Topic: Duty of Educators

Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.

"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them.  It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them."

SAMPLE-1 (score 6)

The statement above conceals intesting connotations far above curriculum development.  Issues of classroom control and development of scholarly talents are at stake, not simply a debate over which books are acceptable or over revisionist histories.

The statement itself is a bit misleading in that in my experience, student control over curriculum hardly existed.  Each year, there were certain course offerings made available, and students were to choose from those offerings, of course bearing in mind requirements for graduation set forth by the administration.  On a classroom level, the immediate, initial material may have  been somewhat directed by the students, but this was a part of the process allowed by the teacher/professor in order to gain the interest and attention of the students.  However, too much of any one thing becomes problematic; letting students set the curriculum, as with letting students choose and design their own major in college, serves ultimately to dilute the quality of the educational experience unless a single advisor can devote significant amounts of time to the individual student.  This amount of time, or even  the expense to the student of this individual attention, seem to indicate that resources would be better allocated elsewhere.

Of course, any school in which the students decide "what goes" is bound to have problems controlling students.  Once the educators, be they administrators or teachers, are under the control of students, even a democratic situation would be like holding royalty acountable to the mob. Presently, students hear for hours that they should not forget to use a condom in the heat of the moment, and educators think the message gets through,  while half the kids can't even remember to bring a pencil to class.   Students go to school not to simply learn the Pythagorean theorem, but to learn direction and receive guidance. This cannot occur when students are  in charge, and standards, already hard to find in America's contemporary public schools,  will become unenforceable.  If students dictate and administrators do, students will never learn academic responsibility, and if they can't be held accountable for homework, what other responsibilities will they avoid when they get older?

But in another sense, teachers and students do exist in a partnership of sorts.  Teachers are there to satisfy the needs of the student, and the student, while perhaps not being the most experienced/ knowledgeable person  on what his/her needs actually are (versus wants), at least should be afforded some say.   In addition, we must remember what the purpose of education is, and that there are different levels of education.

In high school, the focus is not so much on learning actual material.  The focus is on developing study habits, and on social interaction.  The best secondary schools promote an environment in which individual creativity and pacing can be developed, where students are taught to thinkon their own, and learn to debate and argue in a scholarly way, through writing and other formal methods of discourse.  Group collaboration and interpersonal skills are developed and honed.  The actual details of what is studied and tested is of less importance.  Whether a student reads Maya Angelou, or Yeats, or Euripides essentially is beside the point as long as a student's mind is cultivated, not just their ability to record and recite.  What is important is that secondary students develop and grow in the hands of the professionals.

The secondary educational experience is designed to prepare a student for college.  It is in college where the individual learns to examine the world and how it works, and the individual's place in it.

As for duty, it is the educators' duty not simply to determine the curriculum, but to present it effectively.  They cannot half-heartedly paint it on the blackboard, they must enliven it and actually teach.  Hard work must be lauded, while freeloaders are punished.  These are the duties of teachers, and the duty of the students is not just to learn or study, but to grow. An independent mind is what students need, and that mind has to be in a position to want and be able to question beyond the material presented, not simply to question its legitimacy. That distinction, though subtle, is the difference between letting the students follow a self-destructive course of premature self-determination on the one hand , and permitting on the other hand the fostering of great talents through a cooperative, mentoring relationship

COMMENTARY

This is an insightful, well-articulated discussion of curricular responsibility and the larger issue of academic responsibility.  After a brief introduction examining assumptions implied by the topic, the writer skillfully develops the position that letting students dictate the curriculum could dilute the educational experience.  Allowing students to determine the curriculum, the writer claims, will deny them the guidance and direction they need to learn academic responsibility.

The line of reasoning is strengthened by the discussion of how teachers and students can work in partnership to satisfy the needs of students.  The argument is further advanced with concrete examples from high school courses showing how teachers provide guidance for students through group collaboration, development of interpersonal skills, and preparation for college.  The examples are varied (from condom use to reading Angelou, Yeats, or Euripedes) and used effectively to further support the writer's position.

In the conclusion, the writer thoughtfully discusses how educators should not only determine the curriculum but present it in an enlivened and appropriate manner.  The final sentence, contrasting a "self-destructive course of premature self-determination" and "a cooperative, mentoring relationship," ties the essay together.

