ABSTRACT
The controversy over tracking vs. mainstreaming is nothing new. At the 1992 Fourth National Basic Writing Conference in College Park, Maryland, a number of speakers debated the issue. The keynote speaker, David Bartholomae, questioned whether it is the profession or the students who are best served by basic writing programs, programs that maintain a distinction between “basic/normal” writers and attempt to standardize student voices (8). The following spring, the Journal of Basic Writing published the plenaries of the conference. Peter Dow Adams presents data from an informal study he conducted at his institution, which suggests that the disadvantages of basic writing classes may outweigh the advantages (33). Jerrie Cobb Scott explores factors that she believes contribute to a “recycling of deficit pedagogy” in many
basic writing programs: a narrow definition of literacy as simply the ability to read and write, a definition that results in skills and drills pedagogies (47). Karen Greenberg, however, argues that most basic writing classes provide students with an opportunity to succeed academically, an opportunity they would not have if they were mainstreamed (69). Ira Shor disagrees, saying that Greenberg’s argument means almost nothing without substantiating proof that “these students could not have graduated without BW” (96). This decade-long discussion over whether underprepared writers should be tracked into basic writing or mainstreamed into freshman English classes, however, has not addressed a crucial aspect of the issue: the assessment system being used to determine students’ course placement.
