Grading + Curriculum = Major ?

Carole Deletiner asks a lot of questions in "Negotiating the Negotiated Curriculum" which are not easily answered. In fact, she concludes the article by saying that answers are "provisional, conditional, and fluid" and that, to her, "the questions are much more important" (103). What are her questions? Her article explores the negotiated curriculum -- one where students help decide the path of the class -- and the issue of grading versus evaluation. I will not lie. These topics are super tough.

Her article documents a trial period between two classes, one of which is an overall success and the other a complete failure. Ultimately, she concludes that her own apprehension affected the attitudes and participation of the students. In the end, both classes seemed to gain something from the experience. Where the class which engaged successfully in the exercise considered it a positive experience full of inspiration, insight, and surprises, a student in the other class claims that he at least learned more about himself and his writing. This alone is a major accomplishment as writing teachers ought to be helping students discover their own voice in a writing classroom.

Some points of interest? Here we go --

The relationship of teacher to student is
often looked at as “one is assumed to have
knowledge and one who does not, between
one who possesses authority and one
who has none” (95).

The negotiated curriculum clearly breaks down this barrier as students take control of their learning and, essentially, are given the power to decide the direction of the course and the writing. However, the difficulty is the role of the teacher. S/he should be engaging in the course and the workshopping, but also shaking of the image of "one who has knowledge" so that students can recognize their own knowledge and authority. How is that trouble?

“If [students] are to know what I know
(that there is no-thing to know), I have
to simultaneously renounce and assume
my authority. One way to achieve this
paradoxical end is to implement a
negotiated curriculum which upsets the
idea of teacher as locus of authority
in the classroom” (96).

Ultimately, students are as smart as teachers. I'm okay with that. Every person has their own area of expertise. But how can a teacher simultaneously push away authority while asserting his/her place in the classroom? What a fine line to walk... Done successfully, as Deletiner seems to do with one of her two classes, walking that fine line offers students the opportunity to see the teacher as another learner, one who learns from them as much as they learn from him or her.

As for grades, this is what we are dealing with:

“Grades are a weapon of power, very
often used as weapons against the
powerless by those who wield them as a
way not to feel powerless. Evaluation is
different. Evaluation is an exercise in
developing authority and autonomy.
Encouraging students to ask questions
about their learning can offer them the
authority that no grade could confer” (96).

This seems pretty obvious. In assigning grades, the teacher makes or breaks a person's future. Everyone had the teacher who was "out to get them," who seemed to purposely toss D's simply to assert their power. Therefore, evaluation -- a method of carefully studying or appraising a piece of writing -- offer constructive feedback. The letters A, B, C, D, F tell a person nothing about moments where their voice truly shines through or instances where s/he wavers stylistically. The difficulty, though, is helping students to transition into a classroom where evaluation -- the constructive -- holds greater importance than a letter. Breaking the mold. Revolution is always difficult.

Until next time, I'm hoping for more revolution.

--Mis