Part of the standard reform lexicon is the word “rigor.” We are told again and again that standards must be rigorous, tests must be rigorous, teachers must be rigorous. That’s the trouble, we hear, with our schools. They lack rigor.
But what is rigor?
A reader who calls him/herself Brooklyn Teacher looked up the word “rigor” and supplied the following definition:
“ALL early childhood children, Pre-K through grade three, need to play. Here is the full definition of rigor from Merriam-Webster and it’s horrid that we apply this to learning at any age:
a (1) : harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment : severity (2) : the quality of being unyielding or inflexible : strictness (3) : severity of life : austerity
b : an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty
2
: a tremor caused by a chill
3
: a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable; especially : extremity of cold
4
: strict precision : exactness
5
a obsolete : rigidity, stiffness
b : rigidness or torpor of organs or tissue that prevents response to stimuli
c : rigor mortis
I say, whenever you hear the word “rigor,” think rigor mortis.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Brooklyn Teacher needs a better dictionary.
rig·or
[ˈriɡər]
NOUN
1.the quality of being extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate
synonyms: meticulousness · thoroughness · carefulness · diligence
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
——————-
This is the rigor that some parents are demanding.
So we see the limitations of even the best dictionary. How this definition translates into helping each individual child develop into a life long learner is the issue before each instructor. The problem is that children are all different, and an approach that produces a good result for one child often repels another.
This is why the standardization of learning goals and the micro-management of teacher approaches damns some students to failure and exalts others. Only the teacher knows who needs to be encouraged, who needs to be prodded, or who needs to be tolerated.
No one is against teaching all kids as much as possible. The disagreement lies in what policies will help the most kids. I claim teachers are the best judges of what students need.
Cynthia, I know many parents and grandparents and I don’t know of any who are “demanding” more “rigor” in their schools. Maybe my sample is biased, but they want their children to be known, safe, cared for, and encouraged to love learning. I have never heard a parent say “I want rigor for my child! Rigor! Rigor!”
So “extremely thorough, *exhaustive* and accurate” are what you want for your five year old? Here’s what I want: freedom, exploration, understanding, nurturing. Good thing it’s a free country so we can all have what we want, isn’t it? Oh, except that it isn’t. Your five year old can have extremely exhaustively accurate thoroughness. Mine is finding it harder and harder to find freedom, exploration, understanding and nurturing.
(Actually, thank heavens, I no longer have a five year old, and when I did we managed, again thank heavens, to find freedom, exploration, understanding and nurturing. But we had to pay through the nose for it.)
No wonder why someone here cannot fly due to over-reliance on narrowly definition. Go screw your 5-year-old until s/he gets screaming mad at you.
Well this certainly seems like a reasonable and not uncivil comment.
I grew up using the huge Oxford English dictionary that my grandfather gave to me when I was little, which he valued because his family came from England. I learned early on that the definitions in Oxford are often more reflective of English values and culture than of life in America. I still refer to Oxford on occasion, but I think Merriam-Webster is much more likely to encapsulate American values and cultures than Oxford, including their definition of rigor.
No one is suggesting that comment on top is “uncivil.” But it’s worth notable that the way some detractors pull dictionary definition to deflect the problem is not limited to education but virtually any issues related to human rights, race, gender, and ethnicity.
“This is the rigor that some parents are demanding.”
From age 5? In math, rigor is required only at the university level and only for mathematicians. Demanding rigor early and unneccesarily results in insecure kids who are afraid of math.
Those who assume rigor is supremely important part of math education end up testing rigor instead of testing how well kids know math.
I assume, demanding rigor in other subjects is even less useful.
“I learned early on that the definitions in Oxford are often more reflective of English values and culture than of life in America.”
Interesting observation! 🙂
Ken, I’m pretty sure the “uncivil” comment was directed at you. Your comment, with the sexual overtones, was WAY out of line.
Threatened Out West,
I don’t ‘sexualize’ my comment in response. It doesn’t really matter who the commenter is. And I don’t see how that connects with the term “uncivil.” Neither terms belong to me. Sorry.
