The following piece was submitted by聽Jim Webber, an assistant professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno. He studies public discourse about literacy education and teaches academic, public, and professional writing. He is also one of NCTE’s Higher Ed Policy Analysts.聽
In November 2013, I about how the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) has embraced (CCA) call to eliminate 鈥渞emediation,鈥� which has meant removing basic writing from 聽the University of Nevada, Reno, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. CCA argues that basic writing takes a lot of time and money but doesn鈥檛 offer an acceptable return on investment.
I鈥檇 like to share a small example of my advocacy on this issue. While reading about the CCA in 2013, I brought their 2012 report ( to a capstone class for writing majors. We discussed the report鈥檚 economic framing of a public issue because students were preparing to write for local and state public audiences about issues they were studying. I was thinking of the CCA report as a genre exercise for my students.
During class, though, one student shifted this discussion. He said, 鈥淲ell, I kind of disagree with them, because I took English 098 (UNR鈥檚 basic writing course), and now I鈥檓 a writing major, and I鈥檓 preparing for professional work involving writing.鈥� The moment resonated because it sounded like it could 鈥渃hang[e] stories about writing and writers鈥� (Linda WPA). That student鈥檚 experience is the kind that : it 鈥渢ell[s] people how legislative policies trickle down to the communities where they live and where they send their children to school.鈥�
After this class, I began asking students to describe their experiences with basic writing, and I found more examples of a similar pathway through 098 to a major in writing.
These conversations suggested a new focus for me, which is to listen to my students鈥� experiences so that I can tell stories to policy actors. These stories make an old argument鈥攖hat basic writing is not waste and futility鈥攂ut in a specific context that illustrates the public value of literacy educators鈥� professional judgment.
My next step is to craft these stories to share them with the audiences who鈥檝e adopted the CCA’s policies: the NSHE Chancellor鈥檚 Office and the Nevada Governor鈥檚 Office. These offices are not seeking my input on CCA, but as the process of implementation begins, I anticipate new discussions will arise. My aim is to reopen discussion to consider local and聽specific effects of these policies.