INSIDE NCLB and the English Language Arts Akrowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Language/About...We close this issue with two arti-cles from teacher educators, ... oughly woven into

October 2007 1

National Council of Teachers of English1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096

Conference on English Leadership

I N T H I S I S S U E..........................................................

Leadershipfor Excellence

NCLB and the English Language ArtsLisa Scherff and Susan L. Groenke, editors

INSIDE

Vol. 30, No. 2 • October 2007 • Editors: Susan L. Groenke and Lisa Scherff

As we write this editorial, thou-sands of language arts, read-ing, and other literacy-related

teachers are preparing for another school year—a year with the potential to bring positive changes to K–12 edu-cation and their own classrooms. Yet, it seems that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) continues to negatively affect K–16 literacy. Results (as of July 29) from NCTE’s latest online survey regarding NCLB reform indicate that 64% of respondents said the law needed to be “substantially reformed” and another 31% felt “it should not be reauthorized at all.” In terms of NCLB’s success in promoting greater equity and higher levels of student learning, 17% said it was “moderately successful,” 30% said it was “moder-ately unsuccessful,” and 52% said it was “very unsuccessful.”

Our being named the new editors of English Leadership Quarterly came on the heels of NCTE’s recommend-ed changes to the law. We knew right away that our fi rst call for man-uscripts would relate to NCLB and its reauthorization in the hope that we would gather perspectives from a range of stakeholders—from those who teach under the law to those who prepare teachers for teaching under NCLB. The fi ve articles that follow showcase a range of voices, experi-ences, and strategies for working with and confronting NCLB, beginning

with classroom teachers’ perspectives and moving to how English educa-tors approach and dissect the law. We begin with Peg Graham, James Marshall, Chandra Power, and Patti McWhorter’s, “The Way We Teach Now: Teachers of English in the New World of High-Stakes Assessment.” They share how English teachers in Georgia are responding to state-mandated standards and their ac-companying high-stakes assessments. Following that is an article by Mary O’Shea, a teacher and doctoral stu-dent from California, who—prompted by her own interest in high-stakes standardized tests—interviewed teachers concerning their views of NCLB and their knowledge of the high-stakes tests they administer. Victoria Whitfi eld’s “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad NCLB?” is one fi rst-year English teacher’s attempt to stand up to the law. Seeing many around her succumb to teaching to the test, Vic-toria is resolute in not letting NCLB control her curriculum.

We close this issue with two arti-cles from teacher educators, Kenneth Lindblom and Carolyn Piazza, who approach the NCLB topic differently. In “Treating State Standardized Writing Tests as Authentic Writing Assignments,” Lindblom argues that rather than feeling defeated and con-trolled by writing assessments, teach-ers can make state standardized test

writing more authentic in their class-rooms. He provides ideas for treating test writing as real writing. Piazza’s “If You Think Language Is Neutral, Think Again!” recounts a classroom activity where language arts methods students used critical discourse analy-sis tools to do an oppositional reading to a NCLB article.

It is important to participate in these dynamic conversations and to support the people who further them through professional organizations like CEL. Which reminds us . . . don’t forget to cast your vote (p. 17) for CEL’s new Members-at-Large! ●

The Way We Teach Now: 2Teachers of English in the New World of High-Stakes Assessment by Peg Graham, James Marshall, and Chandra Power with Patti McWhorter

Taking the Pulse of Three 5California High School Teachers: How Does the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Affect Them? by Mary O’Shea

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad NCLB? 9 by Victoria Whitfi eld

Treating State Standardized 10Writing Tests as Authentic Writing Assignments by Kenneth Lindblom

Call for Manuscripts 11

If You Think Language Is Neutral, 12 Think Again! by Carolyn L. Piazza

2007 CEL Election Slate 16

October07_ELQ.indd 1October07_ELQ.indd 1 9/11/2007 3:25:50 PM9/11/2007 3:25:50 PM

kaustin

Text Box

Copyright © 2007 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

........................................................................E N G L I S H L E A D E R S H I P Q U A R T E R L Y

2

Annual membership in NCTE is $40 for individuals, and a subscription to English Leadership Quarterly is $18 (member ship is a prerequisite for individual sub scriptions). Institutions may subscribe for $36. Add $5 per year for Canadian and all other inter-national postage. Single copy: $10 (member price, $6). Remittances should be made pay-able to NCTE by check, money order, bank draft in United States currency, or credit card (call NCTE toll-free at 877-369-6283).

Communications regarding orders, sub scriptions, single copies, and change of address should be addressed to English Leadership Quarterly, NCTE, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096. Communications regarding permission to reprint should be addressed to Permissions, NCTE, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to English Leadership Quarterly, NCTE, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096.

NCTE’s website: www.ncte.orgEditors: Susan L. Groenke and Lisa

Scherff. Editorial Assistant: Elizabeth Rowland. NCTE Editing and Production: Carol E. Schanche. Designer: Pat Mayer.

Copyright © 2007 by the National Coun-cil of Teachers of English. Printed in the U.S.A.

The Conference on English Leadership (CEL) of the National Council of Teachers of English is an organization dedicated to bringing together English language arts leaders to further their continuing efforts to study and improve the teaching of Eng-lish language arts. The CEL reaches out to department chairs, teachers, specialists, supervisors, coordinators, and others who are responsible for shaping effective Eng-lish instruction. The CEL strives to respond to the needs and interests germane to effec-tive English instruction from kindergarten through college, within the local school, the central administration, the state, or the national level.

It is the policy of NCTE in its journals and other publications to provide a forum for the open discussion of ideas concerning the content and the teaching of English and the language arts. Publicity accorded to any particular point of view does not imply endorsement by the Executive Committee, the Board of Directors, or the membership at large, except in announce ments of policy where such endorsement is clearly speci-fi ed.

English Leadership Quarterly (ISSN 0738-1409) is published quarterly in Au-gust, October, February, and April for the Conference on English Leadership by the National Council of Teachers of English.

Standards and high-stakes assessments are now so thor-oughly woven into public and

professional discussions of education that it has become a wistfully nostal-gic practice for veteran teachers to recall what schools were like before them. Since the appearance of A Na-tion at Risk (National Commission of Excellence in Education,1983), grade-level, subject-specifi c standards have been developed in almost every state (Stotsky, 2005), and since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), students’ competence on those standards has been mea-sured by an increasingly wide array of high-stakes tests. The speed with which state-mandated testing has overtaken schools has left little time for carefully designed research into

The Way We Teach Now: Teachers of English in the New World of High-Stakes AssessmentPeg Graham and James Marshall, University of Georgia; Chandra Power, Clarke County (Georgia) Schools, with Patti McWhorter

its effects on students and teachers (although Nichols and Berliner, 2007, document the corrosive infl uence tests have on school curricula and on the assessment of learning more gener-ally).

In this article, we share some fi ndings from a study of how English teachers are responding to state-mandated standards and their ac-companying high-stakes assessments. Though these standards and assess-ments are meant to have a deep, structural effect on both school poli-cies and classroom life, we currently lack empirical studies that show how the mandates are shaping teachers’ conceptions of their working lives and their professional practice. The research we share builds on a tradi-tion that examines teachers’ sense of

professional identity, agency, author-ity, and responsibility (cf. Waller, 1932; Lortie, 1975; Jackson, 1986; Huberman, 1993; Hargreaves, 2003). We ask: How do state testing man-dates affect teachers’ understanding of their work and careers? How do they affect teachers’ classroom prac-tice? To address these questions, we interviewed 12 English teachers cur-rently teaching in our home state of Georgia; six were highly experienced (15+ years of teaching) and six were less experienced (4 years of teaching or less). Through our interviews, we found that while many of the teachers either felt they didn’t understand the standards or resented standardized testing altogether, they were moti-vated to learn the standards because they didn’t want their students to fail. Ultimately, we found even the most accomplished veterans consider aban-doning good teaching—inquiry and the “teachable moments” that moti-vate student learning—to concentrate on teaching to a test.

Standardized Testing (and Frustration) in GeorgiaIn Georgia, students must take and pass fi ve graduation tests to receive a diploma—one assesses writing, the others test the four main content areas. Two⎯math and English⎯are Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators. In addition, students must also take End of Course Tests (ECOTs) in eight core classes; these count for 15% of students’ fi nal aver-age in the courses that have state-mandated tests.

The teachers we interviewed shared their frustration with stan-dardized testing and its effects on their teaching practices and the cur-riculum. In particular, teachers were frustrated with the secrecy surround-ing the tests, differences between


October 2007 3

frustrated the teachers we inter-viewed because they believe such test formats encourage testing of discrete information rather than understand-ing and performance.

