I read with interest the article, “WW-P Debate: How Best to Teach Reading and Writing,” published on June 28 in the West Windsor & Plainsboro News. Because I was interviewed by one of the two students writing this article, and because I have a particular expertise in the field of language arts, I am writing to comment on both the opinions expressed and the erroneous information presented in this article.
I do not wish to remain anonymous. I am Cynthia Mershon, recently-retired West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District Teacher Resource Specialist for Language Arts, Grade 4-8. I have taught in West Windsor-Plainsboro for 26 years, working with both struggling and gifted readers, and serving also as a language arts supervisor. In addition, I have been a reading specialist and high school English teacher in other school districts and a librarian in city and county systems. I have worked as a consultant and presented workshops in school districts and at professional conferences throughout the United States. My experience with and knowledge of reading and writing research, pedagogy, and how children acquire language and reading and writing skills is broad, varied, and has developed over a career dedicated to ensuring students become members of “the literacy club.”
I was invited to meet with one of the authors of this article in the High School North Media Center. I was surprised at his interest in the Language Arts Program Review; it wasn’t a topic I thought a high school sophomore would choose to investigate.
My interest was piqued when his questions began — I recognized specific questions (and the language within them) as those that had been raised in Program Review meetings attended only by district teachers and administrators. I was curious to know how he would have had access to the information and conversations he referenced. I concluded he had been supported in this journalism project by his teacher, provided with pertinent information and data that could assist him in developing his assignment. Because of my concerns, I remember being relieved he was recording most of our meeting, thinking it was a good idea to have both the questions, as well as our conversation in response to them, “on the record.”
Imagine my surprise when I read the completed article and found my comments and answers significantly abbreviated to the extent their meaning was compromised, major parts of our conversation excluded, important facts omitted, and more than a few factual errors. For example:
1. The writers state that the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project promotes “a controversial classroom philosophy known as the ‘Columbia model.’” There is no “Columbia model.” Does Teachers College make recommendations, based on educational research, for best classroom practice within the model of a “workshop” approach? Yes. Do those recommendations, taken as a whole, create a scaffold that can be used to support teaching in language arts classrooms to produce successful student learning? Absolutely.
The Teachers College Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University, founded by Lucy Calkins in the early 1980s, is a think tank that works with school districts in the United States and abroad, helping teachers and administrators to develop workshop teaching in reading and writing. The recommendations made for classroom practice are research-based strategies developed by literacy experts throughout the world; these recommendations can be found in a wide variety of professional books and journals, research reports, etc. West Windsor-Plainsboro has elected to pursue a professional development relationship with Teachers College because of its outstanding scholastic reputation as well as its geographic proximity to the school district. It is laudable, and not unusual, that we would choose to develop and improve our language arts program by collaborating with highly regarded experts in the field of literacy.
2. The article suggests that Teachers College emphasizes small group instruction at the expense of all other classroom strategies. Teachers College does include small group work among its workshop components, but does not limit its pedagogy to this one strategy. It also recommends, when appropriate, whole class teaching for the purpose of direct instruction, one-on-one teacher/student conferences and interaction, student partnership conversations, and independent student work.
Teacher-led discussions have always been an important component of workshop teaching, and direct instruction of reading and writing skills and strategies — including reading and writing strategies as well as grammar, punctuation, and usage — are the cornerstone of any good literacy program. One need only look at WW-P’s language arts curriculum or any of Teachers College’s teacher support materials to see that direct instruction is a daily occurrence — the reading and writing workshop begins with, is built around, and ends with explicit teaching.
3. The article appears to find it surprising, or even unfair, that teachers are required to attend professional development sessions focusing on the teaching of writing. It is common, and common sense, practice for school districts to require their teachers to attend professional development. The State of New Jersey, in fact, requires that teachers accumulate 100 hours of professional development time for every five years they teach. Teachers College staff developers meet with all K-8 staff five times each year. Teachers are released from their teaching responsibilities but of course are paid for these professional development days.
In addition, they receive professional development credit for the hours they spend with Teachers College staff members. The staff developers are former teachers who are experts in their field; they offer seminars and conduct “lab-site” demonstration lessons in classrooms so WW-P teachers can watch workshop teaching in action. During some sessions, teachers collaborate with staff developers to discuss and plan curriculum, developing reading and writing units of study that can be used in classrooms.
4. Teachers who are employed by a school district are of course responsible to implement that district’s curriculum. The first workshop-based language arts curriculum (identified in the article as a “new philosophy”) was written by teachers and administrators and approved by the Board of Education in 1994. Groundbreaking work in literacy at Teachers College was one of the resources used to develop this curriculum, but many other professional resources were used as well (all professional references used to write curricula are listed in each of the district’s curriculum documents).
This curriculum was revised in 2004 and again in 2010; it is revisited each year to make certain it is current, aligned with national standards, and meets the needs of students in the school district. Teachers from each grade level at each of the district’s buildings work in committee with administrators to develop and write language arts curriculum. When finished, it is presented for approval to the Board of Education.
5. The Language Arts Program Review of 2001 was not “comprised solely of internal observations.” There were four outside consultants: two university professors, one principal, and one curriculum supervisor. Their names, easily seen, are listed at the beginning of the report.
