Nine year old kids are getting sent home from school with notes saying they are fat, even if they are just one pound over what the BMI charts say they "should" be. Weight is easy to measure and there is obviously an obesity problem, so the natural response is to give kids eating disorders by shaming them over their weight at incredibly young ages.

I have no confidence in our prison-style education system to be able to use this information in a positive way. Common sense flew out the door two decades ago, and it isn't coming back any time soon, and providing "obvious" correlation data like this is just one more tool to use to whip kids with, to ensure they know who the masters are.

It is too easy for teachers, and maybe yourself, to mistake correlation with causation. "a student is struggling because they are not doing nightly reading". There is no other measurement to determine whether the student is unmotivated or uninterested in the subject, or whether their home environment prevents them from reading nightly, or an unlimited number of other factors that could cause a student to struggle in school.

Perhaps if the student is struggling, the teacher could talk to them 1-on-1 to diagnose the problem. This could reveal that they aren't doing nightly readings as well as any other unknown factors at play.

I do support more measurement vs. less in general, but it requires a lot of responsibility to ensure you're being unbiased in choosing what the measurements "mean". In school, I've seen that measurement does not always lead to better policy.

Then the educator should ask.

Is the additional knowledge worth scarifying the trust relationship ?