I am not sure how to describe my feelings after ready "Garrett Tallinger." Throughout the reading I had a mix of emotions, ranging from anger, sadness, and perhaps even jealousy. One of the first things that struck me reading about the Tallinger family was the very definition of "middle class." Going in, even after our exercise from the other week, I had a very different definition. I thought in my own life before the exercise, that I was middle class, and I do feel very differently about that now. I don't mean this in a negative way, just comparing my life to the Tallingers seemed very different.
As a middle class family, the Tallingers seem very modern Ozzie and Harriet. Lareau describes their "moderate" income (at 175,000 between the two of them) living in a very nice accommodating house, good neighbor, three nice boys, etc. But I found that there seemed to be a very dark underbelly to their whole life.
The Tallinger boys are being exposed to what their parents want them to associate with middle class--including, in my eyes, the lack of any real race besides their own. Lareau comments that, "Garrett's friends are white, as are most of the people he interacts with, whether he is at home, at school, or on the playing field" (42). The most exposure Garrett got was that "his all white baseball team occasionally plays teams that include Black children" (42). Of course, notice, the team isn't all Black, they just have included Black children on their team. All of this just reeked of racism, perhaps not overt, but just so deeply ingrained into their way of life. It again reinforces the idea of White americans being the social movers and money makers, while other races struggle to compete.
I wondered how truly happy the Tallingers are in their life when "the centerpiece of the Tallinger children's lives is their organized activities...children's activities create substantial work for their parents" (46-47). While I think extracurricular activities are wonderful for children and young adults, I feel like a line does need to be drawn. I'm not really sure what true enjoyment these kids were getting out of their activities, because to me it seemed more like work than anything.
And yet, at the same time, the Tallinger children seemed to show an air of entitlement to not only their sports practices, but their education and material things at home. They seem to not want or need for anything (except for in the case of Sam, more parental closeness, in my opinion). Maybe entitlement is the wrong word, but they accept these "things" as nothing out of the ordinary. The parents and children overbook themselves, and then must choose between things like spending a day together as a family on Father's day, and soccer and baseball games (49).
Of course the parents hold some responsibility in all this. They, after all, facilitate all these different activities for the children, and bear the sole financial responsibility for it. They want their children to be their definition of successful, even at the cost of late mortgage payments. As a result, I feel the Tallinger children are learning one thing while their parents are doing another. The baseball picture scenario is a perfect example of this, and one that really irked me.
And its not just financial responsibilities, I worried about their children's self esteem as well. for example, when one of their kids docent fit into their cookie cutter mould, as in the case of Spencer, he is deemed "average." Why? Because Mr. Tallinger decided so as he states, "sports just come naturally to us...he knows he couldn't compete with him. Garrett is so much better" (55). If I was irked before, this statement downright infuriated me.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Lareau Reading Response
I found this article fascinating. I too am surrounded by families just like the Tallingers. I had no trouble understanding that social class affects the way kids lives are "managed" but my feelings about this bordered on nausea.
I was sickened by Garrett's parents who shuttled him around from one activity to another with barely a chance to breathe or cultivate some autonomy. Yes, it's great to encourage a child's strengths, but to race from one soccer game to another to the detriment of the rest of the family members is just insane.
The Tallingers were more than eager to clip out of town for a soccer game, but I didn't pick up on the same level of interest for educational pursuits. Don and Louise made sure their kids were getting their homework done, but where is the creativity? Creativity often comes as a result of having to do without. The Tallinger kids were given all the amenities at the risk of family finances. There are all kinds of advantages to league and school sports programs but there are also invaluable lessons that kids can get in their own back yards without mommy and daddy looking on. I couldn't believe that this family couldn't cut back on some of the sports programs so that they'd be more financially stable. Couldn't they suggest that Garrett pull back to just two sports? And what happens to Garrett if he doesn't make the college team? Are his interests varied enough to enable him to find happiness in other venues?
I keep thinking of Thoreau's words from Walden "...simplify, simplify!" Walden Pond seems about as far removed from this upper middle class family as earth to Pluto. Where's the common sense? Where's the fun? I know these parents would be deemed more than able by today's standards, but maybe today's standards are skewed.
I was also saddened by the fact that Garrett was innocent of any knowledge of his family's finances. He never hears "We can't afford it". Instead, "He takes for granted the fact that his parents can afford the cost of clothing, groceries, fast food, cars, medical appointments, and assorted activities...(60). I sure hope Garrett and his brothers get very good jobs when they graduate from college. Otherwise they'll be just a few of the millions whose credit card debt is driven up by wanting it all RIGHT NOW!
I felt this article was a sad commentary on the middle class. I was disheartened by the kids who played organized sports exclusively and whose fun had to be penciled onto the calendar as "play dates". It just seems that this family is not really living, but personifying a pinball machine where the silver balls furiously bounce back and forth against the bumpers until they finally fall to end the game.
Posted by Chris Bradley 9/17/08
I was sickened by Garrett's parents who shuttled him around from one activity to another with barely a chance to breathe or cultivate some autonomy. Yes, it's great to encourage a child's strengths, but to race from one soccer game to another to the detriment of the rest of the family members is just insane.
The Tallingers were more than eager to clip out of town for a soccer game, but I didn't pick up on the same level of interest for educational pursuits. Don and Louise made sure their kids were getting their homework done, but where is the creativity? Creativity often comes as a result of having to do without. The Tallinger kids were given all the amenities at the risk of family finances. There are all kinds of advantages to league and school sports programs but there are also invaluable lessons that kids can get in their own back yards without mommy and daddy looking on. I couldn't believe that this family couldn't cut back on some of the sports programs so that they'd be more financially stable. Couldn't they suggest that Garrett pull back to just two sports? And what happens to Garrett if he doesn't make the college team? Are his interests varied enough to enable him to find happiness in other venues?
I keep thinking of Thoreau's words from Walden "...simplify, simplify!" Walden Pond seems about as far removed from this upper middle class family as earth to Pluto. Where's the common sense? Where's the fun? I know these parents would be deemed more than able by today's standards, but maybe today's standards are skewed.
I was also saddened by the fact that Garrett was innocent of any knowledge of his family's finances. He never hears "We can't afford it". Instead, "He takes for granted the fact that his parents can afford the cost of clothing, groceries, fast food, cars, medical appointments, and assorted activities...(60). I sure hope Garrett and his brothers get very good jobs when they graduate from college. Otherwise they'll be just a few of the millions whose credit card debt is driven up by wanting it all RIGHT NOW!
I felt this article was a sad commentary on the middle class. I was disheartened by the kids who played organized sports exclusively and whose fun had to be penciled onto the calendar as "play dates". It just seems that this family is not really living, but personifying a pinball machine where the silver balls furiously bounce back and forth against the bumpers until they finally fall to end the game.
Posted by Chris Bradley 9/17/08
Unequal Childhoods
Parents and schools are facilitators of different kinds of literacy and at different levels. It is often debated which institution is responsible for the teaching of which types of literacy and to what extent. Due to differences in parenting, an assortment of life skills courses has been added to the public school's curriculum: Family and Consumer Science, Financial Management, Sex Education (known fondly as abstinence ed), Study Skills, Childhood Development, and Basic Reading. Such courses are a response to the readiness with which a student enters the educational system, the limited success achieved in core academic courses, and participation in activities once considered to be (or widely deluded to be) reserved for adults.
Labeau's exploration of concerted cultivation identifies childhood activities as a source of literacy acquisition. The levels and types of this acquisition, occurring outside of the school, can be hypothesized to affect or even determine the level of success a student is to have within a school system designed to mimic and prepare students for the dominant ideological and institutional structures of the particular society.
At the end of Labeau's example she enumerates the skills acquired from organized team sports, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Yet questions that arose during the reading of Labeau's introduction remained unanswered. Labeau emphasizes the difference in time spent with adults between middle and lower income families. She shows that the middle class family (which the Tallinger's were not) has a highly scheduled and child-oriented routine for the purpose of developing skills applicable to the "institutional world."(39) Labeau also makes insinuations that the lower class family, due to economic struggle, must focus on day-to-day survival, also a level of skill development for survival in the institutional world, though perhaps unplanned by the caregiver and distinct as a survival of a different kind. My primary inquiry has to do with the affects of time spent with adults on language development and other areas of functional literacy. Though one might believe that a child whose organized activities places them in contact with adults more frequently may develop a more advanced and mature understanding of language, it also seems plausible that the hectic schedule kept by these children does not allow sustained periods of contact with adults and therefore may breed misunderstanding of certain word use by its lack of context.
I was also interested in Labeau's comments on the effects of such literacy development on standardized test performance. I'd like to explore this further in the context of standardized testings current function in governmental attempts to "bridge the gap" between minority student achievement and that of white students. If what Labeau says is true, than her work may validate the assertion that standardized testing does more to create further distinction between students of different ethnic and economic backgrounds than to facilitate the creation of a more equitable system of education.
Labeau's exploration of concerted cultivation identifies childhood activities as a source of literacy acquisition. The levels and types of this acquisition, occurring outside of the school, can be hypothesized to affect or even determine the level of success a student is to have within a school system designed to mimic and prepare students for the dominant ideological and institutional structures of the particular society.
At the end of Labeau's example she enumerates the skills acquired from organized team sports, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Yet questions that arose during the reading of Labeau's introduction remained unanswered. Labeau emphasizes the difference in time spent with adults between middle and lower income families. She shows that the middle class family (which the Tallinger's were not) has a highly scheduled and child-oriented routine for the purpose of developing skills applicable to the "institutional world."(39) Labeau also makes insinuations that the lower class family, due to economic struggle, must focus on day-to-day survival, also a level of skill development for survival in the institutional world, though perhaps unplanned by the caregiver and distinct as a survival of a different kind. My primary inquiry has to do with the affects of time spent with adults on language development and other areas of functional literacy. Though one might believe that a child whose organized activities places them in contact with adults more frequently may develop a more advanced and mature understanding of language, it also seems plausible that the hectic schedule kept by these children does not allow sustained periods of contact with adults and therefore may breed misunderstanding of certain word use by its lack of context.
