Question for the board...?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by bluebell80, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,851
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Location:
    Boston
    The point is that there are classics out there that relate to someone raised in the ghetto or to someone who works in a coal mine. As I mentioned earlier, a student raised in poverty would be able to relate to Dickens' character Pip better than I would. There are also many classics that students in the ghetto would be able to relate to. And the quality of the teacher does matter. If the teacher simply hands out the book without explaining it, then students are going to find it difficult and judge themselves to be failures. The main reason classics are harder to read is because of the evolution of language. Other than that, they are no different than novels today. It is the teacher's job to make sure to explain the novel as best as possible. If the teacher is bad, how are students going to appreciate any book at all, be it classic or else?

    I'm still not sure why you're condemning all classics since not all classics are the same, in subject matter and in their characters. Also, there are many reasons why the US drop out rate is so high. Not being relevant doesn't really play a big role in drop out rates.

    edit: NaCl, I know that you are a big sci-fi fan. I'm curious to know how that stuff relates to you. I would imagine that something like sci-fi is harder to relate to than something like general fiction.
     
  2. Rei

    Rei Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Kingston
    Your point didn't fall on deaf ears, Salty. You are right about addressing the needs of all students, and that all students will find relevance in different books, which is something we do need to take into account. Thr problem is the reasons you are giving as to why certain books are relevant to some and not others.

    You're lumping every book that is more than 100 years old into one category and making statements about relevance based on social class, career goals, and financial situations. Saying how much money you have determines what books you should be reading is insane. There is no logic to it. Once again, I remind you that the sci-fi pulps sold a million copies to people of every age group, social class, and to people of all careers. Toronto's pay-what-you-can Shakespeare production also attracts every single kind of person.

    Attitude does make all the difference because if a teacher can make the student care about succeeding, no matter how they feel about the book, the student will put in the effort and try to find some value in it. With the right attitude, a teacher can help show a kid something they can enjoy about it. An enthusiastic teacher who knows her students can motivate all of them, no matter who that kid is, and what they are studying. Like the teacher who helped the kids find all the swearwords and sexual references. I don't know how any teenager wouldn't find that funny once they understand the language. Or even if they never find something of value, at least they will care about succeeding because they go to school with the right attitude and will put the effort in, get it over with, then forget about it.

    And so what if Mom doesn't have time to read the essay? It might mean that the child has one less person to help them, but it doesn't lead to failure. My mother never helped me with my homework, and I graduated with an A- average. And if mom doesn't have time to read the essay, it doesn't really matter what the book is about.

    There is no connection between how well off you are and what books will be relevant to you. And just because someone has career goals that only requires basic reading skills doesn't mean they will not be interested in reading certain kinds of books. Not to mention the fact that I've known teaching assistants that don't read at all, and a recovering crack addict who never finished high school who was probably the most well-read of all my teammates when I worked at the call centre.
     
  3. ManhattanMss

    ManhattanMss New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    14
    I strongly suspect the more important contrast is between "showing" and "telling" than between what people in various social stratas find relevant. One of the most stunning programs I ever heard about was one where Shakespearean performance were the focus of a project in various high security prisons, which apparently was among one of the most memorable programs ever offered (memorable to the inmates, I mean). I don't know (and am not likely ever to know) as much about Shakespeare as any of those inmates does now.

    The grand beauty of literature in my mind is that it is undoubtedly the most accessible bridge to the most people with the greatest potential to meander across any social barriers at all. And that's why it's important that kids be exposed to it. How they're exposed will surely make a difference, but everyone oughta have the opportunity to transcend the perfectly ridiculous notion that wealth necessarily dictates one's cultural bias.
     
  4. luckyprophet

    luckyprophet New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    I'd like to be nearby Jupiterian
    They thought it to be valuable, no doubt of that. But whether it's truly related to what they taught? ...

    Have you ever attended to a class on Philology, or Linguistics?

    No doubt literature is intimately related to language, and history of languages, but a course on history of languages definitely isn't literature ...

    There are some things in Tolkien's inventions that I have to pay attention not to fall into ... For intance, the plural form of the word "elf". I use what he didn't like to use, and what, with his literature, he changed.

    ----

    Something else is, Tolkien changed quite a big deal in the English speaking world, all right ... Through literature. What I meant in the post above was that he didn't live out of his literature (in the beginning of his life, at least ...). He wasn't a writer! He was a teacher, a professor of Anglo-Saxon.

    He began "The Hobbit" upon a white sheet of a blank examination of a student who didn't write anything as answer in a test ...

    Writing was his hobby and his love, not his profession, in the beginning of his life. (I know little of his life, anyway ...)

    I've been doing my best to be a bookseller, but maybe I'll fall into teaching ... I'll have, then, failed :(

    Maybe I'll manage to teach Latin, as a professor. But to sell books is what I'd trully like to do. (Only, not always you get to do what you'd like to ...)

