Final Report & Recommendations: PK-16 Advisory
Committee on the English Language Arts
Introduction
The PK-16 Advisory Committee on the English Language Arts (ELA) was convened in March
2004 as one of three committees constituted to increase the number of high school graduates in
Rhode Island who enroll in college and are prepared adequately for college-level work in
reading, writing, and mathematics. The Steering Committee charged the Language Arts
Advisory Committee with the following:
•
Identify appropriate entry-level placement test(s) and cut-off scores to determine minimum
college/university-level readiness in math, writing and reading. ( . . . reading levels must be
appropriate for students to succeed in entry-level general education courses that require heavy
reading such as courses in the social sciences.) This work must address the question: At what
level of performance on the 11th grade assessment would higher education accept students as
“college ready in reading, writing and mathematics?
•
Underlying the test(s), identify the skills and concepts to be mastered. (What should students
know and be able to do in order to exit high school or exit a developmental class and be prepared
for minimum college-level readiness in reading, writing and mathematics at CCRI, RIC and URI?)
•
Identify samples of minimally acceptable work at the point of entry into public higher education
(i.e.., writing samples and rubrics that reflect the skills and concepts identified in the previous
bullet).
•
Produce a set of recommendations for systemwide policy related to the general goal of aligning
the standards. (For example, should all RI public school students be given a college placement
test in 11th grade and then certified as college/university ready, i.e., no mathematics, reading or
writing remediation will be needed at CCRU, RIC or URI?)
In Appendices A and B, we have outlined expectations for college-level reading and writing.
Throughout this document, we address what students should know and be able to do to begin
introductory college courses and what Rhode Island educators must do to ensure students’
preparation for college.
Our committee was made up of dedicated language arts teachers from ten school districts in
Rhode Island as well as faculty from CCRI, RIC, and URI and representatives of the RI
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Anne Arvidson
Jackie Bourassa, co-chair
Frank Duffin
Diane Girard
Jim Glickman
Sandy Jean Hicks
Jill Holloway
Elizabeth Hyman, co-chair
Mary Ann Liberati
Patsi Meyer
EWG
RIDE
Feinstein
RIDE
CCRI
URI
Year Up
RIDE
EGHS
Portsmouth
Jeff Miner
CB Peters
Susan Poor
Nedra Reynolds, chair
Marjorie Roemer
Holly Susi
Pat Tarpy
Lillian Turnipseed
Sharon Webster
Warwick
URI
Ponagansett
URI
RIC
CCRI
Davies
Providence
Narragansett
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 2
Hours of time and discussion have gone into this initiative; however, our recommendations
outlined below cannot address or account for all of the factors that determine readiness for
college-level reading and writing. As authors of “Betraying the College Dream” put it,
“Implementing these recommendations will not magically eliminate the dozens of other reasons
why students are not prepared adequately for college” (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio). Systemic
changes in social institutions, local economies, and global technologies mean that our
recommendations can only go so far. Students who have access to reading materials only in
school settings can hardly be expected to become avid readers. Children who spend three or four
hours in front of the television or video games are less likely to engage deeply and meaningfully
with the written word. Students in overcrowded classrooms or in under-funded districts driven
by mandates for testing rather than for learning cannot be expected to achieve as much as those
in well-funded school systems with progressive pedagogies. High school teachers who have 180
students per semester cannot be expected to teach research writing skills or longer essays with
any effectiveness because good writing instruction requires close reading and written responses
to a number of pieces per term. If students won’t read and do very little writing, they will not be
prepared for college level work, and much of college preparation is a result of student behavior
and maturity. Finally, without adequate resources for teachers at all levels, meaningful language
arts instruction cannot happen.
In order to address inequities that are bound to exist, even in an educational system that is fully
aligned from Pre-K through college, students should have access to multiple pathways into
college. There should be a number of opportunities for students to establish their readiness for
college, and new admissions’ standards will need to address these multiple pathways.
Most importantly, these recommendations should be used in concert with other state guidelines,
RIDOE initiatives, and/or the work of Governor Carcieri’s P -16 Council to restructure the high
schools and address inequities in the preparation of high school graduates. We also hope that this
report will be used to discourage tracking while it also encourages new partnerships between
high school teachers and college professors in the state. We would also like to send a message to
students and parents that being admitted to college is not as difficult as graduating from college,
and that academic standards must increase to prepare students for the demands of critical
thinking in the 21st century.
