ReCent ReVelations of cheating on standardized tests in the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) alert us to the fact that high-stakes testing is not a viable solution to the problem of academic underachievement. A year-long investigation ordered by the governor of Georgia found that in 44 of 56 schools examined, educators changed students' answers. A total of 178 educators, including 38 principals, were named as participants in cheating. The practice had been ongoing for almost a decade, making it the largest case of cheating in the country. Thousands of children in APS were deprived of educational opportunities they needed because "the cheating cut off struggling students from the extra help they would have received if they'd failed." Ironically, the gains in test scores achieved via the cheating also seemed to add credence to the APS's non-evidence-based policies of increasing the amount of time devoted to English language arts instruction and mathematics instruction at the expense of other education programs like the arts. In essence, the perceived improvement in test scores drove a decrease in overall education opportunity. Not only did some students not receive the extra help they might have needed due to the artificially inflated test results, but they were also subjected to a reduced curriculum, driven mainly by two subjects. We use cheating on high-stakes tests in this chapter as one of many examples to show the corrupting influences of centralized and standardized policy interventions on children's opportunities to participate in intellectually and socially robust education programs.
ReCent 亚特兰大公立学校（APS）在标准化考试中作弊的事件提醒我们，高风险的考试并不是解决学习成绩不佳问题的可行办法。佐治亚州州长下令进行的一项为期一年的调查发现，在被调查的 56 所学校中，有 44 所学校的教育工作者更改了学生的答案。共有 178 名教育工作者，包括 38 名校长，被指参与作弊。这种做法已经持续了近十年，成为全国最大的作弊案件。全美公立学校成千上万的孩子被剥夺了他们所需要的教育机会，因为 "作弊行为使成绩不理想的学生无法获得额外的帮助"。具有讽刺意味的是，通过作弊取得的考试成绩的提高似乎也为全美公立学校的无证据政策增添了可信度，即增加英语语言艺术教学和数学教学的时间，而牺牲艺术等其他教育项目。实质上，考试成绩的提高导致了整体教育机会的减少。由于考试成绩被人为夸大，一些学生不仅没有得到他们可能需要的额外帮助，而且他们的课程也被缩减，主要由两个科目驱动。在本章中，我们将高风险考试作弊作为众多例子中的一个，以说明集中化和标准化的政策干预对儿童参与智力和社会性强的教育项目的机会所产生的破坏性影响。

That type of deprivation of educational opportunity is the result of the No Child Left Behind Act and similar policy initiatives, such as the centralization of curriculum and assessment across the nation, which ironically were marketed as interventions to provide children with more opportunities. NCLB and the various NCLB waiver schemes approved by United States Department of Education (USDOE) bureaucrats use centralized curricula and high-stakes testing to hold school personnel accountable for improving student learning, particularly for raising the achievement of disadvantaged students to close the achievement gap. The various federal and state laws require schools to make adequately yearly progress (AYP) or achieve some other type of result on standardized tests, and the laws prescribe severe penalties for those students and educators who fail to raise test scores to the mandated level. Schools that serve disadvantaged students have faced tremendous pressure to raise test scores. Most of the actions the schools have taken to raise test scores, however, are counterproductive. Like cheating, they may appear to improve student achievement, but in reality they exacerbate the educational conditions that afflict these children and consequently widen the educational opportunity gap.
这种对教育机会的剥夺是《不让一个孩子掉队法》 和类似的政策倡议（如在全国范围内集中课程和评估）造成的，具有讽刺意味的是，这些倡议被推销为为儿童提供更多机会的干预措施。NCLB 以及美国教育部（USDOE）官僚们批准的各种 NCLB 豁免计划，利用集中课程和高风险测试来要求学校人员对提高学生学习成绩负责，特别是提高弱势学生的成绩，以缩小成绩差距。联邦和各州的各种法律要求学校在标准化考试中取得适当的年度进步（AYP）或其他类型的成绩，这些法律对那些未能将考试成绩提高到规定水平的学生和教育工作者规定了严厉的处罚。为贫困学生服务的学校面临着提高考试成绩的巨大压力。然而，学校为提高考试分数所采取的大多数行动都适得其反。就像作弊一样，它们看似提高了学生的成绩，但实际上却加剧了困扰这些孩子的教育条件，从而扩大了教育机会的差距。

Researchers identified four recurring opportunity-to-leam variables in education and psychology literature, that when cultivated, produce increases in student achievement and overall school success. The variables identified in the literature are: (a) time on task, (b) curriculum quality, (c) effective instructional methods, and (d) depth of instruction. Taken as an interdependent group, the variables can act as one framework from which to loosely gauge how well education policies and systems attend to the opportunity gap.
研究人员在教育和心理学文献中发现了四个经常出现的 "机会--闪光 "变量，这些变量一旦得到培养，就会提高学生的成绩和学校的整体成功。 文献中确定的变量是(a) 完成任务的时间，(b) 课程质量，(c) 有效的教学方法，以及 (d) 教学深度。作为一个相互依存的群体，这些变量可以作为一个框架，用来粗略地衡量教育政策和制度对机会差距的关注程度。

The opportunity to learn is critical, especially for our neediest students. The opportunity gap increases as the opportunity to learm decreases. For example, as a group, students labeled as economically disadvantaged or poor never score higher on standardized tests than their non-disadvantaged peers in any state on any grade level currently tested under NCLB. As we present, those students more frequently receive a restricted curriculum. The opportunity to experience and learn a broad, quality curriculum cannot be understated.
学习机会至关重要，尤其是对于我们最贫困的学生而言。机会差距随着学习机会的减少而扩大。例如，作为一个群体，被标为经济弱势或贫困的学生在标准测试中的得分从未高于他们非弱势的同龄人。正如我们所介绍的，这些学生更经常接受的是受限制的课程。体验和学习广泛、优质课程的机会不可低估。

