The False Promise of Grade-Level Texts: Unmasking the Failures of Standardised Education
The recent resurgence of ‘grade-level texts’ as a supposed panacea for the woes of education reform is yet another example of a solution that misses the mark. Reformers like Suzanne Simons argue that students should be working at grade level from day one, claiming this approach will prepare them for life beyond school. But this notion, as Peter Greene rightly critiques, reflects a narrow and shallow understanding of the real challenges facing students and teachers today. The insistence on grade-level texts is a simplistic response to a much more complex problem: a broken system that prioritises standardisation over genuine learning. By focusing on ‘grade-level tasks and texts,’ advocates of this approach ignore the deep-rooted biases inherent in the system, particularly in the standardised tests that perpetuate inequity. Rather than addressing the diverse needs of learners, this fixation on arbitrary standards only serves to reinforce the neoliberal agenda, reducing education to a mechanised process designed to sort and control, rather than to uplift and support.
The Historical Roots of Standardisation in Education
The historical roots of standardisation in education reveal a troubling legacy that continues to shape education today. As I’ve explored in “Holistic Language Instruction” and here on this Substack, these tests were not designed as neutral or objective measures of student ability. Instead, they were deeply intertwined with the eugenics movement, which sought to reinforce existing social hierarchies by “scientifically” sorting individuals. Institutions like the College Board played a key role in this process, with figures such as Carl Brigham, a prominent eugenicist, instrumental in developing the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Brigham and his peers believed that intelligence was hereditary and that certain races and social classes were inherently superior, using standardised tests to justify these racist and classist beliefs.
Whilst the overtly eugenic language has faded, the underlying purpose of these tests—to sort and privilege those who fit the norms of the dominant culture—remains intact. Modern assessments like the SBAC and iReady continue to serve the same function, albeit under the guise of “merit” and “readiness.” Reformers like Suzanne Simons, in their push for ‘grade-level texts,’ ignore this history and fail to address the systemic issues that still plague educational assessments. Instead of acknowledging how these tests disadvantage marginalised students, reformers offer superficial solutions that perpetuate the very inequalities they claim to solve. By overlooking this context, Simons and others miss the opportunity to dismantle the structures of exclusion that standardised testing upholds.
The Failure of “Grade-Level” Expectations
The idea of “grade-level” expectations as a universal benchmark for student achievement is flawed at its core. Suzanne Simons’ argument that students should work at grade level from the start assumes that there is a one-size-fits-all standard for learning. In reality, such an approach disregards the vast diversity of student experiences, backgrounds, and cognitive processing methods. My experience in the classroom, as well as the findings discussed in “Holistic Language Instruction,” have shown time and again that rigid adherence to grade-level texts fails to serve many students, particularly those who do not align with the standard learner model. For instance, students who are gestalt processors or English language learners may process information in ways that do not neatly fit into the grade-level expectations imposed by traditional assessments.
Rather than creating opportunities for growth, ‘grade-level tasks’ often become obstacles, leaving students feeling disengaged and “behind.” This disconnect is exacerbated by standardised assessments like the SBAC, iReady, and Woodcock-Johnson, which claim to measure student ability but instead reinforce biases by privileging those who fit the dominant cultural and cognitive norms. These tests fail to accommodate the unique needs of non-standard learners, particularly those with disabilities or from marginalised backgrounds, leading to misrepresentations of their abilities and potential. By pushing ‘grade-level expectations’ without recognising the need for differentiation, Simons and others advocating for such approaches are perpetuating a system that not only fails to meet students where they are but also actively disadvantages those who fall outside the narrow confines of what is considered “normal.”
