Good morning!

Up until this week, your readings in Language of Composition have focused on general instruction. You've studied argument, rhetorical analysis, and synthesis (not coincidentally, also the three kinds of essays you'll face on the exam). This week, though, we start a new kind of unit: themed readings about the same general topic. These units will lead us to deeply engage with ideas, not just with the mechanics of writing, and I can't wait to get started. I personally find the first topic fascinating: education.

When I was in graduate school, I read a book by Neil Postman called The End of Education (a pun; "end" can mean "purpose"). It essentially asked, what's the point of public education? Why should you learn about the quadratic formula, Shakespeare, or the war of 1812 when few of these topics are likely to be relevant to your job some day? Why should the government pay so much for public education-- what's in it for society?

Here's how Wikipedia describes Postman's view of public school's purpose:

Postman begins by emphasizing the difference between education and schooling:

"To the young, schooling seems relentless, but we know it is not. What is relentless is our education, which, for good or ill, gives us no rest. That is why poverty is a great educator. Having no boundaries and refusing to be ignored, it mostly teaches hopelessness. But not always. Politics is also a great educator. Mostly, it teaches, I am afraid, cynicism. But not always. Television is a great educator as well. Mostly it teaches consumerism. But not always." (pg. ix.)

Postman believes that schools' primary social function is to create a common culture among citizens through the communication of unifying purpose-giving narratives rather than to simply initiate children into the economy.

“The idea of public education depends absolutely on the existence of shared narratives and the exclusion of narratives that lead to alienation and divisiveness. What makes public schools public is not so much that the schools have common goals but that the students have common gods. The reason for this is that public education does not serve a public. It creates a public.” (pg. 17)

Furthermore, he feels American education has drifted away from its founding narratives of Democracy and Individual rights, replaced by the narratives of economic utility and the belief in technology as the measure of humanity's progress. Postman believes that the school system's current narratives at best, fail to sufficiently inspire and, all too often, fail to communicate anything at all. Chief among the failing gods is Economic Utility, the view of school's highest purpose as preparation for the workplace.

"The preparation for making a living... is well served by any decent education." (pg. 32, 33) “Here it is necessary to say that no reasonable argument can be made against educating the young to be consumers or to think about the kinds of employment that might interest them. But when these are elevated to the status of a metaphysical imperative, we are being told that we have reached the end of our wits—even worse, the limit of our wisdom.” (pg. 35,36)

In other words, Postman sees "schooling" as something separate from learning-- "schooling" is an institution, with its own goals.  The point of public schools used to be to prepare students to participate in a democracy; now the "narrative" of public schools is to prepare students for the workplace or to use technology, two "ends" that he sees as pretty lacking.

Before I read Postman's book, I never thought of "education" as being anything separate from "learning." As fellow homeschoolers, I bet some of you think the same way. When I taught in a conventional school, on the other hand, I realized just how many of the goals of "teaching" have little to do with academic learning-- students are supposed to learn to share, to write neatly, to follow directions, to respect their classmates, uplift the downtrodden, form value judgments, etc.  I taught in a Jewish day school, so it had its own particular goals: to produce graduates who would live Jewish lives, avoid intermarriage, support Israel, and serve as Jewish leaders in their synagogues and the Jewish community at large. The goals of public school are a bit harder to define, but they are there. As ridiculous as I always found the "what about socialization" question, socialization--induction into American society as well-adjusted citizens--IS a primary goal of school. (Whether it succeeds at this goal is another question.) Homeschooling can be seen as a threat to the creation of these armies of school graduates who have been prepared to be productive, well-rounded members of society.

I truly look forward eavesdropping on your discussions in this unit-- particularly because you aren't its standard audience. (One discussion question suggests that students interview homeschoolers about their experiences!) Incidentally, the AP exam writers love to ask questions about school because they think these questions are accessible to students, so your readings and discussions in this unit are great preparation for turning your (possible) lack of knowledge about conventional education into a strength, since it gives you a unique critical perspective.

Today, let me ask you: what is the goal of your home education? (Have you ever asked your parents this question? What do they say?) Are you a threat to the goals of public education? Is the goal of your education the same as the goal of conventional school? Do you think your education is succeeding in reaching its goals?

I hope you enjoy our discussions this unit!

Mrs. Inspektor

 

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson

Good morning!

Thank you for your thoughts yesterday about Helen Keller's memoir. I'm inclined to agree that it should be cut, though I don't think I've found the perfect replacement yet. (Perhaps no replacement is necessary.) I'm now interested to see how you react to Rodriguez!

Your reading by Emerson, today, highlights the fact that not all 19th-century writing is flowery. While it can be tough to get into the flow of Emerson's words at first, once I do, I'm struck by his simple, concrete word choices. Consider these lines from paragraph 8:

The child is as hot to learn as the mother is to impart. There is mutual delight.  The joy of our childhood in hearing beautiful stories from some skillful aunt who loves to tell them, must be repeated in youth. The boy wishes to learn to skate; to coast, to catch a fish in the brook, to hit a mark with a snowball or a stone; and a boy a little older is just as well pleased to teach him these sciences.

Out of 82 words, fully 67 are just one syllable long. I used far more polysyllabic words in the paragraph above the quote; it takes great care to use such strong and simple diction. Emerson's imagery is concrete and vivid. If I told you to get specific, in my comments on your literacy narrative, THIS is what I meant. Consider this paragraph instead, which has the same general meaning, but none of the power or energy:

Children, in general, are highly desirous of knowledge, and their mothers are naturally inclined to bestow instruction upon them. They find this relationship to be mutually beneficial and satisfactory. Children also tend to enjoy the recounting of fairy tales or other such narratives, and this pleasure tends not to decrease with time. Children have natural desire to acquire physical skills, and they can also be called upon to instruct younger children in the development of said skills.

 Emerson takes complex abstract ideas and makes them concrete, rooting them in verbs and images. I especially love the choice of "hot" to describe a child's desire to learn; it makes the concept of "desire" concrete, making the child's hunger for knowledge seem primal and emotional. It's also striking that Emerson uses "sciences" to refer to physical skills such as learning to skate, catch fish, or throw snowballs; in doing so, he elevates normal childhood play to the level of academic study, implying that we can also rely on children to seek (and teach) intellectual knowledge, too.

(By the way, the paragraph from Emerson also shows that the rules of punctuation have changed. Emerson's writing style is worth emulating; his use of semicolons isn't!)

In response to today's message, please take a few lines from Emerson's essay and "translate" them either into contemporary language or flowery, general prose-- whichever strikes you are more fun or useful. (Preserve as much of the line's original meaning as you can.) Then, explain what is effective about Emerson's original phrasing. Make the first few words of the lines you "translate"  the subject line of your reply. (My subject line could be "The child is as hot to learn as...") A reply to today's message is mandatory.

I hope you enjoy today's reading! Don't forget to use marginalia or other close reading strategies to interest yourself in the text as you read. You may need to read this essay more than once. If you start to have emotional reactions to Emerson's ideas and start to get a sense for the personality behind his words, you're probably understanding the text.

Mrs. Inspektor