Kelly Lynn Mulvey
July 5, 2002
As I begin this analysis of the National and North Carolina State Standards for English Language Arts, I wonder about the precise meaning of the word “standards.” Before I can authentically tackle this project, I think I have to work through this term. It is not immediately clear to me how the NCTE or the North Carolina Public Schools define this term, nor is it clear to me how these standards will or should play out in a classroom. I don’t think the standards are to be seen as absolute mandates, but from the introductions to each set, it does appear that they are stronger than suggestions or guidelines. It seems then, that these standards are written with the intent that teachers will follow them, even if they are not coerced into following them: I approach this document, then, with an understanding of these standards as powerful expectations.
Though I am confident in my opinions, my understanding of these Standards and my imaginings of how they will play out in a classroom are largely hypothetical. I have not yet taught and I do not have access to a large group of teachers of English to probe. But, as someone who has been an active participant in education throughout my life, I do feel qualified to review these standards. At the same time, I know that my opinion will change as I encounter these standards in the classroom and as I learn more about teaching English Language Arts. This analysis, then, represents me taking a stab at clarity: I am using this exercise as a chance to explore these Standards and become familiar with the places I feel comfortable already and the places about which I am less certain.
After reading through the National Standards, I immediately picked up the NC State Standards. Doing this caused me to see how very different these documents are, and to get an idea of why this might be. The National Standards are a set of 12 broad guidelines, meant, it seems, to help guide states into creating their own State Standards as much or more so than they are meant to guide individual teachers. The NCTE includes the primary components of reading and writing and urges teachers towards a variety of forms of texts, approaches to writing and types of analysis. The North Carolina State Standards were notably different in a few ways: they provided more specific goals, delineated what material students at different grades levels should learn, fleshed out the different purposes for reading and writing and when these purposes should be approached and provided more guidance on what strategies teachers should employ. These differences are not unexpected: the National and State Standards are different types of documents. At the same time, these differences are significant. Therefore, I will address the National Standards first, and then review the State Standards, thus keeping a clear line between my thoughts about these two documents.
The National Standards are quite strong in that they provide a significant amount of room for teacher choice, which seems to me as important as student choice. Teachers will be stronger, more confident and more passionate about materials they have helped to choose. This also allows teachers to include a greater proportion of texts that are relevant to their students’ lives, while, at the same time, encouraging teachers to rely upon a wide range of texts. The National Standards provide a lot of freedom in this way, but I can imagine this freedom leading to inconsistency in the materials and types of lessons students encounter. The Standards repeat the phrase “a wide range of x” referring to texts, literature from varied genres and times, and strategies used for interpretation and writing. Though the NCTE does delve into what they mean by this phrase, they do not offer any concrete suggestions for teachers. Perhaps in order to help teachers who are unfamiliar with the wealth of materials available, the NCTE should consider including an appendix with either suggestions on where to get more specific information, or actual lists of different texts, literatures and types of strategies.
Additionally, though the Standards take a strong progressive stance on the diversity of texts and the reasons and purposes for reading, I still find myself questioning a few details. First, the Standards encourage student choice and reading for pleasure, but do not guide teachers through some of the ways that they can provide students with opportunities for choice and pleasure reading. With so many teachers feeling pressured to meet testing requirements for their classes, I worry that such a vague reference will slip by teachers and result in classrooms where choice and pleasure reading are not incorporated.
The Standards stress in numerous places the need for acceptance of many forms of diversity, which is an essential component of making students of all backgrounds feel welcome in the classroom and for preparing students to be aware and educated citizens in our multicultural world. Specifically, the National Standards urge teachers to instill, through reading, writing and the study of language, an appreciation of a variety of backgrounds. Additionally, they acknowledge the legitimacy of a variety of language patterns and while encouraging teachers to train students to be strong users of formal standard English, also include room for educating students about the importance of culturally significant forms of language. Making room in the Standards for diversity is really exciting: I was happily surprised to see this inclusion given so much space (and thus legitimacy).
But, though they account for diversity in “gender, age, social class, religion and ethnicity” NCTE has noticeably left out sexual diversity. In high school classrooms in particular, including sexual diversity seems essential. By neglecting to mention sexuality, the Standards have provided encouragement to celebrate diversity, but then limited the kaleidoscope of diversities for teachers to consider. Though this particular limit to the term diversity stood out to me, I wonder if there are other places in which the Standards miss a type of diversity.
Finally, by placing a strong focus on technology, the National Standards work to prepare students for the many ways in which they will encounter technology throughout their lives. I am particularly glad to see this focus on technology in light of research on multiple intelligences. For the student who struggles with traditional reading and writing tasks, access to the many different forms of technology (from computers to video and audio material) may provide alternative ways to succeed in the study of English Language Arts.
Thus, in incorporating and encouraging technology, diversity, and a wide range of materials and purposes, the National Standards do seem to provide a useful set of expectations for teachers of English Language Arts. I do certainly find them flawed, but largely, NCTE created, in these Standards, something quite revolutionary: by encouraging schools from Alaska to Florida to all expect these same progressive, though still loose, criteria to apply to courses in English Language Arts, they have unified the face of public education and created a common language and way of thinking about the teaching of reading, writing, language and grammar.
The North Carolina State Standards are altogether different. They set clear and specific expectations for each year of school and provide delineated instructions regarding these expectations. This is a definite strength of the Standards, most of the time. It assures that across North Carolina, English Language Arts classrooms will accomplish the same goals and provides teachers who are uncertain about which material to cover a framework to follow.