    + [----

    This was the question, by the way. Generally.]
     
  5. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    Quite the contrary. When I lived on the poorest street near the train tracks in Whitman, Massachusetts and had nothing positive in my life but my imagination, I thrived on fantasy. The last thing I wanted was to read some stinking soap opera (Scarlet Letter) that thrusts the reader into a morass of human insensitivity. Science fiction provided escape. I needed it to survive. It did not assail me with "lessons" in morality, depress me with mirror images of my own poverty or challenge me with antiquated English prose that only made me feel more the failure. Science fiction gave me sanctuary from reality as I plunged into worlds where anything was possible. It was a welcome reprieve from the depression of my existence. And it was a Godsend for a 14 year old poor kid who knew no other safe haven.

    Ironically, science fiction spawned a craving that led me out of poverty. I became a voracious reader...yes, I eventually consumed many of the classics, although I still do not hold most of them in very high esteem. In college, reading became as asset...Satre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche...from existentialism to quantum physics, science fiction motivated me to seek knowledge. I remember getting an A++ from my professor on a paper resolving the apparent contradictions between physics and existentialism. He embarrassed me by publishing the paper in a school philosophy publication.

    If I had not discovered Galactic Derelict by Andre Norton at 14 years old, I probably would have dropped out of school by age 16. I was failing all classes except French and Algebra II, which I loved. That is why I feel so strongly about helping kids to discover a love of reading...regardless of the genre. By the way, I STILL have that original book!
     
  6. Mercurial

    Mercurial Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    116
    I dont think your idea fell on deaf ears either... I hear you loud and clear, and I do understand that you are expressing a situation that a lot of people on this forum dont relate to. And I do understand, a little clearly now than last night, because I had just typed out something similar to "It doesnt matter if an English teacher doesnt inspire reading; a student should learn to learn for themselves; at higher level learning centers, a teacher is no longer a teacher but someone who you can bounce questions off of and discuss with. You teach yourself."

    But you're exactly right in that respect --I'm coming with the assumption that everyone wants to go to college when they graduate high school, and that is incorrect. I am quite upset that some might mistake that for insensitivity or disrespect --it's not. I think I have made my statement clear in previous posts that I am speaking for kids who drop out, dont graduate, and / or dont pursue any academic instruction post-high school. But in the end, I do cite my own experiences --who else could I cite?

    What I am trying to say is eliminating the classics from schools where it is likely kids will fail with them is not only judgemental in and of itself, but it's denying a serious learning opportunity to a student who does want to study them, and it's limiting students who simply never knew an option like this existed. I had been criticized for generalizing --but this is a separation of classes, and it does call to mind the false notion of "separate but equal."
    You might say that if you do want a school that might be better equipped to give a student a more academic future, then send them to a private school or a suburban school. But we must also remember that, as we are speaking in socio-economic classes at the moment, a number of parents cant afford to pay taxes for one school and pay their kids' way at another.

    So, should we eliminate the classics if some kids are bound to fail it? I say no --I nearly failed Algebra 2, as did 15% of my high school's Class of 2010 (1000 people; so that's about 150 people). So should we drop Algebra 2 because it's "too hard"? Or, as is the likely answer, are our math teachers not performing to the ability they should be? This is why I do think that while obvious relevence may entice a student, there is relevence in all aspects of all books, and not just classics --and not just literature either. A teacher should be there to explain that relevence to students who dont grasp it immediately, and that is done via proper teaching and presentation.

    NaCl, you're stressing that classics can do more harm than good; you've mentioned that in the past two of your posts. I said before that I'm sure they can, as I observe that in my own school every day; I took a classics course last year, and it was extremely difficult to get through at times. But I related the 'classics are too hard / irrelevent / unnecessary' to my mathematics experience. I feel horribly inferior because I had to retake a course and because I cant do as well as my friends can in math courses. It took a toll on my self esteem; it took a toll on my GPA. And I probably wont be needing to use logarhythms in my future career. But is Algebra 2 necessary? Yes. It teaches me a lot of problem-solving techniques and forces you to employ a different mode of thinking; I think it was Neha who said (when I was complaining about my math course ;) ) that even though the practice is not necessary, the journey to get there makes a world of difference to her relative (I think father?), who is a civics engineer.
    Classics offer a lot of different, but still connnected, skills in that vein as well.

    Eliminating courses with high failure rates is not the way to go, and segregating courses to schools that are more apt to pass is even worse. NaCl particularly, I know you're wiser than me, and I know that you come from a different social location than I do, and I sincerely respect and agree with a lot of what you say, but it cannot be denied that I have something you dont. I am a current student, and so while I have no retrospect, I see it as it happens every day, in my own school system and in the poorest region of the state (our capital's public schools have horrible statistics for even basic, statewide standardized tests that gauge you in the mathematical and reading level and grade level).
     
