We Don’t Do It Because It Takes Time

Can Writing Be Assessed?

The New York Times 

The Opinion Pages 
Room for Debate 

March 10, 2014

As Euclid famously said to King Ptolemy I of Egypt, “There is no royal road to geometry, your Majesty.” There is no royal rubric road to the assessment of academic expository writing, K-12, either. We don’t assess student writing well because, in fact, we don’t want to take the trouble. We have long preferred formulaic rubricized writing which, if at all possible, we would rather have “scored” by computer.

The Education Testing Service, which develops and administers the SAT, says it can grade “16,000 essays in 20 seconds.” With that approach, writing assessment will remain a joke, and students’ writing will be the kind of formulaic junk they hate and we deplore. 

The International Baccalaureate assigns 4,000-word extended essays, which are evaluated by external readers. The National Writing Board spends more than two hours on each high school history research paper it evaluates—and sends the authors a four- to five-page report. These are serious writing assessments, but it seems that consultants, pundits, school systems and most teachers don’t allow for that kind of time to read and assess students’ academic writing.

As long as the English department—instead of, say, the history department—controls reading and writing, and as long as the colleges ask for only a 500-word personal “college” essay from applicants, nonfiction academic expository writing will remain probably the most dumbed-down activity in our schools. 

Better assessment of student writing is possible, as the International Baccalaureate and the National Writing Board have demonstrated, but it takes the understanding that a lot more time and effort are required if we want to do it. 

Will Fitzhugh is the founder of The Concord Review, which publishes academic research papers by secondary students.


Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

BREAKTHROUGH

The Washington Post
The Answer Sheet
By Valerie Strauss
25 February 2014

The forgotten factor in student achievement: the student

(The Concord Review—www.tcr.org)

Will Fitzhugh is the founder and editor of The Concord Review, believed to be the world’s only English-language quarterly review for history academic papers by high school students. The Review, founded in Massachusetts in March 1978, comes out four times a year and has  published more than 1,000 history research papers—with an average of 6,000 words, with endnotes and bibliography—from secondary student authors in 46 states and 39 other countries. The latest edition, Winter 2013, includes research papers on Jackie Robinson, the Proclamation of 1763 and the German Navy in World War I.

It should come as no surprise that Fitzhugh has long called for a requirement that no high school student be permitted to graduate without having produced at least one serious research paper in history.  As it is today, most students graduate from high school without having written one in any subject.

Fitzhugh is also a strong advocate for holding students responsible for their own work, noting in an e-mail, correctly, that if teachers are the only “moving part” in the classroom, then “there is no room, literally, for the agency of students.” In the current school reform era in which the focus has been on the effectiveness of teachers and to a lesser extent principals, his message has special resonance. 

Here’s a piece that Fitzhugh wrote on the subject:

BREAKTHROUGH By Will Fitzhugh

It is settled wisdom among Funderpundits and those to whom they give their grants that the most important variable in student academic achievement is teacher quality, but I have regularly pointed out that the most important variable in student academic achievement is student academic work.

Now, however, a small number of other dissenting voices have begun to speak. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, in Academically Adrift have suggested that (p. 131) “Studying is crucial for strong academic performance…” and “Scholarship on teaching and learning has burgeoned over the past several decades and has emphasized the importance of shifting attention from faculty teaching to student learning…”

This may seem unacceptably heterodox to those in government and the private sector who have committed billions of dollars to focusing on the selection, training, supervision, and control of K-12 teachers, while giving no thought to whether K-12 students are actually doing the academic work which they are assigned.

In 2004, Paul A. Zoch, a teacher from Texas, wrote in Doomed to Fail:

“Let there be no doubt about it: the United States looks to its teachers and their efforts, but not to its students and their efforts, for success in education.”

More recently, and less on the fringe of this new concern, Diane Ravitch wrote in Death and Life of the Great American School System:

“One problem with test-based accountability, as currently defined and used, is that it removes all responsibility from students and their families for the students’ academic performance. NCLB neglected to acknowledge that students share in the responsibility for their academic performance and that they are not merely passive recipients of their teachers’ influence.”

There are necessarily problems in turning attention toward the work of students in judging the effectiveness of schools. First, all the present attention is on teachers, and it is not easy to turn that around. Second, teachers are employees and can be fired, while students can not. It could not be comfortable for the Funderpundits and their beneficiaries to realize that they may have been overlooking the most important variable in student academic achievement all this time.

In February, when the Associated Press reported that Natalie Monroe, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania, had called her students, on a blog, “disengaged, lazy whiners,” and “noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS,” the response of the school system was not to look more closely at the academic efforts of the students, but to suspend the teacher. As one of her students explained, “As far as motivated high school students, she’s completely correct. High school kids don’t want to do anything…(but) It’s a teacher’s job…to give students the motivation to learn.” (sic)

It would seem that no matter who points out that “You can lead a student to learning, but you can’t make him drink,” our systems of schools and Funderpundits stick with their wisdom that teachers alone are responsible for student academic achievement.

While that is wrong, it is also stupid. Alfred North Whitehead (or someone else) once wrote:

“For an education, a man’s books and teachers are but a help, the real work is his.”

As in the old story about the drunk searching under the lamppost for his keys, those who control funds for education believe that as long as all their money goes to paying attention to what teachers are doing, who they are, how they are trained, and so on, they can’t see the point of looking in the darkness at those who have the complete and ultimate control over how much academic achievement there will be—namely the students.

Apart from scores on math and reading tests after all, student academic work is ignored by all those interested in paying to change the schools. What students do in literature, Latin, chemistry, math, and Asian history classes is of no interest to them. Liberal education is not only on the back burner for those focused on basic skills and job readiness as they define them, but that burner is also turned off at present.

This situation will persist as long as those funding programs and projects for reform in education pay no attention to the actual academic work of our students. And students, who see little or no pressure to be other than “disengaged lazy whiners” will continue to pay the price for their lack of education, both in college and at work, and we will continue to draw behind in comparison with those countries who realize that student academic achievement has always been, and will always be, mainly dependent on diligent student academic work.