Beware High-Stakes Testing

Before I begin, a few disclaimers. I'm not opposed to tests, not even multiple choice tests like the SAT which, for many high schoolers, are extremely high-stakes. National, well-researched tests are important, and the results can be meaningful and ought to inform practice at every level. I'm not opposed to judging schools and teachers--in part--on students' test scores. But test data, like anything else, must be looked at critically before running with it. And that has not happened many times.

Today, the New York Times reported on what should really be called a scandal for the New York Department of Education. Test scores were artificially inflated by making the tests easier to pass. When critics of the Bloomberg/Klein regime pointed this out over a year ago, the Times and the state looked the other way. Repeated claims of rising test scores should have been accompanied by the note that the benchmarks are moving, but instead, credit-claiming was all that we heard. It was obvious that test scores were rising due, at least in part, to manipulations of the test and the scoring, but the mainstream media remained silent.

Every year, test scores in many states rise and rise, but that only reflects manipulation of the tests! A few intelligent folks have pointed this out in the past: Diane Ravitch comes to mind. Here she notes that No Child Left Behind actually hurt student achievement and slowed student progress, particularly for racial minorities.

I'm pleased that the state of New York, at least, has finally realized the disservice they are doing when they advertise that an outrageously high percentage of students are "proficient" when, in truth, many high school students still are unable to read or do basic math. The "Shock Plunge" in test scores is actually not a plunge at all; instead, it's a realization that calling a kid proficient doesn't actually raise numeracy or literacy.

In defense of the state board of regents, they have been warning us for months that this was coming. The raising of proficiency levels for state tests has indeed been a long time coming, but the warning disguises the fact that the proficiency level for years was decreased specifically so that folks like Joel Klein could brag about improving test scores year after year, despite the fact that actual student achievement had remained constant or even decreased. It's dishonest, embarrassing and shameful, and those responsible ought to be held accountable.

from the NYT story:

And the results could cast doubts on the city’s improvements over the past several years; both the mayor and the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have used increases in state test scores as evidence that schools have improved.

“It certainly complicates the Bloomberg administration message, because the state test is completely unreliable,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a researcher with the Fordham Institute, a Washington-based research group.

Just unconscionable. This is why tests should be just one measure of success for students, teachers, and schools. Test scores--clearly so malleable to the point of being almost meaningless--should only be considered as one part of a larger review. If tests are too important, they are likely to be manipulated, and that's exactly what we've seen in New York. The one major takeaway for ed reformers from this story: pay attention! Don't believe everything you here, and hold on to a healthy dose of skepticism.

The Failure of Obama's Education Reform Efforts

President Obama entered office as the great hope of many segments of the population, ranging from racial minorities to political progressives who were hoping for particular policy changes. Teachers and education reform activists were also excited by the ascendancy of Obama, and for good reason: he had detailed, exciting plans to reform public education, and during the campaign he had advisors like Linda Darling-Hammond on staff, leading many to believe that his efforts would encapsulate a certain set of policy prescriptions. Darling-Hammond was in fact a leading candidate for Secretary of Education, the post currently occupied by the controversial Arne Duncan.

Duncan was firmly ensconced in the "reform" camp of candidates, balanced by Darling-Hammond and others on the "pro-union" side. The reformers are folks like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, people with little teaching experience who believe in reforms like the removal of tenure, mayoral control of schools, expanding charter schools, and test-based accountability for both teachers and schools. The opposition, led by teachers unions and their spokespeople like Randi Weingarten, disagrees with the "reform" banner given to the other camp, because they too believe in reform.

Since Duncan was chosen, he has led the administration's education reform efforts--though some claim that none other than Bill Gates is truly in charge. He has followed in the footsteps of those like Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein in New York City and Rhee in Washington, pushing test-based accountability, closing struggling schools, and other reforms without input from teachers.

The biggest criticism of Obama's efforts thus far has been just that--he has disrespected those on the frontlines of education reform: teachers. The Race to the Top, the largest, most visible piece of a larger reform effort, is entirely top-down, without consultation even from principals and district leaders. It proscribes particular reforms that states should enact in order to become eligible for a huge pot of federal money.

Teachers have voiced significant complaints about RttT and other efforts. In early July, the National Education Association had their national conference in New Orleans. Union President Dennis Van Roekel summed up his feelings and a sentiment apparently shared by many in attendance this way: “Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced." This was one of many pokes and criticisms of Duncan and Obama throughout the conference, which last year warmly welcomed Secretary Duncan.

