neologophilia

Another excellent Edublogs.org weblog

Reconciliation and Recalcitrance

May 10, 2012 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer and you may be thrown into prison. (Matt 5:25)

The recent primary victory of Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock underlined the theme of “principled” leadership, a recognizable message of the Tea Party movement (New York Times, May 9, 2012).  While “principles” are sorely needed in federal politics, they are frequently a code word for recalcitrance and irresponsibility. Sometimes we refer to those who act from inflexible principles as “radicals” or “terrorists.”

I remember the 1970′s as defined by principles. You either favored peace or war, love or hate, freedom or repression. “Radical” was often used positively, as someone who wanted to change what was wrong with society. We acted on principles by marching, sitting in, or impeding traffic.  And we often had positive outcomes: the end of the Vietnam War, Civil Rights legislation, the exposure of Watergate.

But the radicals of the 1970′s were assimilated into government, institutions of social reform, even into churches.  They realized that they could change institutions from within and by negotiation, instead of by naked resistance. “Reformer” became the preferred term for “radical.”

The Tea Party represents contemporary radicalism, along with the “Occupy” movement. The difference is that the Tea Party wants to radicalize from within. They assume they can jam the cogs of government by their intractability.  They operate on pledges and vows that make their representatives pawns of their principles.  This is probably not what the Founders had in mind for a government of checks and balances. It is probably not what Jesus had in mind when he exhorted his followers to honor the principles of the law.

The fifth chapter of Matthew, the Beatitudes,  is all about reconciliation with enemies, reconciliation with spiritual brothers and sisters, reconciliation with the adversary taking you to court. The whole notion of “settling out of court,” which is advocated by Matthew 5:25, should be of particular interest to those who think our society is too litigious.

But Jesus was not merely concerned with short-circuiting the justice system, he was interested in reconciliation, bringing foes together, dissolving feuds.  And it is in this teaching that he undermines radicalism as we know it. He wants parties to be reconciled and to work together. He wants compromise and forgiveness.

I don’t like Christians who challenge my morality on the basis of partial reading of scripture, so I don’t wish to force my reading on others. But I see the Beatitudes as a central message of the Gospels, and the theme of reconciliation as the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and I think radicals ought to consider it, along with the notion of principle.  “Principle” can be suffocating and polarizing to mutual destruction.

The “judge” in Matthew 5:25 could be the Judge of all. The Gospels are suffused with stories of unforgiving masters and ruthless judges, whom God will not forgive.  Radicalism, while admirable in those who sacrifice their livelihood for their beliefs, can also destroy those who are trying to lead and mediate. A “principled”  stand can be alienating and deadly.

So judge carefully whether what you call “principle” is merely “recalcitrance” and ruthless opposition.

 

Tags: ·····

Education: What’s on our Plate

April 2, 2012 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

Mark Edmundson’s reflection on “hungry hearts” in today’s New York Times (April 2) appears generous and egalitarian, considering the range of economic classes he welcomes to the university.  He forgives them all their subject/ verb disagreements, because they come to his classes eager to learn.

And I agree that a college education is not merely an economic investment, one that conforms to the intellectual dimensions of one’s eventual career.  Although that’s easier for the college professor to say than for the student who borrows every dime to listen to academic-speak for four years.

What I can not agree with is the assumption that the hunger to learn is unconditional, that a hungry heart wants to learn everything.  No amount of hunger gets me past a plate of Brussels sprouts.

For example, I remember gagging on Nietzsche, whom Edmundson mentions as a favorite of Lionel Trilling in this essay. The man could write, there was no doubt, but his message of nihilism made a committed Christian cringe and wonder what arrogance inspired such contempt for deity. I remember a few authors who did not translate well to my life: Wharton, DosPassos, the philosopher Leibniz. I read them, because they were on the curriculum, but nothing in me hungered for them.

On the other hand I learned to like poetry in college. I loved polemical and satirical writing: Ibsen, Carlyle and Mark Twain. And I remember a brief fascination with political philosophy. The rest of my plate I cleaned up out of obligation. I, too, had borrowed my way through college.

So I was not the quintessential “hungry learner” that Edmundson values, and many of my students, mostly future English teachers, are not hungry for everything I dish out. But thankfully, there are always enough engaging texts to fill out a syllabus, and I always ask whether the books I assign will engage the appetite.

