Why our PS doesn't teach the classics

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I have been lurking here for a long time, and since we don't homeschool yet (will be starting this fall) I don't post much, but I just have to get opinions on this.

 

My oldest is in middle school, grade 6. We had conferences a few weeks back and I was asking his Language Arts teacher some questions about what is taught during this 2 hour advanced class block. I specifically asked about what the kids were reading. She said they pretty much read whatever they wanted. I asked if they read any classics and she said that there were some excerpts (she pronounced exerts) in their textbooks, but that the school district is redefining what are considered classics. She went on to say that what we consider classics weren't being taught anymore because of racial references to which they don't want to expose the students.

 

For me, while I agree that there are derogatory words in certain classic literature that I certainly don't want my children to use, I do want them to try to understand the full impact of what life was like during the past and the suffering certain ethnic groups have had to endure throughout history and, unfortunately, these ugly words are part of that truth. I think it's hard to get the full impact without them. I do think that facing our past mistakes is the best way to prevent history from repeating itself.

 

What do you think about this??

 

Jen

ds 11

ds 9

dd 7

 

The bolded is what caught my eye. I think there are many classics that are overrated (Ullysses by Joyce being a poster child) or that are more appropriate to readers who have more life under their belt. And I think there are many assigned to young readers when they weren't written for them (Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye come to mind).

 

So I don't mind that a school isn't doing a full Great Books type curriculum in high school (or younger), especially if they are dealing with student who might not be ready (academically) for those books.

 

But there should be a goal of moving them to the point where they can read and understand something like Dickens or Austen or London or Twain. And I don't think that you get there by letting them just choose to read whatever they like. You get there by assigning and discussing quality literature. Stories that are written or retold for children and young adults.

 

So I don't get worked up that someone says they don't like Romeo and Juliet. I think that sometimes we overwork a piece in lit class so much that we suck the life right out of it. (And plays, in my opinion are meant to be watched, not read. Or at least read aloud, though that can loose a lot too.) But I think a high schooler ought be able to understand what is happening in the play. And write something about it.

 

And I do get worked up over the idea that just because a work is older, it isn't relevant. Or that you should dismiss the canon, just because it was popular in the past. It is our cultural inheritance. Add other great works to it, but don't throw away the foundational works of our heritage.

[nmoira]

 

YA fiction? Yuck.

But the same thing could be said about contemporary adult fiction. Still, there are some gems for those willing to look. M.T. Anderson (Octavian Nothing), Nancy Farmer, Alison Croggan (Pellinor), and D.M. Cornish are a start, though good YA does skew toward fantasy.

[Perry]

We just can't have it all.

 

We need to scale back expectations in one area or another.

It isn't necessarily about doing MORE, it's about doing better. The kids are reading, but they're often reading junk.

 

Here's a post I wrote last year.

 

My dd13 is in public school this year. They are currently doing a unit on poetry. They aren't learning about any poets, or reading classic or well known poetry. Instead, they wrote 10 original poems. For one of these poems, instead of writing it out on paper or the computer, they were to search magazines for the words, cut the words out, and paste them on a piece of paper. So far my dd has spent at least three hours on this ridiculous cut and paste job, because it's hard to find words like "smashing" and "tidbit" in a magazine. The teacher told them if they couldn't find the actual word, they could cut out individual letters and spell it that way.

 

We did MCT poetry this year. She actually learned about poetry for a change!

[nmoira]

 

We did MCT poetry this year. She actually learned about poetry for a change!

*I* learned more in two years of MCT poetry than I did in 13 years of public school.

[merry gardens]

...So I don't mind that a school isn't doing a full Great Books type curriculum in high school (or younger), especially if they are dealing with student who might not be ready (academically) for those books.

 

But there should be a goal of moving them to the point where they can read and understand something like Dickens or Austen or London or Twain. And I don't think that you get there by letting them just choose to read whatever they like. You get there by assigning and discussing quality literature. ...

:iagree: and part you bolded in the op stood out to me too.

 

The op wrote that this conversation happened with the language arts teacher in about what was happening a 2 hour advanced class block. It's not that I only want the classics taught. There is a place for contempory works, but there should also be a place for the classics. A literature class usually involves teaching and discussing good literature.

[JennyD]

 

We just can't have it all. If we want our kids to read classics, then we can't expect them to have these super-impressive college resumes that include several varsity sports and leadership in numerous extracurricular clubs and four years of advanced academics in every subject. If we want our kids to have super-impressive resumes and to take 4-5 AP courses their junior and senior years, then we can't expect them to have time to sit down and read Moby Dick in any serious way. We need to scale back expectations in one area or another.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Ester Maria]

When they got home from SAT prep, after 7 hours at school, 2-3 hours of sports, and then an hour and a half of class? Even if they managed to get it done, there's no way they were giving their homework the attention it would require for them to get much out of it.

