Standards For Language Arts College Success

College-Level Examination Program (CLEP ) exams,and selected university placement programs.The committee also reviewed the results of severalsurveys and course content analyses conducted by theCollege Board to provide empirical validation of theemerging definitions of college readiness.In English language arts, a nationally representativesample of 1,044 English and humanities college facultyand 1,307 high school English teachers responded toa College Board survey designed to determine thereading and writing skills faculty and teachers feelare critical to success in first-year college courses(Milewski, Glazer, Johnsen, & Kubota, 2005).Further empirical data were developed through athree-year national study sponsored by the Associationof American Universities (AAU) and conducted bythe Center for Educational Policy Research (CEPR) atthe University of Oregon. This study surveyed morethan 400 college faculty and administrators at nineAAU universities throughout the nation to definethe knowledge and skills necessary for successfulperformance in entry-level college courses.Definitions of college readiness gathered through thesesurveys, course analyses, and case studies representthe most rigorously researched, empirically validateddefinitions of college readiness available.Having established clear and specific definitionsof the knowledge and skills that students needto succeed in college, the committee articulateda developmental progression of student learningobjectives across six levels that would lead allstudents to being prepared for AP or college-levelwork. Articulating learning objectives across sixlevels in English language arts entailed reviewingselected state content standards, selected districtcurriculum frameworks, textbooks, and assessment 2006 The College Boardframeworks for selected state exams, and theNational Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).The committee sought to align the College BoardStandards for College Success to these curriculumand assessment frameworks while also ensuringthat the developmental progression outlined inthe Standards would lead to the targeted collegereadiness expectations.Integral to this process was reviewing other nationalcontent standards and guidelines. In English languagearts, the committee reviewed the Standards for theEnglish Language Arts published by the NationalCouncil of Teachers of English and the InternationalReading Association (1996); Beliefs About the Teachingof Writing (NCTE, 2004); guidelines on languagediversity and on the teaching and assessment ofwriting published by the Conference on CollegeComposition and Communication (NCTE, 1974); theNew Standards published by the National Centeron Education and the Economy and the Universityof Pittsburgh (1997); the American Diploma ProjectBenchmarks published by Achieve, Inc. (2004); the K–12 Speaking, Listening, and Media Literacy Standardsand Competency Statements published by the NationalCommunication Association (1998); and the Knowledgeand Skills for University Success published byStandards for Success (2003).Finally, drafts of the Standards were reviewed bynumerous professional organizations and individualreviewers who provided invaluable feedback on thecontent, rigor, focus, coherence, progression, clarity,and overall design of the Standards. The College Boardwould like to acknowledge the following nationalprofessional organizations and individual reviewerswho provided this feedback. Achieve, Inc. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association(ASHA) International Reading Association (IRA) National Communication Association (NCA) National Writing Project (NWP)These organizations and reviewers represent keyconstituencies committed to improving K–12 andpostsecondary teaching and learning in Englishlanguage arts, and the College Board is grateful tohave received input reflecting each organization’sperspective, experience, and expertise. The CollegeBoard considered this valuable input while draftingand revising the standards. However, the CollegeBoard is solely responsible for the final versions of theEnglish Language Arts College Board Standards forCollege Success and the reviews provided by theseorganizations do not represent an endorsement by theseorganizations of the Standards.College Board English Language ArtsStandards Advisory CommitteeMembers of the College Board English LanguageArts Standards Advisory Committee convened formore than a dozen working meetings throughoutthe course of this project and worked hundreds ofadditional hours to draft, review, and revise theEnglish Language Arts College Board Standards forCollege Success. The College Board is grateful fortheir commitment and dedication to this effort.Introduction to College Board Standards for College Successvii

