We have taken what is potentially the most personal, energizing, and richly meaningful subject in the whole curriculum and sucked the meaning out of it. [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]
Zemelman and Daniels are, of course, talking about writing. Specifically, they are criticizing the English teacher status quo of correcting every minuscule error in student writing. We've discussed this a lot in class: What do we value in student writing? If my answer is content and student voice, how can I justify a grading scale rooted in mechanics?
In writing, on the other hand, we think
that every word that every kid ever writes must pass beneath a teacher’s red pen.
And kids who risk writing anything imperfect, exploratory, playful, or over their heads are told,
in effect, “This is terrible. You flunk. Don’t try this again until you can do it perfectly. " [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]
This passage recalls Gallagher's question: Does every piece of writing in the classroom need to be graded? What if students are allowed to write without the apprehension of the red pen? The English classroom should be a space in which students can explore, question, experiment, and challenge. When teachers highlight every error in student writing, the opportunity for inquiry is lost. It reinforces the idea that the teacher is a reservoir of correct answers. This does not foster creative, critical, and confident writers. In fact, the scholars that we have encountered all suggest the opposite.
I said it better than I can say it... This is a selection from my History and Structure blog from last semester:
"Language is power: How
something is said is just as important - if not more important - than what is said. We gravitate to
errors; they glare at us, obscuring whatever meaning is within them. But when
we bleed corrections over a student's page, the student is cut too. If you are
always told that you are doing wrong, you begin to feel wrong."
Teachers need to begin by showing students that they have a voice, and then teach them how to hone that voice to effectively communicate their thoughts.
Teachers need to begin by showing students that they have a voice, and then teach them how to hone that voice to effectively communicate their thoughts.
[M]any primary teachers will tell you that the surface of a kid’s piece of writing should be inviolate, that it’s an expression of a self, a work of art or artifact that should never be defaced by anyone else’s markings or revisions . . . We assume, of course, that our students have
developed to the stage where they can “take it” when their paper comes back to them all marked up. But
can they? [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]
When I reflect on my elementary writing experiences, this statement rings true. In my previous post, I shared a selection from my volumes of journals. It's not one of my best pieces of writing. There are spelling issues, punctuation issues, and logic issues. When this first entry is compared to entries written at the end of the school year, my writing is exponentially improved. Yet there is not a single red corrective mark on any page in that journal. I suppose I will be forever in graditude to Mrs. Tully for giving me such a positive first writing experience.
How do we extend this kind of safe writing environment into the secondary classroom? I think that we have to restore the authority of student voice and encourage risks. We have to develop the patience to understand, like Mrs. Tully with my journal, that the grammar will improve while we focus on teaching the power of the written word. We have to loosen our grip on the red pen and allow freedom in student writing.
The writer is an artist, painting images of life with specific and identifiable brush strokes, images as realistic as Wyeth and as abstract as Picasso. In the act of creation, the writer, like the artist, relies on fundamental elements. [Harry R. Noden, Image Grammar]
Constance Weaver challenges the traditional understanding of grammar as a "list of rules" by redefining it as a "box of tools." Noden's passage adds to this discussion by suggesting that grammar exists to bring writing to life. Grammar needs to be taught through this lens! If grammar is taught as a tool through which to better stucture, enrich, and express their thoughts, it becomes more accessible to students. I wrote this in my History and Structure blog last semester: "As
students untangle the rules of grammar, they assume control over grammar and,
thus, their writing. This is not to say that students are able to use certain
standards of grammar and discard others but that students are empowered to use
grammar to enhance their writing instead of having adding grammar that limits
their writing."
Noden's lesson models further illustrate this idea. Students are taught what a
participle is, for example, not so they can know what it is
but so they can use it.
Grammar, like all areas of instruction, needs to be student-centered.
__________________________________________________
The ultimate thread that I identify through all of the scholars' writings is that teachers should use grammar to develop the student writer as opposed to using grammar to fix student writing. Teaching is, after all, ultimately about the students.


