I agree, equality across mediums really needs creative teachers. Unfortunately, I have met many an uncreative teacher in my time as a student: there are far too many of them in this country. I also agree with the fact that communication must be emphasized across all subjects. After all, there is no subject where you don’t need to communicate.

I think that Language Arts is the class where you can really focus on honing the art of communication: regardless of content. In other classes, students will get plenty of experience communicating content. In LA, the focus should be on the style and skill of the communication (though the content still has some importance). An interesting prompt in this is to write something about a completely fake topic: not as fiction, but as prose/nonfiction.

As a departing thought, I wonder sometimes how much the content really matters. Writing is so often used to deliver content, when teachers of all subjects use it just this way and expect our students to use it this way too. I wonder if *we* can think about delivering content in other ways, and use that to help our students do the same? Or maybe the content isn’t all that important, anyway?

I can never under-emphasize the respect I have for teachers working with the rich array of ability found within schools—particularly those where the talent can be harder to find.

Let me just say that no student has ever failed any of my courses. They may not all be successful in the standard way, but they learn something and we maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect. I’m lucky not to be a “core” teacher, with all of the constraints that designation implies.

Keep us thinking and learning together!

diane

@Carolyn: Thanks! You bring up an interesting point about the crucial fact that all forms of communication have a place in the English classroom. Importantly, I think how much these other forms varies significantly from classroom to classroom—often because they are not a formal part of the curriculum, while writing is. That is a change which would go a long way to equalizing communication: adding other components of communication beyond writing to the curriculum. (Dean points out that many curricula already have this).

You also address an important facet of communication which is given far too little attention in school: presentation. Even if writing is absolutely excellent, should the font be impossible to read or if the speaker stumbles, the value is lost. In the end, the art of presentation is one of the most integral skills for success in the workplace and beyond the classroom.

I think the debate regarding standard and non-standard English will rage on for many more years, as our conception of “standard” continually evolves. I think both have their place—and schools should make sure students know there are places where they absolutely must use Standard Academic Discourse. But schools should also recognize the forms that English can take including varying levels of nonconformity. (Informal letter vs. email vs. Twitter vs. IM vs. texting...) As the PEW study shows, students already have a good grasp of English and where different forms must be used.

The PEW study is certainly interesting and I plan to write a post addressing its implications in the next couple of days.

@Durff: Quite a conundrum you’ve created there. Untangling the mystery of your words, I think we essentially agree.

@Clay: I see the same message as you in this work: if you don’t speak SAD, you are somehow a “sub-par” human or learner.

However, I do think that the emphasis upon reading is justified: most of the world’s information is still stored in text format. If you want to gain mastery of any topic or go into depth on many, you have to be able to read. However, I foresee this changing in the future as the “digital natives” of today become tomorrow’s scholars and experts. I definitely envision a reevaluation of reading down the line.

Once again, thanks for starting this interesting thread and leading me to discovering Muhammad Ali.

@Darren: For the purposes of this debate, I think most of us were choosing to think of communication in a discrete form: where the “output” (writing/speaking/etc.) is separated from the “input” (reading/listening/etc.).

of course, you are right that there is plenty of potential for mixed messages with so much “noise” in the digital airwaves. It is especially difficult since even the best of communicators can be misinterpreted by the receiver. In fact, I think one of the requirements for excellence in communication should be the ability to adjust your style/complexity to the medium and audience.

In saying that communication is generally instant, I was referring to transmission time: not interpretation time. Still, your point is well taken. However, I disagree upon your example:

In fact, one might well argue that there are more misinterpreted messages now than there were in the days of Ali (or Plato, for that matter), cumulatively resulting in far less communication now than there has ever been in the history of the world.

I do agree that there are more misinterpreted messages. However, the sheer bulk of communications means that a many millions still get through successfully. So, the percent of communications successful is going down, but the total is going up.

@Benjamin: As I pointed out earlier, the sheer volume of written communications does not mean it is the form one must send messages in. Your argument is an excellent one for why we should emphasize reading (input), but holds much less ground when talking about outputs like writing/speaking.

As Mr. Draper points out, messages do not necessarily foster “communication.” Improving writing skills clarifies messages and improves communication.

So does improving speaking. In fact, I would go so far as to say speaking is one of the most important mediums to be precise in: the life-changing and emotional (ripe for miscommunication) messages of our lives are usually done through speech.

In the end, it comes down to knowing your own weaknesses: I intentionally avoid communicating through voice, as I know it is not a strong suit of mine.

As Mr. Draper points out, messages do not necessarily foster “communication.” Improving writing skills clarifies messages and improves communication.

As the written word is the primary medium of the Internet — no matter whether other forms stand out more — the written word is the medium which deserves the greatest emphasis.

Great follow-up to an equally engaging post by Clay (and its subsequent comment thread).

One thing that I think you have all overlooked in this debate over the different modes of communication is the fact that communication doesn’t always take place - regardless of our intentions and in spite of our technological prowess.

> In all its varied forms, communication is the most important skill in a new century where it is, generally, instant.

To say that communication is “generally instant” assumes that the receiver of a message immediately comprehends the message as intended by its sender. Unfortunately, even in our high-tech world of interconnected nodes - each with the ability to transmit messages at the speed of light - there are far too many messages that are misinterpreted. In fact, one might well argue that there are more misinterpreted messages now than there were in the days of Ali (or Plato, for that matter), cumulatively resulting in far less communication now than there has ever been in the history of the world.

And schools will make sure you do just that by branding you “sub-par,” regardless of your other skills, with their skewed report cards.

This is all so open to question now. Even reading comes back under the microscope. If a student is not a strong enough reader to adequately grasp a textbook chapter in, say, history, that used to be fatal for the student. No reading strength? No possibility of mastering content, no possibility of a good grade (especially if your writing is also poor).

Today, though, a quick search on YouTube or visit to the video store offers all sorts of audio-visual vehicles for delivering that content, which the student might more easily grasp, and use to successfully meet content mastery standards.

That same student could then prepare an oral, graphic, or (name your communication mode) presentation that demonstrates both his/her mastery of content and ability to communicate it with a non-textual “language art,” and not get a D-.

And that same student can then have a chance to go to college (not having a train wreck of a GPA)and succeed there on those same strengths.

I don’t know if we’re intentionally tip-toeing around this, but it really does pull issues of race and class privilege center-stage, doesn’t it?

Thanks for extending this, Arthus. And I’m glad you discovered Muhammad Ali. He was an A++ human being.