The American education system has been in shambles for decades, without any remedy in sight. With little structural change since the 1890s, students are suffering under its archaic, “hierarchical,” “industrialized” design. Students are unhappy, teachers are frustrated, no one is learning, and nothing is improving. According to Jal Mehta, an Assistant Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, “The U.S. school system still bears the imprint of its origins. Created in the era of the assembly line, it was never intended to push all its students to engage in the kind of complex learning and critical thinking that the twenty-first-century U.S. economy demands.” Most demonstrative of this shortcoming is the teaching of the written word: only twenty-five percent of American students leave high school with the ability to write proficiently (NAES, 2012). College graduates are entering the workforce without the necessary writing skills, limiting their capacity for communication and therefore their potential to succeed. Without a more personalized approach to the teaching of writing, students will continue to fall short, not only in essays but also in professional writing like business proposals.
Through my experiences in my Writing Center Internship and class, I’ve recognized the urgency of this issue and realized that what I’m part of can go much further than helping a student earn an A on an essay. Used as a model for the appropriate way to teach, it has the potential to revolutionize the entire educational system, especially writing education, by changing the way we think about knowledge acquisition and collaborative thinking.
Our modern education system emerged in the late 19th century, shaped by a philanthropic group of Progressivists. Their goals—to provide education for the masses and socialize children—weren’t necessarily the problem. However, the way these goals were implemented proved problematic. Based on the belief that teaching was simple and largely effeminate, the government invested more in hiring supervisors than training teachers. While the system was organized like a business, it failed to work efficiently, as supervisors rarely monitored classrooms enough to exert more than formal power. Education reforms since then have worsened. In response to Sputnik, critics called for a return to fundamentals, back to memorization, and back to facts (Bybee, 13). This approach reverberates in today’s teaching of English, where students memorize transitions and treat writing like math formulas, missing the essence of the subject.
More recent reforms, such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, have failed to address teaching philosophies. Instead, they focus on punishing or rewarding teacher accountability, which has been largely ineffective. As Jal Mehta writes in “Why American Education Fails,” the U.S. needs a systematic approach to educational improvement. This includes improving human capital, creating a core of knowledge to guide the field, establishing effective organizational structures, and enhancing performance management and accountability.
After Sputnik, the American government emphasized STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—over liberal arts (Bybee, 14). While STEM subjects are crucial, critical learning skills like analysis and reasoning, developed in the liberal arts, are just as important. According to NAES (2012), two-thirds of American students have mastered basic skills, such as reading and recalling information, but only one-third can perform advanced work involving the application of information or analysis. This means students aren’t learning how to learn, which is a critical shortcoming.
In 2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that only 24% of eighth and tenth-grade students could write at a proficient level. Public school students performed worse than private school students, with only a quarter of American students able to communicate ideas effectively. From my experience in the University of Maryland Writing Center, where I tutor students of all ages, many struggle with basic writing skills, including fragmented sentences and passive voice. It’s not just grammar—many students struggle to argue their points or summarize reading assignments effectively. This writing deficiency is concerning, as strong communication skills are crucial in the workforce (Holland, 2013).
The Writing Center provides an environment where students can explore their potential as writers through collaborative learning. Students at all levels, from ESL students to English majors, benefit from the experience as long as they are open to it. In each session, students and tutors engage in an active conversation, allowing students to hear how their writing sounds and tutors to offer constructive criticism. Sessions can take place at any stage of the writing process, from brainstorming to final revisions, which allows students to gain valuable feedback throughout.
From my experience, a great first step to improve writing education would be to increase conversation. As an English major, I receive a lot of one-on-one attention from my teachers, who help me develop my writing through discussion-based classes and office hours. However, many students lack this attention due to overcrowded classrooms, multiple-choice exams, and curricula that don’t prioritize writing. According to Mehta (2012), only 20% of American classrooms engage students in ambitious learning that involves thinking, reasoning, and analyzing. Teachers need to be more engaged to expect their students to be.
The problem lies in the fact that many English classrooms treat writing as a product rather than a process. Donald M. Murray argues that writing must be taught as a process, not a product. Writing is a demanding intellectual exercise, and teachers need to focus on helping students acquire a methodology for writing, rather than expecting polished results from the start.
Collaboration is key to improving writing education. Defined as two individuals conversing to exchange ideas and produce shared knowledge, collaboration is common in many fields, yet rarely successful in classrooms. However, the Writing Center model shows that when done correctly, collaborative learning benefits both students and tutors. In sessions, tutors and students exchange knowledge, with both parties learning from each other. Professors could also benefit from this collaborative model, improving their own research through conversations with students.
Andrea Lunsford, in “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center,” argues that collaboration represents how we think, as knowledge is socially constructed and contextualized. However, collaboration requires balance and a rejection of hierarchical classroom structures. Progressive teachers who appreciate debate and encourage students to challenge them foster creativity and critical thinking.
Without an entirely new outlook on teaching and learning, students will continue to fall short. The Writing Center is a step in the right direction. Through collaborative learning, we can better understand how to improve writing education and begin the conversation needed to repair the American education system.
Works Cited
Annett, N. (1997 Oct 5). Collaborative learning: definitions, benefits, applications and dangers in the writing center. University of Richmond, Virginia; USA. Retrieved 5 Nov. 2011, from: writing2.richmond.edu/training/fall97/nanne/collaboration.html.
Bybee, Rodger W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities, 2013. Print.
Holland, Kelley. "Why Johnny Can't Write, and Why Employees Are Mad." NBC News. N.p., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 04 May 2014.
Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center." Writing Center Journal 12.1 (1991): 3-10. Print.
Mehta, Jal. "Why American Education Fails: And How Lessons From Abroad Could Improve It." Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, May 2013. Web. 4 May 2014.
Murray, Donald. "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product." The Leaflet (November 1972), rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, 2nd ed., ed. Victor Villanueva, Urbana: NCTE, 2003.
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Comments