[CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Planning

Thu Apr 8 22:33:55 CDT 2010

Thanks for this, Shannon.

Here are some suggestions:

--What can we do in coalition with under-served communities to regenerate
improved and sustained access to Basic Writing for those who have lost it?
In what ways can we support communities that have lost the most?

--What has already been lost, who has lost it (what communities? what
relations?), and what can we do to make these losses visible and tangible to
our colleagues and to the general public?

--In what ways can the conversations and innovations of our field engage
current stakeholders in the higher education reform movement (such as state
legislatures, private foundations, and the Department of Education)?

--What can we do to improve working conditions and opportunities for
research and other kinds of professional development, for contingent
faculty, who often teach the majority of Basic Writing courses at many
post-secondary institutions?

Thanks again, everyone, and best,

Susan

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Shannon Carter <
Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:

> Great ideas, Susan and Peter.
>
> Just to clarify where we are with current proposal:
>
> 1. The materials we created and are asking for feedback on (representing
>  many, many hours of work, of course) are in response to the conference
> theme the EB discussed and approved during EB meeting at CCCC last month and
> then announced at CBW SIG.
>
> 2. At that time, EB also discussed and approved plans to open up CBW to
> proposals.
>
> To my mind, the wonderful points Peter raises and Susan extends are
> *exactly* what we were responding to when we created the CFP for CBW 2011
> and set a draft for workshop activities. If you disagree, which it seems you
> might, can you suggest prose that might build on or extend the current draft
> to this end?
>
> If not, let's absolutely consider the suggested theme for CBW 2012.
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Shannon
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:17 PM, "Susan Bernstein" <susan.naomi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Peter, for suggesting this-- and for the reference to Rebecca and
> George's chapter.  The demise of Basic Writing was also the focus of my
> other presentation at CCCC-- the end of Basic Writing at University of
> Cincinnati., housed in UC's soon-to-be eliminated Center for Access and
> Transition (gone as of 6/30/10).
>
> And for the record, Basic Writing is NOT secure at community colleges
> either. Recent articles in Inside Higher Education describe problems in San
> Diego County, and a recent New York Times article discusses the end of open
> admissions in the CUNY almost all of the CUNY community colleges.  Also
> CUNY-related: tenure track faculty at the CUNY community colleges are
> expected to publish as part of earning tenure; at the same time, although
> CUNY CC faculty can take 24 hours of release time in their first 5
> re-appointments, they are required to teach 27 hours a year afterward.
>
> And so on.
>
> I understand that there is disagreement among us about whether or not Basic
> Writing serves the public good.  But I continue to stand by what I said in
> Louisville: Basic Writing has served as a point of access for students who
> might otherwise have NO opportunity to attend college.  And recent studies
> have indicated that students who are least likely to attend college are also
> the most likely to benefit from college.
>
> I would certainly welcome the direction that Peter suggests.  What do
> others think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Susan
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Adams, Peter D. < <padams2 at ccbcmd.edu>
> padams2 at ccbcmd.edu> wrote:
>
>> I would like to suggest a somewhat different approach . . . prompted by
>> two developments.
>>
>> One is my growing sense that basic writing is undergoing a sea change.
>>  It's disappearing at many four year schools either completely or because it
>> has gone "underground" in the sense that basic writing is hidden in FYC.  In
>> some places this is my political fiat; in other places, it is because
>> four-year schools themselves are raising their admissions standards to the
>> point that few basic writers are being allowed in.  Meanwhile, the bulk of
>> basic writing instruction is migrating to community colleges. What scares me
>> about this trend is that it may simply be a subtle way to gradually faze out
>> developmental writing (and reading and math) altogether.  To some of us, the
>> democratizing function of basic writing, the social justice effect, is the
>> most important component of higher education.  If we are right, then it is
>> alarming that this function is being relocated to the most underfunded
>> sector of higher education, where many basic writing students will be taught
>> by adjuncts with little or no preparation and where there is currently no
>> support for the kind of scholarship that has been the hallmark of basic
>> writing for the past half century.  Think about the articles and books that
>> have had a major influence on basic writing.  How many of these were
>> produced in community colleges?  How much scholarship will there be in the
>> future, if most basic writing takes place in an environment where faculty
>> teach fifteen credit hours per semester and where there is little incentive,
>> indeed, little opportunity for serious scholarship.
>>
>> The second development is the publication of Rebecca and George Otte's
