Assignment for Friday, December 5
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 09:45 — Professor Rose
F 12/5 Final Project Due sometime between today and 12/12
Political Theories and Composition 4: Institutional Politics and Labor Issues
Wykoff, George S. “Toward Achieving the Objectives of Freshman Composition.” College English 10.6 (1949): 319-323.
Robertson, Linda R., Sharon Crowley, and Frank Lentricchia. “Opinion: The Wyoming Conference Resolution Opposing Unfair Salaries and Working Conditions for Post-Secondary Teachers of Writing,” College English 49.3 (1987): 274-280. (assignment continues on next page)
“Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.” CCCC 40.3 (1989): 329-336. Downloaded from http://www.ncte.org/positions/postsecondary.shtml 7/7-2003.
Question to consider: Assuming that Wykoff’s and the Wyoming Resolution’s representations of the circumstances of college writing teachers were consistent with the perceptions of most members of the profession at the time, and judging from your own experience, to what extent, if any, have the material conditions for post-secondary teachers of writing changed since 1949? Since 1989?
By 11:59 pm Thursday 12/4, post a comment on the blog in response to the question above. In your response, indicate what evidence you have used to arrive at your conclusion.
- Professor Rose's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 18:36 — ahidalgo
A Former Adjunct's Nightmare
I came to Purdue after teaching a year at The University of Akron as an adjunct faculty. I will base most of my comments on my experience there. I am glad we're finally discussing the topic of adjunct and part-time faculty exploitation because it is to me one of the biggest challenges facing our field.
WYKOFF'S DREAM COMES TRUE (MOSTLY)
I would say that Wykoff is a precursor of the 1963 CCCC formation of rhetoric and composition as a field. That is what he is asking for when he argues that we should have scientific research that's as valid as that done in the literature field, as well as conferences and support for our faculty. I would say that in that respect, Wykoff would be very satisfied today. We have, in fact, become a field. In the 1980s Wykoff's own university opened a still booming composition program and many other schools have done the same. We have our own conferences and journals, and Flower and Hayes and Moffet and Britton spearheaded a movement of scientific research that is still studied and practiced today, even if our other lines of research are not as empirical as Bacon and probably Wykoff would wish.
Not everything Wykoff hoped came to be, however. While some chairmen, such as our own, are sympathetic to the needs of composition teachers, many are not. His call for reasonable teaching loads and less students is still reverberating throughout the country and I can attest to it's not having been met at least where I was working. I will address those problems below.
THE WYOMING CONFERENCE RESOLUTION REMAINS A NEBULOUS WHISPER
I am conflating The Wyoming Conference Resolution with NCTEs "Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing," assuming that The Wyoming Conference Resolution did get enough people to support them at CCCC as they asked at the end of their essay and that the "Statement" is a result of that.
I would like to address the seven points they ask for in their last page and compare them to my experience as an adjunct faculty at The University of Akron during the 2007-2008 school year.
A. Our limit at UA was not 20 students, but 28 for regular classes.
B. Remedial sections were limited to 15 students.
C. My first semester at UA--which was also my first semester ever teaching comp, a class I'd never taken because I tested out of it in college--I taught four sessions. One remedial session for Comp 1, one regular session for Comp 1 and two regular Comp 2 sessions. My total of students was in the high 90s, more than 30 over the 60 proposed by the "Statement." I was originally hired, two weeks before school started, to teach three sessions but someone unexpectedly quit and our Director of Composition was desperate, so I took a fourth. The second semester I taught only Comp 2: an honors class (limit of 20 students), a regular class and a remedial class. That time my load was around 60 students.
D. We did have a writing center at UA but I never knew what they did or what they were. I only found out that it existed half way through the semester and, not understanding its purpose, never recommended that my students attend it.