Feeling Inadequate Another frustration the teachers expressed was feeling inadequate in meeting competing demands placed upon them in this era of increased accountability. The consequences teachers face when their schools do not make AYP seem dire: school restructuring, personnel changes, lack of job security. All of the teachers we interviewed felt inadequate. And some of them were just plain mad about abandoning what they know are good teaching practices in order to concentrate on test-taking skills and rote memorization. Said one 20-year teaching veteran:

If you take a look at the demograph-ics of my school, we’re never going to make AYP. And you can either stay up at night and worry about it, or you can say fuck it. Let’s go back to teaching the way we know how to. Let’s go back to having really meaningful classes. I mean you can restructure my school, but I’m telling you—nobody else wants to teach my kids. They don’t want to eat dinner with them, let alone teach them.

Recurring Themes Seen through One Teacher’s Refl ections: Chandra’s VoiceLast school year, 2006, our school failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB man-dates. We failed to make AYP in the area of English for our economically disadvantaged students. When we

their defi nitions and expectations of assessment as compared to the state’s, and the feelings of inadequacy they experienced due to the pressures involved with “teaching to a test.”

Secrecy Surrounding the TestsTeachers are not supposed to read, re-view, or discuss the tests in any way prior to administering them. In fact, they are required to sign a pledge to that effect, and most consider it a test of their integrity not to read it. Yet, their accountability to their students and their profession is tied to stu-dent performance, resulting in real frustration among the teachers we interviewed. How were they to help their students do well if the process was cloaked in secrecy? One teacher explained:

I’m not supposed to look at the test at all. I’m not supposed to discuss the tests during or after or discuss specifi c questions. But that’s what I want as a teacher; I want a debriefi ng session. I want to sit down after everybody’s done and say, “OK, what section was diffi -cult for you guys? What kind of ques-tion was hard?” . . . The wrong answer might suggest that the kid doesn’t know what a metaphor is, when really he doesn’t know what a butter churn is.

Defi ne Assessment Another frustration the teachers described was with the term assess-ment itself. One teacher explained, “My defi nition of assessment is that it is logical and that all the stakehold-ers understand what’s there. . . . And if there’s a true assessment, there’s a re-teaching opportunity. Without penalty.”

Another teacher confi ded that the tension that made her so “schizo-phrenic” was that, except for the writing test, none of the tests are performance assessments. When we interviewed a representative of the State Department of Education, we were told this was the case because “. . . when you say EOCT has to count 15% of the grade, then your turnaround time for scoring is very limited. So we are not in the realm of constructed response. . . .” This

disaggregated the data, we found that the majority of our students who did not achieve the “enhanced” passing score were special education students and English language learners (ELLs) who are served primarily in classes our English department doesn’t teach. We began the school year knowing that we had to do everything possible to ensure that we didn’t fall short for a second year in a row. We just weren’t sure what else we could do.

In the spring of 2006, before we knew our AYP results, our English department met and decided that we wanted to investigate better ways to reach our struggling readers and our black males. We ordered some books to help us research, and I spent the summer reading articles that we could use to help us in our study. Once the school year began, we delved deeply into the professional literature while maintaining our teaching loads. I, for one, felt pretty defl ated and scared of what was ahead of us. For the fi rst time in my career, I wasn’t giddy with excitement about the new school year; instead, I was fi lled with apprehension. The following comes from a journal entry I wrote during the school year:

We’ve got four brand new teachers in our department this year and four student teachers. We face the somewhat daunting task of teaching while re-searching adolescent literacy for strug-gling readers and fi guring out how to make AYP in the meantime. How do we, as a department, mentor eight people, teach our kids well, and main-tain our sanity in the bargain? Some of our veterans are already examining the standards differently and thinking that they are going to have to sacrifi ce some of their best teaching practices to teach to those tests. How can we overcome that fear and that belief?

In department meetings, we con-tinued to discuss student work and to examine our assignments and assess-ments to determine whether we were truly teaching to our students’ needs. Often, though, the teacher bringing student work to the meetings would question whether or not the student product would meet the requirements

“I’m not supposed to look at the test at all. I’m not supposed to discuss the tests during or after or discuss specifi c questions. But that’s what I want as a teacher; I want a debriefi ng session.”



4

of the test. We worked, meantime, to mentor our new faculty, to mentor our student teachers, and to teach our students under the guiding principle that good teaching would yield the results that we needed. Occasionally, I felt like a fraud. In another journal entry I wrote:

Today I failed myself, my beliefs, my profession, and my students. As we were discussing A Lesson before Dy-ing, the students became very curious about race relations in the South at the time of the novel’s setting and in the way the death penalty affected whites and blacks. They wanted to talk more about that. I could feel the pressure begin to mount behind my eyes, hear my mental adversarial voice telling me that we couldn’t take the time to talk about that; thinking that we couldn’t take the time. Race relations and the death penalty are not going to be on the graduation test. I can’t take the time for this. I must move on, must talk about characterization in connection with the standards. It was a hard fi ght with myself. Hadn’t I just told one of the student teachers that those are the mo-ments of teaching that are best? Don’t I believe that if we go forward reading, researching, writing, and discussing what they are interested in, we will still achieve the goals of the English lan-guage arts? Yet, there I stood having an internal war with myself over whether to go with their interests and needs or stop that conversation and talk about the literary time period of the book and the characterizations of Jefferson and Grant.

Mentoring and teaching in the world of NCLB has changed us all. Most of all, it has put unnecessary and cruel pressure on our students. Spring semester, I taught a study skills class for students who had been identifi ed as “at risk” for passing the graduation test. Because passing the graduation test means the difference between a diploma or not, we want to give all of our students the most help we can to ensure they will be successful. My class had a majority of ELL students in it: bright, funny, wonderful students, all of whom had language barriers that would likely prove problematic for them as they

navigated those multiple choice, high-stakes tests. We worked on reading skills, comprehension skills, and test-taking strategies. We went to the computer lab on a regular basis to take practice tests and deconstruct the questions to determine how you arrive at the correct answers. In an-other entry I wrote:

Today, in the lab, as I was walking around monitoring progress. I came upon Maria highlighting the practice test questions and pasting them into an online translator. The child is working so hard, yet she can’t read the English version before her. She’s trying her best to translate into her native language. I stood there, not knowing what to do. Al-low her the opportunity to learn a little more of English by working through that translation program, or remind her that she wouldn’t have that option on the “real” test? What are we doing to our children? I’m sad and angry at what this is doing to our students. At what cost?

In spite of the legislation, in spite of AYP, I still believe in teaching, in public education, and in the power of our real purpose. I am committed to staying in public education, to teach-ing my students well, and to welcom-ing new teachers into our profession. I will continue to try and mentor them to know that good teaching is still good teaching and that the test is not the only measure of student perfor-mance. And I will continue to hope that our legislators come sit in our classrooms, work with the Marias, watch what happens when govern-mental mandates affect the real lives of kids.

The Way We Teach NowThe testimony from these teach-ers—both its substance and the edgy frustration in which it is framed—of-fers powerful evidence of how high-stakes testing is fundamentally altering the nature of teaching and the professional agency of teachers. The mandate for such tests derives from an unexamined belief that the only way to improve student learn-ing is to insist on specifi c outcomes as measured by statewide tests. But nei-ther the students nor their teachers are allowed to review the tests, and there is no available evidence that the tests are aligned with the standards that teachers are attempting to cover. Thus, the teachers studied here must engage in a kind of faith-based pro-fessional practice where they teach what they think might be on the test instead of what they have learned to value from their own training and hard-won experience. The tests, in effect, encourage the teachers to de-skill themselves, ignoring what they know and believe in order to ac-complish goals that are impoverished when compared to their own robust commitment to students.

Though the discussion about stan-dards and assessments has focused largely on student achievement, we would like to argue that the practice of teaching may be undergoing a fun-damental transformation as an unin-tended consequence of the standards movement. We ignore that trans-formation at our peril. The intensi-fi cation and de-skilling of teaching brought about by high-stakes testing may not only push seasoned, talented teachers out of the profession, it may also invite a different kind of young person into the profession—a person more comfortable with standardized, teacher-proof curricula and less com-mitted to a nuanced classroom prac-tice that is informed by a knowledge of students and their communities. The evidence from this small study, while limited by geography and the number of teachers interviewed, sug-gests that we may need a larger effort to listen to teachers as they candidly

I will continue to hope that our legislators come sit in our classrooms, work with the Marias, watch what happens when governmen-tal mandates affect the real lives of kids.


October 2007 5

describe their work and how it is changing. ●

ReferencesHargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the

knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teach-ers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Offi ce.

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007).

Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.

Stotsky, S. (2005). The state of state Eng-lish standards: A Report to the Thomas Fordham Foundation. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global.

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teach-ing. New York: Wiley.

