# British Schools May Ditch Literary Classics



## Inderjit S (Feb 23, 2005)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-1492041,00.html

So what do you all think of this proposed plan? I think it has both good and bad points, by introducing more modern authors, so hopefully we will see more Calvino, Kafka, Rushdie and Angelou in the syllabus. But is it bowing down to the pressures of multi-culturalism and political correctness by adopting books from outside the literary "canon" as many see them as being dominated by white males, which is to an extent a valuable point. Also what of the "classics" that may be discarded, such as Robinson Crusoe and Paradise Lost-are they really relevant or will their messages live on forever? Also should we be replacing Shakespeare if not wholly, then at least partly, with other playwrights, such as Wilde and Ibsen-certainly they contain issues which we can relate to, but so does Shakespeare.

Personally, I would like to see the introduction of a bit more African literaturen or less well known literature, but I would also like to see the introduction of romanticist poetry (Goethe, Byron, Shelley, Keats) as well as magic realism (Marquez, Bulgakov, Rushdie etc.) but that is a mere reflection of my tastes. And I'm pleased about Tolkien's introduction.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Feb 23, 2005)

The trouble is that there are simply too many important important authors for all - or even a good fraction of them - to be covered in any real depth. The truth is that there is no such thing as a perfect education, and no one can really become well-versed in any area of knowledge without studying it on one's own.

From my personal experience (in the U.S.), I have never gotten the impression that there is anything critically wrong with the way literature is taught in high school. I don't know how different it is in British schools. My high school managed to include a number of modern authors and some African, South American, and Asian literature while also covering much of the "canon". 

I agree that it is, to some extent, important to diversify the readings. Part of the trouble, though, is that non-western works thrown into an otherwise western curriculum will have little or no connection to the rest of the works studied. Say, for example, that one decides that the Japanese _Kojiki_ is an important work that should be studied in high school. How does one structure the curriculum? Do you simply take a class or two to say "Here's the _Kojiki_, it's from Japan in such and such a time period when this and that were happening"? Or do you try to look at the work in more depth by studying Japanese history, traditions, and literature for an extended period of time? If you go for the latter option, you must spend a significant amount of time on Japan, at the expense of other important traditions, not least the traditional western canon. If you choose the former, you have introduced the students to one important work but not really given them more than a tiny glimpse at the tradition out of which the _Kojiki_ comes. But it is not a simple binary choice. The correct solution, I think, is a balance between depth and variety. 

One thing that I think could be done to improve the situation is to plan and coordinate curricula better. Actually, I think that this would be a good step in all areas of education. I remember being taught and re-taught the same things over and over again in grade after grade. Several of the books that we read in middle school we read again in high school. If the curricula were coordinated more carefully, it would allow teachers to build on material that the students have already encountered rather than starting anew. Cross-departmental coordination is also very important. Too often attempts at cross-departmental coordination are only superficial - for example students who are studying a certain time period in history may read a book from that time period in a literature class, but without any actual relation between what the history teacher is teaching and what the literature teacher is teaching. With a little coordination, history classes could provide context for literature classes and literature classes could give a deeper understanding of material covered in history classes.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 23, 2005)

Quite frankly, things should be left the way they are. It seems to me that the major problems being cited for these changes are 1) the kids don't like them, 2) minorities are ignored, and 3) the teacher's find the lit hard to cover. 
Well let's get started:
1) If kid's knew everything they wouldn't need school. The literature has endured for generations, with reason: that list includes some of the western world's greatest writers, inovators and masters in their own time.
2) Probably closing in on the politics line but. . . they are minorities, the British sense of identity is codified in those authors. Is it fair to undermine the heritage of the majority? Since the British government operates on principles developed in England, eliminating the literature that has defined Britain will eliminate part of who she is as a nation. Her form of government is likely to change in response.
3) I agree with Aiwndil2, insofar as saying that the schools could find ways to better cover lit, changing the material for something foreign (conceptually/idealogically) will only mean that students won't just leave books unfinished; they'll come away without really understanding what they've read. If teachers can't cover things from England's past, how will they explain the meaning behind a book using, say, Japanese literary devices?

~my 2 cents


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 23, 2005)

Good replies!

My statement on the inclusion of more African literature was, in a sense tongue in cheek, since I feel that my schools curriculum covered Afro-Caribbean more than I liked. But I think the inclusion of African literature (as an example) is important, not only in relation to history but also in relation to society, esp. feminist writings from Africa. 

