|
can grow tall by pulling upward on their ears.
Here is how one state system of teacher academies plans to solve the problem:
The Missouri Compromise
You will not be astonished to learn that there are some people in Missouri who cannot manage commas, cannot avoid sentence fragments, cannot regularly make verbs agree with subjects and pronouns with antecedents, and cannot help sounding like literal translations from Bulgarian. If you are a regular reader of this journal, youll also be unastonished to hear that those pitiable illiterates are members of the Missouri Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.
These poor saps have finally noticed that lots of irate citizens have indicated concern of [yes, of] the decreasing standardized test scores of students. They even know that a sensitivity has become quite manifest in the development in state wide [yes, two words] assessment systems. But they dont seem too worried. Theyve cleared up the whole mess in a position statement called Assessment of Basic Skills Competencies of Potential Teachers.
The Missouri educationists have also just discovered, or have at least come to suspect that they might perhaps decide to assumetentatively, what the rest of us have always known. They put it thus: Although many factors may intervene the teacher is viewed by many as a critical variable in the teaching-learning process and, therefore, the key to the improvement in the basic skills of students.
The teacher, they say, must have a high degree of proficiency in the basic skills. They are expected to transmit to their students through precept and example.
Yeah. And here are some of the precepts and examples through which these Missouri Teacher-training Turkeys transmit:
The latter [�field experiences] being principally in student teaching with a major emphasis on institutional planning, execution, and evaluation of subject matter to be presented. And, Utilizing the assumption that the measuring/ascertaining of the competencies of potential teachers should be done on or about the end of the traditional sophomore year. For the Turkeys, those are sentences. So why should they care? Its the taxpayers and children wholl have to serve them.
Those, of course, are just supersaturated, freebooting participles, but this one passes understanding: If the student does not meet the prescribed standards of basic skills and the student, before they are formally admitted into teacher education and certainly before graduation, should have remediation and reevaluation. (Wow, these people are tough! Before graduation, no less.) Any competent sixth-grade teacher would flunk such rubbish, but the Turkeys arent worried. As long as theyre in charge, there will be damned few competent sixth-grade teachers in Missouri.
Also, say the Turkeys, there is a question of the relationship of secondary and co-secondary schools in terms of relationships. The authors [ ! ] of this position paper agreed that such an assessment process can have a significant impact [they never discuss insignificant or mere impacts] on secondary school curriculum in turning to an assessment instrument to which the public schools might be inclined to reach toward.
Why do the good people of Missouri suffer such humbug, without turning to some blunt instrument to which they might be inclined to reach toward? We can tell you why. Its because these ugly crimes against nature are committed in private among consenting Turkeys. How many authors, do you suppose, conspired to write, rewrite, edit, and finally to approve all that gibberish? How many of Missouris teacher-trainers, would you guess, have read it? Was not one of them embarrassed or outraged by this sleazy display of ignorance and ineptitude? And if there was one, what do you think he did? He kept his mouth shut. Its better to suffer a momentary discontent than to attract the taxpayers attention.
So, unhampered by pesky public outcry, people who cannot devise sentences or make sense or even punctuate will get on with the business of providing Missouri with teachers. And they dont want any interference, if you please, as they make, well, not clear, to be sure, but at least quite manifest, in their ghastly and ungrammatical peroration:
There is an advantage to each institution in Missouri preparing teachers to have an institutional level responsibility rather than a state wide . . . responsibility for assurance of proficiency of basic skills. Alternate assessment processes allow for diversity of response by each institution. It [?] allows for diversity of response loads [?] by students, it allows for diversity of interpretation of what is basic [thats the part they like best] for that institutions student population, and it eliminates conflicts of perogatives [typo?] and rights of faculties of institution to set curriculum in means of assessing a testing or assuring of competencies.