While the goals of NCLB are to improve the academic per-formance of all students, to

achieve equity in and among schools, and to provide more qualifi ed teach-ers (Darling-Hammond, 2006), its complex regulations have created what Darling-Hammond describes as “a bizarre situation in which most of the nation’s public schools will be deemed failing within the next few years, even many that already have high scores or that are steadily im-proving each year” (p. 654). To be in compliance with NCLB law, states must show adequate yearly progress (AYP), which is heavily based on standardized test scores and, as a result, narrows instruction. Critics of such tests argue the multiple-choice and short-answer exam formats char-acteristic of high-stakes testing result in less emphasis on the communica-tion and problem-solving skills and complex thinking that students need (Perkins-Gough, 2005). Although professionals warn against relying on any one measure as the sole source of important educational decisions (e.g., Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Bracey, 1997; Cuban, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Kohn, 2000; Ruth, 2003), California and approximately a dozen other states currently use single tests in order to issue high school diplomas

Taking the Pulse of Three California High School Teachers: How Does the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Affect Them?Mary O’Shea, San Diego State University/University of San Diego, Joint Doctoral Program

(Perkins-Gough, 2005). Debard & Kubow (2002) attest that

the main problem of profi ciency test-ing is the impact that its implementa-tion has on the classroom atmosphere and subsequent morale of teachers and students. Their survey found that teachers and administrators, overall, were convinced that profi ciency test-ing did not increase students’ self-es-teem and placed too much emphasis on a single test. Students, both el-ementary and secondary, shared this same view. Secondary students felt greater stress over testing than ele-mentary students and also contended that profi ciency testing is not a good indicator of how good their teachers are. Both groups felt that profi ciency testing did not cause their teachers to teach better.

The concerns raised by researchers illustrate the need for conversations with teachers. How much can new teachers possibly know about high-stakes exams, and how well are they able to prepare students for them? And what about veteran teachers? Does their knowledge of such tests infl uence how they prepare students? And if so, in what ways? In low in-come schools like the one where I teach, is such a test perceived as a burden or is it welcomed with open arms?

My interest in teachers’ feelings about standardized tests prompted this inquiry study. It would seem that new, inexperienced teachers are so often overwhelmed with the task of teaching that they don’t readily focus on state exams. Veterans, on the other hand, may be so committed to their curriculum that they’re not will-ing to give much time to disjointed test prep. As a secondary ELA educa-tor for the past 12 years, I wanted to see if my speculations were, in fact, correct at the Southern California high school where I currently teach freshman English.

Cleary High School and the StudyBeginning in the 1990s, major re-forms of comprehensive high schools were enacted in order to facilitate more personalized instruction and greater success among low-income students (Darling-Hammond, 2006). With the assistance of the federal gov-ernment through the Small Schools Act, several Southern California schools have taken part in these re-forms, including Cleary High School. Approximately three years ago, the large comprehensive high school was broken into four separate schools, each with approximately 450 students and a specifi c theme. The theme at



6

Cleary Science Academy is environ-mental science.

At this offi cial “small school” high school site in an urban school district, 28 teachers and staff members were surveyed about their knowledge of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE; California Department of Education, 2007). Information from that survey was then used to identify three key participants⎯ those who had administered the test at least once⎯for interviews. I interviewed the teachers (all given pseudonyms) who ranged in years of experience to determine whether they differed in how they prepared students for stan-dardized tests, as well as their gen-eral attitudes, thoughts, and feelings about the CAHSEE test and No Child Left Behind. The interviews consisted of the following questions: How do you defi ne and understand No Child Left Behind? How has standardized testing changed since you entered the classroom? How do you prepare students for standardized tests? Where do you see standardized test-ing going in the next fi ve years? How will that direction infl uence your role as a teacher?

The TeachersPatrick Osgood The fi rst teacher in the study, Pat-rick, was in his mid-20s and had taught for nearly three years. A European-American male, he held credentials in both history and Eng-lish. For a relatively inexperienced teacher, Patrick had quite a range of grade-level experience, having taught history at the middle school and senior high levels. Patrick was in his fi rst year at Cleary High, and it was also his fi rst year as an English teacher. At the time of the interview, Patrick was teaching history and had just fi nished teaching his fi rst semes-ter of English. Valerie Williams Valerie Williams, the second teacher, was in her mid 50s and had taught for nearly 33 years. Valerie, a European-American female, held a credential in

English. As an experienced teacher, Valerie had always taught in low socioeconomic high schools. Although she had taught 9th through 12th grades, at the time of this interview, she was teaching 11th- and 12th-graders only. She had been teaching at Cleary High School for approxi-mately 10 years and witnessed the change when it transformed from a large comprehensive high school into four small schools. During the transi-tion, she moved to The Academy of Science and Technology.

Matthew Gibson The third teacher, Matt, was in his mid-30s and had taught for seven years. A European-American male, Matt began as a P.E. teacher. How-ever, he attained his mathematics credential two years prior and had been teaching mathematics since. Last year, he taught in a middle

school. At the time of the interview, it was Matt’s fi rst year teaching at Cleary High where he taught 9th and 10th grade Algebra, and one section of Geometry.

What Patrick, Valerie, and Matt Have to Say about NCLBAlthough Patrick, Valerie, and Matt seemed to understand the purpose of NCLB in theory, each had spe-cifi c concerns about the practical aspects of the law. Patrick stated that although there are several parts to NCLB, as a young teacher, “the highly qualifi ed part matters the most to you, that you are highly qualifi ed and you pass the test so that you have all of the right degrees and creden-tials and paperwork and everything

else.” He mentioned that this was important because if you don’t have those things, you cannot “get the job.” Patrick mentioned that it all comes down to professional qualifi cations and the restrictions placed on you. However, Patrick didn’t feel that this was all negative. He added, “Like, in history, there are a lot of really great history teachers and NCLB has tests that are hard enough to defi nitely ‘weed out’ those who don’t know the subject area.” Here, Patrick sees a purpose behind such tests, that they weed out those who do not know sub-ject area content.

Yet Patrick also had concerns about teacher tests, such as the CSET (California Subject Examinations for Teachers). As he attested, such tests “don’t do anything to measure classroom management or the other things that are important about being a classroom teacher.” He then joked about himself as a new English teach-er. He stated “I’m highly qualifi ed as an English teacher. Do I have the experience to be able to do it? No! I mean, let’s be honest. I’ve gotten bet-ter at it, but it’s been trial by fi re this year, and I was so glad to go back to history at the semester, to something I was totally comfortable with.”

Here, Patrick acknowledges that even though he passed the English section of the required state teacher’s exam, it did not make him highly qualifi ed. His lack of experience in the subject made it diffi cult for him to be successful as an English teacher. What he actually needed, and what the CSET doesn’t take into account, is the mentorship necessary to help foster success in a newly passed sub-ject area. Interestingly, Patrick did not equate NCLB as relating specifi -cally to students. He saw the law as a series of teacher mandates designed to make them “highly qualifi ed.”

Valerie, conversely, saw the law as exclusive to students. Although she mentioned how teachers and principals could be scrutinized by test scores, she defi ned NCLB as “every student to be held accountable for grade-level ability,” which she saw as

“You cannot compare a city school from San Diego to a city school from Chicago. They are not the same.”


October 2007 7

a good thing. Valerie also stated that the special education resource teach-er, Helen, really goes out of her way to work with kids; Valerie believes that some of those students would not be doing as well without Helen’s support. However, she had concerns about high-needs special education students now entering the regular classroom (as required by NCLB), stating:

I guess the concept is for every student to be held accountable for grade-level ability, which is a good thing, but it also means that some of these SPED kids who are very slow are put into regular classes where honestly⎯many, most are fi ne⎯but there’s one or two or three who honestly don’t belong there and it’s not benefi ting them. It’s not benefi ting the teacher. It’s not benefi t-ing the rest of the kids in the classroom . . . .

Valerie also expresses frustration over the mainstreaming of disruptive, emotionally disturbed special educa-tion students into regular classrooms, adding:

. . . having emotionally disturbed [students], in particular, can ruin a whole class and that should never hap-pen. It should never be allowed and for one student to be able to do this and that and walk around the school all day because he or she can’t stay in the classroom is inappropriate. If he or she can’t stay in the classroom, then maybe this isn’t the right place. You can’t just let kids walk around all day . . . .

Valerie also believed that allow-ing these students to roam freely is “not instruction” and that lawmakers need to consider educators’ expertise about who should and shouldn’t be in the classroom. Valerie seems to be frustrated by the fact that when a few students commandeer the educational landscape, the law protects them at the expense of the other students in the classroom who have to witness such volatile behavior on a consistent basis.

