A Rhetorical Portfolio

A Diverse Glimpse into Rhetoric

Artifact Two: The American Education System: Exclusive Inclusion

Course Name: COMP STUD: HIST, THEORY & PRACTICE

Course Number: ENGL 3100

Instructor: Rose, Jess A.

Semester: Fall 2021

 

Introduction to The American Education System: Exclusive Inclusion 

The American education system along with the teachers and professors that uphold the antiquated traditions of writing are the targeted audience of the research paper. The semester project to helped students uncover problems with literacy in modern society by examining history. My inspiration behind this topic was heavily inspired by past classmates struggles with writing. I wanted to explore this education failure that plagues many students into college. The opportunity to research literacy and writing gave me a chance to critique my own writing and struggles under the certain system. In the future I hope to expand our education failures through exclusion to gender and writing. I want to expand on the intersectionality to help establish a broader conversation.         

 

The American Education System: Exclusive Inclusion 

Literacy is a continuing flow of creativity and understanding. Through education this skill is designed further flourish, creating the next generation of writers. However, since the late 1970s the call for the American education system to adapt to the current social and political climate continues to be a debating point. Throughout most of my own academic career I argued the literacy dilemma within my peers. As I progressed through academic career my writing abilities continued to establish itself as I found my voice; though my own growth allowed me to notice my classmates’ lack of. The struggle with essays grew to resentment and slowly to a general disinterest in literature for majority of students. The concept of writing became a brute task that furthered students away from literary academics.

Following my junior year of college my Composition Studies class granted me the opportunity to explore the academic crisis, as well create broader conversations centered on the discrimination rooted in writing. Through this academic paper the pollution of racial, social, and economic disparities within formal academic writing will further allow examination of the failures within our education system. Creating dynamic conversations analyzing these components direct effect towards People of Color and lower economic students losing their interest in writing and literature. Correlating to students often being overlooked throughout their academic career as they struggle to voice their concerns to in fear of seeming “uneducated”. Reinforcing the ideology that minorities are less likely to do well in school or have any passion for a higher education.

So, what is the “problem” with literacy and writing for students? Did there happen to be some students who could never grasp the concept and complexities of high-level academic writing? Were some people writers and others not?  These theories often plagued my thoughts as I tried to understand the disconnection for many of my peers. Though I agreed that some individuals were more naturally gifted in writing, I was certain this answer could not absolve the plethora of students left behind. Upon further research and intimate conversations with my peers the consensus surrounded the American Education system. Many students expressed their insecurity with writing due to the social and educational practices the system has upheld with very little adjustment since its initial conception.  

American academic institutions rely on students’ natural ability to find their voices within the complexities of high-level writing, hence creating a labyrinth style instruction for individuals outside of this experience. This ideology is further exploited when we consider the basis of social culture surrounding the American literary. Since the institutions initial conception there remains a carbon copy structure taught to students with anything beyond those basis skill being developed solely on personal apt and outside influences. Though even the ability to create your voice beyond the system feed to students has restraints once you include minority and lower economic status. The inherently leaves students with very little room for self-discovery within writing as the struggle to find their natural voice and preferences concede to pressure of “good writing” for desirable grades.

In the 1981 professor and writer Ken Macrocie published the book “Telling Writing”, which examined the way students are taught to write. During his analysis article “The Poisoned Fish” within “Telling Writing”, Macrocie coined the literary term “Engfish”, referring to phenomenon of students consistently outputting “dull, stilled, and lifeless prose”. Though Macrorie’s ideology is hesitant to blame students who are writing these unimaginative, lackluster papers. He directs this resentment at the education system itself, along with the teachers that encourage this stagnant and impersonal form of writing. If we take Macrcorie’s terminology and examine these structures under the principles of race and class studies, it is abundantly clear these issues are interconnected as the disparity continues to grow. The National School Board Association (NSBA) recently released the 2020 high school dropout data and reported findings of Black students leaving school at a 4.2% higher rate than white students. As well as reporting that Black students homed in around 15% for proficiency in reading and writing despite white students averaged around 41%.

The consideration of class and race is necessary as throughout history schools with a large majority of minority and lower economic students lack potential funding and programs to ensure a quality education. Many teachers often must personally finance their own class to secure the tools and means to appropriately instruct the classroom. The UNFC reported, “schools consisting largely of 90% minorities spend $733 less per student per year than schools with 90 percent or more white students’ ‘. We must examine how the lack of resources or loss of financial backing creates psychological effects for the underfunded and staffed school directly influences the student’s world view of themselves and academic abilities. The American Psychological Association published a research paper exploring the large economic disproportion as, “It is also important that differences in school outcomes are considered across levels of socioeconomic status within and between racial/ethnic groups, so that the influence of specific socioeconomic factors on outcomes within specific racial/ethnic groups can be studied”. Confirming that academic struggles can be directly correlated economic disparities that minority communities attribute to lower overall class performance.  As necessary resources for education continue to become a scarce many teachers disillusioned and complicit during their education career. Creating teachers that are unable to relate to the students ultimately increasing the psychological barrier between students and teachers. 