I was also interested in Labeau's comments on the effects of such literacy development on standardized test performance. I'd like to explore this further in the context of standardized testings current function in governmental attempts to "bridge the gap" between minority student achievement and that of white students. If what Labeau says is true, than her work may validate the assertion that standardized testing does more to create further distinction between students of different ethnic and economic backgrounds than to facilitate the creation of a more equitable system of education.
Posted for Sandy
Lareau Blog
I’m not even sure which facet to address first. Do I merely concur with Lareau when she concludes that there is a distinct difference in the organization of family life between working-class families and middle-class families and discuss how her findings coincide with the “quiz” on the differences between working-class people, middle-class people, and wealthy people? Do I compare Lareau’s findings with the experiences of Rose and Shaughnessy and discuss how middle-class children have a seemingly huge advantage over working-class children when it comes to basic job skills and “other real-world advantages” provided to them through participation in organized activities? Or, do I suggest that the “broad horizons” and exposure to “typically adult experiences” directly translate into a higher level of literacy (62)? To that last question I answer yes and no—it depends on what we deem to be the definition of literacy (I hate to open this Pandora’s Box again, but it begs to be opened here!). If working-class children remain in the working class and are considered “socially literate,” do they need the skills procured by the middle-class children? Or shall we assume that these skills translate into a “literacy” that is necessary to become part of a higher social class? From her study of middle-class children and families like Garrett Tallinger and the Tallinger family, Lareau concludes that “middle-class children not only acquire a variety of important life skills, but they also have repeated opportunities to practice those skills” and that the “approach to child-rearing” in middle-class homes “meshes seamlessly with the practices and values of society’s dominant institutions” (63). Interestingly, she then discusses the “costs” of the “concerted cultivation” attributed to growing up in a middle-class family and alludes to her next chapters as they explain how “the approach to child rearing by working class parents does have real advantages for children” (65). I must admit, I was excited to read another chapter or two when I realized that was all Julie gave us. Was this intentional or merely an attempt to save trees? I vote intentional.
I cannot possibly continue with this blog without first standing tall on my soapbox, ready and willing to share my ire. I know many Garrett Tallingers and many Tallinger families. Neighborhoods surrounding me are full of them; they’re not hard to come by in these parts. Soccer practice and games, baseball practice and games, football practice and games, softball practice and games, swim team practice and meets, swimming lessons, cheerleading practice (and sometime games, but more often just plain competition), field hockey practice and games, karate lessons, piano lessons, guitar lessons, voice lessons, dance lessons, gymnastics, Wednesday night catechism, fast food eaten at the game or on the go: these (and more to be sure) have become the mainstay of many middle-class American families. As I read through Garrett’s story, I became once again disgusted and repulsed by what some parents consider important, and even crucial, in their quest to prepare Johnny or Suzy for life. You may wonder what I mean by once again. When my children were the age of the Tallinger children, these annoying and, at times obnoxious, parents disgusted and repulsed me; their children’s activities ruled their lives. Just like the Tallingers, both parents worked. Just like the Tallingers, the children were involved in two or more sports and two or more other activities that required money, driving, and time. Just like the Tallingers, these parents “were racing from activity to activity” (Lareau). Just like the Tallingers, these families spent little time eating a family meal at home, bonding over the occasional piece of chicken or plate of spaghetti. Just like the Tallingers, their children had little down time and were often so exhausted they could barely make it through school and homework. They, too, may have claimed that they were preparing their sons/daughters for adulthood, for life. But was that really their goal? Was that really the goal of the Tallingers? Is that the goal of today’s middle-class parents who have even added to the mix lavish birthday parties where eight-year-olds go rock climbing rather than play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey? What it all boils down to is this: some are living vicariously through their children; some feel their children must have what they didn’t; and some are on a mission to prove that not only can they buy the most stuff, but they can do the most stuff; or even a combination of all three. It was clear to me that the Tallingers were just another set of parents who risked financial ruin so they could keep up with their “neighbors” as well as provide for their children what they didn’t have, because, after all, they turned out to be horrible people who had to save their children from the same fate. Seriously, what did they really accomplish? Whoever dies with the most toys and trophies wins? Poor Garrett Tallinger and all the other Garrett Tallingers out there. You just gotta love American materialism and competition!
I will admit that my children were involved in activities and that often our lives did revolve around those activities. But I like to think that we didn’t completely succumb to the “pressures” of our social class. They played one sport at a time; they played one instrument at a time. We ate meals together and avoided fast food as much as possible (who can resist eating an occasional hotdog at a football, baseball or softball game?). They often played unstructured outside with other children or even just with each other. With respect to children’s activities, we fell between the working class and middle class. At first it was a money issue. We didn’t have the funds for all the registration fees and uniforms and supplies and whatever else is needed for the respective activity. But even when we could, we didn’t. It didn’t feel right. And we never felt the need to live vicariously through them or inundate them with opportunities we didn’t have or keep up with all of their peers and parents. Looking back I know we made the right choices. But I’m not so naïve to think that working-class boys and girls would not benefit from participation in organized activities and various types of lessons depending upon preference. As Lareau so adeptly points out, the working class are definitely at a disadvantage in world that highly values competition and life lessons learned from sports and other activities. But questions remain. Do skills learned from participation in these activities directly translate into literacy? If so, what kind? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Can balance be achieved?
So, what is the true secret to achieving literacy? It’s a combination of parents reading to their children and modeling for their children as they read themselves. That’s it in a nutshell. That was the one gift the Tallingers gave to their children, the one defining factor that seems to be common among middle-class families. Oftentimes working-class parents are too exhausted keeping up with the demands of existence and maintenance that reading to their children and even reading for their own pleasure are relegated alongside all the other unnecessary tasks. In my humble opinion (and after reading Shaughnessy and the bit of Lareau), this is what actually separates the middle class from the working class, seriously placing the working-class children at a noticeable disadvantage.
I’m not even sure which facet to address first. Do I merely concur with Lareau when she concludes that there is a distinct difference in the organization of family life between working-class families and middle-class families and discuss how her findings coincide with the “quiz” on the differences between working-class people, middle-class people, and wealthy people? Do I compare Lareau’s findings with the experiences of Rose and Shaughnessy and discuss how middle-class children have a seemingly huge advantage over working-class children when it comes to basic job skills and “other real-world advantages” provided to them through participation in organized activities? Or, do I suggest that the “broad horizons” and exposure to “typically adult experiences” directly translate into a higher level of literacy (62)? To that last question I answer yes and no—it depends on what we deem to be the definition of literacy (I hate to open this Pandora’s Box again, but it begs to be opened here!). If working-class children remain in the working class and are considered “socially literate,” do they need the skills procured by the middle-class children? Or shall we assume that these skills translate into a “literacy” that is necessary to become part of a higher social class? From her study of middle-class children and families like Garrett Tallinger and the Tallinger family, Lareau concludes that “middle-class children not only acquire a variety of important life skills, but they also have repeated opportunities to practice those skills” and that the “approach to child-rearing” in middle-class homes “meshes seamlessly with the practices and values of society’s dominant institutions” (63). Interestingly, she then discusses the “costs” of the “concerted cultivation” attributed to growing up in a middle-class family and alludes to her next chapters as they explain how “the approach to child rearing by working class parents does have real advantages for children” (65). I must admit, I was excited to read another chapter or two when I realized that was all Julie gave us. Was this intentional or merely an attempt to save trees? I vote intentional.
I cannot possibly continue with this blog without first standing tall on my soapbox, ready and willing to share my ire. I know many Garrett Tallingers and many Tallinger families. Neighborhoods surrounding me are full of them; they’re not hard to come by in these parts. Soccer practice and games, baseball practice and games, football practice and games, softball practice and games, swim team practice and meets, swimming lessons, cheerleading practice (and sometime games, but more often just plain competition), field hockey practice and games, karate lessons, piano lessons, guitar lessons, voice lessons, dance lessons, gymnastics, Wednesday night catechism, fast food eaten at the game or on the go: these (and more to be sure) have become the mainstay of many middle-class American families. As I read through Garrett’s story, I became once again disgusted and repulsed by what some parents consider important, and even crucial, in their quest to prepare Johnny or Suzy for life. You may wonder what I mean by once again. When my children were the age of the Tallinger children, these annoying and, at times obnoxious, parents disgusted and repulsed me; their children’s activities ruled their lives. Just like the Tallingers, both parents worked. Just like the Tallingers, the children were involved in two or more sports and two or more other activities that required money, driving, and time. Just like the Tallingers, these parents “were racing from activity to activity” (Lareau). Just like the Tallingers, these families spent little time eating a family meal at home, bonding over the occasional piece of chicken or plate of spaghetti. Just like the Tallingers, their children had little down time and were often so exhausted they could barely make it through school and homework. They, too, may have claimed that they were preparing their sons/daughters for adulthood, for life. But was that really their goal? Was that really the goal of the Tallingers? Is that the goal of today’s middle-class parents who have even added to the mix lavish birthday parties where eight-year-olds go rock climbing rather than play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey? What it all boils down to is this: some are living vicariously through their children; some feel their children must have what they didn’t; and some are on a mission to prove that not only can they buy the most stuff, but they can do the most stuff; or even a combination of all three. It was clear to me that the Tallingers were just another set of parents who risked financial ruin so they could keep up with their “neighbors” as well as provide for their children what they didn’t have, because, after all, they turned out to be horrible people who had to save their children from the same fate. Seriously, what did they really accomplish? Whoever dies with the most toys and trophies wins? Poor Garrett Tallinger and all the other Garrett Tallingers out there. You just gotta love American materialism and competition!
