Week 13 of Fall 2016, "The Gatekeepers"
"Given that I plan on dedicating my career to exactly this -- teaching students to write and helping them improve -- I have some strong opinions about the matter.
First, I do not plan on implementing a strict prescriptive grammar law. I refuse to spend my entire year teaching students to cross their t's and dot their i's. Of course, I will introduce basics, but I do not want this to be the focal point in every lesson plan. I want to teach my students that writing is about organizing your thoughts, finding inspiration and evidence, and building on that 'spark'. I will teach writing as a method of communication between the writer and the reader; it is not supposed to look perfect, but instead communicate depth, research, ideas, opinions, questions, and true thought.
Given this opinion, I think anyone could gather that I vehemently disagree with what Mr. Blaauw-Hara has to say. On page 5, he writes, "... grammar and usage serve as socioeconomic markers and can influence how others perceive us." Blaauw-Hara continues by arguing that socioeconomic status should convince any teacher or student the necessity of grammar. I refuse to accept this argument. While I am not naive or blind to our world and realize that socioeconomics and social perception are highly tied to language and "proper grammar", I refuse to propagate this racist excuse. Yep, I said it -- it's racist. "Proper grammar" reflects the dialects and standards of the white English-born man and no one else (and I guess only guarantees native speakers or highly trained pretenders jobs). I live in a nation -- a world -- brimming with diversity and I plan on incorporating this wonderful variety in my writing classroom. I refuse to force my students into the shoes of someone they are not with the excuse of "you won't get hired if you don't conform". "White (standard, my bad) assimilation" has no place in my writing classroom.
The Quible and Griffen article nearly made my head explode. The money wasted to "correct" writing in the business workforce is sickening. Go take that money and fund the arts programs in your local schools, instead! How about that! While I do not disagree with the opinion that business professionals should be able to effectively communicate, I do not think that "effective communication" is interchangeable with "proficient in standard English". This is crucial. Effective business communicators should not be subjected to mundane grammar workshops. They should be doing what they were hired to do -- they should be putting their heads together, brainstorming, and creating solutions to the problems humanity faces every day! Why must everything be 'standardized'? Thought, ingenuity, brilliance, and inspiration do not need to prescribe to standard English.
Wrapping this all up, I'll move back to my future classroom. As a high school English teacher, I will most likely be tasked with teaching literature, poetry, and analysis (not grammar). Grammar should come before me, in elementary and middle school. I do not want to waste time teaching my students how to write a perfect sentence and instead teach them how to engage with materials, how to recognize subtle themes, how to interpret research, how to think! I like how Petit addresses the semi-colon as a choice; I think this concept of "freedom of choice" should be applied to all grammar. If you choose to write in standard english, fine. If not, also fine. I'm here to strengthen your mind and your abilities to interpret. When it comes to communicating thoughts to paper, you have all the freedom in the world -- what I will be looking for is a flow of thought that matches evidence, argument, and conclusions. Freedom is important in the classroom and, in conclusion, I will not subject my students to a standardization of language that puts forth no efforts to include the wonderful diversity of our nation."
First, I do not plan on implementing a strict prescriptive grammar law. I refuse to spend my entire year teaching students to cross their t's and dot their i's. Of course, I will introduce basics, but I do not want this to be the focal point in every lesson plan. I want to teach my students that writing is about organizing your thoughts, finding inspiration and evidence, and building on that 'spark'. I will teach writing as a method of communication between the writer and the reader; it is not supposed to look perfect, but instead communicate depth, research, ideas, opinions, questions, and true thought.
Given this opinion, I think anyone could gather that I vehemently disagree with what Mr. Blaauw-Hara has to say. On page 5, he writes, "... grammar and usage serve as socioeconomic markers and can influence how others perceive us." Blaauw-Hara continues by arguing that socioeconomic status should convince any teacher or student the necessity of grammar. I refuse to accept this argument. While I am not naive or blind to our world and realize that socioeconomics and social perception are highly tied to language and "proper grammar", I refuse to propagate this racist excuse. Yep, I said it -- it's racist. "Proper grammar" reflects the dialects and standards of the white English-born man and no one else (and I guess only guarantees native speakers or highly trained pretenders jobs). I live in a nation -- a world -- brimming with diversity and I plan on incorporating this wonderful variety in my writing classroom. I refuse to force my students into the shoes of someone they are not with the excuse of "you won't get hired if you don't conform". "White (standard, my bad) assimilation" has no place in my writing classroom.
The Quible and Griffen article nearly made my head explode. The money wasted to "correct" writing in the business workforce is sickening. Go take that money and fund the arts programs in your local schools, instead! How about that! While I do not disagree with the opinion that business professionals should be able to effectively communicate, I do not think that "effective communication" is interchangeable with "proficient in standard English". This is crucial. Effective business communicators should not be subjected to mundane grammar workshops. They should be doing what they were hired to do -- they should be putting their heads together, brainstorming, and creating solutions to the problems humanity faces every day! Why must everything be 'standardized'? Thought, ingenuity, brilliance, and inspiration do not need to prescribe to standard English.
Wrapping this all up, I'll move back to my future classroom. As a high school English teacher, I will most likely be tasked with teaching literature, poetry, and analysis (not grammar). Grammar should come before me, in elementary and middle school. I do not want to waste time teaching my students how to write a perfect sentence and instead teach them how to engage with materials, how to recognize subtle themes, how to interpret research, how to think! I like how Petit addresses the semi-colon as a choice; I think this concept of "freedom of choice" should be applied to all grammar. If you choose to write in standard english, fine. If not, also fine. I'm here to strengthen your mind and your abilities to interpret. When it comes to communicating thoughts to paper, you have all the freedom in the world -- what I will be looking for is a flow of thought that matches evidence, argument, and conclusions. Freedom is important in the classroom and, in conclusion, I will not subject my students to a standardization of language that puts forth no efforts to include the wonderful diversity of our nation."
Expansion: Looking back, I find that I was a little too emotional in this post. This is something I struggle with often -- my emotions seep into my writing. When I feel things or have strong opinions (or disagree), I struggle to remain objective, unbiased, levelheaded, and sometimes I even struggle with being reasonable. However, I never apologize for these feelings. I refuse to apologize for having emotion and beliefs of my own that I feel strongly about. With this being said, I agree with what I wrote in this post. The basic argument I make still holds true within me: the writing world and professional world are biased and prejudiced to favor the language of the white man. There is no "standard English" simply because the language evolves so many times in presents itself in thousands of dialects that it is virtually impossible to develop any "standard" without rejecting other variations (which unfortunately happens). I understand my classmates who argue that this is the reality that we face -- it is. I just refuse to accept it. I also understand why a standard language was invented in the first place. Like math, a specific set of rules that everyone adheres to is helpful. However, humans are not numbers and numbers are not humans. We are individuals. I believe that our language should reflect such -- and I will admit that my beliefs counter that of most of the nation. One day, I hope that every student will be capable of pursuing a job or a degree regardless of their native tongue, dialect, presumed 'intelligence', or cultural background. Standardization has no place in the world of language.