6. My comments about the “same things coming up” in future program reviews were cut short to create a response that I did not intend. Recasting my comments in this manner enables them to support an obvious agenda for this article, but also compromises the meaning I believe I made clear during my interview. I believe I talked long about the problem with too little time to teach reading and writing in grades 4 through 8. The 2001 program review mentioned this issue; the program review in 2013 highlighted it as well. My guess is our next program review will say the same thing.
Our district has less than half the time recommended by research to teach reading and writing at these grade levels, and although we have considered and examined this problem in depth, we seem unable to change or adapt our daily school schedule to ensure minutes are added for teaching literacy. We have many amazing opportunities for students at these grade levels, and no one is willing to sacrifice any one of them. We do realize we are shortchanging the teaching of reading and writing and continue to search for a solution. Exactly what should we eliminate from our curriculum to create more time? We continue to explore this question, which is nearly impossible to answer.
7. And, finally, a question: How, as the article states, do “WW-P students produce impressive standardized test scores” if they are participating in a language arts program that “does not adequately prepare them for intensive high school language arts classes”? I am wondering if facts would be helpful in answering this question.
For instance, in the fall of 2012, I attended a Board of Education Curriculum Committee meeting with Martin Smith, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, and Deirdre Bova, then K-12 Supervisor of Language Arts. The focus of our discussion was standardized test scores in writing in the district. The data presented at that meeting showed a steady increase in scores over the last nine years. Is it possible that a language arts program that does not adequately prepare students can also produce students who write successfully on standardized tests?
And, Dr. Bethany Rice, representing the Public Consulting Group (PCG) as an external consultant for WW-P’s recent Language Arts Program Review, included in her report this statement regarding grades 3-8 students’ performance on the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK): “The students in West Windsor-Plainsboro School District consistently outperform their peers statewide.The district continues to outperform the state at other grade levels as well.” When talking about grade 11 students’ performance on the HSPA, Dr. Rice wrote, “That 97 percent of students in both [high] schools achieve proficiency is exceedingly strong performance worthy of commendation.”
I continue to wonder about the agenda behind the choice of this topic and the questionable decisions that created the final article. I appreciate that the task was authentic — once written, the piece was submitted to a newspaper for publication so it could be read and considered by a large audience. I appreciate the efforts at including the attributes of a good newspaper article — I see clearly a dramatic lead, a deliberate statement of “who, what, where, and when,” an attempt to answer the questions “How did this happen?” and “Why did this happen?” I understand that investigative writing is angled; it is suggestive, usually about a particular issue or concern. Journalists take a stance. They choose what they will write and then they angle that writing based on the information they uncover as they work.
What puzzles me is the authors’ and newspaper’s willingness to quote by name several of their sources, but to offer other people interviewed for this article anonymity. Invisibility cloaks belong in stories about Harry Potter. Why are people who feel strongly about this topic reluctant to take responsibility for their opinions? And why do they fail to allow facts to interfere with those opinions? What happened to “the courage of our convictions?”
I am puzzled also by the newspaper’s failure to contact me to ascertain if I did make the statements attributed to me. How do the editors know if my statements were truly and fairly represented in the article as written rather than deliberately distorted to serve the agenda of the writer(s)? Was information in the article, in general, checked for accuracy?
I know that, in 2013, the term “responsible journalism” may sound like an oxymoron to some people. I still believe that good writing has the power to change the world, but with that power comes the obligation to pursue and reveal with fidelity the facts and data associated with events and opinions. It is not the writer’s choice to act in this way — it is his responsibility.
That said, constructive argument and disagreement will always be an important component of any successfully functioning organization, school districts included. Without constant examination and conversation around curriculum, teaching and learning do not evolve; responsible school districts are always looking at research, looking for the most efficient and effective way to teach students, so teaching methods do necessarily change. Responsible educators recognize the necessity for change and respond appropriately. I understand that conversations around school curricula, particularly reading and writing, can be highly charged and political. This article isn’t the first, and I imagine it will not be the last time someone writes about teachers, administrators, and school districts “wrestling” with the “controversy” surrounding language arts teaching.
We are living in a world where people are writing more than ever. We all know that students who leave school lacking strong literacy skills will no longer find jobs waiting for them. We know, too, that one of the most powerful and reliable ways to propel students’ progress as learners is by supplying them with first-rate skills in writing.
I am fortunate and proud to have worked in a school district for 26 years that is passionate about and unyielding in their commitment to excellence and excellent teaching. West Windsor-Plainsboro teachers, administrators, and parents have worked together to develop a successful writing program based on educational research, state and national standards, and visionary knowledge of what the future will demand of students. We continue to read, to talk, to examine, to study, to reflect, and to do everything we can to ensure all children have access to literacy.
Is this work easy? No. Are there discussions about how curriculum will look and what will be taught? Yes. But, is this work important, even critical? Certainly. As a district that cares deeply about its students and their success, we are constantly, and responsibly, involved in the pursuit of the best way to teach reading and writing. Our students — our writers — deserve no less.
— Cynthia Mershon
Editor’s note: A reporter and an editor from the WW-P News were both present at the Board of Education meeting when consultant Bethany Rice presented her language arts review, and a story was printed in the January 18 edition of the News. The feature story in the June 28 issue, written by High School North students David Yaffe-Bellany and Liam Knox, further develops the points raised in the original news story, as do the comments from Cynthia Mershon above. The News appreciates the continued discussion and welcomes more letters on the subject.