English Language ArtsStandards AdvisoryCommitteeMary BozikDepartment of Communication StudiesUniversity of Northern IowaCedar Falls, IowaJoan ConeEnglish TeacherEl Cerrito High SchoolBay Area Writing Project ConsultantEl Cerrito, CaliforniaGary CowanCoordinator of English Language Arts,K–12Nashville Public SchoolsNashville, TennesseeRichard EnosRhetoric and CompositionDepartment of EnglishTexas Christian UniversityFort Worth, TexasLinda Ferreira-BuckleyDivision of Rhetoric and WritingDepartment of EnglishUniversity of Texas at AustinAustin, TexasDonna GeffnerSpeech and Hearing CenterSt. John’s UniversityQueens, New YorkDavid JolliffeDepartment of EnglishUniversity of ArkansasChief Reader, AP English Languageand CompositionFayetteville, ArkansasJeanneine JonesDepartment of Middle, Secondary, andK–12 EducationUniversity of North Carolinaat CharlotteSAT Writing Test DevelopmentCommitteeCharlotte, North CarolinaJohn HeinemanOral Communication/Theater TeacherLincoln High SchoolLincoln, NebraskaJane MallisonEnglish TeacherTrinity SchoolNew York, New YorkDanielle McNamaraDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MemphisMemphis, TennesseeJudy MontgomerySchool of EducationChapman UniversityOrange, CaliforniaArt GraesserDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MemphisMemphis, TennesseeviiiCollege Board Standards for College SuccessSherry MorrealeCommunication DepartmentUniversity of Colorado,Colorado SpringsFormer Associate Director,External AffairsNational Communication AssociationColorado Springs, ColoradoCharles PetersSchool of EducationUniversity of MichiganSAT Reading Test DevelopmentCommitteeNAEP Reading Committee, 2005 –2007Ann Arbor, MichiganCathy RollerDirector of Research and PolicyInternational Reading AssociationNewark, DelawareRobert ScholesModern Culture and MediaBrown UniversityProvidence, Rhode IslandDeborah ShepardEnglish TeacherLincoln High SchoolTallahassee, FloridaRebecca SipeDepartment of English Language andLiteratureEastern Michigan UniversityFormer Secondary Chair, NCTEYpsilanti, MichiganJoEllen VictoreenRetired English TeacherSan Jose, CaliforniaNina WooldridgeEnglish Teacher and Literacy CoachLong Beach Unified School DistrictCo-Director, South Basin WritingProjectLong Beach, CaliforniaCollege Board StaffElizabeth DanielContent EditorOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentJames DaubsSenior Reading Content SpecialistOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentJoel HarrisWriting Content SpecialistOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentJudson OdellAssociate DirectorOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentArthur VanderVeenSenior DirectorOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentCollege Board Standards for CollegeSuccess Project Director 2006 The College Board

English Language ArtsReviewersAchieve, Inc.JoAnne T. EreshSenior AssociateWashington, District of ColumbiaNational CommunicationAssociationMelissa BeallDepartment of Communication StudiesUniversity of Northern IowaCedar Falls, IowaIndividual ReviewersGeorge GaddaUCLA Writing DirectorChair of the Subject A ExaminationCommitteeLos Angeles, CaliforniaReneé HobbsDirector, Media Education LabTemple UniversityFounder, Alliance for a Media LiterateAmericaPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaGeorge Hillocks, Jr.Department of English Language andLiteratureUniversity of ChicagoChicago, IllinoisDavid WendtCommunication TeacherKeokuk High SchoolKeokuk, IowaJudith LangerDirector, National Research Center onEnglish Learning & AchievementState University of New York at AlbanyAlbany, New YorkKathy WhitmireDirector of SchoolsRockville, MarylandNational Writing ProjectEllen BrinkleyDepartment of EnglishWestern Michigan UniversityDirector, Third Coast Writing ProjectKalamazoo, MichiganSusan McLeodWriting Program DirectorUniversity of California,Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara, CaliforniaInternational Reading AssociationDavid MooreCollege of Teacher Education andLeadershipArizona State UniversityTempe, ArizonaSarah RobbinsDepartment of EnglishKennesaw State UniversityDirector, Kennesaw Mountain WritingProjectKennesaw, GeorgiaRichard VaccaProfessor EmeritusKent State UniversityKent, OhioLaura RoopDirector of OutreachUniversity of Michigan Schoolof EducationDirector, Oakland (MI) Writing ProjectAnn Arbor, MichiganSheila ByrdEducation Policy ConsultantAnnapolis, MDSandra MurphySchool of EducationUniversity of California, DavisDavis, CaliforniaAmerican Speech-LanguageHearing AssociationLemmietta McNeillySpeech-Language PathologyRockville, Maryland 2006 The College BoardMary Jo PottsDean of Faculty and EnglishDepartment HeadWebb SchoolKnoxville, TennesseeSylvia SarrettEnglish TeacherHillsborough High SchoolTampa, FloridaSue Schilsky6–12 Language Arts SpecialistVolusia County Public SchoolsDeLand, FloridaRon SudolAssociate Provost and Professor ofRhetoricOakland UniversityDirector, Meadow Brook Writing ProjectRochester, MichiganAlice VensonAmerica’s Choice South TeamJacksonville, FloridaKaren WixsonDean, School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MichiganSandra WrightEnglish Teacher/FormerAssistant SuperintendentSt. Charles CU School DistrictSt. Charles, IllinoisThe College Board would like toacknowledge the following CollegeBoard staff who contributedsignificant support to this project:Marlene D. DunhamDirectorSpringBoard ImplementationLola GreeneDirectorSpringBoard Professional DevelopmentEdward HardinWriting Content SpecialistOffice of Academic Initiatives andTest DevelopmentIntroduction to College Board Standards for College Successix

