I suppose if I just start out saying that some of the people referred to in this week's readings came off as sounding like pompous bastards, I'd feel better and I could get to the heart of the matter. I just didn't care for the implied (sometimes outright) references to students not belonging to the 'academic community' because their writing was not up to par, and comments like the UCLA dean referring to the students in remedial English as "the truly illiterate among us." (Miller 596) Who does he think he is? (Can you tell I'm irritated?) Well, accepting that their will always be idiots in the world, I'll move on... It's just a shame that people with such shallow views end up in such prestigious positions making mega money, while those of us who actually care and are willing to do something about it work in the trenches. Oh well, who ever said that life is fair?
As for the rest of The Language of Exclusion, I read with great interest as Rose's discussed the history of the word remediation, illiteracy, etc. (Maybe the UCLA dean should read up on the definition of illiteracy before he misuses it again?) I found his discussion on transience myth particularly interesting: The source of the problem is elsewhere; thus it can be ignored or temporarily dealt with until the tutors or academies or grammar schools or high schools or families make the changes they must make. (Miller 600). In elementary school, and I would dare say through the remaining years of secondary education, we spend much more time with what is wrong with students' writing (i.e. quantifying errors) than what is right. I find it disheartening that this seems to continue in college, based on this week's readings. If colleges and universities want students to meet certain writing criteria to ensure post-academic success, then they either have to accept the fact that "remedial" classes will need to be offered (more on that in a minute...), or the way students are taught to write in their thirteen years of training prior to post-secondary classes needs to change across the board (nation). I'm not saying that national standards are the answer, perhaps they are, perhaps not. More research would be needed on my part in order to form an educated argument. But without giving it a lot of thought, it seems a likely start to level the playing field a bit. But the playing field will never be completely level, due to many of the variables discussed in Bartholomae's piece, such as socio-economic status, culture, etc. I think that discussing the various pedagogies during these weekly readings are definitely giving us a good place to start with leveling the field when it comes to teaching writing. But let's face it, colleges wonder what the high schools are doing wrong, high schools are questioning the middle schools, which in turn are questioning the elementary schools. Comments like, "My God, what did they do in third grade last year? These kids don't know anything!" are unfortunately more common than we'd like to hear.
Being somewhat of an idealist, my thought is, "Okay, let's fix it." However, with the complexities discussed in the various pedagogies, addressing the concerns and inconsistencies in teaching writing is far from a quick or easy fix. What we can do, must do, is start small. Teach the students we have with everything we've got, and hope that we can find strength in numbers to make the changes necessary to ensure academic success for our students.
P.S. The use of the word remediation reminds me of learning support, both of which carry with them a stigma. I'm not sure what the politically correct term is at this point, but can't we come up with a better term?
I too was annoyed with Bartholomae's views on how to improve basic writing by mimicking "the privileged," those with the "power and wisdom." I wrote about it in my blog as well, although I wasn't brave enough to call him a pompous bastard...hehe. I also found the blame game relevant to my experience in teaching high school English. Our department meetings often went back to how we can help the middle school teachers do a better job. I'm sure middle school teachers were saying the same of the elementary teachers. It's always easier to place the blame elsewhere, which allows you to ignore the problem because it's not yours to fix.
ReplyDeleteHow many times did I begrudge the elementary teachers for sending me students who couldn't write a sentence? Too many, I'm afraid. The district in which I taught no longer allows students to repeat grades in the early years. Can't read or write? Doesn't matter. On you go until junior high. No wonder the high school teachers get frustrated with the middle school ones--it's hard to take students so far behind and get them caught up that quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe more teachers I meet and talk to from other schools and districts, the more I've come to learn that there are SO MANY good teachers out there doing the best they can within the ridiculous rules and guidelines and laws and mandates written by people who, it seems to me, can't have actually been in a classroom recently.
Testing is driving curriculum and instruction, and I think it's going to produce even more "basic writers" than exist now as we are forced to "teach to the test" and strip away any sense of creativity and experimentation in writing. Writing is personal, individual, and unique.
It's an interesting time in education, that's for sure. A sad one for students, I think, as so much is given to them in the form of tests, prompts, rules, formulas, and guidelines that they are unable to discover and learn for themselves. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back sooner rather than later.