Although Matt liked NCLB in theory, he felt it was very diffi cult to adequately/properly administer the law. When refl ecting on the positives

of NCLB, Matt, like Valerie, saw it as student-focused. He said:

The positives are that the kids should be held accountable for their time spent here. We spend way too much time, effort, and money on education to be graduating kids who can’t read, write, and do math. So the positives are that there should be checks and balances, there should be account-ability, that kids need to know that it’s important and that they must perform.When it comes to the negatives,

Matt felt that by including the names of teachers on exams, the testing pro-cess is moving more toward tracking teacher progress, a move that could indirectly cause frustrations and ani-mosity among teachers. Matt suggest-ed that such comparisons may cause competition, as opposed to coopera-tion, among teachers, although he did state that teachers whose students were not improving “were not doing

their jobs” and that those teachers should, in fact, feel more pressure. In addition, Matt pointed out that NCLB says it places everyone on the same playing fi eld, yet he did not feel this was true. He stated:

You cannot compare a city school from San Diego to a city school from Chicago. They are not the same, the populations are not the same, and so the standardized tests, although I think that the subject matter needs to be covered equally, those kids are going to perform differently in different areas on those tests and especially in a country with so many immigrants, we have so many differences between an Asian neighborhood, a Mexican neighborhood, a Black neighborhood,

a White neighborhood, or a mixed neighborhood. And there’s not one test I don’t think that can accurately test those students fairly . . . there are a lot of fl aws. When asked to explain some of

the fl aws, Matt expressed concern over treating subgroups as though they were the same. He added, “We have a signifi cant Hispanic popula-tion in our school. They are not going to perform as well or better than an inner city school from Illinois with zero to 5% Hispanic population. The test scores are not going to match up.” Here Matt touches on the idea that NCLB compares subgroups through standardized test scores, and that such comparisons are not necessar-ily fair because students do not begin on the same playing fi eld, though they are measured against the same benchmarks. “We as teachers,” he adds, “have no control over this test-ing regimen, so people [politicians] who decide this stuff are very short-sighted. Their sight ends at the end of their term.” Here, Matt suggests that the motivation of the testing regimes in America have a political edge, that they are meant to create an appear-ance of rigor in education but that teachers, at this point, have no con-trol and are not involved in the actual construction of such tests.

To SummarizeIn Patrick’s discussion about NCLB, he expressed concern over passing subject examinations in order to se-cure employment. He did not see the law in relation to students. Instead, he facetiously joked about how quali-fi ed he was as an English teacher. He questioned the ability of a subject-area test alone to declare him quali-fi ed to teach English, and he eagerly returned to the lesser-stakes subject of history at the end of the semester. As he attested, “I’ve gotten better at it [teaching English], but it’s been trial by fi re this year, and I was so glad to go back to history at the semester, to something I was totally comfort-able with.” While the goal of NCLB is to recruit highly qualifi ed teachers,

While teacher voices are crucial in the standardized testing revamping process, at present, they are virtu-ally nonexistent.



8

there is currently no clarifi cation as to what the follow-up should be for teachers who have recently passed a test and can now teach in a new subject area. For Patrick, the results were somewhat disastrous as he gladly went back to teaching history.

In Valerie’s discussion about the CAHSEE, she mentioned concern about a few disruptive, high-need Special Education students dominat-ing the classroom environment. In addition, she also had concern about students who do not pass CAHSEE exams. She felt that many may be-come so discouraged that they won’t fi nish high school. She wondered who keeps in touch with these students and encourages them to keep taking the exam once they’ve left. “Perhaps the most adverse, unintended con-sequence of NCLB’s accountability strategy is that it undermines safety nets for struggling students rather than expanding them, and it cre-ates incentives for such students to be kept out or pushed out of school” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 659). Valerie explains that as low-scoring students disappear, test scores go up because targets are currently mea-sured in terms of average achieve-ment for non-comparable groups, rather than in terms of individual student growth.

In Matt’s discussion about NCLB, he also mentioned this idea about non-comparable groups, noting that you cannot compare a city school from San Diego to a city school from Chicago, and yet NCLB does that. Darling-Hammond acknowledges this sentiment, arguing that “addressing this problem will require using value-added measures of individual student progress rather than cross-sectional averages that compare one year’s average scores to the next” (p. 661). Because of the way that school in-dexes are calculated, the temptation for many schools is to eliminate stu-dents at the bottom of each subgroup to raise their average test scores. Yet in today’s society, students who leave schools often become desper-

ate without opportunities for further education or even military service. Consequently, schools that let these students go appear to be doing a bet-ter job in the media even though, in reality, such students join what Wald & Losen (2003) coined the school-to-prison-pipeline. This information is never made clear in the AYP and API reports published in the newspapers. If it were, the public would most likely be horrifi ed.

NCLB ReformDarling-Hammond (2006) contends that by only using single, standard-ized measures, our nation is doing a poor job of assessing school effi cacy. She calls for reform of NCLB, not only by stopping the punishment of schools that choose to retain at-risk students (thus risking lower average test scores), but by measuring the progress of all students individually over time. In addition, Darling-Ham-mond calls for a teacher quality index to be published along with schools’ standardized test results, since there is a direct correlation between non-qualifi ed, inexperienced teachers and the low-performing schools whose lack of desirability has driven away more experienced and highly qualifi ed teachers.

We Need to Hear Teachers’ VoicesWhile teacher voices are crucial in the standardized testing revamping process, at present, they are virtually nonexistent. Yet it is the Patricks, the Valeries, the Matts, and many others who can truly inform, whether di-rectly or indirectly, what needs to be done to improve our present testing system. Collectively, Patrick, Valerie, and Matt contributed something valuable⎯a plethora of important information regarding how NCLB plays out in classrooms and how no one standardized test can measure the true skills of students. They also confi rmed my new, realigned theory: that all teachers, no matter how expe-rienced or inexperienced, have some-thing important to say regarding how

to reshape our current assessment system. However, until such voices are understood in our society at large, the face of policy will continue to cast an illusion of failure to an ill-informed public. ●

ReferencesBerliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The

manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bracey, G. W. (1997). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

California Department of Education, (2007). The California high school exit examination blueprints. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents.

Cuban L. (1997). The end of the federally driven standards movement in U.S. school reform? In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Transforming public education: A new course for America’s future (pp. 92–96) New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No child left behind and high school reform. Har-vard Educational Review, 76, 642–667.

Debard, R., Kubow, P. K. (2002). From compliance to commitment: The need for constituent discourse in implement-ing testing policy. Educational Policy, 16, 387–405.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against stan-dardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

No child left behind (Education policy of the U. S. President). (2001). Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html.

Perkins-Gough, D. (2005). The perils of high school exit exams. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 90–91.

Ruth, L. (2003). Who has the power? Poli-cymaking and politics in the English language arts. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.; pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wald, M., & Losen, D. (2003). Decon-structing the school-to-prison pipeline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


October 2007 9

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad NCLB?Victoria Whitfi eld, Hillcrest High School, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has had a major impact on schools, classrooms, and

students across the nation. As a fi rst-year teacher, I have never known anything besides teaching under NCLB and its emphasis on standard-ized tests and achievement scores, yet even I am aware that these tests have drastically changed the face of Eng-lish instruction and learning. If you walk into many English classrooms, you will see reading taught using multiple-choice practice tests, gram-mar instruction taught through formal lessons and more multiple-choice practice tests, and writing instruc-tion that consists of brief responses to standardized writing prompts. Cre-ativity, excitement, and critical think-ing have nearly been extinguished in place of test preparation.

What happened to reading and writing instruction? The answer: The big, bad NCLB turned students into numbers and statistics, sucked the life out of classrooms, turned read-ing and writing instruction into test preparation, and caused teachers to feel like worthless robots who have little control over content. The only way the big, bad NCLB will go away is if teachers stand together and let the wolf know they’re not afraid of it.Teaching and TestingNCLB has signifi cantly changed the way many teachers teach reading and writing. My own teacher training en-couraged the use of graphic organiz-ers, class debates, plot diagrams, and creative projects⎯all great ideas for literacy instruction⎯but my students, who have spent years practicing for “the test,” have diffi culty relating them to test questions. For example, I teach the Alabama High School Graduation Examination (AHSGE) Reading objective I.9—sequence of events—by having students place items from The Odyssey in sequential

order using construction paper and glue. The students enjoy the activity and understand the concepts behind chronological and spatial order. How-ever, when I later asked students to complete sample test questions on the same concepts, they had a diffi cult time. When I asked why, their re-sponses shocked me: they had always been taught to take a test based on sample test questions. They were upset that they hadn’t been able to answer the test questions correctly, and I realized they didn’t know how to relate classroom activities to test items. I explained how the exercise they completed on The Odyssey was similar to the AHSGE test questions:

just like gluing pieces onto construc-tion paper (in class), they were dis-secting questions and bubbling in answers (on the test). It was suddenly obvious why teaching to a test got better results than incorporating cre-ative and critical thinking strategies.

