Analysis of National and State Standards
English can be a daunting subject due to its extensiveness. Both new and veteran teachers can feel overwhelmed by the range of information that they feel is important for their students to learn each year. To help set guidelines of what is essential across the board, both the nation and the state provide a set of standards for the English Language Arts classroom. While standards can provide a structure for the English teacher to build upon, they also have the power to become prescriptive rules that do not allow for growth. When one examines both the National and the North Carolina State Standards, both of these possibilities emerge. One must look not only at what each set does or does not do, but also at how they can be useful or ineffective in order to be able to make overall conclusions in regards to what each offers or is missing.
Before addressing what the National and State Standards for the English Language Arts classroom provide or lack, one must consider what each set of standards intends to do. The National Standards are flexible, promoting the use of a wide variety of approaches, writing strategies, and texts. These Standards come across as suggestions at how to develop an effective English Language Arts classroom rather than prescriptive commands. Provided in a list form, the standards are clear and concise (NCTE 3). The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association expound on each of the standards in the list, giving examples of how each can be used in the classroom.
Both the list and the application examples emphasize students. The National Standards are undoubtedly student-centered, focusing on what students should gain from the English Language Arts classroom. They do not focus on the specifics of how teachers should provide these skills. Rather than promoting conservative methods, the National Standards do promote trying a variety of strategies. This allows for flexibility beyond the actual texts and writing assignments and into the teachers methods. This flexibility promotes professionalism among teachers as they are encouraged to try new methods, take risks, and expand on their current methods in order to achieve student centered goals. This allows teachers to maintain a sense of control and creativity in their classrooms.
One of the most significant standards is the recommendation that, “Students develop an understanding of and respect for diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles” (NCTE 41). This emphasis on diversity in general along with a specific focus on different forms of language maintains the flexibility of the National Standards. Further, it offers students an opportunity to learn that there is a variety of dialects beyond Standard American English. The NCTE and IRA write that:
Students who explore
linguistic diversity among their peers discover that language use, dialect,
and accent are cues for other kinds of
This exploration emphasizing students’ discovery of their own dialects as well as that of their peers allows for personal reflection and interest in the classroom. Further, this exemplifies how this standard, like the other standards, promotes integrative units.
Personal reflection appears as an element of both the National and State Standards. The NCTE and IRA realistically point out that the goal of personal reflection in the classroom requires “links between in-school and out-of-school experiences” (NCTE 45). The National Standards go on to emphasize the relation of personal reflection in the classroom and producing lifelong learners. This reflects the ultimate goal that the personal reflection within the classroom will motivate students to continue to think about and study literature and their own writing once they leave. The first Competency Goal/Objective within the North Carolina English Language Arts Curriculum for Grades 9-12 asserts that, “Expressive communication involves exploring and sharing personal experiences and insights” (DPI). It is encouraging to see that both the National and State standards emphasize the importance of personal reflection within the study of literature and writing.
Technology, like personal reflection, emerges in both the National and State standards. These standards are put in place with the express concern of ensuring that students come out of today’s classrooms with the skills they need to become competent members of societies. Thus, the National Standards stress that students need to be proficient in using a wide variety of current technologies, “from computers and computer networks to electronic mail, interactive video, and CD-ROMS” (NCTE 39). It is important to remember that these are suggestions, on which teachers can choose to build. The State Standards make the important distinction that, “the focus of technology in the English Language Arts curriculum should be upon learning with technology, rather than learning about technology as a subject area” (DPI). Both the National and State standards encourage the integration of technology with reading, writing, and speaking/listening.
The State Standards assume that learning different approaches to literary criticism is the major role of the English classroom. Unlike the National Standards, they do not emphasize the implementation of a wide range of literature within each year. In fact, the State Standards specify what sort of literature should be taught at each grade level. This rigidity leads to an exclusive quality in the classroom. Teachers can fall into patterns of simply teaching what they have always taught and they can focus on teaching the classics. This takes away from students’ overall experience of literature by preventing them from encountering contemporary literature or self- selected literature. Thus, this aspect of the State Standards does not result in a student-centered approach nor does it highlight flexibility.