I will admit that my children were involved in activities and that often our lives did revolve around those activities. But I like to think that we didn’t completely succumb to the “pressures” of our social class. They played one sport at a time; they played one instrument at a time. We ate meals together and avoided fast food as much as possible (who can resist eating an occasional hotdog at a football, baseball or softball game?). They often played unstructured outside with other children or even just with each other. With respect to children’s activities, we fell between the working class and middle class. At first it was a money issue. We didn’t have the funds for all the registration fees and uniforms and supplies and whatever else is needed for the respective activity. But even when we could, we didn’t. It didn’t feel right. And we never felt the need to live vicariously through them or inundate them with opportunities we didn’t have or keep up with all of their peers and parents. Looking back I know we made the right choices. But I’m not so naïve to think that working-class boys and girls would not benefit from participation in organized activities and various types of lessons depending upon preference. As Lareau so adeptly points out, the working class are definitely at a disadvantage in world that highly values competition and life lessons learned from sports and other activities. But questions remain. Do skills learned from participation in these activities directly translate into literacy? If so, what kind? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Can balance be achieved?
So, what is the true secret to achieving literacy? It’s a combination of parents reading to their children and modeling for their children as they read themselves. That’s it in a nutshell. That was the one gift the Tallingers gave to their children, the one defining factor that seems to be common among middle-class families. Oftentimes working-class parents are too exhausted keeping up with the demands of existence and maintenance that reading to their children and even reading for their own pleasure are relegated alongside all the other unnecessary tasks. In my humble opinion (and after reading Shaughnessy and the bit of Lareau), this is what actually separates the middle class from the working class, seriously placing the working-class children at a noticeable disadvantage.
Add Lareau to Shaughnessy and Rose and what do you get?
I just spent a huge amount of time writing a blog only to get error messages when I try to publish it. I will just end up sending it to Julie (I have it saved on Word and had no problem when I did it this way before), but I may try to publish again if I have time. Sorry!
Monday, September 15, 2008
"Where goes Spencer" Or trying to make sense of differences
Well. . ."life is about choices". Maybe that is where I will start. But, then again. . . "sometimes there are fewer choices" or "sometimes you can only do your best". I feel we are doing much in this class to talk about Literacy as a function of maintaining the middle class or providing the means for upward mobility. Unfortunately, with the present economy, single parent households, divorced households, inequalities of education, and the isolation from extended families (for whatever reason) the lines between poverty and middle class are not marked in stone. As we discovered when we took "A Little Test", literacy is about connecting with our world. Functional literacy allows people to live in different worlds with different group membership. The fluid knowledge that comes from a wide exposure to ideas, people, and activities takes on different forms in Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, particularly when we put our personal narrative to her narratives.
For those who can remember back to a philosophy class, recollect the tale of John Stuart Mills. His early training was an early example of Lareau's "commitment to concerted cultivation" (48). The possibilities of spontaneity, creativity, and self-exploration were replaced with concrete structure, rewards, and commitments. He was a child prodigy who suffered bouts of depression and self-doubt until he grew to evaluate his self-worth with the help of others outside his immediate family. He did not turn his back on everything he had been taught, BUT he did modify his life. Most important to my point, his life changed as he grew. He learned through trial and error what was right and wrong for him. But everything built on the foundation he received as a child. He was secure enough in himself to make the choices his own.
There is a scenario I would like to discuss from page 55. This is where the Tallingers talk about Spencer's interest in science and their lack of interest (could it be because of their lack of literacy) in science. Very telling is the statement by Don "I usually don't think of going out and collecting spiders or doing something that Spencer would like. He's interested in science. I usually don't think about that." I believe this dialogue addresses the issues of difference between students and children as well as the work required for providing a foundation for those differences. Who in this article is making the judgement as to the type of literacy? I would say the parent. I acknowledge every parent can not know everything from soccer rules to volcano science projects to math homework to leisure reading. But we need to ask: are parents and teachers providing children the means to find the resources to become literate in fields of their choice? There is a fine line between the benefits and dangers of absolute structure and unsupervised activities. It would be interesting to see how each of the Tallinger children fair by age 25. Are they living the middle-class dream (for want of another phrase) ? What do they remember of their younger years? What is their relationships with their parents and siblings?
I think I focused on Spencer because I had three children with three distinct personalities, interests, and academic capabilities. All three took much of my time as a parent. I would make many of the same choices today, but it was tiring and labor intense as I tried to find the resources to nurture their interests. Before I was divorced, my husband was more active then other husbands-but I was still the mainstay ( I worked 30 hours a week, but adjusted my schedule frequently). After I was divorced and my children were in the busy high school years, I did even more. Money was more of an issue as was my time to scheduling for all of our activities. I still believed in a well-rounded literacy that included art, science, sports, reading, etc. Our life style did change but promoting a love of learning never disappeared. We were in this world together. But I was realistic enough to know that once the children left my front door and went around the corner, all I could do was hope they would remember something of what I had tried to give them.
I am reminded of Kahil Gibran speaking in his wonderful book, The Prophet, when he addresses children and says "You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts . . . for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams". But, I believe, equally important is his observation of the foundation we give our children. That foundation becomes the basis for his description of the function of knowledge as that which, "no man can reveal to you aught but that which already lives half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge".
Beyond the "concerted cultivation" discussed in this article of appearances, achievement, and rules of etiquette is the ethics of being a part of a world. No where in the Tallinger story is a true show of compassion for other people. Given the uncertainty in today's society, the literacy of compassion might be one of the most important foundations we teach our children.
For those who can remember back to a philosophy class, recollect the tale of John Stuart Mills. His early training was an early example of Lareau's "commitment to concerted cultivation" (48). The possibilities of spontaneity, creativity, and self-exploration were replaced with concrete structure, rewards, and commitments. He was a child prodigy who suffered bouts of depression and self-doubt until he grew to evaluate his self-worth with the help of others outside his immediate family. He did not turn his back on everything he had been taught, BUT he did modify his life. Most important to my point, his life changed as he grew. He learned through trial and error what was right and wrong for him. But everything built on the foundation he received as a child. He was secure enough in himself to make the choices his own.
There is a scenario I would like to discuss from page 55. This is where the Tallingers talk about Spencer's interest in science and their lack of interest (could it be because of their lack of literacy) in science. Very telling is the statement by Don "I usually don't think of going out and collecting spiders or doing something that Spencer would like. He's interested in science. I usually don't think about that." I believe this dialogue addresses the issues of difference between students and children as well as the work required for providing a foundation for those differences. Who in this article is making the judgement as to the type of literacy? I would say the parent. I acknowledge every parent can not know everything from soccer rules to volcano science projects to math homework to leisure reading. But we need to ask: are parents and teachers providing children the means to find the resources to become literate in fields of their choice? There is a fine line between the benefits and dangers of absolute structure and unsupervised activities. It would be interesting to see how each of the Tallinger children fair by age 25. Are they living the middle-class dream (for want of another phrase) ? What do they remember of their younger years? What is their relationships with their parents and siblings?
I think I focused on Spencer because I had three children with three distinct personalities, interests, and academic capabilities. All three took much of my time as a parent. I would make many of the same choices today, but it was tiring and labor intense as I tried to find the resources to nurture their interests. Before I was divorced, my husband was more active then other husbands-but I was still the mainstay ( I worked 30 hours a week, but adjusted my schedule frequently). After I was divorced and my children were in the busy high school years, I did even more. Money was more of an issue as was my time to scheduling for all of our activities. I still believed in a well-rounded literacy that included art, science, sports, reading, etc. Our life style did change but promoting a love of learning never disappeared. We were in this world together. But I was realistic enough to know that once the children left my front door and went around the corner, all I could do was hope they would remember something of what I had tried to give them.
I am reminded of Kahil Gibran speaking in his wonderful book, The Prophet, when he addresses children and says "You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts . . . for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams". But, I believe, equally important is his observation of the foundation we give our children. That foundation becomes the basis for his description of the function of knowledge as that which, "no man can reveal to you aught but that which already lives half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge".
Beyond the "concerted cultivation" discussed in this article of appearances, achievement, and rules of etiquette is the ethics of being a part of a world. No where in the Tallinger story is a true show of compassion for other people. Given the uncertainty in today's society, the literacy of compassion might be one of the most important foundations we teach our children.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Tallinger Family
Wow. I finally disagree with an assigned reading (well, portions of it). I sometimes don't like the readings, but that didn't mean I disagreed with them. One statement in the Lareau reading I took offense to was on page 39. It reads: "They (middle-class kids in sports) learn to think of themselves as special and as entitled to receive certain kinds of services from adults." I'm not sure, after finishing the reading, that she remembered she even wrote it. She did not prove to me that this blanket statement was the case with the Tallinger family. Overscheduled, tired, and sometimes cranky, yes. Entitled? Didn't see it. Entitled to being driven around? Isn't that a given as a parent who signs their kids up for sports? I also did not like that certain conversations were chosen to depict a less-than-ideal father-son relationship on page 46. She was referring to a rather short-answered exhange between Garrett and Mr. Tallinger. "...this exchange constitutes the sum total of the father-son interaction...this kind of dialogue occurs...commonly." Really? Didn't she mention more than once that Mr. Tallinger was the most involved of all the fathers in her field study? Was it late at night? maybe they were both tired? She wrote more than once about the work schedules and hectic sports schedules. I just have a hard time with ideas being taken out of context for the sake of proving her own preconceived points. I want to know the whole conversation. Then I can have an informed opinion if I am forced to.
