| Abstract: | A survey was administered to University of Kentucky freshmen enrolled in introductory composition courses. Former Kentucky high school students were asked to describe their high school writing experiences since the 1990 passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) and the implementation of its controversial testing and accountability component. The survey revealed much that is positive. Almost three-quarters of the students reported writing daily in high school in a variety of disciplines. Approximately one-half rated their writing abilities as “above average” or “excellent” and felt prepared or somewhat prepared to write in college. Most reported regularly employing writing process strategies. Few, however, mentioned consideration of purpose and audience as part of their approach to writing, even though these are the two most important criteria for scoring the portfolio. Some two-thirds of the students responded that compiling the portfolio was not a useful activity. These findings suggest that KERA's accountability system may be undermining the instructional improvements it was intended to foster. In its haste to implement mandated reform, the state failed to take into account students' willingness to assume new roles as “creators, authors, and owners” of writing portfolios. Students' negative attitudes toward writing under KERA may reflect a more widespread misunderstanding among teachers and administrators of the theoretical bases for the writing portfolio. Professional development might help to dispel some of this negativity, but classroom teachers alone cannot bear responsibility for ensuring that students see “real world” value in the writing portfolio. Public schools, post-secondary institutions, and employers must work together to find authentic uses for the portfolio. |
