Learning to Write

In the headline of a recent post for his Class Struggle column, Jay Mathews asks Can computers teach writing?

Of course the answer is no, but then his post wasn’t really about teaching anyway. His theme was using computers to grade student writing, especially that done on standardized tests (one driving force of his philosophy of education reform).

However, the most relevant part of the entire piece is when Mathews relates learning to write back to his own experience.

I didn’t learn to write until I was in college, and only after I joined the ­student newspaper. That extracurricular activity had more than enough veteran student journalists eager to tear my stuff apart and show me how to put it back together. That is different from the typical English class, where a good teacher can impart some wisdom going over a sample essay on the overhead projector but cannot give quality time to every ­student.

He learned to write in a real-life situation where he received lots of feedback and advice from his peers and, by extension, from his readers when the work was published. Not from his teachers, maybe only peripherally from his editor.

Remember that Mathews was learning back in a time when very few people had access to a printing press, the work was distributed on paper, and available to a limited audience.

Most students learning to write today have any number of places on the web to post their work (not just a privileged space on the site of a major newspaper), in a persistent format that is aggregated in search engines, and an international audience.

Shouldn’t we make available to all students the same learning opportunities that assisted Mathews?

Writing in the Real World

In his weekly Washington Pos column (aka a blog entry that actually gets printed in on paper), Jay Mathews begins with a series of definitive statements about writing instruction, never offering even the slightest hint of evidence to back them up.

With a few exceptions, our schools are bad at teaching writing. Students are not asked to do much of it, mostly because reading and correcting their work takes so much time. Instruction methods are often academic and lifeless.

English teachers rarely assign nonfiction reading and are even less apt to require nonfiction writing. Almost no high school students, except those in private or International Baccalaureate schools, are required to do major research papers.

Worthy attempts at reform haven’t gotten far. Writing instruction is killing our children’s natural desire to express themselves. Compare their school assignments to their e-mails, and you will see what I mean.

However, I have to admit that, with the possible exception of the part about teachers rarely assigning nonfiction writing, he’s likely correct.

As with most other instruction in schools these days, students are asked to write in a style that mirrors the requirements of the standardized tests they will take in the spring, short essays, structured in just the right way, intended for a very limited and artificial audience. Even those “major research papers” of which Jay is so fond are a relic of the past, mostly to prepare kids for when they are unfortunate enough to run across college professors who are training their replacements in academia.

Mathews, to his credit, suggests that we loosen things up a little.

I have been influenced by educators who think free-reading is the best homework for elementary school. Why not add free-writing? Stacey [Paula Stacey, whose Education Week article* he quotes in the column] suggested junking “the narrow models, the graphic organizers the formats and the steps” and do something very simple: “Ask students questions, read their answers and ask more questions.”

I would add one other suggestion. Allow students to expand their audience by posting their free-writing online.  It doesn’t have to be a large audience at first, their classmates, maybe a similar group from another school, possibly adults they know. But getting questions and critique from someone other than a teacher wielding a red pen is an eye-opening experience, one that motivates kids to improve their work like nothing else.

Let’s face it, many kids, especially in high school, are already writing in the real world. They’re just not always aware of how to do it in a responsible way. That’s part of what we need to help them learn.


*I’m linking to the article for the sake of completeness. You probably won’t be able to read it since EdWeek has stuck it behind their stupid paywall.

I’m Right… Get Over It

Also in yesterday’s Post, Jay Mathews informed a group of parents here in the overly-large school district that he’s right, they’re wrong, end of story.

They want schools to preserve choices for their kids by maintaining the “the three-track system—basic, honors and AP/IB— in the county’s high schools” while Mathews proclaims “honors courses for all”.

However, as always, he is working from several flawed assumptions.

One is that it is a “well-researched fact that these days every student needs at least a college-prep curriculum” – with his “well-researched” link going to another of his columns about one report from Education Week backing his side of the discussion.

Certainly almost every high school graduate needs some kind of post-K12 education, but for many students there are better options than traditional four-year college program, and they need to understand those alternatives and the best way to prepare for them.

Another of Mathews beliefs is that every student will benefit from simply taking AP (or other college-level courses) in high school.  Never mind how they actually do in the class.  Just disregard whether they have the background, capability, or interest in the subject.

But does the talented writer really need Calculus, when a good understanding of basic mathematical concepts, including statistics, would serve them better? Would some students be better served with practical classes in mechanical engineering, rather than four years of laboratory sciences?

Finally, Mathews continues to assume that the AP program, an inflexible and unrelated set of courses designed to fit the traditional college model, offers the only possible solution to provide students with a good high school education.

And there’s no possibility that he could be wrong.

This Index Just Won’t Die

When the Post company sold Newsweek for a buck last year, I was hoping it was the last we’d see of their annual cover story proclaiming the “best” high schools in the US based, a statistical exercise based on Jay Mathews’ “challenge” index. And that I could drop this as a topic to rant about.

Unfortunately, that was wishful thinking as I found the 2011 edition of this incredibly simplistic and misleading list stuck in the middle of my Sunday paper. For those who don’t get the Post, here’s the web version.

Other than the fact that the Post has rebranded the package since inheriting it from Newsweek, now calling it The High School Challenge, nothing here is new.

As always, the index is based on a simple ratio of the number of AP (and other college-level programs) tests taken to the number of graduating seniors and Mathews’ still believes this is a mechanism to improve high schools, by guilting them into challenging their students (which means pushing more kids into AP classes).