E. UA's library did have a good collection of comp literature but with my heavy teaching load, I only visited it when writing my Ph.D. application writing sample, which the Director of Composition at UA, a kind and compassionate man, guided me through and eventually helped me publish. Only then, once I'd been accepted for publication and to Purdue, did the Head of the Department speak to me. Before that, she'd failed to return my greetings for six months. Never making eye-contact and moving aside whenever I was near. It wasn't personal. She treated all of us adjuncts the same way. The faculty for the most part followed suit. Two of the younger faculty were kind and welcoming, the rest did not return greetings. They even had their own Christmas party we were not allowed to attend, though we were expected to give money for the staff's holiday gifts. We had no rights whatsoever in terms of decision-making and were never invited to department meetings. Our kind Director of Composition was also ostracized from the department because of his struggles on behalf of us adjuncts.
F. I shared a very small office with six people. There were three desks only. We had one laptop between us six. There were no windows and our only private space was a drawer, which we were told we'd get a key for but we never did.
G. We were granted supplies, limitless photocopying and a friendly and always supportive staff of both administrators and students, who did acknowledge our existence and made our time as adjuncts much more passable.
I am aware that this is by no means decisive evidence, after all, it is one woman's experience at one university, but I don't think it's an isolated case. As a matter of fact, I believe that at UA we were probably better off that at many other universities because we at least had a very sympathetic Director of Composition, who put his own career on the line for our sake. I would not be surprised to hear that in other places, the treatment of adjuncts is much worse than what I went through.
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 21:30 — Liz
Some reflections on some perceptions
While reading Wykoff's article, I thought that some of his points have been addressed since 1949, but there are a few points that remain unchanged. Based on my own experiences as a composition teacher and student of composition studies, I feel that his second point about adopting "a more scientific attitude towards the details of our work and apply . . . much more of the experimental method" has not been fully realized (320). Of course that isn't to say *no one* has used the experimental method, but many of the articles in the field still use the "I think," "I believe," "we feel," "we have found" statements Wykoff works against. In fact, some comments in our own class discussions have reflected Wykoff's complaint, as people in class have commented that some of the articles conclusions/suggestions aren't "valid" because they are based off of one teacher's classroom experience.
Wykoff's tenth point about educating administration is another hope that is not yet realized. While I was a Master's student and first-year composition instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), I saw how much power administration has over our courses and the effects of this power on the composition directors, teachers, and students. A huge (and I mean *huge*) upset I experienced was the cancellation of a writing studio course piloted at UWM that was drawing quite a bit of attention from the composition field. Students raved about the course, and the course instructors were amazed at how much fun the studio course was to teach and how much they saw the students enjoy learning about writing. The course was completely cancelled after a successful pilot and was removed from the timetable of classes because it was costing the university more money to run the course than they were making from running it.
One of Wykoff's concerns that I see reversed in a way is his eleventh point--attention on the students. The language we use when talking about students has changed immensely. I'll never forget the first day of my orientation at UWM when one of the new instructors referred to the students as "kids." One of the program coordinators shot back to this word choice with, "These students are not 10 years old. Calling them 'kids' denies them our respect. We refer to our students as 'students.'" Wykoff's discussion of the composition students was, in my mind, just as disrespectful to students as calling them "kids." Since Wykoff's article, it seems that the field has put most of its focus on composition students, so much so that at times it seems as if members in the field forget to think about how they educate themselves and develop as teachers (Shaughnessy's "Diving In" addresses this concern, though).
Like Alex, I find myself conflating the Wyoming Conference and the NCTE position statement. While teaching and student-ing at UWM, I found it extremely hard to balance my teaching with my studies. We taught 40 students a semester, which resulted in commenting on about 700 student essays per semester. Each semester culminated in a portfolio review which took an entire day, and this day always landed during the times graduate seminar papers were due. Because of the pressure that a portfolio review puts on students and teachers, I found myself conferencing one on one with students for seven hours a day for three days the week before portfolio was due (this was in addition to teaching them). While I enjoyed my time with my students, I constantly felt torn between helping my students do their best (i.e., pass review and then be able to pass the class) and my own graduate seminar papers.