Like many medicines, education policies and practices carry real risks of unintended side effects and complications, so trade-offs are necessary. Many proposed panaceas for the perceived ills of public education, such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative and national high-stakes testing, might not be as
与许多药物一样，教育政策和做法也有可能产生意想不到的副作用和并发症，因此必须有所取舍。许多针对公共教育弊端提出的灵丹妙药，如 "共同核心州立标准"（CCSS） 倡议和全国性的高分测试，可能并不像 "共同核心州立标准" 倡议和全国性的高分测试那样有效。
districts serving wealthy and poor students alike; it unfortunately happens on a larger scale in urban schools that serve impoverished students and students of color. Cheating has been reported in many large urban school systems, including Washington, DC; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Dallas; Houston; Chicago; Oakland; and New York City. In sum, students who are already struggling suffer most from this form of corruption.
不幸的是，在为贫困学生和有色人种学生服务的城市学校中，作弊现象更为严重。据报道，许多大型城市学校系统都存在作弊现象，包括华盛顿特区、巴尔的摩、洛杉矶、 达拉斯、休斯顿、芝加哥、奥克兰和纽约市。总之，这种形式的腐败对那些已经陷入困境的学生打击最大。

The loss of students' opportunities to experience a broad, well-balanced curriculum because of the imposition of common curriculum standards and high-stakes testing is even more widespread than the loss of access to special academic, social, or emotional services, and the consequences of losing such opportunities might be even more serious. Centralized curriculum and test-based accountability has led to the school curriculum being narrowed down to what is most likely be tested.? This happens much more frequently in schools that serve economically disadvantaged students, because their students, historically, score significantly lower on standardized tests. These schools are also under more pressure to improve test performance.
与失去获得特殊学术、社会或情感服务的机会相比，因实施共同课程标准和高风险测试而失去体验广泛、均衡课程机会的学生更为普遍，而失去这些机会的后果可能更为严重。集中化的课程设置和基于考试的问责制导致学校课程被缩小到最有可能通过考试的内容。这种情况在为经济条件较差的学生提供服务的学校发生得更为频繁，因为这些学校的学生在标准化考试中的得分历来要低得多。这些学校在提高考试成绩方面也面临着更大的压力。

By imposing state standardized testing in math and English language arts, legislation like NCLB and other standardization and centralization schemes resulted in a significant narrowing of the curriculum. For example, five years after the implementation of NCLB, over 60 percent of school districts reported that they had increased instructional time for math and English language arts (ELA), while 44 percent reported that they had reduced time for other subjects or activities such as social studies, science, art and music, physical education, lunch, and/or recess. On average, 32 percent less instructional time was devoted to other subjects. Only two years after the implementation of NCLB, three-quarters of schoo principles surveyed reported increases in instructional time for math and ELA, one-quarter reported decreases in time for the arts, and one-third anticipated future decreases.
通过对数学和英语语言艺术实施州立标准化测试，NCLB 等立法以及其他标准化和集中化计划导致了课程的大幅缩减。例如，NCLB 实施五年后，超过 60% 的学区报告说，他们增加了数学和英语语言艺术 (ELA) 的教学时间，而 44% 的学区报告说，他们减少了其他科目或活动的时间，如社会研究、科学、美术和音乐、体育、午餐和/或课间休息。其他科目的教学时间平均减少了 32%。 NCLB实施仅两年后，四分之三的受访学校报告数学和英语语言学习的教学时间有所增加，四分之一的学校报告艺术教学时间有所减少，三分之一的学校预计未来还会减少。

Curriculum narrowing occurs more frequently in schools serving disadvantaged children. More impoverished urban districts ( 76 percent) increased time for math and ELA and decreased time for other subjects than did suburban districts (69 percent). The Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that 36 percent of principals of high-minority schools reported decreases in instructional time for the arts, while only 21 percent of those in low-minority schools reported decreases. Substantially more districts with at least one school identified under NCLB as needing improvement, corrective action, or restructuring-which are
在为贫困儿童服务的学校中，课程缩减的情况更为常见。与郊区（69%）相比，更多的贫困城区（76%）增加了数学和英语语言学习的时间，减少了其他科目的时间。教育政策中心（CEP）发现，36% 的高少数民族学校校长报告减少了艺术教学时间，而只有 21% 的低少数民族学校校长报告减少了艺术教学时间。至少有一所学校被 NCLB 确定为需要改进、采取纠正措施或重组的学区数量大大增加，这些学 区包括
more frequently found in poor and minority neighborhoods-decreased instructional time for subjects other than math and ELA than did districts without any identified schools.
与没有确定学校的学区相比，这些学区减少了数学和英语语言学习以外科目的教学时间。

