Stop Arguing. No Seriously, Can We Stop Arguing?

 I'm so tired of arguments...more accurately argument writing. As a "writing teacher" (or a teacher that writes) I am frustrated by the absurd focus on argument writing in our present writing curriculum. I'm fucking tired of it. All the writing we seem to do in school now is argument writing and then we wonder why kids hate writing. 

The focus on argument writing isn't our decision, I assure you. If given the choice, any writing teacher worth their salt wouldn't use it as the entire basis for an entire writing curriculum but because some expert that likely hasn't been in a classroom in at least a decade declared it the end all, be all of writing the misguided, short-sighted people that run our state education system have decided that it should be the focus for not only English classes, but ALL classes. 

It's especially relevant to me as an English teacher since most years we give the NYS ELA Regents three times a year where the "argumentative essay" counts as 40% of the exam's grade and therefore 40% of one of their English graduation requirements. It's a major concern to many of my colleagues that teach grades 9-11 where much of the focus is preparing them for that state test. They need to focus on it or many of our students won't pass, therefore preventing their graduation and dinging us not just once but twice with the state of New York, as we are judged on graduation rate and ELA scores. It's reduced writing instruction to teaching formulas for meeting the rubric requirements and little else.

I loathe formulaic writing. (To me the words "five paragraph essay" are the equivalent of the f word and the c word having a baby raised by every racial epithet.) It binds and constricts. It also does the exact job it intends to do: create generations of rubber stamps. Everyone writes the same because that is the expectation. There is no deviation. No voice. No audience. Just the form and function. And that's killing me. Slowly. Every day. 

I don't blame my colleagues. They are doing what they need to do so we can stay on the up and up with the state. (And they do an amazing job of doing it.) Our school has so many chips stacked against it we look like poor Mike McDermott facing Teddy KGB in ROUNDERS (the first time). The thought is that we HAVE to teach formula because we have kids that are four or five grade levels behind in reading or ENL students required to achieve an impossible level of proficiency in a language they are just starting to learn. (Along with occasional learned helplessness.) It's worked to get many kids through the test but I can't help but wonder if we're doing more damage than good by doing this. I think the answer is an obvious yes. 

For kicks, I went back and pulled out the Regents I took when I was in 11th grade. (For official purposes, it was the June 1990 exam.) I can't tell you right now what I got on it and I'm not going to go to my old school to get my transcript to see. We can assume that I passed (I only took it once) and for now we can leave it at that. (Seventeen-year-old John was a different creature than forty-seven year old John, so I may not have been as successful as I think I was.) The test was vastly different and I would say that while it was more vigorous, it wasn't as constricting. I also remember that English 11 wasn't Argumentative Test Prep 11. 

There was a listening part and three reading comprehension passages....not too different from the present test.  There was a spelling section and a vocabulary section. (I would imagine that vocab was an integral part of our 11th grade material.) But it was the writing where things diverged. You were given choice in what you wrote. A respectable 55% of your grade came from writing. You had to essentially write two "essays" of about 250 words. The first writing part was a straight up literary analysis, but you were given two choices of how to frame your analysis of something you read, presumably during the school year. (I don't remember what I wrote about.) This was worth 25%. A whopping 30% was dedicated to what was basically a free composition of your choice. You were given eight options...EIGHT! They ranged from a position piece (close to an argumentative essay but not quite) to an assortment of personal narratives. (Again, I'm not sure what I wrote about, but I have a notion it was something out of the ordinary.) Not to sound like the "get off my lawn" guy, but there was an emphasis on writing that the student chose. Writing that the student wanted to do. I don't know what our students would do with that much freedom. I don't know, maybe pass?

Why did we move away from choice? Why did we hem students in with just two essays to write with absolutely no choice in what they are writing about? It's about conformity to a system. 

Last year I read a phenomenal book called WHY CAN'T THEY WRITE and it's a mind altering (if not life changing) book. One of the suggestions the author makes is  letting student write what they want. That's not to say we can't assign specific types of writing, but freedom of choice is paramount to a student's success in writing. We pontificate about differentiation and culturally responsive teaching yet when it comes to writing we will square peg-round hole our students for the sake of a stupid test meant to shape everyone into a round hole. It's beyond frustrating. Teachers are handcuffed by the belief of whichever member of the Board of Regents decided this was the most efficient way to measure student success in writing. Again, it's no wonder our kids hate to write. 

Most of my colleagues think I'm nuts. I can HEAR their eyes rolling when I open my mouth during online meetings. Maybe I should just follow the advice I've been given most of my life and just shut my mouth. 

Yeah, I doubt that too.