The NEA conference is far from an isolated incident. Critics of the administration come from every corner, which is to be expected. Unfortunately, one huge camp of critics are essential stakeholders in education reform: teachers. Across the country, teachers have voiced their disapproval loudly and clearly, protesting appearances by Duncan frequently. The teachers have latched onto a few points of criticism, but the substantive claims they have--meritorious or not--are fairly irrelevant.

Whatever reason given by teachers for their bitter opposition to the plans, the mere fact that teachers are opposed is enough to doom Race to the Top and other programs. Qualified, experienced, effective teachers are necessary for any education reform effort to succeed--Duncan and some of his compatriots have repeatedly stated that effective teachers are the most important piece of reform. The disrespect and resulting alienation of the nation's teachers in and of itself is the death knell of Arne Duncan's entire tenure in the Department of Education. Without teachers on your side, very little is possible in the field of education.

To be fair, what could we have expected from Arne Duncan? An old crony of Obama's from Chicago's Hyde park neighborhood, his efforts as Superintendent in that city have proven to be ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. Test-and-punish schemes like No Child Left Behind have been positive only for test-writers, and observers from every side have repeatedly pointed this out. Also, the accountability and stricter licensing guidelines he has proposed would have certainly disqualified Duncan from many of his former positions and certainly his current post. His resume includes highlights like a brief pro basketball career in Australia and the highest degree he has received is a BA from Harvard. Teachers in many states are now required to hold Masters degrees, but the Secretary of Education cant be bothered even to work towards a Masters of Arts degree in Teaching, or public policy, or something else relevant to his very difficult job. This hypocritical stance is particularly damning and has turned many against him; highly-qualified educators are important, and one should be installed at the DoE with all due haste.

Trimming RttT

The priorities emphasized in Race to the Top were always controversial and unsettling to me. Despite the fact that I supported President Obama all the way back when he was an underdog in the primaries and am, in fact, a Democrat for Education Reform (in a manner of speaking), I was always uneasy about the Obama/Duncan platform for reform. If you were a casual observer of education policy news, you might think there was a growing consensus around the program of reform: that is, charter expansion, test-test-test, standards, accountability, etc.

The reason this seems like consensus is because it isn't new; this is the reform embodied initially in No Child Left Behind, the much-lambasted reform program of the Bush administration. Though Democrats voted in droves for the bill initially, it became extremely controversial rather quickly. So instead of calling Race to the Top and current DoE policy the Obama/Duncan platform, let's correctly identify it as the Bush-Obama program for education reform. Kind of removes the luster, huh?

So when it came out today that Rep. David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was planning to cut about $500 million from the Race to the Top fund in order to fund a new education jobs bill, I had mixed feelings. There are elements of RttT that I really appreciate and admire. Innovation is crucial in education, and new approaches are more than welcome. On the other hand, the RttT hurts teachers, damages community schools and threatens the foundations of public education in our country.

In the end, it has to be looked at as a good thing that money is going to save edujobs instead of promoting tests, test-based evaluation and charter expansion. If Race to the Top included more expansive and more meaningful types of reform, I might feel differently, but teachers truly need support. Cutting jobs in education is not the way to reform the system. And to be fair, $3.5 billion is still up for grabs in the second round of the Race--I think states will still apply for the funds and work hard to reform education in the way the Dept. wants.

The Race to the Top is unusually effective public policy. States around the country are passing legislation to move them in line with the DoE's expectations for reform in order for a shot at the money. Unfortunately, this move takes the control out of the hands of teachers, principals, even superintendents. Decisions made at the top levels without consultation are unlikely to prove durable in the classroom.

Teaching is an unusual job because it puts you at the crossroads of total independence and at the bottom of a complex bureaucracy. In the classroom, teachers are totally in charge, but in the scope of the larger education system, they are institutionally disrespected and disempowered. This has troubling consequences for education policy, but more importantly, it implies stark concerns for education reform. The major takeaway is that reforms must be democratic. That is, in order for teachers really to buy into reform, they must have a hand in shaping those reforms. This makes sense, because nobody knows how education works and doesn't work like those who are in the trenches every day. It also is logical because ultimately, reform will be implemented by teachers and principals, so these folks need to feel like they are part of the solution.