At the same time, we also hope that these recommendations will not be used to march students
through a prescriptive curriculum or through standardized testing. The distinct missions of each
of the three public institutions for higher education in Rhode Island should be maintained even as
articulation improves. CCRI, RIC, and URI need not be all the same in the expectations for
college readiness, but students who complete developmental courses at CCRI or RIC should be
ready for the next course at that institution and should be prepared to transfer as per the Joint
Admissions Agreement. Annual articulation agreements will address any emerging issues.
The cornerstone of determining college readiness in the Language Arts shall be the ProficiencyBased Graduation Requirements (PBGRs) in place in all districts for high school graduates of
2008. Other essential ingredients to our recommendations include the Draft Grade Span
Expectations (GSEs) for Written & Oral Communication for Grades 9-10 and 11-12; the
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 2
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 3
standards of the American Diploma Project; the Reading Next report; and a number of reports
from professional organizations, for example, the Conference on College Composition and
Communication’s Position Statement on Writing Assessment or the International Reading
Association’s Position Statement on Adolescent Literacy.
Our Procedures
The committee met first on March 24, 2004, and then had eleven meetings over twelve months.
Through electronic mail and a discussion listserv, the committee referred to a number of
documents, listed in Appendix C. Most important to our initial work was the collection of a
number of samples of student writing at several grade levels. What follows is a partial list of the
materials on student writing we collected and examined:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Task One for EDC 102, Introduction to American Education, at URI, in which students
were asked to produce a detailed description/interpretation of a community and its
educational system. Students were encouraged to do fieldwork, visit schools, and
conduct interviews to enrich their data, and we reviewed three samples of student writing
for this task;
The end products—editions of the school newspaper—of a Journalism I & II course at
Portsmouth High School taken by juniors and seniors;
Reviews of Peter Pan, performed at Trinity Rep, which grade 9 students attended;
Responses to a prompt about the text House on Mango Street, written by English I
students in grade 9;
Reviews of an I-Max presentation of a science film, written to a specific prompt by grade
9 students in an honors’ class on Earth Science;
Course descriptions, syllabi, and assignments for writing courses at CCRI, RIC, and URI
along with samples of student writing from all three institutions;
A bound booklet put out by Rhode Island College, titled “Tips for Teachers: Information
to Help You Teach in the Writing Program” (2nd ed.), with materials including a mission
statement, sample syllabus, and sample papers, one taken through three successive drafts.
With the context provided by these materials and sample assignments, we began by “finding the
bridge,” the places where expectations are already aligned or where there is wide agreement
about what students should know and be able to do for college-level reading and writing. Using
the Grade Span Expectations (GSEs) for grades 10 and 12, committee members aligned each
GSE with standards or expectations for college-level reading and writing. The committee also
researched assessment initiatives in other states and was particularly interested in the examples
set by Oregon and Kentucky.
We have identified what students are expected to know and be able to do to begin an
introductory college course or general education course at any of the three public institutions for
higher education (see Appendix A on reading and Appendix B on writing). We do not address
what students should know or be able to do at the end of such courses. Those outcomes for
introductory courses are currently being developed at CCRI, RIC, and URI as all programs at
each institution devise student learning outcomes and have assessment procedures in place by
2008.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 3
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 4
Need for Authentic Assessment
One of the biggest threats to the preparation of American secondary students for college
education is “the lack of authentic measures for student assessment regarding college
preparation” (Kirst 3). Logging seat time or counting Carnegie units will no longer serve to
certify students as ready for college. Even a high school diploma cannot certify a student as
college ready unless there is also evidence of students’ actual competencies. The Association of
American Colleges & Universities “believes [the] equation of accountability with testing is
misguided” and that “If we assess student achievement in simplistic and reductionist ways, we
run the danger of subverting the potential power of higher learning. Most of the current
proposals for testing college students in the name of accountability pose this danger” (“Our
Students’ Best Work” 1).
Our recommendations, therefore, begin with the need for authentic assessment of students’
ELA competencies. Our recommendations have been influenced by a number of policy
statements (like that from the AAC&U) as well as statements on assessment from two national
organizations: the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International
Reading Association (IRA), included in Appendix D. These organizations, representing tens of
thousands of language arts teachers, emphasize the need for authentic or performance-based
assessment and have opposed high stakes testing. Authentic assessment, according to one
educator, is “a form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that
demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills” (Mueller). Authentic
assessment provides more direct evidence of meaningful application of knowledge and skills
than do standardized tests.
