The Tattler received this letter in response to our February editorial “On Teaching Good Writing” and a subsequent response deriding it. Both the give requisite context.
The “Letter to the Editor” piece rebuffing the previous month’s editorial “On Teaching Good Writing” has left me wondering if its author and I had read the same one. To recap its content, the message was not a complete dismissal nor rejection of the IHS English department’s writing model, but a thoughtful expose on how it might be improved. The author clearly stated that the formulaic approach occupies a needed space in the beginning stages of writing, but that there is a need to “shift strategies” to move students to the next level. So, what does that mean exactly? Exposing students to a wide variety of writing styles. However, in and of itself this is incomplete, of course, without dissecting those pieces through a number of lenses- both the instructor’s, as well as the students’.
I must confess that the barbed and almost arrogant response compelled me to read further, more to understand the point than to find merit in its message. And, I have to admit here, the misspelled Spanish words caught my eye first. Poetic license, perhaps (?)… but, I digress.
IHS offers extremely solid sequences in all areas of the curriculum and our student body is extremely talented academically. A well written “critical” piece should “stir the pot” and, if we have done our job well “molding critical thinkers and writers,” we may just have to accept a viewpoint that isn’t comfortable. As with any criticism, there needs to be a point and supporting evidence, both comfortably present in the original editorial piece.
So, what’s my takeaway? That a lot of time and energy (better spent grading papers, walking dogs, reading articles, etc.) was spent on a student’s observation of one facet of his or her education? That learning about Perezoso’s plight will make me hungry for more seemingly endless anecdotes? That the Tattler is nothing more than a repository for a “slightly phallic grease stain”?
Probably all of the above, but describing the response as an “irrational criticism” is the one takeaway about which I completely agree.
Lana Craig