But I also think that the course was, at times, narrow-minded and closed. For example, whilst studying war literature, we never covered satiricists such as Heller, Vonnegut, Hasek and Remarque, despite the fact that war satire is an important strand of war literature, so to speak. 

I also think that a lot of early European literature, such as Don Quixote and Russian literature, such as Dostoevsky, Gogol and Turgenev, and all of these could be co-ordinated with cross-curricula studies; though I am sure there are better examples. Rather than studying Jane Austen perhaps Vanity Fair should be looked at as an example of upper-class social satire, or caricature. I am sure there are other examples too. Perhaps we could cross the border and look at Flaubert and de Laclos. I also think that historic novels could be incorporated within history course, so as well as studying Caesar and Tacitus we could study Robert Graves, though he did borrow a lot from the latter.

Literature criticism may also be incorporated, as a separate scheme of study, perhaps for the more mature students. As well as the ubiquitous Harold Bloom, Italo Calvino has several brilliant essays on literary pieces (the man is a genius) and we could include Nietzsche and that old **** Aristotle. Just a thought. Or ten. I'm a pedant.

But my main point behind this is that we should not dismiss the classics.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 23, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> I also think that a lot of early European literature, such as Don Quixote and Russian literature, such as Dostoevsky, Gogol and Turgenev, and all of these could be co-ordinated with cross-curricula studies. . . . and we could include Nietzsche and that old **** Aristotle.


hehe, how about an analysis of Plutarch's Lives (the unabridged version)? I agree on the idea of european literature, especially the Russian lit. Much of it was influencial in England. And I think there is a place for say Sun Tzu's Art of War. Maybe the school system should widen the literature pool, but I think it should predominantly include european classics. Maybe a solution is giving more additional ungraded reading: if you assign another 2-3 books to be read, then give a very general quiz on one of them. I know there are ways to skip the reading and still make the grade, but I think it improves the chances of stuff actually being read, and would allow students to become familiar with more books, as books and not work. Just a thought.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 23, 2005)

Personally I feel that at a Secondary School (High School) level, English Literature needs to be the sole focus. While I cannot dispute that World Literature has tremendous value, I would only want it studied at a college level (in England "College" is an optional but usually taken two-year system between Secondary School and University) or as a specialist subject in GCSE (Grade 10-11 curriculum/examinations, determines' child's college options, student chooses specialist subjects beside the mandatory staples).

If a child does not come from a "British" background, he or she will be able to explore various cultural identites, and in the present curriculum World Literature is certainly an aspect. But it's an English country, and English authors need to be the principle focus.

I am certainly against authors in the immediate past or present; I do not believe that passing fads should be set alongside masterpieces like Shakespeare or the romantics like Keats and Byron. Too little of this true art is studied as it is, with "modern poety" being paraded around as though it were some national treasure. If students wish to investigate these aspects of literature, let them choose to. But the traditions of British Literature must be preserved in England. What would America say if JK Rowling replaced Mark Twain in the curriculum?


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 24, 2005)

"hehe, how about an analysis of Plutarch's Lives (the unabridged version)? I agree on the idea of european literature, especially the Russian lit. Much of it was influencial in England."

Indeed. Though I think we should avoid Leo Tolstoy, not because he is a bad writer, but because his books are so wrong, and less there are less fastidious Russian authors who are just as good. (For example if studying 19th century anarchy you could study 'Fathers and Sons' and 'Demons' by Turgenev and Dostoevsky, just as we can could study Orwell and Zola with socialism. You see, cross-curricula studies should be exploited for all they are worth, and they certainly enhance the reader’s knowledge about the given topic. 

"What would America say if JK Rowling replaced Mark Twain in the curriculum?"

They would clearly say that Rowling's message on wizards and puberty was clearly more important than that guy's message on....whatever he was writing about, I am sure it was not important, but I didn't read it, look how old the book is-there is now way it is relevant to today’s society.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Feb 24, 2005)

Hammersmith wrote:


> I am certainly against authors in the immediate past or present; I do not believe that passing fads should be set alongside masterpieces like Shakespeare or the romantics like Keats and Byron. Too little of this true art is studied as it is, with "modern poety" being paraded around as though it were some national treasure. If students wish to investigate these aspects of literature, let them choose to. But the traditions of British Literature must be preserved in England. What would America say if JK Rowling replaced Mark Twain in the curriculum?



But what do we mean by "authors of the immediate past or present"? I don't think that J.K. Rowling should be part of the curriculum (though I like her books), but I do think that people like Kafka, Orwell, Sartre, etc. should be.