The essay is clearly organized, although the writer does not rely on conventional phrases (such as "first," "second," etc.) to signal the organizational structure.  Instead, the organization and focus progress through the line of reasoning that moves fluently and coherently from one paragraph to the next.

Language use is generally precise and effective (e.g., "holding royalty accountable to the mob"), and sentence structure is well controlled (e.g., "hard work must be lauded, while freeloaders are punished").  The few errors are minor, the kind that can easily be made -- and forgiven -- under testing conditions.

This outstanding response received a score of 6.

SAMPLE-2 (score 5)

FROM WHENCE SHOULD CURRICULUM COME?

"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them.  It is the educator's duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them."

As an elementary educator, I believe this stance is extremist.  Educators and the public must come to a middle road.  The high road and the low road are intimated in this statement.  I believe the high road on this topic (from whence should curriculum come) represents a nouveau approach.  Ask the students what they want to learn and study for the year; then meander, research and branch off of their interests.  The low road on this topic (directly endorsed by this statement) is old fashioned and outdated.  The assumptions behind this view include a magical ability by teachers to infuse reams of information, data and knowledge into students' brains that then become internalized and applied by the students.

In a complex and frightening society, we must look to the middle road.  We must infuse the best of the high and the low roads.  Current research has had a lot to say on curriculum development.  Overreaching arguments defend the quality of students' self-directed learning.  However, in order to prepare our students for this society, we must have developed the backbone and anchor for curriculum.  Content and performance standards (i.e. curricula) need to be developed by the district's educators as a map for teachers. When educators provide students with choices WITHIN the map of curriculum, students relish in the freedom and take ownership for their learning.

Were we to provide students the ultimate authority in curriculum development, we would be doing an injustice not only to our students but to society as a whole.  There are specific skills and abilities that need to be developed and taught -- regardless of students' (or for that matter,  teachers') interest.  In my profession as an elementary educator and as a parent, I value the abilities to read, write and be mathematically proficient.  Those students not mastering those critical skills are at a disadvantage.  We see those students become destructive or depressed.  I have observed students struggling with the basics become outcasts in their own little worlds.  Very young outcasts grow into adult outcasts.

I do NOT think it is unfortunate that today's educators emphasize students' interests.  It IS our duty, however, to provide the parameters for their education.  We can not simply state that educators determine curriculum and students follow.  This is just not reality in the classrooms.  When standards and curricular maps have been developed, teachers of today's children have the responsibility (yes, the duty!) to bring life to those maps.  One crucial and successful way, is to provide students variety and choices within the context of "what needs to be covered."  The educator who brings curricula to life for her students and gives her students the responsibility to make choices helps to prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving.

COMMENTARY

This response presents a well-developed analysis of the issue and displays strong control of the elements of writing.  The essay argues in favor of a "middle road" position on the issue by analyzing the pros and cons of both teacher-determined and student-driven curricula.  The argument is clear and well focused, supported with first-hand experience and the results of educational research.

The writer endorses a curriculum that emphasizes strong basic skills (reading, writing, and math) and reminds the reader that the teachers' ultimate responsibility should be to bring curricula to life in order to "prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving."

This essay displays a strong facility with written English language; the careful choice of words and carefully structured paragraphs help unify the structure of the argument.  Overall, this response displays a strong command of academic writing skills and thus received a score of 5.

SAMPLE-3 (score 4)

The above quotation a concrete example of a major problem in our society today. While probably stated with good intentions, the quotation misses the mark on the path education needs to follow.  As our society changes, so do our educational needs, and thus our educational curriculum needs to change also.

I find fault  with the quotation on two fronts.  First, the quotation does not acknowledge that curriculum must change.  It seems to say the educator should decide when to change the curriculum.  This does not lead to optimal learning conditions, ask anyone who studied high school history out of outdated textbooks.  One can also infer some students won't be taught up-to-date informationin a wide variety of areas.  This can become ideologically dangerous.   What happens when students are not given full teachings of such vital movements as the Equal Rights Amendment or the Constitution of their country?  An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope.  Curriculum must change, and should not be left to input from a single voice.

