Staying Organized

Third blog, Fri. 6-24 -Status: On-Time

Third comments, Mon. 7-2 -Status: Late by several hours (Sorry!- Brain Freeze!)

Comments were to: Rebecca, Joe, Dan.

Misplaced Sympathies (Official Week 3 Posting)

In our last discussion, the argument was advanced that the student populous must have neglected their assignment, a notion founded in an attempt, no doubt, to explain the seemingly unanimous mutiny of Mina Shaughnessy's article and ideology, and the resulting objections that were mounted against her empathy for the ill-prepared college freshmen at CUNY in 1970. Having reread this article three times in less than two weeks, as I am certain my colleagues have also done, I will not recount its particulars, but rather, I will advance a rebuttal argument, or explanation. My, and our, lack of blinded acceptance and adoption of her guiding principles is not the product of a collective laissez-faire reading attempt, but is, on the other hand, the rudimentary representation of her most underlying conclusion- damage "has been done to students in the name of correct writing" (393). Admittedly, she was referring to the damaged BWs; however, I strongly assert, and do so with her own writings, that we, the traditionally educated Flower-Powers and Gen-Xers, are also "damaged."

Most composition teachers of the 1970's taught and evaluated student freshmen based on the "traditional standards" (387) of college preparedness or unpreparedness, which is to say those lacking a workable understanding of the "code" (395). By Shaughnessy's own concatenations, and by her fierce call for change, one can deduct that most faculty were not as forgiving as she and maintained a higher level of grammatical protocol. Hence, most budding English and composition professors, "bonehead" or scholarly, were academically raised with the same convictions. The domino effect, in most cases, explains the continued policy in our grammar, secondary, and college educators. Therefore, by default, most of us have developed with a Darwinian fear of the "error" and an evolutionary predisposition to avoid such a creature! Shaughnessy herself admits to devoting her book to the "orientations and perceptions" (390) of those teachers. In short, our belief in the non-negotiable respectibility of properly formatted grammar does not stem from mediocracy in effort, but from the "prescriptive teaching" (392) instilled in us by Mina's adversaries and their academic offspring.

Secondly, Shaughnessy constructed a logic argument and, incidentally, has done so without context or grammatical error. Perhaps she herself felt that to include the very errors she advocates for would decrease the perceived value of her message, the volume of her readership, or the importance of her message. She seems to have waged her own self-described "bargaining" for "goods" with the reader (i.e. us), where "errors ... are ... unprofitable intrusions" (395). Perhaps her traditional educational up-bringing, like ours, forced an obligatory, and habitual, desire to "communicate within the code" (Shaughnessy 395).

Inarguably, she is not a BW, but the exact qualifications for that designation, and the lax grammatical requirements that are afforded to those in that category, are only loosely defined and do not include a 'promotional' criteria, whereby the proverbial gloves come off in the form of a well-used red pen! Such a tipping point, an unequivocal time, must be established to both reward the work of the BW and to advance his or her skill-set. Like it or not, we, the grammar police, are the "buyer[s] in a buyer's market" (395), and much like Shaughnessy concedes her path to us and the rules of proper grammar and composition in this article, so to must her evolved BWs yield to us, the damaged, and former, students of tradition. My only explanation, although it is one better presented on stage, would not argue with Shaughnessy, but rather agree with her, "Perhaps, as some would say, the propaganda of a long line of grammar teachers took" (394)-we are who we are!

RB

Clarification (This is NOT Week 3's posting!)

Thank you for your comments on my last posting, the one on sharks! Despite my aggressive rhetoric, I am not unsympathetic to ill-prepared students or underpaid teachers. It never ceases to amaze me that those teaching our children, our future decision-makers, make a salary of "x", while a guy that dunks a basketball well makes a salary of "y". For the Geico guy living under a rock, "x" and "y" are not the same! The point of my theatrics was to dramatize the dangerous situation that our children must face. Love, kindness, coddling, threats, testing, talking, and pats-on-the-back have not fixed our adolescent educational systems, and after seeing that Shaughnessy's criticism (c. 1970) is still witnessed today, I have little hope for substantial change. The sad news is that the "triage method" WILL occur, because if educational faculty does not solve this dilemma on their own, then outside, non-teaching, MBA-holding, consulting types WILL! It's really sad, "What do you think the money from 10 years in Iraq could have done for our internal educational system instead?????

Getting Organized

Second blog, Fri. 6-17 -Status: On-Time

Second comments, Mon. 6-20 -Status: On-Time

Comments were to: Joe, Debbie, and Melanie.

Shark Infested Waters (Week 2, Due 6/17/11)

If you were drowning in shark infested waters, would you take assistance from the first boat to come along?

Logically, most of us have, or would, answer in the affirmative. We would climb aboard and be grateful for the help! In contrast, some people, albeit a smaller number, might pause for a moment and decline the ride to safety because they did not like the style or color of the boat! Silly, right?

Now, picture the writing skills of our high school students, and their futures, as the endangered swimmer in a world of sharks!

Should we as educators, academics, and technical communicators plan a rescue with the first boat that we can launch, or should we wait until we can find one with brighter colors and more impressive graphics?