The assumption that education is only for the “hungry” is dangerous.  It assumes that the curriculum will always remain the same, and the students will always want what we serve on their plates.  But even the Bible does not always translate well in the King James version, and you don’t have to speak Elizabethan to be devoted to the poetry of the prophets. You don’t have to like the brooding and privileged Hamlet and you may not get the humor of Jane Austen. There is lots more to be intrigued or amused by.

Education is not the meal we serve, it is the meal we choose.

The Insured and the Neighborly

March 30, 2012 by · No Comments · public schools, school funding, Taxes

The current debate about forcing citizens to buy health care reminds me that many citizens of this country pay for a service from which they receive no direct benefit– public education.  Consider how many tax-payers do not have children in the public schools: childless citizens, citizens who send their kids to private schools, citizens whose children left public schools a generation ago, citizens who home-school their children, citizens whose children are expelled from school. That’s quite a constituency paying for services they don’t receive.

Why do they put up with it?

I suppose their theory is that children in school are children who will not become public liabilities by delinquency, unemployment or requiring welfare benefits. Public schools are a kind of insurance against anti-social behavior and its consequences.  Does that mean tax-payers finance a program that protects them from the liabilities of those who might not otherwise participate in the program?  So it would appear.

We hear a lot of this analogical thinking in the current Supreme Court arguments, but most of it comes from the conservative justices who wonder if citizens can be compelled to buy broccoli (Justice Scalia).  Are we not already financing the unhealthy by being compelled to pay for Medicare and Medicaid? Are we not already financing the uneducated by paying for their schooling?

I have always preferred the arguments of the high road to social welfare, such as “Who is my neighbor?” In the Parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus makes a case for humanity toward those whose well-being does not affect us at all. The Samaritan in the parable helps an injured Jew, who has no kinship or tribal connection.  It is clear he will receive no compensation for his trouble. He does it out of compassion for a child of God.

That’s a very high standard to apply to citizenship in the United States, but it is a standard many of its citizens claim to live by. Why does it seem irrelevant to the cost of health care for the millions still uninsured?

Tags: ·

Evaluate Teachers Responsively

March 18, 2012 by · 1 Comment · public schools, school reform, Uncategorized

Reading the “Sunday Dialogue” about the evaluation of teachers in the March 18 New York Times, I have to agree with Joanne Yatvin that the best of the bunch came from a high school student, Nikhil Goyal, who said “Evaluation is not a spreadsheet. It is a conversation.” How profound!

“Responsive Evaluation” is actually a well-developed model of assessment, which assumes that both the evaluator and evaluated have something to say about the process (Robert E. Stake, 1975).   The doctor patient relationship, the work of the investigative reporter, the work of Congressional inquiry all turn on the notion of “responsive evaluation.”  The goal in each case is seek out evidence that will result in equitable and significant conclusions.

If the goal of teacher evaluation is to develop successful teachers, then responsive evaluation is the ideal process. If the goal is to merely weed out the most egregious cases of malpractice then an adversarial approach, such as that practiced by our legal system, is the solution. But we already have that in the tenure system, which most will agree is flawed.

The problems with responsive evaluation are that it is time-intensive and it does not invite definitive results. For those who are not being evaluated it appears to be a very equivocal system, one with conditions. If the teacher accomplishes certain goals in the future, the teacher will be qualified and perhaps even rewarded or promoted. If the teacher does not reach all of those goals then new goals are set.  Eventually definitive personnel decisions will be made, based on continuous and responsive evaluation.

For those who are not assessed or for those who teach under less problematic conditions, evaluation models that prolong personnel decisions  are unnecessary.  They appreciate the quick-and-dirty process of “evaluation-warning-dismissal.”  This more resembles the process of confining criminals or social misfits. And, of course, the intent is the same.

For those who teach under the most severe conditions, where students arrive in school from dysfunctional or less literate households, where adolescents may have heavy work or baby-sitting responsibilities, where school attendance is a basic challenge, the ability to teach always seems in question.  The abilities of such teachers are refracted even as the achievements of their students are.   Many are teaching exceptionally well with minimal results. Under those conditions responsive evaluation is the only equitable and productive model of assessment.

Or, as the wise Mr. Goyal said, “Evaluation is not a spreadsheet. It is a conversation.”