Donovan HyltonCoordinatorOffice of Academic Initiativesand Test DevelopmentMitzie KimSenior DirectorSpringBoard and K–12 ProductDevelopmentCynthia LyonExecutive DirectorSpringBoard ProgramJohn MarzanoCoordinatorOffice of Academic Initiativesand Test DevelopmentBrian PattersonAssistant StatisticianResearch and AnalysisTravis RamdawarProject ManagerOffice of Academic Initiativesand Test DevelopmentKathleen T. WilliamsVice PresidentOffice of Academic Initiativesand Test Development College Board Standards for College Success 2006 The College Board

Introductionto EnglishLanguage ArtsThe English Language Arts College Board Standards for CollegeSuccess defines rigorous expectations for student proficiencyin reading, writing, speaking, listening, and media literacy.Students are expected to   developa repertoire of reading comprehension strategiesthat they can draw on flexibly to comprehend, analyze, andcritique both literary and informational texts   developa repertoire of writing strategies and a facility withcertain types of writing commonly taught in the classroom,including argumentative writing, research writing, literaryanalysis, and creative and reflective writing   speakeffectively in interpersonal, group, and public contexts become active and effective listeners view and produce media criticallyIntegrating instruction across these domains can be a dauntingtask. To be an effective English language arts teacher requiresa deep understanding of reading, writing, speaking, listening,viewing, and representing, as well as of literature, rhetoric,the English language, and, increasingly, technology. Englishlanguage arts teachers must also know how students learnin these domains and how to design effective instruction toscaffold students toward independence and mastery. Evenveteran English language arts teachers struggle to integrateinstruction and assessment across these areas into a balancedand coherent program of instruction. 2006 The College BoardIntroduction to English Language Arts xi

At the heart of English language arts is a clusterof interactive language and thought processes thatare used to construct meaning. Figure 1 illustratesthe interrelationships among these language artsprocesses and depicts the expressive and receptivedimensions of each. Three processes are usedto initiate or express thought and language, andthree are used to receive or respond to thought andlanguage (College Board, 2006 [Ellen Brinkley, primaryauthor]).The center column suggests that thought is alwaysshaped by language and the language structures thatgive thought form. As we think and engage with thethoughts of others through language, we constructrepresentations of ideas that are meaningful to us andto others. In the expressive/initiating processes, weconstruct those representations in writing, speaking,and visual media. In the receptive/respondingprocesses, we construct those representationsmentally while reading, listening, or viewing media.These designations, though useful, are more fluidthan the diagram suggests. When we speak, forexample, we are simultaneously watching ourlistener and anticipating a response. When welisten, we are often simultaneously constructing themeaning of and reacting to a speaker’s message,confirming or resisting what we hear, and decidinghow or whether to respond. When we read, we maybe thinking about what we will write, and when wewrite, we may be continually monitoring what elsewe need to read. Whether initiating or responding totexts, messages, and media, we are actively engagedin constructing meaning. Moreover, as we engage inthese interactive processes, we always participatein larger social, cultural, and linguistic contexts thatinfluence how we convey and interpret meaning.xiiCollege Board Standards for College SuccessFigure 1. English Language Arts ProcessesCultural, Linguistic T ProcessesCONSTRUCTINGMEANINGWritingThought and WrittenLanguageReadingSpeakingThought and SpokenandNonverbal LanguageListeningCreatingMedia CommunicationThought andImages/MultimediaEnglish Language Arts: Knowledge,Skills, Strategies, and ProcessesIn addition to these processes, the English languagearts also include several areas of practice that requirespecific content knowledge, including the studyof literature, the study of rhetoric and writing, thestudy of language, and the study of communication.Whereas reading skills and strategies are relevantto constructing meaning from all types of texts, thecritical reading of literature also requires knowledgeof literary and narrative elements. ComprehendingViewing Mediaand Communicationinformational texts often requires knowledge ofcommon text structures and organizational patternsused in those texts. Speaking and listening skillsare enhanced when students understand thetransactional nature of communication betweensenders and receivers of messages. And criticalinterpretation of media messages requires anunderstanding of how such messages are mediatedthrough complex, technological, and commercialmedia channels. Moreover, all of these activitiesdepend on students’ knowledge of and proficiencywith the English language, including vocabulary, 2006 The College Board