Overall, though, I felt that UWM met the "standards" set forth by the Wyoming Conference and the NCTE statement in that we were (rigorously) trained to teach composition, we continually had the support of the first-year composition program, we worked very closely with the Writing Center, and we were given countless opportunities for professional development (in fact, graduate students coordinate the two first-year composition courses).
From these reflections, it seems that the field has changed in important ways, mostly that students are a central concern of research, that research is actually conducted and published, and that there are opportunities for professional development. More work needs to be done, though, but I think that will always be the case. (And besides, if there's no work to be done, aren't we all out of jobs?)
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 18:40 — clemenje
Bits and Pieces of Jess's Narrative
Wykoff, too, brings up the term “unsympathetic colleagues,” which yet rings true in 2008, I would argue. Perhaps there have been strides since 1949 that have begun to close the gap between Rhet./Comp. and Literature “people,” but take a specialized group within Rhet./Comp., and you’re really asking for trouble. To illustrate: just this semester I had the “privilege” of overhearing a conversation between (unnamed, of course) officemates. “I don’t understand how we can have the second best Rhet./Comp. program in the country and our English 106 program be such a mess,” said one. He then continued to spout his disdain for having to teach English 106 from anything but a literature perspective being sure to note that “that fancy-a** visual bs” approach was particularly a big waste of time. I was naturally dumbfounded but also didn’t bother to stand up and to defend the career path to which I wish to dedicate my life. The line “With these realizations, we met the enemy, and discovered they are us” (276) from the Wyoming Conference Resolution article comes to mind. I ask myself now what could and _should_ I have done to break the cycle of office-talk lore (as some researchers might call it) and to do my individual part to continue to help bridge the gap?
Lastly, I note the coupling of two items in the “Graduate Students” section of the NCTE “Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing” that bothered me. Point “A.” in this section on pages three and four states “Graduate students’ teaching loads should not interfere with their progress toward their degrees: an average of one course per term is ideal…” and point “D.” in this sections states “Because the university entrusts to [graduate students teaching writing in English Departments] such serious responsibility, their special status among graduate students should be recognized and their compensation, benefits, class size, and course load should be adjusted accordingly. In this adjustment, attention should be given to hours spent inside and outside of class and to the increased responsibility for grading, classroom management, and preparation” (4). I could go on a rant about generally unsatisfactory salary and benefits but I should make the point that even though I have never been held responsible for an “unreasonable” number of students (twenty to 24) or “unreasonable” number of courses per quarter or semester (never more than one), even that one class with twenty to 24 students interferes with my graduate course work – all the time. I constantly feel like I’m giving something the shaft, and I hate that I’ve been told, at more than one institution, that it should be my students and not my work that suffers. But, again, I find myself asking, what, then, is the optimal solution? Do we not teach, pay for our own tuition and ask the English Department to find First-Year Comp. teachers elsewhere? Do we yet teach but decrease the number of graduate courses we take per semester, extend the time it takes to complete an already quite time-consuming degree, and break the English Department’s budget for funding its students even longer than the four or five years it already graciously provides? I certainly don’t have an easy or quick answer, and it would seem it’s one that even sixty years since Wykoff’s article hasn’t been able to adjudicate.
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 21:17 — Zack
From Wykoff to Today
Having not yet taught within the college classroom setting, it's difficult to accurately understand how my feelings toward freshman composition would be. I can only draw assumptions from personal experiences within the classroom as a student, and from experiences from my peers.