The second argument answers who should make curriculum adjustments.  Obviously the educator still plays alarge role in this matter.  The students also need to be part of the decision process.  The two groups need a give and take relationship when deciding topics for the classroom.  If the students could benefit from learning material that is presently not taught in the classroom, it should be entered.  Sex education and AIDS education classes needed to be part of the curriculum to inform young people.  Those classes were added and have worked well.

A third party that has a role in curriculum development is private business, including research labs, goods and service providers, and financial businesses.  By hiring employees with certain capabilities they have indirectly influenced curriculum for years. As time passes they will have more input by demanding subpar schools raise the level of student test scores in certain areas, either by stating so or by not hiring unqualified students

The quotation echoes of a time when school learning consisted of the three "R"'s and little else.  For better or worse our society is much more complex now than then.   For our schools to keep pace with our society we need to adjust our curriclum to what it should be, what we want it to be, and what it needs to be. The above quotation a concrete example of a major problem in our society today. While probably stated with good intentions, the quotation misses the mark on the path education needs to follow.  As our society changes, so do our educational needs, and thus our educational curriculum needs to change also.

I find fault  with the quotation on two fronts.  First, the quotation does not acknowledge that curriculum must change.  It seems to say the educator should decide when to change the curriculum.  This does not lead to optimal learning conditions, ask anyone who studied high school history out of outdated textbooks.  One can also infer some students won't be taught up-to-date informationin a wide variety of areas.  This can become ideologically dangerous.   What happens when students are not given full teachings of such vital movements as the Equal Rights Amendment or the Constitution of their country?  An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope.  Curriculum must change, and should not be left to input from a single voice.

The second argument answers who should make curriculum adjustments.  Obviously the educator still plays alarge role in this matter.  The students also need to be part of the decision process.  The two groups need a give and take relationship when deciding topics for the classroom.  If the students could benefit from learning material that is presently not taught in the classroom, it should be entered.  Sex education and AIDS education classes needed to be part of the curriculum to inform young people.  Those classes were added and have worked well.

A third party that has a role in curriculum development is private business, including research labs, goods and service providers, and financial businesses.  By hiring employees with certain capabilities they have indirectly influenced curriculum for years. As time passes they will have more input by demanding subpar schools raise the level of student test scores in certain areas, either by stating so or by not hiring unqualified students

The quotation echoes of a time when school learning consisted of the three "R"'s and little else.  For better or worse our society is much more complex now than then.   For our schools to keep pace with our society we need to adjust our curriclum to what it should be, what we want it to be, and what it needs to be.

COMMENTARY

This essay presents a competent discussion of the issue.  The essay's argument -- that curriculum should be determined by many voices, including that of private business -- is clearly expressed and adequately developed.  The writer supports this position with relevant reasons, including an analysis of the need for private business to become involved in education.  Examples are clearly relevant (e.g., sex education and AIDS education are cited as examples of how schools are offering new classes to meet the contemporary needs), and the writer uses details to help develop and illustrate important points.  While the essay presents several ideas that are thought provoking --  e.g., "An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope" -- those ideas are not expressed precisely or persuasively enough to merit a score of 5.

The conclusion is appropriate; it reinforces the main idea of the essay, that schools need to keep pace with society and adjust curricula to meet the needs of both students and employers.

The essay consistently displays adequate control over the conventions of academic writing.  Sentence structure is generally adequate, although many of the sentences would benefit from restructuring and the use of transitions to more effectively communicate the writer's ideas.

For all of these reasons -- competent analysis and adequate control of the elements of writing -- this essay received a score of 4.

SAMPLE-4 (score 3)

In today's society, there is too much emphasis placed on students desires rather than their needs.  The students of today should have to study what is presented to them, rather than what is desired by them.  Students are searching for the easy way out, and educators' are supplying them with that.  Students should not only be presented with mandatory curriculum, but the educators should strive to insure that each individual student truly gains from their education, rather than just breezing through it.

It is vital to the continued success and expansion of the United States, that the young people be challenged in their curriculum and be encouraged to succeed in all that they do.  The educators should determine a more strenuous curriculum, and enforce it at an earlier age.  Thus, the young people of today will expect to be challenged, rather than avoiding it.  Students have the easy way out, and they are not truly giving all that they can.  There is so much potential that is just waiting to flourish, but it is the educators' reponsibility to tap into that potential.

