Genevieve wrote:
Essentially, the department had carved out
a kind of 'instructional space' for developmental
students that broke with the rigid 'Step A goes to
Semester 1, Step B goes to Semester 2 and if you can't
follow you fail' flow of student bodies in the writing
curriculum. Basically, this was a form of retention.
Then, about 3 or 4 semesters into the experience, the
Chancellor's Office told us to shape up and cut out
all the parallel courses. We were being very bad boys
& girls for keeping qualified students back, and a
student who passes a particular level is by definition
qualified to tackle the next.
For a long time we at LCHC have railed againt all forms of
"Level 1 before Level 2" stage theories of literacy and
numeracy acquition. They are built for domination and conservatism.
They select in a deadly way.
My colleagues and I have written about this pernicious form of
pedagogy/selction in a number of places. Getting this message
straight would be, in my opinion, very helpful. But maybe its
crooked by nature?
This discussion is getting close to what I consder the heart of the
matter: the essential duality of formal education FROM THE BEGINNING:
its entwinement with (literally) middle class and its double message"
transform AND select. Teachers live at the contradictory heart of that
matter.
Can we make it beyond chaining?
mike