This One Time, At Bandcamp...

This is my fourth time reading Nancy Summers article "Responding to Student Writing." First as a tutor, then as an intern teacher, then as another intern teacher here in 791. Nancy and I are close. I don't think I will spend a long time remarking on it, therefore, but will simply say that this was one of those "life-changers" if you'll forgive me the Lifetime television network expression. After reading Summers article (the first time) I became aware of how readers respond to writing and specifically, how teachers can appropriate student writing. We are so enamored with what we want them to say we forget to listen to what they are saying. Each time I reread this article I am only further convinced that Summers is right. Nothing is more destructive to discourse (and therefore the teaching/learning of discourse) than the shutting down of discourse. The not allowing a student to speak and not listening or reading what they are actually saying. I see this so often in teachers that scoff at student writing and mock it instead of recognizing the very serious cognitive moves the student is trying to make. Furthermore how often do we simply say to a student something equivalent to "write better" and assume that will mean something? As a camp counselor at band camp I served as the shoulder for highschool students to cry on after the guest director reduced them to tears. Learning incredibly difficult music in a week mistakes were often made. When he couldn't take it any longer he said "Just play the right note! It's just as easy as playing the wrong one and it sounds better!" I have since tried to never tell someone to "just do anything" as if their lack of performance, in writing or music, was a simple issue of absent-mindedness.

Connors article was interesting. It makes sense to me that it was written in 1985 because it seemed a little dated. Just some of his own views on the necessity of mechanical correction and what not. I did have the epiphany, however, while reading this article why it matters that we keep reading summaries of the late 19th century, early 20th century composition world. We all assume grammar has always been the necessity. We have been completely shaped by the grammar apparatus. In reading these histories it becomes increasingly apparent that grammar, how it stands today, is not an original being created on the sixth day, but a construction that has been used, like so many things, to draw class, gender, and racial lines. I think that is important to remember when arguing about how "important" it is to teach.

That being said I do, actually, believe it is important to teach, but I look at it as a student's ability to finesse his or her writing. I've actually thought of grammar in musical terms for years (sorry for all the references, I don't know what's going on with me tonight) but grammar serves as dynamics for writing. It tells the reader how to read, where to pause, where to stop, how fast to go, what to feel. Word choice plays into this too, but these surface level thing are the difference between writing, and great writing. For that reason I think we must teach it, but like dynamics, it can't come at the beginning. It must come at the end. Until you know how to play (write) a thing you cannot shape it.