An extensive SAT preparation is not needed, most of it is fairly common sense if you have a good background, and for the rest and test-taking skills you would need a brief one-semester course, if such a big one anyway. So, no reason to consider SAT prep as a continuous, needed part of one's high chool education.

 

Sports are a priority thing. If your priorities are academic, you will not get several hours daily of sports, but several hours weekly. If your priorities are not academic, then you face with the consequences of your priorities in school, which is usually going to reflect on the GPA. Your life, your choices, and your parents' approval. This youth sports culture has reached a completely insane point and we need some counter-balance back SOON.

 

AP / IB classes are not even particularly difficult, IMO, for an academically advanced kid. I know several kids who did IB in addition to regular European high school lycee track. Many people do the same with SATs, APs, SATIIs, Bacs, etc. I know a LOT of people who basically graduated in two systems (or even from a difficult high school and conservatory at the same time!), which means that it is physically possible. It is just the overall trend of making excuses for intellectual laziness and blowing things out of proportions that is happening here.

 

If school is a kid's top priority - and it should be at that age, for most children, as it is the only real duty they have - and the child is of at least average intelligence and good work ethics, there is perfectly no reason why they could not cope with the academics AND read a work or two a month. I have no idea why people are making such a fuss out of simple things which up until a generation ago were pretty much the standard. Sports and fancy extracurriculars and the whole "whole person" thing (as if previous generations were somehow less "whole") has gotten WAY out of control and makes us see things in a very distorted light. Kids have TONS of time in their life, it is all about organization and setting your priorities straight.

 

I spent my youth caffeinizing myself for hours after school with friends pretty much daily, going to theatres and opera, reading non-school stuff and wandering the city a lot - and I still, somehow, managed to read those two books a month and organize my time.

My husband attended a scientific lycee with a full Judaic supplement at home and played an instrument and he still magically managed to read that book or two a month.

My best friend was nearly professionally into music in addition to the full classical lycee load and... yes, you get the picture.

None of us are scarred.

None of us "don't remember anything" from those days.

For most of us that wasn't the last contact with literature at all.

 

Kids are being given way too much slack nowadays. I honestly cannot believe that some of you might advocate that kids have no TIME for a hundred or two pages weekly (when it evens out). They have time for TV, junk novels, texting hundred times a day, sports events, cinema, hanging in the city / mall, hours upon hours of shopping, hours upon hours of gossip via phone, Skyping, MSN, what's the name of that website with those silly cats?, watching videos on Youtube, putting videos on Youtube, experimenting with make-up, socializing, going out, weekend travels, having a part-time job, learning all the newest trivia about pop-culture, then socializing some more, then just plain lazying out at home... none of that is bad and I personally find downtime to be a very important component of a young person's life; but it just proves that time IS there. It's a matter of organization. Book lists are usually pretty much known in advance (with the chronological approach and all), one can even read during holidays (what's wrong with taking an hour or two daily, when you're on holidays skiing, to read some literature?) or just cut on some of those teen stuff. Which are fine, but in moderation. That moderation is getting lost, kids' brains are being filled with a lot of nonsense which also affects their maturity and attention spans, and then we marvel when they don't have time, can't concentrate and find EVERYTHING soooo hard, even if some of those things were a standard a generation or two ago?

 

Okay I ramble. :D Had to get it off my chest, since I had this discussion recently. Again. LOL.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Jean in Newcastle]

Let me just say - Ester Maria - What she said!:D

[Perry]

They have time for TV, junk novels, texting hundred times a day, sports events, cinema, hanging in the city / mall, hours upon hours of shopping, hours upon hours of gossip via phone, Skyping, MSN, what's the name of that website with those silly cats?, watching videos on Youtube, putting videos on Youtube, experimenting with make-up, socializing, going out, weekend travels, having a part-time job, learning all the newest trivia about pop-culture, then socializing some more, then just plain lazying out at home... none of that is bad and I personally find downtime to be a very important component of a young person's life; but it just proves that time IS there.

I agree with everything you wrote, except that the kids I know who are really involved in extracurriculars and sports still have plenty of time for school if they manage their time wisely. They do it by minimizing those things you listed above.

 

My girls spend hours at dance every week, but they still have plenty of down time. I'd much rather have them busy at the studio than sitting in front of the TV.

[Ester Maria]

I agree with everything you wrote, except that the kids I know who are really involved in extracurriculars and sports still have plenty of time for school if they manage their time wisely.