I do agree that kids can be overscheduled. My children are each involved in one sport. Each has practice 2 days a week. They are all on different days. Since I am the one who was home for so many years, even being back at work does not entitle me to a night off from cooking, although it should. If I want to order in, I have to suggest it myself. I have to say that a short-answered exchange similar to the father-son exchange mentioned above could definitley be noted on nights like these. My kids aren't overscheduled. I am. My Saturdays are gone because there are soccer games, and pictures, and tournaments. A little of my own venting. What was my point? Oh. Well, let's see. When you have children, they should be first unil they no longer need you to make them first, whether you like it or not. Who knows when that is. Personal decision. But Lareau makes it clear that she thinks even watching kids play sports is "laboring" (page 47) for parents. Come on. So being a supportive parent is now laboring. Watching your child play a sport and they smile at you after a good shot is laboring? This family chose their schedule. They can say no to their kids. The kids can say no to more than one sport. They are over-achievers. Who is anyone to judge how they choose to live their lives? Maybe the busy-ness and all the hustle is what holds them all together. They seem like a generally happy family that's being judged by a lady who had the youngest son kicked out of his room so she could sleep there and eavesdrop on all their conversations.
On page 48, she again writes about a rather annoyed and sometimes loud exchange between Garrett and his father. She makes it sound, to me, like the father is just going nuts over the shorts. Now let's be honest. If there were small flies with cameras stuck to the walls in each of our homes, there's no way this wouldn't be seen in our families, too. How many times did the father ask the son to get his stuff? How annoying must it have been to be ignored? Well, of course we don't read about that. She picks up where Don already has veins popping out of his neck over these shorts and he is yelling at Garrett. Garrett should have gotten his behind off the chair when his father asked him. He knows darn well he has soccer practice.
She tried to make some kind of point with the whole Sam and the party invite. Why? He got to go! Everyone was happy. The end. I am sure this is not the only time is his young life that things worked out just fine. Lareau says on page 44 that Sam asks "Can I go to it?"...knowing that his brothers' schedules may interfere with the time of the party. She tries to gain sympathy from the reader for Sam. Then just as quickly she essentially says that Sam's life gives him time for himself and this is a good thing. But I thought only working-class families were supposed to have time to make their own fun? So, why did she even bother writing this part? She then immediately moves into a contradictory statement (again) on page 45--didnt' she just say that the older boys have no time for themselves? So what is wrong with "waiting" for the next activity? Isn't that unstructured time? She even makes slight fun of "play dates" (which she just had to put in quotes to show the silliness of the whole concept) that the boys go to because the horrible Tallinger family moved to a cul-de-sac that does not have boys the same age. Someone call CPS. This family doesn't do anything right in her eyes.
I'm just not sure of her point. Working class families don't have money to spend on extra-curricular activities. Middle-class kids feel entitled if they are in extra-curricular activites. Working class kids find more time for themselves. Sam is middle class but finds time for himself, although apparently he's not supposed to be able to do this since he's middle-class. Working-class struggles financially. Middle-class does not struggle (or so she says with no proof). Middle-class parents are bored watching their kids play and/or practice. Working-class does not encourage their kids to find something they are good at. So? How about this...let people live the way they are comfortable living. She should stay out of it and rent a hotel room next time she does a field study.
I do agree that kids can be overscheduled. My children are each involved in one sport. Each has practice 2 days a week. They are all on different days. Since I am the one who was home for so many years, even being back at work does not entitle me to a night off from cooking, although it should. If I want to order in, I have to suggest it myself. I have to say that a short-answered exchange similar to the father-son exchange mentioned above could definitley be noted on nights like these. My kids aren't overscheduled. I am. My Saturdays are gone because there are soccer games, and pictures, and tournaments. A little of my own venting. What was my point? Oh. Well, let's see. When you have children, they should be first unil they no longer need you to make them first, whether you like it or not. Who knows when that is. Personal decision. But Lareau makes it clear that she thinks even watching kids play sports is "laboring" (page 47) for parents. Come on. So being a supportive parent is now laboring. Watching your child play a sport and they smile at you after a good shot is laboring? This family chose their schedule. They can say no to their kids. The kids can say no to more than one sport. They are over-achievers. Who is anyone to judge how they choose to live their lives? Maybe the busy-ness and all the hustle is what holds them all together. They seem like a generally happy family that's being judged by a lady who had the youngest son kicked out of his room so she could sleep there and eavesdrop on all their conversations.
On page 48, she again writes about a rather annoyed and sometimes loud exchange between Garrett and his father. She makes it sound, to me, like the father is just going nuts over the shorts. Now let's be honest. If there were small flies with cameras stuck to the walls in each of our homes, there's no way this wouldn't be seen in our families, too. How many times did the father ask the son to get his stuff? How annoying must it have been to be ignored? Well, of course we don't read about that. She picks up where Don already has veins popping out of his neck over these shorts and he is yelling at Garrett. Garrett should have gotten his behind off the chair when his father asked him. He knows darn well he has soccer practice.
She tried to make some kind of point with the whole Sam and the party invite. Why? He got to go! Everyone was happy. The end. I am sure this is not the only time is his young life that things worked out just fine. Lareau says on page 44 that Sam asks "Can I go to it?"...knowing that his brothers' schedules may interfere with the time of the party. She tries to gain sympathy from the reader for Sam. Then just as quickly she essentially says that Sam's life gives him time for himself and this is a good thing. But I thought only working-class families were supposed to have time to make their own fun? So, why did she even bother writing this part? She then immediately moves into a contradictory statement (again) on page 45--didnt' she just say that the older boys have no time for themselves? So what is wrong with "waiting" for the next activity? Isn't that unstructured time? She even makes slight fun of "play dates" (which she just had to put in quotes to show the silliness of the whole concept) that the boys go to because the horrible Tallinger family moved to a cul-de-sac that does not have boys the same age. Someone call CPS. This family doesn't do anything right in her eyes.
I'm just not sure of her point. Working class families don't have money to spend on extra-curricular activities. Middle-class kids feel entitled if they are in extra-curricular activites. Working class kids find more time for themselves. Sam is middle class but finds time for himself, although apparently he's not supposed to be able to do this since he's middle-class. Working-class struggles financially. Middle-class does not struggle (or so she says with no proof). Middle-class parents are bored watching their kids play and/or practice. Working-class does not encourage their kids to find something they are good at. So? How about this...let people live the way they are comfortable living. She should stay out of it and rent a hotel room next time she does a field study.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
It's my life
I'd like to thank Julie for providing a chapter from Annette Lareau's book, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. This excerpt hit home so often that I read parts of it aloud to my husband. I seriously didn't even get through two sentences before he responded in a way that is not appropriate to write (!) I guess it hit home to him as well... I was reading the part about home life being the "second shift" and the "invisible labor" for middle class families with two full-time working partners. The part that sent my husband over the top was the observation Lareau made about the unequal division of labor at home. "Moreover, pressures related to family life are not borne equally by Mr. Tallinger and Ms. Tallinger" (50). I can document from personal experience that this is accurate. In fact, what Lareau found in her study of middle class families is exactly the life I had when my own children were involved in the multitude of extracurricular activities. Their activities were the center of our lives. We did everything the Tallingers did! We even arranged family vacations around our children's schedules. But, I have to add, that I wised up. I realized the foolishness of it and stopped it. And I'm glad I did!
On one other note...I like how she made comparisons between the lives of the middle class and the working class and the poor in that chapter. It crystallized the differences between "middle class" and "acting white." One way that my school tries to break the cycle of poverty is to show the students how to live a life filled with middle class values. Indeed, this is one of the greatest obstacles these students face. They struggle to manage their life outside of the school day. These students can survive in school because this is not foreign to them. They've all experienced school in some shape or form. It's the out-of-school life that is all new to many of them. Students must meet many after-school obligations and requirements. They must learn to juggle their activities (finding time for an extracurricular, homework, chores, etc) ; meet deadlines; understand time constraints; "stick with" an activity; and fully participate in activities. When I read Lareau's research about the ways in which working class and poor children spend their free time, the differences became clear. These students are used to life at a slow pace where much of their free time is controlled by their own desires. They can sit down for 3 hours and watch TV. They can structure their time with little interference from their parents. So to come to a school that has such drastically different expectations for how free time is spent is truly culture shock.
I see the importance of acclimating students to middle class life. I'd wager that one of the reasons why students have such difficult adjustment to the process is because they have absolutely no background knowledge about this way of life. They've never lived it and probably know very few (if any) people who have. And no one has provided any explanations for them about this lifestyle. So students walk around completely confused about why they need to participate in activities and why they need to perform community service. They cannot make the connections! No one has ever told them that these are the expectations of the middle class culture --the culture where they should aspire to live and work so they can break their own personal cycle of poverty.
On one other note...I like how she made comparisons between the lives of the middle class and the working class and the poor in that chapter. It crystallized the differences between "middle class" and "acting white." One way that my school tries to break the cycle of poverty is to show the students how to live a life filled with middle class values. Indeed, this is one of the greatest obstacles these students face. They struggle to manage their life outside of the school day. These students can survive in school because this is not foreign to them. They've all experienced school in some shape or form. It's the out-of-school life that is all new to many of them. Students must meet many after-school obligations and requirements. They must learn to juggle their activities (finding time for an extracurricular, homework, chores, etc) ; meet deadlines; understand time constraints; "stick with" an activity; and fully participate in activities. When I read Lareau's research about the ways in which working class and poor children spend their free time, the differences became clear. These students are used to life at a slow pace where much of their free time is controlled by their own desires. They can sit down for 3 hours and watch TV. They can structure their time with little interference from their parents. So to come to a school that has such drastically different expectations for how free time is spent is truly culture shock.
I see the importance of acclimating students to middle class life. I'd wager that one of the reasons why students have such difficult adjustment to the process is because they have absolutely no background knowledge about this way of life. They've never lived it and probably know very few (if any) people who have. And no one has provided any explanations for them about this lifestyle. So students walk around completely confused about why they need to participate in activities and why they need to perform community service. They cannot make the connections! No one has ever told them that these are the expectations of the middle class culture --the culture where they should aspire to live and work so they can break their own personal cycle of poverty.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Impossibility of Skipping Class
When we add together the "Hidden Rules" handout and the Annette Lareau chapter on the layout of a middle class family's priorities in home life a very different picture of our society emerges than the "bootstraps and belief" we've been force fed for so long. By far the section of Lareau that grabbed me most was 'Money: Ever Present And Never Mentioned.' (I know this is no surprise to anyone who has been in classes with me before.) When she states on p.59 that "By not mentioning money, the Tallingers and other middle class parents convey a subtle sense of entitlement to their children. Garrett and his peers are never denied participation in an activity because of its cost."