Students from families with low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to attend school in districts whose schools have a higher probability of not meeting AYP achievement targets. Nationally, the mean scores on state-mandated tests of math and ELA arts for the subgroup of students categorized as "economically disadvantaged" (ED) are always less than the mean scores of non-ED students at every grade level tested. In some states, the ED subgroup scores below the state's cut-score for proficiency and always scores closer to the proficient cut-score than their non-disadvantaged peers. The ED subgroup actually scores below their states' proficiency cut points in ELA in 11 out of 37 ( 30 percent) of the states that reported data and below in math in 12 states. The achievement differences are striking in terms of scale score and effect sizes. The effect size differences in mean achievement between the students in the ED subgroup and their non-ED peers ranged from 0.39 to 1.05 in ELA and 0.36 to 1.02 in math. The effect size was 0.50 or higher favoring the non-ED in ELA and math in 27 out of 37 ( 73 percent) states that reported data.
来自社会经济地位低下（SES）家庭的学生更有可能在那些学校很有可能达不到 AYP 成绩目标的学区上学。 在全国范围内，被归类为 "经济弱势"（ED）的学生分组在州规定的数学和英语语言艺术测试中的平均分总是低于非经济弱势学生在每个年级测试中的平均分。 在某些州，经济弱势学生亚群的分数低于该州的熟练分数线，而且总是比非经济弱势学生亚群的分数更接近熟练分数线。在报告数据的 37 个州中，有 11 个州（30%）的 ED 亚群的英语学习成绩低于本州的能力分数线，有 12 个州的 ED 亚群的数学成绩低于本州的能力分数线。从量表得分和效应大小来看，成绩差异非常明显。 教育分组学生与非教育分组学生之间的平均成绩效应大小差异为：英语学习成绩从 0.39 到 1.05 不等，数学成绩从 0.36 到 1.02 不等。在报告数据的 37 个州中，有 27 个州（73%）的非 ED 学生在英语学习和数学方面的效果大小达到或超过 0.50。

The schools more often attended by ED students are located in urban and rural areas. Thus, the larger concentration of students who score near or below their states' proficiency cut scores drive aggregate test results lower. Subsequently, the chances that the student scores will not achieve mandated performance goals such as AYP increases and thus, school personnel and students face sanctions. This is what some have documented as the unequal effects of AYP. As noted previously those schools more frequently decrease instructional time for subjects other than math and ELA and reduce the macro-curriculum, in terms of diversity of courses, and the course level micro-curriculum becomes more aligned to what is most likely tested. Curricular reductionism creates a situation of fewer opportunities for students who actually most need to receive broad and diverse educational experiences. Based on the existing literature it is not unreasonable to assume that low SES and racial and ethnic minority students are more likely to experience an educationally impoverished curriculum that in some cases reduces student engagement and offers fewer opportunities to learn a wide array of skills and develop their creative talents than their White, economically privileged counterparts. regressive, narrow curriculum offers disadvantaged children fewer opportunities to engage with the range of subjects, activities, and experiences that constitute a full, high-quality education.
教育署学生更常就读的学校位于城市和农村地区。因此，分数接近或低于各州能力分数线的学生较为集中，导致考试总成绩下降。因此，学生成绩达不到 AYP 等规定绩效目标的几率就会增加，学校人员和学生也会因此受到处罚。这就是有些人所说的 AYP 的不平等效应。 如前所述，这些学校更频繁地减少数学和英语语言学习以外的科目的教学时间，并减少宏观课程（就课程的多样性而言），而课程层面的微观课程则更多地与最有可能测试的内容保持一致。 课程缩减主义造成了学生机会减少的局面，而这些学生实际上最需要的是接受广泛而多样的教育体验。 根据现有的文献，我们可以不无道理地认为，社会经济地位低、种族和少数族裔的学生更有可能经历贫乏的教育课程，在某些情况下，这种课程会降低学生的参与度 ，与经济条件优越的白人学生相比，他们学习各种技能和发展创造才能的机会更少。 倒退、狭隘的课程设置使弱势儿童很少有机会接触构成全面、优质教育的各种科目、活动和经验。

A measurable gap exists between poor and middle-class students upon entry to preschool and kindergarten. Sociological studies have consistently found that
贫困学生和中产阶级学生在进入学前班和幼儿园时存在着明显的差距。社会学研究不断发现
students who live in impoverished backgrounds come to school with fewer intellectually stimulating life experiences, as well as lower levels of academic achievement. In comparison to their impoverished peers, children of wealthy parents are more likely to come to preschool and kindergarten knowing their letters and being able to read. Reading fluency and comprehension correlate with achievement on state standardized tests. A lack of prior experiences also makes it difficult to make sense of new content, because there is nothing to help children connect to new learning. Children who live in impoverished environments need the greatest opportunity to receive the most diverse and enriched curriculum in order to make sense of and internalize new and challenging content. However, a common curriculum based on a restricted view of learning and achievement does not provide that opportunity.
生活在贫困环境中的学生在入学时，智力方面的生活经历较少，学习成绩也较差。 与贫困的同龄人相比，父母富有的孩子在上学前班和幼儿园时更有可能认识字母并会阅读。阅读的流利程度和理解能力与州标准化测试的成绩息息相关。缺乏先前的经验也会使儿童难以理解新的内容，因为没有任何东西可以帮助他们与新的学习内容联系起来。生活在贫困环境中的儿童需要最大的机会接受最多样、最丰富的课程，以便理解并内化新的和具有挑战性的内容。然而，基于狭隘的学习和成绩观的共同课程并不能提供这样的机会。