I didn't mean to imply it was physically impossible (thus the examples of those involved in music, Judaics, etc.), I fully agree with you :001_smile:; I only wanted to say that, IF somebody's academics suffer because of extra interests, it's usually either an excuse (due to all those stuff I enumerated, and many more), either it's such an intense interest that, maybe, the kid is simply facing a harsh reality of life that sometimes one has to choose and prioritize. So if they barely pass lit because they barely read anything and barely learned anything, it was their choice to put themselves into that situation in the first place (of course, all the necessary disclaimers are applied, I'm talking about average or above-average kids intellectually, with no significant LDs or life circumstances which would enter the game, etc... you get the point, necessary disclaimers). They didn't fail or barely pass because it's so hard and so out of reach and standards are so insane, but because they choose other things at the expense of that in that amount that it prevented them from handling school well. At this point a mature person says yes, it was my choice, not the curriculum being insane or the expectations so stellar that cannot be meet with reasonable effort.

[ocelotmom]

Please refrain from calling Elementary teachers dumb. Or unmotivated, or uninterested in things like classic lit.

My fourth grade teacher was wonderful in this respect. He read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Human Comedy (does that count as a modern classic? It's not Captain Underpants, anyways) as read-alouds, and we did a production of Romeo and Juliet. And it wasn't just a matter of read it and be done - we discussed them.

 

Several of my elementary school teachers were the ones I'd consider among the most dedicated and innovative. I certainly couldn't make any sort of generalization about elementary school teachers.

 

The Modern Library's list of the best 100 20th century novels is a good place to start. I think it's a bit early to be coming up with 21st century choices, but I'd, at the very least, put Marilynne Robinson's Gilead and David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas up there as contenders.

 

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

 

Battlefield Earth as #3 (on the Reader's Choice side)? I'm sensing that may not have been an entirely unbiased poll :) (Or, for that matter, Ayn Rand as #1 and #2)

Edited May 16, 2011 by ocelotmom

[creekland]

An extensive SAT preparation is not needed, most of it is fairly common sense if you have a good background, and for the rest and test-taking skills you would need a brief one-semester course, if such a big one anyway. So, no reason to consider SAT prep as a continuous, needed part of one's high chool education.

 

Sports are a priority thing. If your priorities are academic, you will not get several hours daily of sports, but several hours weekly. If your priorities are not academic, then you face with the consequences of your priorities in school, which is usually going to reflect on the GPA. Your life, your choices, and your parents' approval. This youth sports culture has reached a completely insane point and we need some counter-balance back SOON.

 

AP / IB classes are not even particularly difficult, IMO, for an academically advanced kid. I know several kids who did IB in addition to regular European high school lycee track. Many people do the same with SATs, APs, SATIIs, Bacs, etc. I know a LOT of people who basically graduated in two systems (or even from a difficult high school and conservatory at the same time!), which means that it is physically possible. It is just the overall trend of making excuses for intellectual laziness and blowing things out of proportions that is happening here.

 

If school is a kid's top priority - and it should be at that age, for most children, as it is the only real duty they have - and the child is of at least average intelligence and good work ethics, there is perfectly no reason why they could not cope with the academics AND read a work or two a month. I have no idea why people are making such a fuss out of simple things which up until a generation ago were pretty much the standard. Sports and fancy extracurriculars and the whole "whole person" thing (as if previous generations were somehow less "whole") has gotten WAY out of control and makes us see things in a very distorted light. Kids have TONS of time in their life, it is all about organization and setting your priorities straight.

 

I spent my youth caffeinizing myself for hours after school with friends pretty much daily, going to theatres and opera, reading non-school stuff and wandering the city a lot - and I still, somehow, managed to read those two books a month and organize my time.

My husband attended a scientific lycee with a full Judaic supplement at home and played an instrument and he still magically managed to read that book or two a month.

My best friend was nearly professionally into music in addition to the full classical lycee load and... yes, you get the picture.

None of us are scarred.

None of us "don't remember anything" from those days.

For most of us that wasn't the last contact with literature at all.

 

Kids are being given way too much slack nowadays. I honestly cannot believe that some of you might advocate that kids have no TIME for a hundred or two pages weekly (when it evens out). They have time for TV, junk novels, texting hundred times a day, sports events, cinema, hanging in the city / mall, hours upon hours of shopping, hours upon hours of gossip via phone, Skyping, MSN, what's the name of that website with those silly cats?, watching videos on Youtube, putting videos on Youtube, experimenting with make-up, socializing, going out, weekend travels, having a part-time job, learning all the newest trivia about pop-culture, then socializing some more, then just plain lazying out at home... none of that is bad and I personally find downtime to be a very important component of a young person's life; but it just proves that time IS there. It's a matter of organization. Book lists are usually pretty much known in advance (with the chronological approach and all), one can even read during holidays (what's wrong with taking an hour or two daily, when you're on holidays skiing, to read some literature?) or just cut on some of those teen stuff. Which are fine, but in moderation. That moderation is getting lost, kids' brains are being filled with a lot of nonsense which also affects their maturity and attention spans, and then we marvel when they don't have time, can't concentrate and find EVERYTHING soooo hard, even if some of those things were a standard a generation or two ago?

