Examiner column for April 27.
200 Universities across the country are bases for Writing Project sites, George Mason University being one of the oldest and most active. All that will change as a result of the spending bill signed into law on April 15. Cuts to programs designed to improve the quality of our teachers—the single biggest factor in the quality of a child’s education—are short-sighted economies at a time when our country needs to invest in our children’s futures.
There are other teacher-improvement programs arguably as deserving as the NWP whose funding was also cut: Reading is Fundamental, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Teach for America. But none has the depth and breadth of the NWP, nor its connection to colleges.
The irony is that the bill’s intention is to eliminate earmarks. Aren’t earmarks state-based or district-based projects supported by congressmen eager for reelection? By that definition, NWP funding is not an earmark. The 25.6 million dollars annually that has helped support the program for over 20 years goes to the national office in California for distribution to university sites in every state in the nation. Professional development programs originating at these sites reach 130,000 teachers each year who, in turn, teach 1.4 million students.
In my case, you would have to multiply my yearly number of students (averaging 200 in high school and college) times the number of years I’ve taught since 1980, when I participated in a Faculty Writing Project at GMU. If each teacher’s future students become part of the count, as well the teachers who have participated since its inception in 1974, the numbers increase exponentially.
This is not the time to cut back on proven teacher development, nor is it a time to burn a bridge between high school and college teachers. One of the beauties of writing project practices is that they work as well in college as they do in the lower grades. The NWP’s scope embraces and improves all educational levels.
We bemoan the glacial rate at which education reform has been implemented and are better at complaining about lack of change than we are at putting those changes into practice. The NWP is a rarity in that it has successfully changed classroom culture for the better. Participating teachers learn to love writing, and that love makes all the difference in their students’ attitudes. I would not be a writer if not for the writing project, and many of my students would say the same about themselves.
If you want a return to diagramming sentences, the five-paragraph essay, and school writing programs that take all the love and fun out of writing, then this funding cut is a wise one. But if you recognize that love of writing can be a powerful tool to effect change and to communicate point of view (whether in an office or a classroom), then you need to support the senators and congressmen who want to restore funding to the NWP in the next budget cycle.
A step in the right direction would be to reclassify national, ongoing programs as something other than earmarks. It’s not only common sense, but important for our future as a nation where written expression is valued.
Comments