[Teaching_Composition] grad versus frosh

Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:00:00 -0400

Doug, you're a real corker to read at 8 am on a Friday morning! Thanks for the intellectual breakfast: both substantial and nutritious!

All I can add is that I think you're right. We have to own up to our own presumptions--our own dogmas, our own “foolishness that is unaware of itself,” to use Chris Anderson's delicious phrase. It's a bracing reality check when students challenge what we believe to be true. For me the question is whether they are doing that out of a dialectical shared concern for finding a "better" way or a desire to defeat a foreign ideological position. Since I share the ideological beliefs that are currently popular, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm more interested in dialogical (non-violent) change than hostile, revolutionary change. Or maybe it's just my nature: I'm no fan of confrontation. 

Work on the nature and function of schooling (written by teachers) mostly argues for incremental, non-violent change. Consider, for example, Richard Miller's suggestion that we teach students "how to work within and against discursive constraints simultaneously, thereby helping them to experience the mediated access to ‘authenticity’ that social action allows." What room do we provide for this kind of change? If we don't provide room, should we be surprised if change comes more radically--more violently? And then I find myself in one of Doug's productive contradictions: I wouldn't want to deny radical overthrow as a legitimate means of change; I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of (or in the neighborhood of) this kind of radical overthrow. 

Best,

Elizabeth Vander Lei
Associate Professor of English
Calvin College
1795 Knollcrest Circle SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546-4404
616.526.6434

>>> "Doug Downs" <downsdo@uvsc.edu> 9/15/2006 3:54 AM >>>
Bill, without giving it your careful level of analysis, I did want to
offer obvious agree about distinctions between levels of education,
graduate vs. first-year.

That's not to say that it's fair or just when grad students are victim
to ideological bludgeoning, and even with your explanation of this
McConnell case, I find it fascinating where this particular program
decided to draw the lines of intellectual and academic freedom against
the student and in the interests of preserving policy and party line.  I
don't exactly see DuPont hiring a chemist who insisted the 1960s
represented best practices in chemistry research, or a chemistry program
graduating such a thinker, either.  What cases like McConnell's make
undeniable is that there *are* ideological party-lines; these are cases
where the "atmosphere" I talked about in my first post coalesces into
something distinctly tangible.  I do honestly think that most graduate
programs won't be terribly open about what their party lines are.  We're
so invested in the notion of intellectual and academic freedom that we
don't want to admit what's *not* okay to say, in terms of peer approval.
 (McConnell's 3.73 gpa suggests that he consistently came up with the
"wrong answers" in graduate courses, but this only circles us back to
the question of the ideological bludgeon.)  And, of course, McConnell
didn't just cross a programmatic standard; he crossed an *industry*
standard, which in professionalizing is kind of going to be a ticket to
no job, whether you complete the program or not.

All that is to say, while I don't *like* such evidence of boundaries to
intellectual freedom in graduate programs, I can understand their source
and acknowledge that for a variety of reasons, professional standards
require such boundaries.  At the same time, we've *got* to discourage
dogma: for example, I don't care what we "know" in rhetoric and
composition, we still mustn't prevent people from going back and
questioning it or automatically think less of them if they want to
argue, for example, the importance and effectiveness of direct grammar
instruction in writing classes.  I'll try to persuade them otherwise,
but I can't put the question or the belief off limits. 

All that is a world apart from FYC, where students deserve *much*
greater protection. . . .  I assume this argument speaks for itself, so
I won't elaborate.  But comparing the needs of grads to frosh -- and
thus what you can do in those two classrooms -- is beyond
apples-to-oranges.

Cheers --
Doug

Dr. Doug Downs
Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric
Dept. of English and Literature
Utah Valley State College
800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058
LA 114w
801-863-8572

>>> "Thelin,William" <wthelin@uakron.edu> 09/14/06 9:05 AM >>>
Hello Everyone,

Charles has given us an interesting case study here that I hope we can
productively debate.   I also think this can serve as a model for the
type of healthy discussion of issues raised by the ABR that we can have
with our students.

First, I want to elaborate a bit on the case.  Scott McConnell's paper
concerned the use of corporal punishment by teachers on elementary
school children.  He felt such punishment would create the ideal
learning environment and teach students to respect authority, even if it
came at the expense of their self-esteem.  McConnell received an "A-" on
the paper.  He was dismissed from the program by the program's director,
not the professor, because she had "grave concerns regarding the
mismatch between [his] personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning
and the Le Moyne College program goals."  She consulted with other
professors in what the college described as a "systematic way" before
making her decision.  

The paper in question was one piece of evidence.  Administration had
compiled a portfolio regarding McConnell, including his attacks on
multiculturalism.   He stated that his "classroom environment would
revolve strictly around the American culture and state culture, not
multicultural learning."  New York state law says that K-12 teachers
cannot use corporal punishment in the classroom and must employ
multiculturalism.  Since the point of the program was to certify
students to teach in the New York system, Le Moyne felt there was ample
evidence that McConnell's beliefs would not be compatible with New York
state law.   McConnell has since said that if he were to work in New
York, he would abide by state laws and not impose his personal views,
but he clearly stated in more than one paper that his teaching
philosophy was based on "pre-1960's learning when discipline was present
in the learning environment."  In any case, McConnell had been admitted
to the program on a conditional basis, so Le Moyne College
administrators did not feel they had to give McConnell the right to
appeal, as he had never technically been admitted.  The Appellate Court
disagreed, and McConnell was reinstated on the grounds of a due process
violation.  As I understand it, Le Moyne is appealing this decision.

So is this a case of a student's rights being violated?  At what point
at the graduate level can an institution say that giving a certain
student a degree and allowing that student to teach is a mistake?
McConnell's GPA was 3.78, which is hardly outstanding for a graduate
student, so several professors obviously had reservations about his
work.  Note the use of the word "would" regarding the classroom
environment McConnell favored.  If he had been making a critique only,
he would have used the word "should."   It seems to me the student was
being reactive in his writing as opposed to being scholarly and logical.
I would want to know how he refuted the dominant theories on
multiculturalism and corporal punishment.  At the very least, I would
expect a student to take into account opposing positions and argue
against them with logic and evidence.  From what I have read, McConnell
was sweepingly dismissive and considered the problems of the educational
system to be the product of liberalism.  If anything, the professors who
were giving him A-'s and B+'s might have been guilty of grade inflation.

The most important thing here is an understanding of how students will
respond when told of such cases.  Our students will rightly react if
they are given a one-sentence summary of the case.  We must help them
look at the details.  The case is much more complicated than it might
appear immediately.

What do the rest of you think?  I'm really anxious to hear your voices.
We've been kind of quiet so far.  Please jump in and contribute.

Bill

________________________________

From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:03 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com 
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1
#1093 - 1 msg

On documentation of bias in grading, not too long ago, Scott McConnell
was removed from the graduate education program in a New York college
for supporting spanking in a paper. It took the courts to get him
re-instated. 

Charles Nelson

_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com 
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition 

To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information.