SECOND DRAFT February 16

Report to Dr. Dan Papp, c/o Dorothy Zinsmeister

Meeting Date: January 29, 2004 / Report Submitted: ………

Advisory Committee on English (ACE)

Joyce Jenkins, chair

Thomas Austenfeld, recorder

Contact: tcaustenfeld@ngcsu.edu

The ACE is pleased to be a partner in the dialogue on the proposed Georgia Performance Standards Curriculum. Our committee welcomes the plan's ambitious goals, the high subject-specific expectations, the sequencing of the skills in the respective grades, and the emphasis on reading and writing across the disciplinary spectrum. At the same time, our committee calls attention to the considerable difficulties that students, teachers, and parents will face once the curriculum is adopted. The required changes in pedagogy, availability and delivery of material, student work, and assessment are so fundamental as to amount to a paradigm shift in Georgia's system of public education. In our desire to see the intended changes succeed, we seriously question whether any stakeholder in the school systems is even close to being prepared for the adoption of the new standards. Specifically, since the reading, writing, and interpretive skills envisaged in the curriculum are sequential, we do not believe that a simultaneous adoption of the Language Arts standards in all grades can be performed without seriously compromising the integrity of education. In each Performance Standard, individual tasks should be integrated, not separately taught or assessed: an education must be integral, not like a collection of rebate stamps in a booklet which is turned in once the book is full.

[In this response, similar answers from different subcommittees have been summarized under the most appropriate headings.]

1. Does the curriculum cover all of the knowledge and skills necessary for success in college core curriculum courses in the subject area? Are the necessary content and skills covered in sufficient depth to prepare students for college?

Response:

Yes, but with considerable caveats. The students' skills for creative collaboration and for self-editing and peer-editing, as envisaged, need to be developed.

The plan calls for use of technology that may be too high-order oriented. There should be an early focus on using and mastering word processing for writing, revising, and editing. There is not enough overall emphasis on the potential for creative writing by the students.

The "25 book" mandate is unclear. If students and teachers will now be responsible for the completion of reading 25 books annually (or an equivalent of one million words), where will these extra books come from? Will students be expected to buy them? Will individual school library budgets and facilities be expanded to purchase and make available additional readings materials for students (online, print, and multi-media)? Will school systems have additional funding for the purchase of texts and subscriptions to online and print reading matter.

Furthermore, students in high schools too often read excerpts in anthologies. Our committee would urge the assigning of entire literary works (whether fiction or non-fiction) instead of truncated and often non-contextualized selections. Life-long readers don't read textbooks – they read authentic texts! That habit should be formed early.

There was discussion on what qualifies a book for grade-appropriate level: Do Aristotle's Poetics and Tuesdays with Morrie truly teach the same skills? Will there be a way to account to for more substantive and less substantive readings?

Qualifications: We are concerned that many currently qualified teachers cannot teach this curriculum—through no fault of their own—at the present time. Sustained professional development must precede the introduction of the curriculum.

Accountability: Committee members felt in the current climate and with the current institutional structures, the necessary accountability is impossible. An articulated plan of action for fall-out from the implementation of the new curriculum is needed. Acceptance and support of the curriculum will require a paradigm shift and an across-the-board commitment to the new education “world view” it espouses.

2. / 3. Will the adoption of this curriculum lead to a higher level of college preparation for Georgia high school graduates? Is it consistent with our expectations for entering freshmen?

Response:

Yes, but we cannot conceive of all students, irrespective of abilities, meeting these standards in a "single diploma." The adoption of the curriculum alone will not result in accomplishing its goals. One subcommittee proposed that diplomas might specify proficiency levels that might be similar to British O- and A-levels or German I-IV marks.

Success will depend on a number of factors, among them:

-the political will to fund the curriculum adequately

-the support of informed parents

-the establishment of a reward system for teachers and students who meet the plan's goals

-the expansion of school libraries to provide the 25 books in all disciplines that students must read

-the retraining of counselors or hiring of consultants who can raise students' aspirations to meet the goals.

Considerable funding will be needed to reduce class size, increase teachers’ salaries, and buy books for libraries.

In the absence of such plans, the dropout rate may rise alarmingly, and the enrollment at the state's universities may decrease.

As proposed, the curriculum revision would not work with half-year “block,” used in some high schools.

GED will also require revision to the same level.

A fast-track adoption will not allow for acceptance and support of curriculum by parents and communities, nor will it allow for the revision that will be necessary in college-level teacher preparation and certification programs and curricula. It was recommended that the roll-out and implementation be stretched out over a span of 10-12 years. If it is not introduced in this step-by-step fashion, then what will happen to current 8^th graders matriculating in the new 9^th grade curriculum? There will be an achievement gap that many of those students will not, under any circumstances, be able to bridge with the higher expectations and outcomes in the proposed curriculum revision, leading to a domino effect of being behind or failing to progress to 10^th, 11^th, and 12^th grades. Furthermore, the state's attendance policy will have to be strengthened to ensure the success of the many independent and collaborative projects to be performed by the students.