Too many political leaders are suffering from rigor mortis of the conscience.
I use vigorous. Learning can be vigorous and joyful.
Or perhaps vigorish.
I prefer the meaning of “the rigors.”
“Sidwell Friends seeks to create an environment where academic rigor, the joy of learning, intellectual creativity and excellence in teaching can coexist and flourish, and where teachers and students see the classroom as a place to share in the joint pursuit of knowledge.”
“When students graduate from University High [of the University of Chicago Lab School], we hope they will realize the beauty and joy of mathematics and appreciate the practical applications of mathematics. The math teachers believe in rigor, and they have high expectations; they also work to individualize and support each student’s path through the math curriculum.”
“Academic rigor, a variety of co-curricular experiences, and supportive faculty-student relationships are at the heart of our positive outcomes.”—Harpeth Hall School Handbook and Directory
“What I took away from my visit is that Lakeside Middle School is doing many things very well. We provide a strong balance of academic rigor and support, encouraging students to challenge themselves, take risks, and advocate for themselves.”—Lakeside School head of middle school
“The mission of the Global Online Academy [of which Dalton is a founding member] is to replicate in online classrooms the intellectually rigorous programs and excellent teaching that are hallmarks of its member schools . . .”—Dalton School
“What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. (Except for rigor! Anything but rigor.) Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”–John Dewey, interpreted for political convenience
“…we hope they will realize the beauty and joy of mathematics and appreciate the practical applications of mathematics. The math teachers believe in rigor, …”
Very few kids realize the beauty and joy of math if the math teacher emphasizes rigor. This is reality, and it doesn’t matter what the various school ads are saying.
In general, I don’t understand how quoting advertisements can convince anybody about anything.
In 2012 I wrote the following piece about rigor and vigor in schools and later re-posted it on my blog,”The Treasure Hunter.”
Though my years in the classroom are long past, at heart I am still a cranky old English teacher who bristles at some of the neologisms that have crept into public language. I never tack “ly” onto ordinal number words, or say “myself” when I mean “I” or “me.” I won’t use “access” or “impact” as verbs because I consider them still to be only nouns.
Even so, I remain politely quiet when others commit such grammatical transgressions. But, there is one word I dislike so intensely when used in connection with education that I can’t remain silent under any circumstances. That word is “rigor.”
Part of my reaction is emotional, having so often heard “rigor” paired with “mortis.” The other part is logical, stemming from the literal meanings of rigor: harshness, severity, strictness, inflexibility and immobility. None of these things is what I want for students at any level. And, although I don’t believe that the politicians, scholars or media commentators who use the word so freely really want them, either, I still reproach them for using the wrong word and the wrong concept to characterize educational excellence.
Now, more than ever, “rigor” is being used to promote the idea that American students need advanced course work, complex texts, stricter grading, and longer school days and years in order to be ready for college or the workplace. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) already adopted by 45 states, were designed for rigor and will inexorably lead to it in all forms in almost all classrooms.
Since I believe it is time for a better word and a better concept to drive American education, I recommend “vigor.” Here my dictionary says, “active physical or mental force or strength, healthy growth; intensity, force or energy.” And my mental association is to all the Latin-based words related to life.
How much better our schools would be if they provided students with classes and activities throbbing with energy, growth and life. Although school buildings have walls, there should be no walls separating students from vigorous learning. No ceilings, either.
To learn vigorously, students need more than academic skills and knowledge, more than the generalities and hypotheticals found in textbooks and workbooks. By reading newspapers, magazines, graphic novels, even the daily comics and Internet articles; and by getting to know people of all ages, types of work, and cultural backgrounds they can learn about the real world they live in. Although it is not practical to send hordes of children and teen-agers out into that world to learn all the things they need to know, many more in-school classes and supplemental activities can be vigorous.
