Common Core's Substandard Writing StandardsANTHONY ESOLEN
I've donned my boots and leggings, and done what I had no desire to do. I am examining, with tedious scrutiny, the so-called Common Core Curriculum for literature and English, a new'n'improved set of standards for reading and writing in our schools from kindergarten to twelfth grade.
The best essay by far, for both style and organization, is a report on the economic effects of the Spanish Flu, in the United States after the First World War. No other essay in the set comes close. To read the others, after this one, is to stumble down the side of a ravine. Yet I would not want one of my students to have written this essay, not in a hundred years.
I'll get to the paper's troubles in due course, saving the most disappointing and troubling for another time. First I must show where the battle lines are. For battle lines there indeed are; it is not that the authors and I disagree about how best to teach students how to read poetry or to write well about the Spanish Flu. We are not quarreling colonels on the same side in a war. We are enemies. The authors believe that the humanities are subordinate to rhetoric. We read a poem by Keats in order to see, or to pretend that we see, how he uses images or odd words or a cunning series of expressions to persuade us of some peculiar point of view. The authors do not read poems at all, really. They read texts, or, as they put it with the air of technicians, text. When you read a passage by Dostoyevsky, or a poem by Donne, or the maunderings of a politically correct doyen, you are reading text, and reading text requires the same techniques, always and ever, just as there is a correct way to dissect a dead cat on the laboratory table. But I and my comrades believe that rhetoric is subordinate to the humanities. We attend to Keats' words and metaphors so that we will better see what he is saying to us about what it means to be human. We do not invert the order of ends. We care ultimately about the good, the true, and the beautiful, and what vision of those that Keats was granted to see. We read poetry as poetry, and we rejoice in its truth and its beauty, nor do we presume to know all about it.
The authors of the curriculum read and write by formula. It is deadly. For writing is an art, not a science. It cannot be taught by rule. It cannot be divided into component parts, like the levers and hammers of a machine. It is at once too familiar to us, because we see it around us all the time, as we see weeds, dirt, litter, rubble, and all the other debris of common and unconsidered life; and not at all familiar, since so little of what we do see is worthy of our attention, much less our love. Writing can let the truth shine out for even the simplest, or it can sow the seeds of lies under such thick mud of verbiage that even the wisest may miss them. And the more it is taught as if it were a science, especially a mechanical one, the more likely will it be put in the service of lies.
Most students cannot rise even to that level. That is still no bar against their learning to write well, so long as we remember what good writing is. Grammar aside, good writing is as I have said, the honest expression of what the writer knows or sees or believes or feels. Its first rule is truth. Set aside bad grammar and maladroit style. Good writing is honest and possesses those traits that are the common companions of honesty: clarity, modesty, plainness, good humor. Bad writing is dishonest and keeps company with ruffians and fools: vagueness, muddle, ostentation, self-promotion, and concealment. We cannot teach every student to be John Ruskin. We cannot teach more than a few of them to be worthy imitators of John Ruskin. But we can teach them to be honest. We cannot raise every boy to be Lord Nelson or every woman to be Florence Nightingale. But we can raise every boy to be a man and every girl to be a woman.
So, when I don my robe as the Unteacher, I never say to my students, "Follow these steps and you will be a great writer," as if I were imparting the secret ingredients of an infallible potion. I say, "Never pretend to know what you do not really know. Never pretend to believe what you do not believe. Never affect a certainty you cannot reasonably claim. Never affect uncertainty so as not to offend the muddled. Never use a word whose meaning and usage you are unclear about. Never open a thesaurus unless you are looking for a word you know quite well but cannot at the moment remember. Never put on airs."
Let me give an example. In the space of a very few sentences, the writer makes these claims:
Now, the thing about these claims is that they cannot all be true at once. The writer hasn't noticed it, because he's doing a cut-and-paste job, pretending to know what he doesn't know and to have examined what he hasn't examined. If every single person alive right now were infected with the Spanish Flu, and if the mortality rate were as high as Source D says it was in 1918, and if 2 billion people were to die of it, as Source C says, then the world's population would have to be 80 billion.
But every single person was not infected. Most people were not infected. Source C says that 1 American in 200 died of the Spanish Flu. If the mortality rate were 1 in 40, as Source D says, that means that 1 in 5 Americans were infected. If 1 in 5 people worldwide were infected — a generous supposition, since the author notes elsewhere that Americans during the war were especially susceptible to the infection, because of crowding at military bases, camps, and hospitals — then there would have had to be 20 billion people alive at the time. That is not even close to the truth.
The first claim is that America was just as vulnerable to the flu as Europe had been to the Black Death. Source E says that the Black Death killed a third of the population of Europe. But according to Source C, the population of America in 1918 was roughly 110 million. One third of 110 million is about 37 million. Then it is quite ridiculous to assert equivalence: a man in Europe when the Black Death struck was more than 60 times as likely to die as was a man in America when the Spanish Flu hit. It is also, therefore, misleading in the extreme to imply that the Spanish Flu was the worst pandemic in history. Even in absolute numbers, it is not true. And the essay is not about absolute numbers. It purports to be about the damage done to the American economy by the Spanish Flu; and for that we need relative numbers, not absolute numbers.
These problems, which do not have to do with the style of the essay, are pretty easy to notice. They are boulders in the reader's path. All you have to do is to pause and look. But the author did not do that, nor did his teacher, nor did the mechanics of the Common Core Curriculum. For the mechanics, the crucial thing is that the author presents "evidence" for his claims, and not whether the evidence is really evidence, or whether the pieces of evidence are consistent with one another, or whether the author draws just conclusions from the evidence. They apply the rubric of their very badly written checklist: the author "develops the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience's knowledge of the topic." Again, this is their model essay, and it is the best of them all, written with no time constraints and with opportunity for "feedback" (note the mechanical term) from the teacher.
More to come.
Anthony Esolen. "Progressive Inhumanity, Part One: The State against the Family." Crisis Magazine (November 18, 2013).
Reprinted with permission of Crisis Magazine.
Crisis Magazine is an educational apostolate that uses media and technology to bring the genius of Catholicism to business, politics, culture, and family life. Our approach is oriented toward the practical solutions our faith offers — in other words, actionable Catholicism.
Copyright © 2013 Crisis Magazine
Not all articles published on CERC are the objects of official Church teaching, but these are supplied to provide supplementary information.