Washington Post Continues To Push Unproven Theory of Learning Acceleration

MChe Lee via Unsplash

In his August 21st article "Some kids need harder lessons…," Jay Matthews of the Washington Post, citing a report from TNTP, warns that throughout American schools, students who are ready for grade-level content are instead receiving below-grade-level readings.

The report’s problems start with the arbitrary dichotomy between “grade-level” and “below-grade-level” assignments, omitting useful information about how far below grade-level readings are. For instance, a 6th grader and an 11th grade receiving the same 5th grade assignment would both be categorized as reading "below-grade-level"--even though their circumstances are drastically different. 

Assignments are not differentiated by the time of year they were taken. Students who passed grade-level assignments in September are treated the same as students who passed a grade-level assignment in May. TNTP claims that because students had similar levels of success on grade-level and below-grade-level assignments, we ought to assign more grade-level content. But these same data could also support remediation: students were able to achieve at grade-level by the end of the year because they received below-grade-level content earlier in the year.

Teachers help students grow by giving them assignments just outside of their current skill level. Over the past year, education interest groups like TNTP that have pushed an alarmist narrative of “acceleration, not remediation” have also conveniently marketed software and consultants to help schools “accelerate”—diverting public money away from more support staff. In the face of misconstrued data, policymakers and school leaders would be wise to hit the brakes on acceleration.