First, a disection of a few key areas of Wykoff's discussion will aid me in my response. When viewing "1949" and the views of teaching within the freshman composition setting, it's as if we're receiving the initial foundation for the likes and dislikes of teaching in the classroom. Not so much the history of learning composition. Wykoff addresses many key viewpoints in how to help correct the negative desires of teaching composition. I believe he brings to light a few key-points. First, he describes that teachers view teacing composition as almost a means to an end. When discussing his 4th and 5th points (in regards to ourselves and "educating" our colleagues), he states that there must be "pioneers" within our group of teachers. In that, by most, teachers at that time just taught the courses because they were required to and that they just expected to do it and be done with it. Wykoff believes there needs to be more effort. He states, "If we believe in the usefulness and value of freshman composition, we should seek ways of changing the attitude which we find expressed time and again as follows: "At present, most if not all English instructors consider service courses as impositions to be escaped" (320-21). His statement shows that if the teachers at that time would show grace and a sense of joy in teaching composition, that they would be better able to receive contentment, allowing for better taught classes, more positive views on the literacy of students exiting English courses, thus giving way to more opportunities for them personally witin the academic world.
I belive the material conditions for post-secondary teachers have drastically changed since 1949. It's as if English Comp/Lit had just been a thing to teach and a thing for Professors to do, not necessarily a thing in which to better students or better the teacher themselves up until this point (1949) in time and now here comes Wykoff, calling for a revolution within the classroom, and end to the monotony of classroom instruction and "means to an end" mentality. In regards to the reason for the negative attitudes that instructors have towards teaching freshman comp., Wykoff states, "...the very hopelessness of doing the task well is one of the most discouraging concomintants" (322). If teachers have nothing to look forward to, nothing to keep them going, no payoff, then doing their job pooly is what will occur. They needed a reason to continue to teach classes. Wykoff said the reasons were, "oversized classes, heavy teaching loads, unsympathetic colleagues, a too large percentage of indifferent students" (323) to be the cause for poor attitudes amongst instructors. Since Wykoff's time, it's as if attitudes have changed amongst instructors. They're given chances to advance in their careers by changing the ways that composition is taught. With the possibility and at most times, assuredness for change, gives the instructors reason to be more positive and want to better classes that are seemingly un-important and that don't incoporate the instructors "real" interests. Have things changed though from the academic time period of the late 40's or have they just been tweaked into an academic busienss endevor where the university is now almost viewed as a comercial institution where more money is thrown at the departments which are suffering the most rather than knowledge, such as "better" instructors with supposed better techniques of instruction that run parellel with the societal aged norms? By becoming this, have the times really changed, or is history just repeating itself? (I'm all over the place with this response. I guess I just have lots of questions as well as own opinions)
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 21:25 — Brian
State of ESL and Composition
I think ESL and Composition share a number of the conditions described in the articles. I think ESL still has a lower status in terms of respect in English departments, probably more so than Composition. I know that ESL classes are still often oversized, and I imagine this is still true for composition classes in other universities and colleges. I don’t know the situation with Composition, but for ESL, full-time employment is still a problem, particularly for teachers with only M.A. degrees. Some part-time instructors at community colleges in California can work for more than ten years as part-time faculty, shuttling between different schools, before they get a full-time position. Community colleges are usually the top of the ladder, because few universities have ESL programs as part of their English departments. Instead, universities often have “language institutes” attached to the school, and salaries at these schools average about $35 an hour. ESL teachers still have to struggle for representation in universities, as Tony Silva did when he created 106i here at Purdue.
I thought some of Wykoff’s suggestions were also interesting in relation to ESL. Some of the things he recommended were the adoption of scientific, experimental methods, research that focuses on pedagogy, and research results that “justify indisputable conclusions, upon which recommendations for action can be based” (p.320). I have the impression that Composition has moved past these recommendations, but ESL is just emerging from this paradigm. Of the two main ESL journals, Applied Linguistics still relies heavily on quantitative research. TESOL Quarterly is now having somewhat of an identity crisis, in that it has moved a little away from quantitative research into more theoretical and ethnographic articles (and so moving away from the quantitative generalizations Wykoff calls for in favor of a more situated perspective). Many have complained about this, worried in particular about how many articles now lack pedagogical recommendations. While Composition has moved beyond Wykoff’s recommendations in this respect, I think ESL is still unsure of the direction it wants to take.