Ultimately, Race to the Top, while effective at shaping reform, is misguided in its attempt to institute policy shifts from the top-down instead of after consultation and discussion with educators. Trimming it in order to save teachers' jobs is an excellent idea, and I hope Rep. Obey's version of the Edujobs bill is the one that reaches Obama's desk, and I hope it happens soon.

Negative Learning

As I wrap up my undergraduate education--just over a week until commencement--I find myself thinking a lot about how different people learn. I was even asked at a recent job interview to create some type of art project in 15 minutes to explain, without words, what intelligence means. The conclusion I seem to be reaching more and more is simply that nobody knows how others learn. At least, the pontificators and the talking heads in the education world certainly don't. And neither do I, but I'm becoming convinced that there are different modes that some use effectively, and other modes of thinking--I consider them varieties of non-thinking, but that's not a great way to introduce them. These latter forms can be thought of as passive and disengaged forms of thinking or, better yet, forms of "knowledge enhancement." Because thinking implies an active process, we will only consider active forms of learning as involving thinking in a meaningful way. Passive learning, including rote memorization, homework, and following directions is really opposed to thinking.

Think back to when you were in school, especially high school. If your background is anything like mine, you probably survived high school, but only barely. I was miserable for huge parts of my public school education (in suburban, middle class Connecticut), and the hierarchical system in place ensured that I would continue to be pretty unhappy in that school. Without the money to afford independent school tuition and without good charter/magnet options, I just stuck around and found myself getting by fine. There were high points and low points, but on the whole, I think we all remember high school being a pretty lousy time.

When we're 15 or 16 and unhappy with what's going on in school, we're told--indeed, taught--that this is the way things work. We are trained to be satisfied with dissatisfaction, to get used to subpar experiences. When your 7th grade teacher can't pronounce the word "anecdote" or "tortilla," you aren't surprised when you have an open-book spelling test in the same class. This is not a joke, although it is funny. That teacher continued working for years, and I only hope she's since retired. In 9th grade, when my Spanish teacher disappeared for unidentified medical reasons for the second half of the year, we were told by the principal that substitutes were good enough, even if they didn't speak Spanish. This teacher pulled the same move in years prior and has done the same since. Administrators always say there's nothing they can do, this is just the way it is.

So we're taught obedience, sure, but we're also taught that bureaucracy is powerful. The lesson from the stories above is pretty clear, right? Don't rock the boat, this is just "the way it is," and there's nothing you can do about it. These are lessons of disempowerment as much as anything. Public schools don't teach kids to be active, discerning adults, they teach passivity. It should be no surprise that kids misbehave and cause trouble in public schools; they are treated like prisoners to be kept under wraps, and this treatment results in unsurprising behavior. Teachers become even more hesitant to cede control after such pushback. Now there's an entrenching effect and a vicious cycle developing, where teachers and school leaders treat students like robots, kids act like....well, like kids, in response to this treatment, and then teachers get nervous about control and take away any remaining freedoms kids might have. This has been status quo in public schools for decades.

As a result, conversations about school reform and education reform continue to focus on doing the same things over and over again. The call comes for "better" teachers, higher standards, more accountability. The discourse rarely touches on questions of why we do what we do and whether other approaches might work better. God forbid, of course talk never gets to the point of examining values and goals in education.

The way I learn best, and this is thanks to my family and university, but certainly not to my public school education, is through negative experiences and observations. It's this inclination that would make me a lousy investment banker, but I hope makes me a decent social scientist and politics/policy nerd. I see things and my mind first goes to what's wrong, what needs fixing and what we can do about it. So when I'm sitting in my fourth 82-minute class of the day, playing Trivial Pursuit in an Advanced Placement class, I'm not thinking about Coca-Cola ads or Oprah's career trajectory, I'm thinking about what a waste of time my whole day has been. I cant help but reflect on problems, which can lead to bouts with depression but also leads to what lots of smart people call "critical thinking," a key element of the 21st century skills that are being pushed into education in the U.S.

Alfie Kohn says it best:

"I suspect the key is a phenomenon that might be called “negative learning,” in which people regard an unfortunate situation as a chance to figure out what not to do. They sit in awful classrooms and pay careful attention because they know they’re being exposed to an enormously useful anti-model. They say to themselves, 'Here is someone who has a lot to teach me about how not to treat children.'"