 

Okay I ramble. :D Had to get it off my chest, since I had this discussion recently. Again. LOL.

 

:iagree: You word this VERY well. Kids (as humans) are no different now than they were years ago. It's our expectations that have changed. Personally, I don't think they've changed for the better overall (though some changes are better).

 

My kids have been able to do a bit, but we've had to mostly leave the ps in order to get it done. Youngest is going to be trying to do it by supplementing the ps. It will take him more time, not less.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Are students now prohibited from reading on the bus? I had a long bus ride, as a senior, and had much of my homework done before getting home.

[twoforjoy]

Battlefield Earth as #3 (on the Reader's Choice side)? I'm sensing that may not have been an entirely unbiased poll :) (Or, for that matter, Ayn Rand as #1 and #2)

 

I would NOT recommend going with the reader's choices. ;)

[nmoira]

 

Are students now prohibited from reading on the bus? I had a long bus ride, as a senior, and had much of my homework done before getting home.

I get severe motion sickness if I attempt to read in a moving vehicle, and wouldn't be able to concentrate for the noise in any case.

[Jean in Newcastle]

When I was in high school I was highly involved in extra curricular activities: theater, voice lessons, singing groups that toured, sports (but not so much of that), yearbook, school newspaper, student council. We got homework done, including reading a ton of classics during breaks at practice, on bus rides, study hall, late at night, weekends etc.

[twoforjoy]

:iagree: You word this VERY well. Kids (as humans) are no different now than they were years ago. It's our expectations that have changed. Personally, I don't think they've changed for the better overall (though some changes are better).

 

I could not agree more. But I do disagree that kids in the past were reading tons of classics in school.

 

I think we tend to go by anecdotal evidence when we're talking about today's teens, but an idealized notion of what the past was like based on theories that appeal to us when thinking about teens in the past. I don't know about anybody else, but my grandparents and great-grandparents weren't super-academic lovers of literature who were well-versed in the classics. My father and grandmother both got their first jobs because they were the only applicant who could both type well and compose a grammatically-correct sentence. Poor writing skills are nothing new; lack of interest in literature is nothing new; kids not getting deep into the classics in school is nothing new.

 

It seems to me that we expect the average teen today to be as well-educated as the best-educated people of past generations. That may certainly be a good goal, but if we turn it into an expectation and then decide that teens and/or their teachers are failures for not achieving it, I think we've turned a worthy goal into a huge burden.

[justamouse]

About 10 years ago I used to teach SAT prep classes. The sections I taught ran from 6-7:30 and 7:30 to 9 at night. The number of students who, even in the later section, came into the class with a bagged dinner because they'd gone straight to a sports practice after school, then straight from practice to this class, was shocking. It was 7:30 at night and they hadn't had a chance to be home. When were they going to do their homework? When they got home from SAT prep, after 7 hours at school, 2-3 hours of sports, and then an hour and a half of class? Even if they managed to get it done, there's no way they were giving their homework the attention it would require for them to get much out of it. From what I've seen, things have only gotten worse in the ensuing decade.

 

 

 

If schooling has been well done, why would anyone need a SAT test prep class?

 

Priorities. Believe me, I am no tiger mother. I fully believe that kids need time to do nothing. But perhaps the system is so broken that it seems normal for kids to have to take a SAT prep course?

[creekland]

I could not agree more. But I do disagree that kids in the past were reading tons of classics in school.

 

I think we tend to go by anecdotal evidence when we're talking about today's teens, but an idealized notion of what the past was like based on theories that appeal to us when thinking about teens in the past. I don't know about anybody else, but my grandparents and great-grandparents weren't super-academic lovers of literature who were well-versed in the classics. My father and grandmother both got their first jobs because they were the only applicant who could both type well and compose a grammatically-correct sentence. Poor writing skills are nothing new; lack of interest in literature is nothing new; kids not getting deep into the classics in school is nothing new.

 

It seems to me that we expect the average teen today to be as well-educated as the best-educated people of past generations. That may certainly be a good goal, but if we turn it into an expectation and then decide that teens and/or their teachers are failures for not achieving it, I think we've turned a worthy goal into a huge burden.

 

Personally, I'm comparing my high school (from the past) to the one I teach at now. The two are not equal or even close to it.

 

I fully agree that there are different paths for different students and should be based upon what the student has the desire to do. This is why, to me, a good ps offers a choice. I'd have the choices range from a more classical in-depth education to agriculture and mechanics. The school I went to had these offerings and plenty of students utilized all paths. We had students going to Ivies (and similar) and who made great mechanics or farmers and everything in between. The school I work at now doesn't offer much. Kids can graduate from here having taken our top classes and test into remedial classes at community college. This happens often. It shouldn't happen at all IMO.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Let me just say - Ester Maria - What she said!:D

 

:iagree::iagree::D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If schooling has been well done, why would anyone need a SAT test prep class?