Wow. I mean really...wow. That's where that irritating attitude comes from. I grew up distinctly American Middle Class. While my family's ranking in that class moved about with the whims of the real estate market that my father gained his capital from, we never wanted for food or clothes, and hardly ever for toys ranging from a four-wheeled ATV to a swing set. But there was a difference, too; unlike Garrett Tallinger I played in the woods and worked for my allowance. I still remember being 11 yrs old when the first Nintendo system was released. I told my dad I wanted one (the Deluxe System was $240.00). He offered me $5 an hour for yard work at his multiple rental properties. The 48 hours of work (over about a month) taught me a lot about how money translated into work translated into value (Marxist Theory 051). The feel of that game controller in my hands was absolute heaven in our chilly basement, though. I wonder if Garrett and his brothers will learn quite so quickly the necessity of earning your rewards instead of expecting them.
How does this relate to literacy, then? While the Tallinger boys may be gaining valuable white collar reflexive skills, I believe they might be in for a shock when the time comes to accept full reponsibility for their own productivity, be it in a classroom, job, or social arena. Part of being viewed as literate is having the respect of your audience and, in writing especially, the reader doesn't often give freebies. Without having had to take sole credit and blame for engaging in activities, I believe the Tallinger boys might learn to expect respect as a default attitude, not something earned.
Wow. I mean really...wow. That's where that irritating attitude comes from. I grew up distinctly American Middle Class. While my family's ranking in that class moved about with the whims of the real estate market that my father gained his capital from, we never wanted for food or clothes, and hardly ever for toys ranging from a four-wheeled ATV to a swing set. But there was a difference, too; unlike Garrett Tallinger I played in the woods and worked for my allowance. I still remember being 11 yrs old when the first Nintendo system was released. I told my dad I wanted one (the Deluxe System was $240.00). He offered me $5 an hour for yard work at his multiple rental properties. The 48 hours of work (over about a month) taught me a lot about how money translated into work translated into value (Marxist Theory 051). The feel of that game controller in my hands was absolute heaven in our chilly basement, though. I wonder if Garrett and his brothers will learn quite so quickly the necessity of earning your rewards instead of expecting them.
How does this relate to literacy, then? While the Tallinger boys may be gaining valuable white collar reflexive skills, I believe they might be in for a shock when the time comes to accept full reponsibility for their own productivity, be it in a classroom, job, or social arena. Part of being viewed as literate is having the respect of your audience and, in writing especially, the reader doesn't often give freebies. Without having had to take sole credit and blame for engaging in activities, I believe the Tallinger boys might learn to expect respect as a default attitude, not something earned.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations
After reading the Shaughnessy book I was left with feelings of joy and doubt. I am elated to find out that someone has put names to many of the problems I've faced for years with seniors in high school. She methodically explores errors that basic writers make and offers suggestions to confront these errors. My doubt comes from the fact that, once again, there is no "blueprint" for a class to help basic writers. I'm beginning to think this is because there is no way to do this on a mass scale. Teachers who feel comfortable teaching writing AND are also able to connect to students on some personal level are imperative to any program (tutoring or otherwise) that really works.
Like Mike Rose, Shaughnessy believes that errors at the basic writing level "reveal very little that is random or 'illogical' in what they have written "(5). I think many of us feel like throwing in the towel when we collect papers that are riddled with errors so serious that it is often difficult to find meaning in the words. It's easy to give up because the problems seem insurmountable. However, Shaughnessy creates a plan that, while not simple, is feasible with time and the right staffing.
I enjoyed Shaughnessy's thoughts on the basic writer's demands on the reader's energy. She writes on page 12 that "They [errors] demand energy without giving any return in meaning; they shift the reader's attention from where he is going (meaning) to how he is getting there (code)." I think what is implicit in this discussion is that the writer needs to cognitively think about his audience and its expectations. Students need to be able to ask themselves the right questions, i.e. What am I trying to say? Will my audience understand my meaning? What can I do to make my meaning clearer? To put on the shoes of the reader is a huge step in becoming a better writer.
In her chapter on handwriting and punctuation, Shaughnessy continues in this same vein. I enjoyed her use of the word "roadmap" to describe what punctuation is supposed to accomplish for the reader. Here again, the READER's role is crucial. What I found most interesting was the idea that "…the study of punctuation ought not to begin with the marks themselves but with the structures that elicit these marks…" (29). So we must ask, what is the real problem that leads to errors in punctuation? The use of more sophisticated punctuation marks like the semicolon leads to a discussion of what the student is really trying to say
I spent most of my time on the vocabulary chapter. It was not surprising that Shaughnessy discusses reading as a viable means to learn vocabulary. This is a no-brainer. Every time I pick up a text on writing I see that same thing. Students who do extensive reading are exposed to many different writing styles, sentence structures, and vocabularies. Where do we lose kids in the reading timeline? What happens to kids between elementary school, where they can't wait to smell the pages of a new book, and high school, where students often tell me the last book they read was in 8th grade? I don't know the answers to these questions, but reading seems to be at the bottom of the academic pyramid.
I enjoyed Shaughnessy's discussion of the incorrect ways students use words. Passing out a vocabulary sheet and a dictionary just is not enough. Discussion of subtle similarities and differences and the small but sometimes crucial placement of a word in a sentence determine correct usage.
My favorite section in this chapter was Shaughnessy's discussion of vague and ambiguous word choice. I was laughing and crying about students' use of the word "thing". "Thing" could be a shoelace or a negatively charged ion. The student may simply not have many choices in his use of words so his meaning is not precise. Shaughnessy writes about this lack of options, "Most of the means of differentiation - the choice of precise words, the listing of words where no single word can carry the meaning, the use of examples and explanations to illuminate words like good or thing - seem to be unavailable to the writer at this stage, perhaps because the words he needs to explore his meaning are not in his active vocabulary or because he is unaware of the reader's need for specificity or because he has learned few of the writer's strategies for getting beyond or below the general term" (202). I think we've all been to this place. We feel an emotion or come up with an idea only to find that the words that best communicate that idea or feeling elude us. It's frustrating. For kids who haven't had the exposure to lots of reading materials or chances to write and get it wrong, it must be more discouraging than I can imagine.
The most profound idea for me is the idea that we all use words to reveal meaning or intent. The more precise our words are, the better chance that our meaning or intent will be understood.
Like Mike Rose, Shaughnessy believes that errors at the basic writing level "reveal very little that is random or 'illogical' in what they have written "(5). I think many of us feel like throwing in the towel when we collect papers that are riddled with errors so serious that it is often difficult to find meaning in the words. It's easy to give up because the problems seem insurmountable. However, Shaughnessy creates a plan that, while not simple, is feasible with time and the right staffing.
I enjoyed Shaughnessy's thoughts on the basic writer's demands on the reader's energy. She writes on page 12 that "They [errors] demand energy without giving any return in meaning; they shift the reader's attention from where he is going (meaning) to how he is getting there (code)." I think what is implicit in this discussion is that the writer needs to cognitively think about his audience and its expectations. Students need to be able to ask themselves the right questions, i.e. What am I trying to say? Will my audience understand my meaning? What can I do to make my meaning clearer? To put on the shoes of the reader is a huge step in becoming a better writer.
In her chapter on handwriting and punctuation, Shaughnessy continues in this same vein. I enjoyed her use of the word "roadmap" to describe what punctuation is supposed to accomplish for the reader. Here again, the READER's role is crucial. What I found most interesting was the idea that "…the study of punctuation ought not to begin with the marks themselves but with the structures that elicit these marks…" (29). So we must ask, what is the real problem that leads to errors in punctuation? The use of more sophisticated punctuation marks like the semicolon leads to a discussion of what the student is really trying to say
I spent most of my time on the vocabulary chapter. It was not surprising that Shaughnessy discusses reading as a viable means to learn vocabulary. This is a no-brainer. Every time I pick up a text on writing I see that same thing. Students who do extensive reading are exposed to many different writing styles, sentence structures, and vocabularies. Where do we lose kids in the reading timeline? What happens to kids between elementary school, where they can't wait to smell the pages of a new book, and high school, where students often tell me the last book they read was in 8th grade? I don't know the answers to these questions, but reading seems to be at the bottom of the academic pyramid.
I enjoyed Shaughnessy's discussion of the incorrect ways students use words. Passing out a vocabulary sheet and a dictionary just is not enough. Discussion of subtle similarities and differences and the small but sometimes crucial placement of a word in a sentence determine correct usage.
My favorite section in this chapter was Shaughnessy's discussion of vague and ambiguous word choice. I was laughing and crying about students' use of the word "thing". "Thing" could be a shoelace or a negatively charged ion. The student may simply not have many choices in his use of words so his meaning is not precise. Shaughnessy writes about this lack of options, "Most of the means of differentiation - the choice of precise words, the listing of words where no single word can carry the meaning, the use of examples and explanations to illuminate words like good or thing - seem to be unavailable to the writer at this stage, perhaps because the words he needs to explore his meaning are not in his active vocabulary or because he is unaware of the reader's need for specificity or because he has learned few of the writer's strategies for getting beyond or below the general term" (202). I think we've all been to this place. We feel an emotion or come up with an idea only to find that the words that best communicate that idea or feeling elude us. It's frustrating. For kids who haven't had the exposure to lots of reading materials or chances to write and get it wrong, it must be more discouraging than I can imagine.
