& thanks for the pointer!

– danny

I had briefly owned a third web server, which I purchased used at the WebVan liquidation auction; I used it for a year, then sold it on eBay for more than I’d paid for it (not counting the cost of a service contract).

The other big sacrifice was the Ricoh color laser printer which I bought in 2000; it could print very-high-quality color images (up to 13×19 inches) at a very low cost per page, compared to any other option. In 2003-2004, I used that printer to generate many thousands of pages of classroom materials. But it ceased working reliably in 2006 and then completely died in 2007. Like you, I watched it being destroyed at a local electronics “recycling” facility.

Robert, I suspect we read her question differently. For example, you ask, “Why is Shakespeare better than August Wilson?” I believe the teacher in question was asking for research to support her decision to use either one, or to teach drama at all. At my own school our principal frequently tells the English department, “You should teach more nonfiction.” Really? “More” than what? I once asked her what percentage of nonfiction we should teach, according to research. She didn’t have an answer. “Teach more nonfiction” appears to be code for “teach to the test,” and the teacher appeared to be asking for research that said nonfiction wasn’t the only way.

I’m re-reading “Hooray for Diffendoofer Day” this summer. Sometimes it’s the only book that makes sense.

I think the confusion arises from a desire to use research based practice, and not recognizing the focus of the classroom. I think that there should be research that demonstrates that the study of good literature, as models for emulation as well as examples within the Discourses that we are trying to scaffold our students into in their own speech and writing. Otherwise, what are we doing other than imposing aesthetics?

To move back into the math example, it is a matter of Discourse that you refer to the two parallel bars at the end of an equation, as an equals sign. It is not a equal thingy, a line thingy, a balancer, a fulcrum, or anything else. The discourse of academic mathematics refers to it as specifically an equals sign.

What research is out there that requires specifically calling it an equals sign? What is the detriment to referring to it as a fulcrum or balancer? Is there any? Well then, why not call it other things? Though it isn’t necessarily my field, I recall what little research I have read on the subject that getting away from such terminology, especially with younger students, and demonstrating function, even at the expense of form, can be beneficial.

Why not the same thing within English Literature? Why is Shakespeare better than August Wilson?

If there is not research to support one over the other, then it seems to me that she has a valid point. It may just boil down to test scores, and so, as I suspect the initial teacher would agree, is not a justification at all.

Literature is so tied to emotion, to creativity, and to the question of what it means to be human. How can I turn that into a numbers game?