Given that a notable number of Georgia's current college graduates do not exhibit all the skills described in the proposed curriculum, true mastery of all the skills by future high school graduates would obviate the need for the current core curriculum.

4. Are the content and tasks accurate and relevant? Describe strengths and weaknesses.

Response:

Using the 9^th grade plan as an example of how the content and task are articulated in each of the grade-specific standards, we find that the reading across the curriculum strategy idea has the strongest merit.

We question whether some of the tasks (composing an elegy in the style of Beowulf using alliteration and kennings) are reasonable for a ninth-grader.

Some of the tasks sound like tests (Ninth-grade standard, page 4, "C" for example: close reading of an unfamiliar passage from a novel and interpreting it in writing, 30-45 minutes), while others sound like fun projects. What is the precise status of these tasks?

The tasks are reasonable in their presentation, but we are unable to determine what would constitute the specific level for competence at a given level. How will the teachers be guided to gauge the grade-specific competence?

Many activities are high-level but convey little sense of ground-level skills. Students apparently will be required to learn jargon and terminology. The book lists take a decided “New Criticism” approach and seem to disregard developments in literary studies in the past 40 years. Drama is better studied in performance than in reading. Technical writing can only be taught when

technology is mastered, not in the abstract.

While we applaud the possibilities for creativity and collaboration that teachers will have, we are concerned about the attendant problems of discipline, as well as problems that will arise if teachers are asked to evaluate the new work (especially in large classes) and in multiple large sections.

This curriculum does have immediate consequences for the way the field of Teacher Education defines itself and its tasks. It will have to move away from cognitive theory towards didactics, if departments of teacher education are to prepare future teachers for this curriculum.

Given the curriculum's emphasis on research, revision, and collaboration, there is as yet a notable absence of a discussion of standards of scholarly integrity, the danger of plagiarism, and successful strategies to avoid it. We urge the attention to these standards at all grade levels, as appropriate.

We strongly suggest that the language of the document be rephrased for presentation to legislators, parents, and students. While the professional jargon used is precise and accurate, it is professional jargon nonetheless, and it will prove an obstacle to the successful presentation of the plan to the constituencies.

5. Does the alignment of content and skills within and across grade levels appear to be appropriate?

Response:

§ In the ninth-grade listening and viewing standards, the goal may overshoot the abilities of the age group.

• Under "technology," multimedia presentations may be too much to ask.
• Is "technical writing" overemphasized?
• If expectations are raised too high, students and teachers alike will be frustrated, and no effort will be made to attain the goals.
• Two central questions are not answered clearly throughout:

o What constitutes "meeting a standard" ?

• What underlying criteria qualify a book as level-appropriate? The reading lists, intentionally or not, will become normative and need major editorial attention before they are made public in a permanent document.

Additional Comments on Reading Lists:

Numerous committee members expressed their concern that the reading lists show little evidence of careful reflection or historical or generic continuity. Though they are intended to provide examples only, it is inevitable that the lists will be considered normative. This will result in largely fruitless discussions about grade-level appropriateness as well as canonical inclusions and exclusions.

We propose that the reading lists be issued—if at all—with a stronger caveat about their provisional nature. The English committee welcomes the proposition that students read widely and copiously but urges that the DOE develop sound standards for grade-appropriateness as well as evaluation and classification of alternative texts by teachers. The DOE also should point the way towards establishing the financial and logistical efforts necessary to make these books accessible to students.

There are some clerical errors on the current reading lists.

British Literature list:

-The Turn of the Screw is by Henry James, not William James.

World Literature document:

page 2: terza rima, not tersa rima

World Literature list:

-In the Time of the Butterflies (not a time)

-Lysistrata (not Lysistrada)

-The Iliad (not Illiad)

American Literature document:

page 5: Section E, iii.: the poet's life and times and the effect (not affect) of these factors…..

American Literature list:

-Trifles (not Triffles) by Susan Glaspell

-A Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is by Annie Dillard, not by Joan Didion

-Accept no Substitutes (not Substitiutes)

-The American Reader: Words that Moved a Nation (not words the moved)

Inclusion of more Georgia authors, including contemporary ones, would excite students and entice them into reading.  Suggestions include Judith Ortiz Cofer, Janisse Ray, Amy Blackmarr, and Philip Lee Williams.

Throughout the document, there is an inconsistency in the use of the third person singular –s. Check all verbs.