From this, we get things like progressive, student-centered education. Well-intentioned, ambitious folks like Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein seem to have forgotten both what it was like to learn and what teaching was like (both Rhee and Klein had brief stints in the classroom, Rhee with Teach for America). No student thinks the cure for his or her shitty high school is more testing and "accountability." The kids in Rhode Island whose entire teaching force was fired largely disagree with that decision, too. When I was in high school, I wasn't thinking about more hours spent in school as a potential solution for my classmates who were dropping out--they were dropping out because they didn't like high school, not because they wanted more of it!

But we keep hearing the same tired suggestions about how to fix struggling schools: longer school days, more testing, analysis of date, accountability and higher expectations. These are all tweaks, when what we really need is a revolution. Incrementalism won't get us there, but put Joel Klein back in a classroom in a poor public school, and I bet he'll remember some of the complaints he surely had when he was younger. If not, maybe somebody else would be better for the extremely important job of fixing New York City's public schools. Conveniently enough for Mayor Bloomberg, I'm available.

Thoughts on Health Care Reform

Below you'll find a reprint of another article I wrote for the Tufts Observer, this time focusing on health care reform, focused on students and the political implications.

My own thoughts on reform are more complicated than might be revealed by the (hopefully impartial) news article. I'm genuinely happy that the bill passed, but it's just grossly inadequate. Doesn't do nearly enough. And I worry especially that this will allow Congress to ignore health care for many years into the future--when in reality, reform is still needed. That being said, enjoy the article.


Healthcare Cram Session: Ensuring You Know the Facts
Will Ehrenfeld

Minnesota Governor and potential 2012 presidential nominee Tim Pawlenty called it an “unprecedented overreach by the federal government.” Georgian Congressman Paul Broun called it “a war of Yankee aggression” (really). But Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma put it in terms everyone can understand: “To our seniors, I have a message for you: you’re going to die sooner.”

What are these Republicans responding to so angrily—and some might say outrageously? The recently passed health care bill, of course. Few pieces of legislation in recent memory have been so divisive, caused such national furor, or fueled so many protests and rallies on both sides of the political spectrum. Likewise, rarely has legislation brought with it such a dramatic change.

For all the discussion and debate regarding the health bill, knowledge of its key provisions is sorely lacking. The news media has focused on sound bites and all the outrageous rhetoric flowing from competing sides of the senate floor. For some, it has be difficult to find out how we may actually be affected by the bill, signed into law by President Obama on March 23.

Senior Andrea Lowe, president of the Tufts Democrats, highlighted the primary effect of the bill on college students nationwide—including, of course, the impact here at Tufts. Until age 26, young adults will be able to remain on their parent’s health insurance, which she said “will have a profound impact on young adults.” Previously, individual states regulated the age of maturity when children were no longer covered by their parents’ policies, generally age 18 or, in some cases, upon the completion of an undergraduate degree. Now, a universal cutoff age for health care coverage under family plans has been set, ensuring care for most undergraduates.

The reform’s impact on college students is enormous. While salvaging draining funds, undergrads will no longer need to worry about establishing an independent insurance plan apart from that of their parents until the ripe age of 26—a time when (hopefully) carefree college kids have transformed into responsible and financially secure adults. With the passing of the health care bill, a heavy burden has certainly been lifted across college campuses nationwide.

Beyond its effects on college students, the healthcare reform will help millions of other Americans. Insurance coverage will be extended to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. The bill also mandates that individuals cannot be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions, a provision that will be put into effect immediately for children and in 2014 for adults.

The response from Tufts’ Right, unsurprisingly, was less positive. “They are just reinforcing the status quo system of heavily regulated, private insurance,” according to senior Xander Zebrose, a member of the Tufts Republicans. The primary effect of the bill, he said, is “just forcing more people into a system that doesn’t work particularly well.”

Like the new ban on restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions, many of the bill’s more audacious reforms will not be implemented until 2014. The individual mandate to enroll in an insurance plan—the lynchpin of Massachusetts’ health regime, which was in large part echoed in the federal program—will also be delayed until 2014, along with the ban on lifetime caps for insurance coverage. These caps, which limit the amount of money a patient can receive regardless of need, often leave families with huge debts after loved ones pass away.