In Rhode Island, by 2008, students should be able to provide direct evidence of knowledge and
skills and demonstrate their preparedness for college-level work in reading and writing through
the Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements. Also by 2008, it should be possible to
determine a cut score for the SAT writing portion. According to the Director of Admissions at
URI, “the results from the new SAT will be required for all freshmen applicants seeking fall
2006 entry. Students who prefer to submit ACT scores . . . must take the ACT with writing.”
However, he also reports that “Currently, the writing portion of the SAT will not be weighed in
the final decision-making process for the next entering class. For now, we will collect and assess
data and make a collective decision as to how to effectively use this new portion of the SAT for
future entering class assessments” (Lynch). By 2008, when the PBGRs go into effect and after
more data has been collected, a cut-off score for the SAT writing exam should be determined.
However, a single measure does not exist that would address all of the expectations for collegeready readers and writers (see Appendices A and B).
Specific recommendations for Rhode Island’s educators are outlined below. First, we share a
profile of students ready for college in the English Language Arts.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 4
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 5
Profile of College-Ready Readers and Writers
Students are ready for the demands of college reading and writing if they are engaged, interested,
and curious. Students are college-ready when they see learning as an active process and not
something that happens to them. Students who have cultivated habits of mind are ready to
pursue the reading and writing tasks of introductory college courses. They should be able to
accept that they may not understand everything on a first pass, and that they may have to master
certain concepts before being able to move on to other material; they can stay with a subject or
task even when frustrated. Good learning habits, responsible time management, and social and
emotional maturity are as important to college readiness as are skills, but students should also
have the skills they need to pursue the passions they discover through their education.
Preparing such students does not happen through drill and kill exercises but through challenging
and engaging activities that require critical thinking, problem solving, research, and creativity.
As the best ELA teachers know, students need time, ownership and response (Atwell) to do their
best work in reading and writing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Focus on the High Schools
Rhode Island’s New High School Diploma System is an essential element of the reform
movement in Rhode Island. To achieve a standards-based educational system, beginning with
the class of 2008, all RI High School graduates will be expected to demonstrate content
knowledge in the English language arts (among other areas) as well as applied learning skills,
including communication, problem solving, critical thinking, and research. According to the
booklet The Rhode Island High School Diploma System, each district is using two of four
strategies for assessing applied learning: 1) Digital Portfolios; 2) Exhibitions; 3) the Certificate
of Initial Mastery (CIM); or 4) End of Course Assessments. For each of these PBGRs, there
should be a state standard that all districts follow. If one local school district considers a
portfolio passing work, will it get the same rating in other districts? As all districts align their
local curricula with the statewide curriculum, the Grade Span Expectations, and the PBGRs,
more students will graduate from high school and enter college because they have been prepared
through aligned standards.
Teacher Preparation and Professional Development
In the Rhode Island High School Diploma System, students are expected to have content
knowledge in ELA: “knowledge of core concepts, big ideas, and driving questions.” Content
knowledge is far more important to student success in college than are the formulas and
pronouncements that many students hear in secondary ELA classrooms. While new teachers are
well prepared for the teaching of writing, and while the RITER (Rhode Island Teacher Education
Renewal) project will go a long way to creating highly qualified ELA teachers, too many ELA
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 5
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 6
teachers in Rhode Island are enforcing idiosyncratic “rules” about writing that may serve the
purpose of enforcing the teachers’ authority but do not reflect how writers write. First, writing
teachers must stop outlawing “I.” It is simply not true that the first person is inappropriate in all
academic writing. For example, reflective writing is an essential requirement to many first-year
courses (especially writing courses) at all three institutions; it is impossible to write about one’s
own learning without using “I.” For some academic writing, such as lab reports in science
classes, the use of the first person is not appropriate, and students should know the difference or
should feel free to ask instructors. However, for many writing assignments in the humanities and
social sciences, avoiding “I” creates at least awkward prose and at most removes the writer from
all responsibility for the language, which for some classes and in some disciplines is hugely
problematic.
Other “teacher rules”—never end a sentence with a preposition; don't split infinitives; always use
a three-part thesis—clash with the messages that students receive in college writing classes,
where context-dependent rhetorical choices outweigh arbitrary rules for writing. In addition,
students do not need to come to college knowing every element of MLA documentation or the
names of every kind of clause. Dreary repetition of skills-based instruction must be replaced by
a rich variety of reading and writing tasks, including writing from observation or other fieldbased research and not simply writing “about texts.”