The False Promise of ‘Standards-Based Education’
Standards-based education reforms, like those advocated by Suzanne Simons, echo the same failures that we saw with initiatives like neoliberal Common Core. These reforms promise rigour and readiness by holding all students to the same set of expectations, but in practice, they fail to account for the complex realities of student learning. The push for standardisation not only overlooks the diversity of learners but also serves a more insidious purpose. As Peter Greene aptly describes in his “Standardised Closed Loop” metaphor, this model creates a self-perpetuating cycle: set a standard, train to the standard, and test to the standard. The result is not an accurate measure of student learning but rather a system designed to produce the illusion of progress whilst maintaining control.
Building on this, it becomes clear that ‘standards-based education,’ particularly the focus on grade-level materials, aligns perfectly with the interests of neoliberal capitalism. By reducing education to a series of standardised benchmarks, the system sorts students into roles based on their perceived economic utility, reinforcing existing class structures. Those who perform well on these tests are funnelled into pathways that lead to higher education and economic opportunity, while those who don’t meet the standard are left behind, often pushed into remedial tracks or vocational pathways that limit upward mobility. This sorting process is not incidental; it is by design. As I’ve discussed in my broader critique of neoliberalism and education, these reforms are part of a larger agenda to ensure that the status quo remains intact. The focus on ‘grade-level texts and tasks,’ like much of standards-based reform, is not about helping students succeed but about controlling who gets to advance in society and who is kept in place.
The Importance of Holistic, Individualised Instruction
Holistic, individualised instruction offers a powerful alternative to the rigid, grade-level-focused teaching methods that dominate education today. In my work, particularly in “Holistic Language Instruction,” I have argued for an approach that values the unique cognitive and cultural backgrounds of learners rather than forcing them to conform to arbitrary standards. Instead of pushing students to meet grade-level benchmarks, holistic language instruction allows for personalised learning that adapts to the needs of neurodiverse, multilingual, and non-standard learners. This approach fosters real, meaningful growth by acknowledging that students process language and knowledge in diverse ways.
Holistic instruction embraces a culturally responsive framework that honours students’ home languages and cognitive styles, especially for learners who have been historically marginalised by the standardisation of education. In my upcoming book (yes, I said it, there’s another book on the way for next year), “Decolonising Language Education: Reframing ELD for Multilingual and Neurodiverse Learners,” I expand on these ideas, offering strategies for teachers to integrate individualised support for learners across neurotypes and linguistic backgrounds. By applying methods that align with the Natural Language Acquisition model and critical pedagogy, we can create classroom environments where all students—whether they are gestalt language processors or bilingual learners—thrive. This approach moves away from teaching to the test and instead promotes deep, authentic learning experiences that prepare students for life beyond arbitrary standards.
The Role of Educators in Resisting Standardisation
Educators play a crucial role in resisting the relentless push for standardisation in education. Teachers are often the first to witness the limitations and failures of ‘grade-level texts’ and standardised tests in their classrooms. They see how these methods fail to meet the needs of diverse learners, particularly students from marginalised backgrounds or those with neurodivergent processing styles. This frontline experience makes educators key agents of change in the fight for more inclusive, student-centred teaching methods.
Adopting holistic practices, as I discuss in “Holistic Language Instruction” and expand upon in “Decolonising Language Education,” requires educators to advocate for flexible, responsive approaches that honour the individual strengths of each student. To do this effectively, teacher training must be restructured to include a focus on recognising and addressing the diverse needs of learners, including those who are often overlooked by traditional pedagogical methods. By equipping teachers with the tools to resist standardisation, we can shift the educational landscape towards one that fosters true equity and inclusion.
Final thoughts …
The insistence on ‘grade-level texts and tasks’ as a cure-all for educational shortcomings is a misleading illusion. These reforms, rooted in standardisation, fail to address the diverse needs of students and perpetuate the same capitalist model that seeks to sort learners for economic utility rather than foster genuine growth. True educational reform must move beyond this narrow framework and embrace holistic, inclusive approaches that recognise and accommodate the individual strengths of all learners. Educators, policymakers, and parents must advocate for a system that values diversity in learning and prioritises meaningful, culturally responsive education over arbitrary standards. Only then can we create a truly equitable learning environment for all.