Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


[Susan notes: AGHHHHHH!]

Published in New York Times
07/17/2005

To the editor




Re "Study Great Ideas, but Teach to the Test," by Michael Winerip (Education page, July 13):



It is argued that standardized writing tests hurt the teaching of writing because teachers are forced to use the five-paragraph formula to help students pass even though it kills creativity and doesn't let them think.

Skip to next paragraph

Scott Stowell



The five-paragraph formula is not ideal; it's not even the ideal formula, but it's better than nothing. So, too, with standardized writing tests.



Let's be honest: Because of the No Child Left Behind Act's testing requirement, kids are writing more, the key to improving writing skills, because if they don't, they fail the standardized test.



American society places great emphasis on individual liberty and intellectual creativity, but students can't be great creative writers if they are not technically competent.



Strong writers don't need to use the five-paragraph formula; low-proficiency writers, and most school students, are better off using the defective five-paragraph formula than nothing.



Matt White

Swarthmore, Pa., July 13, 2005

The writer is director of the Writers Lab, a company that offers resources, books and training to improve results on the essay section of standardized tests.





To the Editor:



Michael Winerip cites the dilemma that many teachers face when they think they must teach the five-paragraph essay format for their students to be successful on standardized tests that include essay writing.



The College Board believes that students who follow this format may be denying themselves opportunities to write to their full potential.



The SAT essay is carefully designed to measure a student's mastery of many different elements of writing, with prompts to stimulate critical thinking about complex issues.



Critical thinking involves dealing with the complexity of an issue, not oversimplifying in the rush to produce an introduction, three "fitting" examples and a conclusion in 25 minutes.



In fact, students may be more likely to demonstrate critical thinking if they give one or two extended examples, taking the time to explain interactions between ideas.



Students will be better prepared for college writing success by learning formats that go beyond the five-paragraph essay.



Kathleen Williams

V.P., Office of Academic

Initiatives and Test Development

The College Board

New York, July 13, 2005





To the Editor:



"Study Great Ideas, but Teach to the Test" illustrates a dilemma: the needs of students to learn standard forms of communication sometimes interfere with what teachers love to do (teach creative writing).



But just as there is a place for dessert in a well-balanced meal, there is a place for creative writing in a well-balanced curriculum. In both instances, that place is usually toward the end - after the part that is less delicious but more nutritious.



The point is furthered by the fact that creativity by definition involves playing with conventions. Therefore, one cannot be creative without some level of mastery of the conventional.



K-8 may be a time during which the educational needs of children allow for less creative writing than some might like, especially for those children who have not yet been properly nurtured with regard to constructing the standard five-paragraph essay.



Paul Strand

Richland, Wash., July 13, 2005

The writer is an associate professor of psychology at Washington State University.





To the Editor:



Michael Winerip is concerned that formulaic writing strategies impede the development of students' thinking skills. I share his concern but question his diagnosis.



The "five-paragraph essay" is not the root of the problem; in fact, it's a reasonably good way to develop a little facility handling supporting evidence.



Like training wheels, the five-paragraph essay has its place. The real question is how to help kids move beyond it.



Creative departures from the five-paragraph formula should be encouraged, but there is little evidence that creative flights, as such, impart clarity, depth or cogency of thought.



The ability to organize and evaluate reasons (logic) was once the centerpiece of a good education. Sadly, it has been displaced by content-centered courses: courses that teach kids what to think rather than how to think. The solution is a return to thinking-skills instruction.



Andrew Norman

Pittsburgh, July 14, 2005

The writer develops thinking-skills curriculums for high school students.

multiple authors


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.