As I've been preparing for my fall class in English Comp, I've decided to start at an even more basic level than I have in the past – with instruction about the parts of speech. I used to begin with sentence structure, but I now realize that most of my students lack the tools to grasp the concepts of structure because they aren't familiar with types of words and their functions. In English 101 (not a remedial course but the one writing skills course required for an Associate's degree), the department feels strongly that instructors should stress more advanced rhetorical principles, not grammar.

Now, I've complained for decades about the "dumbing down" of the school system, so I'm starting to have doubts about using this approach. Am I not, in so doing, contributing to the "dumbing down" process? About one in ten, at best, can write coherent sentences without backtracking to such a basic level. Should I focus on them, letting the rest flounder (and probably drown) in water where they can't get their feet down? Even with my previous approach (beginning with sentence structure), about 60% dropped or failed because they were in over their heads. I could be hard-hearted and say, "Tough!" – but that isn't what I think a teacher should do. I believe in meeting students where I find them; however, if I revert to such basic instruction in a course that carries college credit, am I becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution?
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

What level of writing skill are the students to reach in your course? Will building the foundation leave enough time to cover the rest?

Are there entry-level requirements for this course? Or prerequisite courses? Perhaps the administration can be convinced that such are necessary and establish beginning or remedial courses that would do this job.

Are there entry-level requirements for this course? Or prerequisite courses? Perhaps the administration can be convinced that such are necessary and establish beginning or remedial courses that would do this job.
Yes, there are. Students take standardized English and reading tests and are placed in English 101 if their scores are sufficiently high. The reading test must be either flawed or very easy because I have had students who pass it but cannot read a newspaper article and understand it. The English test has no writing component, so it tells little except possibly that the student is pretty good at guessing the right answers on vocabulary questions. Those who do not score high enough on these tests (about a third of our admissions) are required to take noncredit English or reading courses (what I call remedial classes but that the college euphemistically dubs "foundations courses"). The content and level of these courses is probably around eighth-grade (at best), and all but the almost completely illiterate pass them, sometimes with A's or B's. They then go on to English 101. About half my students have had to take one or both of these courses, yet they are still incapable of constructing correct and coherent simple sentences. They still, for example, cannot locate the verb in a sentence. I can tell from their first essays in my class that they are unprepared for anything but the most basic instruction, which, of course, makes my course as "remedial" as the foundations courses are supposed to be.

I have gone no further than the Dean of Liberal Arts with these problems. I asked him, "Why am I getting students who passed the foundations class but cannot write a sentence? Why am I getting students in English 101 who appear doomed to fail it?" His reply: "Many instructors in the foundations courses are so eager to have their students succeed that they pass them." "But they're setting them up for failure later on." "Yes, they are." End of discussion.

Thus, the "prerequisite" courses are no more effective than the policy of promoting students from grade to grade throughout the primary and secondary school system, regardless of whether they advance in skills or knowledge. The system is broken, and I'll bet that every English 101 instructor in the college would admit privately (if he or she could be assured that no administrator ever heard of it) that only a small fraction of our students are remotely prepared for a course that could truly be dubbed college-level English composition.

In closing, every semester for twenty years I have read the final compositions of hundreds of English 101 students across several sections. They were never very good and have gotten worse. Understand, too, that these represent the 60% or so who have made it through the semester (all sections start with 30 students; few have more than 20 at the end). If I were asked, after reading a student's paper, "Whould you hire this person if his or her job included writing interoffice memos?" my answer would be "No" for about two-thirds. Nevertheless, I will pass half of these two-thirds because I, too, am compromised by the broken system.
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

He is also very much of a realist. His remark to me was intended to describe the way things are, not the way they ought to be. He personally would never pass a student who was doomed to failure at the next level, but (even as dean) he cannot dictate to "foundations" instructors which students they may or may not pass. Like me, only at a higher level, he has no choice but to compromise with the system. He would be the first to say to me, as he has on occasion, "If they don't meet minimum standards, fail them."

Many administrators are, however, educrats. They emphasize (false) self-esteem, creating an environment in which students who do not meet minimum standards are allowed to get by. Therefore, standards become lower, as does the level of instruction. That leads back to my original questions: How far back into the fundamentals of a subject should an instructor go when a majority of students are unprepared for the usual level of instruction? Is "meeting students where we find them" a sensible approach, or does it just contribute to further "dumbing down"?
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

Since I left that teaching post, I've spent some time working with GED teachers, many of whom are worried about teaching material that is "too advanced" for their students. On reflection, I wish I had spent more time on teaching the grammar terminology with my college students. I think it would have helped my students to have a greater vocabulary with which to describe -- and fix -- their writing problems. (Of course, it would have been ideal if this vocabulary was given to students before they enter college, but that isn't the case for the majority of students.) Please share in December how you feel your "back to basics" approach has paid off over the semester.

