Daniel passed along this proposal from Yglesias, that grade schools focus more on non-fiction rather than fiction when teaching reading and writing skills to their students. This sounds like an interesting idea to me. As someone who barely ever reads fiction anymore, I'm biased towards liking the idea. At the same time, a properly-managed literature curriculum strikes me as more or less essential for a child's education. It was suggested in the comment section that English and History courses work together, and this is a set-up that Daniel and I benefited from greatly during high school. Perhaps what might be best would be to replace textbooks with historical or biographical texts in non-English/Lit classes... and, I think, to get rid of crappy books from the literature curriculum rather than replacing them with non-fiction. There's no reason that I can see to get rid of Hawthorne or Hugo or Dostoevsky or Poe, but I could have done without Catcher in the Rye, Ender's Game, or anything written by Toni Morrison... although to show that I don't completely lack any appreciation for more recent literature, I'll say that I'm glad we read Their Eyes Were Watching God and One Hundred Years of Solitude.
What do others think of this idea? It's a bit provocative, and I hope it pisses off enough English majors for them to respond. What texts do you think would be appropriate and important for grade school students to read? I think that a bit more philosophy would make sense... at least get some Plato and Aristotle under their belt. We read Daniel Borstein in history, and I think that would benefit any curriculum, too. What else?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'd have to disagree with you strenuously on Catcher in the Rye. I enjoyed Ender's Game, but I'm not sure whether it deserves to be in curriculum or not. No opinion on Morrison. I agree with you on Hurston and Márquez.
ReplyDeleteAs far as good "recent authors" I would also put Achebe firmly in that camp as someone I got a lot out of. He was one of a few that I had to read twice several years apart. That's always good to do too - I think it gives you a better sense of what really has layers to it and what is more transitory.
I figured you'd disagree with me on Catcher in the Rye. Which is why I didn't even bother mentioning that I would scrap Lord of the Flies too. I have no mercy, and no shame.
ReplyDeleteYou mention 'non-fiction' without actually adding many caveats as to the kind or breadth of the non-fiction. For example, I suspect that for most secondary school learners studying Plato or Aristotle might be more than a bit demanding, similarly with Dostoevsky. I cannot imagine a class of high school students all reading Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov. The problem seems to me to be the sample of learners you're talking about, the subjects they have chosen, and whether these things correlate with comprehension, analysis and understanding of the required texts. For a lot of literature you can build around a fairly obvious plot and discuss also fairly obvious 'themes' and hope that learners will re-read the books later or continue to read more in-depth. With non-fiction those more obvious building blocks aren't there (except with some history books where you can build around a timeline). I could just be pessimistic about what high school learners are capable of.
ReplyDeleteA secondary thing is whether high school teachers are as good at teaching non-fiction analysis as they are at teaching fiction analysis. I'm not convinced that they will be unless you have dedicated and well-trained teachers who are widely read and capable in several disciplines. I'm not convinced this is the case.
Oh, yes, I'd support including Achebe. They teach his Things Fall Apart to high school learners in South Africa and at least some of them reap the benefits.
ReplyDeleteI remain unconvinced that high school learners will grasp much of Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye unless they study the contemporary culture and history. Similarly with most literature, which is why I would support your "History + Literature" proposal.
Welcome to the blog, Simon. I read Crime and Punishment in high school. But I take your point. I think a lot of questions about student quality can be addressed at earlier grades, though. Often, early grades are treated like baby-sitting opportunities, rather than as a preparatory period for higher grades.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean when you say that the "building blocks" of non-fiction aren't there. I think if anything the themes of non-fiction are more obvious than the themes of fiction. The concern might be that they aren't sufficiently universal, compared to the themes of fiction. This may or may not be a valid concern. Part of the solution may also be finding shorter pieces. Instead of reading a history book chapter on the Constitution, assign the Constitution itself, sections of the Federalist Papers and the debates, and perhaps key passages from Beard and McDonald. Then have the teacher fill in some of the facts that the textbook would have provided, but let the other texts frame it. One thing we did in English was read some of Orwell's essays when we read 1984.