A narrow curriculum, focused on a restricted set of test items, detracts from one of the equalizing functions of public schools: providing the experiences and opportunities that disadvantaged families and communities cannot. Standardization programs like those carried out under NCLB and the CCSS undermine the socially just and life-enriching opportunities that a comprehensive curriculum can bring. A narrow curriculum effectively renders high-quality educational opportunities a private good, accessible only to those who can afford to purchase or provide it outside of school.
狭隘的课程设置只关注一套有限的考试项目，偏离了公立学校的平等功能之一：提供弱势家庭和社区无法提供的经验和机会。像 NCLB 和 CCSS 这样的标准化计划破坏了全面课程所能带来的社会公正和丰富生活的机会。狭隘的课程设置实际上使高质量的教育机会成为一种私人物品，只有那些有能力购买或在校外提供的人才能获得。

Subjects and experiences that are not tested are expunged or marginalized. All that is artistic, emotional, personal, socially conscious, and culturally different is erased or subjugated at the altar of behaviorist and social-Darwinian policies in the pursuit of a shallow pool of reproducible skills and knowledge. Those students and teachers who do not bow in reverence are essentially weeded out via high-stakes testing.
没有经过测试的科目和经验被删除或边缘化。在行为主义和社会达尔文主义政策的祭坛上，所有艺术的、情感的、个人的、社会意识的和文化上与众不同的东西都被抹杀或征服，以追求浅薄的可复制的技能和知识。那些没有鞠躬致敬的学生和教师，基本上都被高考淘汰了。

Teachers have responded to this policy environment and, in some cases, directives from misguided school administrators, by teaching toward what they believe will be on the tests; they teach only what is likely to be tested, in the formats most likely to be presented on the tests, and compel students to take practice tests. Schools that serve mostly poor minority and immigrant children are under more urgent pressure to raise test scores in order to meet AYP or other state accountability targets and are more likely to reduce instruction to test preparation. This is the "pedagogy of poverty." This pedagogical chasm will be further widened by the adoption of the CCSS and the national testing. We fear that linking teacher and school administrator employment to test results will further bludgeon creativity and innovation out of the curriculum, and thereby increase the opportunity gaps that exist. Middle- and upper-class parents will provide to their children a wide range of creative and enriching opportunities to create, innovate, design,
教师们为了应对这种政策环境，在某些情况下，也为了应对被误导的学校管理者的指令，只教授他们认为会在考试中出现的内容；他们只教授可能会被考试的内容，采用最有可能在考试中出现的形式，并强迫学生参加模拟考试。那些主要为贫困的少数民族和移民儿童服务的学校，面临着提高考试分数以达到 AYP 或其他州级问责目标的更大压力，因此更有可能将教学缩减为考试准备。这就是 "贫困教学法"。 这种教学法上的鸿沟将因采用 CCSS 和全国性考试而进一步扩大。我们担心，将教师和学校管理人员的聘用与考试成绩挂钩，将进一步扼杀课程中的创造力和创新力，从而加大现有的机会差距。中产阶级和上层阶级的家长将为他们的孩子提供广泛的创造性和丰富的机会，让他们去创造、创新和设计、

strategize, and perform via out-of-school experiences financed out of their pocketbooks. How will children of poverty access similar types of opportunities if the larger society does not support access?
通过自掏腰包的校外体验来制定战略和进行表演。如果整个社会都不支持贫困儿童获得类似的机会，他们将如何获得这些机会呢？

THE OPPORTUNITY TO GRADUATE
毕业机会

As discussed earlier, an oppressive and regressive form of deprivation of educational opportunities for disadvantaged students results from using common standards and testing as accountability measures: the exclusion of students who might prevent the school from meeting the accountability requirements. "There is considerable evidence that some educators have shaped the test-taking pool in their schools or districts through such exclusionary practices as withdrawing students from attendance rolls," because "if the disaffected or weakest students can be pushed out of schools or allowed to drop out, then the test scores at the school or districts that lose these students will go up."."3
如前所述，将共同标准和考试作为问责措施，会造成一种压迫性和倒退性的剥夺弱势 学生受教育机会的形式：排斥那些可能妨碍学校达到问责要求的学生。 "有相当多的证据表明，一些教育工作者通过将学生从出勤名单中删除等排斥性做法，塑造了学校或学区的应试人才库"， 因为 "如果可以将心怀不满或最弱的学生挤出学校或让他们辍学，那么失去这些学生的学校或学区的考试成绩就会上升"。

Accounts of schools pushing out students who are disadvantaged and do not perform well on standardized tests abound. An article in Time magazine recounted how one school with high standardized test scores forced or encouraged disadvantaged students to leave the school in order to close the achievement gap. The story explained that an African American student was goaded out of high school after multiple "disciplinary suspensions," and that disciplinary measures were often used to push out underachieving students just prior to the administration dates of the state-mandated test to help the school meet AYP. Unfortunately, most of the students affected by these tactics belong to racial and ethnic minorities and families living in poverty-precisely those whom advocates of standards, testing, and accountability claim to help.
学校将在标准化考试中成绩不佳的弱势学生赶出校门的事例比比皆是。 《时代》杂志的一篇文章叙述了一所标准化考试成绩很高的学校如何强迫或鼓励弱势学生离开学校，以缩小成绩差距。 这篇报道解释说，一名非裔美国学生在多次 "违纪停学 "后被诱导离开高中，而且学校经常在国家规定的考试实施日期之前采取纪律措施，将成绩不佳的学生赶出学校，以帮助学校达到 AYP 标准。不幸的是，受这些手段影响的学生大多属于少数种族和少数民族以及贫困家庭，而这恰恰是标准、考试和问责制的倡导者声称要帮助的人。