We have some advice for the good people of Missouri. Turn those rascals out. Pension them off for life at full pay, requiring only that the never again set foot on a campus. Dont worry about the cost. In fifty years or so, there wont be any cost. As it is, youre planning to pay more and more of them for ever and ever. Once theyre gone, on the day they go, in fact, your schools and colleges will become the best in the land.
A knowledge of history is one of the basic skills of which we have been deprived by the educationists fervor for shabby social studies and smug civics. We have forgotten that the storekeeper used to pay miscreants to stay away. It worked Weve gotten it backward. We pay them to hang around and smash the windows. Lets be realistic and pay the miscreants to do that one thing the we most need them to do-nothing, nothing at all.
The Works of
When the Communications Department blasted off into the unknown regions of interdivisional space, its chairman left us to mull over his now famous Farewell (sans Hail):
Scriblerus X. Machina
But in the sober light of day after the intoxicating elixirs of self-delusion have begun to fade, after the sonorous tones of your voices have begun to sound hollow, after the technicolor hues of your dreams have begun to mute into the blacks and whites of realitythen you may perhaps face these details of reality.
He was reminding us that we had not yet entered the twentieth century, so he must have chosen that quaint and antiquated tone of purple fustian for ironic emphasisdont you think? How subtly he reminds us of our enslavement to outworn tradition by his innovative use of mute as an intransitive verb and that multimedia metaphor in which our elixirs fade before our very eyes!
Now the Communications Department re-enters our atmosphere, blazing like another Kohoutek, and bringing no faded elixirs but a heady draft proposal for a F--------- of its very own.
We looked at the part where they tell all about the teaching of writing, twentieth-century style. Heres the plan:
The communications Department proposes to establish an ideal classroom for the teaching of the basic writing course. . . . While there is no single classroom prototype that could be considered ideal for all circumstances, there is a concern that different approaches be taken. One of the keys in suggesting an ideal classroom is that traditional classrooms have a way of perpetuating traditional approaches.... By bringing together in one room a large variety of audiovisual implements, creating a relaxed atmosphere by having the room carpeted with pictures on the walls and easy chairs and tables and by having duplicating equipment and a variety of newspapers and magazines readily available, we can encourage attempts to change both students perceptions and teachers approaches to the task of learning how to write.
Now why couldnt we have thought of all that neat stuff? Because weve been hung up perpetuating traditional approachesthings like drill and practice, writing and rewritingthats why. Even desks! Now we see. What we need is a dentists waiting room redone by Radio Shack, magazines and Muzak, comfy chairs, and a shiny new Xerox so the scholars wont have to fight over the latest number of Popular Mechanics.
Notice a refreshing absence of flat, empty surfaces where a thoughtless student might accidentally write words on a piece of paper and set the whole class back a century. Thats the hard part, all right, putting the words on the paper. Thats why hardly anyone was able to write before the advent of that large variety of audiovisual implements. (Implements?)
The proposal itself seems to have been put together in just such an innovative, relaxing setting. Notice, for instance, the creative (or easy chair) treatment of punctuation in that bit about the pictures. The room is carpeted with pictures on the walls. The pictures are on the walls and easy chairs and tables. Its a split-screen effect. Electronic!
Elsewhere we find:
Stunning. No fuddy-duddy of the age of paper and pencil could ever have accomplished prose like that. The secret is vision. Only a writer who has learned his craft from long hours of assiduous (but relaxed) scrutiny of a twenty-inch color implement could hope to develop a vision modern enough to see that outreaches have prongs, prongs coming from their Centers, and that a prong, or maybe a Center, can be created as an umbrella, an umbrella from which services can be dispensed, services that can help us all to learn how to communicate in just this fashion.
A second prong in the outreach of the department would come from a Communication Consultancy Center. This would be created as an umbrella from which many different kinds of services could be offered to the community.
Well, you can just bet your Bearcat scanner against a busted quill pen that all our staff writers will be standing at the door the day they open that Communications Consultancy Center. Were mired in traditions. We could never, for instance, have come up with these spiffy structures that go the tired old passive at least one bettermaybe two:
. . . [the] Department can provide leadership that will cause it to be viewed as a resource .
