I like what this author is saying. It makes much more sense to stress individualized standards for each kid & give them frequent formative feedback, rather than expect them to measure up to other students who have different needs, experiences, family support, etc. Let's focus on the individual & take him/her as far as we can. Dan --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Lynn Ellingwood <lellingw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?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.