Lower than hoped for graduation rates for impoverished students and students of color have been a persistent concern for American education. Between one-fourth and one-half of students in the 50 largest US cities drop out before graduating high school. 26 "High-stakes testing has simply exacerbated the traditional problem of keeping disaffected youth of all ability levels in school."2 "Because of high stakes testing, it probably takes much less time today for our K-8 children to develop their academic self-image than in the past, and that image is probably more rigidly held than ever before."28 Lack of confidence in their abilities induced by a myopic focus on test scores can cause children to disengage from school and eventually lead them to drop out. The most recent data show that graduation rates declined for two consecutive years, from 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007, after the implementation of NCLB.
贫困学生和有色人种学生的毕业率低于预期，一直是美国教育界关注的问题。在美国最大的 50 座城市中，四分之一到二分之一的学生在高中毕业前辍学。26 "高风险考试只是加剧了让各种能力水平的失意青少年留在学校的传统问题"。2 "由于高风险考试的存在，今天我们的 K-8 年级儿童形成学业自我形象所需的时间可能比过去要少得多，而且这种形象可能比以往任何时候都更加僵化"。28 对考试成绩的近视所导致的对自身能力缺乏信心，会使儿童脱离学校，最终导致辍学。最新数据显示，在实施 NCLB 之后，毕业率在 2005 至 2006 年和 2006 至 2007 年连续两年下降。

By prescribing rigid grade-level expectations and using high-stakes tests to monitor implementation, the education bureaucrats who manage the education system either assume that all children start at the same point, progress at a uniform pace, and have the same strengths and weaknesses or they choose not to recognize the differences that exist in cognitive, social, and moral development. Should a child not achieve the expected score on one test, he or she is considered at risk. If, as often happens, the child is given remedial education that moves at a slower pace and focuses even more myopically on areas of perceived weakness, the student is denied opportunities to explore a more enriched curriculum and develop his or her creativity and talents, because he or she must participate in the remedial instruction while other students are taking additional electives or attending art and music class. In essence, the standardized system widens the opportunity gap, or perhaps even helps to create it.
管理教育系统的教育官僚们通过规定严格的年级期望值和使用高风险测试来监督执行情况，要么假定所有儿童都从同一起点开始，以统一的速度进步，具有相同的长处和短处，要么选择不承认在认知、社会和道德发展方面存在的差异。如果一个孩子在某次测试中没有达到预期分数，他或她就会被视为处于危险之中。如果像经常发生的那样，孩子接受的是进度较慢的补习教育，甚至更加近视地专注于被认为是薄弱的领域，那么学生就没有机会探索更丰富的课程，发展自己的创造力和才能，因为他或她必须在其他学生上额外的选修课或参加艺术和音乐课时参加补习教育。从本质上讲，标准化系统扩大了机会差距，甚至可能助长了这种差距的形成。

Equality of curriculum standards is inherently inequitable when it is interpreted as meaning uniformity of results in a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction and assessment. Compelling all children to follow the same rigid succession of content objectives and perform at the same level of achievement at a given age condemns some to failure, denying them opportunities to learn an array of skills, much less to discover and create. Students who are judged to be at risk based on the results from standardized tests-who disproportionately belong to racial and ethnic minority groups, are English language learners, or have learning disabilities-might possess strengths that are simply not recognized by the standard curriculum and are not assessed by standardized tests. Talents that do not fit into this constricted system are devalued. Children's self-confidence may be severely damaged by being told that they are not good at anything that counts, and they might become alienated from learning. Those students labeled "not proficient" or "in need of improvement" might actually need more choices, more pathways, and more opportunities to develop into free-thinking and self-determined individuals. Standardization of knowledge and performance through rigid curricula and high-stakes testing robs all children-those who are successful within the system, as well as those who are not-of the opportunity to develop freely into creative individuals because standardization marginalizes the talents, skills, emotions, and aspirations that are not valued by the system.
如果课程标准的平等被解释为以一刀切的方式进行教学和评估的统一结果，那么这种平等本质上就是不平等的。强迫所有儿童遵循同样严格的连续内容目标，并在特定年龄达到同样的成绩水平，注定了一些儿童的失败，剥夺了他们学习各种技能的机会，更不用说去发现和创造了。那些根据标准化考试成绩被判定为有风险的学生--不成比例地属于少数种族和少数族裔群体、英语语言学习者或有学习障碍--可能拥有标准课程根本无法认可的、标准化考试也无法评估的优势。 不符合这种限制性体系的才能被贬低。孩子们的自信心可能会因为被告知他们不擅长任何重要的事情而受到严重损害，他们可能会疏远学习。 那些被贴上 "不精通 "或 "需要改进 "标签的学生，实际上可能需要更多的选择、更多的途径和更多的机会，以发展成为自由思考和自我决定的个体。通过死板的课程和高风险的考试来实现知识和成绩的标准化，剥夺了所有孩子--那些在这个系统中取得成功的孩子，以及那些没有取得成功的孩子--自由发展成为有创造力的个体的机会，因为标准化将那些不被这个系统所重视的才能、技能、情感和愿望边缘化了。

