"Funding and Support for Basic Writing: Why is There so Little?" by Mary Jo Berger (from ALP blog)

  In "Funding and Support for Basic Writing: Why is There so Little?", Mary Jo Berger asks and attempts to answer the question: "Are our institutions reneging on their commitment to at-risk students?" Her first line of inquiry has to do with the question itself.  She wonders whether this commitment has ever actually been made and if so, by whom.  She sets points out several important moments in education wherein the promise may have been made: perhaps in the 70's when there was excitement around Mina Shaunnessey's Errors and Expectations, or maybe in the 80's when colleges were publicly stating their support or "diversity" and wooed black and Latino students to replace the dwindling body of traditional students.  Although she cannot determine when or if the question has ever been asked, she acknowledges the need for increased funding for developmental programs.

     Berger likens basic writing to a neglected item all but forgotten on the top shelf of a closet in the spare room.  She asserts that  basic writing, as part of general education, belongs to no one; it "belongs" neither to faculty, students or administration.  As it belongs to no one, it lacks a powerful advocate who could lobby on its behalf  hence it is underfunded. Despite its lack of both money and status, Berger exhorts teachers of basic writing to be a voice of advocacy for a program that is considered by some "shameful,...by recognizing [writing teachers] presence, let alone our value, will destroy traditional "educational values." (83) She emphasizes that understanding how institutional funding works is the first step to getting a bigger slice of the pie.

     Berger describes the workings of higher educations processes as "organized anarchy", a hotbed of ambiguity and individualism. In this situation, decisions for support and funding are often "the by-products, not of efficiently implementing unambiguous goals through a bureaucratic chain nor the result of a consensus reached by professionals, but of unintended and/or unplanned activity."(84) Berger asserts that there are important characteristics of higher education which we must be aware of if we intend to increase funding for basic writing.

     The first characteristic is that inactivity prevails in decision making in higher education.  Would be advocates have such limited time that they're unable to participate in the decision-making process.  So, most of the decisions are made by only a few people. Secondly, participation in decision-making tends to be intermittent; Berger recommends persistence by the advocates as a means of increasing funding for basic writing programs. The third characteristic of "organized anarchy" is conflict, Berger advises engaging in the process with stats and persuasive arguments. She also recommends that we mobilize allies such as students, parents, co-workers, interest groups and using the language of the institution to talk about our goals for basic writing students.

     The article concludes with Berger's counsel on the best ways to increase funding in this sorely needed area. First, understand the power structures of your institution. Second, publicize what we do as basic writing teachers. Next, organize for action, mobilize allies to help. And finally, talk persuasively to anyone who will listen.