The decision to include poetry as an option in the writing portfolio indicates that Kentucky educators apparently value the reading and writing of the genre and assume that poetry writing can be one of the tools used to assess student development. The assumption is an enlightened, valid and defensible premise.

However, a growing concern is a counterproductive notion apparently on the part of some observers that poetry submissions to the assessment portfolio are very difficult, if not impossible, to assess objectively and therefore not a good risk for teachers to encourage.

Because many of us would not like to see poetry disappear as an option from Kentucky assessment portfolios, as it did in Vermont following concern over evaluation issues, this workshop will explore

1) the features of poetic language that

a) make poetry distinctly different from other genres and
b) contribute to a "successful" poem;

2) the suitability of the current KIRIS Holistic Scoring Rubric to the assessment of those features.

The purpose of the workshop is to convince readers that it is possible to synthesize a list of features of poetic language that can be used to guide the writing and assessment of student poetry. A corollary discussion will address how we can best meet the challenge of professional development to prepare teachers to become comfortable with a) guiding the generation of poetry according to valuative standards and b) applying or adapting the assessment rubric to its evaluation.

The decision to include poetry as an option in the writing portfolio indicates that Kentucky educators apparently value the reading and writing of the genre and assume that poetry writing is not only a delightful activity, but it can be one of the tools used to assess student development. The assumption is an enlightened, valid and defensible premise. After all, poetry comprehension and writing are an appropriate measure of language and cognitive development. The features of poetry that make it a useful part of whole language learning include:

1. Range of Subject Matter: Many students and teachers are surprised to find that stereotypical notions about the availability of themes and subjects in poetry no longer apply. Classic and contemporary anthologies of poetry for young people provide the full range of human experience in subject matter to support a holistic and across-the-curriculum approach.

2. Manageable Text: While some lengthier poems provide sustained narrative, most texts appropriate for young readers are brief, "bite-sized" portions that are not overwhelming to developing readers but still stretch their comprehension skills. This principal applies to the writing process as well. Paradoxically, students find the brevity of poetic expression more within their control yet condensation of thought and feeling more intellectually challenging. Moreover, the visual configuration of a typical poem not only seems more limited and accessible but also lends itself to classroom display and easier collection in student anthologies.

3. Compression: The concentration of poetic expression models the desirable economy of good writing in any genre. The intensity of poetic language provides rich distillation of meaning and feeling, offering opportunity for microcosmic language learning.

4. Vocabulary: Poets use fresh, unconventional diction and syntax. Consequently, reading poetry presents students with excellent opportunities for word study in creative discourse, including the exploration of synonyms, metaphor, simile and other figurative language; writing poetry challenges students to stretch their vocabulary and imaginative expression.

5. Sensory Involvement: More than any other type of discourse, poetry employs engaging sensory experiences that young readers and writers enjoy. The musical qualities of rhythm and rhyme, when present, and other sound devices such as alliteration, assonance, and onomatopoeia make the oral interpretation and choral reading of poetry delightful to young people. Moreover, exploring sensory imagery adds a concrete dimension of tactile, olfactory, auditory, visual and gustatory involvement that enhances learning enjoyment.

6. Critical Thinking: While some may consider poetic discourse as foreign to the discourse of critical thinking, nevertheless we can find many similarities. One conventional measure of cognitive skills is the ability to recognize analogy and to perceive accurately the relationship of the concrete to the abstract. The comprehension and appreciation of metaphor requires acute observation and analytical skills. Moreover, the achievement or recognition of artistic unity in a poem (seeing the relationship of the parts to the whole) exercises the cognitive ability to synthesize and perceive the gestalt of experience.

Of growing concern, however, is a counterproductive notion apparently on the part of some observers that poetry submissions to the assessment portfolio are very difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate objectively and therefore not a good risk for teachers to encourage. As we travel the region to present workshops on writing poetry with students, we inevitably hear from dismayed classroom teachers the lament that, in spite of (1) their appreciation for poetry, and (2) the joy their students feel in creating successful poems, they are nevertheless often discouraged by colleagues or mentors from inviting students to submit poems for assessment. If the myth behind this misguided advice is allowed to grow, the future of poetry as an assessment option (and therefore its place in the learning process) is doubtful. When concern over evaluation of poetry increased in Vermont, for instance, it disappeared from the list of assessment tools. Many of us would not like to see that happen in Kentucky.