Last Edited on 25-Aug-2008 12:46 PM

I'm not challenging the veracity of the statement, just very shocked by it. How does a student achieve honors without being able to write? I can believe the dismal state of affairs of education in general, but honors students?

Educators and their mouthpiece, the NEA, go to great lengths to conceal the failures of the system from the public. Consider this scenario: Your son, Johnny, is in a class of students, most of whom are learning little or nothing. Johnny, who has about average intelligence and ability, performs close to this level and does learn something. It's almost certain that he will find himself in an "honors" course, in which the material is a notch above the basic level (or at least there is more of it). You are proud, and you believe that the system is working. However, he may still emerge from high school with skills only slightly better than eighth-grade level. He will then show up in a college classrom (like Dalton's) unprepared for a "course . . . designed to teach the conventions of different genres, ending with a focus on argument." He may be able to comprehend the subject matter, but he will be unable to write about it because he still lacks skill in grammar and syntax.

Dalton: Your comment that "I wish I had spent more time on teaching the grammar terminology with my college students" is reassuring, especially since you base this view on your time spent working with GED instructors. I will definitely report in December how the "back to basics" approach works. I may even post along the way (probably on The Mudgelog) how it seems to be going.
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

Last Edited on 25-Aug-2008 8:14 PM

Wordgasm

Some of the juvenile offenders whom I teach have no intention of returning to high school; they are determined to get GEDs. There are a couple of problems that I've had to work with: 1)We don't have a GED program set up for them, and 2) the sample tests I have collected are pretty difficult.

So...

First, I try to determine if they have the intelligence to use reasoning to answer questions. If they don't, I tell them it will probably be easier and faster to get their high school diploma. (I'm sorry to admit this.)

Second, even though we don't have a GED program and I'm supposed to be teaching according to the curriculum, I forget everyone from Jonathan Edwards to Faulkner (our curriculum for sophomores and juniors) and give them practice tests in writing and reading. (I'm sorry for this one too.)

Third, when they make errors that I can't find a way to explain without grammar, I think, "They can probably pass the test without getting this one correct." I forget the grammar because they're not with me very long, and it takes too long to start from scratch. (I'm really sorry about this one.)

Exam companies, of course, make their money by getting people to take as many exams as possible.

Last Edited on 30-Aug-2008 1:06 PM

I'm in a different situation now. Many of my students are with me for only a few weeks. Most have never heard of diagramming and will never hear of it again after they leave our program. We seldom know who will be staying long-term and who will not, so I operate as if they were all long-term.

The students who DO stay at Juvenile Detention for a month or more are usually 16 or 17 years old. They have been in trouble several times and have bounced around from one school to another. Their chances of graduating from high school are not good because they are so far behind on their credits. Their skill levels are often very low.
I try to determine on an individual basis what I can do that will actually help them, but this means I have to face reality.

If a student comes to me behind in credits, but still hoping to graduate, I try to help him (or her)get credits by following the curriculum. Many of these kids want to raise themselves up and live good lives outside the system, but it's a steep climb. Parents are inadequate or even non-existent, their homies are always waiting down the street, they have very little money, they struggle in school, and they don't know how to get where they want to be. I try to help their chances the only way I can--by helping them to earn the credits they will need.

If a 17-year-old kid with a record a half-mile long comes to me with two high school credits but with a pretty good mind, I try to help him prepare for a GED program. That means helping him pass the test so that he (or she) can get a job that doesn't involve a gun or standing on a street corner. That means forgetting Emerson and Shakespeare and even parts of speech.

If I get a kid with a good mind and the potential for college, I challenge him as much as I can, whether it be with GED practice tests or with his credits. And I get a little sick when he returns because he's gotten in trouble again.

If I get a 17-year-old who has been in trouble since he was ten years old, has two credits, and is classified as MR (mentally retarded), I just go home and bawl.

I have a student right now who wants to get in a GED program when he gets out. One of the other teachers asked me why I am working with him on the science portion of the GED. Because he's already shown me he can pass the Language Arts portion, that's why.

I had another student who was definitely college material but insisted he just wanted to get his GED so he could work for his grandpa and eventually take over the business. So I gave him what little help he needed. He passed the GED after a week in a program and scored in the top 10% in the nation. I kept telling him he should be going to college, but I did what I felt I had to do. I still hope he makes it to college some day, though.