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 22:14 — Caitlan
Things are looking up...maybe
My comments come with the caveat that I’ve never been an adjunct, so my only teaching experience is at Purdue, which I think fulfills the standards called for by the Wyoming Conference. I suspect that my views on the situation are perhaps more rosy than most because a) my only experience has been somewhere that values first year composition and b) as a recent college graduate, I’m thrilled that anyone wants to pay me anything more than $6 an hour. So please excuse me if I sound a bit wide-eyed, un-jaded, and optimistic.
It seems that many things have changed positively since Wykoff’s 1949 article. As Liz pointed out, the number of journals, conferences, and publications in composition seems to be a positive fulfillment of his first point. I am not sure about point number 5, which is about first-year composition’s status as a service course. While many people define FYC as a primary area of interest, there are still those who do view it as just another thing they have to do on the way to getting a Ph.D., or on the way to teaching upper-level literature courses. (I am basing this on anecdotal evidence like things I’ve heard working behind the front desk in the English department at my undergraduate institution, and things heard in the computer lab here.)
Part of point 11 is one in which I see the least change: Wykoff urges for “follow-up” work on freshman composition to see whether students need more work on their writing. I don’t think this is the case in most places, and I’m basing this on the evidence that I haven’t heard of many institutions that require some kind of upper-level writing check for students.
In regard to the Wyoming Statement, I feel like I have it pretty good as a writing teacher here at Purdue. One class of twenty students a semester seems manageable, and we have access to a great many support services for our teaching. The programs that are in place—mentor groups, syllabus approach groups, the Writing Lab, etc.—seem to indicate that Purdue wants to support its graduate teaching staff. Aside from the minor quibble that I’d like access to the copier, I’ve been quite pleased with the treatment of graduate teaching staff. Based on comments other people have made, and again on my observations at my undergrad, I don’t think this is the case everywhere. I don’t think conditions were necessarily terrible for adjuncts there, but I’m sure that more than ten percent of the first year composition courses are taught by adjuncts.
I also agree with the point Jess makes about balancing course work and teaching load. Sometimes I feel really terrible that I’m a student too, and can’t spend all of my time working on teaching. I’m plagued by guilt that I’m not doing a good enough job for my students. Some of my students did a project on TAs recently, and it was an interesting moment, because they were clearly struggling with how to admit that they would prefer being taught by full-time professors, knowing that their instructor is a TA. The class and I came to the conclusion that there’s no good solution because if we didn’t have TAs, no one would get the training to be a professor. Then again, I doubt that I’ll be less busy when I’m not a student. Both Wykoff and the Wyoming statement call for research and professional development, and I imagine that both of these things take time away from teaching just like graduate work. However, just because there is a negative tension between these two areas doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re doing something wrong. Not to get too aphoristic, but every life path has its challenges, and maybe this is ours.
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 23:05 — apope
Common Threads and Continuation
One thing that struck me thinking back about Wykoff, the Wyoming Resolution, and the Statement, is that it seems that like many educational issues the call for improvement in Composition has not gotten much done. What is important, however, is that unlike misguided calls to "go back to the basics," the calls for improvement of the lot of teachers of Composition is a real issue with real implications and real solutions (not to mention a contradiction in a country which values education, and higher education specifically, so highly). Many of the issues mentioned in each piece sound very familiar to me.
At the University of Arkansas, I was assigned to teach two sections each semester as a grad student, with 25 or so students in each, for a grand total of 50. At the same time, I was expected to take nine hours of graduate work, reading multiple novels per week. We were told by the head of our composition program to remember that we were graduate students first, and to put our own work ahead of the teaching of our courses, a sad reality and a sad comment towards the quality of the education some students may have been getting. In addition, at Arkansas I saw in action the machine that helps to power the adjunct problem: too many MA admissions, with too few of them going on to Ph.D.'s. I was told while at Arkansas that the program purposefully admitted more students than they would be able to allow to continue to Ph.D.'s, students that they suspected would not make very good Ph.D. students, because of the need to staff classes.