You just cant hope to master that smooth modern style without spending hours, whole seasons probably, in the old easy chair, beer and pretzels at hand, studying the styles of the greatest play-by-play and color men to be found on the audiovisual implement.
. . . few of the courses . . . have been able to be offered on a regular basis.
. . . needs should be able to be filled . . .
And just look at these daring departures from stodgy tradition. Were so old-fashioned that we almost thought they were mistakes:
. . . the advantages the computer offers . . . lies in continuous availability.
. . . the equipment needs . . . is appended.
. . . there needs to be provisions made . . .
All of this is encouraging for anybody who worries about the teaching of writing here at Glassboro. It shows that the Communications Department is perfectly willing to put some of the taxpayers money where somebodys mouth isin a collection of machines. Time was when your basic model communications teacher would rather watch reruns of Washington Week in Review than teach a writing course. Now theyll be clamoring to twiddle the dials and leaf through Cosmopolitan and rap about nontraditional approaches to interpersonal communication in the easy chair.
So not to worry. We can all go down to the launching in good conscience, sing in our hollow tones one chorus of Anchors Aweigh, smash a fifth of faded elixir on the prow of the refitted Starship Triad, newly home from one uncharted deep, sallying forth into yet another, carrying our hopes and dreams, ere they mute, our tuners and amplifiers and, of course, the prongs of our outreach.
Imbedded in the question of freedom is an educational dilemmathe long-standing enigma of how to obtain the important output of superior minds without creating an elite of scientists, politicians, social planners and commentators, military specialists, business executives, and so on.Or, in other words, how can we manage to muzzle the ox while he treadeth out the corn?
The Holistic Hustle
Fortunately for American educationists, there is never any dearth of trashy and popular fads, the raw material of curricular novelty. The half-life of most bold innovative thrusts is less than that of the pet rock or the nude encounter group, and pedagogical gimmicks have to be cooked up more often than situation comedies. But, thanks to the fertile inventiveness always inspired by exuberant greed, the master schlockmongers will always provide the educationists with full measures of readily adaptable inanities.
Of course, there is a difference between the peddlers of pop and the educationists. The peddlers of pop are skillful. When promoters have deposited the take from Woodstocks and Earth Days, the educationists come limping behind with mini-courses in the poetry of rock and roll, and environmental awareness. In a frantic scramble after what crumbs may fall from the merchants tables, they rush to teach soap-opera-watching, the casting of horoscopes, and the throwing of the Frisbee. Coming soon: Elvis, the copper bracelet, and the T-shirt as literature.
Future historians of education (hows that for a dreary calling?) will understand better than we that the most powerful influence on education in our time was not new knowledge of the psychology of learning, not the rise and dominance of the electronic media, not the fervor for democratization that followed the civil rights movements, not even the newly awakened public recognition of the tensions between the demands of an increasingly automated society and a reinvigorated and often antimaterialistic individualism, but, purely and simply, the Big Mac. Our schools are, in almost every respect, analogues of the fast-food industry, although there probably is some nourishment in the Big Mac. Even the slogans are the same: Have it your way; We do it all for yoo-oo-oo.
Its not surprising, therefore, that educationists respond to public discontent not by trying to improve what they do, but by trying to educate the public into some other perception of what they do. In education, as in the fast-food business, its called image enhancement, and, like all flackery, its done with slogans and buzz words. When the public finally noticed, for instance, that fewer and fewer children were learning to read, the educationists quickly discovered that learning disabilities were far more common than anyone had ever suspected. Therefore, we ought in fact to praise the schools for doing such a great job with swarms of undernourished, disaffected imbeciles, many of whom were also myopic, hard of hearing, hyperactive (if not lethargic), or even lacking in self-esteem.
