[regional_school] Fw: A Letter On Behalf of My Daughter
- From: Dan Drmacich <dandrmacich@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Denise Bartalo <denisebartalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Bendschneider <bamboo789@xxxxxxx>, Carolyn Bennett <cwriter85@xxxxxxx>, Mary Berger <mpresber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wasa Bouphavong <daboupha@xxxxxxxxx>, G Brown <gjb0145@xxxxxxxxx>, Amy Brown <scottvbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pat Cavanaugh <cavanaughpat22@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Charno <jasoncharno42@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandra Climaenhaga <dclimenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, A Colon <aacolon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rochelle Corey <archer14611@xxxxxxx>, Deana Darling <jddarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Deana Darling <darlin3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Erway <brian_erway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Karen Fisher <fishekh@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dennis Francione <d.francione@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Shalanda Garfield <Shalonda_Garfield1@xxxxxxxxx>, Lynn Gatto <lynn.gatto@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Nancy Gersh <nancygersh@xxxxxxx>, RJ Glomboski <parallax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Synthia Green <sng4979@xxxxxxxx>, Richard Greene <richard_greene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gretchen Haag <gretchenhaag@xxxxxxxxx>, Shawn Haarer <drhaarer@xxxxxxxxx>, Kate Hathaway <kaytea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kyra Hawn <khawn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joseph Henderson <jhenderson11@xxxxxxxxx>, Sara Hughes <sara@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julia Kantor <julia.kantor@xxxxxxxxx>, Roger Klimek <rklimek001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jack Langerack <jlanger0@xxxxxxx>, Barb Lemcke <b_lemcke@xxxxxxxxx>, Joan LoCurto <locurto135@xxxxxxxxx>, Tom Mackey <tmackey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jennifer Malinchak <jenjenfuller@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Katheryn McCullough <katmccullough@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gena Merliss <merliss@xxxxxxxxx>, Jessica Metras <jessicametras@xxxxxxxxx>, Nancy Monachino <nmonachino@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Gwynne Mosch <Gwynne.mosch@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Barbara Moynihan <barbara.moynihan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Murray <kmurray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jessie Nimeh <jgnimeh@xxxxxxxxx>, Maureen Nupp <Maureennupp@xxxxxxxxx>, Anne-Pat Nuzback <Anne-Pat_Nuzback@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Ognibene <richard_ognibene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Pappas <tjp18@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Sheila Pearlman <yspearlman@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Norreen Pelusio <njpelusio@xxxxxxx>, Liz Porta <lizbecker@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Pamela Pruitt <pamela.pruitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Todd Pschierer <psch811@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kari Ritter <kritter84@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rosemary Rivera <rrivera@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Emily Roberts <emilymarkelle@xxxxxxx>, Peter Rosenthal <prosenthal@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Schaefer <mister_schaefer@xxxxxxxxx>, Chojy Schroeder <chojy.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>, Sharon Silvio <ssilvio@xxxxxxx>, Pete Smith <petersmith71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ralph Spezio <rspezio@xxxxxxxxx>, Mathew Taber <sundevil108@xxxxxxxx>, Leslie Vermeulen <ldvermeulen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jennifer Wheeler <jennifer_wheeler@xxxxxxxx>, Mary Wilkins <mtkwilkins@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Witmer <tbwitmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ruth Young-Card <cardjrb@xxxxxxx>, Lee Zelazny <lee.zelazny@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Dan Drmacich <dandrmacich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Lynn Ellingwood <lellingw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Lynn Ellingwood <lellingw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: A Letter On Behalf of My Daughter
To:
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 9:15 PM
A Letter On Behalf of My DaughterWhat follows is a very long letter, explaining
how my wife and I responded to an evaluation of our daughter when she was a
4-year-old in pre-school. It happened a couple years ago, but the issue of
"normal development" keeps coming up. It also comes in relation to this whole
notion of "grade level." Right now, there's a great discussion on the
Assessment Reform Network about grade level. As I was reading the latest posts,
it occurred to me: WTF?? This seems to be one of the (if not THE) biggest
Emperor Has No Clothes elements of current education policy.
So where's the outrage? Where are the folks yelling, "He's naked! He's naked!"
Is it because it takes about an hour to lay down a foundation of understanding
that most people can grasp? If so, I invite the educators who read this blog to
come up with a "Grade Levels Are Naked" primer. What if we could create a
YouTube video -- 3 to 5 minutes -- that explains the basics and then propagate
it through Ye Olde Internette? If the FOUNDATION testing and assessment is so
egregiously, nakedly flawed, then we need to speak up.
I hate to sound dramatic, but silence still equals complicity.
Here's the letter. It tries to explain to the director of the pre-school
program why using norm-referenced tests is a really, really bad idea.
My wife and I recognize that my daughter's developmental timeline is different
than that of other kids. For example, she did not start walking until she was
20 months old. She was potty-trained at three and a half. And her fluency was
not as developed as her friends of the same age. As an educator, I know how
challenging it is to deal with students of varying degrees of competency.
But we do not share the evaluator's concerns about her cognitive/linguistic
development. Grace is developing at her own pace relative to who she is. Her
sentence fluency, vocabulary, and motor skills are developing nicely. I have
noticed significant development over the last year. A colleague of mine is an
early childhood specialist; she said as long as you notice your child
continuing to change, then don't worry.
