I could not help but be prejudiced by two things as I read Chapter 3.

First, in the summaries so far, I have noticed that the authors are strong on overarching themes and strong (always positive) assertions about portfolios. However, there has been a lack of specific details about the "how" of portfolios. As I have stated previously--and you guys have as well--perhaps the opening chapters were an attempt to set the stage for the specifics (case histories/narratives/methodology) to follow. Well we are at Chapter Three, 67 pages into the book, and I am really ready for the details, so as I read this chapter I will be looking for them, especially since the title of this chapter is "Portfolios: Practice."

Secondly, before I began Chapter Three, I read the introduction to the book and I was astonished by the overall optimism of the writing: not just the confidence the authors have in the portfolio system to improve teacher performance and student learning, but in their overall view of the state of Composition , as presented in the dichotomy of pre-Emig/ post-Emig paradigm shift in Composition. They state: "Pre-Emig writing classes focused on rhetorical modes and literary analysis. Post-Emig, the variety of writing encountered in composition classes and countenance by composition programs has grown exponentially" (xii). They go on to suggest that the writing process movement and the movement toward collaborative classrooms have made the learning process more democratic. They continue: "Practice in Composition Studies has moved to involve students more directly in their own learning processes, to open the curriculum to students' input, to involve the students collaboratively in course and assignment design ... (T)eachers, too, have been more actively involved in curriculum and program development. The top-down administrative model of the past has faded into an environment in which teachers become knowledgeable about and invested in curriculum through participating in its design and in implementing the courses that will carry out that curriculum" (xiii-xiv).

I could spend the next three pages critiquing these assertions about how writing programs and writing classrooms have changed for students and teachers, but I need to get to Chapter Three. Suffice it to say, their description does not in any way coincide with my seven years of teaching at three different CUNY campuses. Administration is still mostly top down, the majority of faculty remain uneducated and classrooms have not changed all that much (there were some good classrooms pre-Emig, and there are some good ones now, but the majority of classrooms are still formulaic varieties of CTR.) I think the authors have fallen into the trap of believing that what is represented in publications and journals is what is happening in classrooms. I am wondering whether this is a weakness of the book. As I summarize Chapter Three I will be looking for evidence to support the optimistic assertions the authors make about portfolios and the profession.