It is fatally misguided to mandate policies that exacerbate the opportunity gap, which already exists between the rich and the poor, by compelling all children to master the same narrow set of academic skills and knowledge and punishing those
强制要求所有儿童掌握同样一套狭隘的学术技能和知识，并惩罚那些 "不学无术 "的儿童，这样的政策会加剧贫富之间业已存在的机会差距，这是一种致命的误导。
that do not. It is naive and irresponsible to think it would actually benefit them or the country. Standardizing knowledge and the ways in which children acquire and demonstrate their mastery of it is an inhumane policy based on a lack of understanding of human diversity and developmental psychology. This approach eschews social scientific research and social-justice principles and, at bottom, forces children to fit into the system instead of designing a system that balances the needs of the child and of society. A policy that is not child-centered will not effectively address these complex and pressing problems.
而不是。认为这样做会真正有利于他们或国家的想法是天真和不负责任的。将知识以及儿童获取和展示其掌握知识的方式标准化是一项不人道的政策，其基础是对人类多样性和发展心理学缺乏了解。这种做法摒弃了社会科学研究和社会公正原则，从根本上说，是强迫儿童适应教育体制，而不是设计一种平衡儿童和社会需求的体制。 不以儿童为中心的政策将无法有效解决这些复杂而紧迫的问题。

Curriculum does not operate in a vacuum, as cognitive development theory, ecological systems theory, self-determination theory, sociocultural theory, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs have shown in their various ways. Children's learning is shaped by their personal backgrounds, home environments, cultures, emotions, life experiences, prior knowledge, and stages of cognitive and social development. Standardization assumes that children are blank slates and passive recipients of content, rather than active constructors of meaning who bring their prior knowledge and experiences to the learning situation. Those misguided assumptions are inappropriate for evidence-based policy making in a democratic society.
正如认知发展理论、 生态系统理论、 自我决定理论、 社会文化理论、 和马斯洛的需求层次理论 以其不同的方式所表明的那样，课程不是在真空中运行的。儿童的学习是由其个人背景、家庭环境、文化、情感、生活经历、先前知识以及认知和社会发展阶段所决定的。标准化假定儿童是一张白纸，是内容的被动接受者，而不是意义的主动建构者，他们会把自己已有的知识和经验带入学习情境中。这些错误的假设不适合在民主社会中制定以证据为基础的政策。

The standardization of knowledge and thinking denies children educational opportunities that might be more appropriate for their strengths, developmental and learning stages, and interests. Once a standard is established and enforced with high-stakes testing, it is used to include and exclude people. Those who happen to do well on one assessment are considered good and successful and valued more highly, whereas those who do less well are considered at-risk of failure and valued less, regardless of their other strengths. A child who can write imaginative essays or stories but cannot or does not wish to write the way standardized tests require is defined as deficient. These children are then forced to remedy their deficiencies at the cost of losing opportunities to develop their strengths. As a result, their talents are devalued, suppressed, and left to wither.
知识和思维的标准化剥夺了儿童的教育机会，而这些机会可能更适合他们的长处、发展和学习阶段以及兴趣。一旦通过高风险测试建立并实施了标准，它就会被用来包容和排斥他人。那些恰好在一次评估中表现出色的人被认为是优秀的、成功的，会得到更高的评价；而那些表现较差的人则被认为有失败的风险，会受到较低的评价，无论他们的其他优势如何。如果一个孩子能写出富有想象力的文章或故事，但不能或不愿按照标准化测试的要求写作，那么这个孩子就会被定义为有缺陷。于是，这些孩子被迫以失去发展自己特长的机会为代价来弥补自己的不足。结果，他们的才能被贬低、压制，任其枯萎。

Many countries that have long histories of centralized curriculum and high-stakes testing have begun reforming their education systems to offer more diverse curricular opportunities, decentralization, and autonomy. Singapore and China, which have been heralded as examples of educational excellence because of their students' performance on international assessments of mathematics, have launched multiple rounds of curriculum reforms to add more flexibility and breadth to their curricula. Creativity and innovation in the Chinese education system has suffered under
许多长期实行集中式课程设置和高风险考试的国家已开始改革其教育体系，以提供更多样化的课程机会、权力下放和自主权。 新加坡和中国因其学生在国际数学评估中的表现而被誉为卓越教育的典范，这两个国家已经启动了多轮课程改革，以增加课程的灵活性和广度。 中国教育体制中的创造性和创新性受到了影响。
national standards and high-stakes testing since the invention of keju, a national examination system to select government officials, over 2,000 years ago. Although initially keju seemed a fair and open mechanism to identify leaders from the commons, it gradually degenerated into a system that rewarded those who mastered the Confucian classics and excluded other more useful talents, especially critical thinking and creativity. Keju limited the country's capacity for scientific and technological innovation and was partially blamed for the decline of this great civilization. The keju system was abolished in 1905. But its spirit lives on today in the revamped gaokao, the college entrance exam. Colleges use it to select students, so it represents the only chance a Chinese youth has to get into college. The stakes are very high, making it a powerful mechanism to enforce national curriculum standards.
自两千多年前发明 "科举"（一种选拔政府官员的全国性考试制度）以来，美国一直在推行国家标准和高风险测试。虽然最初的科举似乎是一种公平、公开的机制，可以从平民中选拔领导人才，但后来逐渐演变成一种奖励那些掌握儒家经典的人，而排斥其他更有用的人才，尤其是批判性思维和创造力的制度。科举限制了国家的科技创新能力，也是这一伟大文明衰落的部分罪魁祸首。科举制于 1905 年废除。但它的精神却在今天的高考中得以延续。高校利用高考选拔学生，因此高考是中国青年进入大学的唯一机会。高考的利害关系非常大，因此成为执行国家课程标准的有力机制。