As far as other specifics go - I think it is a mistake to try to come up with a perfect list of literature to be studied. As I said, there are simply too many people that deserved to be studied and not enough time to do it.

So, for example, I also think that _Don Quixote_ is a very important work and that it would be advisable to teach it; but I could justify its exclusion, as long as the curriculum overall was well balanced.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 24, 2005)

"So, for example, I also think that Don Quixote is a very important work and that it would be advisable to teach it; but I could justify its exclusion, as long as the curriculum overall was well balanced."

Including Don Quixote in the first place would be a very quixotic decision indeed.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 24, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> Hammersmith wrote:
> 
> 
> But what do we mean by "authors of the immediate past or present"? I don't think that J.K. Rowling should be part of the curriculum (though I like her books), but I do think that people like Kafka, Orwell, Sartre, etc. should be.


I was referring to a period of perhaps a decade or two in the immediate past. Authors who might make a big splash, but then are forgotten in a few years. Pop culture literature should not be included in the curriculum.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Feb 27, 2005)

Inder asked in the opening post if the proposed changes to the English curriculum marked a "bowing to the pressures of multiculturalism and political correctness." 

According to the Times article:


> Currently one Shakespeare play must be studied by 11 to 14-year-olds, and one more by those on their two-year GCSE course. Other plays must be studied from a list of 10 playwrights. They range from William Congreve, who wrote in the 17th and 18th centuries, to 19th and 20th-century authors such as Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and JB Priestley.
> 
> Four out of 28 listed pre- 1914 poets and two out of 19 novelists from before that year must be studied. From the years after 1914, four out of a list of 16 poets and two out of 11 novelists must be studied.
> 
> Together, these lists constitute the officially approved roster of great writers in English literature. The novelists range from Defoe, Jane Austen and the Brontë sisters to Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Graham Greene and George Orwell.



Evidently there was much resistance among teachers at the time this regime was introduced (1988) to the nationalisation of the curriculum and to what they perceived as an assault upon their autonomy. Defending the policy in an interview in 1998, the head of England's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority maintained that "it is vital for the sake of England's cultural heritage to introduce our young people to Shakespeare" (source).

Contributors to this thread have by and large echoed these sentiments: the changes will "undermine the heritage of the majority," for example, or "it's an English country, and English authors need to be the principal focus," and so on. If the mooted changes are indeed a "politically correct" response to the pressures of multiculturalism, I don't see how the present curriculum--centred as it is around an "officially approved roster of great writers," the study of whom is _compulsory_--is any less an instance of "political correctness," only this time in response to Anglo-centric and traditionalist (rather than multiculturalist) pressures.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 28, 2005)

Sometimes the reasons are more important than the changes. For instance:

1. The changes are made to "dumb down" the offerings because the kids can't read well enough to begin to understand what the author is talking about.

2. The changes are made to be "inclusive" of different races and points of view (these changes are often notriously "one sided" in the point of view they present; that is, "conservatives and especially conservative Christians need not apply".

3. The changes are made because the "universities" from which the teachers graduated were sadly lacking in classical literature themselves and so the teachers are as clueless as the kids!

4. The changes were made to present not education, but the indoctrination of a particular socio-political ideology and its agenda.

If the changes being made were made for one or more of the above reasons, then there is a definite problem. I agree that more modern literature should be introduced to keep kids' interest (Harry Potter would be more interesting to most than Mark Twain), but a good teacher can make almost any work "interesting" if he or she is able to make it understandable and relevant to the kids. But there are a lot of "clockwatchers" out there who just want to "get it over with". They begin to mark their calendars in September with an eye for the various vacation periods and then the end of the school year in June. That sort of "teacher" isn't going to put more into it than he or she can help and that bodes ill for the kids learning much of anything except how to "kill time" through the school day until they are "free" to do their own thing.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 28, 2005)

"*Schools may ditch literary classics*

Richard Brooks and Geraldine Hackett, The sunday times

SOME of the most revered names in literature, including Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, face possible removal from the official pantheon of great writers in a modernisation of English in the national curriculum.

"In their place, children may be required to study a greater range of modern writers and those who reflect the ethnically diverse nature of modern Britain such as the prize-winning black author Andrea Levy.

"Other potential candidates for the new list include fantasy writers Tolkien and Philip Pullman, who many believe more closely reflect the reading tastes of children than the current list.

...