>> fabulous new history of basic writing, a book that has crystalized my
>> concern about the future of basic writing.
>>
>> I'd really like to see CBW begin to address these issues.  First by
>> alerting people to them.  Second by discussing what our response might be.
>>  Is this a trend we should be resisting?  Or should we begin a campaign to
>> improve the environment for serious scholarship in community colleges?  If
>> there is, in fact, a growing political momentum to end developmental
>> education in higher education, shouldn't we be taking on a more public role
>> in explaining why this is folly?
>>
>> I'm not sure that what I'm suggesting is possible as a focus for the
>> workshop, but I do know that I think it should become a focus for CBW.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Adams | Director of Accelerated Learning
>> Department of English
>> Community College Baltimore County
>> 443•710•1852 | <padams2 at ccbcmd.edu>padams2 at ccbcmd.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu>
>> cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu on behalf of Shannon Carter
>> Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 7:50 PM
>> To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
>> Subject: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Planning
>>
>> Hi, all--
>>
>> It was wonderful to see you all last month and I¹m very excited about all
>> that we¹ve accomplished thus far and all that appears to be on the
>> horizon.
>>
>> In keeping with that spirit and planning our next steps, we¹ve been
>> hashing
>> out plans for upcoming CBW Workshop.
>>
>> Drawing from our conversations in Louisville, it seems the CBW 2011 has
>> two
>> core goals:
>> >> 1. Figure out (together, as an organization) the core goals BW might
>> stand
>> >> for and, by extension, its professional organization
>> >> 2. Open up CBW to new folks (beyond our invitations to keynoters based
>> on
>> >> themes, which we¹ve attempted to solicit from folks not currently
>> involved
>> >> with CBW<Kevin Roozen, Steve Lamos, Valerie Kinlock, . . . And then
>> there¹s
>> >> this year).
>> >>
>> Thus, we decided to build a proposal that would leave room for an open
>> call
>> for proposals. In year¹s past the entire program has always been by
>> invitation only.
>> >>
>> > Questions for you:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Attached is a draft of the CFP. Thoughts? Suggestions? Revisions?
>> >> 2. What should be the deadline for submissions? On the attached draft,
>> I set
>> >> the deadline for CFP at random. Getting on the official CCCC program
>> after
>> >> the fact isn¹t going to work, unfortunately. I suspect Eilleen will
>> make some
>> >> changes on a case-by-base basis, but we aren¹t able to count on that
>> option
>> >> after the CCCC deadline. We have two options, then: (a) we go with a
>> later
>> >> date and promise to create a separate CBW program and offer official
>> >> acceptance letters to those selected or (b) we push the deadline for
>> CBW
>> >> proposals to BEFORE the CCCC deadline, then add the selected names to
>> the
>> >> program proposal we submit to CCCC in early May.
>> >> 3. Suggestions for keynoter/featured speakers that might do well with
>> >> conference theme?
>> >>
>> Workshop agenda could look something like this, with presentations and
>> guided discussions in the morning leading to draft of mission statement
>> before lunch and afternoon actually working together to develop
>> recommendations and other working items for CBW membership.
>> >>
>> > Notes on agenda, including potential times. Thoughts?
>>
>> > 1. 9-9:45--History and Future of Basic Writing (Opening
>> Session/panel/plenary
>> > speaker)--suggestions?
>> > 2. 9:45-10:45--Open Panel
>> > 3. COFFEE BREAK
>> > 4. 11:00-12:00--Discussion Groups, with leaders (Mission
>> Statement)--Guided
>> > discussions toward establishing core values that might feed into CBW
>> mission
>> > statement and inform afternoon conversations
>> > 5. 12:00-1:00--Lunch
>> > 6. 1:00-1:45--Local Contexts (plenary/keynote)---suggestions?
>> > 7. 1:45-2:45--Open Panel
>> > 8. BREAK
>> > 9. 3:00-4:30<Discussion Groups (also drawn from CFP and other means)
>> > 10. 4:30-5:00<Recommendations from Discussion Groups and Next Steps
>> >
>>  Thanks!
>> Shannon
>> --
>> Shannon Carter, PhD
>> Associate Professor of English
>> Director, Writing Programs
>> Department of Literature and Languages
>> Texas A&M University-Commerce
>> Commerce, Texas 75429-3011
>>  <Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu>Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu
>>  <http://www.shannoncarter.info>http://www.shannoncarter.info
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 56864879) is spam:
>> Spam:        <https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=s>
>> https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=s
>> Not spam:    <https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=n>
>> https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=n
>> Forget vote:
>> <https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=f>
>> https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=56864879&m=91e4db1c3308&t=20100408&c=f
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CBW_Exec mailing list
>>  <CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu>CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
>>  <http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec>
>> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20100408/49662e8b/attachment.htm