One thing that the Statement and Resolution have made me realize is the level of equality at my undergraduate institution, Freed-Hardeman University. Being a small school, with enrollment under 2000, every member of the English faculty worked with teaching writing. No one was exempt, and the faculty all shared the burden (and taught more writing than anything else). Thinking back to the interaction of faculty there, the contrast between the professional divide that is mentioned by the readings, and that I have seen, was not present. My undergrad school brags that only faculty with graduate-level degrees teach, and they do not hire adjuncts. In many ways, it made me realize how close to the model of the Statement my undergraduate time was, and also it made me realize how attainable the working environment we want could be, if changes were actually made.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:26 — esproat
disciplinary division of labor and sundry
We have come far, to be sure, but I fear we are still plagued by a disciplinary division of labor. For most colleges and universities, composition courses comprise most of the funding revenue for English departments which are (on the whole) run by literature faculty. For most research programs, the money that makes possible literature faculty's research is generated by instructors who literally make a fraction of the income.
I was an adjunct instructor at Utah Valley University. On average, I got paid $1.20 per student per day of instruction. An assistant professor got paid $6.75 per student per day of instruction. An associate professor got paid $9.20 per student per day of instruction. A full professor got paid a little over $12 per student per day of instruction.
On another note, one of Wykoff's suggestions was this: "We can aim at a better understanding of the field, with our eventual goal scholarship in composition comparable to scholarship in any literature field" (319). The milieu in which he wrote, however, was one in which instructors of composition were already attending conferences like the Conference on Communications (320). I doubt that Wykoff intended for composition research to evolve toward the kind of research done in literature at the expense of its traditional ties to communications. A growing number of composition researchers are worried about how far composition may be drifting from this former connection. There's disciplinary danger in studying rhetoric at the expense of composition or composition at the expense of rhetoric. In a rhetoric discussion group exchange I had previously this semester, one such worried composition researcher, Gary Hatch, suggested this:
"English departments offer a version of rhetorical history that favors the heroic rise of composition studies in the 60s and 70s, [mostly] ignoring the persistent work done in Speech Comm throughout the 20th century. In organizations like ISHR and RSA, the rhetoric people are coming together, but many of them are studying rhetoric in the same way literature faculty study literature--unconnected from any concern about practice. Keeping in touch with first-year writing and intro public speaking keeps everyone honest. But there are increasing numbers of faculty and graduate students who claim to be in 'rhetoric, not composition.' [Composition pioneers like] Lauer may be worried about rhetoric divorcing itself from concerns with composition. I'm more concerned about composition divorcing itself from rhetoric as it evolves more broadly into 'writing studies.' Lauer sees an essential relationship between the two, but there are plenty of scholars who study 'writing' without connecting it to the rhetorical tradition. I would say that this is becoming increasingly the case in the CCCCs community. As PhD programs multiply and specialization increases, there will be students who graduate not having had Lauer's sweeping historical survey. Their acquaintanceship with with field might begin in about 1990."
I talked to Professor Weiser about this and he admits that Purdue's PhD program is unfortunately atypical in that three of our core course (Classical, Modern, and Postmodern) deal exclusively with the rhetorical tradition. Most graduate programs in Rhetoric and Composition simply do not have this extensive study in the history of rhetoric.
Also disturbing is the dying dialogue between teachers of first-year composition and teachers of first-year speech. How did this happen?
