Do you want a definition of educational insanity? It is not just the old chestnut about doing the same thing over and over again, after seeing that it fails every time. It is taking a holistic program intended to support the social, emotional, mental, and physical needs of homeless children and judging its success or failure by standardized test scores. This is madness!
Yet as Marilena Marchetti explains in this article, that is exactly what is happening in New York City. The city has a huge population of homeless families and children. Mayor Bill de Blasio created a “community schools” initiative to help these children with the multiple supports that they need. Marilena teaches in one of these schools.
She writes:
I work as an occupational therapist in Bronx District 10 where the highest number of homeless students are enrolled. A cornerstone of the Initiative is that school sites become resource hubs for vulnerable families, thereby making access to social services and programs easier. The program adopts a “whole child” approach that sees schools as places where social-emotional, mental and physical health are valued as much as academics. Quality and accountability to performance measures are emphasized to reassure families, communities and donors that success matters. Without a doubt, it is a tremendous step in the right direction.
High expectations have taken hold, flowing from the desperate circumstances of so many school communities alongside the financial investments and political clout associated with the program. Despite the many positives, I fear the Community Schools Initiative is operating with an internal contradiction that may doom it to fail if it is not corrected. The major problem is this: All the wonderful programming and promises of the Community Schools Initiative could be taken away if, after three years’ time, standardized test scores are not raised. Interestingly, nowhere in the 43-page Community Schools Strategic Plan are the terms “standardized test” or “high stakes test” used, as those phrases have been rightfully maligned by the Opt Out movement. No matter the semantics, the writing is on the wall. The plan talks about “tiered interventions that impact large numbers of students and families,” “aligned program supports and services that promote student proficiency in Common Core standards,” “processes for on-going review of student data” and “established performance improvement metrics and processes,” all of which are references to testing and its repercussions.
Later in the document, the following is stated:
“Within the Community Schools Initiative, on-going data collection will inform practice, track progress, and connect data with targeted outcomes [emphasis added]. Data collection will include both qualitative and quantitative data, both of which will allow City government leadership and researchers the opportunity to track Community Schools’ outcomes (pp. 29).”
It isn’t necessary to say directly what teachers, families and students in Community Schools can read between the lines: You must pass or you will perish. Just like adding one drop of red dye to a glass of water turns the entire liquid red, so goes the entire school culture when standardized testing is applied and laden with grave possible consequences. Tying test scores to funding streams and to the possibility that a school would be protected from being shut down reinforces the fear, anxiety and sense of instability that is meant to be alleviated for our children living on the brink. Must the issue of survival for them always remain an open question? Imagine struggling to improve teaching and learning under this pretext.
Chalk it up to the forcefulness of the Opt Out movement that high-stakes testing has finally been dialed down, albeit only slightly. Thanks to the many parents, teachers and students who spoke up, we can no longer deny that high stakes testing leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and all manner of stress for our young people. It undermines children’s interest in learning and teachers’ ability to engage them. When standardized-test results play even the tiniest part in determining if a Community School be allowed to stay open and continue receiving financial support for special services and programming, it sabotages the goal to boost academic achievement for students who need it most.
Using standardized test scores to judge a program serving homeless children is like judging fish by their ability to fly or judging horses by their ability to read or judging all children by their ability to run a mile in four minutes.

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
As a Literacy Coach , I know ,through my experiences and intervention with diverse children, it takes more than a few months or a year to create change. Children,s reading levels do not go up like magic. it takes time, confidence and help from parents and various resources .These are not always available for our struggling studnets. Let us plan to give them extra time, emotional suuport and healthy after school programs to effectively crest change in their learning environment. This is a not rocket science . Just good teacher sense. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
One line leapt out at me:
“You must pass or you will perish.”
The casual cruelty of rheephorm is breathtaking.
😒
LikeLike
Thank you for posting this.
Outcomes-only has been installed in every nook and cranny of public education with “outcomes” treated as IMPACTS measured by scores on standardized whatever, preferably “academic.”
This sickening language is forwarded in policy upon policy. Data had been made much more important than living breathing students and teachers and families–too important.
The rhetoric of IMPACTS goes with auto collisions, with bashing and battering rams, with cage wrestling, with bombs bursting, with being whomped-up the side of your head, with physical abuse, with an ethic of cruelty and punishment and indifference to everything that cannot be reduced to a matter of “populating this or that spreadsheet” to capture data.
We need to expose this insistent worship of data and test scores and IMPACTS for what it is– a morally corrupt way of thinking and speaking about our children, the work of teaching, and the value of education.
LikeLike
Test scores are not the “holy grail” of measurement. There are other ways to measure effective programs. They could look at school attendance, parent engagement, students’ conduct in school, even report card results. I agree with maureenkeeney2013; it takes time to see an upward trend with regard to scores. They should start with helping people find a permanent residence and employment, and the outcomes for children will improve. We cannot wave a magic wand and expect to erase the impact of poverty.
LikeLike
Exactly !! Retired ..major problem is the powers to be do not listen to the people that are in the call rooms and with these students every day. Unbelievable… We must move forward with a better plan for our children.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Politicians Are Poody Heads and commented:
How can you judge this program by “low test scores”?
These children are among the neediest of the needy.
What is New York City doing to address the problems of homelessness, the economic, social, and emotional needs of this population?
Judging this program by standardized test scores is, indeed, insanity.
