Care to elaborate upon how this should be done? You informed me how wrong and terrible my views were, but for a few posts now, I have asked you what your alternative approach is, and you have blissfully ignored it.
Isn't Hamlet a part of complete works of Shakespeare? What's bleep by Nabokov? Lolita? It looks like I've read 36, which is more than I expected. [MENTION=55557]NeonFraction[/MENTION] Which books do you refer to? I do agree that e.g. War and Peace is too difficult to many kids, and by kids, I mean from 8-15yo. I've never even heard any teacher making pupils below senior high to read Russian classics. We did Anna Karenina in senior high though, and many struggled with it, then loved it. I'm glad the teacher made us read it. By the way, sometimes it feels better to succeed at something that was at first hard than things being easy-breezy all the time. Many people love challenges, maybe it's in our nature? Based on your posts, I'm not sure where you've studied pedagogy or curriculum, but I get the feeling the teachers who come from that institution probably don't get anything done at school. Sorry to be blunt. Even with literature, you just can't and shouldn't cater to every kid's wishes, because they are kids and the reality is that they need guidance, coercion, bribery, manipulation, and a firm hand from the teacher and parents, which means making them read something they don't want to read to pass the course/class even though they'd rather read comics. Sometimes school is bitter tears and unpleasant things. BUT, it also works to give them choices, criteria for an acceptable book to be read for those dreaded book reports. Then they can also pick something they really want to read. You can't really teach them to love reading without making them read (or maybe you can, and I'd love to hear how. No sarcasm, btw). Give free rein to kids and you've got a bunch whose attention span allows them to process something like Deadpool at best. One of the worst things, to me, is to underestimate the abilities of your pupils. E.g. you can make 8th graders read The Picture of Dorian Gray. It's a classic, it's not written for idiots, and it can make a kid think (my book report of it turned out okay, and I'm no major nerd). To Kill a Mocking Bird is pretty short, and an American classic to boot. Surely, say, many 8th graders can tackle that too (we didn't read it 'cause it'd be like Americans reading some of our classics). But a 1000 pages of obscure Russian names for a non-Russian is a bit much for that age group. ETA: By the way, today's kids have it pretty darn easy already. I don't even know how to make it much easier than making them read Harry Potter. Which I read too as a kid.
I agree with your post. Even in my advanced/honors English classes, most of the students didn't seem that interested in the books we read. I also felt that a lot of students weren't looking for a challenge. I think a lot of students see English differently than they do math or science. They expect math and science to be hard, but they don't expect the same thing for English. And as a result they don't put in as much effort. I guess they believe that since literature is open to interpretation, it's a lot easier than something like physics, where there is usually only one correct answer. And while I do think the curriculum/teachers are partly to blame, I think students deserve some blame as well. I don't know if I'd say they have it easy. They certainly have more books to choose from, but as far as I know, the curriculum in school is still pretty much the same. For example, I don't think Harry Potter is assigned in high school classes. High school students are still expected to read Shakespeare, Faulkner, etc. By the way, I should mention that when you said "kids," I took that to mean high school students. I'm not sure if that was what you meant. Maybe I'm just getting old...
Why would that be bleeped? You're may be right that this is the work references, but the bleep makes no sense.
It's something I noticed when this list was going around Facebook - this is a good few years ago now. I assume it was copypasta'd from a site that doesn't like the word 'Lolita'. Given the meaning of that word, I can't say I don't understand it I guess.
Oh. So it's not the word itself, but more like they're guarding against internet searches for that word that might have the site displayed in contexts they don't like?
BBC published this list, right? If so, I don't see any good reason why "Lolita" was bleeped out. Maybe it was just an editorial error.
This list could have been taking from any number of sites, it was all over Facebook for years both with and without that word bleeped out - and I've found it on a number of other sites as well. One of those smaller sites is most likely where the original list on this site came from.
Still, if BBC reprinted it, they could have at least fixed the error. Anyway, it's a minor issue compared to the other mistakes people have pointed out.
Indeed, like Hamlet being named alongside The Complete Works of Shakespeare. It seems like whoever compiled this list, it wasn't proof read very well - or at all.