It seems that critical thinking is not a focus under NCLB, and the stakes are so high that teachers may be unwilling to take a risk by using creative strategies. Instead, teach-ers may teach to the test in hopes of guaranteed results. I do not fault teachers for choosing this path; NCLB emphasizes statistical accountability, and teachers who see no option but to teach to the test are not “bad” teach-ers. However, I choose not to allow

high-stakes testing to control my classroom. I realize that under na-tional law, I must teach under NCLB and follow its precepts, but I will not allow the law to take precedence over better teaching. I strive to use creative, effective teaching strategies as well as test preparation to prepare my students for high-stakes tests.

Teaching EnglishMy attitudes, feelings, and beliefs have defi nitely changed since I started my fi rst year of teaching in August, 2006. I realize now that teachers are being held accountable for situations that are beyond their control, and even a great teacher can be blamed for a poor test score. Being non-tenured, I hate the feeling that my students’ test scores determine whether I am perceived as an effec-tive teacher. I fully believe in holding unsatisfactory teachers accountable, but NCLB is not the answer. Account-ability should not punish all teachers, rewrite valid curriculum, or make good teachers question their worth or their profession. Accountability should not change the face of English instruction.

The Future of EnglishAs a teacher and lover of English, it is diffi cult for me to imagine a future that is not bright, but NCLB is up for reauthorization this year, and I believe the future of English hangs in the balance. If changes are not made, I am skeptical about the future of English. I believe reading, grammar, and writing will be reduced to test preparation instruction. Literature will consist of “excerpts” with corre-sponding questions. Writing instruc-tion will only relate to standardized writing prompts. Grammar will be reduced to multiple-choice answers. Worst of all, I am afraid that many great English teachers will leave the teaching profession.

The only way the big, bad NCLB will go away is if teachers stand together and let the wolf know they’re not afraid of it.



10

Treating State Standardized Writing Tests as Authentic Writing AssignmentsKenneth Lindblom, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

If signifi cant changes are made, however, I believe the future of Eng-lish will be bright. If teachers can teach their content and choose the curriculum that will maximize learn-ing for each student, English classes will again become the creative, excit-ing places they once were. Practicing

teachers will again enjoy what they do, and more students will want to consider joining the teaching profes-sion. NCLB is a bully, struggling to wrestle the last of our control—our expertise, experience, and knowledge of our students—away from us, but I will not allow it to force me away

from my duty as a teacher. I will embrace that duty and⎯by calling upon my colleagues, my profes-sional organizations, my knowledge of the fi eld and my students, and my conscience⎯perform it to the best of my ability. ●

Although few would argue against the importance of students building “real-world”

literacy skills in school, myriad ob-stacles to doing so forestall many English teachers’ efforts. Chief among the obstacles are state standardized tests, especially those that assess stu-dents’ writing abilities. While NCLB requires that states develop and implement tests that assess students’ profi ciencies on math and reading standards, many states do this with writing standards, as well.

Critics of standardized writing tests argue that the tests’ strict time limits, contrived topics, and emphasis on narrative writing contribute to their lack of authenticity as a true measure of students’ writing abilities. I would argue that state standardized writing tests are, to some degree at least, legitimate examples of authen-tic writing; after all, the writing has a real purpose (a high score), a real context (state test writing genre), and is written for a real audience (state test graders). The problem is this type of writing is extremely rare—it exists only in schools—and yet it masquerades as the sole form of “correct” writing because of its high stakes. Further interfering with the authentic potential of state test writ-ing is the fact that English teachers claim the power of audience by being the initial (if not sole) graders. But I contend that teachers can make state standardized test writing more au-thentic.

What Is Authentic Writing?In Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance, Wiggins (1998) describes classrooms across the cur-riculum in which students are en-gaged in authentic tasks⎯the kind of tasks that are most likely to develop real-world skills:

[Students] are working together and critiquing one another’s writing, bring-ing science experiments to fruition, fi nishing art exhibits, honing debate points, and even making presenta-tions to panels of outside judges. . . . Other students are building balsa wood bridges, staging plays, and mounting museum exhibits, using computer sim-ulations as well as physical materials, and demonstrating their understand-ing of subject areas, skills, and ideas by using them in particular contexts. (pp. 3–4)Each of the tasks Wiggins men-

tions engages students in real work that has real consequences and will elicit real feedback. The bridges built are tested for strength; the museum exhibits are intended to educate an audience⎯students can immedi-ately assess if their purpose has been served.

In authentic writing situations, teachers are not the authority; rather, teachers assist students in compos-ing effective writing and also assess the students’ writing based on its success in real terms. Students are exposed to the judgments of real audi-

ences, leaving the teacher to become a genuinely helpful writing coach; the line between writing teacher and writing evaluator is usefully blurred. In assessing the writing, teachers help student writers answer the question, “Did the writing succeed in its purpose with this audience in this context?” Thus, each student writer experiences, and can learn from, a real assessment, making it “educa-tive”: “And once assessment is de-signed to be educative, it is no longer separate from instruction; it is a major, essential, and integrated part of teaching and learning” (Wiggins, 1998, p. 8).

Teachers can also make state stan-dardized test writing more authentic by treating it as just one form of real writing—not the only valid genre. Students should learn the unique rhetorical features of test writing (e.g., appropriate voice, what counts as evidence, expected length) by com-paring it to other genres of writing (e.g., newspaper editorials, magazine features, poems). Focusing solely on test writing is a losing strategy. Stu-dents will learn to write well for state tests if they discover through their own experience the uniqueness of the test-writing genre.

In sum, to be truly authentic, a writing assignment should exhibit the following features:• Students write to a real audience

(other than the teacher) that will re-spond in some way to their writing.


October 2007 11

• The writing has some tangible consequence.

• Students are personally invested in the purpose of the writing and actively desire a specifi c reaction from their audience.

• What counts as correct or success-ful in the assignment depends upon the features of the forum to which the writing is being sent and the readers’ judgment. The teacher can only be an advisor, not the determining factor of what counts as correct.Given these features, can state

standardized tests provide an authen-tic experience for students? Yes, if they are dealt with creatively. Below are just a few examples of how teach-ers can prepare students to pass state writing tests as they build real writ-ing skills.

Ideas for Treating State Writing Tests as Real Writing

Real and Mock InterviewsFor many students (and teachers), state test creators and graders are ambiguous and abstract entities; but, in fact, they are real people. Getting students to internalize that fact may help them address that real audi-ence more effectively. Especially for younger students, having a school ad-ministrator “dress up” as a state test grader and visit their classroom can help students learn what those grad-

ers are looking for. (This is a perfect way for ELA coordinators to help.) Have students interview this visi-tor: “What are you looking for on the test?” “Why do you ask these kinds of questions?” “What would you think of an essay that did this . . .?” “What are some tips you have for us as we think about test writing?” To add a genu-inely useful, authentic writing assign-ment after this event, have students write newspaper articles about the visit documenting what they learned. The newspaper, of course, should have a real audience, too, not just the teacher.

Older students can do more in-depth research on state test writing, including fi nding and interviewing people who create and grade state tests. They can write up their inter-views for the school newspaper or in letters to fellow students or their parents.

Compose Publications about State Test Writing

Many students have been taught that the “correct way” to write is what works on state tests, but this is a peculiar genre to say the least. Treat the genre in the manner it deserves: it’s an oddity, but one with a great deal of power. Get students to study the genre, understand its features, and to appreciate its power without believing it is the “only correct way” to write.

Instead of completing practice test after practice test, help students research and discover the kind of writing that succeeds on state tests. As they make these discoveries, the students can publish their fi ndings (as real writers do) in increasingly sophisticated research reports and other useful formats: test prepara-tion booklets (for themselves or for younger students); school newspaper articles; letters to other students, parents, or administrators; or even a class website.

All of these ideas reinforce the fact that in an authentically assessed writing classroom, students are writ-ing for real purposes and real audi-ences in real forums (for more ideas, see Lindblom, 2004). When teachers treat standardized writing tests as one authentic form of writing, the tests no longer stand in the way of “real-world” literacy skills. And once teachers start to see test writing as an occasion for authentic writing, they can apply the very creativity to their teaching that probably attracted them to teaching English in the fi rst place. ●

ReferencesLindblom, K. (2004). Writing for real.