The establishment of academic barriers within the background of teaching encourages a fear of reaching out as students who worry their lack of understanding will associate them ignorance or inactivity in class. This is where the standard writing temple is conceived; its influence allows the education system to give the teachers a concept of teaching that unifies the classroom and grants the student an escape goat that hinders their writing ability for the sake of a good grade and the appearance of high-level education. While the papers at first glance may appear to be of good academic standing, they lack the passion and inspiration that makes the world of literature and literacy insightful. This lack of intrigue is based on the education system that does not value the unique experiences and sub context within the languages of disenfranchised minorities. The rigged structure of writing becomes a paradox as the experiences individuals have outside the grain provide a fresh and natural voice to students’ writings, setting it apart from the traditional academic writing. Instead of cultivating their voices into a uniformed structure that is not “one size fits all”, the system deconstructs and shames these experiences for something more tangible and digestible to the masses and media. 

 

The American Education system continues to create an environment where minorities are put against each other within classrooms and/or assignments for the notoriety of perceived intelligence. This form of teaching isolates minority students from their classmates as they are frequently avoided or ostracized by other BIPOC students who may be struggling in the class. The isolation maintains an intense a minority style classroom “Hunger Games”. Instead of cultivating academic motivation an unrealistic pressure of presenting minority students who are thriving within the system as the “token minority” result. Professor Nancy Barron of Rhetoric and Writing explored the concept of tokenism in her academic paper, “Addressing Racial Diversity in a Writing Center: Stories and Lessons from Two Beginners. Barron states minority students often feel the intense pressure to excel within a broken system, and under these circumstances will accommodate the social standards of the system. Baron idea of assimilation through writing refers to the ideology of Engfish by Macrocie. This is considerably an interesting perspective that is faced by Black/Lower economic students as this becomes a normalized visualization of their academic success and more so their failures. As a result, many minority students represent not only themselves but a fraction of their own race/cultural background.  Nancy Barron analyzed this theory stating, “Most students of color know they represent a larger group of color regardless of their economic class, or experiences with the assignment”. This continues the larger conversation with regards to writing as students feel the unrealistic expectations to prove that their race and economic background is worthy of not only recognition but equal opportunities as their white or wealthy classmates.

Exploring the concept of race and literacy we must remain conscious of formal academic writing being associated and formulated under the white gaze and how this is associated with the perception of “good writing”. To understand this socially the education machine must dissect what is the opposite of “formal writing” under the white gaze. The deconstruction of writing is further by Ken Macrocie article “Uptaught” in 1970, as it explores the dismantling of unique and true writing under his own critique of the American Education system. Macrocie concludes most writing devoid of experience is, “A feel-nothing, say-nothing language, dead like Latin, devoid of the rhythms of contemporary speech”.  Formal academic writing structures conflicts against African American English or AAEV for short. A language built by black Americans rooted in pop culture surrounding black influence and remains heavily prevalent in the lived experiences within that community. This form of communication remains divergent from the template of American English, it was reported as being ranked “low in prestige in America”. In recent years AAVE has made its way into mass media and multicultural pop culture. Despite this steady allowance of black sub-language into their everyday vocabulary, the writing field remains progressively slow and still considers AAVE something that must unlearned in the attempt to emulate a higher education for teacher, professors, and colleagues. As teachers are unsure how to navigate the uncharted territory of the BIPOC experiences and the ways in which it translates to writing; we see them encourage these students to leave behind their roots for the objective of “high level” writing. As this concept progressed with students of color throughout their education, and the idea of what “good writing” emulated varied teacher to teacher, the struggle to find a voice ultimately won. Students became less concerned with what or how they were writing; instead cornered their thoughts on how it was being perceived. Once the foundation of self-consciousness relating to writing is founded, it becomes even harder to break free from the chains of those structures and expectations.

However, outside of my critical analysis of our education system structures for writing, I thoroughly believe in a uniformed concept of writing. Though I maintain the perspective the invisible lines of writing should not be restrictive and beyond evolving. The danger of “Engfish” or formal academic writing is the settle of complacency, the silent poison of literacy and the death of natural writing. In hopes of inclusion and exploratory opportunities, individuals within the literary community must fight for the rights of experienced writers but also the seemingly novice writers as well.

Skip to toolbar