Someone disagreeing with you is not a personal affront. Calm down. No one thinks your ideas are terrible. Anyway, my idea is pretty simple. Stop picking out books that are labeled classics, and start picking out books students like. There are lots of books out there, test them out on classes. Ask the kids. Did they like it? Which book did they like most? Which did they like least? Usually, kids get to start off with books they enjoy. Ugly duckling, Alice in Wonderland, Seasame Street. Lots of kids, especially in the low income schools, start off only with what the school gives them. Lots of Dick and Jane. Not much Bert and Ernie. This wouldn't be so bad, but as they grow older schools pick out more and more 'adult books' so that by the time lots of these kids reach middle school they've forgotten what a fun book is. I didn't see your longer post before, (I wasn't ignoring you) so now I'll sum up a response: Since you taught, you should know. An interesting lesson sticks in the kids heads. Just like you forget a boring book and remember your favorites, so do students remember a good lesson. It shows in their grades. It shows when they pay attention. It shows in every single book they read out of class they weren't assigned. I'd invite you to find numbers on it if you want, but it's hard to put numbers on 'enjoyable.' Enjoyment, learning through play, is not something the human brain outgrows. When it comes to education we tend to favor the gifted and the motivated because they're the easiest and most fun to teach. Anyone can teach those kinds of kids. It's when we look at all the kids who aren't like that and think 'well, at least I can challenge the good ones,' we've given up. A challenge to a kid who hates reading isn't a challenge, it's a trial. Ideally, we should be able to appeal to both the gifted and the regular students, but unlike in, say, math, in reading the students who like to read will read outside of class. I'll ask you this: Do you think our school system now is working as well as it should be? If not, what have you found that could improve it? Maybe I'm an idealistic, but I'm tired of people looking at education and thinking 'well, we've done all we can here. Move along.' I respect the idea that challenge cannot be avoided and even agree with you, but I don't believe that difficulty cannot and should not be lessened by making a more enjoyable reading experience for students. Course, changing books they teach in school isn't going to revamp the education system overnight or even all that much, but I'd think it'd be a start.
Sorry, that was a blanket statement. I slipped to thinking how it's in our schools. The stuff kids read (I actually mentioned the span, 8-15yo) is pretty easy at this point already. Yeah, they have to read some Finnish classics which can be pretty boring and difficult to some, but e.g. no Shakespeare until in senior high. When I was in school, we read Harry Potter, Goose Bumps, YA (so today they'd read Twilight and Hunger Games). [MENTION=55557]NeonFraction[/MENTION]: I find this conversation interesting since I'm an English teacher myself (albeit just at the beginning of my "career", but I finished my teacher studies last spring so I'm qualified at this point), so I hope you don't mind me butting in even though you replied to [MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] Here's the rub. If we pick books students like, we end up picking "books." There has to be some criteria, e.g. a number of pages. Otherwise you'll have 20 junior high students who want to read picture books with as little text as possible and 5 who prefer "actual" books. I'd imagine it is pretty common with kids in elementary school to actually give them books that are meant for their age group. They usually aren't made to read the hardest stuff from that list. Perhaps that's been the case with you and some others? Every country and every school seems to have some kind of a reading list that includes the classics of their nation, and the given curriculum dictates the teacher has to familiarize every kid with works that have shaped their nation, works that are a part of their cultural canon. I wouldn't do away with this, if that's what you suggest? Because many kids sure would love to do away with "boring" classics... Wow, you've definitely had some pretty bad experiences! Did they make you read the likes of Shakespeare and Tolstoy in elementary school? I think I misunderstood most of your post, because I thought you meant making it easier for older pupils, like those in junior and senior high. Many of them should be challenged to read stuff beyond Harry Potter, like [MENTION=5272]thirdwind[/MENTION] said, they expect English to be easy, but it can be challenging too, and should be, even. I remember that we had to read a full-length novel in Swedish (Jonas Gardell's En Komikers Uppväxt when I was 16. We had studied Swedish for 3 years at that point, and it was hard, but I'm happy we were made to read it because after that my Swedish was a lot better. So since we were able to pull that off, in a foreign language, no less, I don't see it as a bad thing to challenge a little younger kids than that with some of the works in this list or with other classics, especially when they get to read it in their mother-tongue (well, most of them. Depends on the school, because in the US you have more language variety than over here). By the way, I'm talking about students we generally call "normal," who don't have severe dyslexia or other conditions that make learning a tad more challenging for them than for the next guy/gal.
I guess I get pretty angry about this stuff, because I always hated how unfair my school was. It was a pretty ghetto school, half of it middle class and priveldged and the other half poor kids who had never really been taught to read outside school. And if your parents don't read to you starting at an early age, you start off with a huge disadvantage and it stays that way. While I was reading Shakespeare, I saw kids struggling with 'whenceforth' when they didn't even know what 'relations' meant. It just seemed so stupid to be teaching something as useless and outdated as old english to a bunch of kids who needed a real education because they had been denied it at home. Then, while I was slogging through boring books because my parents expected it of me, I saw the other kids just not reading them at all. There was no learning, no challenge. They just weren't reading it. Then we read 'The Once and Future King.' I hated it, but the rest of the class LOVED it. I saw kids reading that book who had sworn off reading altogether because they could never get past the first few chapters. One of the kids said, and I'll never forget this: 'Well, it's not a school book, is it? School books are boring.'
[MENTION=55557]NeonFraction[/MENTION]: So basically you suggest that ease those who are behind their class into reading while those who are from, say, better homes or otherwise avid readers should be challenged? That's an age-old dilemma with school, how to cater to a heterogenous classroom where people have vastly different needs, backgrounds, capacities, etc. But in the end, some people will always have to work harder, and if they can't accept that, they will be left behind because teachers aren't miracle workers either (maybe they would be if they were paid better). I'd love to visit some American school(s), see how kids are taught there, how the system really works (or doesn't).