English Journal, 94, 104–108.Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment:

Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

August 2008 ELQ Call for ManuscriptsELQ is seeking manuscripts for the August 2008 issue on “Effective English Leadership.” Understanding what makes a good leader is important; we know too well what can happen to teachers without good leadership. Some research shows that 25 percent of beginning teachers leave the profession in their fi rst two years of teaching, many citing lack of administrative or departmental support as a reason. Articles might address the following questions: How do you mentor beginning English teachers? How do you retain effective veteran English teachers? How are good morale and a positive work environment fostered in English departments? If you ruled the world (or the US, at least), how would you encourage the teaching of English/language arts? What kinds of English/language arts-re-lated professional development do you participate in and/or encourage at your school? Is your department reading a common book? Is your department involved in an action research project focusing on literacy/language or related issues? How does your English department make decisions about curriculum? About pedagogy? Do you share ideas? As a principal, department head, university program advisor, or fi eld supervisor, what advice can/do you give pro-spective English teachers? Tell us all about it! (Deadline: April 16, 2008)



12

it represents a signifi cant part of the current political discourse of educa-tors. Students were asked to do an op-positional reading (Apple, 1992) of the article—that is, reading from a per-spective other than their own—using the critical language tools, to answer the following question: How does the text position me as a reader?

Language and Ideological PowerWhen we read a text, we are read-ing its ideology, as well as its content (Frith, 1997; Gee, 1990; Luke & Freebody, 1997). Ideology is a world view that constrains how we see real-

ity—the customary beliefs, norms, so-cial values, history, or other concepts about human life or culture, usually of a dominant social class (Taxel, 1984). To Gee (1990), ideologies are a part of cultural models in which ac-culturation takes place and in which values and perspectives are promoted.

Ideology relates to power when dominant groups project their prac-tices as universal and common sense. Every society has an ideology that forms the basis of the public opinion or common sense, a basis that usu-ally remains invisible to most people within the society (http://en.wikipedia.org). The upside of common sense knowledge is that it enables humans to predict everyday social activity and taken-for-granted routines that orga-

Although frequently asked to comprehend and respond to literacy texts, students are seldom asked to question commonsense assumptions or ideological messages im-plicit in text.

If You Think Language Is Neutral, Think Again!Carolyn L. Piazza, Florida State University, Tallahassee

With the recent proliferation of government-commissioned documents, news briefs,

academic reports, and Internet data-bases, preservice teachers increasing-ly face the challenge of processing and interpreting large amounts of infor-mation. Although frequently asked to comprehend and respond to literacy texts, students are seldom asked to question commonsense assumptions or ideological messages implicit in text, within which are often subtle messages that serve to maintain, reinforce, or reproduce a dominant discourse. Viewing texts as cultural objects—in which they are not just autonomous, but connected to social interests—positions language as a powerful resource for examining their underlying assumptions and interpre-tations (Maingueneau, 2006).

As literacy leaders, we know that language is more than just its forms; it is also a network of meanings that can foster critical sensibilities in read-ers and reveal social practices that privilege some groups and marginal-ize others. We also know that authors strategically plan language to achieve particular purposes. Because lan-guage is seldom neutral, but rather a writer’s conscious choice, I felt it was important to introduce preservice teachers to critical discourse analysis (CDA) based on the work of critical language scholars.

In this article, I highlight how 21 preservice teachers in a language arts methods class were introduced to four critical language tools for unpacking the ideological meanings and as-sumptions behind the written word. Students analyzed an article on No Child Left Behind (NCLB), randomly selected from Education Week’s col-lection on the topic (http://www2.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind). The NCLB topic, which underscores the theme of this month’s issue of ELQ, was selected because

nize society and its institutions. The downside is that people may no longer question a statement’s validity or any assumptions underlying a proposition or order. Without scrutiny, alterna-tive views of the world may be hidden, and a facade of normalcy could con-strain voice, distort reality, advance special interests, or lead to hegemonic beliefs (Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, 2002; Delpit, 1988).

Writers draw on language to signal ideological power in text. Robin Lakoff (1990) argues that language affects the way we think, is commonly manipulated in social interactions, and is related to power and politics. CDA can help by unraveling the as-sumptions underlying language. Be-cause language is a system of sounds and meanings, it is possible to exam-ine discourse structure, vocabulary, syntax, and grammar to signal ideolo-gies. But we need to rely not only on the form of language, but also on its meanings and functions. Meanings are garnered from semantics or the content of language, while functions highlight what language does and what purposes it serves. In the next section, I consider all three—form, meaning, and function—as they are used in CDA.

Critical Language ToolsSince all authors intentionally select words, styles, and formats with a particular purpose in mind, I pro-posed four interdependent, analytic tools (following Fairclough, 1989) for uncovering language and power relationships: 1) language stan-dardization, 2) language framing, 3) language reproduction, and 4) language implicature. Each captures how writers organize discourse based on form (how language is organized in discourse), meaning (the implicit and explicit content of discourse), and function (language use and what it accomplishes).


October 2007 13

the reader will occupy an active or passive role. People are typically constrained by texts to temporar-ily accept the frame the author has erected. Language ReproductionInformation loosely based on truth can give the illusion of truth if it is reinforced often enough. In CDA, the reader recognizes the power of redundancy for reinforcing common-sense knowledge within (intratextual references) or across (intertextual references) multiple texts and can account for how something is being maintained and reproduced. Within a single text, interpretations depend on identifying paraphrased thoughts in the sentences preceding and fol-lowing propositions that reinforce the message’s intent.

Language ImplicatureImplicature, the relationship between two statements, is a kind of inference where the truth of one idea suggests the truth of the other. A demand of CDA is to have readers crawl between the lines or across parts of the text to determine interpretations, assump-tions, and meanings. Implicatures through inferences are made when we recognize, by piecing together vari-ous aspects of text and tapping into our own experience and knowledge, that meaning is created both locally and globally. Implicature also means recognizing the importance that excluded information plays in shaping beliefs. Although no one work can or should provide total coverage, it is es-sential for critical readers to look for systematic exclusion.

Oppositional ReadingStudents, in answering how the text positioned them as readers, used criti-cal discourse tools to do an opposition-al reading of the NCLB article and discover the roles of text creator, text user, and text analyst (Apple, 1992; Freebody & Luke, 1990). Apple (1992) describes three common responses to text: dominant, negotiated, and oppo-sitional. Dominant reading is accept-ing the message at face value, that is, the way the text seems to want to be read, its preferred reading (O’Regan, 2006). A negotiated response is one in which readers come to some agree-ment on the text’s meaning through consensus. An oppositional reading rejects dominant tendencies and interpretations, critically questioning the status quo. This kind of critical thinking involves skepticism, iden-tifying weakness in arguments, and questioning statements in order to detect bias or whispered half-truths (Ennis, 1996; Lipman, 1988). Using critical language tools to discuss the forms, meanings, and functions of paragraphs, sentences, words, and conventions, students were able to problematize the text and identify contradictions or fallacies they may have missed in the dominant reading (O’Regan, 2006). In the end, they dis-cussed how this interaction between author, reader, and informed peers led to emancipation—the questioning of their own and others’ assumptions and beliefs.

Below, I characterize our analysis through an examination of the pro-cess that took us from a broad view of the text to a more specifi c look at individual word choice.

Text Structure The article’s discourse structure was quickly accessible to readers because it had a standardized format: the opening paragraph was an introduc-tion to NCLB, the middle section fea-tured bulleted key facts about NCLB in addition to short compare/contrast paragraphs representing its pros and cons, and the piece concluded with a

Language Standardization Conventions of language (dictionary meanings, genres, etc.) provide a com-mon system for sending and receiving information. Without providing an implicit agreement between author and reader about meaning, communi-cation would be chaotic and diffi cult. However, when language is standard-ized, we are more likely to focus on its correct form, rather than paying ap-propriate attention to its ambiguous and arbitrary nature. In other words, standardization can obfuscate the fact that language is a place for struggle and diverse meanings, and when it renders ideas as common sense, we are unlikely to recognize hidden as-sumptions or unequal power relations (Delpit, 2006; McNeil, 2000).

Several forms of language stan-dardization are obvious to most readers. For instance, print text conventions establish expectations for how particular texts work, indicating a superstructure with an implicit set of rules (Foucault, 1970; van Dijk, 1985). At the sentence level, syntactic structures may suggest propositions that give the appearance of fact, while the connotative defi nitions and word types making up these sentences can imply shades of meanings. Even punctuation and formatting can sig-nal a perspective in what is written.

Language FramingFrames represent a set of expecta-tions people have about the world (Fillmore, 1976; Goffman, 1974). These structures offer a point of view and can selectively control the read-er’s perceptions. Identifying a frame of reference requires understanding the cultural values and beliefs that form the context of the phrase and how it is used to represent a particu-lar world view (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Frames can operate on every level of text and can act as a social agenda, as when advance organizers direct how a text is to be read and inter-preted. Frames constrain the subject position and determine whether

Information loosely based on truth can give the illusion of truth if it is reinforced often enough.



14

funded mandate showed two opposing versions of the role of government. Again, students read these more or less positively, depending on their political ideologies.