Doesn’t matter if the students are prepared or if such courses are appropriate for their needs. And how they score on the tests certainly doesn’t matter, only that they were taken.

Beyond the shaky conceptual and mathematical foundation for the index, is how the listing is interpreted. Although Mathews’ says he doesn’t intend this to be a measure of school quality, that is exactly how readers interpret it.

The simple numbers will be splashed uncritically across local papers and school web sites, ignoring the many other factors that go into a making a good high school experience.

And, in order to boost their numbers next year, even more schools will narrow the educational options of their students to only those prescribed by the AP people at the College Board.

However, one thing is different this year: Mathews finally has someone in the Post organization who is willing to challenge the validity of his index.

It would just be nice if Strauss’ pushback was given even half the exposure of Mathews’ high profile sloppy love letter to the AP program.

Coming Soon: Super School!

A new charter school is applying to open in DC and Jay Mathews is all excited because it combines two of his favorite education reform concepts: charters and AP.

According to Mathews, the original version of this model in Tucson, Arizona “has become by one measure the sixth most challenging high school in the country”.

What is that “one measure”?

Why it’s Mathews’ own creation, the “challenge” index, by which he compiles an annual list of “best” high schools based solely on a ratio of number of AP tests (and other college-level exams) taken to graduates.”

It’s one reason why he loves the DC area.

This region has the highest concentration of AP and International Baccalaureate courses and tests in the country. Some local schools, like Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville, do almost nothing but AP and IB testing every May.

Can’t imagine a better way for kids to spend one month out of the year than doing “almost nothing” but testing.

Anyway, the point of Mathews’ column, beyond taking yet another opportunity to express his adoration for charter schools and AP tests (a two-fer!), is to speculate on whether a charter high school based on the AP program will succeed in Washington, DC.

I’m pretty sure it will.  In the same way that KIPP and other high profile charter programs have succeeded in the city.

By attracting a relatively small, highly select community of students with very motivated parents and siphoning off money from the public schools, while supplementing those funds with large pots of corporate donations and grants (which in this case they’ll need to pay actual living wages for AP-trained teachers).

It’s how all charters demonstrate that they can do a better job than public schools for the same cost.

Except that most don’t.

For Love of Textbooks

Jay Mathews is waxing nostalgic over textbooks and tries to make the case that, not only are they important to a good education, but that they are making a comeback.

To support the argument, he brings in an expert (meaning someone who wrote a book Mathews has read and agrees with) who says “the educational community was quick to respond to the (legitimate) criticism of textbooks, but quicker still to adopt their horrific replacements: excessive use of lecture, worksheets, movies, poster making, and pointless group work.”

Which, of course, ignores the fact that all of those “replacements” have been staples of most high school classrooms for half a century or more, right along side classic textbooks.

But it gets worse.

Reading experts Timothy Shanahan and Cynthia Shanahan of the Univerity of Illinois at Chicago did a study of textbook use, cited by Schmoker [Mathews' "expert"]. “They discovered that textbook reading, though critical to learning in the content areas, was grossly ignored and that students must be taught how to read textbooks, at increasing levels of sophistication in all content areas and at every grade level.”

This is not as hard as it sounds, Schmoker argues. “There are simple but seldom-clarified ‘moves’ that we must model for students to acquire the essential knowledge in each discipline,” he says. “These moves aren’t complicated. In all content areas, they require teachers to repeatedly teach and model slow, often methodical kinds of reading for their students—the kind that the teachers themselves do when they read such texts.”

I can only imagine how most students would react to that instructional approach, but just reading that statement is putting me to sleep.

What neither Mathews or his expert address in this column is why the textbooks used for most high school classes are so important when the same or similar material is commonly available from other sources, often with many more options for students to actually interact with and use the information.  And without the exorbitant prices.

Certainly students need more experience with reading non-fiction materials, and there may be a place for some textbooks in the K12 education process.

But we need to get passed the assumption, held so dear by Mathews and others, that college must be the one and only goal for every student.

And that slogging through the “dense writings” of booster seat-sized textbooks in any way helps kids learn how to manage and understand non-fiction information in their hyper-connected world.

Repeating History

Jay Mathews offers an extemely weak defense of NCLB and other recent “reform” efforts based on his interpretation of the recent annual report on American education from the Brookings Institution.

This is not exactly good news, but context is important. If we have managed to be the world’s most powerful country, politically, economically and militarily, for the last 47 years despite our less than impressive math and science scores, maybe that flaw is not as important as film documentaries and political party platforms claim. And if, after so many decades of being shown up by much of the rest of the developed world, we are improving, it might be time to be more supportive of what we already doing to fix our schools. [my emphasis, not his]

Crap!

The fact that test scores of American students are “flat to slightly up” on one international test and have “improved” since 1995 on another is hardly validation for converting most schools in this country into test prep academies.

Those small increases in scores on international assessments relative to other countries are more likely due to kids learning to be better test takers over the past fifteen years rather than from a better understanding of math and science.

The bottom line is that the efforts Mathews wants us to support are doing nothing to “fix” schools.

If “the data show that we have been mediocre all along, as far back as 1964″, and we still organize our schools, instructional methods, and curriculum pretty much as we did in 1964 (which we do), maybe it’s finally time to consider changes to the fundamental structure of our education system.