 

Priorities. Believe me, I am no tiger mother. I fully believe that kids need time to do nothing. But perhaps the system is so broken that it seems normal for kids to have to take a SAT prep course?

 

Exactly:D The prep school I went to 30 years ago never offered any sort of test prep classes. Our course load was sufficient:D

[Ester Maria]

I don't know about anybody else, but my grandparents and great-grandparents weren't super-academic lovers of literature who were well-versed in the classics.

I agree with you that our anecdotal experience colors our perspective quite a bit.

 

But then again times have changed too, many more people nowadays have access to increasingly higher levels of education, the information has become abundant, with an internet access you are a mouse click away from the wealth of resources that previous generations could only dream about... so in a way, "upping" our expectations in the academic realm, i.e. extending them to more population, is also a bit normal, in my view (mind you, I do not think that everyone is made to be or should be a scholar, just an observation that today we have better conditions and should maybe be able to attain much more than we do in the sphere of institutionalized schooling).

[Roadrunner]

My nephew is graduating from a public PS with an excellent GPA and loads of English honors classes. The truth is, they assign him maybe 2 books to read per year and he hasn't had any rigorous grammar instruction at all. So he looks like an outstanding student on paper, but.... :)

I don't know why we think Classics are hard to read. I read 30 volumes on Dickens between the ages 9 and 12. Couldn't put it down. Read Dostoyevsky (all his works) between the ages 14 and 16. Nobody forced me and I certainly wasn't special in any way. Those books, along of bunch of other classics, just sat on the shelves in my bedroom, so I read them.

We don't give your kids credit. Kids can handle a lot more that we think they can.

It's true that 14 year old will understand War and Peace (example) very differently than a 35 year old, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it. My father always said that you have to read great books three times; first when you are a kid, second time when you are in your thirties and eventually in your old age. Every time you read them it will be a new adventure. You will find new understanding of it that can only be achieved through wisdom and experiences that comes with age.

[Blessedchaos]

The bolded is what caught my eye. I think there are many classics that are overrated (Ullysses by Joyce being a poster child) or that are more appropriate to readers who have more life under their belt. And I think there are many assigned to young readers when they weren't written for them (Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye come to mind).

 

So I don't mind that a school isn't doing a full Great Books type curriculum in high school (or younger), especially if they are dealing with student who might not be ready (academically) for those books.

 

But there should be a goal of moving them to the point where they can read and understand something like Dickens or Austen or London or Twain. And I don't think that you get there by letting them just choose to read whatever they like. You get there by assigning and discussing quality literature. Stories that are written or retold for children and young adults.

 

So I don't get worked up that someone says they don't like Romeo and Juliet. I think that sometimes we overwork a piece in lit class so much that we suck the life right out of it. (And plays, in my opinion are meant to be watched, not read. Or at least read aloud, though that can loose a lot too.) But I think a high schooler ought be able to understand what is happening in the play. And write something about it.

 

And I do get worked up over the idea that just because a work is older, it isn't relevant. Or that you should dismiss the canon, just because it was popular in the past. It is our cultural inheritance. Add other great works to it, but don't throw away the foundational works of our heritage.

 

As the OP, I'm glad that I wasn't the only one bothered by this. I had previously been told by my son that they read whatever they like, so that is why I asked the same question to the teacher. While I would like some of the classics to be covered in this 2 hour advanced language arts class, I would have settled for some sort of book list. But to allow anything (in addition to the classic literature "exerts" in the textbooks) is just unacceptable to me. Considering that very little grammar and writing seem to be taught, I'm not sure what the class time is spent on. According to my son, they do a lot of this self chosen readingin class. This mirrors the experience of my 2 younger children in elementary school. There seems to be this prevailing attitude around here that "it doesn't matter what they are reading as long as they are reading" with which I strongly disagree.

 

My experience in the past 4 years of having my children in school is that expectations are extremely low. For example, I volunteer to work with the 4th graders in my ds's class each week testing fluency. This teacher goes above anything I've ever seen in my 3 years of testing fluency; she actually has the children read pieces at their reading level (instead of the standard one size fits all model). Once they finish all the pieces they are supposed to move on to memorizing poetry (I don't know of any other teacher who requires poetry memorization so hats off to her). When the children find out they must memorize, they insist they can't do it. It can take several months for a child to memorize a half page poem. Yet they can memorize their favorite song in an afternoon. I tell them that song lyrics are poetry, so turn their poetry into a song, but it still takes and excruciatingly long time for them to master it. Yet my 7 year old daughter can memorize a twelve stanza poem in a half hour. She isn't extraordinary; we have always had high expectations for our children.

 

I believe there are many wonderful teachers. They are just bound by their district's curriculum choices and there is very little wiggle room in our test happy culture.

[LidiyaDawn]

In my area, yes - security reasons.