The grammar of the “incarnation” metaphor, although more subtle, car-ried additional assumptions. It ex-plained someone acting on something: The agent (the government) bringing into existence (new life) (direct ob-ject). In this case, students who gave it a positive spin viewed the govern-ment as taking an active role in being accountable to the public; those who viewed it in a negative light saw the government as intrusive.

Other propositions in the article were introduced through standard-ized sentence structures, such as cause/effect or if/then statements (if schools fail to meet . . ., then . . .), “that” clauses (schools that fail . . .), or consequence statements (for con-tinuously failing schools . . .). These statements framed the author’s point of view, but were largely ignored by our readers since they typifi ed a familiar, routine strategy similar to summing up an argument or com-municating ambiguity. However, in the NCLB article, all three of these structures suggested actions and consequences that indicated an un-derlying power base: someone in a power position was exerting certain consequences on someone in a subor-dinate position.

Typical of report style, the author (or editor) chose to reproduce a key sentence from the narrative and place it in large, bold letters to visually call

This exercise in CDA not only opened up places of dis-cussion . . . but also showed students that language could serve as evidence for differing opinions and un-derlying assumptions.

summary. This text structure set up common sense expectations that the text would be informative and provide facts (truths).

Because many students stated they had seen this newspaper-style article before (reproduction), they simply dismissed the structure and did not call into question its standard-ization. By doing so, they agreed to a particular view of language: genre as an object, a means of maintaining the social order. Had the author selected to represent the information as a research article, for instance, read-ers may have given more evidentiary weight to the information and recog-nized a different relationship between the author and readers.

As readers skimmed the article’s storyline, they found content that further framed it. It started with a standardized defi nition of NCLB, an explanation of its rules, points of controversy, and ways for schools to proceed despite the controversy. The standardized defi nition and presenta-tion of both sides of the controversy posited a kind of neutrality of facts. The author’s choice of structure—de-fi ning, listing, and summarizing—served to make the storyline appear objective and valid. Based on our readers’ previous experiences with these strategies (implicature), they viewed the text, at fi rst blush, as a factual document.

SentencesAs readers moved to analysis at the sentence and phrase level, they dis-covered how standardization and framing glossed underlying assump-tions. For instance, a metaphor in the article equating the NCLB with “the newest incarnation” suggested a link between legislation and a life-giving entity—bringing something into existence. Based on their past experiences with educational reforms, some students saw this phrase as embodying a fresh start, while others defi ned it as old wine in new bottles. Similes functioned in much the same way. The phrases mandates as vital levers of change and law as an un-

attention to it (Coming at a time of wide public concern about the state of education, the legislation sets in place requirements that reach into virtu-ally every public school in America). Students gave this line cursory no-tice, having seen this technique used in magazines and journal articles. However, extracting this particular sentence from the entire piece is a deliberate choice and one that can implicitly frame a reader’s viewpoint. The fact that wide public concern was the impetus for legislation connoted to some a responsive government, just as reaching into virtually every public school in America indicated an intru-sive government to others.

Modes of sentences (declarative, imperative, interrogative) are also standardized structures that deter-mine how a topic is presented. Most of the sentences in the NCLB article are declarative sentences, suggesting ob-jective facts or having an imperative function; in the bulleted mandates, the word “must” is written at least 14 times (e.g., States must begin testing; states must bring all students up to the “profi cient level”).

WordsWords can have many effects. Authors use them judiciously to control inter-pretations of the text and infl uence a reader’s subject position. Formal or technical words can have the effect of making a text remote, pretentious, or prohibitive (as in educational jargon). Colloquial or informal words would have the opposite effect. The denota-tive meaning of words can give the impression that meaning is static or fi xed. Connotative meanings, on the other hand, link to personal experi-ence and cultural context for their interpretation. For instance, the connotative meaning of lot in the phrase improving the educational lot of disadvantaged students required readers to use implicature to come up with their own defi nitions. Some in-terpreted the word as “fate” in a posi-tive sense, while others saw it as “the likes of them” in a pejorative light. Similarly, the term “disadvantage”


October 2007 15

was contentious. For some readers, the term described children who were not being afforded the same advan-tages as others. For others, it brought to mind the disease metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), viewing disad-vantaged students as having little to bring to the educational table. Accord-ing to Lakoff & Johnson, the disease metaphor “tends to make dominant interests the interests of society as a whole, and constructs expressions of non-dominant interests as undermin-ing the health of society” (p. 120).

The author’s collection of words scattered throughout the piece sent several messages about NCLB. Prob-ably the most notable feature was the use of collective nouns, in which the whole stood for the parts. The law, the states, the legislation, or the schools as subjects of the sentences indicated that institutions, rather than indi-viduals, were the named actors, thus relieving any specifi c individuals of responsibility. Just as synonyms (requirements, standards, targets, measures) reproduced meanings throughout the text, noun phrases (vital levers of change, transparency of results, and tough accountability) created implicatures and inferences by putting together words that we link semantically in our minds (John-son, 2001). Standard parts of speech, specifi cally nouns, pronouns, and verbs, played a large role in framing reader opinion depending on ideo-logical bent. For example, students identifi ed nouns or phrases with positive connotations—targets, goals, improving, academic standards, choice of school, inclusiveness, vital levers of change, support, transpar-ency of results, scientifi cally research-based, greater fl exibility, better target

resources, commitment, subject-matter expertise—and negative connota-tions—disadvantaged students, reach into virtually every public school, expanded federal role, hold states and schools accountable, must, trudging forward, unfunded, mandate, comply, struggling to meet, requirements, and tough. According to the students, indefi nite pronouns hid the extent to which NCLB was accepted (somebody or some), and collective pronouns we or you functioned to make the reader complicit in the idea or message. Similar examples were pulled for other parts of speech, such as verbs calling for active subjects (drive, hold,

reach, expand), verbs posing as acts of obligation (should, ought, or must), or verbs changed to nouns (reauthoriza-tion; in some cases, this process obfus-cates the issue of who is responsible), all of which could be ideologically motivated (Fairclough, 1989).

EmancipationEmancipation is a term used by Fairclough (1989) to show that lan-guage is a place for struggle against domination and inculcation. Part of emancipation requires what Fine and Weis (2003) call extraordinary

conversations, where interpretation and explanation are two procedures for unveiling or demystifying. This exercise in CDA not only opened up places of discussion—places where learners could appropriate voice and identity—but also showed students that language could serve as evidence for differing opinions and underlying assumptions.

Ideological assumptions under-scored the readers’ views in analyzing NCLB. If they already favored NCLB, then the words they read supported their stand. Advocates saw NCLB as the government holding schools accountable and being accountable to the public. They also saw the benefi ts of government funding and school support as laudable for achieving required goals. For them, NCLB was a major impetus in educating disad-vantaged children. Opponents, on the other hand, added up the words, sentences, and paragraphs, and concluded that the government was patriarchal in stepping in to correct what the professionals had failed to do for children. They also objected to medical models of fi xing and healing the woes of society (i.e., poor schools and disadvantaged students).

Given that teachers and adminis-trators form opinions based on docu-ments and texts all the time, it is my hope that a discussion of CDA for educators can create an awareness of the relationship between language and power and that they can expand the interaction with their students and texts so that diverse perspectives are heard and respected. Students need to remain vigilant and read with a critical perspective if they are to be knowledgeable consumers of texts in a diverse and democratic society. ●

Wellness & Writing Connections ConferenceThe fi rst annual Wellness & Writing Connections Conference, sponsored by American Intercontinental University-Dunwoody, will be held December 15, 2007, at The Atlanta Marriott Marquis in downtown Atlanta from 9 a.m.–4:30 p.m. The conference will bring together health care providers, educators, and writers to explore the connec-tion between overall health and expressive writing as a therapeutic practice. The full-day conference will feature six breakout sessions and two keynote presentations. For more information or to register, visit http://www.wellnessandwritingconnections.com.

Students need to remain vigilant and read with a critical perspective if they are to be knowledgeable con-sumers of texts in a diverse and democratic society.



16

sor. Member: NCTE (CEL & Commission on Literature); IRA (Co-chair, Diversity Committee); ASCD. Publications: Teaching Children to Read (video), DCPS,

Washington, DC; The Graying of the Black Campus: Effects of In-tegration on Black Institutions’ Enrollment and Faculty, GWU, Washington, DC; Minority Servic-ing Institutions, ISE, Silver Spring, MD; Leadership Career Develop-ment: Qualities of Leaders and Institutions Which Produce, UNCF, NY. Awards: 2000 Teacher of the Year (DC); Agnes Meyer; Masonic Scottish Rites; others.