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 00:36 — eosterha
Wykoff and Wyoming
I was surprised that much of the content in Wykoff’s article (excluding the charming Samuel Johnson quote in the conclusion) did not seem especially dated to me. That being said, I am confident that a 21st Century generation of scholars is better equipped to cope with the same issues described by Wykoff – “oversized classes, heavy teaching loads, unsympathetic colleagues, a too large percentage of indifferent students!” (323) My perception of the issue is limited to my experience as a teaching assistant at Purdue, so it would be imprudent, I think, to suggest that any of these problems have been sufficiently addressed. The ICaP program, according to my mentor in 2006, has fought to maintain the 20-student limit on English 106 classes. I have heard from several professors and administrators that I am “a student first” and that I should never feel that my teaching duties will compromise my own coursework, and the composition program itself is a well-developed support network. Some percentage of indifferent students, I am afraid, will probably persist across disciplines as long as there are general education requirements. Clearly, though, as recently as 1987, at least some graduate students felt that student engagement was the least of their problems. Based on our readings for this course and my experience, I would suggest that an awareness of the policies suggested by the Wyoming Conference Resolution is in the process of becoming the institutional norm rather than being the exception, but clearly, based on the comments above, counternarratives exist.
Both Wykoff and the Wyoming Resolution mention this sense of general public concern “about the apparent decline in students’ ability to articulate their interests…” (Robertson, 278), and while the composition community should certainly take an interest in this issue, this also calls to mind the persuasive myth about a past golden era in which all students were eloquent and eager to learn. This idea that “kids these days” are just less adequately prepared than their earlier counterparts may contribute to the slow rate of change in the discipline. I hesitate to oversimplify to make this point, but perhaps a sense among administrators (none of whom I can speak for directly, of course) that existing limitations are not due to the system as a whole, but rather to those who are unable to hold it up to those bygone standards, also serves to impede progress for likeminded colleagues within the field.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 00:39 — min
As a writing TA at Purdue
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 00:47 — Laurie
CCCC's Continuing Conversation
Like many of you, I agree that some things seem to have changed since Wykoff’s article in 1949, and yet there remains room for improvement in working conditions for adjuncts and TAs if we are to truly realize the vision of the Wyoming Resolution.
Although I, too, having been a part of an English Department that relied significantly on adjuncts and TAs and offered both groups positions on committees and voting eligibility, could share narratives regarding the ways that adjuncts/TAs were treated, I decided to turn to the CCCC website in search of what the continued discussion in this venue has been. The following results come from my examining the website materials, paying specific attention to the sections on Committees, Resolutions, and Position Statements.
1) Current Commiteee on Teaching Conditions in Academic Quality Committee
Within the listing of the Committees, on the CCCC Website the following Committee is included: Teaching Conditions in Academic Quality Committee. I’ve copied their charge below. Although some information about the committee is given, the date of their formation is not listed on their webpage.
“The charge to the committee is to identify institutions that treat adjunct, contingent, and part-time faculty in exemplary fashion by November, 2006. By March, 2007, the committee should distill a list of best practices by looking at those exemplary institutions. Then the committee should draft a statement about those best practices for a general higher education audience which should be submitted to the executive committee by November 2007.”
The charge seems to suggest that a change in practice has occurred. Rather than censuring schools that do not meet the accepted standards (a practice which Crowley suggests wasn’t working anyway), this committee is charged with using exemplary programs as models. This seems to suggest a different way of grounding the claims about the treatment of adjuncts/TAs.