The most profound idea for me is the idea that we all use words to reveal meaning or intent. The more precise our words are, the better chance that our meaning or intent will be understood.
Honestly, I didn't get a lot out of this book. Please don't think I'm cranky all the time! I really enjoyed the last book though I became defensive in the end. Reading Shaughnessy's Introduction and Expectations was similar to reading Rose's yet with a greater eye towards concrete development of each teacher's method for decoding and developing a plan for improving the writing of basic writers. Perhaps my attention or heart was not in this one, but I found reading the Common Errors section like Chinese water torture. Was she entering a competition on how many grammatical terms can be used in one page? I had difficulty reading her examples in the Introduction and in the section on handwriting. It was annoying to me that she identified underlying rhetorical structure in a basic writer's rationale for punctuation. I found myself continually caught up on the errors, like omitted words, that made it difficult to understand what the writers were attempting to convey. (Do I sound cranky again?)
Rose's sentiments on the individual attention needed by each student are echoed by Shaughnessy and are given weight by further suggestion that "grammar should be a matter not of memorizing rules or definitions but of thinking through problems as they arise."(137) However, I did find this contradictory to her solution for common errors, which she did explain as different from errors of transcription. Such errors are not in need of grammatical correction but an effort by the teacher to "try to determine why he (the student) does see the errors."(155) I think my problem with a lot of her solutions is their design for a small college classroom which is entirely focused on basic writers. I hope to find a way to make some of her tools useful in the very different setting with very different demands in which I teach.
Her vacillating stance between grammar by practice and grammar by rule, paired with the intermingling commentary on different linguistic subgroups, left me a little loopy.
Her conversation on student motivation was lengthy and touched upon the reasons people find it important to obtain literacy, a question we attempted to flesh out in our first class. I noticed that both Rose and Shaughnessy recognize literacy as a vehicle for movement into the upper classes. Both focus on students from "ethnic or enclaves."(3) This made me consider that no matter how hard academians wish to catagorize different types of literacy as legitimate, we are still faced with an economic and social system that demands the "functional" literacy that produces acceptance into such a structure.
Rose's sentiments on the individual attention needed by each student are echoed by Shaughnessy and are given weight by further suggestion that "grammar should be a matter not of memorizing rules or definitions but of thinking through problems as they arise."(137) However, I did find this contradictory to her solution for common errors, which she did explain as different from errors of transcription. Such errors are not in need of grammatical correction but an effort by the teacher to "try to determine why he (the student) does see the errors."(155) I think my problem with a lot of her solutions is their design for a small college classroom which is entirely focused on basic writers. I hope to find a way to make some of her tools useful in the very different setting with very different demands in which I teach.
Her vacillating stance between grammar by practice and grammar by rule, paired with the intermingling commentary on different linguistic subgroups, left me a little loopy.
Her conversation on student motivation was lengthy and touched upon the reasons people find it important to obtain literacy, a question we attempted to flesh out in our first class. I noticed that both Rose and Shaughnessy recognize literacy as a vehicle for movement into the upper classes. Both focus on students from "ethnic or enclaves."(3) This made me consider that no matter how hard academians wish to catagorize different types of literacy as legitimate, we are still faced with an economic and social system that demands the "functional" literacy that produces acceptance into such a structure.
Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations
Mike Rose and Shaughnessy are both champions for the basic writers. What I really liked about reading the books back to back is Rose's book explained the plight of under prepared writers from a narrative perspective, and now Shaughnessy offers us a "how to" guide. Shaughnessy begins by explaining the psychological implications of being a basic writer: "By the time he reaches college, the BW both resents and resists his vulnerability as a writer. He is aware that he leaves a trail of errors behind him when he writes" (17). This is where the trust building must begin, as BW teachers do far more than teach, they also try the student of their own insecurities as writers. It is also about redefining writing for them as a means of power. Writing is power, and yet so many students, broken down by years of "good writing means correct writing," have had their voice and power taken away from them (8).
This is where I believe handwriting comes into play. In Chapter 2, Shaughnessy tries to make the connection between poor handwriting and difficulty in writing as something related to not being at ease with the skill of writing the "difficulty of articulation" as Shaughnessy puts it (16). But i feel it is not just having problems with articulating the thought, but also lack of self esteem providing a nice case of writer's block. Journaling and free writing or any type of non graded exercises could help with this anxiety of writing because then there may not be an association between what they are articulating and how they are being graded. This all came together for me after reading Ch. 8, in which Shaughnessy describes that, "in all cases where handwriting was an initial problem, handwriting improved to the point that there were no illegible final exams" (283). It would seem that as their writing anxiety diminished with the hard work they put in during the semester, the more confidant and clear their handwriting became. Of course, today, we may think handwriting is not as important with the availability of computers, but the difficulty of articulation manifests itself otherwise. Instead of sitting there with a pen and paper, struggling to write, we sit in front of the computer, hands on the keyboard, waiting for the right words to come to us.
I really thought Shaughnessy's perspective on punctuation was very insightful. Again Shaughnessy correlates student's "difficulty of marking of boundaries of sentences" to teachers complaining students "don't even know what an English sentence is"(17). The same could be said for grammatical mistakes. By focusing on the student's punctuation and grammatical mistakes, teachers could be missing the bigger picture of some great content by nick picking the errors.
This is also ingrained in students as well. As a tutor, I cannot tell you how many times students have come to me asking to "proofread" their paper. I try to tell them politely that I do not "proofread" papers, and I can feel their heart drop. I do tell them, however, that we can look through the paper for content and other things. And if those other "things" include comma splices or whatever, then I turn it into a teachable moment. I explain to them why the comma breaks up the sentence and so on. And many times, if the content of the paper is not cohesive, we work on it. But that is not their immediate concern when they come in. Its not..."does my argument make sense" its "are all my words spelled correctly and verbs in the right tense?"
Happily I can say, that after a session with these students, they are more likely to come back for all the right reasons.
I do like the process Shaughnessy layed out for teaching punctuation, along with the coordinating conjunctions and non restrictive clauses and such. My only problem with it was "the language" Sometimes I feel like when you use words like "coordinating conjunctions" "restrictive clauses" "adverbial phrases" you are in a way disconnecting yourself from the student. These words just scream institutional to me. When teachers use these words is often when students get that deer in the headlights look. Sometimes I have BW students come into me with notes written on their paper about certain grammatical and punctuation problems, but they still don't understand what the problem is. I understand that the concepts are important, and I know what they mean, but I try to tell my students what they mean rather than giving it a name. Maybe this is implicit in what Shaughnessy is saying, maybe she did this too, I just felt a slight disconnect between the how she described her method and how it could or should be taught.
On a final note on punctuation, one of the funniest lines for me was "There often appears to be a psychological resistance to the period...." only because it appeared to me, at least, that Shaughnessy had a resistance to the period herself! Shaughnessy probably would have delighted in a battle with Proust over who can use the period the least...
This is where I believe handwriting comes into play. In Chapter 2, Shaughnessy tries to make the connection between poor handwriting and difficulty in writing as something related to not being at ease with the skill of writing the "difficulty of articulation" as Shaughnessy puts it (16). But i feel it is not just having problems with articulating the thought, but also lack of self esteem providing a nice case of writer's block. Journaling and free writing or any type of non graded exercises could help with this anxiety of writing because then there may not be an association between what they are articulating and how they are being graded. This all came together for me after reading Ch. 8, in which Shaughnessy describes that, "in all cases where handwriting was an initial problem, handwriting improved to the point that there were no illegible final exams" (283). It would seem that as their writing anxiety diminished with the hard work they put in during the semester, the more confidant and clear their handwriting became. Of course, today, we may think handwriting is not as important with the availability of computers, but the difficulty of articulation manifests itself otherwise. Instead of sitting there with a pen and paper, struggling to write, we sit in front of the computer, hands on the keyboard, waiting for the right words to come to us.
I really thought Shaughnessy's perspective on punctuation was very insightful. Again Shaughnessy correlates student's "difficulty of marking of boundaries of sentences" to teachers complaining students "don't even know what an English sentence is"(17). The same could be said for grammatical mistakes. By focusing on the student's punctuation and grammatical mistakes, teachers could be missing the bigger picture of some great content by nick picking the errors.
This is also ingrained in students as well. As a tutor, I cannot tell you how many times students have come to me asking to "proofread" their paper. I try to tell them politely that I do not "proofread" papers, and I can feel their heart drop. I do tell them, however, that we can look through the paper for content and other things. And if those other "things" include comma splices or whatever, then I turn it into a teachable moment. I explain to them why the comma breaks up the sentence and so on. And many times, if the content of the paper is not cohesive, we work on it. But that is not their immediate concern when they come in. Its not..."does my argument make sense" its "are all my words spelled correctly and verbs in the right tense?"
Happily I can say, that after a session with these students, they are more likely to come back for all the right reasons.
I do like the process Shaughnessy layed out for teaching punctuation, along with the coordinating conjunctions and non restrictive clauses and such. My only problem with it was "the language" Sometimes I feel like when you use words like "coordinating conjunctions" "restrictive clauses" "adverbial phrases" you are in a way disconnecting yourself from the student. These words just scream institutional to me. When teachers use these words is often when students get that deer in the headlights look. Sometimes I have BW students come into me with notes written on their paper about certain grammatical and punctuation problems, but they still don't understand what the problem is. I understand that the concepts are important, and I know what they mean, but I try to tell my students what they mean rather than giving it a name. Maybe this is implicit in what Shaughnessy is saying, maybe she did this too, I just felt a slight disconnect between the how she described her method and how it could or should be taught.
On a final note on punctuation, one of the funniest lines for me was "There often appears to be a psychological resistance to the period...." only because it appeared to me, at least, that Shaughnessy had a resistance to the period herself! Shaughnessy probably would have delighted in a battle with Proust over who can use the period the least...
