[CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Planning
Adams, Peter D.
padams2 at ccbcmd.edu
Wed Apr 21 15:59:25 CDT 2010
One thing it would be important to include in the call, Shannon, would be the info that presenting at a workshop does not preclude a presentation during the regular CCCC conference. I think we'll get more proposals if we remind everyone of that.
Peter
Peter Adams | Director of Accelerated Learning
Department of English
Community College Baltimore County
443•710•1852 | padams2 at ccbcmd.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu on behalf of Shannon Carter
Sent: Wed 4/21/2010 3:39 PM
To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Planning
Hi, all--
Finishing up planning for CBW workshop today, at least as much as possible
before 3:00 meeting. I promise to keep the emails from me down to just a
couple.
1. Sounds like the group is moving forward with at least one BW panel on
"The Future of BW" and related issues for the CCCC. Excellent.
2. Sounds like we are ready to move forward with suggested plans for CBW
2011. Excellent there too.
Responses to Barbara's specific questions below, then an email with revised
CFP and workshop details and timeline.
Thanks!
Shannon
On 4/11/10 2:55 PM, "GlsnBarb at aol.com" <GlsnBarb at aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> There are so many good suggestions being offered in this thread. I've truly
> appreciated being able to read and consider all of the ideas proposed so far.
>
> I do agree that it would be good to plan some regional conferences so that
> people with fewer resources could both attend and present. That is such a good
> plan. Making some parts of those conferences available by video would be just
> great! It would expand access and create a good video archive for us to use in
> the near future and for future generations to use to learn about CBW's history
> and to learn about BW histories.
>
> Just now, I'll respond to Shannon's original post and call for our responses
> to the CBW Call for Papers.
>
> FIRST:
> Specifically, we are interested in hearing brief (8-12 minute) presentations
> that describe key issues affecting local programs, classrooms, universities,
> and communities, while placing those practices and issues in the larger
> context. I think that the idea of calling for proposals for (relatively short)
> talks that will last about 8 to 12 minute is a good way to include several
> different speakers and broaden membership and interest in CBW. We approved
> this plan at our EB meeting in Louisville and I still think it's a great idea.
> Question #1: How many different talks should we accept for inclusion in the
> All-Day Wed. Workshop?
>
> I think we have set aside about two or three Open Panels and room for several
> proposed papers at the roundtable discussions held in the afternoon. So we can
> invite something like 15 or 20 presenters responding to the open CFP. We could
> open up more space for more if the submissions are particularly excellent or
> for any other reason we choose. The proposed workshop format is flexible
> enough for that.
>
> Question #2: Did Eileen Maley confirm that we can add the names of these
> speakers later?
>
> She did not, unfortunately. What we are suggesting happen is that we develop a
> separate, official program for the CBW workshop and make sure that copy is
> posted online and available to presenters. We'll also make sure invited
> presenters receive an official letter on CBW letterhead. Hopefully this will
> give folks what they need to receive the funding they need. We can approach
> Eileen again later to see if they can also get on the official CCCC program.
>
> Question #3: Do we need a few EB volunteers to review these proposals? How
> will the review process work?
>
> We do. Thanks, Barbara. What we were thinking was we could gather all of the
> proposals together as they come in and then, at deadline, see where we are
> and, from there, create a CBW Review Committee. I'd like to see us invite a
> member or two outside of the board to join, perhaps creating a structure for
> later CBW's we can mimic and build upon if we like keeping it open.
>
> SECOND
> CBW is especially interested in proposals from individuals interested in
> building strategic coalitions with BW-including those not currently associated
> with BW. How about if we add some examples here? Here are a few
> possibilities: writing center professionals; academic advisors; writing
> program administrators for college composition & advanced writing classes;
> adult literacy educators/program administrators; ESL/ELL writing
> instructors/program directos; WAC coordinators; international student
> coordinators/program adminsitrators; adult oriented college degree program
> instuctors/program administrators.
>
> Excellent! I'll incorporate that.
>
> THIRD
> Please subject abstracts to Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu and
> hashley at wcup.edu before June 1, 2010 (I have no idea when to set this
> deadline). Limit abstracts to 250 words.
> June 1st seems like a reasonable deadline to me. When do we plan to review and
> respond to applications? Might we add that information in this proposal? Is
> August 1st a reasonable deadline for response to applicants? August 15th?
>
> I think so, Barbara. Maybe August 15th. I'm thinking we'll want to include
> that information on the call, so I'll add that. I believe CCCC notifications
> go out in early September, so we might do well to get our notifications out a
> little before that.
>
> FIFTH
> Can we distribute this Call for Papers to numerous listservs and post it in
> various web sites to enhance our outreach? There is a Writing Center
> listserv, for example. And many more.
>
> I like that idea very much. Perhaps we can each agree to help distribute the
> call by ttaking charge of various listservs, some of which we are all on and
> some of which only one or two are.
>
>
> I wonder if we could post this as a Special Call for Papers on the CCCC 2011
> Convention web site itself? If we could post it before the deadline for CCCC
> 2011 proposal submissions, it would reach a broad audience.
>
> OH! I love this. I don't know anything about that process. Barbara, do you
> think you could check into this?
>
> SIXTH
> Do we still plan on brainstorming our core values for writing a CBW mission
> statement at the 2011 CBW Wed. Workshop? I think a mission statement would be
> extremely valuable for moving forward with other projects we've discussed
> recently. We discussed doing that at our EB meeting in Louisville.
>
> Absolutely! Thanks for that question. We've set aside an hour to have this,
> specific talk (with Steve Lamos leading us toward the mission statement via
> all the core values conversations we'll have in the morning), then leading to
> at least one table in afternoon that will have that as their specific charge
> if the mission statement draft isn't completed by the entire group in the
> guided mission statement conversation set aside for the hour before lunch.
>
> I've highlighted that portion of the conversation in pink below, though I'm
> now thinking we might want to be even more obvious about that in the proposal
> itself.
>
> I think that's it for now. Revised plans soon.
>
> Thanks, everyone!
> shannon
>
>
>
> 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
>> >
>
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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> 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
> 4437101852 | padams2 at ccbcmd.edu <mailto:padams2 at ccbcmd.edu>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu
> <mailto: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 I?m very excited about all
> that we?ve accomplished thus far and all that appears to be on the horizon.
>
> In keeping with that spirit and planning our next steps, we?ve 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 we?ve attempted to solicit from folks not currently
>>> involved
>>> >> with CBW<Kevin Roozen, Steve Lamos, Valerie Kinlock, . . . And then there
?s
>>> >> this year).
>>> >>
> Thus, we decided to build a proposal that would leave room for an open call
> for proposals. In year?s 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 isn?t going to work, unfortunately. I suspect Eilleen will make
>>> some
>>> >> changes on a case-by-base basis, but we aren?t 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
> 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
> Not spam:
> 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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
--
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
http://www.shannoncarter.info
--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong,
please correct the training as soon as possible.
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 01C8jK83v) is spam:
Spam: https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=01C8jK83v&m=1ca692eeca08&t=20100421&c=s
Not spam: https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=01C8jK83v&m=1ca692eeca08&t=20100421&c=n
Forget vote: https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=01C8jK83v&m=1ca692eeca08&t=20100421&c=f
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 12325 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20100421/7588d7a6/attachment.bin
More information about the CBW_Exec
mailing list