We also believe that my daughter is entirely too young to be subjected to
norm-based evaluations of her cognitive/linguistic development. I realize that
there is a significant body of scientific research that sanctions the use of
tests like the DIAL, PLS4, etc. But let me share with you why I believe this
research is faulty and why I believe that testing her, as per the evaluator's
recommendation (and I assume your recommendation) is wrong.
As you know, the DIAL, PLS4, etc., are norm-based tests. This means that a
large number of children take the same test. The results are then "normalized,"
i.e., some questions are thrown out because everyone got them wrong and others
are thrown out because everyone got them right. The results are then broken
into a "normal" distribution. In psychometric terms, a "normal" distribution
resembles a bell curve: some people score really high, some people score really
low, but most people score right in the middle. This middle part is the average
or mean score. This middle part is considered "normal."
What's most intriguing about this "normal" distribution is that it is not
normal at all. As I said, the test questions are tweaked in such a way so that
a bell curve is created. It's like carving a duck from a piece of wood: you
carve everything away that is not a duck until the duck emerges from the wood.
Same thing with norm-based tests: you carve away everything that is not a bell
curve until the bell curve emerges from the test data.
So what does this mean? This means that the bell curve is pre-determined. In
other words, what we are looking for is not "the truth" per se but rather to
shape the data so that it conforms to what we believe about people.
Norm-based tests have an uncontested belief that some people will always score
low, some people will always score high, but that most people will always score
in the middle. This will be the case in every single instance in which a
norm-based test is used because norm-based tests, by definition, always produce
these same basic results. Norm-based tests suggest that people can validly and
reliably be rank-ordered, that some people are better than others, and that the
conclusions that these decisions are based on are derived from scientific
notions of "validity" and "reliability," thereby adding a veneer of truth to
what is otherwise an extraordinarily arbitrary and highly contrived conclusion.
To this extent, then, norm-based tests are inherently political because they
suggest a certain uncontested, axiomatic idea about power and the relationships
between people.
Most troublingly, norm-based tests always guarantee one thing: that some
percentage of people who take them will always be considered "not normal." This
is the psychometric equivalent of a stacked deck, a rigged game, a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If 10 people take the same norm-based test, 3 will be
above average, 3 will be below average, and 4 will be average. Again, it's
important to point out that the tests do this by design, i.e., they are
constructed in such a manner to do this. Psychometricians say that a
well-designed test is both valid and reliable because it "discriminates" (their
word, not mine) effectively in order to produce this result.
In the case of these early childhood tests, it's not just "average," "below
average," and "above average" that's being determined. The measure is
essentially "normal," "below normal," and "above normal." This has an important
impact on how very young children are viewed by their teachers and parents --
essentially as "normal" or not. If you view a child as "not normal," then you
would act in a way that was different from how would act if you viewed the
child as "normal." It's one thing to establish academic content knowledge on
the basis of a norm-based test. But I believe it's immoral and unethical to
determine if a young child is "normal" or not by means of a norm-based test.
So, from mt daughter's perspective, here is where I see things. If she --
clearly not your average, normal kid -- takes a test to determine if she is
"normal," I can pretty well guess where she'll fall on the bell curve. However,
even if she fell in the "normal" range or even if she fell in the "above
normal" range, I would have the same reaction: the results are meaningless.
They're meaningless to me because I don't think comparing people -- much less
4-year-olds -- to one another vis a vis some completely arbitrary and highly
contrived set of normative data points produces any kind of substantive,
meaningful information. The only thing that such tests produce is some vague
notion that my kid is worse than, better than, or as good as other kids. This
sort of competitive ranking is fine for horses in the Kentucky Derby, but I
don't think it has much place in school, especially pre-school.
If there really is something that stands between my daughter and healthy
development in terms of receptive language, expressive language, motor skills,
or some other area of cognition, then this will emerge in due course and will
become known to us. Then one of two things is going to happen: (1) it will be
handled or (2) it will not be handled. If it's handled, then we have nothing to
worry about. If it's not handled, then we have nothing to worry about, either.
After all, if it really can't be handled, then what good will worrying do? Our
job is to love her no matter what, and loving her entails accepting her for who
she is and who she is not.
I also think 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 were
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.
My daughter is an exceptionally sensitive little girl. It saddens me that you
may not have noticed this about her in conjunction with all of the things you
have noticed. I'm sure she picks up on this disconnection you have with her.
I'm sure she's aware that she does not measure up. I'm sure she's aware that
she is being seen as "not normal," as deficient. She used to like going to
school, but she doesn't any more. She says she doesn't want to go.
Coincidentally or not, she started to not want to go to school at about the
same time that you and your team were meeting about her and evaluating her as
"developmentally delayed."
I'm sure you and others would disagree with my perspective. I'm sure you would
say that early intervention is crucial. But I don't share your beliefs. I don't
share your values. I believe that people are who they are, that they develop
and change and become who they are over time. I believe that as a parent, it's
my job first and foremost to say, "I love you exactly the way you are." I will
do whatever I can to support and nurture my daughter's development, but I will
refrain from making any premature judgments about who she is, especially when
these judgments can influence her attitudes about herself, about school, and
about learning. Indeed, her attitudes have already been negatively influenced.
With all of this in mind, we have decided to take our daughter out of your
school effective immediately.
Other related posts:
- » [regional_school] Fw: A Letter On Behalf of My Daughter - Dan Drmacich