Erorrs & Exceptions
This is what I get for blindly jumping in on “Chapter 4.” Ooh, wouldn't it be odd if I just picked by number, that'd be funny. Julie wasn't kidding when she said the Shaughnessy book would be a great reference. Those exercises were beautifully laid out, each building on the last. But now for the meat of the meal.
I don't know the technical grammatical terms for the vast majority of what I read. Heck, it took me till more than halfway through the chapter before I remembered what “inflections” were. Modal auxiliaries? What? Let's not even mention the bewildering array of verb tenses that Standard Written English (SWE) has and the names for each. Past, present, future; these I get. I vaguely remember participles. The perfect tense? All I remembered was a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy—something about there being no future perfect since it isn't. Add the vaguely medical sounding subjunctive and I was totally lost. Then I thought about it; I have B.A. in English. How confusing would this all be to some poor freshman that gets a huge pile of terms dumped on him without any consideration of prior knowledge or lack thereof? If it's Basic Writing, let's get truly basic. Shaughnessy did not disappoint. She went all the way down to an explanatory session on the sentence itself. This works, this is grammatical analysis that's both graspable and useful in getting people to see their writing as both content (message) and form (correctness). The sentence expansion exercise was brilliant and even seems like it could be fun. By nailing the big four concepts of sentence, inflections, tense and agreement she gives the starter tool kit; it won't immediately fix errors, but it will give students something to work with when they proofread. Otherwise, “Proofread!” written in a margin might as well say “Find something, but I'm not going to tell you what. Good luck!”
In discussing expectations, I was reminded of those irritating meta-writing memos we had to do in the CAWP ISI. In consciously thinking about our process and then describing it in writing, we were forced to get away from guessing at how and why we did what we did. The same may hold even more true for errors. If a student can tell me why they wrote it a certain way, that's a huge leap from “I dunno.” Thankfully, Shaughnessy has done a lot of the work on possible reasons for why when “I dunno” is the honest answer from a student writer. I doubt I could keep all the different possible reasons at hand in my memory and that's exactly why reference books exist. I don't need to. I can look it up, much like giving handout references can help the student during the final editing process, when the errors are hopefully removed from the piece. The other thing about expectations is this: if we set the standard, then expect it to be resisted, challenged, moaned about, but actually shot for and possibly even met. Getting past the errors lets the overtaxed brainspace get used for composing instead of just correcting.
I know this is already somewhat lengthy, and to quote Dennis Miller, “I don't wanna go off on a rant here, but...” Errors are mistakes, not lack of intelligence or even ability (maybe training). Everyone, even I, make mistakes when we are challenged or overloaded or irritatted irritated. When my head is full of ideas or it's 5 a.m. or I can't think about anything except how horrible I feel because of what happened at that party I will very likely screw up some things on a paper DRAFT or forget my keys until I'm standing next to my locked car in the rain. This doesn't mean I don't know how to grab my keys or put a comma in the right place, and it's just silly that anyone would assume the latter while denying the former.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Just a note of appreciation
Last semester I enjoyed having my own blog, butI just want to say I have enjoyed reading everyone's postings on a central blog this semester. As both the audience and the writers, we can offer an important exchange of ideas as we examine the "expert" messages of our readings in this class. I believe no consensus is required. What works for you, might not work for me. In the end is about a sharing of impressions and coming to the table for the students. Being involved on the fringes of the classroom since the late 1960's, I am constantly amazed at how some things stay the same-frustration, good teachers, concerned parents, diverse students, and yes- "Johnnie/Joanna still can not read, but now he/she also can not write".
Errors and Expectations, 20th century style
I haven’t read anyone else’s blogs yet so I don’t know what the consensus it, but I can say I’m not much of a Mina Shaughnessy/Errors and Expectations fan. (Sorry, Julie!) Perhaps had I read this book in the 1970s (well, not at the age I was in the 70s because I wouldn’t have given a rat’s behind, but if I were a new teacher back then), I would be intrigued and ready to put her theories to the test. Truthfully, though, the age of this book and the advice that it contains is just too dated for me to take it seriously. Where do I even begin?
Okay, now for my ruffled feathers soapbox speech on Chapter 5 dealing with spelling. On page 161, Shaughnessy asserts that “spelling tends to be viewed by teachers and students alike as the most arbitrary, the most resistant to instruction, and the least related to intelligence (a myth that has comforted many bad spellers).” At one time I believed this, but I have since changed my attitude. My husband is a lousy speller, and he will be the first to admit it. But, he is also very intelligent, and he could not have gotten to where he is today had he lacked intelligence. I take great issue with Shaugnessy’s assessment of this problem as well as her so-called remedies. English is indeed an absurd language with all of its so-called “rules” and exceptions to these “rules” and all the other myriad stupidities in word formations and spelling. Taking two years of high school Spanish made me realize how truly ridiculous my native tongue can be and how writing well can be a challenge. Shaughnessy advises teachers to teach the rules about spelling and word formations. In my opinion, the rules themselves were much more daunting to memorize than memorizing the words themselves. And, if students are really terrible spellers, they would have difficult applying many of the rules! Perhaps the fact that I have had few problems with spelling makes it more difficult to understand how her advice is logical and effective. I must admit, however, many of the terms she uses and the rules she discusses were unfamiliar to me, a card-carrying English teacher. Maybe I really am an imposter….
This blog is more than long, so I will close by commenting on the last chapter. Her goals are admirable, but I’m not sure how doable they are in the world in which I reside. I would like to think, though, that this teacher thing I’m doing is a work in progress and that there is not a tried and true solution that is a one-size-fits-all, that the more I learn about literacy, the more I will want to find solutions to specific problems in, perhaps, the most surprising of ways. And, I do believe that we are often too quick to label students, even all people, and that our labels can mean the world of difference in a student’s perceived chance of and fully realized success.
Errors & Expectations
I’m not sure where to start. I have thoughts on so much of what I read. There are strong similarities and connections to Lives on the Boundary, specifically in the introduction regarding the students and their label as being “ineducable”. (page 1) Rose and Shaughnessy are two professors who were handed the same caliber of student. These professors knew they could educate the students; they also knew it was a matter of getting to know them through their writing and the errors they made. They used those very errors to make the students better thinkers and communicators, and therefore better writers. They used their underprivileged backgrounds as an important springboard to well-written pieces. These kids have something to say; it’s just that nobody has shown them how to say it.
In terms of the handwriting issue, I always find that the more secure a student is with their ability, the neater their handwriting. The kids who think what they are writing will be all wrong anyway end up handing in pieces that already look like they don’t care what grade they get. I agree with the author’s view that handwriting is an extension of ourselves and how we see ourselves (page 15). There was a journal article I read that analyzed the signatures of those who had once been in high-ranking positions and were retired or changed jobs for one reason or another. Their signatures, when they were at the top of their game, were strong and decipherable. When their lives changed and they were no longer top-ranking individuals, their signatures took on an illegible and almost scratchy appearance. Side by side, the signatures of each individual looked like they were written by two different people. The light in which they saw themselves was clearly reflected in their signatures. That’s exactly what happens with our students.
With regard to punctuation, middle-schoolers appear to try to experiment with more than the comma and period (page 17), although even those are still incorrectly placed. There was a point when I started to see lots of exclamation points. All over. “My paper is gonna be about Scrooge! He was realy mean! I think he was a philanthupest at the end though!” I had to sidetrack my lesson one day when I realized it was a trend not only to use slang and not check spelling, but that the exclamation point was a writing fashion trend among a large group of girls. They even went so far as to go back and change the font colors of each of the exclamation points on Word - even though I told them the papers print out in black ink. I had to teach them the basics. It was something I thought they already knew. Never assume. I would make them read what they wrote out loud and ask them what type of punctuation they would use when they finished each sentence. It worked well and the kids started reading to each other for peer editing purposes…a bonus I hadn’t planned on. And it worked. I realized that I had to set the bar high…for each student in his or her own developmental right. They all floated to that bar over the course of the year. I knew I expected a lot, but as the author states on page 275, “The expectations of learners and teachers powerfully influence what happens in school.” I had to set the bar high. Not for me – but to show them that they were perfectly capable of reaching it.
In terms of the handwriting issue, I always find that the more secure a student is with their ability, the neater their handwriting. The kids who think what they are writing will be all wrong anyway end up handing in pieces that already look like they don’t care what grade they get. I agree with the author’s view that handwriting is an extension of ourselves and how we see ourselves (page 15). There was a journal article I read that analyzed the signatures of those who had once been in high-ranking positions and were retired or changed jobs for one reason or another. Their signatures, when they were at the top of their game, were strong and decipherable. When their lives changed and they were no longer top-ranking individuals, their signatures took on an illegible and almost scratchy appearance. Side by side, the signatures of each individual looked like they were written by two different people. The light in which they saw themselves was clearly reflected in their signatures. That’s exactly what happens with our students.
With regard to punctuation, middle-schoolers appear to try to experiment with more than the comma and period (page 17), although even those are still incorrectly placed. There was a point when I started to see lots of exclamation points. All over. “My paper is gonna be about Scrooge! He was realy mean! I think he was a philanthupest at the end though!” I had to sidetrack my lesson one day when I realized it was a trend not only to use slang and not check spelling, but that the exclamation point was a writing fashion trend among a large group of girls. They even went so far as to go back and change the font colors of each of the exclamation points on Word - even though I told them the papers print out in black ink. I had to teach them the basics. It was something I thought they already knew. Never assume. I would make them read what they wrote out loud and ask them what type of punctuation they would use when they finished each sentence. It worked well and the kids started reading to each other for peer editing purposes…a bonus I hadn’t planned on. And it worked. I realized that I had to set the bar high…for each student in his or her own developmental right. They all floated to that bar over the course of the year. I knew I expected a lot, but as the author states on page 275, “The expectations of learners and teachers powerfully influence what happens in school.” I had to set the bar high. Not for me – but to show them that they were perfectly capable of reaching it.
