The Common Core Standards make crystal clear that college and professional workplace readiness demand student ability to read and write arguments. Indeed, while identifying the three genres of writing in the Anchor Standards, Appendix A stresses the priority of argument:
While all three text types are important, the Standards put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness.
What many educators do not fully understand, however, is that the Standards define argument in the narrower sense found in logic rather than in the colloquial sense. Although many people think that an argument is a one-sided attempt at persuading somebody of something, using whatever rhetorical tricks they can muster, an academic argument is more like a scientific paper that aims at understanding not one-ups-manship:
English and education professor Gerald Graff (2003) writes that “argument literacy” is fundamental to being educated. The university is largely an “argument culture,” Graff contends; therefore, K–12 schools should “teach the conflicts” so that students are adept at understanding and engaging in argument (both oral and written) when they enter college. He claims that because argument is not standard in most school curricula, only 20 percent of those who enter college are prepared in this respect. Theorist and critic Neil Postman (1997) calls argument the soul of an education because argument forces a writer to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of multiple perspectives. When teachers ask students to consider two or more perspectives on a topic or issue, something far beyond surface knowledge is required: students must think critically and deeply, assess the validity of their own thinking, and anticipate counterclaims in opposition to their own assertions.
The unique importance of argument in college and careers is asserted eloquently by Joseph M. Williams and Lawrence McEnerney (n.d.) of the University of Chicago Writing Program. As part of their attempt to explain to new college students the major differences between good high school and college writing, Williams and McEnerney define argument not as “wrangling” but as “a serious and focused conversation among people who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively”:
To reinforce this point, there is sidebar in which “persuasion” and “argument are contrasted:
“Argument” and “Persuasion”
When writing to persuade, writers employ a variety of persuasive strategies. One common strategy is an appeal to the credibility, character, or authority of the writer (or speaker). When writers establish that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy, audiences are more likely to believe what they say. Another is an appeal to the audience’s self-interest, sense of identity, or emotions, any of which can sway an audience. A logical argument, on the other hand, convinces the audience because of the perceived merit and reasonableness of the claims and proofs offered rather than either the emotions the writing evokes in the audience or the character or credentials of the writer. The Standards place special emphasis on writing logical arguments as a particularly important form of college- and career-ready writing.
This has major ramifications for how teachers teach writing in which claims and evidence are advanced. That means that such time-honored rhetorical moves as cherry-picking the data to supports one’s views in a History or Science paper can no longer be acceptable. All key counter-evidence and counter-argument must be addressed.
Thus, a big error in the grade-level writing standards IMHO. This therefore leads me to claim that the specific grade-level standards below 6th grade in writing standard #1 are arbitrary and unwise.
Here is the anchor standard:
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
However, for grades 4, 5 and 6, the following is given as the first writing standard:
1. Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons and information.
Why not demand an argument? Why not expect a consideration, not matter how unsophisticated, of counter-evidence and counter-argument? There is no developmental reason not to do so. More to the point, why make the students and teachers think that merely offering opinions with a bit of (cherry-picked) evidence is satisfactory evidence for meeting the writing standard – only to be undone in Grade 6?? Why wouldn’t the Anchor Standard be used across all grades? At the very least it is a clear warning: do NOT just read grade level standards!!
Anyone who has ever worked on Standards Committees as I have knows that the grade-level descriptors are rife with arbitrariness as sub-committees try to pick verbs and adverbs that somehow progress each Standard from grade to grade. But many of these distinctions are without justification (ironically). And in the case of ELA it is superfluous: the Anchor Standards are precisely as they are named – they provide an Anchor for ALL grade levels. Each and every grade, where it can, should have the same standard, therefore. Then, all that would differ would be our EXPECTATIONS in terms of argument precision, thoroughness, and excellence over time. Put concretely, all that would change from year to year would be the anchor papers.
I’m just saying in a nice way what David Coleman famously said on video: in the real world no one gives a shit about your opinion. In the narrow sense of “mere” opinion without thorough support and argument, he is assuredly correct (even though, out of context, it sounds snarky and harsh.)
