Monday, February 14, 2011

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a...


            To those of you who have not had the pleasure of taking part in the world of mini-van driving, soccer obsessed suburban families, I want to give you a little peak into how dysfunctional this ludicrous little universe can be. My children (10, 13 & 17) are just the perfect age for having grown up in the “everyone gets a trophy” generation. Heaven forbid we give a trophy only to the team that finished first in the neighborhood league – that would make the other players feel bad, so let’s make sure everyone gets a trophy, even the kid who stood in one spot the entire season and would merely pivot to alternate facing east or west if the mood hit him. 

     The high point of this philosophy was when the league held try outs for the “rec” team vs. “traveling team.” These terms have been used for years to designate the more skilled, more competitive team - playing teams of similar caliber, vs. the “rec” kids who might be just learning the sport.  One year, in an effort to be fair to all, they decided to change the team identification terms to “A” vs. “B” team, another year, the “blue” vs. “white” team, noting that the term “Rec” had too many negative connotations. Now, were these parents honestly underestimating their children’s’ intelligence so much that they didn’t realize it would take a millisecond after the team lists were posted for the kids to figure out where they stood in the hierarchy of a local soccer league? Glancing at the names on the list, they knew instantly - - whether you called the team “A”, “Blue,” or “The Platypuses” – what someone had judged their skill level to be.

            This week’s readings sounded simply like a literary version of the issue above. A number of the writers made valid points for keeping remedial writing programs; however, we can’t possibly consider calling them that! After all, the term remedial is considered simply too offensive. There were many strong arguments in favor of having such programs, and even some worthwhile points made for eliminating them but recreating a mainstreamed freshman comp class, or a self-directed comp program (though I’m not really clear on how trustworthy students would be in evaluating their own abilities to move up or down in the comp world). 
     
     But whether or not they call it “remedial”, “basic” (apparently the term of the moment), or some nebulous number like Comp 099, how long do you think it would take for students in such a class to realize there’s a higher level comp. class down the hall that they are not part of? I just felt there was way too much time wasted in this week’s writings addressing the issue of the feelings, emotions, etc. of students who have been deemed to need additional assistance before attainting some level of academic writing a university would deem acceptable.

            What I did find valuable and interesting was the hope that we as English/writing teachers could eventually learn how to interpret students writing errors, not merely circle and quantify them, but rather look for patterns and thought processes associated with such errors. By doing this – which seems no easy task – it would seem to be as if we could address some common writing issues/errors in a more logical, effective manner. 

     Furthermore, while I’m not 100% sure what he meant by it, but I’d certainly like to explore the topic, Mike Rose’s comment that “writing is essential to the very existence of certain kinds of knowledge” was intriguing. While the bulk of Bartholomae’s piece was difficult to follow, there were a few instances were he clearly stated ways he felt we should help "basic" writers, such as demystifying some of the terms we as writing teachers use (think, argue, describe, define) – these few instances of clarity were helpful. It was comforting – in some odd way – to see some of my students writing habits within the examples he provided of different levels of writers. I would hate to say this is an example of “misery loves company” because I truly believe if we as teachers find the right approach, all students in need of a remedial program, or basic writing class, or whatever the politically correct, emotionally-friendly term of the moment will be, will eventually move beyond that level.

3 comments:

  1. I have to admit that seeing my five year old daughter's shock at getting her first trophy for soccer merely for playing almost brought me to tears.

    But as she got older and I took over coaching, I didn't give trophies--we did medals instead (probably not much better). It was hard for me because I always believe that trophies and medals should only be given to teams that win. In my defense, I don't think they should be given past the kindergarten age or so.

    My son's team won a basketball tournament this year and proudly wore his medal home. "It means so much to me, Mom," he told me, "because I know we really earned it."

    Kids know. I think to make up names and eliminate all suggestion of rank or distinction is insulting to them and demeans true accomplishment. My daughter has moved on to competitive Irish dance, where only the winners get medals. She knows exactly what it means to win, and she doesn't feel any less worthy if she doesn't win--she just knows she has to work harder.

    By the university level, I would hope that students are mature enough to recognize that having writing skills that need extra help and attention doesn't mean they are bad or terrible--it just means their writing needs help.

    I, too, really liked what the writers said about error and I have started to look at it in a different way as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I loved the very words, "interpret error." The words opened me up to thinking about the possibilities and meaning to be found during the reading of my students texts. I will be considering error with a new respect in the future (like this week, as I go through research papers!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you're right that the name of the basic writing course doesn't matter; but I think what Rose said about people throwing out the term "illiteracy" was powerful. I loved when he said this word is used because it is rhetorically powerful and "gives expression to the frustration and disappointment in teaching students who do not share one's passions." However, it doesn't accurately reflect the basic writing student.

    ReplyDelete