Home » Edspresso (Page 70)

Morning Shots

Contentless Writing (Will Fitzhugh)

Abraham Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg was short. Indeed, the President had spoken and taken his seat before many in that large crowd gathered outdoors even realized that he had spoken. Fortunately, an alert reporter took down his words. Short as the speech was, it began with a date and a fact—the sort of factual content that is being drained away from student writing today.

The very idea of writing without content takes some getting used to. I was taken aback not long ago to read the comments of a young woman who had been asked how she felt about having a computer grade the essays that she wrote on the Graduate Management Admission Test (Mathews, 2004). She replied that she didn’t mind, noting that the test givers were more interested in her “ability to communicate” than in what she actually said.

Although style, fluency, tone, and correct grammar are certainly important in writing, folks like me think that content has value as well. The guidelines for scoring the new writing section on the SAT seem to say otherwise, however. Readers evaluating the essays are told not to take points off for factual mistakes, and they must score the essays “holistically”—at the rate of 30 an hour (Winerip, 2005).

Earlier this year, Linda Shaw of the Seattle Times (2006) reported that the rules for the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) do not allow dictionaries, but “when it comes to the writing section, there’s one rule they can break: They can make things up. Statistics. Experts. Quotes. Whatever helps them make their point.” According to Shaw, the state’s education office announced that “making up facts is acceptable when writing nonfiction, persuasive essays on the WASL.”

Lest you conclude that writing without content, or writing nonfiction with fictional content—think James Frey’s A Million Little

Read More …

Comments(0)

Vouchers vs. Charters (Joanne Jacobs)

This is a response to an article by former Alliance president Clint Bolick. -ed.

I’m not as optimistic about school choice as Clint Bolick. Some hard-fought battles have been won in recent years but there’s still enormous and entrenched opposition, especially to vouchers.  Charters are more accepted. As the successful charter models expand, I think the reputation of charter schools will continue to grow.

The big change, I think, is in the attitudes of parents whose children attend low-performing and dangerous schools.  Detroit is the most dramatic example.  Parents are voting with their feet, leaving district-run schools for charter, private and suburban schools. They know they have choices and they are choosing.

Many teachers also are exploring their options. In New Orleans, teachers are choosing the new charter schools over the non-charters.  Green Dot, which has its an in-house union, has been able to hire experienced teachers from the district.

I’ve been running around giving talks about my book, "Our School: The Inspiring Story of Two Teachers, One Big Idea and the Charter School That Beat the Odds," which is about a high school that prepares left-behind students — most come from Mexican immigrant families — for college.  Parents who come to readings know they have a choice in where to send their kids. Teachers are very interested in reading about a school with a shared sense of mission, genuine collaboration and support for trying things that might not work.

Americans aren’t satisfied with the status quo. They want change. And I think they want choice.

Joanne Jacobs, a former Knight-Ridder syndicated columnist, is now a freelance writer and blogger.   

Comments(1)

Response to Clint Bolick (Andrew Coulson)

This is a response to an article by former Alliance president Clint Bolick. -ed.

You’ve been a persuasive advocate for educational liberty, and we’ll miss your full time focus on that front. It’s great to know, though, that you’ll be defending liberty and the Constitution more broadly by a return to litigation.

One comment in your “closing arguments” caught my attention, and I wanted to respond — your plan to pursue new “voucher remedy lawsuits.”

Last year, we talked about the rationale behind these suits, in which the creation of a voucher program is sought as restitution by plaintiff families in response to a state’s failure to deliver on its constitutional promise to provide an effective public education system.

I suggested that this was legislating from the bench – an improper means of pursuing our common end of universal access to high quality education. As I recall, you countered that it was analogous to the broad restitution routinely provided under a class-action lawsuit against a defective product. It seems to me there are problems with that analogy.

First, isn’t it the case that court-ordered restitution is only granted to people who have been shown to have already suffered as a result of the defective product? Having a court create a school choice program seems to me to go far beyond that kind of remedy, because the program would presumably be accessible to all families whether or not they had been shown to have received an inadequate public education — whether or not they even had children in school at the time of the ruling.

This is not like forcing the producer of a bad batch of aspirin to compensate all those harmed by it, but like forcing that producer to distribute Tylenol to everyone in the whole state, in perpetuity, whether or not

Read More …

Comments(0)

Edspresso Lounge

Edspresso Archive

Education Blogs