"Some believe the list should be abolished altogether with the possible exception of Shakespeare. A more widespread view is that the list should be modernised and the number of authors cut, enabling books to be studied in greater depth. 

...

"The current English curriculum was introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s government in 1989, although it was modified in the mid-1990s."

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-1492041,00.html

===============================

There are indeed goods and bads to this plan. On the other hand, in general, what's good literature lasts and what's not doesn't. I would be upset if Great Britain is giving in to the general world-wide retrogress of human learning. Let us hope that the British educational system encourages students growing up to the level of the material instead of boiling it down to the vocabulary level of middle-school, such as the major American newspapers have done. One can keep Tolkien _and_ Shakespeare, methinks.

Barley


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Feb 28, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay wrote:


> Contributors to this thread have by and large echoed these sentiments: the changes will "undermine the heritage of the majority," for example, or "it's an English country, and English authors need to be the principal focus," and so on.



I certainly haven't suggested this.

In the (American) high school curriculum I went through, we spent a year on American literature, a year on English literature, a year on non-American and non-British literature, and a year on a mix of all three. I don't see any reason that English curricular shouldn't be _at least_ this diverse.

As for "political correctness" - allow me to come right out and say that I am in favor of it (and apparently the only one in the world). I think that schools ought to make an effort to be inclusive and to cover non-western literature.

The problem I see with this inclusiveness is not one of principle but one of practicality. _How_ do you cover so many literary traditions, each of which includes so many important writers? It is difficult even to cover the western "canon" without either being superficial or skipping a lot of important people.

That's why I think a tempered approach is advisable, rather than simply eliminating the western canon.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 28, 2005)

Classic is not necessarily a term which indicates age. Uncle Tom's Cabin became a "classic" as soon as it was written. Unfortunately, it is never taught in the US although it was a book that not only moved hearts but, as Lincoln allowed, started the war against slavery. However, the main character - a good, kindly and intelligent slave - has become an icon of "white loving" blacks! Go figure. 

Anyway, a good teacher could really make a difference by taking a "classic" work and a "modern" work - which both have relatively the same message - and show students how individuals in different ages have viewed the same issue.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Feb 28, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> As for "political correctness" - allow me to come right out and say that I am in favor of it (and apparently the only one in the world). I think that schools ought to make an effort to be inclusive and to cover non-western literature.
> 
> The problem I see with this inclusiveness is not one of principle but one of practicality. _How_ do you cover so many literary traditions, each of which includes so many important writers? It is difficult even to cover the western "canon" without either being superficial or skipping a lot of important people.
> 
> That's why I think a tempered approach is advisable, rather than simply eliminating the western canon.



Perhaps the problem here is the very idea that we must have a Canon (i.e. a list of "officially approved" writers and texts)--western or otherwise.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Feb 28, 2005)

> Perhaps the problem here is the very idea that we must have a Canon (i.e. a list of "officially approved" writers and texts)--western or otherwise.



Oh, I agree. I am certainly against the idea of a Canon in the sense of an "officially approved" list of texts. But you have to teach _something_. Either you must have a body of important texts to teach or you must simply choose books more or less at random.

And there are, after all, certain texts that one _must_ be familiar with if one is to get along in an educated society. It wouldn't make much sense to read _Jurassic Park_ instead of the _Iliad_, because the latter is a fundamental component of our literary tradition and is a standard part of the vocabularly of western thought, whereas the former is not.

That's why I would not simply drop Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, etc. in favor of diversity, but rather attempt to diversify the curriculum while retaining many of its essential features.

I'm curious - if you favor dropping the standard western literary curriculum entirely, what _would_ you teach? How would you organize it?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 28, 2005)

The "canon" was based not upon the present criteria for "political correctness" but upon how the works chosen were seen to have impacted Western Civilization. Of course, the very _concept_ of "Western Civilization" - or at least the _value_ of Western Civilization is presently under attack, so it is not surprising that the great literary works which were engendered by as well as contributed to it are also besieged. 

I think you will find in many of the attempts by the "educational establishment" to "modernize" the "canon" in the teaching of literature far more socio-political than literary and/or educational motives.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 28, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> The "canon" was based not upon the present criteria for "political correctness" but upon how the works chosen were seen to have impacted Western Civilization. Of course, the very _concept_ of "Western Civilization" - or at least the _value_ of Western Civilization is presently under attack, so it is not surprising that the great literary works which were engendered by as well as contributed to it are also besieged.
> 
> I think you will find in many of the attempts by the "educational establishment" to "modernize" the "canon" in the teaching of literature far more socio-political than literary and/or educational motives.


