Who are we writing for?
This will probably end up being a bit of a rehash of last week, though incorporating this week's readings. I must first admit that I went into the Williams reading with a chip on my shoulder. It's been years since I've come across a text book that I've marked up this badly. As discussed last week, I feel like Williams should have citations for most of the absurd generalizations that he makes. Instead they just sit there, glaring and alone, waiting for grad students to come in and rip them apart.
The reading this week seemed much less absolutist than last week, though I still had some problems with it. A number of us have discussed at length about the ideas of "should all kids go to college, and therefor take college prepratory classes? What about students who aren't planning on going to college? Should we base instruction differently for them?" Williams addresses this on page 280, saying that, "goals must include preparing students to write at the college level." Only there, he argues should students be taught how to write to an audience of "the general public and workplace professionals." This seems backwards to me. What has happened to the worth of a high school education? As I see it, when a student gradutates from high school, that should mean that s/he should be ready to take on gainful employment. Therefor, teaching students to write for an audience of "the general public and workplace professionals" should be part of the high school curriculum. Teaching students to write at the college level is great, for those who are planning on attending college, but should be an elective course, and not part of the day to day curriculum.
People will probably argue that this is setting the standards too low, and will give advantage to the students who are 'on the college track.' This is a very fine line to walk. I don't believe in career education courses in high school. We should be focusing on adequately educating our childeren to function in our democracy first, and our capitalist system second. Part of this education should include a thorough understanding of how our language works and how it is often used. An example would include Williams use of the term 'the general population.' What does he mean by this term? Those folks who didn't go to college? Those that have left the ivory tower and must work forty or fifty hours weeks? Do these words hold implicit asumptions about college educated vs. high school educated peoples? These ideas are what people have to deal with trying to be an intellegent consumer of information in the United States. This is what we should be focusing on in high school. Those that go on to college can find their writing feet there.
The reading this week seemed much less absolutist than last week, though I still had some problems with it. A number of us have discussed at length about the ideas of "should all kids go to college, and therefor take college prepratory classes? What about students who aren't planning on going to college? Should we base instruction differently for them?" Williams addresses this on page 280, saying that, "goals must include preparing students to write at the college level." Only there, he argues should students be taught how to write to an audience of "the general public and workplace professionals." This seems backwards to me. What has happened to the worth of a high school education? As I see it, when a student gradutates from high school, that should mean that s/he should be ready to take on gainful employment. Therefor, teaching students to write for an audience of "the general public and workplace professionals" should be part of the high school curriculum. Teaching students to write at the college level is great, for those who are planning on attending college, but should be an elective course, and not part of the day to day curriculum.
People will probably argue that this is setting the standards too low, and will give advantage to the students who are 'on the college track.' This is a very fine line to walk. I don't believe in career education courses in high school. We should be focusing on adequately educating our childeren to function in our democracy first, and our capitalist system second. Part of this education should include a thorough understanding of how our language works and how it is often used. An example would include Williams use of the term 'the general population.' What does he mean by this term? Those folks who didn't go to college? Those that have left the ivory tower and must work forty or fifty hours weeks? Do these words hold implicit asumptions about college educated vs. high school educated peoples? These ideas are what people have to deal with trying to be an intellegent consumer of information in the United States. This is what we should be focusing on in high school. Those that go on to college can find their writing feet there.
posted by Justin at 6:52 AM
1 Comments:
yeah man. i think williams is making some assumptions that he shouldn't be when uses terms like general population. we need to think critically about the function of our educational system. is it simply to churn out more workers for our capitalist system? i think that may been the main focus, but how can we make it more than that? i want some people go against the grain and ruffle the feathers of our nation...just don't tell my future employers.
Post a Comment
<< Home