Tags: ··

War on Middle Class Mobility

March 9, 2012 by · No Comments · public schools, school funding

If Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney become President, there would not be much hope for mobility in the middle class. Santorum disregards colleges as “indoctrination mills,” suggesting that college is not the key to success that the Obama administration considers it to be. Romney encouraged one student to find a low budget college, “And don’t expect government to forgive the debt you take on.”

This is very hard to hear from one candidate who has a Master’s degree and a J.D. and another candidate who attended an Ivy League school without the burden of student loans. There’s a hard subtext that says, “I’ve got mine, but you can’t assume you’ll get yours.” Or, as Paul Krugman concluded in his commentary on the two Republican candidates, “they believe that what you don’t know can’t hurt them” (New York Times, March 9).

The half-truths involved in these campaigns for the Republican nomination obscure  the brutal message of stunted class mobility from decreased access to higher education.  It is true that a university education is not the solution to an inadequate high school education.  Many students will climax their education in high school, if they have the staying power and the family income to sustain them.  High school graduation should prepare them for something, not merely college.

And it’s true that there are excellent moderate-priced universities for students to choose, although with persistent declines in state funding, “the tuition at public four-year colleges has risen 70% over the past decade,” according to Krugman. Graduates of such public institutions may not move directly into a six-figure income like Governor Romney, and many of them will have paid for their entire education with student loans that Romney will not forgive.

Even with such considerations, a college education remains the surest path to mobility within the middle and lower middle classes. Census data show that a college education will likely double the earned income compared to what a high school graduate will earn (2006).  The funds that allow so many college undergraduates to continue their education come from Pell Grants and other forms of federal student aid.  It is not the philanthropic funding from the private sector that keeps students from dropping out of college, it is the aid that pays their tuition while they work half-time or even full-time to pay their room and board.

How much of this do the sons of privilege understand?  How concerned are they for the first-generation college students whose every semester is a pitched battle between earning and learning?  How much do they care for the students who study their way out of poverty?

Perhaps this campaign does amount to class warfare, but the battle is not over who gets taxed. The battle front is the opportunity to learn and the possibility of social and economic advancement.  If they don’t understand the plight of students on the margins of higher education, then the Republican candidates are sadly misinformed. If they do understand the full implications of their policies toward higher education, then they are engaging in class warfare by despising or denying  these opportunities.

Tags: ······

Conviction and Passion

March 1, 2012 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity. (W.B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”)

When have these words from Yeats had more relevance than today?  With the retirement of Olympia Snow, the parade of moderates leaving the U.S. Senate has become a stampede.  The voices of moderation are sounding fainter and fainter.

Barry Goldwater said famously, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” And Barry Goldwater has begun to look very amiable in this political climate.  Goldwater could always work across the aisle to draft legislation he believed in. He was a surprisingly tolerant Senator, when there was work to be done.

Today’s Congress operates as a “take-it-or-leave-it showdown,” said the New York Times today (March 1), paraphrasing Senator Snowe.  The “showdown” has become a  grinding halt.  The work of legislating has become the work of posturing, taking an inflexible political stance to demonstrate the will to get one’s own way. In some quarters this is characterized as standing on principle.  In others it is the collapse of good will.

For some reason the voting public is not impressed with “standing on principle,” as the approval rating of Congress has plummeted to the single digits.  There are principles and there are demands, even as in the international arena there is terrorism and there are sanctions.  Terrorism is taking extreme actions on the basis of beliefs, while sanctions are mounting and unified pressure to oppose repugnant policies.  Which of these best characterize the standoff we currently see in Congress?

It is certainly hyperbole to call the Congressional stalemate “terrorism,” but it falls far short of “sanctions,” because the pressure is coming from a minority of representatives and their resistance to productive legislation is losing its support. The “principled” right certainly found its limits with the passage of the payroll tax relief and unemployment extension in the last month.  Didn’t they actually cave in to the suffering of their middle class constituents? Didn’t they abandon their principles in the face of dire need? So no need to label these legislators as “terrorists,” because they were willing to compromise to save their collective necks, if not for the good of their constituents.

With eight months to go before the general election, the candidates at all levels should be choosing between “passionate intensity” and “conviction.”  And the voters should be discerning who has conviction and who has only passion. There is plenty of rhetorical passion in the media stream, but there is less conviction. Convictions have to go deeper than partisanship. They have to be grounded in serving “the greatest good for the greatest number” (John Stuart Mill).  There should be no unequivocal promises or tax covenants that would compromise this conviction. There should be no one-issue candidates. There should be candidates who will stand up to the bullies, the ones who press their case to bitter stalemate.

