Brian, thanks for the link to this article.  It's telling that the Times, too, used a sports analogy to explain an academic problem.  We Americans all know that not every child can be a completive athlete, so if we agree to the comparison, we must drop the pretense that not everyone should go to college.  We don't mind someone telling us our child is not athletic, but we cannot abide it if someone tells us our child is not intellectual.

One thing that the article didn't mention was the flip side to remedial college classes: those programs that drain high schools of resources, PSEO (post-secondary educational opportunities) and CITS (college in the schools).  Those nasty acronyms benefit high achievers but rob high schools of ever-shrinking funds that would be better spent to help the lower level student.   Taxpayer money supposedly set aside for secondary education is actually going to the colleges through these programs.  

If a student is ready for college before the age of 18, let them go, but society simply shouldn't be funding it--not when low achievers are paying $350 for what society should have given them for free.

Susan


On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:55 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

A New York Times article,"New Push Seeks to End Need for Pre-College Remedial Classes" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/education/28remedial.html?_r=1), was interesting in light of Susan's recent critique of the focus on "academic" knowledge in high school education. For me, one of Susan's most persuasive points was this: "Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to promote themselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a piece of literature is meaningful because a teacher decides they should believe that." The Times article touches on a similar problem; it opens with an anecdote about a high school graduate taking pre-college remedial courses because, among other problems, her "senior English class...focused on literature, but little on writing."

To me, this illustrates that some of the so-called "academic" content that Susan criticizes is just as ill-suited to the needs of future college students as it is to the the needs of future plumbers. Many freshman at my college don't take a literature course, but they all write argumentatively in courses across the curriculum.

I think Susan might be right that the "permanent training wheels" some of us have been worried about are the result of high schools' overemphasis  version of "academic writing." It seems to be a different version, though, than what I recognize as academic writing in colleges and universities. For example, Susan is probably right that the prohibition on "I" is intended to "prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakening the power of their arguments." But, although I've occasionally heard college professors complain about the overabundance of "I think" and "I feel" and though I have even occasionally complained about it myself), I have more often heard and made the complaint that students don't use" I" when appropriate and don't put themselves into their writing in effective ways. If my experience is representative (which, OK, is a big if), and if some high school teachers are banning "I" because they're trying to teach academic writing to "non-academic" students, then those high school teachers must either mean something different from "college writing" or misunderstand what college writing teachers value. (Let me acknowledge that Susan is not one of "those high school teachers"; she's made it clear that she teaches students to use "I" when relating personal experiences.)

So, as I think Herb suggested earlier, the problem of training wheel permanence, so to speak,  may have a lot to do with lack of communication between high school teachers and college teachers. If both groups could agree on what they mean by "academic writing," or even "good writing," we might be able to lay down clearer paths for students. And I do think that conversations like this can help.

Brian
_
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HS education

Peter, I think we should be concerned about teachers who present
"training wheels" as real life.  However, I think it might be wise to
consider why those teachers do this.

My guess is that they are inundated with students who don't ever want
to "ride a bike" in their entire lives, but are forced to act like
they want to "ride a bike" because society values bike-riding over
carpentry, plumbing, or whatever hands-on skill or craft they excel
at.  In other words, we all have to stop believing that people who
can't write an academic essay shouldn't get a high school diploma.

Clearly, the "training wheel" analogy really messes with my point.
If anyone is confused, let me be more clear: If we force all 18-year-
old human beings to write academically in order to pass high school
(or any bar that equates to sentience), then we will produce teachers
who will create stupid short-cuts to get non-academically-inclined
teens to produce something that is tolerable.  If playing hockey,
instead of academic writing, were the goal for a high school diploma,
you can imagine all the coaches telling the non-athletically-inclined
teens that they are good hockey players if they just do their best to
pass the puck to Lutska.

We should rethink what high schools should require and how long a
student should be required to attend (I think 8th grade is a better
minimum).  We need to teach math so that students can balance a check
book and know why carrying a balance on a credit card is stupid.
Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to promote
themselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a piece of
literature is meaningful because a teacher decides they should
believe that.

We should value education.  But we have to stop only equating
academics with education.  There are plenty of non-academic fields
that we need.  After all, most academic jobs could be shipped
overseas, but we need to have "in-house" plumbers.

Susan


On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Peter Adams wrote:

The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first person strikes
me as a perfect example of training wheels.  There is a possible
construction involving first person that we might prefer students
avoid.  Rather than teach students to avoid that construction, we
simply ban all uses of first person.

That bothers me.

Peter Adams

On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays is to
prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakening
the power of their arguments.  "I believe," "I feel," and "I think"
shouldn't preface every idea expressed.  I tell my students to use
first person only when relating personal experiences in their essays.

Susan


On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Peter,
  Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. I
have
yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine through
four
issues and never took issue with it.
  I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas should be
impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be a
reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, I
suppose,
who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can't for
the
life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from my own
schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. I don't
have "logical" views about it separate from my values and
experiences.
It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational
opportunity
program students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying to
characterize my own background. Other people may have opinions about
it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking students to
avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoid
being
honest about where their views are coming from. This also
shortchanges
the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown up
with
a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot by a
fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talk unless
those differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.
  We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit from
pretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quite
often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.

Craig


I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person,
so I
look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.

I also wonder about contractions.  I tell my students that they
shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to an
audience that thinks they shouldn't be used.  I also tell them I've
never written anything in my life that was so formal that I avoided
contractions.  Where do others stand on this?

Peter Adams

On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:

In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I
often come across some gray areas.  My tendancy is to be somewhat
conservative about formal language.  I wonder where others draw
lines regarding levels of formality.  For example, some of my
students use words that seem too informal to me, like
"morph" (verb
form).  Also, I know we have discussed the use of the first person
before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challenge students
to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first person
altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such issues?

Thanks,

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).


From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
Special issue (#2009-127)

Herb,

I wasn't clear.  Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach
four
groups of students for a total of 112 students.  I meet with each
group five times each week.  I think that I could get better
results
by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each
group separately on others. This would reduce total student
contact
hours for me, but not for them.  With 28 total contact hours per
week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit
from
reducing my contact load and spending that time planning,
developing
lessons, and responding to writing.

Scott

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
Special issue (#2009-127)
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM

Scott,


I’m not join this debate because I don’t know the research on
either
side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather
than
four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me
as
simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.
Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group
seems a more apt contrast.  Or you could lower that to four groups
of 42 or 56 students.  The result would be much less writing and
much less response to writing.


Herb


From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
Special issue (#2009-127)


Paul,



I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link
between reducing class size and increasing performance. The
research
I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in
improving student performance is changing what teachers do.
Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a
class,
but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest
that
if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15
students
that much would change in what students know and can do.



As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students,
but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I
had
all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together.  That would
give
me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their
writing.



Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale




--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]


Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that
class size is a vital component in successful learning.  This is
especially important to the writing classroom.



Paul E. Doniger


"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).





From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid;
however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in
teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member.  My
alma
mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised
highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had
failed
the
English placement exam.  I had scored a 100 in the exam but my
advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I
had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first
Freshman
English class.  My advisor apologized to me later but I replied
that
I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the
class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each
day
instead
of one a week.  The professor in the Dummy Class was also an
excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in
my
experience, class size is more important in English composition
than
in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

******************************************************************
*********

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
at:
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/