Ethos is Dead
The powers that be have chosen to change the STAAR test. Naturally, it seems to have a bigger impact on English classes than any other content area. For one, our (I support English classes primarily) test scores were already lower than the other content areas. Secondly, they are adding even more writing to a test that was the only one to have writing as a component. Finally, they are removing the persuasive essay and don’t plan to tell us what it will be replaced with.
Taking a step back for a moment, I can see the wisdom behind this move. You want writing to be more authentic and having a set essay genre allows teachers to teach and reteach to the point where writing is formulaic. Yet, something is lost in the process. We used to teach our students about ethos, pathos, and logos. I’m not sure we are going to do that. Teaching great works of fiction is fun and does have some practical lessons in it, but that pales in comparison to to teaching kids about how people will try to sell to them and persuade them.
Ethos, pathos, and logos was the foundation of that lesson. From there we could move onto logical fallacies that advertisers often use and begin to look at the tricks those in politics use to persuade us. Ethos is very simply the credibility that someone has. Credibility is earned. It isn’t given away. At least it shouldn’t be.
As you might surmise, pathos is a potentially dangerous tool. It certainly is powerful when accompanied by facts, but it doesn’t have to be. That’s what makes it dangerous. The facts can strengthen an argument, but the key is the story. If the story rings true then it must be. We teach our students to do that. We teach them they can make stuff up because those grading the test are more likely to give them a good grade if they pull at the heartstrings. We are cultivating a whole generation of liars.
The normal arc of persuasion used to be that if someone proved they were reliable with their facts and knowledgeable of their area of study then they would develop credibility. With credibility they could simply fall back on their expertise. We would listen to them because they know what they are talking about.
The idea of “do your own research” sounds wonderful in a vacuum. It says that we shouldn’t rely on anyone’s credibility. Except we have to. No one is capable of going through the painstaking process of verifying everything. Ultimately, subject area experts do that in their area of study and work. We might “do our own research” but inevitably that ends up being a Google search where we find someone that reinforces what we already think. Maybe a YouTube video is involved. If so, so much the better.
So, we find ourselves listening to some jackass we’ve never heard of, never verified, never vetted, or scrutinized. He or she is somehow given credibility they have never earned. We are led by the nose by our heartstrings. We believe because it just feels true. We believe because it’s made simple for us. Simple is easy. Except none of it is really true. The truth is never simple. It might be brief. It might be succinct. The verbiage might be easy to understand, but it is never easy.
As one who studied and taught ethos, pathos, and logos — under various names depending on the era of communication theory and practice — I appreciate your recognition of their application to modern school curricula and the lives of the students.
Teaching to a consequence test without knowing what it will ask for, the specifics of the test, and how it would be evaluated seems a daunting task. Here’s hoping there will be a bit more clarity before the new school year begins.
However, dropping a “persuasive writing” segment could be a good thing. Ethos, pathos, and logos are not universals — they vary broadly, as audiences vary broadly. As an argumentation professor, I learned the value of asking students to write to a specific audience — getting them to consider how that person or group assessed arguments and telling me in a preliminary paper what they found. Historians and judges may be interested in understanding the era with individuals writing the Constitution, but may well use different sources and almost certainly will structure their findings and interpretations differently. I also learned a great deal from students telling me how arguments won or lost in their home communities — especially when they were different than what I grew up with. Arguments are (and should be) different in Baptist and Catholic institutions. Ethos is formed and maintained differently in Hispanic, Black, White, and Chinese cultures.
I have no idea how STAAR will change — but principles of communication will be valuable, whatever the testing environment may prioritize.
1The problem is we have some idea of how the test will change and it doesn’t include those concepts. Obviously, communication and persuasion will get more sophisticated and in-depth as students grow and progress. The issue is that so much is wrapped in that test that little time can be spent on concepts not tested. It’s a difference between what’s truly important and what some test maker thinks is important.
Your comments are obviously well thought out and thought provoking. We wouldn’t want that in our schools. God forbid kids learn to think. I fully acknowledge hyperbole in my headline. Ethos isn’t dead because it can’t really die. We choose who we think has natural authority/credibility. It’s just that a dangerously high percentage of people seem incapable of successfully identifying who that should be.
2As a crusty old mathematician, I’ve looked at the STAAR tests. And they clearly did not have a professional mathematician do so when they cooked up the questions. They had outright errors, and one big advantage in math is that you can absolutely prove something, or disprove it by means of a counter-example. No dithering or equivocation, it’s either right or wrong (mathematically).
That does not include some poor test setting skills. Having five questions that cover the exact same topic or skill is a waste, and generally is an artifact of having a committee creating a test. I’d be surprised if STAAR did any better in less binary areas like writing.
When I teach, tests have a more important purpose than giving grades to the students. A test should provide feedback and tell students where they have strengths and weaknesses. It should give them confidence in what they have mastered, and a clear path to improve in what they have not. I always have a stack of solution sheets prepared for them to pick up when leaving the test room, to get immediate feedback while the ideas and problems are fresh in their minds. [Plus I always have their tests graded and returned the next class day]. Basically, a test should be a teaching tool, not a do-or-die trial by combat.
STAAR seems to fail in that, and does poorly even at providing an evaluation of a student’s knowledge and skills.
3