If the moderates are leaving, then God bless them for their service. Now we should replace them with men and women of good will, a working majority that will take seriously its responsibility to govern and not to willfully obstruct.

 

 

 

Tags: ·····

Religious Warfare

February 27, 2012 by · No Comments · public schools, Uncategorized

When I hear Rick Santorum invoking the political rights of people of faith, I hear religious warfare.  It is calculated to bring the evangelical right into his voting column and to alienate the more ecumenical believers of all religions.  And it attacks public education from kindergarten through college, because of its tolerance for all beliefs, whether they include worship of God or not.

This pandering has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Jesus’s teachings can not be construed as merging political life with religious life.  He is often quoted, referring  to paying taxes, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”  This statement alone seems to advocate the separation of church and state.

But there are other passages from the Gospels that show that Jesus was not an advocate of “religious warfare,” and these most deeply affect those who wish to follow his example.  Central to my religious education was the warning,

Do not judge or you, too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:1)

Raised as an evangelical, I constantly felt challenged by these words, because we were also taught we had been chosen for the Kingdom of God by our faith. How you do avoid judging those who were not chosen? It seemed like an impossible command to me. And this is where public schooling became crucial in my life.  In the first eight years of my schooling I was a minority group among Jewish classmates, and I struggled to view them as equals, when my church was teaching me they were excluded from the kingdom. Every day I had to face my judgment,  knowing that this was not what Jesus intended.

Finally I read ahead in the seventh chapter of Matthew, which is full of warnings against judging others. Jesus warns his disciples,

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruits you will recognize them (Matthew 7:15-20)

Jesus spent a lot of words attacking the religious establishment of his day, arguing that they had a semblance of religion, but they had turned their backs on the most needy of their society: the poor, the prostitutes, the lepers. This teaching from Matthew suggests that even those posing as prophets might misrepresent God, and we should look to their fruits, the result of their work, as the crucial evidence of their intentions.  At the same time, we should respect those who produce the “good fruit,” because it could only come from a good tree.

To me this solved the problem of judging those of other faiths. I didn’t have to judge their theology, only the fruits of their labor. In fact, I should be wary of Christians who produced bad fruit because,

Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 7:21)

In this shocking passage, Jesus suggests that even pious church-goers might not be accepted into the Kingdom of God. The words we speak do not qualify us for the Kingdom, but the fruits of our labor.  This seems to turn the claims of some evangelicals upside down.  We should not be judged by our religious badges, but by the effects of our religious labor.

I came by these ideas slowly, even though they seem obvious to me now.  I have to credit my educational environment for bringing me there: public schools, secular colleges, and parents whose narrowness was always ready to include more people.  My mother said to me yesterday, “I expect to see my Jewish friends in heaven.” You would have to know my mother’s faith to realize what an enormous leap that was at the end of her life. But she was the one who kept me in public schools and supported my choice of a secular college.

I have nothing against private, religious or home schooling. Parents often choose these for the best motives. For me, however, the choice of public schooling and later, a secular college, were crucial to learning my place in the world. Without the questions, even the challenges to my faith, I would be more sanctimonious than I grew up to be. I would would be pitted against everyone who did not conform to my hermetically-sealed notion of the Gospel and my shrink-wrapped image of Jesus.  I would rather not be that person, and I owe it to public schooling that I am otherwise today.

Jesus was no politician. He did not play favorites, and he did not enjoy labeling people. Rather he enjoyed annihilating the categories of “unclean” and “Gentile” and “Roman” and accepted all who came to him. That is the spirit we should capture in public discourse, not the discourse of exclusion.

As Rick Santorum stokes the religious fires of the political campaign, I am looking for the fruits of his message. Does it bring more hate-language about Islam or other non-Christian faiths?  Does it attack tolerance as insidious “liberal teaching”?  Does it incite the most inflammatory voices of the campaign?  This kind of religious warfare should not drive our most important election.

This talk about breaking down the walls between church and state has  the potential to kindle religious warfare, and it should be condemned by God-fearing people.   And the supercilious dismissal of public schools and higher education should be noted as an oblique attack on the tolerance of diversity and the critical thinking that most of us owe to those formative institutions.