  7. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,851
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Location:
    Boston
    NaCl, I thought your whole point was that reading should be relevant. You never mentioned anything about "providing escape." Some students may find that classics provide an escape or provide comic relief. I know two people who have grown up in poverty and yet still love reading classics. By the way, there are sci-fi classics as well, so when you say that not all students should read the classics, I assume that includes classics from all genres.

    And I still maintain that the teacher plays a very important role in teaching classics.
     
  8. sapphire_chan

    sapphire_chan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think reading Shakespeare is absurd and detracts greatly from his work. If his works must be presented in a school setting, then have the kids watch a few plays each year. If one needs to be analyzed and discussed and dissected, then have them watch that one every year until the third or fourth year of high school (e.g. start 'em off in grade 6 with the Reduced Shakespeare Company's Hamlet) and then hit them with what you want to teach.
     
  9. CDRW

    CDRW Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    29
    Teachers forget that fiction is written for entertainment. They even seem to actively shy away from entertainment as being beneath them. That is why nobody likes the classics. I loved "Of Mice and Men" and "The Old Man and the Sea." "The Scarlet Letter" was boring beyond belief even given how short it is. "The Count of Monte Christo" is one of the coolest books ever written. Out of the books I've been forced to read for English, only two have been ones I've liked, "Of Mice and Men" and "Mr. & Mrs. Bo Jo Jones."
     
  10. Mercurial

    Mercurial Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    116
    While I agree that the Bard is greatly overused and isnt always the best (he has fantastic dialogue, in my opinion, but it's the same story over and over again, and NaCl is right; most of his plays are about a group of rich white kids who fall in love and either one dies --a comedy-- or everyone dies --a tragedy), it's these kind of attitudes that both interest and dishearten me.

    "If his work has to be presented, do it in a way that the kid can fall asleep during and doesnt necessarily have to be listened to in order to still pass with an A." Paraphrased of course, but this is what I'm inferring from the above quote.

    School is supposed to be challenging!! Shakespeare is hard to understand sometimes! He's challenging! Like I've stated before, a large number of schools all over at least the American nation are now "pre-college" institutions. They just are.
    So what do we do? We can either bring back and distinguish technical schools from academic-based schools, or we can start segregating and stripping away the academic atmosphere from all schools --and expect the college droppout rate to be higher than it already is --1 and 4 students drop out, last I checked.
    And I would argue it's because kids are under the impression that college is a harder technical school, a job preparation school, but it's not.

    This is why we need to bring back technical schools and let kids who want to be academics be, and let kids who want to learn a skill be. It's this whole problem of assuming that academia is about learning a set of skills you'll need in the work force (when, regardless of your degree, you'll probably end up at the bottom of the food chain, because it's not about ACADEMICS in the work force --it's about SKILL SETS).

    Bring back the technical schools, and let kids choose which lifestyle they'd prefer. Everyone would learn a whole lot more, and they'd learn what they want to learn. Period.
     
  11. CDRW

    CDRW Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    29
    I think it's unfair to infer that from the quote. It makes perfect sense to watch the plays. That's the medium they're written for. In a survey of film course, which makes more sense, having the students watch films, or having the students read scripts?

    Scripts are a blueprint for building a play, not the play itself.
     
  12. sapphire_chan

    sapphire_chan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think school is ruined by Shakespeare, I think Shakespeare is ruined by schools. I think "Romeo+Juliet" did more for the cause of literacy than a thousand assigned papers.

    As long as kids learn what they need to about literature, does it matter if they do it piece by agonizing piece over seven years or in one semester after experiencing the plays as they were intended to be seen?

    I mean at least give the kids some practice reading plays! Could you imagine if movie trailers consisted of putting up sections of the script? That's what has happened with Shakespeare in schools. A half dozen new skills get taught at once, kids have trouble with the two we actually care about them learning, Shakespeare gets marked as "hard", and kids dismiss a couple dozen excellent plays as "boring."
     
  13. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    Have you tried to analyse a text without having the text in front of you? Its very difficult to do well. I mean, once you've practiced skills like analysing literature, it gets easier and easier to do, but doing it without actually reading the text for academic purposes is ridiculous. Yes you need to be aware of the staging of the play, but particularly with Shakespeare, you need to be able to read the text. The dialogue they use doesn't come naturally to people nowadays, it does take some deciphering. As for most of his characters being rich white kids, as has been noted in other posts, that is hardly the point. As West Side Story shows, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to transport Romeo and Juliet out of its original context and make it accessible to a different group of people. But that doesn't discredit the original text, or imply that it is any less accessible to other people.

