Please Grade the Following Essay, Part 2

In “Please Grade the Following Essay,” I asked readers to look over an essay written by a prospective teacher and comment briefly on the writing and content. There were several good comments - I’d like to add mine here and will write a follow-up article that details what the essay is from and why it matters.

First, here’s the official grading criteria for this essay:

• PURPOSE: Fulfill the charge of the assignment.
• APPLICATION OF CONTENT: Accurately and effectively apply the relevant knowledge and skills.
• SUPPORT: Support the response with appropriate examples and/or sound reasoning reflecting an understanding of the relevant knowledge and skills. Your response will be evaluated on the criteria above, not writing ability. However, your response must be communicated clearly enough to permit valid judgment of your knowledge and skills. The final version of your response should conform to the conventions of edited American English. This should be your original work, written in your own words, and not copied or paraphrased from some other work.

Despite the instructions, I’m not going to pretend that writing doesn’t matter. Writing is a reflection of thought; words make sentences, sentences make paragraphs and structure presents the argument. Poor writing matters so much because it shows poor thought processes. Commenters mentioned that there were illogical rambles, poor syntax and structure, all of which reflect parallel errors in the author’s thoughts. Writing really isn’t about writing, it’s about thinking.

As Dana from Principled Discovery points out, “Third graders introduce their essays this way.” A student with 3+ years of higher education should be capable of identifying their circumstances in a more expository, fluid way than saying “I _______,” followed by “In this essay, I will _______.” The “now I’m going to tell you ____: here it is” style dominates the second paragraph as well. It’s clunky, childish and unprofessional - especially for someone in English education.

Following up the elementary introduction is the repetition of the phrase “world of work” - the author uses it three times in the opening paragraph. Whereas the phrase is extraordinarily vague, it is used in the question. Richard mentions rightly that a poorly-phrased question usually generates an equally poor answer. While this is valid, open-ended questions present opportunities; by repeating a meaningless phrase, the author missed an excellent opportunity to define its meaning. The introduction tells little about what this potential educator sees as life beyond high school and how he/she might prepare students for it.

I don’t blame the author for the informality of some parts of this essay, e.g. the use of contractions. It was a timed response [although the time given is plenty for a competent educator] and some shortcuts, especially when writing by hand, are excused. I certainly need them when writing hard copies.

The structure is badly lacking, enough to make Mrs. Purdy, myself and any capable grader/hiring manager lose interest quickly. The writing is wordy - as several commenters noticed - but the author does answer the required elements of the question. Even so, one should be able to outline, detail and summarize their argument without compromising the standards of an essay.The author would likely grasp the dullness of the essay if he/she were able to read it aloud or have it read to them. This essay is written poorly - there’s no reason to pretend otherwise.

Because the author rambles their way to answering the elements required by the question, the essay passes. Writing grade: C/C-.

The content here troubles me more than the way in which it is presented. This teacher-to-be has no concept of employment after high school or how to lead students to the opportunities they’ll have after graduating. Not only is the author wholly out of touch with reality, his/her methods are harmful.

I have little issue with the label of “non-college-bound” - if someone isn’t going to college, they’re not college bound. It isn’t a value judgment, it’s reality. That reality places importance on the relevance of basic skills. This teacher understands that relevance matters when he/she says:

“Most students respond positively to learning that they believe will help them in their future lives and careers. A wise teacher takes advantage of this motivational factor by integrating into subject matter career-related information and skills that enable students to be successful in the world of work.”

And yes, students need to understand the relevance of course material, but a teacher need not pander to kids to get them to see why a topic matters. If a teacher isn’t already integrating practical skills into the classroom, what are they teaching? This is one of the most seminal elements of successful education and the author believes it is a novel approach. This is troubling.

Whereas scheduling a regular ‘career’ component to a curriculum is not without merit, I don’t understand what it has to do with an English curriculum - and the author never demonstrates how the two coincide. What he/she describes is career education, not English. Solution #2 suggests the implementation of these career lesson, but the teacher is again off the mark; a high school graduate, bound for college or work, needs to be able to read, write, think and communicate well. These are not only the attributes of a liberal arts degree, they’re also the tools everyone needs to succeed in nearly all aspects of life.

The focus on group work and collaboration will likely play well with the educators reading this essay - we all know that constructivism is fashionable. Unfortunately, such practices are a terribly ineffective use of time and do a disservice to the students. The author admits that students bound for employment after high school

“… have very limited horizons in terms of thinking about what jobs they’d enjoy and be qualified for upon graduation…”

yet the teacher has no problem relying on their expertise and creativity to determine and structure the instruction about their future. This is illogical - a student who knows little to nothing about the job environment shouldn’t direct their own studies. It is, as the proverb goes, the blind leading the blind. That’s why we have teachers and not babysitters.

The teacher should lead the planning and instruction for this part of the curriculum - there are plenty of other opportunities in an English class to integrate group activities and collaboration. That includes scheduling and contacting speakers, as well as aligning curricular elements with their presentations. A teacher needs to ensure that content matters, not that students are having a good time. It may surprise the author to know that students are excited and engaged when they’re given clean, relevant instruction. Students don’t need to “control the agenda” to have a great time and gain knowledge. I would be more impressed with the argument had the author cited any example or proof reinforcing this approach beyond their own personal theories. As it is, it’s a daydream.

The author’s focus on collaboration in the final paragraph suggests fostering:

“… work in cooperative learning groups to conduct research and develop group presentations on topics of interest to group members, including perhaps some topics that specifically address job-related areas of interest. These activities would help students develop practical workplace skills (e.g., locating, using and organizing information, writing, working collaboratively, organizing complex tasks).”

A student who graduates from high school without any vocational education generally can apply only to positions in service and retail. They simply don’t possess the necessary skills to be employed in a greater capacity. The author should know that $8/hr. jobs that depend truly on collaboration, organizing complex tasks and collecting/processing/disseminating information don’t exist [outside of on-the-job training programs that form a paucity of the job market]. A student with little formal education and few marketable skills needs to understand that their career will, for some time, consist of being told what to do and doing it. Again, this is reality - ask around.

Many lament the “me me me” culture with young adults in the workforce, but can you blame those kids? This teacher’s approach is representative of young teachers - and I’ll cite the proof of this in my follow-up explanation about why this essay matters - and their proclivity for creating a mismatch between a student’s mind and the reality of employment. The French call it anomie, which is defined loosely as a a rift between one’s existence in the world [or how they perceive their existence] and its actual structure. A teacher need not batter students with the harsh realities of life to overcome this anomic feeling of self-importance - in truth, sometimes our own thoughts and feelings just don’t factor into the situation. Giving students a blank slate and showing them that defining their own career path to the nth degree won’t match up well when someone kicks them a mop and bucket and tells them to clock out at exactly 5:00pm. Some call it cognitive dissonance; I call it being miserable at your job because you were groomed to be a free-thinking CEO. [And, as an extension, the argument that these skills can come in handy later in life is irrelevant - they can and will be learned more effectively and efficiently on the job, not in an English classroom.]

This essay’s argument is heavy on fluff, light on reality and is written poorly. Do I want this person teaching my child English? Not particularly, though I could parlay the teacher’s inadequacies into examples for valuable instruction during time at home. Do I want someone without any grasp on employment to teach my child how to approach work? Again, I’ll pass.

The troubling part here is that while I’d avoid this teacher at all costs - as a student, parent or administrator - the state of New York uses them as a model.

Content grade: D; Writing grade: C/C-.

Overall grade: C-.