But how do we address this rumor? The problem seems to be that poetry appears to some to be a subjective, enigmatic art form of inexplicable origin. While teacher education and professional development programs in recent years have focused quite successfully on the writing process for most genres of prose, we find much less analysis of the writing process for poetry. Of course, both share the general stages of prewriting, drafting and revision, but beyond that, the process of generating poetry can and does vary significantly from that of prose. Generally speaking, we probably do not do a thorough job, in a typical liberal arts/education program, of clarifying (1) the kinds of processes poets use and (2) the unique characteristics of poetic language.

Consequently, the mystery surrounding what makes a poem successful tempts some educators to shy away from the idea of evaluating poetic expression and to defer to the counterpart of the amateur art or music lover's response, "I don't know what's good; I just know what I like." But as language arts educators, we should not settle for an amateur level of uninformed admiration. If professionals in the visual arts, music, dance and other arts can find objective standards by which to assess those forms of expression, certainly we should do no less. The difficulty arises when we attempt to evaluate poetic expression by a rubric that appears to be perhaps more responsive to expository prose than to the uniqueness of poetic language.

An underlying assumption of this writer is that:

--the poetry writing process differs from that of prose, and that
--poetic expression differs from that of most prose forms.

A corollary premise is that:

--portfolio assessors who do not recognize the difference will do a disservice to students who take the admirable risk of submitting poetry for assessment and that
--portfolio assessors who do recognize the difference will be frustrated unless they find a way to comfortably extrapolate the current rubric to poetry.

The first task, then, is to determine the qualities we admire in successful poetry; the second challenge is to determine how these can be applied to or extrapolated from an assessment rubric.

The following list of characteristics of poetic language has evolved over the past couple of years in our work with reading and writing poetry with children. During this process, we have arrived inductively at the answer to the question, "What do poets do that makes poetry different than prose?" Unless we understand these unique features, we will never understand that the current assessment rubric needs to be extrapolated to apply to poetry.

Keep in mind that this list is certainly not exhaustive. Neither will we find all of these features in any one poem. Furthermore, its level of diction is probably not appropriate for younger writers, but it can be adapted to vocabulary for younger readers and writers.

1. Perspective: The degree to which the writer establishes

- a distinctive voice, persona, speaker
- a clear or purposefully ambiguous tone
- a fresh or surprising perception of the extraordinary in the ordinary

2. Conceptual Complexity: The degree to which the writer achieves

A. Tension in words and ideas through

- an engaging challenge, conflict or paradox
- effective ambiguity, multiple meanings
- suggestion of connotations beyond the literal
- defiance of predictable syntax
- use of balance, parallelism, contrast

B. Compression

- avoiding unnecessary words
- economy of meaning per word
- distillation, condensation of ideas or feelings

3. Sound: The degree to which the writer employs

- rhythm, melody, perhaps rhyme
- consonance, alliteration, assonance, perhaps onomatopoeia
- repetition, refrain
- awareness of the oral-aural connection

4. Diction and Imagery: The degree to which the writer effectively

- uses fresh, uncommon vocabulary
- selects and arranges concrete sensory detail
- employs images to represent abstract feelings, ideas
- suggests uncommon connections between images and figurative meaning
- demonstrates "metaphoric thought" through implied analogy
- includes similes, personification and other figurative language

5. Spatial Design: The degree to which the writer demonstrates a visual concept through

- the arrangement of words, phrases and lines
- choices of spacing, enjambment, punctuation, caesura
- indentation, upper/lower case letters, typography
- stanzaic pattern

6. Artistic Unity: The degree to which the writer achieves

- form that supports content
- surface features that enhance meaning
- sound and/or shape that provide clues to mood or ideas
- individual elements that complement each other