Amanda, Craig, et al,

I have seen unfortunate effects of low expectations in the lives of two good friends, and I have seen extraordinary positive effects of high expectations as a teacher in the Court Reporter program at Temple University in downtown Philadelphia.  I am very much in favor of high expectations.  However, I have also spent many years reading essays written by Pennsylvanian eleventh graders for the annual state assessment.  It is based on that experience that I consider the writing expectations/standards/goals---whatever one wants to call them---of the Common Core Committee unrealistic.   
On the other hand, I was delighted to hear about the success of the America's Choice writing program in elementary schools in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, and perhaps if such early intervention were more universal, eleventh grade writing might improve dramatically. I would like to think so.  Is there any indication, Amanda, that this program has had a positive effect on graduation rates in Pittsburgh, or is it too soon to know that?
(We do know that dropout rates nationally have risen recently, in spite of the hiking of standards in many school districts.  See
Diplomas Count, the June 10 report in Education Week.)
Thomas Newkirk wrote his commentary before the final writing standards were released, and in the final version the high school example that he used seems to have been eliminated; the elementary example is still there, but it has been significantly modified.  Perhaps the standards makers themselves were aware that they had been been pitching too high?

Ed  

 
On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Godley, Amanda Joan wrote:

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]">[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 <http://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/

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