Washington State's Writing GLE's:
Lowering the Bar for Achievement?
Washington State's 2005 Draft GLE's emphasize process and writing activities over the systematic acquisition, extension and refinement of foundational writing skills.
Of the roughly 107 GLE instructional examples listed under the four EALRs for Grades 9/10, fewer than 30 have to do with grammar and composition skills, while 70 or more do not.
Of the 30 that directly (or indirectly) reference grammatical knowledge and sentence construction, an instructional sequence is not suggested. The absence of such a sequence seems to imply that writing skills can be developed arbitrarily or ad hoc..without taking time or space to identify critical performances and skill targets that far too many students have yet to meet as they enter high school.
The remaining 70 odd GLE instructional examples in the draft document have to do with activities that are, from this reviewer's perspective, "post hoc" or "secondary" to the goal of achieving foundational skills upon which competency would be based.
The use of the word "secondary" is relative, for the GLE's do describe the array of skills that an effective writer should ultimately possess.
But in the sense of first things first--as in foundations for houses being laid prior to framing exterior walls--a number of these examples should be put on hold until foundation skills are established. In failing to establish emphases that address the instructional needs of the entry level level students that teachers encounter in their classrooms, the GLE's ignore student deficiencies, and unintentionally encourage an instructional menu (curriculum) that fails to address the feeble literacy skills that teachers must face daily--daily, as they soldier on, pushing curriculum forward and onto students who have limited ability or inclination to benefit from the instruction.
Year after year, students who are underserved by the curriculum must be appeased: either by dumbing down the regular sections into which they are segregated (as opposed to "honors" sections), or by moving them into remedial tracks that warehouse them until graduation.
Examples of "secondary" emphases would include: writing in a variety of genres, analysis of intended audience, varieties of formatting, publishing and peer editing or other collaborative processes.
While these are important at more advanced stages of writing decision making, the problem is that each EALR is silent as to the degree to which it should receive special emphasis in secondary grades--especially for entry level students whose skill sets can be extremely varied and--all too often--inadequately developed.
Instead, each EALR and GLE is set in mute array against its companions in the competition for primacy or for attention.
For teachers wishing to receive guidance from the State regarding the "lost art" of systematic writing instruction, the 2005 draft GLE document misses a major opportunity to be useful.
In failing to establish critical skill development priorities--especially for the students who are improperly promoted to the high school without achieving fundamental proficiencies--this document underserves 9th & 10th grade students who who are in desperate need of instruction.
It also underserves teachers who, glancing over this egalitarian, non-judgmental array of proficiencies, may assume that they are licensed to do one of two dangerous things:
The first error would be to race through all the exampled activities in order to provide the coverage that the State seems to demand.
The second error would be to use personal preference to select which GLE shall receive emphasis within the writing curriculum.
If the English teacher is grammatically under-trained, but over-trained in literature appreciation, journal writing, collaborative processes, peer editing, analyzing audiences, review of rurbrics, and an emphasis on writing in a variety of genres...
Then the choice as to which EALR to emphasize might have more to do with teacher comfort levels and preparation than with an honest assessment of what students need to move beyond adolescent colloquialism.
A review of Washington State's draft GLE's enables us to sort them into categories of importance, ranging from "Primary" to the nearly irrelevant.
"Primary" here means foundational: the skill platform upon which all future writing activities would be based.
"Primary" skills, such as learning to write effective sentences and well organized paragraphs, should receive high priority.
As such, their importance supersedes the need to write in a variety of genres, to analyze audiences, to produce documents used in a career setting, to engage in peer review, to spend hours looking at overheads that list criteria for evaluative rubrics, or to publish in formats that are appropriate for specific audiences.
These latter might be valuable ways to apply and extend the primary skills once they have been acquired; but they are no replacement for that acquisition.
GLE Category 1: Secondary
1.1.1 Prewrites to generate ideas and plan writing
Comment: Pre-writing activities and multiple drafts are important to the writing process. The question is: what newly taught skills will be brought to bear upon this process in order to make it more than a rehearsal of course entry level skills?