In general, the college faculty on the ELA Advisory Committee are concerned that high school
teachers depend too much on their own experiences with college writing and not enough on
current research and best practices. Participation in the National Writing Project is strongly
encouraged, and graduate or undergraduate coursework for highly qualified teachers in ELA
should include courses in teaching reading and teaching writing to supplement coursework in
literature. At the same time, ELA teachers cannot do all of the “literacy” work. All teachers
should be prepared to teach reading in their content areas and to work with ELA teachers on
writing assignments that are meaningful, standards-based, and preferably connected to other
courses students are taking.
Increasing Communication between High Schools and Colleges
Sustained communication between high school and college instructors of general education skill
areas will help high school teachers to prepare their students for college. Data about how
students from Rhode Island high schools fare at CCRI, RIC, or URI should continue to be
generated and made available to the high schools. In addition, we recommend:
1. an annual half-day workshop for college and high school faculties to meet in each content
area and exchange information about expectations and standards. College and high
school faculty alike should be prepared to share syllabi, assignments, rubrics, and student
work. Poster sessions and informal exchanges should take precedence over lectures or
formal presentations.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 6
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 7
2. participation by college faculty in the Peer Review Process for High School graduation
requirements statewide. Simultaneously, high school instructors should be asked to
review the placement exams, rubrics, and requirements for first-year college courses.
3. assessment of graduation portfolios, senior projects, or exhibitions by teams of both high
school and college faculty using scoring criteria that meet the college-level expectations.
4. more resources for high school ELA teachers, including professional development
materials, ample textbooks for all classes, and access to the HELIN database and other
research databases.
Support for Implementation
RIBGHE and RIDE must work to ensure that all statewide initiatives are aligned—and that many
concerns are addressed in a single effort. If educators are pulled in many different directions or
overwhelmed by a barrage of new regulations, this effort will backfire. Initiatives must be
integrated and coordinated. In addition, teachers must be given incentives for professional
development; for example, instructors at all levels need release time in order to develop
performance-based standards, to align their local curricula with standards, to create scoring
guides, and to train colleagues. In addition, the assessment initiative for CCRI, RIC, and URI
must progress simultaneously and consistently. All programs must not only identify learning
outcomes but must also complete the assessment loop. In order to do that, resources must be
provided to address shortcomings or fill gaps.
We hope that the P-16 Council recently formed by Governor Carcieri will address the need for
resources to implement this large-scale reform effort, including the need to communicate with
employers, families, and communities about the need for these changes and the supports in place
for students.
College Admissions
As the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement recommends, all admissions’ decisions
should require a writing sample, and admissions’ policies should explore the use of portfolios
and other authentic assessments (Kirst 10-11). The uses of multiple measures and authentic
assessments to determine placement and admissions will undoubtedly require an examination of
current admissions’ and placement policies and may certainly require new resources. If these
recommendations remain only in classrooms and do not extend to college admissions’ offices,
the work of this articulation committee will have little or no impact.
Recommending that college applicants should be able to provide multiple measures of their
readiness for college-level work does not mean, however, that admissions’ and placement offices
will be flooded with paper documents that a staff member is required to read and evaluate. If
this alignment effort is implemented successfully, applicants will be able to provide a score for
their portfolios or exhibitions. That score—having been aligned to the college-ready
expectations—will mean something.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 7
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 8
The performance-based assessments of the High School Diploma System (and those like them in
other states) should be used first to gauge college readiness. In cases where more information is
needed, timed writing exams or standardized tests may also be considered.
Column A: PBGRs
Digital portfolios
Exhibitions
Certificate of Initial Mastery
End of Course Assessment
Column B: others
SAT or ACT writing score
SAT verbal score
Placement test or writing sample
Students who exceed expectations on two PBGRs are college ready.
Students who meet expectations on two PBGRs should submit one other measure required from
Column B.
Students from other states should submit one performance-based measure and one written exam
or standardized test score.
