Rose, M. (2006). An Open Language: Selected Writing on Literacy, Learning, and Opportunity. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Response to Rose Chapter 14

The Rose chapter, to me, was quite interesting because of the arguments put forth by the author and the implications of these arguments upon teaching and learning.  What struck me most is how similar some of the arguments Rose makes about writing are to those in mathematics and mathematics education.

Rose discusses how in the 1970’s there was alarm brought forth by studies and articles claiming the students in the American school system could not write; or at the very least could not write at the level that was expected of them.  This scare drove a movement of accountability where test scores and quantitative data were overwhelmingly used to justify academic programs and places like the writing center in which the author worked at the time.

We presently find ourselves once more in the age of accountability.  I write specifically with respect to the K-12 public school system as my background is in mathematics education at the secondary school level. The NYC Department of Education, under mayoral control and mirroring the national trend established in part by the No Child Left Behind Legislation, is pushing for accountability and quantitative data similar to what Rose described in the 1970s.  Students are tested using city and state assessments multiple times in every grade level. There are predictive assessments, interim assessments, year-end assessments and so forth throughout the year multiple times in multiple disciplines.  Teachers are expected to keep written documentation of interactions with students and as was just noted in the media a few days ago teacher tenure is going to be tied to student tests scores.  The problem with this is not that the data is somehow not helpful but rather that the volume of these assessments is unnecessary and these eat away at valuable time for classroom instruction and lesson planning.  Testing someone more often does not in and of itself lead them to learn more.

Rose notes narrow focus on test scores and quantitative measures that leave out many realities that numbers alone cannot capture.  A few years ago a national mathematics panel was established to determine the state of mathematics education in the United States and make recommendations for improvement.  Their charge as written allowed them only to consider quantitative studies with a sufficiently large n.  I gather a much different reality may have come forth had they been looking at a broader range of studies.

Another interesting point that Rose brings up is the fact that we are the “first society to expect so many of its people to perform very sophisticated literacy activities” (p. 291) and yet do not have the school system needed to live up to this promise.  This is similar to the “algebra for all” movement and the move to academic high schools and away from vocational schools.  I understand that certain students were incorrectly/inappropriately funneled into vocational tracks based not on ability or interest but factors that highlight the inequities in our schools and society as a whole, but every now and again I am reminded of students who without that option simply walk away from school altogether.  There was a student in a bilingual ninth grade mathematics class that I taught.  His knowledge of English was very poor (yet he was made to sit through the English regents which must have done wonders for his confidence and for what reason I am unsure).  His academic background was also very lacking.  In his country after a few years of school (he could read and write in his native language though not very well) he went to work with his father.  He proudly announced that he was a mechanic and that he could fix all sorts of cars.  He was passionate about it wanting to learn more about it.  In class his head was most always down, he often said he didn’t understand things at school and that was not for him.  His self-confidence when it came to academic matters scrapped along the floor.  I called on him once after working with him on a problem so I knew he knew what was being asked.  He ran and hid in the closet.  I felt terrible.  I spoke to his guidance counselor about getting him into a mechanic school but he was under 16 and so had to be in an academic high school tested repeatedly and pushed by teachers like myself into uncomfortable places.  I wonder how long he had to suffer in a school system that was not helping him before he could do what he was not only talented at but passionate about.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not doubt that in the right environment and with the right teachers this student could have excelled in academic mathematics but our school and our system was not what he needed and this “one size fits all” model of education clearly did not fit him.

Finally (and yes, I like to write and am long-winded both) Rose brings up the idea of mastery and potential.  We criticize students’ writing, he says, because it is not up to our standards instead of looking for growth and potential. We’re looking for finished products without facilitating the process of becoming good writers.  I did well in school and in my mathematics classes.  I remember taking calculus and thinking I had a handle on the material.  I could do the problems.  Years later I taught calculus for the first time.  I had to relearn things I had forgotten and in doing so the subject made much more sense than ever before.  I finally knew why they were done in certain ways.  It was so much clearer.   It’s interesting how we teach something in a semester and expect our students to walk out masters.  One semester of practice or even four years does not a master make especially if time and spaces for structured reflections and practice are not made available.  Rose values errors noting, “Errors mark the place where education begins” (p. 292).