1.5.1 Publishes in formats that are appropriate for specific audiences and purposes
Comment:Clearly a secondary concern, compared to the need to be able to craft new varieties of sentences, to construct concise and focused paragraphs, and to deploy parts of speech in creative, intelligent ways. Once student writers have been systematically guided to transcend their entry level skills, we can then devote precious class time to writing for a variety of audiences and purposes.
1.6.2 Uses collaborative skills to adapt the writing process
1.6.3 Uses knowledge of time constraints to adjust the writing process
2.1.1 Applies understanding of multiple and varied audiences to write effectively
2.2.1 Demonstrates understanding of different purposes for writing
2.3.1 Uses a variety of forms/genres
2.4.1 Produces documents used in a career setting
3.2.1 Analyzes audience and purposes and uses appropriate voice
3.2.2 Selects language appropriate for a specific audience and purpose
3.3.8 Applies conventional forms for citations
Ditto the comment above. Classes that emphasize these GLE's over those that help students acquire greater skill in crafting sentences and paragraphs are in danger of missing the mark.
GLE Category 2: Redundant
1.6.1 Applies understanding of the recursive nature of the writing process
GLE Category 3: Too Broadly Described to be Meaningful
3.1.2 Selects effective organizational structures
Comment:Unfocused range of choices.
GLE Category 4: Obvious or Given
3.3.1 Uses legible handwriting
Comment:Too obvious to be stated
4.1.1 Analyzes and evaluates writing using established criteria ("Critiques writing, independently and in groups, according to detailed scoring guide, sometimes developed collaboratively...")
Comment: Almost pointless if the student has not been the recipient of systematic instruction that lifts the student beyond his/her entry level skills.
4.1.2 Analyzes and evaluates own writing using established criteria ("Explains strengths and weaknesses of own writing using criteria e.g. content or performance standards, WASL or 6 trait rubrics)
Comment: Without a new and enhanced repertoire of skills, this activity merely requires one to exercise entry level proficiencies. I hope this is not putting it too harshly: students with limited linguistic capabilities will analyze their work and apply rubrics only to the degree to which their previous experience has equipped them to understand either.
4.2.1 Evaluates and adjusts writing goals using criteria ("Analyzes progress e.g. 'My free verse needs internal rhyme...Adjusts goals e.g. 'I will write a ballad next quarter.'"
Comment: This is appropriate, but it also begs the question as to whether newly learned skills will be brought to bear upon any revision.
1.4.1 Edits for conventions
Comment: This is appropriate, but it also begs the question as to whether newly learned skills will be brought to bear upon any revision.
3.1.1 Selects a manageable topic and elaborates, using specific, relevant details
Comment: Absolutely foundational. How is it that this GLE does not receive special emphasis?
3.2.3 Uses a variety of sentences consistent with audience, purpose, and form
Comment: Will the student use a variety of sentences based upon sound grammatical and syntactical knowledge, or will the student create sentences based upon his/her "ear," which may have more to do with family, culture, adolescence and/or the rigor of his/her previous English teachers?
GLE Category 6: D.O.L. Deliverables:
3.3.2 Spells accurately in final draft
3.3.3 Applies capitalization rules
3.3.4 Applies punctuation rules
3.3.5 Applies usage rules
Comment: 3.3.4's fulfillment presupposes knowledge that needs to be carefully developed and applied in the English classroom laboratory.
3.3.6 Uses complete sentences
Comment: For students who stay within the comfort zone of the skills they brought to class--and for teachers who do not systematically guide them beyond self-imposed cultural and adolescent limitations--this is relatively easily accomplished. The GLE is silent about asking students to write complex, compound and compound/complex sentences that contain appositives, non essential subordinate clauses, non-essential participial phrases, parenthetical expressions, varieties of items in a series and so on.
3.3.7 Applies paragraph conventions
Comment: The principal example cited has to do with indentation.
The reality today is that standard English usage is in decline, and students come to us with increasingly limited language processing skills. The high performance writing curriculum described in this website begins to address these needs.
Perhaps the finished GLE document, due out in January 2006, will provide more guidance for teachers as they address our students' writing needs.
© 1998, 2009
|