An example of why this matters. I thought readers would find it interesting and helpful to see a Freshman College writing assignment that reflects the key reading and writing standards on argument. As luck would have it, my son has gone back to college after a 5 year hiatus and he is in a Freshman writing course at Columbia. The attachments below come from his current writing assignment:
- the writing prompt
- the two readings the writing must discuss
- one of the two exemplary papers provided as models
This set provides a crystal-clear example of what college professors expect vis a vis these standards.
Sontag – Looking at War (reading)
Nussbaum – Compassion and Terror (reading)
Conversation – Bressman – Fighting Indifference (model)
The broader lesson here is that the Standards mean very little without knowing the level of rigor in the expectations that are expected. Rigor is established not by the teaching but the assessment: the rigor of the task, the rigor of the models and rubric, and the standard set by the model papers. Faculties that spend all their time on thinking about instruction vis a vis the Standards will be missing the whole point of what a Standard is. It specifies outcomes, not inputs. (For a great resource that contains many sample assessment and papers, see David Conley’s book College Knowledge.)
PS: A shout-out to my wife, Denise, who two years ago did a close reading of the Standards and caught this distinction between argument and persuasion that had heretofore gone unnoticed since the key text (quoted) above is in the Appendix, not the Standards themselves.
15 Responses
Thank you for this post. I have been using the Reader’s Journey curriculum with our current 6th graders (you helped design the “Big Questions” for it). Since most of the students are ELLs, it has taken me 9 weeks instead of the recommended 6 weeks to finish the Unit. This is my first time teaching elementary students (I was a middle and high school teacher and literacy coach prior to this). Anyway, when we turned to answering the “Big Question” towards the end of the Unit (comparing our recorded thoughts from when we began), every single student wrote some version and length of, “It is not easy to pick a side; there are many possibilities.” Their final essays (length was not specified) then explored an understanding of the “Big Question” based on the selections in the book. Their short essays put some lengthy college papers to shame.
Great to hear!
Interesting post! I also wonder if the problem you see is based upon societal norms. Let’s be honest here. We don’t really like someone who argues, but persuading doesn’t sound too bad does it? Which sounds worse: Arguing with the your boss, or Persuading your boss?
It’s a shame because I think we actually learn a lot more from a multi-sided argument. I don’t think we learn much from a persuasion or opinion discussion. I also think arguments are more about me, persuasions are more about you. When learning, I really think students could get a lot out of understanding the purpose of an argument and use that to further their own knowledge base.
I do agree about the opinion piece in the standards – why can’t it be an argument that advocates for something? Opinions are nice, but I think the expectation is that opinions are just someone’s thoughts. I don’t equate opinions with an argument because they are not necessarily based upon any sort of universal facts. Arguments vs persuasions kind of reminds me of facts vs opinions.
“in the real world no one gives a shit about your opinion.”
Does anyone actually have any data to back this point up?
Reblogged this on Farrell Ink and commented:
If there’s one thing adult education students NEED to know about the new 2014 High School Equivalency Tests, it’s this: You have to evaluate and support ARGUMENTS based on evidence, not just explain your OPINION! I love writing for personal expression and think it should still be a part of our curricula, but there’s more to writing than the five paragraph essay. With his usual clarity, Grant Wiggins explains why argument wins…
I give a shit about opinion. It is important for kids to wonder about and opine on the world. This is where they find their identity. There can be rigor in this as they are encouraged to ground these opinions in objective evidence. I opine that this is as significant work as collecting a body of evidence outside of oneself, and that David Coleman’s opinions are as embedded in the standards as are objective reasoning.
I don’t disagree. But that isn’t quite Coleman’s point. Almost no one is paid for JUST having opinions – even you acknowledge that it must be grounded in objective evidence and that’s the point. In other words he isn’t saying, as I read it, no one cares about your conclusions supported by evidence. A mere opinion is just that – a claim with no evidence. And, yes, as teachers we nurture student voices and should do so – but that isn’t Coleman’s point either. He is talking about the outcome, not the nurturing.
