Lexiles, Contrived Rigor, and Narrowing the Curriculum
4 min read
"Rigor" is a buzzword lurking in the periphery of some education reform conversations. As it is commonly used, "rigor" implies that the work in a learning environment is consistently challenging to students - the work is either at or just-above-yet-in-reach of a student's ability. However, most conversations about rigor carry an additional overtone: that schools currently do not contain adequate rigor, and are therefore failing to challenge students.
To be clear, the problems with the concept of rigor have nothing to do with the idea of challenging students. The problems with rigor stem from the disingenuous and flawed arguments that are built upon the foundation of, "We need more rigor."
The Atlantic recently posted an article that outlined the talking points from a study funded by the Gates Foundation and the Fordham Institute. It illustrates the problems with arguments based on rigor, and helps demonstrate how quickly building on those arguments leads to even shakier ground:
You can also see evidence of the tendency away from rigor on the lists of most-assigned texts. Here are the ten most popular stories for each age group, along with their "lexiles." (Lexiles are a measure of a text's difficulty, ranging from below 200 to more than 1600. The higher the lexile level, the more challenging the text. Lexile levels are based on a text's vocabulary and sentence length, not its themes or concepts.)
In this quotation, we can track the central talking points - there is a tendency away from rigor - and then track the jump into how "rigor" in texts is measured: via lexiles. While the algorithm that generates a lexile score is proprietary, in general terms a lexile score looks at stylistic elements of a text - details like sentence length, sentence structure, and word length - to derive a measure of what gets called complexity.
Of course, we all know that the "complexity" of a text is determined by more than syntax. But, in research from Common Core advocates, a Lexile ranking is used as a proxy for textual complexity. This ignores the reality that both complexity and relevance can be conveyed via simple prose that describes complex, challenging narratives.
In Appendix A to the Common Core Standards (pdf download), the limitations of lexiles are clearly defined:
Quantitative measures of text complexity, particularly those that rely exclusively or in large part on word- and sentence-level factors, tend to assign sophisticated works of literature excessively low scores. For example, as illustrated in example 2 below, some widely used quantitative measures, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test and the Lexile Framework for Reading, rate the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel Grapes of Wrath as appropriate for grades 2–3.
Unfortunately, this candid and accurate admission of the shortcomings of lexiles has not prevented lexiles from being used as a proxy for the equally flawed notion of rigor when setting target reading levels for curriculum aligned with the standards. Additionally, research about readings assigned in schools use this flawed measure of complexity to attempt to make the case that schools are failing students.
It's worth noting that MetaMetrics, the company behind Lexile rankings, "is proud to be an "Endorsing Partner" of the Common Core State Standards Initiative." If you want to get a Lexile ranking for your text, don't worry: MetaMetrics can sell you one starting at $25 a title, or .25 a page, with additional fees layered on top of the base costs.
However, despite the reality that lexile ratings are not an accurate judge of the complexity of a literary work, Common Core advocates and the journalists who attempt to cover them still give more weight to a flawed lexile ranking than to a teacher's professional judgment.
This is how curriculum gets narrowed, and how teacher judgment gets pushed out of the picture.
Taken individually, flawed arguments about rigor and the misuse of lexiles would be just another example of pundits and journalists making yet another obvious and avoidable mistake. However, these flawed and inaccurate arguments have made their way into policy, and this brings consequences.
The flawed concept of rigor is used to create a false sense of alarm about the quality of texts used in schools.
This false sense of alarm both undermines the decision-making authority of classroom teachers, and manufactures a need for a data-driven approach to scoring the complexity of texts.
A company - MetaMetrics - is positioned as the gatekeeper determining the complexity of texts, and publishers can get past the gatekeeper, for a fee.
In this way, the list of approved books gets limited to those who can pay, and teacher judgement about the needs of their students gets undermined.
Image Credit: I Heart Rigor, from Zazzle