2) Resolution 5: On Professional Standards for Instruction http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resolutions/2003
In addition to this above Committee, currently operating, the CCCC’s passed a related Resolution in 2003 – “Resolution 5: On Professional Standards for Instruction.” I’ve pasted the resolution in full rather than summarizing because it clearly notes that the discussion about who is administering writing courses is ongoing:
Whereas the educational conditions for college writing instruction have been deteriorating in the past few decades; and
Whereas the writing of college students recently received unfavorable national attention in The Chronicle of Higher Education; and
Whereas promoting the best teaching conditions will enhance literacy instruction; and
Whereas in its mission to promote higher literacy, CCCC took note of declining learning conditions at its annual business meeting 16 years ago by unanimously approving the Wyoming Resolution, which declared that "the salaries and working conditions of post-secondary writing teachers with primary responsibility for the teaching of writing are fundamentally unfair as judged by any reasonable professional standards," and called for CCCC to formulate "professional standards and expectations for salary levels and working conditions of post-secondary teachers of writing"; and
Whereas the concerns of the Wyoming Resolution were reiterated in 1989 as the "Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing," which declared that "every institution should extend to teachers of writing the same opportunities for professional advancement (e.g., support for research and reasonable teaching responsibilities) that they extend to all other faculty" and which observed that declining learning conditions have created a situation in which "the quality of writing instruction is today seriously compromised"; and
Whereas the NCTE Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty repeated these concerns in its 1997 statement, which found that "the proportion of part-time and adjunct faculty in relation to all faculty appointments has increased substantially, from 22 percent in 1970 to more than 40 percent in 1993" with "64 percent of community-college faculty holding part-time appointments" while "200,000 graduate assistants at four-year institutions actually exceed the 184,999 part-time faculty" and that ". . . the majority of part-time faculty teach under emphatically substandard conditions, . . . are far less likely to receive regular evaluation and feedback, . . . lack job security" and are typically paid from "$1,000 to $3,000" per course, and that "part-time and adjunct positions are disproportionately occupied by women"; and
Whereas the Two-Year College English Association--Southwest on October 21, 2000, asserted in a position statement that "A great danger now threatens the sustained record of accomplishment of America's community colleges" because of full-time loads of 7 classes, class sizes over 30 students, and "part-time faculty teaching as much as 70% and even 80% of all writing courses"; and
Whereas the Coalition on the Academic Workforce, representing 25 disciplinary associations, found in its 2001 survey that "freestanding composition programs have by far the highest proportion of courses taught by part-time and graduate student instructors . . . and the lowest taught by tenure-track instructors"; and
Whereas the Associate Director of MLA English Programs, James Papp, reported in 2002 that more than 60% of part-time instructors in the humanities want full-time jobs and that the meager per-course wages paid contingent faculty have fallen behind the inflation rate; and
Whereas the continued decline in professional standards not only undermines literacy instruction but also threatens the membership base of CCCC; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CCCC Executive Committee affirm and disseminate the following standards to support high-quality professional instruction:
1. The professional standard for writing positions shall be full-time lines equivalent in salary and benefits to other full-time academic positions.
2. Faculty members who prefer part-time work can request less than a full-time load with prorated salary and benefits. Faculty members requesting less than full-time loads can staff a maximum of 20% of the course coverage in any department or program.
3. All writing instructors shall be protected with the same professional security, academic freedom, and due process accorded other faculty members within their institution.
4. All full-time writing positions will be tenurable or covered by continuous employment certificates.
5. Graduate students shall be required to teach no more than three semester-equivalent writing courses per academic year, shall undertake overloads only at their own choice, and shall receive ongoing professional development and careful mentoring from experts credentialed in the field of composition/rhetoric.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT CCCC shall elect and budget a permanent Academic Quality Commission, whose charge will be to:
1. Research writing programs meeting the standards cited above for learning conditions.
2. Acknowledge and recognize publicly such programs in all CCCC venues.
3. Propose sessions at the annual convention on concerns raised by CCCC members, caucuses, SIGs, coalitions, and workshops relative to teaching and learning conditions.
4. Research ongoing campus efforts for high-quality teaching conditions and disseminate an online directory and database of such information.
5. Seek to co-sponsor with other professional associations (e.g., Modern Language Association, American Historical Association, American Association of University Professors) and groups (e.g., the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor) a series of regional conferences addressing standards supporting high-quality professional instruction.
3) Guidelines for the Ethical Treatment of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies
Additionally, I found the following Position Statement related to Liz’s comment on the discipline’s changes in treatment of students: November 2000 - Guidelines for the Ethical Treatment of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 00:51 — Cristina Gonzalez