Yes. But here is the issue. The focus in the current standards on close reading of information, to the almost complete exclusion of story, poetry, personal narrative coupled with the focus on objective evidence is crowding out original voice. This is a serious worry in a nation whose historic strength has been original thought.
I share your concern – but only to a point. As a former HS teacher, parent, and researcher i think the shifting of the balance was in order. Achievement demands the ability to read nonfiction. I have never understood why HS and MS were so heavy on novels. I don’t want fiction and poetry crowded out; the imbalance needed rectifying. And from what I see in schools, the baby is not being thrown out with the bath water. All the teachers I have been working with are making the balance better, not worsening it in the other direction. The TCRWP re-balanced its units; so can others.
I agree that a balance needed to be struck. We give much attention is given to supporting claims with evidence and reading of rich non-fiction in our school. These activities are critical for our kids to develop cogent thinking and reasoning. But I do not agree that most schools are striking a balance and making it work. In many schools the need to meet benchmarks, to attend to the teaching of research and structured writing is crowding out original writing, never mind the time to wonder, conjecture, imagine, or opine.
Facts and information are important, but the ability to imagine solutions has often been hindered by an overestimation of the value of fact. Facts, as we know, are constantly shifted by new discovery and a willingness of someone to question and follow a new line of thought. I think you are overestimating the number of teachers who are feeling the freedom or receiving the support to balance that kind of thinking with that which is indexed and valued by how well it can be justified in fact. Even if they wish to do so, their own freedom to wonder, imagine, and opine has been hindered by a system that is judging them, not so much on how well they are interpreting the common core in their classroom, but on much narrower testing outcomes.
But now we’re back to the puzzle of blaming this on the standards. The problem, to say it once again, is not the standards; it is the timid, unimaginative, and ignorant response to the standards at the local level that is the problem. Many fine schools and teachers have not done what you (and I) decry. Because they have strong academic leadership with people who get the Standards. I don’t think i overestimate the number of teachers who feel freedom or receive the support you mention. I actually fear that few schools have sufficient leadership to turn this around. My point still stands: this response to reign in creative work by students and teachers is foolish, based on ignorance. It’s no different than the craziness of curtailing recess. (A small key to Finland’s success is that there are breaks after every class!). All these idiotic decisions are happening locally. Yes, the state could and should do more to warn against these responses but ultimately it is a local matter – for good and (often) for ill.
Yes, and yes! One last thing though. As long as the standards and the tests that (preposterously) are meant to assess them diminish the importance of literature, poetry and original voice, there will continue to be a shift of the balance to the other extreme. If the standards are really meant to lead, then they themselves need to reflect a value for both the deep reading of information and the creative realms, a commitment to cultivating writing in the argumentative and creative realms. The last two years of testing in New York reflected zero focus on story or poetry in the reading or writing components. And as you and I agree, that is what will drive what happens in the classroom. It’s hard to tell what level of imagination people have when they are running on fear.
In the current classroom climate, (and you could dismiss this as rollout, but I would lay this at the feet of the whole culture surrounding the Common Core) there is no space for the important process of wondering, opining, and developing original voice, for students or their teachers. I would go so far as to say that the mind, contrary to what Coleman himself may have intended, has been silenced by a system of carrots and sticks. You cite the lack of imagination, and I will come back to the point that the Common Core will be a failure as long as there is an aura of fear and intimidation surrounding their implementation due to poorly constructed, regressive high-stakes tests and a punitive evaluation system that denigrates teachers. As Daniel Pink so effectively points out, in such a system of it-then rewards, “the focus is narrowed”, but “in complex 21st century tasks the solutions lie on the periphery.”
If we want teachers to engage with the ideas of the Common Core they will need training, practice without punishment, and time to play with and wonder about the ideas and concepts embedded in them. They will need to have their experience and intelligence respected. What we seem to need to find out over and over again is that, in the end, education is what happens between a teacher and her student.
I agree on all counts. Drive out fear was Deming’s most important quality control principle. But the tying of austere test-score-based accountability has nothing to do with common core and never should have been yoked to it. Duncan has now admitted as much. You and I are in total agreement on the 2nd paragraph – so let’s not throw out the baby….
Agreed!