Conclusion
As is well documented, states prosper from numerous and well educated high school graduates
who can move on to the workplace or higher education without remediation or retraining. An
extensive survey by the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and
Colleges estimates that “remedying deficiencies in writing costs American corporations as much
as $3.1 billion annually” (“Writing”). Successful preparation is not, however, the only question
that deserves more attention. College educators in Rhode Island know that our greatest
challenge is not enrolling students but keeping and graduating them. High school and college
educators share the central task of finding ways to engage students in the pursuit of "big ideas
and driving questions." Increasing motivation and animating an ongoing spirit of inquiry are
keys to students' long term success. As the state of Rhode Island commits itself to standardsbased learning and authentic assessment, we have the opportunity to prepare students who are
more engaged, interested, and curious, students who look forward with excitement to being
active partners in the pursuit of their education.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 8
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 9
Works Cited
Atwell, Nanci. In the Middle: New Understandings about Writing, Reading, and Learning. 2nd
ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1998.
Kirst, Michael W. “Improving and Aligning K-16 Standards, Admissions, and Freshman
Placement Policies.” National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. NCPI Technical
Report Number 2-06. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education. 1998.
Lynch, James. “SAT writing scores.” E-mail Correspondence. 16 September 2005.
Mueller, Jon. “Authentic Assessment Toolbox.” 3 May 2005.
<http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm>.
“Our Students’ Best Work: A Framework for Accountability Worthy of Our Mission.” A
Statement from the Board of Directors, Association of American Colleges &
Universities. Washington, D.C., 2004. 31 May 31, 2005. < http://www.aacuedu.org/About/statements/assessment.cfm>.
Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio. “Betraying the College Dream:
How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student
Aspirations.” Stanford University’s Bridge Project. Final Policy Brief. 28 May 2005.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf>.
“Writing: A Ticket to Work . . . or a Ticket Out: A Survey of Business Leaders.” Report of the
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges.
College Board. September 2004. 31 May 31, 2005.
<http://www.writingcommission.org/>
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 9
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 10
Appendix A.
Expectations for College-Level Reading
During the course of this work, the committee came increasingly to believe that reading, perhaps
more than writing, challenges students and instructors alike. Students raised in the information
age develop electronic literacies that often require skimming rather than critical reading or
reflection. In a screen culture, students are less familiar with print texts than students a
generation ago, and they are more apt to judge a text’s difficulty by its length than by any other
quality. Impatient with long texts, especially those that lack visuals, students often look for and
appreciate bulleted points more than in-depth discussion. Electronic technologies, as every
language arts teacher knows, have introduced a number of issues to the curriculum, for example,
critical evaluation of information (web sites) and the ease with which both intentional and
unintentional plagiarism can occur. Readers in a hurry, non-discriminating readers, and
inexperienced readers are often willing to overlook credibility. Therefore, students must now be
expected to learn how to evaluate sources as well as how to document them. Both sets of skills
depend on the ability to read at a level necessary for college-level work.
The GSEs for Grade 10 establish an excellent set of criteria to determine a student’s ability to
begin introductory college courses that emphasizes reading and writing. In a few cases, the
GSEs for Grade 12 are more appropriate, as we have indicated below.
In particular, the committee wishes to endorse the following GSEs in Reading as indicative of a
student’s readiness for introductory college courses:
R—12—7.2 Using information from the text to answer questions, perform specific
tasks, or solve problems; to state the main/central ideas; to provide supporting
details; to explain visual components supporting the text; or to interpret maps,
charts, timelines, tables, or diagrams.
R—12—8.1
Explaining connections among ideas across multiple texts.
R—10—8.2 Synthesizing and evaluating information within or across text(s) (e.g.,
constructing appropriate titles; or formulating assertions or controlling ideas.
R—10—8.3 Drawing inferences about text, including author’s purpose (e.g., to inform,
explain, entertain, persuade) or message; or explaining how purpose may affect
the interpretation of the text; or using supporting evidence to form or evaluate
opinions/judgments and assertions about central ideas that are relevant.
R—12—8.4 Critiquing author’s use of strategies to achieve intended purpose or
message (e.g., to inform, explain, entertain, persuade).
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 10
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 11
R—10—14.1 Reading with frequency, including in-school, out-of-school, and summer
reading.
R—10—14.2 Reading from a wide range of genres/kinds of text, including primary and
secondary sources, and a variety of authors.
R—10—14.3 Reading multiple texts for depth of understanding an author, a subject, a
theme, or genre.
R—10—15.1 Identifying and evaluating potential sources of information.
R—10—15.2 Evaluating and selecting the information presented, in terms of
completeness, relevance, and validity.
R—10—15.3 Organizing, analyzing, and interpreting the information
R—10—15.4 Drawing conclusions/judgments and supporting them with evidence.