Position Statement: CEL represents a wide range of teachers

2007 CEL Election Slate

Candidates for Member-at-LargeScott D. Eggerding, Director of Curricu-lum and Instruction, Lyons Township High School, La Grange, IL. Formerly: Language Arts Division Chair; Assistant Language

Arts Division Chair; ESL Program Director; English teacher for 13 years. Member: NCTE, NSDC, ASCD, IRA, MLA, AWP, IATE, Illi-nois ASCD. Publications: Articles in Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion; Bellingham Review. Program Participant: CEL, NCTE, IATE, Illinois Articulation Initiative, Tutor/Mentor Cabrini Connections Conference.

Position Statement: CEL is the backbone of literacy education in North America. Literacy coaches,

English chairs, curriculum direc-tors, and principals need to be more aware of what CEL has to offer, and CEL needs to position itself to con-nect practitioners with best practice and expertise. As a member-at-large, I will work to grow member-ship and use technology to provide more avenues for collaboration and support. While I have only been in education for 16 years, I bring with me a desire to help new teachers and young leaders take an active role in their schools, from coaches to chairs to administrators.

Elizabeth V. Primas, Director of Literacy, Washington, DC. For-merly: Developer, National Board Certifi cate (Literacy: Reading/ELA), ETS, Princeton, NJ; Change Fa-cilitator; teacher; adjunct profes-

Author’s Note: I suspect that the reader will want to do a CDA on this article. I invite you to send me your comments.

ReferencesApple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural

politics. Educational Researcher, 21, 4–11, 19.

Darling-Hammond, L., French, J., & Gar-cia-Lopez, S. (Eds.). (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.

Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 220–232.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Up-per Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fillmore, C. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conferences on the origin and develop-

ment of language and speech: Vol. 280 (pp. 20–32).

Fine, M., & Weis, L. (2003). Silenced voices and extraordinary conversa-tions: Re-imagining schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. New York: Random House.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of E.S.L., 5, 7–13.

Frith, K. T. (1997). Undressing the ad: Reading culture in advertising. New York: Peter Lang.

Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Falmer.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: Es-says on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnson, D. D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Need-ham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Meta-phors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York:

HarperCollins. Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking:

What can it be? Educational Leader-ship, 46, 38–43.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shap-ing the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies (pp. 185–225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Maingueneau, D. (2006). Is discourse analysis critical? Critical Discourse Studies, 3, 229–230.

McNeil, L. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728–734.

O’Regan, J. P. (2006). The text as a critical object: On theorising exegetic procedure in classroom-based critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 3, 179–209.

Taxell, J. (1984). The American Revolu-tion in children’s fi ction: An analysis of historical meaning and narrative struc-ture. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(1) 7–55.

Van Dijk, T. (1985). Introduction: Levels and dimensions of discourse analysis. In Teun A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Vol. 2: Dimensions of discourse (pp. 1–11). New York: Academic Press.


October 2007 17

and needs someone with a broad background in the many different levels of English curriculum. A full spectrum of the education system is represented at NCTE, and the person elected should be able to bring additional membership and viewpoints to the organization.

Kerry L. Thomas, English teacher, Ru-fus King International Baccalaureate High School, Milwaukee, WI; curriculum spe-cialist; NCTE Path-ways for Advancing

Adolescent Literacy site facilitator; School Governance Council political advocate; Mentor in Manitowoc, WI, & Athens, OH. Formerly: CEL Hospitality Committee; English teacher/curriculum specialist, Mess-mer High School, Milwaukee; Eng-lish Teacher Trainer, Bolawalana Teacher Training College, Negombo, Sri Lanka. Member: NCTE, CEL, Facing History and Ourselves, Milwaukee Area Academic English Alliance (MAAEA). Publications: Mirror (editor); Improving Teach-ing Skills: A Handbook of Practical Methodology (for English Teachers) (1998); Rufus King Guide to Writ-

2007 CEL BallotThe CEL bylaws permit members to vote either by mail or at the CEL business session of the NCTE Annual Convention. Each mem-ber mailing a ballot should mark it and mail it in an envelope with a return name and address to: Bruce Emra, CEL Ballots, 21 W. Crescent Ave., Ramsey, NJ 07446-2205.

Ballots must be postmarked no later than November 1, 2007. Members who prefer to vote at the Convention will be given a ballot and an envelope at the business session of CEL. An institution with membership may designate one individual as the representative to vote on its behalf. Please list the institution’s name and address on the outside of the envelope.

✄

ing Across the Curriculum (2007). Awards: Awaiting results—NB-PTS Certifi cation. Program Par-ticipant: CEL, MAAEA, Facing History, Notre Dame Excellence in Teaching.

Position Statement: CEL offers a respite in the crazy joy of teach-ing; it refreshes and rejuvenates. We must continue growing our profession, working to inspire and connect. Let us encourage not only new membership, but also emerg-ing leaders who may not realize their potential gifts. In the current high-stakes, test-crazy climate, we need to organize to meet Jonathan Kozol’s challenge to exercise politi-cal voices, highlighting the impor-tance of educator creativity and best practices for 21st-century literacy. Teaching English should be a jour-ney of joy, not a chore, for both educators and students.

John R. Underwood, Principal at John F. McCloskey Elemen-tary School, Philadel-phia, PA. Formerly: Middle School Assis-tant Principal; teach-er of English in high

school, middle school, and elementa-

ry school; kindergarten teacher and supervisory teacher for Head Start. Member: NCTE, CEL, Children’s Literature Assembly, PACTE, ASCD, Pennsylvania Associations of Elementary and Secondary School, National Association for the Educa-tion of Young Children, Delaware Valley Association for the Educa-tion of Young Children (DVAEYC), Board Member for DVAEYC.

Position Statement: A child’s learning begins at an early age. School systems are now developing districtwide curricula that begin in the preschool years. NCTE is recognizing this important level of education by having a one-day focus on Early Childhood at the Annual Convention. A major focus on lan-guage arts is prevalent in all grade levels. We have a responsibility to provide leadership to educators in all levels of English and literacy instruction, especially to those in early childhood education and the primary grades. As a leader in CEL, I can provide leadership to that group. With my experience in early childhood and elementary and secondary education, I can provide knowledgeable bridges connecting all three levels.

Member-at-Large (vote for two)❑ Scott D. Eggerding❑ Elizabeth V. Primas❑ Kerry L. Thomas❑ John R. Underwood❑ ________________________ (write-in candidate)



20

CEL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Conference on English LeadershipNational Council of Teachers of English1111 W. Kenyon RoadUrbana, IL 61801-1096

Nonprofi tOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDNational Council of Teachers of English

ChairHenry KiernanBellmore-Merrick Central High School DistrictN. Merrick, New York

Associate ChairDebbie Smith McCullarDean Morgan Jr. High SchoolCasper, Wyoming

Past ChairJudith Moore KellyHoward UniversityWashington, D.C.

Corresponding SecretaryBil ChinnEdmonton Public SchoolsEdmonton, Alberta Canada

Nominating CommitteeChairBruce EmraNorthern Highland Regional High SchoolAllendale, New Jersey

Nominating Committee Associate ChairTom ScottUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin

2007 Program ChairAlyce HunterWest Morris Regional High School DistrictChester, New Jersey

2008 Program ChairEdie WeinthalPascack Valley Regional High School DistrictMontvale, New Jersey

Members-at-LargeDarolyn JonesAnderson University and Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

Robert E. ProbstFlorida International UniversityMarathon, Florida

Anna J. Small RoseboroGrand Valley State UniversityGrand Rapids, Michigan

Ken SpurlockNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland Heights, Kentucky

David SwiftCheshire High SchoolCheshire, Connecticut

Edie WeinthalPascack Valley Regional High School DistrictMontvale, New Jersey

Liaison to NCTE SecondarySection CommitteeWanda PorterKamehameha Secondary SchoolKailua, Hawaii

Administrative LiaisonFelisa LoveNCTE

Call for Manuscripts/Future IssuesThe English Leadership Quarterly, a publication of the NCTE Conference on English Leadership (CEL), seeks articles of 500–5,000 words on topics of inter-est to those in positions of leadership in departments (elementary, secondary, or college) where English is taught. Informal, fi rst-hand accounts of successful research, teaching, and learning activities related to themes of upcoming issues, are encouraged. Themes of upcoming issues include:

April 2008 (deadline December 15, 2007) The English Language Arts and Special

Education

August 2008 (deadline April 15, 2008) Effective English Leadership (see call, p. 11)

Manuscripts should follow the APA Publication Manual (5th ed.) guidelines and be sent via email as a Microsoft Word attachment. A publishing decision will be reached within two months of submission. The Quarterly typically publishes one out of ten manu-scripts it receives each year. Please send inquiries and manuscripts to Lisa Scherff at [email protected] and Susan Groenke at [email protected]; phone: (205) 348-5872. ●


Documents

INSIDE NCLB and the English Language Arts Akrowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Language/About...We close this issue with two arti-cles from teacher educators, ... oughly woven into