grammar, mechanics, and usage, as well as anunderstanding of how language constructs andreflects how people view the world.English language arts teachers must try to balanceinstruction in all these areas. The English LanguageArts College Board Standards for College Successdefines rigorous expectations for the contentknowledge, skills, and strategies students shoulddevelop to succeed in the English language arts.It also sets expectations for students to becomeindependent learners, using strategies to monitor,direct, and manage their learning.Helping students develop their knowledge and skillsin the English language arts includes discerning andaffirming the language skills that each student bringsto the classroom—language skills that may not reflectconventional expectations for mastery of standardAmerican English. To enable all students to succeedin our English language arts classrooms, it is essentialthat we recognize and affirm the diverse languageforms and home language practices that studentsbring to the classroom. Effective English languagearts teachers recognize that students who adjust theiruse of language forms and practices as they crossmultiple language contexts demonstrate sophisticatedskill with language. Teachers who recognize andbuild upon these skills will be better able to help allstudents acquire competence in standard AmericanEnglish, which is a critical requirement for successin college and the workplace. The English LanguageArts College Board Standards for College Success,therefore, defines expectations for understandingand affirming language diversity while also definingclear expectations for students to develop masteryof standard American English in their studies andpractice of the English language arts. 2006 The College BoardUsing the College Board Standards forCollege Success to Design Curriculumand Instruction in the English LanguageArtsThe English Language Arts College Board Standardsfor College Success describes a developmentallyappropriate continuum of student learning objectivesthat are anchored in the intellectual demands studentswill encounter in an AP or first-year college course.This continuum of expectations is not intended toprescribe grade-specific expectations. This pointis critical to using the framework appropriately, asstudent proficiency in applying content knowledge,skills, and strategies varies as students engage morecomplex ideas, genres, texts, and tasks. Students ata given proficiency level will be able to demonstrategreater sophistication in extracting and constructingmeaning from simpler texts than they will with morecomplex texts, and, similarly, for simpler tasks thanthey will for more complex tasks. Accomplishedteachers recognize these interdependencies amongstudent, text, and task and engage students indevelopmentally appropriate activities that supportthe steady integration of skills, strategies, and contentknowledge.Because the levels designed in the English LanguageArts College Board Standards for College Success arenot grade specific, teachers are encouraged to locatetheir students along the continuum and differentiateinstruction to support and challenge students inways that are most productive for each student’sindividual growth. The standards are providedin matrix layout to foreground the developmentalprogression of expectations for a specific skill orstrategy, or specific content knowledge. Teachersare encouraged to look across levels within eachPerformance Expectation Category to differentiateinstruction skill by skill, student by student. Thespecificity and examples provided are designed tosupport this differentiation; the examples typicallychange from middle school to high school toillustrate developmental growth in the complexityof knowledge, skills, and strategies to be expected.The examples are not meant to be an exhaustivelist, however, and they should not be interpreted ascomplete specifications for what should be taughtand/or assessed at a certain level.1The College Board would like to acknowledge that sections of thisintroduction were taken from The College Board English LanguageArts Framework (manuscript in preparation).1Introduction to English Language Arts xiii

ReadingStandardsReading comprehension is a complex process. A student’ssuccess as a reader depends on many factors, including his orher engagement and motivation to read, understanding of thepurposes and goals for reading, knowledge about a topic, andknowledge about how to read specific kinds of texts, both inthe English language arts and in other subject areas. Teacherswho are alert to the complex interactions among engagement,reading skill, reading task, and text are better equipped todifferentiate their

the College Board. connect to college success and SAT Readiness Program are trademarks owned by the College Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered . English Language Arts College Board Standards for College Success