A large point of contention surrounding the bill is how it will affect prices for consumers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan body that reviews legislation for its financial impact, said that by 2016, it expects little if any increase in premiums for those with employer-sponsored plans. While individuals and families enrolled in unsponsored plans may see some rises in cost, according to the CBO, more than half of these people will qualify for federal subsidies—reducing costs by 60% on average.

Generally, these reforms will benefit middle-class families, while upper-class individuals and large corporations are likely to see increased costs and higher taxes in order to cover the cost of the new changes. Yet President Obama has taken pains to highlight the bill’s positive effects on small businesses: “This year, millions of small-business owners will be eligible for tax credits that will help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees,” he remarked in a speech in Iowa a few weeks ago.

Many commentators and pundits argue that the bill’s biggest impact will be seen in November, when mid-term elections roll around. What effect will healthcare reform have on the prospects for both parties in the 2010 elections?

The health reform bill “gives the Democrats a platform to run on,” in the words of sophomore Seth Rau, the Speakers Coordinator for the Tufts Democrats. “Once people start to know that they will be saving [money] from the bill, some more popular support will come about,” he predicts, forecasting that the Democratic Party will retain control of both chambers of Congress.

Xander Zebrose of the Tufts Republicans agreed. “I don’t think the Democrats are going to be any worse off because they passed it,” he said. The reason for this, he explained, is timing. “All the costs are delayed…the real effects will probably be farther down the road, once the bill has a real impact.”

No matter the political ramifications, it is clear that the passage of health care reform marks a dramatic shift in US social policy. It seems almost inevitable that this bill will indeed extend coverage to millions and make health insurance available and affordable to all Americans—a change that is long overdue. And, if anything, this healthcare reform will guarantee us Tufts students at least a couple more years of free insurance, courtesy of mom and dad.

Teach For America not all it's chalked up to be

This piece was originally written for the April 12 issue of the Tufts Observer magazine. It is published below in its unedited format, (edit) and here is the link: http://tuftsobserver.org/2010/04/teach-for-america-not-all-its-chalked-up-to-be/



Nobody wants to see a pop quiz outside of class, but bear with me: what program is more selective than Harvard Law School, more popular than the Peace Corps, and pays better than most entry level positions? The answer is Teach For America, and it’s taking college campuses by storm. TFA is one of the most popular programs for college graduates, particularly at Tufts: 8% of all seniors applied this year.

Teach For America is extremely selective, rejecting over 90% of applicants for the 2009-10 class of corps members, which is what TFA calls their teachers. But twenty or more current Tufts seniors will join over 4000 college graduates from around the country for five weeks of intensive summer training before becoming public school teachers in September. TFA places corps members for two-year terms in some of the roughest, most challenging schools in the country, typically in underserved urban and rural areas.

This year, over 46,000 applications were received for around 4000 positions. The program has grown immensely since its founding in 1990, and it continues to expand: next year, they plan to open sites in Rhode Island, Alabama and San Antonio. And just last year, TFA began working in the Boston region.

Welcome to Boston
Politically, the program’s rapid expansion has become quite contentious. 2009 saw the first group of corps members move into the Greater Boston region, which includes Chelsea, Cambridge, Revere and Boston. This September, 75 more new teachers will arrive in the region, 20 of whom are headed to Boston, which has been the flashpoint of a serious controversy.

Richard Stutman is the president of the Boston Teachers’ Union, and he has publicly lambasted both the district and TFA for adding corps members to Boston’s already swelled ranks of teachers. Indeed, in the fall many current teachers will not be returning to their classrooms, victims of layoffs as a result of budget cuts.
“We’ve had people with three years experience moved aside for Teach For America candidates,” Stutman said. “People from Harvard were moved out of their positions for TFA—why? Committed people with experience are being moved aside for people with no experience.

“Most people I represent feel it’s an insult,” Stutman continued. “I really can’t buy that somehow it’s better to have a 5-week program [than traditional certification]; I don’t even think the superintendent thinks it makes for a better teacher…how could it?”

Josh Biber, Executive Director of TFA in Boston, made a point to rebut Stutman: “our teachers apply for open vacancies and interview just like any other teacher candidate from anywhere else.” Elaborating on the benefit to the city TFA provides, he continued, “At the end of the day, the achievement gap is an enormous problem that unfairly holds too many kids back,” explaining that “our corps members, through their teaching, long-term leadership, and unflagging commitment to kids…can be one important piece of the solution.”