If students can show evidence of achieving these GSEs, they are ready for college-level courses
that emphasize reading or involve considerable reading.
However, in a few areas the GSEs do not indicate readiness for college-level reading. The Grade
10 and Grade 12 GSEs do not list texts that will prepare students adequately for introductory
college courses that require reading and writing. The major difference between reading
successfully in high school courses and reading successfully in college courses is the level of
complexity of the text. Sample texts for high school mentioned in the GSEs include To Kill a
Mockingbird, Into Thin Air, and Newsweek magazine. Students whose experiences with reading
are limited to these types of texts are going to struggle with college-level reading assignments.
For example, at URI, the reformed General Education program defines “reading complex texts”
as texts intended for members of specific academic or intellectual communities (experts,
specialists, and/or the intelligentsia). Complex texts as defined by URI’s General Education
program do not include textbooks (written for students) or mainstream newspapers or magazines.
Therefore, what follows is a sample of what students should expect to have to read, comprehend,
summarize, paraphrase, interpret, and/or analyze in college courses.
Sample Texts Assigned in Introductory College Courses at CCRI and URI:
•
•
•
•
•
W.T. Stace, “Ethical Relativism.” From The Concept of Morals.
Press release on the Gross National Product by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(www.bea.gov)
Napoleon A. Chagnon, The Yanomamo. Wadsworth, 1996.
The Mississippi Black Code of 1865.
Charles Taylor, from The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard U P, 1991.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 11
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
•
•
•
•
•
page 12
Chris Park, “In Other (People’s) Words: Plagiarism by University Students—Literature
and Lessons.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28.5 (Oct. 2003): 471(18 p).
Pico Iyer, from The Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home.
NY: Knopf, 2000.
Articles from The New York Times.
Articles from Scientific American: “The Threat of the Silent Earthquake” (March 2004);
“Mount Etna’s Ferocious Future” (April 2003); and “Meltdown in the North” (October
2003).
Marilyn Stoksad, Art History (Pearson, 2004).
Neither the Grade 10 nor the Grade 12 GSEs put much emphasis on argumentative or persuasive
texts, a mode dominant in academic or disciplinary discourses. Students’ experiences with
informational texts should prepare them to read, understand, and use a variety of texts at
increasing levels of complexity. Students who are ready for college should be able to read
complex texts and as a consequence do the following:
College-Ready Reading Expectations 1
I.
Outcomes that Identify Language Strategies for a Variety of Information, Literary, and
Disciplinary-Specific Texts
•
•
•
II.
Employs word-analysis strategies to unlock meaning of vocabulary: word structure,
base words, common roots, word origin, context cues, dictionaries or electronic
resources, glossaries, thesauruses, and prior knowledge;
Employs a variety of strategies such as phonetic analysis to acquire and enhance
vocabulary; and
Demonstrates a breadth of vocabulary in various content areas
Outcomes that Identify Comprehension of a Variety of Informational, Literary, and
Disciplinary-Specific Texts
•
•
•
Selects and uses reading strategies appropriate to the reading purpose and text
demands (Adjusts reading rate to accommodate the talk and level of comprehension
required, monitors comprehension for different types of text and purpose, transfers
reading skills to various disciplines and content areas, annotates or takes separate
notes when reading, and selects and uses a reading study system to complete
assignments);
Summarizes;
Paraphrases;
1
Note: These college-ready expectations were reviewed by Dr. Peggy Maki, assessment consultant, and by Dr.
Nancy Carriuolo, RIOHE. The expectations were also placed on the RIOHE Web site for comment by the public
and by selected stakeholders (Children’s Crusade, Education Partnership, Governor Carcieri’s office, NEA/RI,
RIDE, RI Federation of Teachers, RI State Council on the Arts, RI Skills Commission, SPATE, Tech Collective and
Volunteers in Public Schools).
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 12
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
page 13
Outlines;
Maps;
Draws Inferences;
Evaluates;
Analyzes, synthesizes, evaluates and presents written information from a variety of
sources;
Distinguishes between the authorial point of view and the views of those used for
comparison, contrast, or argument;
Identifies speaker’s attitude and tone;
Distinguishes between the evidentiary support for the authorial position and examples
used to illustrate or clarify that position;
Recognizes common patterns of organization in paragraphs and essays;
Identifies controlling ideas/themes/stated main idea/ topic/ implied main idea,
supporting details, and transitions;
Identifies argumentation, counter argumentation, and logical fallacies;
Distinguishes between fact and opinion;
Expresses affective responses to a text using one's own experiences;
Makes connections across texts and lived experiences;
Extends substance of a text to conditions, circumstances and situations not
specifically addressed by the author; and
Interprets simple graphs, charts, and maps
Perhaps most important is the expectation that students should be able to apply these skills and
achieve these outcomes as a result of their own reading, i.e., without the assistance of classroom
presentation or instructor-led discussion.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 13
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 14
Appendix B.