 

 

 

Tags: ···

Out lying

February 25, 2012 by · No Comments · Literacy: Reading, public schools, school reform

“Teacher Quality Widely Diffused” trumpets the headlines in the New York Times today (February 25, 2011). The headline and the article strongly suggest that the disadvantages of poverty and literacy-poor home environments are not critical influences on student performance on standardized tests. Rather that “teachers who were most and least successful in improving their students’ test scores could be found all around–in the poorest corners of the Bronx, like Tremont and Soundview, and in middle class neighborhoods of Queens, like Bayside and Forest Hills” (1).

The same article qualifies the results of the “value-added” assessment of students and their teachers by reporting “the margin of error is so wide that the average confidence level around each rating spanned 35 percentiles in math and 53 in English. . .”  This technicality may be conveniently ignored by the Times, but it is more than an inconvenience to teachers who are now publicly evaluated by their students’ test scores.

The media, the Bloomberg administration and the Obama administration are so hungry to get the goods on bad teachers, that they are willing to sanctify any statistics that appear to support their case.  “Value-added” statistics are a clear improvement on evaluating teachers on the raw data of their students’ test scores, but with a confidence level that spans 53 percentiles in English, there is still much to question about publishing such data.

Suppose the verdict of a jury had a 53% variance with the truth?  Suppose the testing of a drug to cure HIV had a 53% confidence level of success? Suppose the computer models of an air assault on the nuclear resources of Iran had a 53% chance of disabling their nuclear program?  Would anyone take these risks? Are these test scores any less damaging of the reputation and the professional survival of a school or a teacher?

The cases that seem to fall outside the range of probability in the field of statistics are often referred to as “outliers.”  Outliers are often subjects of further experimentation, because they may speak to the validity of the data that falls within the confidence levels of the data.  Thorough scientists do not ignore outliers, because they may reveal flaws in their original hypotheses. They investigate outliers more rigorously to learn what they can from the deviations.

That is not what is happening with the “value-added” data offered up by the New York Public Schools. The data is being privileged with a public showing and sanctified by a headline like “Teacher Quality Widely Diffused.”  In criminal prosecution this would be called a “rush to judgment.”

In the media, we should call this “out lying.” The data is out, even though some of it may be lying.  It is all well and good for schools to use the data for discussion and give it further scrutiny to see what it really says. It is another thing to pretend that the data is evidence that poverty is not a mitigating influence on teaching.  This is what I get from “Teacher Quality Widely Diffused.”

Let’s not use blunt instruments to execute teachers. Let’s investigate the outliers, not lie about them.

 

Tags: ····

Reflection and Expedience

October 11, 2011 by · No Comments · Uncategorized

Now that Mitt Romney has become the favorite target of Presidential hopefuls, the issue of consistency of belief and policy has come to the fore. While I’m not defender of the erstwhile Governor of Massachusetts, I’m glad I am not called to the same standards of consistency he has been on issues such as the mandate of medical insurance and a woman’s right to choose.  Although I can be skeptical of his reasons for shifting his position, I still feel public office holders should have the right to change their minds.

Changing seats changes perspectives, as anyone can testify from experience. President Reagan ascended to power by decrying big government and then presided over the largest expansion of government in several decades. President George H.W. Bush made the famous “Read my lips!” promise, then managed to “enhance revenue” like a good Democrat in his four years. When I taught high school I was convinced that ability grouping was the only way to manage academic achievement. I also used it to circumscribe the kind of students I taught. As a teacher educator, I now understand that heterogeneous grouping to a large extent allows students to benefit from the same kinds of curriculum and teaching. I also remember that the homogeneous groups I thought I was teaching in high school were not so homogeneous. So new perspectives allow us to think differently.

Somehow the expression “reflective politician” has become an oxymoron. Politicians are very like to consider it spineless to change their minds, and the result is the partisan bickering that has brought a halt to legislative progress in Congress.  The word “compromise,” which does not even imply changing your position, has become anathema to the partisans on the right and left.

This is not to say politicians do not calculate. They consider every option, but they choose the one that makes them look tough and resolute.  I can’t help but believe that John Boehner was prepared to compromise with the President when they first met about curbing the deficit in July, but the resolute politician in him won out over the conciliatory one.  That was a turning point when political sparring took over and collaboration ended. President Obama himself gave up on negotiating with an intractable opponent.

