In response to my post yesterday on the state's plan to water down K-12 education by striking the speech requirement from South Dakota's high school graduation rules, an eager reader points me toward a survey distributed by the Department of Education last month for the purpose of, according to a Department of Education e-mail, "gathering opinions from administrators and teachers of English Language Arts to determine if a proposal should be taken before the South Dakota Board of Education."
The survey language makes clear that the Department wants to do more than eliminate the speech requirement; they want to collapse all of our specific English requirements into one general requirement:
[South Dakota Department of Education, online survey, announced 2013.03.19, accessed 2013.04.27]
I shouldn't tease the Glenn Beck bears, but do you notice the line about American literature? On paper, the Department of Education's proposal removes the explicit requirement that students spend at least one semester reading American literature.
But there is less cause to worry here, fellow patriots, than there is in the speech question. The Common Core English Language Arts Standards make clear that teachers must expose students to at least one American play, along with one play by Shakespeare (what, just one? You've got to do Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet!). Grade 6-12 students must also "demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics" [p. 38]. The Test Exemplars and Performance Tasks also include plenty of American lit, including that fine Bolshevisky tract The Grapes of Wrath.
Common Core standards define a specific minimum for American literature but not speech communication for one sad reason, pointed out by educator Steve O'Brien:
Speech, even if incorporated into other English classes, will be largely set aside as the pressure to get to the "tested" material will dominate the teacher's focus. As speech (and don't get me wrong, I highly value speech and debate) is not tested, it is not as important in the accountability (test) model of education [Steve O'Brien, comment, Madville Times, 2013.04.26].
We can put literature on bubble tests. We can even fit some writing into the standardized tests. But we can't efficiently evaluate student speaking skills in a standardized test setting. We can only evaluate how well a student speaks with dedicated teachers in each classroom, coaching and listening to each child.
And since South Dakota doesn't trust teachers, and since Pearson and the other test companies couldn't make money if we did trust our teachers, those tests will dictate what we teach. Testable lit stays; speech goes.
Cory,
I have actually looked at this as a serious possibility to improve the English curriculum. The CC Speech standards implore all teachers across the subjects to increase presentations and speech delivery. My consideration of this has nothing to do with standardized testing of speech standards. Rather, I think that this change along with a comprehensive district-created technology set of standards that utilizes the tech present in the school and technology presentation methods could change speech instruction. For example, these standards would also teach students how to present with technology (no 14-point, 79 word power point slides with random, pixelated clip art). It is very much like the reading for information standards that will predominantly appear on social studies and science teachers' curriculum maps rather than the English teachers' maps. If done correctly, I think this comprehensive proposal, like I am suggesting, would actually give more credibility and relevancy to speech class. For example, rather than a demonstration speech on baking a cake, it would be a demonstration speech on solving proofs or a science experiment. It increases relevancy and at the same time gives the ELA teachers more opportunities in their school year for language instruction.
I do not know of this is the intent of the DOE, but If done correctly, it may actually be very beneficial.
Common Core implores all teachers across all subjects to teach math and English standards, but we aren't getting rid of math and English requirements. I'm all for relevancy and good speaking in every classroom, but we add significant value by spending a semester making speech communication an object of study in itself. Embedding speech standards in all classes is good—we should spend at least as much time practicing speech as we do practicing writing —but let's enhance the speech requirement, not replace it, to show kids how important speech communication really is.
"If Done Correctly"—you're putting an awful lot of faith in schools to focus on a skill set that will never be on the standardized tests. I don't want schools to get swept up in testing nuttiness, but as long as we have D-STEP or its successor driving state evaluations and reports and press about schools, schools will spend less time teaching speech and more time teaching the basic math, English, and science skills that will keep their fat out of the bubble-test fire. The speech graduation requirement is the only thing keeping speech communication from going the way art, music, French, and other non-required courses went under No Child Left Behind.
Presentation with technology: Sure, if DOE goes this way, we can make lemons from lemonade and teach good digital communication in other classes. But we can make sure tech-speech gets taught and taught right in a dedicated speech class with certified speech teachers who know their digital stuff.