Expectations for College-Level Writing
Since the controversy over a 1975 article, “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” writing instruction has
seen fundamental changes. With the influence of the National Writing Project and more
coursework for pre-service English Language Arts teachers in the teaching of writing, the writing
process movement has taken hold in most school districts. Nevertheless, in two recent
documents released by the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools,
and Colleges, business leaders are alarmed by the inability of employees to submit well-written
job applications or to produce clearly written documents in the workplace. The Commission
“estimates that remedying deficiencies in writing costs American corporations as much as $3.1
billion annually,” despite what most educators would agree has been an improvement in writing
instruction in the past two decades (“Writing”). Students ready for college and workplace
writing must be prepared from the earliest grades; without the alignment from PK-16, the
concerns of the National Commission on Writing will remain.
One of the powerful resources within the state is the Rhode Island Writing Project (RIWP). As
an affiliate of the National Writing Project (NWP), the RIWP promotes professional
development for teachers by using a "teachers teaching teachers" model. In a wide variety of
programs (the Summer Invitational Institute, the Literature Institute for Teachers, Planning for
Change, Reading and Writing in the Content Areas, the Mentoring Program for New Teachers,
and others) teachers become part of an ongoing learning community and experience the kind of
education that they would like their students to experience in their own classes. They learn
workshop approaches to the teaching of reading and writing; they learn, from the inside, what it
feels like to participate in truly collaborative learning focused on clear objectives and based on
current research in the English Language Arts. Because the RIWP runs programs that include
teachers K - 16, it is an ideal place for the sharing across levels and institutions that is often so
difficult in large systems.
Teachers who have access to professional development and supportive work environments will
do a better job addressing new challenges in language arts’ teaching. For example, the teaching
of writing has become more complicated with the dominance of electronic technologies for
producing written texts; in particular, cases of both intentional and unintentional plagiarism are
on the rise. However, rather than recommending that high schools spend more time on teaching
research writing skills, our recommendation is that high schools concentrate only on the basic
principles of attribution and of intellectual property, not on the technicalities of documentation.
The GSEs for Grade 10 establish an excellent set of criteria to determine a student’s ability to
begin an introductory college course that emphasizes writing.
In particular, the committee wishes to endorse the following GSEs in Writing as indicative of a
student’s readiness for introductory college courses:
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 14
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 15
W—10—3.3 Using specific details and references to text or relevant citations to support
thesis, conclusions, or interpretations.
W—10—3.4 Organizing ideas, using transition words/phrases and drawing a conclusion
by synthesizing information (e.g., demonstrate a connection to the broader world
of ideas).
W—10—13.3 Selecting and manipulating words, phrases or clauses, for
connotation/shades of meaning and impact.
W—10—14.4 Using a range of elaboration techniques (i.e., questioning, comparing,
connecting, interpreting, analyzing, or describing) to establish a focus.
W—12—6.5 Synthesizing information from multiple sources to draw conclusions
beyond those found in any single source.
W—10—8.4 Addressing readers’ concerns (anticipating and addressing potential
problems, mistakes, or misunderstandings that might arise for the audience).
The GSEs for Writing also address the expectation of “listing and citing sources using standard
format” (W—12—6.5). Proper attribution and documentation of sources can and will be taught
in introductory college courses, but it is most important for high school graduates to understand
the definition of plagiarism, like this one from the Council of Writing Program Administrators:
“In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s
language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its
source. This definition applies to texts published in print or on-line, to manuscripts, and to the
work of other student writers.” Because the colleges will teach the conventions and expectations
of writing in different disciplines, it is most important for high school teachers to teach students
why documentation is necessary and how to make clear to readers where the information came
from. Paraphrasing effectively the ideas of others and recognizing when passages should be
documented is far more important at the high school level than the particulars of documentation
styles. Therefore, students’ grades on research papers should not be determined by the
correctness of the works cited page. Research writing should always be evaluated for students’
ability to synthesize sources, organize evidence, and draw appropriate conclusions.
