Stephanie’s Wicked Awesome Words

In an article I just read, there is controversy in England over proposals recently made by Education Secretary Alan Johnson. In attempts to reform the school curriculum, Johnson wants to force 11-14 year olds to read classic literature from such authors as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and George Eliot. Though I am a strong supporter of using classic literature in the classroom, I also believe that certain texts are appropriate for certain age- and ability-levels. Forcing an 11-year old to read Dickens is analogous to forcing him to do calculus. It is just not suited to the talents and abilities of children at this age. In my Brit Lit class I am taking this semester, we have been studying Austen and Dickens. I find it hard to believe that texts that are challenging for college students to read and comprehend fully are sufficient to be taught in early adolescent classrooms.

In response to these proposals, Ian McNeilly, director of the National Association for the Teaching of English (NATE), said,

“It is a complete fallacy. Forcing children and teachers to study texts that are inappropriate is deeply counter-productive. It puts students off the text, the author and the subject and it doesn’t do anything for their self-esteem.”

Though children need to be exposed to excellent, classic literature, they need to experience it when they are ready to tackle the difficult language. More than likey students will learn nothing, and will leave school feeling frustrated and lacking confidence in themselves. A move such as this could even cause students to despise literature, and will thus ruin the possibility for a deep love for and interest in great works in their later lives.

Ian Brinton, who is quoted in the article, comments as to whether or not these politicians read the texts before prescribing them to children. It seems highly improbable for anyone who has read Great Expectations to finish the book and decide that it is completely plausible for an 11-year old to read it and understand everything. In instances such as these, politicians need to leave literature choice up to the teachers, as they are the ones who are in close contact with students. It is the teachers, not the people making government policies, who know what students can and can not handle. Politicians need to let them do their jobs, and they need to stick to their own jobs. This is not to say that the government should not have a say in education, for I believe that they play a vital role. However, if they want to be effective they need to understand the limits of children and play according to those limits.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills says,

“…it’s vital that teachers instill a love of literature in young people and engage them with the best-loved writers from our history.”

There is no doubt that this is a true statement, yet we also have to consider how teachers are going to instill this love. It is not enough to hand a child Pride and Prejudice and expect him to read the book, understand it, and love it. Just as an Olympic athlete has to start small to get to such a high level, so too do students in the English classroom. Young students can still read classic literature without being too weighted down. For example, why not give an 11-year old a work by C.S. Lewis as a starting point to learn how to analyze literature and what to look for. Only after he can fully understand this, then he can read more challenging works, and eventually progress to reading Dickens or Austen.

Another plausible option that we have discussed in class is using young adult literature as a segue into the classics.  Even though I still disagree with introducing such challenging material at such a young age, going this route may make the jump easier.  For example, students could read the YA novel Jake, Reinvented as a segue into The Great Gatsby or Special as a segue into The Lord of the Flies.  Teachers could draw on the thematic connections between the two, and use the YA text to help students better understand the classic one.

“‘Dickens and Austen too complicated,’ say teachers”

The Evening Standard: 16 February 2007

Complete Article

After the discussions that we have been having in class, I have decided to shift the focus of my blogs from No Child Left Behind legislation to that of literature. More specifically, I want to study the debate concerning literature taught in school, whether middle and high schools should focus on young adult literature or classic literature. There are those who believe that YA literature should be the canon, as its language is easily accessible to students and it covers topics that are interesting and useful to adolescents. On the other hand, there are those who believe that classic literature should be the canon, as its messages and merits are timeless and have been taught for so long. I tend to align myself with the latter group, although I understand the position of the former.

There is a reason that classic pieces of literature from such authors as Shakespeare, Tennyson, Austen and Dickens continue to be taught in high schools, and not simply because teachers have a fascination with boring their students. Classic literature has been able to stand the test of time and has been revered by many for its greatness – that is why classic literature is taught. Why, then, do people want to disregard it completely and to remove it from the high school classroom? It is true that many of the events, characters, and settings are no longer applicable to students today, but the messages gleaned from these works are timeless.

In his article “The tale’s the thing, for every generation,” William Rees-Mogg talks about a good story being the basis for children wanting to learn. He says that students will find interest in literature if the story and content are interesting to them, not necessarily if the work is deemed classic literature. However, he does not believe that students should not have to read classic literature, but should rather use these other pieces as segues into the classics.

“Great literature, even apart from the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer, teaches lessons…Great literature is an instructor to the young and a comfort to the bereaved.”

The great writers of the classics were masters in their craft. They knew how to write well and effectively, and how to compose pieces that would continue to instill wisdom centuries into the future. In other subjects, such as chemistry, calculus, and history, students study those people who were masters in these fields. They concentrate on gleaning knowledge from those who were the most accomplished and had the most to offer. Why should literature study be any different? Although YA literature is a good device to get children interested in reading, it should not be the main focus of study in the classroom. In general, YA literature does not have the universal appeal or level of skill that classic literature does. That would be equivalent to history teachers teaching their students only about the lives of ordinary people rather than those of people like Napoleon, Washington, or King, Jr. That would be equivalent to chemistry teachers teaching their students only about experiments conducted in high school labs, and not about scientists and discoveries that have changed the world. Classic literature has a place in the classroom, one that should be revered and never substitued with work that is simply mediocre.

“The tale’s the thing, for every generation”

William Rees-Mogg

February 19, 2007

Complete Article