By removing the speech class requirement, isn't DOE moving away from having highly qualified speech teachers teach speech? Aren't they basically declaring that anyone in any discipline can teach speech just as well as you or Kerry Konda or Sally Pies?
Samantha,
I have no idea who you are, where you teach, if you teach, or if you're an administrator, but a couple of your comments are naïve.
You write, "It is very much like the reading for information standards that will predominantly appear on social studies and science teachers' curriculum maps rather than the English teachers' maps." I have talked with English teachers from across the state. To a person, they tell the same story; no one in the other departments cares about the reading for information. standards Members of the other departments believe the English department exists to teach reading. The Common Core standards will decimate the teaching of fiction. English departments, not history departments, will be held responsible for teaching The Federalist Papers or historical writings that the Core will test.
Second, the Power Point speeches you use for an example provide the reason other departments won’t take the time to use them. A four minute speech takes at least eight minutes of class time. The students need to move to and from their seats; the teacher needs to write some notes and record a preliminary grade, the student needs to call up the Power Point, and someone will ask to use the rest room or do something to slow down the process between each speech. If I have a standard 50 minute period, I can get through six speeches in a day. If I have 26 students in a class, that speech takes up a week of class time. No teachers in another discipline will cut material so that they can get in speeches for the sake of getting in speeches. (I will leave aside for now the assertion made by a former BHSU speech professor that Power Point bullet points kill communication.)
Third, to echo Cory’s point, school administrators will concern themselves with what will be reported. In this instance, it’s test scores. Since a speech does not fit on a bubble test, the speech standards will be near the bottom of their concerns. Since the Core standards emphasize reading for information, they will demand that literature and literature electives will be cut. Education has moved toward a brave new world of testing uber alles. Given the trend, I will wager that any grandchildren that I might see graduate from high school will be unable to recognize the literary allusion I just made.
Finally, if speech isn’t a separate standard, schools will kill debate programs to save money. Debate demands that students apply knowledge from across the curriculum. That fact won’t matter because claim, data, warrant aren’t part of any bubble test
In a perfect world Samantha's suggestion would be great. The reality of it is that other disciplines probably aren't going to take the time to teach speech and all that good speech writing and presentation entails.
In high school I was terrified of getting in front of my peers and speaking, but without those terrifying moments I would never have been ready for college speech. Because my high school speech requirement was so rigorous, I was able to take Speech 101 without any problems. I knew how to create outlines, do research, back up my arguments, and I could finally get up and speak in front of my peers without too much anxiety. I could not image going to college and not having a formal speech or debate class in high school. As a Speech teacher, I do the same for my students. At some point in their lives almost everyone will have to give formal or informal remarks in front of a group, wouldn't it be better if everyone at least knew how to do this? Are they eliminating the first year speech requirement at the collegiate level as well?
As for leaving this to the other disciplines to pick up the speech requirement, here are my thoughts. I agree with Kal Lis.
For years I and my colleagues have been worrying and fretting over the D-STEP test reading scores, we have sat in numerous meetings trying to figure out how to get "bubble" kids moved up and how we can in general improve reading scores. When you sit down and look at the data compiled and compare it to the questions students are getting correct, many times the passages they are missing the most questions on are not the ones that have to do with the Language Arts curriculum but instead are the history and science related passages. I have had numerous discussions with teachers in those fields about this discrepancy. I have been told more than once that it isn't the science or history teacher's responsibility to teach "reading" and yet much of the content in standardized tests including the ACT are directly related to those fields of study. I also find it interesting when I look at Common Core that those non-fiction selections that were taught in the social science area when I first stared teaching are now going to be taught in Language Arts instead. Now that Common Core is here, we are going to take away many elements of literature and replace them with historical non-fiction text. Instead of having social science cover this content, we are moving it to the English Department. How can it be expected that other disciplines are going to teach speech to the level of a certified Speech teacher when the reading content in other areas is being moved in Language Arts?
Samantha, Kal Lis, Corrine, these are all useful comments. Can we get some more teachers to weigh in here, then forward this thread to the Board of Education members?