    For the other points, as I said before, the study of literature is never solely about reading the classics. It teaches real skills, skills that are just as important to a construction worker as they are to a lawyer or an academic. They teach yu how to interpret texts, to form arguments, to be able to speak and write and argue eloquently, to empatise with people outside your own class and culture, and, with things like Shakespeare, or the difficult works, to persevere, to decipher and understand difficult language and difficult concepts. These are skills that are important to everyone, and it is these skills that are the aim of teaching English at high school. Once you get to university it certainly becomes a more formal study, but at high school (at least as I experienced it, and I imagine others too) it is still very much about developing the skills I mentioned above.
     
  14. CDRW

    CDRW Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    29
    The dialogue that is so unnatural in text becomes downright easy to understand when it's performed in context.
     
  15. sapphire_chan

    sapphire_chan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you need to read the dictionary to get what it's doing?

    Who ever said "don't have the book in front of you"?

    I just think the cart and horse have been the wrong way around in the schools for too long.
     
  16. Rei

    Rei Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Kingston
    Maybe it's just because of where I grew up, but race of the characters is irrelevent to me, especially considering so many things trancend race. Think about it. At its core, Romeo and Juliet is about two people who can't be together because of a family fued. This sort of thing can happen in any culture and social class. I've also seen performances of the plays with very diverse casts, and retellings of the stories that represent people who are not western European.

    This is a strange kind of descrimination that most people don't even notice. It's become okay to condemn things that happened to be about people who are white. You say that kind of thing about any other group, and you're suddenly bad. Schools should have literature that represents everyone, and that includes the "rich white people." Besides, talking that way causes people to forget just how many languages and cultures there are among white people. It's just a skin colour. It shouldn't mean a thing.
     
  17. CDRW

    CDRW Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    29
    Amen.
     
  18. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    This might not happen in other schools, but in my English classes, whenever we studied a play, we spent about 2 weeks simply reading it aloud as a class (with some bits actually staged if necessary). Its not as good as actually seeing the play performed, but it helps in that the nuances of the text come out a little more easily. But, it still wasn't a substitute for a close reading of the actual text, and it was inevitable that simply listening to/seeing the play performed would not help you understand the themes or the imagery or any of the literary features any more readily. I guess what I mean is that seeing Shakespeare performed is helpful to a student of his texts, but it certainly isn't the best way (in terms of education) to study a play.
     
  19. Rei

    Rei Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Kingston
    Every time a movie version was available, we watched it in my English classes.
     
  20. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    Very interesting topic...never would have expected it to raise this much angst. LOL

    The original question was simply should reading the classics be imposed on all students. My goal with carefully chosen inflammatory rhetoric was to stimulate understanding that the "classics" are not always the best choice and that open minded teachers/administrators should be prepared to adjust to the varying needs of their students. College prep students should be hammered with classics. Vocational directed students needs technical reading skills...blueprints, manuals, safety guidelines. And, kids from challenged backgrounds need nurturing in English class with a greater emphasis on the value of reading than on the content. It is simply not right to impose one standard on all kids. Sorry if I raised any blood pressures.
     
  21. sapphire_chan

    sapphire_chan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, while that's a good start, that can backfire drastically if you've got a class who hate reading aloud and/or can't do so well. Plus, hearing other people who don't know what the words are supposed to mean only goes so far towards improving understanding.
     
  22. Rei

    Rei Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Kingston
    The reason your comments pissed so many people off is because you grouped together people based on social classes, which has nothing to do with reading, and claimed having a positive attitude was irrelevent. You go into any class with the same types of students but different teachers and you will see a world of difference in how the students behave.
     
  23. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    I was painfully shy in high school. Flunked "Speech" class because I simply refused to deliver a speech. It was "mandatory" for graduation but after I served 10 hours of detention for refusing to obey the teacher's order, they finally figured out that I was serious about not getting up in front of the class and they waived the requirement so I could get a diploma. I also served "time" for refusing to stand up in English class and read parts of Shakespeare...same theme.
     
  24. Rei

    Rei Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Kingston
    That's terrible. My grade nine class included giving a speech, but I was allowed to read it to my teacher privately. They allowed me to gradually work my way up. What you're telling me reminds me a little about my business teacher, who is great at the kind of math you need to know for accounting and stuff like that, but go over to algebra and stuff, you lose him. I don't remember if he needed two or three math credits, but he failed the last one he needed three times, and he met with the principal, who saw how well he did in French and Latin, so he was allowed to take Greek instead.
     
  25. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    You're wrong. Social classes DO exist...and in some of those settings, education is NOT encouraged or it takes a back seat to things like hunger, gangs, lack of stable home life and even intellectual ability. I care about those kids too. My comments on this thread are about having empathy for others who may not live in your narrow social niche. Like it or not, there ARE kids who are better off not being beaten down with mandatory studies of "classics". BTW - there are also exceptions to every rule and I am certain we can find ghetto kids who love Romeo & Juliet. Let's not make the rule based on the exception.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice