 1938 so those children can be exploited anyway the reformers want (with an emphases on “anyway”). Let your imagination define what that “anyway” means and let your imagination go anywhere it wants no matter how shocking or repugnant—that will reveal the definition the reformers want for children.
If you want help to discover the definition of Children from a corporate reformers perspective, I suggest you read this history of child labor.
“There was a time when many U.S. children toiled in factories for 70 hours a week, until child labor laws went into effect in the 1900s.
“Children had always worked, especially in farming. But factory work was hard. A child with a factory job might work 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, to earn a dollar. Many children began working before the age of 7, tending machines in spinning mills or hauling heavy loads. The factories were often damp, dark, and dirty. Some children worked underground, in coal mines. The working children had no time to play or go to school, and little time to rest. They often became ill.
“By 1810, about 2 million school-age children were working 50- to 70-hour weeks. Most came from poor families. When parents could not support their children, they sometimes turned them over to a mill or factory owner.”
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/history-child-labor
It doesn’t take much of an effort to see that the reformers are moving us back to those days.
LikeLike
Our research has procured and imported it from New Zealand.
LikeLike