One of the most exclusive aspects of the State curriculum lies in the expectation that teachers only include World literature during the tenth grade year. This is extremely limiting. Only allowing students to focus on one category of literature during their tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade years provides an incomplete view of the literature that is available to them. While teachers can incorporate a comparative view within their classrooms such as comparing across subgroups in American literature, the State standards do not explicitly encourage this. As a result of this omission, the State Standards imply that comparing across subgroups or categories of literature is unimportant. Thus, students are not exposed to a comparative view of literature between cultures. Rather, the curriculum expects them to find a complete view of different cultures by merely looking at the literature from that culture without looking at how that culture and its literature differ from American and British literature. This narrow view of literature stressed in each year of the curriculum could result in a distorted and naïve view of literature.
After exploring what each set of standards does or does not do, it is subsequently important to look at how useful or ineffective they may be in the classroom. The National Standards help to develop nationwide expectations for students’ capabilities once they complete the high school curriculum. While the standards do present a set of suggestions for the English Language Arts classroom, they still allow for creativity and flexibility as discussed above. This is useful within the classroom because it allows teachers to constantly adjust and grow as educators. This flexibility also affects the students as the possibility for learning what is necessary for them to become capable citizens can be conveyed in an interesting way.
The National Standards include the expectation that, “Students develop an understanding of and respect for diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles” (NCTE 3). This principle is useful in its articulation of the belief that students today need to have a better understanding of diversity that extends beyond race. Gender is also an important element of diversity that is often neglected in the English Language Arts classroom. This can be seen in the fact that the State Standards fail to include such a broad standard of diversity.
Not all of the students in the English Language Arts classroom learned English as their first language. Unfortunately, this is often an assumption when abstractly discussing the English Language Arts classroom. The National Standards address ESL explaining that, “Students whose first language is not English make use of their first language to develop competency in the English language arts and to develop understanding of content across the curriculum” (NCTE 3). This standard is encouraging to teachers, presenting the idea that they can support their ESL students to use their first language in order to further develop their English skills.
While the National Standards are useful in their flexibility and inclusion of different aspects of diversity, they are not without fault. However, the ineffective quality lies in mere presentation. The standards are presented as a list. If one reads further, the NCTE and IRA provide extensive discussion on each standard. Unfortunately, if one simply reads the list of standards, integration is not emphasized. Each standard appears as a separate expectation regardless of the note at the beginning of the list that these standards “are not distinct and separable; they are, in fact, interrelated and should be considered as a whole” (NCTE 3). By simply listing the standards, one might read each without actually grasping the emphasis on integration that the National Standards represent.
The State Standards, like the National Standards, clearly develop statewide expectations. Further, the State Standards provide a useful structure. This structure allows teachers to have guidance as far as what they should be teaching and when. Unfortunately, this structure can also be a pitfall, allowing teachers to ignore new methods, new literature, and new writing styles. Thus, the structure can be seen as both useful and potentially ineffective.
The limiting nature of the State Standards is definitely an ineffective quality. The prescriptive nature of the standards leads to an unnecessary exclusivity in Language Arts curriculum development. The limitations regarding world literature and gender studies in literature can be seen as an ineffective use of the standards. By tending towards such specific elements, the State Standards become less effective.
Investigating both the National and State Standards allows one to see both the similarities and differences among these two sets of expectations for the English Language Arts classroom. Beyond mere comparison of what the standards do and how they are useful, one begins to be able to make conclusions about what the standards adequately represent and what they lack. The National Standards do provide guidance while still promoting flexibility and creativity. However, it might be advisable to emphasize that each standard is reliant on the others. The State Standards succeed in providing a clear structure for the Language Arts classroom. Unfortunately, the state does not allow for enough flexibility, specifically in text selection. Overall, each set of standards has the capability to be an effective tool for the English teacher. Yet, teachers must view the standards as tools on which to expound, not maximum efforts. If teachers allow the standards to be the ultimate goal, they run the risk of neglecting a true comparative study of literature across categories including nations, gender, race, and class. Further, upon the assumption of the standards as stipulations for success, teachers encounter the possibility of a monotonous teaching style, which is both detrimental to the growth of the teacher, but also to the students.
Works Cited
Department of Public Instruction. North Carolina English
Language Arts Curriculum: Grades 9 - 12.
National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. Standards for the English Language Arts. NCTE &IRA, 1996.
View Reflection on Video-taped Lesson |
