Content area
Full Text
On March 11, 1996, the national Standards for the English Language Arts were released by the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. Unfortunately, I don't believe that these Standards communicate their basic ideas clearly to an audience that includes the public. They are also disorganized and difficult to read, even for professionals.
I do not disagree with the ideas presented in the Standards, but with the way the ideas are expressed. I am concerned, for example, that the Committee did not follow its own guidelines in writing them. For example, Standard 5 says that students communicate in writing with different audiences. For whom were these Standards written? If for the public, they are filled with jargon like "strategies," "writing process elements," and "literacy communities" that the public will not understand. Even terms like "nonprint texts" caused me to wonder about the exact meaning I suppose that the Committee was thinking of film as text or, perhaps, they were referring to electronic text. The point is, if I, a journalreading professional, am confused about the meaning of the term, members of the public are also likely to be confused. I believe that these Standards should be expressed in plain English for an audience that includes the public.
The intent of the Committee is clear to me. The members wanted to suggest the complexity of the processes involved in using language and the necessity to avoid oversimplification. Still, the public needs to read these guidelines and understand what they mean.
I first encountered the Standards for the English Language Arts in the Internet edition of the New York Times, March 12, 1996, the day after they were released. Reporter Mary B. W Tabor charged that the Standards were general and vague. She quoted Michael Cohen, a senior adviser to U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley, that the "report contains very vague and very general statements that don't...