Tuesday, May 13, 2008

North’s essay makes clearer to me what he believes a writing center to be—and what he believes a writing center not to be. What he describes strikes me as noble and good—and therefore desirable. It also strikes me as the sort of thing that administrators are unlikely to value. That it is difficult to persuade composition instructors that this vision is reasonable does not say much for its chances outside the department. And, alas, that a fix-it shop approach does not work is for some not by itself a sufficient recommendation of the model that North describes. Some no doubt conclude that if the fix-it approach is not viable the writing center should be abandoned as a failed endeavor. I wonder if the writing center is destined to struggle for resources and understanding because it is incompatible with the “better life through efficiency” model of education that seems to have prevailed.

2 comments:

Carolyn A. Jones said...

What really struck me the first time that I read North's article a couple semesters ago was his statement that writing centers develop writers, not writing. The purpose seemed to match the cliche of teaching them to fish instead of giving them fish. This is what I want to accomplish in my classroom but don't accomplish this goal as much as I'd like. Sometimes I wonder if I ever accomplish it.

jrgm said...

I think this is the same sort of tension that Boquet sees. Writing Centers are seemingly most appealing to institutions as grammar garages, places to fix broken student writing. Yet, writing center professionals try to subvert this image--while possibly also working really hard to maintain it (to keep funding). It's really quite messy because Summerfield asserts that her writing center gets it's funding cut for being too community-based and others get cut for being the remedial place. When a school decides it does not have remedial students anymore, markers of remediation must be removed.