In conclusion, it is the educators responsibility to enforce curriculum and than raquesting it.  Students should be challenged and expect curriculum that will eventually lead them to a path of success.

COMMENTARY

This brief essay is flawed by its generalities, repetition, and limited development.  The central thesis -- that it is the burden of educators to teach what they believe is necessary and that our educational system should not allow students to "breeze through" the educational system -- is not adequately supported.  The middle of the essay merely repeats much of what was said in the introduction.  The writer discusses the concepts of students' potential and educators' responsibilities in only the most general terms.

The two-sentence conclusion simply repeats earlier discussion and does not sufficiently tie together and comment upon the earlier discussion.  To earn a score of 4, this essay would need to provide specific reasons and examples that more adequately develop its main points.

Also, the phrasing is often vague ("giving all that they can" and "path of success"), and the syntax is at times poorly controlled ("young people of today will expect to be challenged, rather than avoiding it.")  Still, the problems are not severe or frequent.  For all of these reasons, this essay received a 3.

SAMPLE-5 (score 2)

There are many school violences in each school.  Those are big problems to our govenment and social.  School violences effect the studying of students.  This is very serious, even some students are nervious to go school.  In fact, the government must give students a clean place to study.  Teachers should help students know it is a duty to study.  So, everyone should face those big problems.

Do we know what are students' ideas?  Do the educators try to know?  Most educators hope the govenment can give students more and help them more.  These are people's hope.  But it is so unfortunate that students can't have a good place to study.  Also, teachers have to teach the students.  Not that students can know what to study by themself.  In the compus, there are many guys sell the drugs and acohol to younger students.  Why those guys can go into the school?  That is also the main problem.

When we were little, we didn't know what is correct and what is wrong.  So we lose ourself easily.  At the same time, we need much care from parents and teachers.  So our teachers and parents play the important roles and they own must do better.  Because some students learn some bad habits from their teachers and parents.

If we want to resolve all the problems, we must face the problems and find out the reasons, then try to resolve them.  We also must care all students.  If we can help them, tring to do our best.  Then, the problems will become less and less.                      

COMMENTARY

This is a seriously flawed response to the topic.  The writer begins by discussing school violence and the need for a good place to study, parental and teacher influence, and resolution of school problems.  The issue of who should determine the curriculum, teachers or students, is implied but not addressed directly.  In fact, teacher-directed learning seems to be a small point in a series of concerns related to school violence.  The development of a position on the issue is unfocused and disorganized.  Even the example, drug selling, relates to school violence and not to curricular responsibility.

Language errors are numerous.  Problems with correct use of tense, diction, word order, sentence structure, and subject-verb agreement also interfere with meaning.  Had the writer not included references to teachers helping students know what to study, the essay would probably have received a score of 1 instead of a 2.

SAMPLE-6 (score 1)

Today some educators place much emphasis on what students want,there is a conflict about what is the educator's duty for what  educatee should get.

Normally, the college or university in our country ,students just study what they are tought,it is the professor's duty to dermine what should appear in the classroom.Nowday china has taken the polices of opening reforming,every thing chang vastly.Students can't get the job position from goverment authority but must look for the work chance by themself ,so students have taken great care to what they learn int the college and what kind of knowlege does the job market need.If our high education institute ignore this chang and keep the tranditional teaching method,it will seem as wast student's time and money and the colleges will lost  their student.

It may be the best way for the developing country to reform their high education system, especially with those majors that closely connected with market or industry application.we must give our student  most upcoming technolegy or skill to meet the need of outdoor of our college,the information from students may be the best reference for the educator to determine what they should take to the classroom.

COMMENTARY

This essay displays little ability to develop and organize a coherent response to the topic.

The essay takes the position that China needs to reform its traditional approach to curriculum by becoming more student centered and technologically current.  However, the reader has to work hard to decipher the generally confusing line of reasoning, which does not obviously address the central issue presented in the topic.

There is an attempt to organize the argument into a three-paragraph essay, but the one-sentence introduction is simply a variation of the topic statement.  The brief body of the essay does not advance an opinion in a coherent manner, and the final paragraph shifts the focus to the need for technology in the curriculum.

The errors (comma splices, misspellings, verb problems, etc.) are so intrusive that coherence remains a problem.

This essay would need considerable rewriting in order to earn a higher score than 1.