 

 

 

They can't read a book for "security reasons"?? What in the world is the risk presented by a student reading a book??

[twoforjoy]

If schooling has been well done, why would anyone need a SAT test prep class?

 

Because the SATs don't really test academic knowledge? Because SAT scores matter so much in college admissions, which are extremely competitive? I know plenty of people who are very smart and did very well in school who scored very poorly on the SAT. Some people don't test well, and some parents aren't satisfied with anything less than an extremely high score on a test like that.

[Penelope]

I don't know why we think Classics are hard to read. I read 30 volumes on Dickens between the ages 9 and 12. Couldn't put it down. Read Dostoyevsky (all his works) between the ages 14 and 16. Nobody forced me and I certainly wasn't special in any way. Those books, along of bunch of other classics, just sat on the shelves in my bedroom, so I read them.

We don't give your kids credit. Kids can handle a lot more that we think they can.

It's true that 14 year old will understand War and Peace (example) very differently than a 35 year old, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it. My father always said that you have to read great books three times; first when you are a kid, second time when you are in your thirties and eventually in your old age. Every time you read them it will be a new adventure. You will find new understanding of it that can only be achieved through wisdom and experiences that comes with age.

 

:iagree: Especially the last paragraph.

[Rosie_0801]

Assigned reading was something you did at home, school time was not wasted on it, but used to discuss the works which were assumed to have been read already.

 

...

 

No excuse for this situation, it just smells of intellectual laziness, nothing more.

 

From my hubby's experience as a teacher, it smells of reversed responsibility. It is the teacher's fault if the student fails, so to keep themselves out of trouble, they have to make it as difficult as possible for the student to fail. A breadwinner would be irresponsible to assign homework reading to students, knowing they won't do it and will perform poorly on the exams; and the breadwinner him or herself will be put on probation. It can't be like that everywhere, but it is common enough. :( Most people will choose their own family above everyone else's kids. I don't see that as a fault in a person, but a fault in the system that forces that choice.

 

I read a few classics in high school. We generally "analysed" three books and one movie per year. (So I could have read any of those books in a weekend, but the school was a technical school up until I was in year 9.) At the time I wished they had tossed the silly young adult fiction out the window. Now I wish the classics we had read had been according to theme. If we were going to read Shakespeare (and we only did Macbeth and R&J,) we should have read enough to understand Shakespeare's repetoire. If we were going to read American lit (and we did read a few,) it should have been in the context of American history. Or better still, we should have done a study of Australian lit. I shouldn't have had an English teacher who'd never heard of 'A Christmas Carol." :glare: My dad who almost never read, read that to us when I was in grade 2.

 

Back in the day, hanging around waiting for the bus was considered social time. Then we went home and did our homework. (More or less. :tongue_smilie:) It doesn't count anymore? It took me about two and a half hours to get to school and not quite as long to get home.

 

Rosie

[justamouse]

Because the SATs don't really test academic knowledge? Because SAT scores matter so much in college admissions, which are extremely competitive? I know plenty of people who are very smart and did very well in school who scored very poorly on the SAT. Some people don't test well, and some parents aren't satisfied with anything less than an extremely high score on a test like that.

 

But you're still on the hamster wheel. :confused:

[readinmom]

I would have to say that it depends on the school. If the school is involved in high-stakes testing or in program improvement, there is little time for the "extras". Some schools have abandoned core literature because it interferes with the prep for testing.

 

When my oldest son was in ps (9/10th) he read Great Expectations, To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, among others. I aprreciated the fact that someone attempted to teach the novels, but not necessarily how I would have approached it. I always thought a book was to be enjoyed, not endured!

 

What makes something classic, anyways?

[Nan in Mass]

Ester - Would you be willing to list a few example thesis statements for papers that you consider appropriate for high school level literary analysis? Many of us here in the hive struggle with the definition of literary analysis, or at least, high school literary analysis. I know that I was unfamiliar with the term when I began homeschooling. I asked many, many questions on the old boards about ten years ago, trying to figure out what the term meant. The question is a rather broad one : ) and the answers varied so widely that it was difficult to figure out. I eventually gave up trying to understand and simply followed TWTM literature discussion directions as best I could and concentrated instead on trying to get my boys to write some sort of paper, any sort of paper, that wasn't so disorganized that it was incomprehensible to anyone other than their mother. You, on the other hand, have a better understanding of the field and an opinion on what high school literary analysis should look like. There are many people here who are interested in understanding literary analysis, either for self-education or for their children. So perhaps a few examples would be helpful? Maybe even some examples of what you consider unsuitable as well?

 

-Nan

[Ester Maria]

Ester - Would you be willing to list a few example thesis statements for papers that you consider appropriate for high school level literary analysis?