Elton Sykes (’09) began his teaching career in Tulsa, OK last September as a high school English teacher with TFA. Like Biber, he has strong feelings about what Stutman mentions above: “I do not agree with the criticism made by others,” he said, referring to Stutman’s public comments. “I feel like those criticisms are not solving the problem of educational inequality and closing the achievement gap.”

The comments from Biber and Sykes are indicative of a single-mindedness that extends throughout the organization: closing the achievement gap is their only concern. Yet, critics of TFA like Richard Stutman share this goal, as do others who are willing to criticize TFA, like freshman Laurel Starr and senior Adam Weldai.

Starr attended a K-8 school in Minneapolis where she was taught by corps members. “I remember liking these teachers on a personal level. Unfortunately, their classes were often out of control and quite frankly we didn’t learn much…they were a bit too idealistic and lacked the experience and training necessary to conduct a successful classroom.”

Weldai is a member of the Malden School Committee as well as an incoming graduate student in the Tufts M.A.T. program, and he worries about the program’s impact on young teachers and their students. “Quite frankly, you need more than two years to become a good teacher. Sending unprepared teachers into low performing districts is equally as harmful to the teacher as it is to the student, a student who needs a highly trained teacher with an education background to help them thrive.”

Robbie Havdala is a senior who will be joining TFA next year as an elementary school teacher in New York City. Not surprisingly, he disagrees with Weldai’s argument. “In my opinion, there is a certain unrecognized benefit, sometimes, of having fresh, new teachers. It adds creativity, new ideas, makes organizations more forward thinking and challenges the status quo.”

Smart people disagree on how best to train teachers and how to reform education. Yet everyone agrees on the need to address the achievement gap in schools. The question is how.

Is Teach For America Effective?
There are multiple ways to test a program’s effectiveness, but perhaps the best method is the testimony of a student. Laurel Starr spoke of mixed feelings many seem to share. “I definitely sympathize with the goals of TFA and am glad that they are working towards fixing the horrendous achievement gap….However, I feel that this program is a reflection of how public, inner city schools are severely marginalized in our society.

“Why should we give our poorest students the added disadvantage of being forced to accommodate these [inexperienced] teachers? I see it as completely unjust.” Starr’s unease with TFA’s methods extends into the academic community as well, and the organization has often been the subject of research intended to answer some of these questions.

Teach For America has been studied by various researchers, looking at different metrics and finding divergent results. Notably, the Urban Institute found in a 2008 study that “TFA teachers tend to have a positive effect on high school student test scores relative to non-TFA teachers.” On the other hand, another study found that students taught by TFA teachers performed worse on standardized tests than those taught by certified teachers (Berliner and Laczko-Kerr, 2002).

“I deeply believe the [achievement gap] is solvable, but it will take enormous commitment from people in all levels of education and in all sectors of society,” said Biber, TFA’s Boston chief. Through collaboration with other dedicated people, he said, TFA has an important role to play. With a problem as daunting as closing the achievement gap, more ideas and approaches will always be welcome, but it is important to realize that no program currently exists that can singlehandedly solve the problem—lest we forget, a staggering gap continues to exist between the school achievement of black and white and rich and poor students, and TFA is one of many approaches out there.

Influential books game

NYT columnist Ross Douthat outlines this exercise pretty well. I enjoyed writing this but am now tired, so I'll leave you with his explanation:

More than a week ago, Tyler Cowen kicked off an irresistible blogospheric listing exercise: In this case, the theme is “10 books which have influenced your view of the world.” You can find Matthew Yglesias’s list here, Will Wilkinson’s list here, and many more at this link. My own follows below. Note that these are not my 10 favorite books, nor the 10 best books I’ve ever read, but the books that quickly came to mind — I was following Cowen’s “go with your gut” admonition — as having shaped my writing or pushed me in one intellectual direction or another over the years. As an experiment, I’ve also tried listing them in rough chronological order, starting with the books that influenced me as a child and working my way upward (or downward, perhaps) toward adulthood. And like many people, I’ve cheated and gone over 10 — in my case, by doubling up on a few that share an author or a theme.