Instead of aiming for higher test scores like rigorous schools, a vigorous school would care about what students do with what they have been taught in classrooms. At all levels vigorous schools would foster activities that allow students to demonstrate their learning in real contexts, such as serving in the school lunchroom or assisting in the school library, communicating with students in other parts of the world, proposing changes in student rules to the school board, organizing playground games for younger children or reading to them, making items to sell in a school store, planning Jeopardy-like quiz shows, creating a school garden, painting murals in the halls, producing original plays or making videos, setting up a school art museum.
Vigorous schools would also encourage students to perform in musical groups, clean up the school grounds, adopt a road, publish a student newspaper or a parent newsletter, establish a school post office, run a school recycling program, write to newspapers or public figures, and work with adults on community projects.
As a result of all the vigor these activities exemplify, there would come the intellectual intensity, precision, critical alertness, expertise and integrity that critics of education are really calling for when they misuse the word “rigor.” These habits of mind, body and spirit are the true fruit of educational excellence. In the end, vigor in our schools is the evidence of life, while rigor is the sign of an early death.
Vigorous vs rigorous. Perfect remark.
By mistake a short adverisement for “The Washington Post”, where my essay was originally published, got included in my essay above. Please ignore it.
I’ll add a suggestion that everyone watch this video. Portland, Oregon parent talks about “rigor” and education… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQnvmzxDmoo
Thanks, Doug! That’s me!
Stuyvesant High School is one that most NYC parents and students would consider rigorous. From its mission statement:
“….an environment which will nurture and enhance the special academic talents of the students admitted to Stuyvesant…..the goal of this institution is to instill the intellectual, moral and humanistic values necessary for each child to achieve his/her maximum potential as a student and as a caring citizen of the world.”
Note the words “nurture,” “moral and humanistic,” and “caring citizen.” Food for thought, eh?
“Nurturing” is how every Stuy student will immediately describe their school.
“Nurture…the special academic talents” is what the Stuy mission statement says. That does not mean the same as “nurturing”.
And I suspect if you ask most Stuy students if their school nurtures their special academic talents, they would not laugh in your face. In fact, it does. That is not the same as being a “nurturing school” as you probably know.
What the Stuy mission doesn’t say is that they believe in rigor above all, which is the point of the comment. Maybe smart kids don’t need faux buzzwords like “rigor”.
Our experience with Stuy is that it has been surprisingly nurturing and respectful of the whole child. Which is why I posted this comment. I actually don’t need my own comment interpreted for me, thanks.
Apologies, wasn’t trying to interpret your comment for you, I was questioning it. I’ve talked to some students who would strongly disagree. I have no firsthand experience with the school. My daughter’s considering it, so I would prefer that it were in fact nurturing.
In my experience, the most elite and selective academic institutions are quite protective (nurturing) of their students in order to balance academic pressures and to defray the competitive nature of the students. Some of the most brilliant minds in America attend these schools and academia understands that they push themselves hard enough.
District 13 parent, if your remark is directed at me, then I am sorry as I seem to have offended you by replying to FLERP.
I did not understand from your original comment that you meant from personal experience you found Stuy to be a nurturing school for your child. Thank you for clarifying that. I apologize for misinterpreting it – I was struck by the fact that nowhere in Stuy’s mission statement that you quoted was the word “rigor” used, and I thought that was your point.
Rigor—the Reformers answer to fixing Special Education students……. If they just had more rigor.
This assertion is just as well informed as creationism and climate change denying.
If you’re in North Carolina, be warned. Your state will end up just like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan with unrestricted, unregulated growth of charter schools:
“Chinese investors provided $3 million in startup money for Thunderbird Preparatory Academy, a Cornelius charter school that’s fighting for survival.
That’s one of the insights that emerged from last week’s state review of the school’s finances, governance and facilities.
Thunderbird’s network of investors and lenders left Charter School Advisory Board members shaking their heads and palming their faces. “A spider web,” one member dubbed it. “Exceedingly messy and complex,” said board Chair Alex Quigley.