The single biggest problem in high school, from my perspective, is being overly ambitious (not to say pretentious) - kids' attempts at tackling topics they cannot tackle yet with any reasonable amount of quality usually does not result in a good paper.

The second biggest problem is going out of discipline (i.e. out of the field) - writing sociology and psychology essays instead of literary analyses. It is, of course, a fine line, but better to err on the safe side in high school.

 

The ideal would be something like "The influence of Ovid's imagery on Dante" (and then picking concrete examples to talk about) - a topic not too broad ("Antique models in Dante" - that's a topic for a doctorate; of course, you can make a doctorate out of Ovid-Dante relationship too, but it is a much more modest attempt). You can go even more specific: "Man-plant metamorphosis in Ovid and in Dante", that is a good one.

 

If you take Antigone, do not write about man-made laws versus divine laws: that is a theology / sociology / philosophy / etc. argument. Write about how that particular topic is presented in a literary work. That would be a classical example of going out of the field, especially if one ambitiously adds one's own opinions and turns it into a philosophy paper.

If you take Homeric epics, write for example about the patterns of oral literature that can be seen in Homer and then extend the topic to relationship between orality and written culture. Do not write about heroism in ancient Greece, unless you are going to write about how that particular common place is reflected in Homeric epics. Literary aspect must always come first.

 

Comparing the structure of two works is good, or addressing a structure of one. Positivism and reading "author's life and times" into a work is generally bad, though I can think of worse approaches.

 

I am not sure how ready high school kids are for "proper" theses. Very often it is pushing "high level thinking skills" before their time, I would be careful and focus on having a sound argument, even if not argumentative but more descriptive in nature.

 

I am very very basic when it comes to writing: be clear, use language well, do not bite off more than you can chew, present the argument coherently and without factual mistakes, refrain from mystifying things, refrain from getting into a whole 'nother discipline, know when to state your opinion and in which amount (sometimes it is not needed at all), avoid psychologizing at all costs (whether the work itself or your own "impressions" which get emotional), avoid megalomania in presentation, avoid "journalist style" and bombastic statements, and if in doubt, go back to the good ol' KISS approach (i.e. keep it simple, stupid :D). What I would fail a lot of papers I reviewed for are NOT high level stuff, but middle level stuff and biting off more than they can chew and then spitting out very unsuccessfully.

 

There are kids who can handle actual argumentative theses in all years of high school, of course, but few and far between in my experience. It is much better to focus on specific literary characteristics or literary dealing with a certain topic or aspect of a work than get into any fancy theories one cannot back up properly. That is exactly what the high school level should be about, stepping out of "content" to "form": not using books anymore exclusively as starting points for all sorts of pseudo-philosophical discussions, but focusing on what is literary about those issues in those works.

 

Mind you, I have my own professional biases in approach too, I am sure many colleagues will disagree; but I like to keep things basic rather than going overly ambitious. Schools are often too ambitious and the influence of that ambition on the future ability to assess art works from the point of view of what makes them art and what is skillful about them, rather than only "emotionally" or "philosophically", is pretty much comparable to the effects of new math on a thorough understanding of the principles of math. Seriously. It causes more damage than the good it might produce. One should often just go back to basic stuff. "What makes this text a literary text, a particular use of language to produce art, rather than a newspaper article or a philosophy book?" is always a good starting point to ask yourself.

[Sara R]

Read The Language Police by Diane Ravitch. It explains why books published prior to ~1970 aren't considered "safe" by schools.

[Nan in Mass]

Thank you, Ester Maria. That makes sense. And what you said about argumentative theses and doctoral theses is comforting. Part of the reason I have avoided non-WTM literary analysis is that my boys had very little patience with any other literary curriculums. My boys loved The Iliad and were happy enough to discuss what made the story work and how Homer (or the translator) created a certain effect. They even (eventually) noticed things on their own, especially similarities to other things we had read. They liked explaining to me details of historical background information, like what this phrase meant or why a character did something this way. They clammed up whenever I tried to get them to answer questions they thought were silly or stupid. Your pseudo-philosophical questions came under that heading. They thought it was boring to discuss the literary aspects, but they were willing to do it because they could do it, at least a little. Anything else tended to get the answer, "How am I supposed to know that?" It seemed like neither of them were able to write an organized paper about something abstract before they were 16, neither the language/humanities/people oriented one, or the engineering-minded one. This was so obvious that I wondered if it were developmental. Anyway, thank you.

 

I had a thought about your voice. Perhaps you have unconsciously switched to using your chest voice instead of your head voice (http://www.theconnectedvoice.com/V2/2010/03/02/chest-voice-and-head-voice/)? That would explain the roughness. Your head voice sounds more like a whistle and your chest voice sounds more like your speaking voice. I naturally sing in my head voice and have never learned to use my chest voice but my sister has learned to use hers to belt out sea chanties and it sounds rough and less musical. A friend naturally uses her chest voice to sing and when she tried to teach me a song, I had trouble telling which pitch I was supposed to be singing in some places because of the roughness.

