Ray Yanek English 401 Final PaperIn the seven years that I have taught here at this high school, I have seen new pedagogical trends come and go. Without a doubt, the emergence, and thus disappearance of these trends, have hinged on the ever revolving method of state sponsored testing. I have yet though, to see a new focus or trend instilled in the English department quite as disturbing as the one currently being pushed by administrators. That push is for the deccentering of literature in the curriculum, so that composition may take the thrown, The reason for this shift is quite simple. In the past, with the IGAP and ISAT, tests, my school had traditionally ranked high in the district in regards to writing. With the advent of the new Prairie State test however, our school scores have dropped dramatically, which in turned caused the administration to seek a solution, so that the school report card would look all the better. Despite a constent assurance by adminstrators that we are not “teaching to the test”, the implications of the curriculum shift in English is more than apparent.The high school has now begun to establish a “writing across the curriculum” philosphy, which requires writing in all classes in all subject areas. Each teacher is required to assign and grade by the new, school sponsored rubric two assignment in the fall semster and five in the spring. Although I applaude concept of writing across the curriculum, I do not agree the new position that the English department has been placed in, which is one that states the only value of English curriculum is to teach grammar and mechanics and also essaystructure so that the students may write well for the test and in other high school classes. Through this example, what we see is the idea that a curriculum is a “mediator between the demand of those outside the institution—employers, government agencies, political groups—and those within it—primarily faculty, the disciplines they serve, and students.” (Berlin 17). One could argue however, that through adjusting the curriculum to meet the standards of a state test, the needs of the institution (or the institutions desire to “look good”) takes major prevalence over the student. That idea though, or the idea of the detrimental effects of state testing standards on student writing is not the focus for this paper—the demise or “fall” of literature though, is.If, as Berlin argues, the curriculum reflects the values of society, the society’s view of the importance or value of literature is apparent. Although I understand that it is not always sound reasoning to compare the high school to the university, I think it is important to look at the reasons behind the debate regarding the perceived “fall” of literature in higher institutions.Because of such works as: Robert Scholes’s The Rise and Fall of English, Reconstructing English as a Discipline, James E. Seitz’s Motives for Metaphor: Literacy,Curricular Reform, and the Teaching of English, and Franklin, Laurence, and Welles’s Preparing a Nation’s Teachers: Models for English and Foreign Language Programs, scholars such as Chris Gallagher have begun to view nation’s English departments as mansions. Onto the initial building of the department, we add a “new wing for each new specialization: rhetoric and composition, postcolonial lit, queer theory and so on.” (783) This arrangement though, becomes little more than for an appearance of unity. The tenants behind the walls, are connected in a relationship similar to an arranged marriage.It is a marriage, Gallagher, asserts that was entered into for no other reason than convenience. The different discipline reside together, “for the sake of appearance but have very little to do with another.” (Gallagher 780)James Seitz calls the melding of the subdisiplines a “literalist” curriculum where everything is put in its own place. Seitz claims that although English touts the concept of“negotiating differences”, very little interplay actually occurs between these various disciplines in the English mansion. It is not only less than decorous to venture out of one’s own respective room, or ask questions of each other, or to engage in any form of dialogue becomes “downright dangerous”, as it would make visible (and thereby threaten) the arranged marriage we have worked so hard to maintain.” (Gallagher 780)This attitude concerning the interaction between the various discipline of the English department is apparent here at Illinois State. In a graduate forum concerning the future of literature at the university, Professor Susan Kalter addressed this same issue. Not only do the sub-disciplines know very little about their connection, they know little about the interplay of teaching strategies and pedegogies, thus further the crack in the foundation of the department.I would tend to believe however, that an interplay between the sub-disciplines hasin fact, been occurring and through this dialogue the concept of “separate but equal” dwelling within the English mansion has come to be questioned. And what seems to leading to the discontent of the sub-disciplines, is that literary studies has been occupyingthe privileged, elitist, positions of authority, while the other disciplines have been relegated to the margins. At ISU for instance, both professors of other disciplines and grad and doctorate students, have complained about the prevalence of literature in theircoursework even though the departmental design follows the “English Studies” model. This educational model purports to be “’less “literature’ and aesthetics’—orientated, and more sensitive to the demands both of vocational education and to the needs of non-traditional college students. . .” (Strickland 3) In other words through this model, students at ISU should be exposed to a wider variety of English study, and not merely the traditional literature focus. The students’ argument claims that through literary research,other more viable course that are to help them in the employment search, are covered merely in passing. As most new university teachers will most likely be required to teach courses not in their specialization, the doctoral candidates feel that more course work should be devoted to things as pedagogy, composition, rhetoric, and so forth.Apparent, unfortunately, in the cases mentioned above what we see is a