But as North Carolina has opened itself to rapid charter school expansion, a growing number of startup schools are turning to charter-school finance companies to pay for facilities. Some also tap a network of companies and consultants to help them run the schools. That means tax money from North Carolina is flowing across the country and around the globe to repay debts and cover outsourced services.”
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article87268177.html#storylink=cpy
Welcome to the crappy ed reform club. The list of states gets longer and longer. Anyone can open a school in these states and they have no earthly idea where the money comes from or where it goes.
That’s the way they like it. No regulation leads to a free for all of waste, fraud and advanced money laundering.
That definition of rigor sounds like the extremist element in the GOP.
I think “rigor” is more of a Dem talking point. The GOP is all about “choice”. Neither, of course, really means anything they say.
I expect the financial sector to have the rigor required to contribute to GDP, instead of dragging productivity down. Wall Street should carry its own weight and not have workers, put in the position of covering banking, private equity, brokerage and hedge fund industry failures.
Rigor used in a sentence by people who believe in “rigor” in charter schools:
Our charter school has “rigor” and welcomes any student who embraces that “rigor”. Some 5 and 6 year olds do not and we have no obligation to educate any child who does not embrace our “rigorous” school. Out they go, the sooner the better. We decide whether a student is properly rigorous enough to remain in our charter. Public schools that allow low- performing 6 year olds to remain as students do not embrace rigor and their teachers should be heavily criticized for not drumming them out.
Rigor as too often practiced means more and “harder” homework for students. It means requiring them to pack in more information to access, analyze, and store until the test has come and and gone. This is a shallow interpretation of rigor. True rigor cannot include merely content. Unless learning also includes a parallel curricular strand carefully designed to help students increasingly discover themselves in the world, I would not call it rigorous. A rigorous class or program challenges us to stretch ourselves as befits the developmental window in which we currently exist, not just learn new material. It ranks students’ personal growth right alongside their academic development. When delivered with such a comprehensive awareness, true rigor takes us deeper, often to personal revelation.
Harder is not necessarily better. The tests based on the Common Core have shown this to be true.
Thank you for addressing this issue of “rigor”. It is one of the more irritating buzzwords that we have had to listen to at department and staff development meetings for the better part of the last five years. On the face of it I’ve always felt that it was a term without true meaning within the context of our practice and served no other purpose than to insinuate that our classrooms were not sufficient places of learning. Once again, another excuse to prop up the “failing school” mythology so that teachers can be demoralized and further disempowered.
Thank you, Diane, for continuing to be the voice of reason in education.
Interesting! It had never occurred to me to research the term “rigor”. It has been thrown around in the public school system so much that I, like all other sheep, Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa, just got ahold of the word and used it like I owned it! Thanks for waking us up!!!
PCC
I am laughing with tears of anguish for you are so right about this word. Everybody uses it everywhere. We have 3 r’s: rigor is one of them. I can’t remember the other two. I wonder if our superintendent and principals ever really looked up the definition?
For the past few years, I’ve managed a Facebook group called “Rigor”. Frustrated by the inappropriate application of meaningless jumbo-jumbo, my friends and I have skewered the term rigorifically. Feel free to join us for the hilarity. https://www.facebook.com/groups/404785469578250/
Teachers who UNPACK the Common Core standards thoroughly should be held ACCOUNTABLE for the high degree of RIGOR as reflected in their activity RUBRICS.
I cut and paste that from the classic text, The Art of Bullshit.
Testimony I gave at a school board meeting making fun of “Rigor” in under 90 seconds. Do this locally! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQnvmzxDmoo
Great job. Thanks.
Rigor + Grit = Frozen in the Dirt
I want to know when education reformers will apply intellectual rigor to their arguments. Common Core standards say ‘rigor’ means reading more complex texts in ELA, In math, it means deep, authentic understanding of concepts.
But as we debate the government takeover of local schools, the arguments for federally mandated testing and privatization fall far short. Instead of responding to criticism, they hide in a bubble. Instead of citing evidence, they cherrypick, distort and exaggerate.
So rigor is something to be imposed on children, regardless of their station in life, but never asked of politicians, officials or media. Got it.