Amanda, et. al.

     Amanda, you should be absolutely commended for your influence in
this. I think there is a bit of the committee effect at work, very
sensible goals mixed in with almost contrary positions, but the shift
toward knowledge about language is palpable, very welcome. I look
forward to reading the appendix.
    What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge
change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is
innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the
notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the
realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One
very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to
learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind
of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil
society and complex academic disciplines. Students need to be MENTORED
into that, and we have no chance at all of doing that without
demystifying what is required.
    I do believe that students need to learn to position themselves in
relation to important contentious issues, but I worry very much about
what Tannen calls our "argument culture", which tends to force us to
pick a side instead of exploring possibilities and doesn't encourage
us to admit that we don't really know enough to be certain. I tend to
emphasize the idea of making a contribution to an ongoing
conversation--our disciplines, to the extent that they are functional,
are dialogic, and science in particular asks us to hedge in
appropriate ways. For the most part, though, English classes shift
from essays about literature to rather mechanical research projects.
We should do more reportorial and issue related writing, paying
attention to the ways in which those purposes are realized through
language. I think these standards are at least an attempt to expand
the range of discourse we should attend to in our English classes.

Craig


Craig et al.,
> Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." I
> think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to
> consult on the language-related standards. The language-related standards
> were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, suggesting
> that the only reason to think about language at all would be for editing
> formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I
> responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that presents
> current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that some
> of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed "knowledge
> ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of clauses
> and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were not.
> The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on teaching
> the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad that
> they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of
> knowledge about language.  As far as I know, I am the only person with a
> background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a
> consultant on the project, and that concerns me.
>
> Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of
> second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an unrealistic
> dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools  - an
> urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA
> curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level of
> informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their classmates.
> I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop a
> vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't taught
> until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher and
> university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's Choice
> writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that K-12
> students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks than
> we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies out
> of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use
> America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement on
> 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable
> literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that the
> higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on
> argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice program.
>
> Amanda
>
>
> On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>    They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other hand, I
> think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some
> time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they
> have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in
> many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive
> those schools that  whole schools suffer from low expectations, not
> from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these
> students come to college, but they respond very well to raised
> expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do
> much more.
>     If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I
> wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else)
> for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support
> necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for
> high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing
> with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though,
> is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are
> saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.)
>    It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to
> write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If
> you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already
> have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to
> be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained
> goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows
> what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem to
> be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can
> guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like
> "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an
> opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact that
> many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different
> from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place
> in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world
> or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't
> seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the
> ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the drug
> dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets sick?)
> I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where
> engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking
> about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't
> see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high
> school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they
> don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem articulated
> as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very
> natural developments of the students' own voices and interests
> (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their
> interest to find out and to articulate.)
>     I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times seem
> strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high.
>
> Craig>
>
>
> Craig et al,
>>       Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I.  He
>> gives
>> a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade:
>>       Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce a
>> topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present
>> similar
>> information together using headers to signal groupings when
>> appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or             section.
>>       And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate for
>> college literature classes.  (Once again, I agree.)
>>       I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever taught
>> below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and
>> I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> Ed,
>>>    My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very
>>> much
>>> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of
>>> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the language
>>> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars are
>>> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns
>>> within the genres.
>>>    I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he
>>> think
>>> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be staggering?
>>>
>>> Craig>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Herb.  Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing
>>>> standards?  Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current
>>>> issue of Education Week.  He calls them an instance of "magical
>>>> thinking," and I agree totally.  If they are adopted and enforced,
>>>> the
>>>> dropout rate will be staggering.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have
>>>>> been
>>>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org.
>>>>>   Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that
>>>>> direction,
>>>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language (not
>>>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for
>>>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and
>>>>> clauses
>>>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems
>>>>> to me
>>>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of
>>>>> writing" or through mini-lessons.
>>>>>    Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling
>>>>> for
>>>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface
>>>> at:
>>>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> **********
> Dr. Amanda J. Godley
> Associate Professor
> English Education
> Department of Instruction and Learning
> University of Pittsburgh
> 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall
> 412-648-7313
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/