Even before the State Standards address guidelines for each year, they offer a clear overview of what all English Language Arts classes should include. Though this is in general a strong list, including everything from the importance of student choice to the benefits of integrating the study of English with other subject areas, it seems to place too much emphasis on human ability for language and specifically the “beauty and legacy of the English language” (emphasis added, English Language Arts Curriculum Philosophy). Though I do believe that human language is absolutely essential to the field of English Language Arts, I wonder why the authors of this philosophy choose to make the following statement: “Use of oral and written language sets human beings apart from other forms of life.” First, this statement is definitely scientifically contestable, but beyond that, why is it a necessary part of the philosophy? I find similar fault with the overt focus on the English language, above other languages, as the language of literature studied. World literature is an essential portion of the High School curriculum and valuing literature written originally in languages other than English is as important (to me at least) as focusing on those texts written in first in English.
The State Standards move forward to address the common goals for 6-12 grade, which sound very similar to the National Standards. I am glad to see a focus on personal experience from the start, as finding a personal connection often aids students in really beginning to appreciate literature and texts. Additionally, these goals include examining “the foundations and use of argument.” As I believe that one of my tasks as an English teacher is to help my students to become better thinkers and analyzers of not just literature but all of life, I really value this inclusion.
After reading the curricula for English I-IV, I feel that they are incredibly clear and have well defined expectations, but I am frustrated with the structure of the four years. My primary concern is with the yearly focuses: it seems limiting to set aside one year for general literature, one for world, one for American and one for British. First, for a student from an non-English speaking background, the focus on English language literature may seem offensive, exclusive or limited. Beyond that though, delineating these categories so strongly really limits what exposure students will have to each of these categories. There are many examples of world literature that an English II student would not have the ability to read, yet this seems to be the last class in which they will have the chance to experience World Lit. By the time students are Seniors, much of the great British literature will be too simplistic for them (some of Shakespeare and Dickens’ best work is probably the right level for a Sophomore or Junior, but not for a Senior).
I would suggest that a better structure would be for each year to study some British, some American and some World literature, grouped by themes such as Imaginings of the Good Life, Society and the Individual, or Growth and Development. Perhaps each year could include multiple themes, some mandated and some chosen by the students or the students and the teacher. This structure would allow students to read the best literature no matter where it was written. It would also create a stronger sense of connection between the books and allow for deeper inquiry into themes across books.
As established, though, the curricula do not only cover literature from areas of the world; rather, they include literature, composition, discussion and grammar. The English One curriculum seems particularly strong in encouraging freshman to begin to evaluate their world: it asks them to narrate personal experiences, which involves self-evaluation, to begin researching questions, which involves evaluating different topics and materials available about those topics, and to develop and support opinions, which is outright evaluation of the world. This seems to be a great place to start. Within this structure, students learn to begin thinking about themselves, and their world, get a chance to test out their writing skills both in creative and argumentative writing and begin their journey into the world of literary analysis. I really agree with both this initial structure of inquiry and the strong focus on learning to write well that backs it up.
I also feel that the English II curriculum is generally strong: it asks students to begin to appreciate diversity and to think about similarities and differences among cultures. In this way, this curriculum prepares students to reflect on almost any text in a strong manner. I particularly like that this curriculum has room for non-literary texts: I think examining some literary theory and cultural studies theory will broaden students ability for analysis and provide them with the necessary skills for argumentation. I do wonder why the only creative writing thus far addressed (in English I and II) surrounds re-telling personal stories (narratives in English I and experiences in English II). I can imagine that even students who enjoy creative writing might feel oppressed by these limited opportunities for creative expression. Additionally, though the State Standards stressed technology from the beginning, I have not seen any evidence of the curricula encouraging the use of technology or the valuing of other media forms (such as videos) as texts. In order to truly incorporate technology, I believe technology should be an explicit part of each curriculum as a possible resource for research as well as a source of many texts.
The English III curriculum begins to work with technology more thoroughly. It specifically includes a competency goal surrounding media, which should help students to feel comfortable with using some forms of technology. Additionally, English III begins to push students to think about literary movements and thematic connections: thinking through these things should help students to form meaningful links from text to text in new ways. I am especially hopeful that this inclusion will deepen students’ analysis skills.
Finally, English III allows for discussion about the different forms of English and the places where both nonstandard and standard English should be used. As many students will rely upon and know nonstandard forms of English, I think this is an essential component of a High School curriculum, but, as with many of the things I like about the English III curriculum, I wonder why this was not stressed throughout the four years. A student who is asked to learn conventional grammar in English I and II, but does not make the important connection that standard English and nonstandard English are both valuable in different situations, could feel either unwillingness to learn standard English or that his or her way of speaking is being rejected or assaulted. The English III curriculum, then, does include a number of important components, but I do wish that they were spread across all four years instead of focused in one.
Finally, the English IV curriculum seems to expand its horizons, reaching out into the world beyond literary texts in innovative ways. In particular, I like that it encourages students to “enter issues of public concern as an advocate.” This will allow students to take the skills they have learned about analysis and argument and apply it to real life in meaningful ways. Though this seems like a strong aspect of the English IV curriculum, the rest of the curriculum seems a little more vague than the other three years. Though I do not have any specific criticism of it, I would like to see a little more guidance as to what, for example the State intends by “analyze and critique texts from various perspectives and approaches.” Teachers who are not aware of multiple ways of analyzing texts or who do not have a lot of experience with complex forms of argumentation may struggle with interpreting this particular curriculum.
I do not want my criticism of each set of standards to pull away from my larger opinion though. I find the State Standards incredibly strong and am quite happy with them in general. I really appreciate that North Carolina did clarify and focus their expectations and I like the way most aspects of the curriculum pan out. Both the State and National Standards have different functions, and different strengths. As guiding materials, I think they do an excellent job, and they actually exceeded my expectations for them by leaps and bounds. I did find places where I disagreed with the structure or the order of each Standard, but these are also expectations that can be met easily and that should help a teacher to prepare his or her students more than adequately.