I find it completely credible that Governor Romney had ” a change of heart” on abortion before his first Presidential campaign. I have no insight into his motives, but it is clear that the Mormon part of his psyche was bound to be “pro-life.” The political expedience of his change makes it suspicious, but the moral right to change one’s position should be undisputed.  No one thinks it peculiar that Governor Rick Perry was once a Democrat, but now vies to be the most conservative of the Republicans.

President Obama has proved himself the most reflective of politicians to the jeopardy of his status in his own party.  He came into office with the full credentials of a card-carrying liberal, then proceeded to govern from the center. One could say this was merely the pragmatic requirement for getting things done, and Obama is a pragmatist.  But the President has taken the warnings about the deficit seriously and considered cutting back sacred social programs to bring his budget under control. You can claim this was political expedience, but I prefer to credit the President with a listening ear and a reflective mind.

In fact most of our Presidents have had this gift to listen and reflect, because it was necessary for leadership. It is mysterious that during the Presidential campaign, the ability to reflect and gain new insights has been ridiculed, and  stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise has been praised.  It makes the entire campaign into a performance of a role which will have no significance once the winner is in office.

Vacillation is not what we expect from our leaders, but the ability to reconsider a position and change your course, based on the highest values, should be an important qualification of leadership.

 

Stop Teaching Writing?

September 24, 2011 by · No Comments · Literacy: Written, school reform

In the recent edition of Education Week (September 21, 2011 ), Paula Stacey describes the many travesties of teaching writing inspired by a decade of standards and textbooks that function like cookbooks.*  Most of these anecdotes are from her personal teaching experience, and they ring with authenticity. Her conclusion is to “Stop Teaching Writing” and merely ask questions and consider the answers.  She does not define the characteristic challenge of teaching writing, which is, to echo the venerable Don Murray, “Teach the Process, Not the Product.”

The problem is that teaching writing is not teaching to the standards or teaching by the book. It is teaching the writer first,  then the writing. A  great writing teacher views the writer as an actor, the writing as the rehearsal, and the standards as the critics, who like to have the last word. In the tentative bursts of language students produce in writing classes, the teacher sees a performer with talents that can be coached. The standards are the afterthought, not the dialogue in the drama. The textbook is the proposal, not the script, for the play.

The teacher seems to be a director in this metaphor. When actors praise directors, they always seem to appreciate their ability to bring out the best in the actor, to understand the capabilities the actor brings to the performance. They never comment on the good reviews they received, because of the director’s savvy anticipation of the critics. Rather they admire the director’s making the most of what they bring to the drama.

Another reason to like this theatrical metaphor is that rehearsals become the focus of growth.  Rarely will anyone pay to see a rehearsal, but if you wanted to see how a play comes alive that would be the place to be. No one expects perfect performance in rehearsals, but what you can observe is the evolution of the actor and character as they perform the same scene over and over again. So it is with writers and writing.

Educators have been more fond of metaphors of teachers as sculptors or master gardeners. Although these analogies ennoble the profession, attributing depths of understanding and skill to teaching, they fail to characterize the student as an agent of learning. Statues and lilies have very little initiative in their growth. They appear more as artifacts fashioned by the skill of the artist. These metaphors miss the point about teaching writing. It is very dependent on the participation of the writer.

When teachers formulate writing, they minimize that participation. Yet every writing teacher is prey to this tendency, because every teacher wants to make learning easier for students.  The good writing teacher will read the results of these formulations and consider why the writing seems lifeless or so uniform throughout the class. The answer will often be traced to the dimensions of the writing assignment or the graphic organizer that choked the writing in its attempt to provide structure.  Teachers with the souls of directors will bring a new approach to the next rehearsal.

Unless directors are not teachers, then writing can be taught.  Like the performance, writing is taught in the rehearsals with the focus on the actor and the actor’s capabilities. The actor is never asked to  be a macho super-hero if he is built slightly with a boyish face. The actress is not required to rely on feminine wiles, if she is tall and muscular. The director teaches to their strengths, while coaching their flexibility.

So, if we are not obsessed with our reviews or expect our performers to excel at their weaknesses, we can teach writing.  It may not look pretty, but that’s what rehearsals are for.

* http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/21/04stacey.h31.html?tkn=LLWFXCotiHDKc1Q1skAZmvCV5dLFk4ogMpLQ&cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS1

 

Tags: ·······