In recent years, gaokao has been criticized as the root cause of Chinese educational ills: the lack of innovative and creative citizens; unbearable academic pressure and deteriorating health among students, including suicides; widespread cheating and fraud; and massive inequality in educational opportunities. China has now launched a series of efforts to transform its "test-oriented education" into a "quality-oriented education." One of the major strategies is to relax central control of the curriculum and enable more local autonomy. Yet these reforms have not led to a significant expansion in students' curricular opportunities. Innovations are limited, and the educational experiences of the vast majority of students remain confined to what is tested.4" "As long as principals are held accountable for their schools' performance in national examinations, they cannot afford to stray too far from the mainstream curriculum."
近年来，高考一直被批评为中国教育弊病的根源：缺乏创新和有创造力的公民；难以承受的学业压力和学生健康状况恶化，包括自杀；作弊和舞弊现象普遍；教育机会严重不平等。目前，中国已经启动了一系列努力，将 "应试教育 "转变为 "素质教育"。其中一项主要战略就是放松中央对课程的控制，让地方有更多的自主权。 然而，这些改革并没有使学生的课程机会大幅增加。创新是有限的，绝大多数学生的教育经历仍然局限于应试教育。4""只要校长要为学校在全国考试中的成绩负责，他们就不能偏离主流课程太远。"

Proponents in the US of the CCSS initiative suggest that they will not develop national high-stakes testing as extreme as China's gaokao or that they will develop more innovative assessments rather than utilize the typical multiple-choice questions. That still has not happened. The tests look the same, measure relatively the same skills as the state test they replaced, and are in fact used to make high-stakes, life-changing decisions about children and school personnel. Like their predecessors developed as part of NCLB, the new national tests will also influence some school personnel to cheat or narrow the curriculum to what will most likely be tested. Of course Campbell's Law predicted this. The law tells us that any social indicator used for a high-stakes purpose inevitably becomes corrupted. As occurred with the abuse of the gaokao in China, after people in power begin to make consequential decisions on the basis of a national assessment of achievement relative to common core standards, children's opportunities to develop creativity and innovative thinking will be lost, especially for those from impoverished backgrounds.
在美国，CCSS 计划的支持者表示，他们不会发展像中国高考那样极端的全国性高考，或者说，他们将发展更具创新性的评估，而不是使用典型的多项选择题。但这种情况仍未发生。这些测试与它们所取代的州立测试看起来一样，所测评的技能也相对相同，而且实际上是用来对儿童和学校工作人员做出高风险的、改变生活的决定的。与作为 NCLB 的一部分而开发的前身一样，新的全国性测试也会影响一些学校人员作弊或将课程范围缩小到最有可能被测试的内容。当然，坎贝尔定律对此早有预言。 该定律告诉我们，任何用于高风险目的的社会指标都不可避免地会被腐蚀。正如中国滥用高考所发生的那样，当掌权者开始根据与共同核心标准相对应的全国性成绩评估做出相应的决定之后，孩子们将失去发展创造力和创新思维的机会，尤其是那些来自贫困背景的孩子。

England's adoption of a national curriculum shows what happens when a standardized curriculum is mandated and monitored with high-stakes tests. England
英格兰采用全国课程的情况表明，如果规定采用标准化课程，并通过高风险测试进行监督，会发生什么情况。英格兰
replaced a largely locally controlled curriculum with a national curriculum in the early 1990s. The curriculum is broader than math and literacy, but these subjects, along with science, are considered core subjects and given greater significance through testing. According to "The Cambridge Primary Review," a recent report that received heavy media coverage, the national curriculum deprived public school children of the opportunity to receive a broad and rich education. The problems of the national curriculum include the detachment of curriculum from socio-civic and vocational aims; the loss of the children's entitlement to a broad, balanced, and rich curriculum and the marginalization of the arts, the humanities, and lately, science; the test-induced regression to valuing memorization and recall over understanding and inquiry, and to a pedagogy that rates transmission as more important than the pursuit of knowledge in its wider sense; and the loss of breadth and balance across and within subjects as a result of the pressures of testing, especially at the upper end of the primary school.
20 世纪 90 年代初，美国以全国性课程取代了主要由地方控制的课程。该课程比数学和识字更宽泛，但这些科目与科学一起被视为核心科目，并通过考试被赋予更重要的意义。根据最近媒体大肆报道的一份报告《剑桥小学评论》，全国课程剥夺了公立学校儿童接受广泛而丰富的教育的机会。国家课程的问题包括：课程与社会公民和职业目标相脱离；儿童失去了获得广泛、均衡和丰富课程的权利；艺术、人文学科以及最近的科学被边缘化；考试导致的倒退，即重视记忆和回想而轻视理解和探究，以及重视传授而轻视追求更广义的知识的教学法；由于考试的压力，特别是在小学高年级，各学科之间和学科内部失去了广度和平衡。

Curriculum has the greatest influence on student achievement when it is designed locally, with the particular needs of students in mind. It can provide students from impoverished backgrounds with opportunities that their families and communities cannot. When curriculum is handed down from on high, as is the case with the CCSS, it has a much weaker influence. A study of high schools that serve New Jersey's poorest communities found that the more customized the curriculum at the local level, the better the students performed on the state's high school exit exam.
如果课程是根据学生的特殊需要因地制宜地设计的，那么它对学生成绩的影响就最大。 它可以为来自贫困背景的学生提供他们的家庭和社区无法提供的机会。如果课程是由上级下达的，就像 "通用课程标准 "那样，其影响力就会小得多。对服务于新泽西州最贫困社区的高中进行的一项研究发现，地方一级的课程定制程度越高，学生在该州高中毕业考试中的成绩就越好。