 

-Nan

[Blessedchaos]

Read The Language Police by Diane Ravitch. It explains why books published prior to ~1970 aren't considered "safe" by schools.

 

I started reading this today. Ugh. Not that I'm shocked at the censorship, but I am disgusted at how extensive it is. I don't understand with these restrictions in place how our students manage to get any kind of education at all.

 

Thanks for the book suggestion:).

[Michele B]

Hmmm.... I thought the very term "classic" designated a work that was of such quality to be timeless. The "changing nature of classic" argument doesn't make sense to me. I accept that more works would be added to the category of what is deemed classic, but why would there be subtractions?

 

If they're going to cop out they ought to at least be gutsy enough to say that they are no longer studying the classics in favor of evaluating more politically correct works (ahem, apart from exerting themslves over those "exerts").

 

:iagree:

 

Maybe you have already read this article, but I'll post the link again. The author seems to be in favor of teaching writing in place of classics. I don't agree they have to be separate lessons, but she presents some interesting opinions and findings. There is one word of profanity near the end used to express, well or poorly, the extreme level of frustration.

 

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/05/10/death_to_high_school_english

Edited May 28, 2011 by Michele B
correct link

[Parrothead]

That's just sad! What's elitist is assuming that children of a certain race or income level can't or won't appreciate classic literature. Certainly the schools should start gently, and work their way up to the more difficult pieces. But to completely deny them the privilege of Twain, Dickens and Shakespeare in favor of fast-food fiction is criminal.

 

I'm so glad we're homeschooling.

:iagree:It is sad. It is ironic that the excuse to not teach classics is because of possible derogatory comments.

[Michele B]

But don't schools teach "sensitivity training?" Wouldn't negative examples be used in those classes/lectures? Sooooo....if you came across an example in a classic, couldn't you just say, "Look, this is an example of a negative stereotype," and MOVE ON?

[Nan in Mass]

Would you summarize it for me? I am not on facebook and can't access the article.

-Nan

[Perry]

Would you summarize it for me? I am not on facebook and can't access the article.

-Nan

Here is a direct link.

[LG Gone Wild]

And even if a classic work had a racist concept, do we pretend that that part of history never existed? Do we not need to contemplate how previous generations handled racial and class distinctions? It's an important part of knowing how we got here! It's like saying we won't study history because we find reading about wars to be disturbing!

 

:iagree: :glare:

[flyingiguana]

:iagree:

 

Maybe you have already read this article, but I'll post the link again. The author seems to be in favor of teaching writing in place of classics. I don't agree they have to be separate lessons, but she presents some interesting opinions and findings. There is one word of profanity near the end used to express, well or poorly, the extreme level of frustration.

 

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/05/10/death_to_high_school_english

 

 

She says some interesting things, but she seems to be making the point that high school kids shouldn't be reading the classics because it takes away time that should be spent on teaching writing. And then she backs up this assertion with the evidence that kids in high school are spending too much time putting together videos in their English classes. (Evidence that she collected by asking a couple kids what they did.)

 

It's nicely written, except for these logical flaws. (And I do have to wonder where English professors are making 80 grand a year with summers off. Around here, even professors in the sciences are making less than that. And they don't always get their summers off.)

 

As far as I can recollect, no one EVER taught me a thing about writing. I learned it all on my own, by reading. Seems to me, if schools are having trouble finding the time to teach writing, they could do it more efficiently just by having the kids read good books.

[flyingiguana]

But don't schools teach "sensitivity training?" Wouldn't negative examples be used in those classes/lectures? Sooooo....if you came across an example in a classic, couldn't you just say, "Look, this is an example of a negative stereotype," and MOVE ON?

 

I can't find an article I read once about this. It was written by an African-American English professor who had decided to stop teaching Huck Finn. I would like to remember what his arguments were. Does anyone know what article I'm thinking of?

[Michele B]

I don't think the writer claims the article is anything other than anecdotal. I thought it was though-provoking, not definitive. ;)

 

I never really sat down and thought that teachers weren't teaching because they didn't have time to teach, but now that I know how much time I spend teaching and preparing lesson for my TWO girls, it is mind-boggling to think what public school teachers are expected to do - especially if they do not have involved parents on the other end. Is the answer to just give up on literature and composition in public schools? Surely not, but I don't have an answer!:001_huh:

[kalanamak]

I can't find an article I read once about this. It was written by an African-American English professor who had decided to stop teaching Huck Finn. I would like to remember what his arguments were. Does anyone know what article I'm thinking of?

 

No, and every few years a mother out here goes ballistic over Huck Finn. What a book of MODERATION and hopefulness from that era. Guess I shouldn't teach my son about Hitler because we have German ancestors. Them Nazis just weren't pretty enough.