The Saddness is Waiting Until College
Everything that Mina Shaughnessy discusses in Errors and Expectations is true. Pre-college teachers' strengths and weaknesses and their students' motivation or lack of it all contribute to the need for Basic Writers Classes at the college level. A student's inexperience and exposure to the common language of academia does not connect the basic writing student's individual world with the new experience of the high expectations of knowing the codes of formal language as college promotes writing across the curriculum. Her strategies offer possibilities for college that should be promoted prior to the college level. Those of you who know me know I am a firm believer in small class size K-12 and that we have many untapped minds in those students who do not fit the norm of curriculum. I, like Shaughnessy, felt the excitement of the 60's that allowed for the possibilities of inclusion of who I will call, "the unexpected academic" entering college. But. . . I feel the issue of errors needs to be addressed earlier than college to fulfill the expectations of learning and knowledge. Until students have their difficulties addressed early in their school career the Ivory Tower has been preserved. The promise of inclusion becomes the reality of exclusion as BW are "strangers in academia, unacquainted with the rules and rituals of college life, unprepared for the sort of tasks their teachers were to assign them".(3).
The question has to be raised are errors barriers to communicating the BW's ideas of errors as barriers to "A's"? Do we need to differentiate between critical errors that ruin the message of the writing and insignificant errors that might be personal preferences? Furthermore is perfection in the mechanics of composition more important than the fluid task of reviewing and revision to clarify the message of the writing? I believe we need to encourage rewrites and alternative methods of putting the words to paper. Writing gives the student the luxury to form thoughts through reflection that the immediacy of speech does not allow. I do agree that lackings in the basic skills of handwriting, punctuation, and spelling frustrates thought and communication between the writer, audience, and message. Where I disagree with Shaughnessy is the push for competencies in Basic Writing should be placed pre-college not as a catch -up for college. There should be no excuse not to attempt to give students "awareness, improvement, and possibly mastery" of writing that she discusses in the chapter Expectations. Unfortunately until we have adequate funding and class size pre-college, my wish will not become a reality.
Use of her Check off list on Page 285 when used with her outline on Page 41 offers the school system benchmarks for the progress of students. This outline of preparedness for communication can allow for the combination of the needs of the students that mingle with the needs of the society. America, as a Democracy, needs to give the excluded the tools for inclusion-if the individual so desires. Lack of opportunity and access should not be allowed to be the determining factor Shaughnessy's discussion on Page 280 regarding "school writing". "professional or civic writing" or "personal writing" offers the individual a chance to enter the world on personal terms. Good teachers encourage ideas, thinking, reading, writing, and individual worth. Bad teachers do not. All of our school systems have both. But the question remains, are the Basic Writer Classes in college too late to allow everyone to reach their desired profeciency?
A post-note: I loved her statement on page 17 "Puncuation provides a map for one who must otherwise drive blindly the byways, intersections, and detours of a writer's thought". This statement alone connects writing and reading and critical thinking.
The question has to be raised are errors barriers to communicating the BW's ideas of errors as barriers to "A's"? Do we need to differentiate between critical errors that ruin the message of the writing and insignificant errors that might be personal preferences? Furthermore is perfection in the mechanics of composition more important than the fluid task of reviewing and revision to clarify the message of the writing? I believe we need to encourage rewrites and alternative methods of putting the words to paper. Writing gives the student the luxury to form thoughts through reflection that the immediacy of speech does not allow. I do agree that lackings in the basic skills of handwriting, punctuation, and spelling frustrates thought and communication between the writer, audience, and message. Where I disagree with Shaughnessy is the push for competencies in Basic Writing should be placed pre-college not as a catch -up for college. There should be no excuse not to attempt to give students "awareness, improvement, and possibly mastery" of writing that she discusses in the chapter Expectations. Unfortunately until we have adequate funding and class size pre-college, my wish will not become a reality.
Use of her Check off list on Page 285 when used with her outline on Page 41 offers the school system benchmarks for the progress of students. This outline of preparedness for communication can allow for the combination of the needs of the students that mingle with the needs of the society. America, as a Democracy, needs to give the excluded the tools for inclusion-if the individual so desires. Lack of opportunity and access should not be allowed to be the determining factor Shaughnessy's discussion on Page 280 regarding "school writing". "professional or civic writing" or "personal writing" offers the individual a chance to enter the world on personal terms. Good teachers encourage ideas, thinking, reading, writing, and individual worth. Bad teachers do not. All of our school systems have both. But the question remains, are the Basic Writer Classes in college too late to allow everyone to reach their desired profeciency?
A post-note: I loved her statement on page 17 "Puncuation provides a map for one who must otherwise drive blindly the byways, intersections, and detours of a writer's thought". This statement alone connects writing and reading and critical thinking.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Hooray! Someone actually gets it
My favorite parts of Mina Shaughnessy's book, Errors & Expectations, are the Introduction and the Expectations sections. That's where she makes it clear that there is no program that can be developed the meet the needs of basic writers. Perhaps because I bear scars from my own battles fighting the 'program vs. teacher' argument, I was especially glad to see Shaughnessy mention quite early in the Introduction that, "This book...assumes that programs are not the answers to the learning problems of students, but that teachers are and that, indeed, good teachers create good programs, that the best programs are developed in situ, in response to the needs of individual students populations..." (6). I made countless connections between her comments about the needs of basic writers and what I see in the needs of my students who could be called "basic readers" - and who are often basic writers as well. The more I read and learn, the more I similarities I see. How often I have argued the point that programs don't teach students to read (or write)- teachers do.
In the conclusion of the Expectations chapter, Shaughnessy acknowledges that BW teachers are not autonomous and they are not the ones who have the authority to limit class size or teaching load or numbers of semesters students should take a course. "Such matters are in the hands of administrators, whose perceptions of the so-called remedial problem largely determine whether..." (290) I'm intentionally leaving the next words out because so many different ones can be subsistuted there. Feel free to add whether there should be a class at all OR which program the teacher will use OR how quickly students must make progress before the program gets axed. I could continue ad nauseum. I "diagnose" the problem to be one of more book smarts than street smarts. I've seen too many well-meaning people fall into the trap where they read some "research", attend a token conference on the issue at hand, and (worst of all) listen to the polished sales pitches from multi-million dollar corporations and then believe every word of it. From this very narrow vantage point, they make curriculum and program decisions without ever really having closely examined the needs of the particular learners at their school - or, God forbid, worked with these learners. The expertise of the people who do work with BW students is rarely solicited - and that's why Shaughnessy has validity because she has been there.
My work consumes hours of my personal time and could eat up much more if I let it. I felt validated when Shaughnessy addressed this kind of teaching. The BW teacher "...must be prepared to be taxed beyond the limits he may have originally set for himself as a teacher of writing." (292). (Sometimes I feel taxed beyond the limits.) "He will need to give not simply more time but more imaginative and informed attention to what his students write than he may have given ..." (292). (I constantly think about how I can teach more effectively, be more creative, make clearer points and connections for students, yada yada yada.) He will need to question and even abandon styles and methods of teaching that seemed to work before (293). (What works one year doesn't work the next so I can't rely on old lesson plans from year to year.) He will need to cultivate patience for the slow pace of progress in this most complex of crafts...(293). (And get the administration to understand this before they force me to use "The Program.") After having done all this, he will then have to admit that it is not enough, that he does not know enough about how people learn to write or about what is to be content with himself as a basic writing teacher (293). (Oh every day.) He will want to venture into fields where he is not a scholar-...in search of fresh insights and new data" (293). (There aren't enough hours in the day to learn everything I want to know.) The only thing she left out was that this technique works better for people who don't have a life! Yet I'll wake up tomorrow morning ready to try it again.
In the conclusion of the Expectations chapter, Shaughnessy acknowledges that BW teachers are not autonomous and they are not the ones who have the authority to limit class size or teaching load or numbers of semesters students should take a course. "Such matters are in the hands of administrators, whose perceptions of the so-called remedial problem largely determine whether..." (290) I'm intentionally leaving the next words out because so many different ones can be subsistuted there. Feel free to add whether there should be a class at all OR which program the teacher will use OR how quickly students must make progress before the program gets axed. I could continue ad nauseum. I "diagnose" the problem to be one of more book smarts than street smarts. I've seen too many well-meaning people fall into the trap where they read some "research", attend a token conference on the issue at hand, and (worst of all) listen to the polished sales pitches from multi-million dollar corporations and then believe every word of it. From this very narrow vantage point, they make curriculum and program decisions without ever really having closely examined the needs of the particular learners at their school - or, God forbid, worked with these learners. The expertise of the people who do work with BW students is rarely solicited - and that's why Shaughnessy has validity because she has been there.
My work consumes hours of my personal time and could eat up much more if I let it. I felt validated when Shaughnessy addressed this kind of teaching. The BW teacher "...must be prepared to be taxed beyond the limits he may have originally set for himself as a teacher of writing." (292). (Sometimes I feel taxed beyond the limits.) "He will need to give not simply more time but more imaginative and informed attention to what his students write than he may have given ..." (292). (I constantly think about how I can teach more effectively, be more creative, make clearer points and connections for students, yada yada yada.) He will need to question and even abandon styles and methods of teaching that seemed to work before (293). (What works one year doesn't work the next so I can't rely on old lesson plans from year to year.) He will need to cultivate patience for the slow pace of progress in this most complex of crafts...(293). (And get the administration to understand this before they force me to use "The Program.") After having done all this, he will then have to admit that it is not enough, that he does not know enough about how people learn to write or about what is to be content with himself as a basic writing teacher (293). (Oh every day.) He will want to venture into fields where he is not a scholar-...in search of fresh insights and new data" (293). (There aren't enough hours in the day to learn everything I want to know.) The only thing she left out was that this technique works better for people who don't have a life! Yet I'll wake up tomorrow morning ready to try it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