Classic works from the history of education point to the importance of constructing curriculum for specific student bodies; consider the curricular knowledge created by Francis Parker, John Dewey, Horace Mann, Boyd Bode, the Harap Committee, and Hilda Taba. The landmark Eight-Year Study demonstrated that a locally developed, problem-based curriculum can produce better results than traditional programs. As long as they are based on demonstrated research and theories of learning, less standardized, more diverse, locally developed and designed programs offer students greater opportunities to develop their talents. The students from the Eight-Year Study who were educated in the experimental schools performed better in college academically, socially, and civically compared to their traditionally prepared peers. There is no "one best curriculum path" for students in high school, and standardized sequences are not necessary to achieve superior results in elementary and secondary schools.
教育史上的经典著作指出了为特定学生群体构建课程的重要性；请看弗朗西斯-帕克、约翰-杜威、霍勒斯-曼、博伊德-博德、哈拉普委员会和希尔达-塔巴所创造的课程知识。具有里程碑意义的 "八年研究 "表明，与传统课程相比，由当地开发、以问题为基础的课程能产生更好的效果。 只要是以经过论证的研究和学习理论为基础，标准化程度较低、更加多样化、由当地开发和设计的课程就能为学生提供更多的发展机会。在 "八年研究 "中，在实验学校接受教育的学生在大学的学业、社交和公民方面的表现都优于传统的同龄人。对于高中学生来说，并不存在 "一种最佳的课程路径"，标准化的课程顺序也不是中小学取得优异成绩的必要条件。

Standardizing the curriculum does not ensure that all children will receive the education they need to be more creative and innovative, as well as proficient learners. The results from the "college prep for all" initiatives beginning in Chicago in 1997, New York State in 2001, and Texas in 2003, as well as the mandated use of universal state standards via the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, have done little to close the socioeconomically based achievement gap. mandatory universal curricular program makes no conceptual sense, is intuitively contradictory, and has no empirical backing.
课程标准化并不能确保所有儿童都能接受他们所需的教育，从而成为更有创造力和创新精神以及熟练的学习者。1997 年在芝加哥、2001 年在纽约州、2003 年在得克萨斯州开始实施的 "全民大学预科 "计划，以及通过 2002 年《不让一个孩子掉队法》强制实施的通用州立标准，在缩小基于社会经济因素的成绩差距方面收效甚微。 强制性的通用课程计划在概念上没有意义，在直觉上自相矛盾，而且没有经验支持。

Singling out a few subjects through national standards and testing starves the curriculum and depresses the educational experience. Because the reputation and salary of teachers and administrators are on the line, educators will work toward making sure that students do well on those subjects at any cost, narrowing the curriculum to what is most likely to be tested and reducing teaching to test preparation. In a wrongheaded attempt to lower disparities in test scores, common standards and high-stakes testing actually widen the opportunity gap between the privileged and the disadvantaged, between "normal" children and those who may deviate from the norm, and between those who conform and those who choose to pursue their own individual interests.
通过国家标准和考试挑选出少数科目，会使课程匮乏，压抑教育体验。由于教师和行政人员的声誉和薪水岌岌可危，教育工作者会不惜一切代价确保学生在这些科目上取得好成绩，将课程范围缩小到最有可能参加考试的内容，将教学简化为备考。共同标准和高风险测试错误地试图缩小考试分数的差距，实际上却扩大了特权阶层和弱势群体之间、"正常 "儿童和可能偏离常规的儿童之间、循规蹈矩者和选择追求个人兴趣者之间的机会差距。

We believe that the educational system should provide children with opportunities to develop critical thinking, persistence, empathy, strategize, chances to create rather than imitate, and situations in which students can engage in socially conscious problem-solving. Education policies and practices should foster collaboration, cooperation, and innovation. We value diversity over conformity, creativity over imitation, and informed dissent over blind acceptance. Public schools should provide a safe haven for children to explore their cultures, develop their individual talents to their full potential, and learn how to critically analyze and solve the many issues our society and the people of the planet face. We should open the gates of opportunity to all children without constricting the meaning of education.
我们认为，教育系统应为儿童提供机会，培养批判性思维、坚持不懈的精神、同理心、谋略、创造而非模仿的机会，以及让学生参与解决具有社会意识的问题的环境。教育政策和实践应促进协作、合作和创新。我们珍视多样性而非一成不变，珍视创造而非模仿，珍视明智的异议而非盲目的接受。公立学校应为孩子们提供一个安全的避风港，让他们探索自己的文化，充分发挥个人才能，并学习如何批判性地分析和解决我们的社会和地球上的人们所面临的诸多问题。我们应该向所有儿童敞开机会之门，而不是限制教育的意义。

Given the weight of the evidence, it seems misguided and downright wrong to support such a massive social experiment as the CCSS, using participants who are compelled to participate without parental consent. Children have a right to highquality educational opportunities, and educators and policy makers have a duty to help provide them. An old Chinese saying Yinzhenzhike, which means drinking poison to quench thirst, warns people not to seek solutions that cause serious damage just because the problem at hand is pressing. We hope this chapter serves as warning to proponents of standards and testing as the cure for the achievement gap in American education.
鉴于证据确凿，支持像 CCSS 这样的大规模社会实验，使用未经家长同意而被迫参与的参与者，似乎是误导和完全错误的。儿童有权获得高质量的教育机会，教育工作者和政策制定者有责任帮助提供这些机会。中国有句古话叫 "饮鸩止渴"，告诫人们不要因为眼前的问题迫在眉睫，就去寻求会造成严重损害的解决方案。我们希望本章能给那些主张用标准和考试来解决美国教育成绩差距问题的人敲响警钟。