In particular, students prepared for college writing should be able to develop an academic essay
that is sharply focused, logically organized, and consistently coherent. From high school writing
tasks, students should have command of a variety of sentence and paragraph structures, a
sophisticated vocabulary, and the ability to edit for style, clarity, and correctness.
Before beginning a first-year composition course or any introductory college course that
emphasizes writing, students should be able to
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 15
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 16
Expectations for Beginning College-Level Writers 2
I.
Before beginning a first-year composition course or any introductory college course that
emphasizes writing, students should be able to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
II.
Recognize differences in writing to inform, persuade or narrate;
Identify readers’ needs and write different pieces for different audiences and purposes
and/or in a number of content areas;
Identify the kinds of writing they have practiced and some of their strengths and
weaknesses as writers;
Perform adequately in on-demand writing situations;
Use evidence (from a text or from observation) to prove a point or demonstrate a
pattern;
Draw upon a number of invention or planning strategies;
Use word processing and format texts for academic audiences;
Use a handbook or reference book to locate rules or examples of conventions;
Correct nearly all surface features by the final draft;
Apply rules of standard English usage to correct grammatical errors;
Apply appropriate punctuation to various sentence patterns to enhance meaning; and
Through proper documentation, acknowledge the thoughts, words, or contributions of
external sources.
Students should also have had rich and diverse experiences with language as preparation
for college-level writing. Students should have:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developed a habit of writing that will enable them to tackle any writing task with
some confidence;
Written different pieces for different audiences and purposes and/or in a number of
content areas;
Written at least occasionally on a topic of their own choosing, so that the writing is
personally meaningful;
Used planning, drafting, revising, editing and critiquing to produce final drafts of
written products;
Learned to move from planning to drafting and back again;
Shared drafts with readers and asked specific questions of readers about drafts in
progress; and
Learned about plagiarism and its consequences.
2
Note: These college-ready expectations were reviewed by Dr. Peggy Maki, assessment consultant, and by Dr.
Nancy Carriuolo, RIOHE. The expectations were also placed on the RIOHE Web site for comment by the public
and by selected stakeholders (Children’s Crusade, Education Partnership, Governor Carcieri’s office, NEA/RI,
RIDE, RI Federation of Teachers, RI State Council on the Arts, RI Skills Commission, SPATE, Tech Collective and
Volunteers in Public Schools).
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 16
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 17
Appendix C.
Materials Reviewed by the Committee
Draft Grade Span Expectations (GSEs) for Written & Oral Communication for Grades 9-10 and
11-12
3 assignments
WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition
Syllabi for WRT 104, 105, and 106 at URI
Writing 100 materials at RIC
Reading Next Report on Adolescent Literacy
Samples of student writing from EDC 102 at URI
Tasks for writing in EDC 102 at URI
Sample papers from RIC
Information about URI’s proficiency exam in writing
RIC’s placement exam
RIC’s college writing requirement
CCRI’s placement writing sample
CCRI’s Introductory writing courses
Maryland’s expectations for freshman writing
To Know and Do for 3 assignments
Link to RI high school regulations
URLs on assessment
Materials to Illustrate the Rhode Island Proficiency Based Graduation Requirements
Graduation by Proficiency—ELA
Rhode Island’s Diploma System—An Overview
Others
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 17
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts,
page 18
Appendix D.
Policy Statements and Other Reference Materials
“Our Students’ Best Work: A Framework for Accountability Worthy of Our Mission.” A
Statement from the Board of Directors, Association of American Colleges &
Universities. Washington, D.C., 2004. 31 May 31, 2005. < http://www.aacuedu.org/About/statements/assessment.cfm>.
National Council of Teachers of English. “The Impact of the SAT and ACT Timed Writing
Tests: Report from the NCTE Task Force on SAT and ACT Writing Tests.” 23 May
2005. <http://www.ncte.org/announce/120541.htm>.
Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Writing Assessment: A Position
Statement.” 23 May 23 2005.
<http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/assess/107610.htm>.
“Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches and Subject Matter Teachers.”
International Reading Association. 16 May 2005.
<http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/focus_adolescent_coach.html>.
“Summary of the Striving Readers Initiative.” International Reading Association. 16 May 2005.
<http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/focus_struggling.html>.
“Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the
International Reading Association.” IRA. 16 May 2005.
<http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/positions_adolescent.html>.
PK-16 Advisory Committee on the Language Arts, page 18