A Long Time Ago

When I was a high school student, nearly fifty years ago, there was a test that made the circuit of teachers. It didn't matter whether the teachers were in Massachusetts or Texas; what mattered was how students reacted. I was very good at taking tests. I was never nervous, never worried about the results.

So this particular test was simply given to students as soon as they entered the classroom with little to no introduction other than to read all of the instructions. As I remember the class groaned a little since there had been no preparation for the test, but all of us took out our number 2 pencils (remember that ?) and began to answer the questions posed by the test which the instructions said were to take 30 minutes. I read the instructions through and the final instruction was to lay my pencil down and sit quietly. That's what I did. My classmates who were busy answering questions, looked at me in astonishment and with puzzled faces. The thirty minutes dragged on but my beleaguered classmates continued to answer the questions while I continued to simply sit.

The point of this story is that the point of the test was to read all the instructions of anything whether it's a quiz in a classroom or how to use a paint product or tool.

I read some essays for a class yesterday. The prompt was very clear. It told students to "note briefly" the social or political changes that the author advocated, and then, "analyze the techniques" used to  convince readers. Well, as you might already know, the students noted at length what changes Charles Dickens advocated for in Hard Times without ever getting to how he convinced his readers.

The most astonishing part to me is that Hard Times is so clear about the author's various techniques. The list could begin with tone and move through foreshadowing, imagery. voice, etc.
Charles Dickens is never subtle in his writing and Hard Times is perhaps his least subtle work.

Consequently when students wrote essays that only answered the "note briefly" without actually noting anything briefly but rather at great length, I did not feel inclined to reward them even if their writing was decent.  In a similar fashion, if students only discussed one technique (characterization was the common choice), I did not reward their efforts even if the writing was all right. Of course most of the time the writing was mediocre with grammar and spelling errors throughout but that is only one aspect of the essay score. The teacher told me that they had spent an entire class period, 90  minutes, discussing what the prompt expected. That means most of the students were like my classmates of 50 years ago--they listened to the opening words, but then set off on a frolic of their own.

Nowadays everyone wants students to be computer, science, math whizzes when they finish high school. Besides the fact that that isn't working very well, students need to be able to read a piece of writing or hear a commercial and understand how the creator has altered the thinking of the reader or listener. This isn't simply the key to appreciating literature--it is the key to understanding how political speech, commercial speech, romantic overtures alter the reader or listener's understanding. The students whose essays I scored are not college ready. If they end up scoring a 3 or above it will be a shame if they are given college credit.