Now, pestered by complaints about student writing, the educationists have drawn from the bottomless pit of mindless pop a bucket of inspiration, the Whatever Turns You On Plan for the Enhancement of Public Perceptions Concerning Student Writing. They call it holistic grading. It will improve grades dramatically without requiring any improvement in the teaching of writing. It will work even in schools where there is no teaching of writing. Now thats educationism.
Most of what weve heard about holistic grading has come from the horses mouth, the National Council of Teachers of English. We now have a report from another part of the horse, the Educational Testing Service, which is offering workshops in holistic grading:
With this method, the essay is read for a total impression of its quality rather than for such separate aspects of writing skill as organization, punctuation, diction, or spelling. The method takes a positive approach to the rating of compositions by asking the reader to concentrate on what the student has accomplished rather than on what the student has failed to do or has done badly. Holistic scoring is both efficient and accurate. The standards by which compositions are judged are those that the readers have developed from their training and from their experiences with student writing.
We have to presume that the written parts of tests given by ETS will be rated in this efficient and accurate fashion from now on. In a few years, well hear that the writing crisis, if indeed there ever was one, is over.
This, you see, is a positive approach. To fuss about organization, punctuation, diction, and spelling is the bad old negative approach that caused the whole flap to begin with.
To judge writing by this holistic method is like judging a musical performance without reference to rhythm, tempo, or dynamics, and taking no heed of false notes or of organization. What could we say of a performance in which all of those things were wrong? We could certainly not judge it as a musical performance if we choose to give no weight to the attributes of musical performance. If we could consider things without regarding their attributes, which we cant, we wouldnt even know what the hell they were. It is only by their attributes that we can distinguish a musical performance from a billiard ball. It is by just such attributes as organization and diction, dismissed above as presumably optional aspects, that we can distinguish between written composition and the egg stains on an educationists face.
And that is a distinction that we had better learn to make. There will never be good, universal, public education in America until we learn, from their own words, that the people in charge of it are badly in need of an education. Educated people will not be deceived by such nonsense. Some knowledge of the history of thought and some skill in logical language can be expected of the educated, but they are not required for a degree in education.
Educated people are likely to know what holistic means. They know, simply because they have the power of language and thought, that if something is more than the sum of its parts, it cannot be less than the sum of its parts. They even know what aspects are, and that to call punctuation, spelling, diction, and even organization, separate aspects of writing suggests either ignorance or mendacity. They know, too, that this slick hustle, designed not only to deceive the taxpayers about the state of student writing but also to make the grading of compositions one hell of a lot easier, may appropriately be called many things, but holistic isnt one of them.
Contemptuous, however, is one of them. It is not out of kindness but out of contempt (and sloth) that educationists design ways to excuse students from the demands of good work. To tell a student that what he has accomplished, however little that may be, is an adequate substitute for what he has failed to do or has done badly, however much that may be, is not humanistic (they dont know the meaning of that word, either) or even humane. It is arrogant.
It is also unmistakably to imply that the mastery of good writing is not important. Do you suppose that those educationists would want their dentists or even their electricians rated by their holistic method? When pilots and flight engineers are licensed by positive approaches without regard for all those trivial separate aspects of their crafts, will the loyal members of the National Council of Teachers of English fly to the annual convention anyway, just to demonstrate their faith in a total impression of quality? Will they consult physicians whose diplomas have been granted in spite of what the student has failed to do or has done badly?
One thing must be said in fairness to the educationists who have packaged and touted the Holistic Hot �n Juicy: The standards by which they propose to measure students work are no more rigorous than those by which they judge their own work. After all, the ability to write good English isnt required for a doctorate in education, so why bother high school kids about it? Of course, there may be some kids who aim higher and would like to do useful and respectable work that calls for the habits of accuracy and clear thought that come from the mastery of written composition, but the fast-food business doesnt work that way. When ETS serves up the Holistic Hot �n Juicy, everybody eats it.
And the educationists all get to do a little something for themselves too-oo-oo.