LikeLike
I don’t need to see a student’s test scores to decide whether they deserve a support system or not. Nor do I need to see test scores to determine whether a child is benefiting from the wrap around services that a community school model provides. How is it that we have reduced the success of education to high test scores? We do not need test scores to tell us what sorts of supports help people grow into healthy happy, productive members of our society. We know what happens when people are deprived of the ability to fulfill the most basic of needs. Do we really question the probable difference in outcomes?
LikeLike
And Governor Cuomo called these test scores “meaningless”.
Isn’t the moratorium in place?
LikeLike
This post was very well stated. Our educational system has come so dependent on standardized testing that sometimes we forget to focus on the child as a “whole.” We (as teachers) worry about the repercussions that high stakes testing brings for us and we try to focus on teaching the content that it entails. I think that educators should step back at times and realize that teaching a child could mean more than just “teaching to the test.” It should also concern worrying about the child’s home environment and other environmental factors that affect their education. We should try to be as accommodating of these as we possibly can. Ways to show this include being sympathetic of things that we may not feel are of the upmost importance, showing kindness even when circumstances are unfavorable, and encouraging the student to do their best on a daily basis. I feel as though going through these simple steps regarding each of our students could make an outstanding impression on their lives in more ways than one.
LikeLike
Using standardized test scores (or one-size-fits-all standards) to judge a program serving ANY children is like judging fish by their ability to fly or judging horses by their ability to read or judging all children by their ability to run a mile in four minutes.
LikeLike
Teach for America thinks homelessness is an asset.
On the heels of Bailey Reimer’s excrutiatingly tone-deaf article, here’s another TFA-originated masterpiece that argues that for kids, being homelessness is “an asset” for kids.
Yep, that’s what it says. (though, for some reason, the TFA-er refers to homeless students as “unhoused students” … more Orwellian wordplay … sort of like describing “used cars” as “pre-owned.”)
https://www.teachforamerica.org/blog/changing-conversations-unhoused-students?app_data=%22pi%22%3A%2246940_1407251376_1476363824%22%2C%22pt%22%3A%22twitter%22
SHANI JACKSON DOWELL, TFA Corps Member:
“And further, how can schools help unhoused kids maximize the useful and heroic skills they’re learning watching their parents navigate these challenges?
“What if our schools could see the trying time of homelessness as an asset of experience and knowledge that a child brings to school? Is it possible to create an educational structure for unhoused children that honors their needs like the fact that they may need to sleep more during the day to compensate for the sleep they missed at night?”
——————–
Acclaimed principal and activist Carol Burris was dumbfounded, responding, “Shameful. Work to fight homelessness, not celebrate it.”
Here’s Joe Bower chiming in:
http://www.joebower.org/2014/08/shameful-blog-from-teach-for-america.html
JOE BOWER:
“As I came out of my summer social media hibernation, I came across a Teach for America blog post titled ‘Changing Conversations For Unhoused Students.’
“Actually, it wasn’t the title that got my attention. It was this excerpt from a tweet:
” ‘What if our schools could see the trying time of homelessness as an asset of experience and knowledge that a child brings to school?’
“Here are 3 thoughts:
“1. This attitude can only come from a position of privilege. If being homeless is such an asset, then Teach For America will waste no time making homelessness a part of their 5-week training program. Of course, this is almost as absurd as spinning homelessness as an asset.
“People who like to say ‘when life gives you lemons, make lemonade’ need to remember that lemonade requires a lot of sugar and sugar is expensive. They also need to remember that it’s easier to pull up your socks when you own socks.
“Homeless people don’t sit around talking about how being homeless is an asset. The only people who can afford to to talk like this are those who have a home with a twisted view of the world.
“2. Words reveal agendas. Used cars are also pre-owned but they are only called pre-owned by those who have an agenda — people who have a car that they don’t want anymore have a used car — those who want to sell you that car, call it pre-owned. Only those with an agenda re-label used to pre-owned, homeless to unhoused and hungry to food insecure.
“3. When bad things happen to children, they are not assets to be romanticized — they are problems to be solved. I’m all for rethinking problems and changing the conversation when that means we solve old problems with new solutions, but we should all object when rethinking problems and changing the conversation become code for seeing problems as assets that we don’t need to fix.
“Here’s what I mean:
“I taught four years in a children’s inpatient psychiatric assessment unit where students were admitted by a psychiatrist for many unfortunate reasons.Too many of these children had very bad things happen to them — some had no parents, some were sexually abused and some were psychotic (these are just three examples).
“Can you imagine changing the conversation and asking how being sexually abused or psychotic could be seen as an asset for a child?
“Neither can I.
“Being sexually abused, psychotic or homeless are problems to be solved. Spinning these awful things as assets is an abdication of our responsibility to make things more equitable for children. These children don’t need spin (and they don’t need grit) — they need their basic needs met.
“New York principal Carol Burris gets the last word on all this:
” ‘Shameful. Work to fight homelessness, not celebrate it.’ “
LikeLike
I’ve just made the analogy–what the reformers are doing is akin to denying food to a starving child. You know when some babies don’t take to mother’s milk? A substitute is given; and if they don’t take to that? Another substitute is given, etc., until a formula that helps the baby thrive is discovered. It could be medical issue, or an allergy-related issue, but WE DON’T STOP FEEDING THE BABY, EVER.
When children need more services, or more intense services, the reformer “fix” is to deny the services, shut down the schools/programs, fire the teachers, shut the entire school and open up a charter that starts with 2 grades, and the kids in the other grades get squat. Shame on them.
LikeLike