The writing skills of most high school seniors entering college are insufficient and lacking, this is a problem that must be corrected forthwith. Each poorly prepared graduate is shark food. A stern triage protocol must be implemented. Triage requires loss, casualties, and tough decisions; not everyone makes it. Therefore, I find it absurd to waste time with literature, romanticism, or Shakespeare, if the child has not yet mastered general grammar or composition.

Before everyone begins to plan my tongue-lashing or buys sharper pins for the voodoo doll that is eerily similar to my likeness, I will concede that it is easier to play a Monday morning quarterback than it is to design a new writing curriculum. As such, I will at least make an attempt to comprise some meaningful ideas and input; however, I reserve the right to storm off with my laptop at any time!

1. We must introduce meaningful stimuli to the subjects. It was argued in class that the pursuit of knowledge should be their guide. While my appreciation and love for learning fosters my agreement with such an position, the triage-based answer is to save as many children as possible from the sharks. If the dream of fancy cars or piles of money is motivating, let’s go with it!

2. We should divide high school into college-like semesters, which would allow for more variation in program selection, classmate groupings, and triage. By switching courses more frequently, the better students would be identified and could be grouped together in future courses, which would raise the level of competition and production in those courses. Those unwilling to increase their efforts would not advance. The sentiment of, “No student left behind” is touching, but impractical. The triage protocols dictate that we save the ones we can.

3. The standard school year must be lengthened to include Saturdays for some children. Those who perform well would continue to attend school Monday through Friday, while the poor writers would attend extra writing workshops every Saturday. If this extra help proved unsuccessful, non-air-conditioned summer classes could become available. The triage mindset is that medicine may not taste good, but it is sometimes necessary!

I realize that these are extreme, and perhaps militant, ideas from a teaching outsider, but correcting the problem WILL require assistance from a non-related, unbiased, and unaffected evaluator- just like triage!

R.

Getting Organized

In an effort to both organize my thoughts and satisfy my detail-oriented personality, thats what people with a Type-A personality euphemistically call it!

First "blog" assign., Fri. 6-10 -Status: On-Time

First "comments" (to 1st blog posts), Mon. 6-13 -Status: On-Time

Comments were to: Elaine and Chalice.

Week 1 (Due June 10th)

"Why do you think we try so hard to teach writing?"

In order to properly address such an open-ended question, a brief rhetorical analysis must be performed and a few simple definitions cast. For the purpose of this exercise, we will designate "we" to mean modern academics, graduate students, and English departments in general, as opposed to the antiquated historical examples in our recent readings. Additionally, we must take notice that "we" as a nation are also ranked last among the most industrialized countries of the world in the discipline of secondary adolescent education (i.e. high school). Lastly, we must concede that at this level, as well as within the undergraduate college system as a whole, the definition, requirements, and expectations of a "writing" course have not yet been uniformly accepted.

We, as a national "English" department consortium; complete with literature, composition, rhetoric, communication, english, and writing sub-units; try so hard to teach writing at the undergraduate level because the preparatory programs and course at the preceding level have underperformed and left America's youth without a essential life skill. Of course, such a statement may not be applied grossly and without exception; but few would argue that such communication skills have not been developed in many young adults. The multitude of reasons, which blend social, political, financial, educational, and psychological reasoning, are beyond the scope of this simple blog posting. However, some clues may lye in our recent readings. I will advance the primary argument that an unsteady foundation can not support a growing, overly burdened structure.

In Colonial America, and shortly thereafter, English departments within universities and colleges were ill-defined, politically-driven, and overly polymorphic. This sloppy methodology did not allow for curriculum development or standardized testing. Across the pond, the Queen's Englishmen were also enticed to manipulate" English" and "writing" education in attempts to advance their standing. While the former tried to promote themselves and their social agendas, the latter were busy trying to elevate their individual positions within their society's preconceived hierarchy. One author, noted that in Britain certain nobles earned degrees while only being required to attend 13 days at college in a given year.

The aforementioned disorganization was further compounded by the fact that college was attended by people of means and prior schooling. Reading, and "writing", were advanced to college new comers as a matter of practice in their privileged lives, unlike the sub-optimal preparation some college applicants receive today. Because the goal was social placement before academic stature, one author noted that writing was taught in some universities and not prioritized in others. The sum of these actions led to a de facto devaluation of writing skills and English departments and curriculum in general. In some departments, only literature was taught.

Lastly, and beyond personal social climbing, departments as a whole in American schools were also trying to advance their standing within the larger university structure. As such, departments wrangled to absorb uncharted fields of study and scrambled to increase their budget share and status within the larger education framework. The result meant less educational curricular development.

In conclusion, we try so hard to teach writing to college newcomers today because our current English and Communications departments have still not overcome the shortcomings set forth by their predecessors. This non standardized and poorly focused methodology, coupled with the less-parepared applicants of today, have forced current faculty to bear the burden of making up for lost education time and proficiency, and do so within a not-so-improved framework.

P.S. I thought there was a question about the final testing apparatus? My vote is to leave it open to individual student creativity!

RB