Great. My point was that sometimes complete books of non-fiction are not as easy to access, I didn't mean to imply that short bits wouldn't be accessible. In fact I find that they're perfect, even to prescribe at University (I hope). It sounds like you had a great English teacher if they're prescribing Orwell's essays.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my perceptions are also somewhat different: I am a South African and I'm not convinced that it would be as easy to educate SAn students where we have fewer resources in the same manner in which USAn students are taught.
That said, I think the general point that kids are babysat at school holds. Though I'd argue that this is probably because of the incentives for and education of teachers at that level. Trying to provide highly stimulating stuff to kids at that level is probably as hard (if not harder) than providing similar stimulation to older kids. I'm not convinced by the rhetoric of 'kids need to play'.
I think you're also actually speaking to a wider problem in your comment. For example, I think that undergraduate economics relies too heavily on textbooks when instruction could be more of a 'textbook-filling-the-gaps- argument' with more engagement with articles, data (?), etc that you advocate for high school history.
Anyway, I've been reading you two for a while, but hadn't felt the urge to comment. Hello.
Oh, and let me be clearer - I understand that the debate was about American schooling with contingent curricula, etc, it simply segued into my own interests in SA. Apologies.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts, Simon. I think a big problem, which you rightly bring up, is preparation. This is also, of course, the reason why Yglesias brings up the idea in the first place: children can't read and write to a certain standard, and so we need to consider changing the curriculum. The solution is probably more expansive and needs to start at the younger grades. Daniel and I are probably exceptions to the rule as well, because we grew up in a pretty privileged school system and so were exposed to more stuff than many people probably are.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading a sort of "young readers" version of the Iliad & Odyssey in elementary school-- I wonder if something like that might help with the cultural and literary preparation that will make kids ready for the real deal when they get to high school. Some of Plato's dialogues are accessible enough for high schoolers as well; I think their narrative structure probably lends itself to less experienced readers.
I also remember being required to read and report on the newspaper in high school government class. I think this could be incorporated helpfully into any sort of social studies class, and could probably be tailored to the grad level easily enough.
*grade level
ReplyDelete"For me, reason is the natural organ of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning. Imagination, producing new metaphors or revivifying old, is not the cause of truth, but its condition." CS Lewes
ReplyDeleteBy reading fiction, these new metaphors we develop help us to understand the world we live in. By reading fiction, children learn to use their minds (rather than to regurgitate facts.) They then are better able to understand history and science within their imaginations. People with healthy imaginations are inspired to creativity, greater possibilities, and much higher levels of thinking. Wow! (I too read way too much non-fiction in proportion to fiction. I'd better stop by the library today, as I've just convinced myself!
C.S. Lewes? ...do you have the beach house on your mind as the weather gets warmer, Morna? :)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Lewis, though, I think essays like his might be a perfectly good thing to include in a curriculum... along the same lines as Orwell essays like Daniel brought up. A "great essays" section of an English class might perhaps helpfully teach literary style but also engage students with critical thought about the real world in a way that fiction might not.
Morna -
ReplyDeleteNote that neither Evan or I said that we read "way too much non-fiction". We simply said we almost exclusively read non-fiction. There's quite a difference :)
It's somewhat less sophisticated than C.S. Lewis, but I always liked the line from V for Vendetta: "Artists use lies to tell the truth. Politicians use lies to hide the truth."
By the way - in reaction to this conversation I reread Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" last night. I was actually somewhat disappointed, which was... disappointing! I always remembered it as placing more emphasis on the corrupting influence of poor writing. Most of it actually deals with what constitutes poor writing. Oh well. Still a good read, just not quite what I remembered. I think I was projecting 1984 onto that piece.
That was an April Fools joke -- glad you guys are so sharp! (I guess i did have the beach on my mind.)
ReplyDeleteI meant that I read too much non-fiction in relation to the amt of fiction I read. God knows I don't read too much of anything - rather I fall asleep (with luck, you'll be my age someday!)
I don't know V for Vendetta, but I would argue that GOOD artists use creativity to tell the truth. There are lots of artists out there who use their art to lie about the human condition. I agree about the part about the politicians though!!!