1. The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein
I recently picked this childhood favorite up again, reading it to a class of first graders at an independent school in Washington, D.C. as part of a job interview. I led a short discussion about the book and its themes after reading it aloud, and that reminded me why I loved the book so much growing up. I was initially drawn to it because my older cousin really liked it, but after reading through it on my own (probably one of the first books I ever read, in fact), I was struck immensely by the simplicity and beauty of the parable and its themes. It's a story of self-sacrifice, altruism, and a powerful relationship that was out of balance; The Giving Tree was my first exposure to these ideas, many of which stuck with me through the years.

2. The Client, by John Grisham
The Grisham series of legal thrillers served as my introduction into "adult" literature. I remember picking this one up during a summer where I was too adult to be content at my grandmother's house, but not yet old enough to stay home alone. I became immersed in Grisham's suspenseful prose, and this book, along with other well-known novels like The Pelican Brief and A Time to Kill, helped enhance my nascent love of reading.

3. The Diary of Anne Frank and Anne Frank: The Biography, by Melissa Muller
I read the biography first, which led me into the diary itself, and the story told pairwise in such a way was immensely powerful. The story is I think universally known, but it was important to me because I picked the biography up just a few years after my father died--I think it was in 7th grade, or not quite 5 years later. Without realizing it, I had been shortchanged of half my identity in a way, cut off from the part of myself that is Jewish by my father's passing. These readings started me on a path of self-discovery which eventually brought me to Israel. Though I'm far from converting formally to Judaism, the Anne Frank story inspired me to learn more and embrace that part of my background, even though it wasn't always easy.

4. Animal Farm and 1984, by George Orwell
This was another book read during a lazy summer at my grandmother's house in Long Island, also suggested by a cousin, if memory serves. After reading through once and missing many of the subtleties (remember, this was many years ago), I started again at the beginning. This time, the metaphors and allegories jumped off the pages, and the seeds of a political malcontent had been planted. When I read 1984 during freshman year, I remember being fascinated by the dystopic view Orwell so vividly outlines. I also caught so many parallels from Animal Farm that my understanding was really improved.

5. Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
This was also read during my 9th grade year, and it was the first great war novel I ever encountered. In addition to opening this genre up to me and training me to hate war from an early age, I learned an early lesson about existentialism and nihilism. Yossarian's prime goal was to "stay alive or die trying," which in a war zone might be a pretty fair life goal. This view emphasized the questionable value of staying alive, a crazy idea which led me to explore ideas like structural violence and warm peace later in life.

6. Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, by (now Senator) Al Franken
When a comedy writer for Saturday Night Live came out with a political book...well, I don't remember why I saw the need to read this, but I'm so glad I did. It actually served as my introduction to blogosphere, netroots politics, because so much of Franken's political writing belongs on a blog, with links and source material. He actually composed a carefully reasoned, well-researched dismissal of Faux News, and his argument helped sway me farther to the left of U.S. politics.

7. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, by Dave Eggers
I don't remember when I first picked this book up, I just remember it as the only book I've ever read 4 times, cover to cover. Changed my life so much.

8. Racism Without Racists, by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
One or two academic books have to appear on this list. This one actually was assigned in probably my least favorite class at Tufts, but it was so educative that I won't hold the class against the book, which I enjoyed even at the time. Bonilla-Silva opened a world of blind, unspoken prejudice to me which I wasn't aware of, and through the course and this text in particular, I learned about structural inequality and the racism (and accompanying privilege) that exists beyond consciousness.

9. Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein
Take one part dystopia in the style of Orwell or Huxley, mix well with social commentary unparalleled in anything I've read, and finish with the style of Douglas Adams and you've got Heinlein in a nutshell. It was the discussion of the human experience that caught my interest, and I took one quote out in particular which I still remember:

"I've found out why people laugh," the Martian immigrant explained. "They laugh because it hurts...because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting." He follows this thread on the next page: "I had thought--I had been told--that a 'funny' thing is a thing of goodness. It isn't. Not ever is it funny to the person it happens to...The goodness is in the laughing. I grok [understand] it as a bravery...and a sharing...against pain and sorrow and defeat."

10. Death at an Early Age and Shame of the Nation, by Jonathan Kozol
This is why I want to work in education. Kozol's dramatic writings, first as a new teacher in Boston Public Schools and later as an experienced critic, opened my eyes beyond the inequality I saw growing up. He convinced me that education reform really is the civil rights struggle of my generation.