The problem is that it wasn't so much a matter of working harder, as it was they just hated the books. I don't think the books should be easier so much as more enjoyable. (Shakespeare in old english I believe should be cut entirely, but that's a different subject altogether!)
Haha, yeah, though I don't think too many people could read Shakespeare in Old English anyway (not sure if anyone's translated it to start with...)
This is already what the vast majority of the school districts in the US are doing. Their reading list contains of certain classics, but is also filled with books simply meant to appeal to kids. I mean, are you even familiar with what you're criticizing? You come in here saying the approach is all wrong and kids are being turned off reading. Your solution? The current status quo. Brilliant. You keep shifting your argument around. First, it was something about reading always having to be fun, ignoring that there is always a "hard work" period with any worthwhile skill in life. Now, it's something about lectures being interesting? The problem here is the implicit assumption that the goal of US school system is to actually educate the students. It's not. Instead, it's designed to teach them as little possible, to make for more easily controlled, manipulated idiots by the government. In that sense, US schools are working beautifully. Trust me, you don't...
WHAT!?! Shakespeare isn't easy or enjoyable? I am a classroom assistant, and have worked with GCSE students; I've found they were able to understand and enjoy Shakespeare. It's the way you teach him that makes all the difference, the way Shakespeare is taught is terrible a lot of the time. Also, Shakespeare isn't really 'old English' that goes to the language of at least Chaucer, maybe even the language of Beowulf. Compared to Chaucer, Shakespeare is rather contemporary.
While I'm not personally a huge fan of The Bard, this brings up a great point. Trying to pander and appeal to kids with certain non-classic books is in no way a guarantee that they will even enjoy them! My high school used this half and half approach, and most people ended up preferring the classics to the contemporary, "fun" choices. So yeah, you can teach something dumber (and poorly-written) like "Eragon" or "Percy Jackson" or "Twilight" or a picture book (for high school students!), but even then, there is no guarantee most students will enjoy them. In fact, they might like that stodgy old Shakespeare more. Edit- That's also not getting into NeonFraction's implicit belief that one should teach down to the least advanced/least interested student in the class, an approach I have always disagreed with.
I'll admit, I am obviously something of a snob when it comes to literature. I blame my education, which was purely classic English literature. The idea of teaching students contemporary literature in my school would have been laughed at, American literature was only lightly touched on, and only then it was things like 'Death of a Salesman', 'The Crucible' and Of Mice and Men. Well known 'good' American literature. Such an education has never harmed me, or any of my classmates, which now includes an Oxford graduate or two.
I imagine NeonFraction's reply would be that you already had a good educational background and appreciation for literature, but what about those students who don't? (Again, we will ignore that students are smarter than he gives them credit for, or that they might not like his suggested "fun" reads any more than they would classics) I have never agreed with this attitude. I view teachers and schools as a resource. You can't lead a horse to water and all that. Some choose to use that resource, while most don't. Why spend one's time and energy trying to force people to do something they don't want (by high school, one should be treated like an adult, regardless of how much modern Western society babies them), instead of helping and nurturing those who do want to learn?! NeonFraction wants to do the former, but it necessarily comes at the expense of the latter. This is the current attitude of US schools, by the way, and it's part of why they suck.
I agree with you. I think you raise a very important point, by high school students shout be treat like adults, and should act like adults. They are going to be adults in just 5 years, and be in the workforce in a much shorter time. I'm not a stiff, don't get me wrong, I love to have fun - I've got a few bruises from the many nights out with friends, but it should be moderated. There is a time for seriousness, and I think Richard Wagner once said 'If you can't be serious about work, what then?' That's, again, not to say you can't have fun with work. You can, but take it seriously.
I think NeonFraction had a point when it comes to schools in ghettos. While we can't underestimate the kids, they might come from families that consider literature a waste of time which doesn't add to their everyday survival at all, and the kids sometimes follow their parents' lead instead of the teacher's. Trying to teach Shakespeare to high schoolers who already struggle outside school, can turn against them and the teacher. We want them to read, but we don't want to throw them in the deep end either. However, I believe that even Shakespeare can be approached and studied in such a way that it will appeal to the less privileged kids too without dumbing them down. We studied Romeo and Juliet in high school in English (mind, again not in my mother-tongue) and it was difficult but also a lot of fun because it's his plays people end up reading in most cases, and what do we do with plays again? Um, act them out, right? And for most kids that's a lot of fun. Of course, some curriculums don't allow teachers to do anything fun...
I think you might be right. To be honest, I don't know what it's like outside of my area of experience (I'm only young - 23) so I have no idea what it's like with schools in less affluent places. I soon will though, don't worry I am working on my ignorance.