 
It is hard indeed to impress cynical condescension through a keyboard, but would I be correct in assuming that you are not a supporter of "modernizing" the "canon", as you put it? I would of course agree fully; what we see in this modernisation is a perfect and shameful example of political corectness presuming to state that anything not "multicultural" is thus valueless. This attitude is a despicable one, in my opinion.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 1, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> It is hard indeed to impress cynical condescension through a keyboard, but would I be correct in assuming that you are not a supporter of "modernizing" the "canon", as you put it? I would of course agree fully; what we see in this modernisation is a perfect and shameful example of political corectness presuming to state that anything not "multicultural" is thus valueless. This attitude is a despicable one, in my opinion.


You would be correct. Again, it all has to do with motive. If the motive is to include later "classics" (and certainly literary classics have been created since the 1800s!), then I have no problem with it. Books like "All the Kings Men" which was a fictional account of Louisiana's strong man Huey Long is an excellent example of a 20th Century classic. It is also an excellent example of the rise (and fall) of a populist political demogogue which still rings true in more places than America's deep South.

Again, the _motive_ as well as the action is very, _very_ important.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 1, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> Oh, I agree. I am certainly against the idea of a Canon in the sense of an "officially approved" list of texts. But you have to teach _something_. Either you must have a body of important texts to teach or you must simply choose books more or less at random.
> 
> And there are, after all, certain texts that one _must_ be familiar with if one is to get along in an educated society. It wouldn't make much sense to read _Jurassic Park_ instead of the _Iliad_, because the latter is a fundamental component of our literary tradition and is a standard part of the vocabularly of western thought, whereas the former is not.
> 
> ...



I _don't_ favour "dropping" or expunging Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, etc. from the curriculum--that is, I'm not arguing that we should actively seek to _avoid_ teaching these writers. I favour abandoning the idea that we must have this thing called a Canon--that is, that there are certain authors and texts that "must" be studied if one is to be considered "educated" or "literate". The difference is very important. 

You maintain that you're against a Canon in the sense of an "officially approved body of texts." But how else, in practical terms, would you define a Canon? In the process of drawing up a school curriculum, some_body_--in Britain's case, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority--decides which texts are the "important" ones and which are not. How transparent is the selection process? How open to criticism is the methodology which guides it--including the principle that there are "certain texts that one _must_ be familiar with if one is to get along in an educated society?" 

You argue that it wouldn't make sense to read _Jurassic Park_ instead of the _Iliad_. I don't see why we couldn't read both. But _why_ is the latter "a fundamental component of our literary tradition and is a standard part of the vocabularly of western thought, whereas the former is not?" Indeed, _what does it mean_ to be a fundamental component of "our" literary tradition and a standard part of the vocabulary of western thought?

The present discussion reminds me of an earlier thread in which I participated. There discussion turned to a BBC poll of Britain's favourite books, entitled _The Big Read_. I hadn't seen the programme myself, but the impression I got from contributors who had (namely, Eledhwen and Inder) was that Tolkien's popularity among readers (well, those readers who participated in the poll at any rate) was not warmly received by the presenters. As Eledhwen put it, "as usual, the intellectual pseuds came out of the woodwork to tell us that the hoypolloi were an empty headed rabble who wouldn't know good literature if it bit them." If Eldedhwen's observations were accurate, it seems to me that said "intellectual pseuds" wouldn't have been too unsympathetic to the notion that there are "certain texts that one _must_ be familiar with if one is to get along in an educated society." That's not a jab at you, by the way, Aiwendil2. I'm suggesting that the presenters appear to have been, in their analysis of the results of the BBC poll, operating with the idea that there exists this thing called a Canon--and they appear to have been disappointed that Canonical works did not feature more prominently among reader's favourites. They also did not appear to consider Tolkien a Canonical author. Now there are many, I'm sure, and especially in the TTF community, who would disagree--and what that demonstrates is that the question of whether a text is or is not Canonical (that is, whether a text is or is not one of those important texts with which one must be familiar if one is to get along in an educated society) is always subjective. Yes, even when said text is a work of Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare.

And it's also a political question. Mrs Maggott opines that attempts to "modernize" the Canon (although I say: don't modernize it, abandon it!) constitute an assault upon the concept or value of Western Civilisation. But surely the concern that Western Civilisation is "under attack" is socio-political itself. Therefore, if we are to set up the (presumably Canon-centric) English curriculum as a weapon in defence of Western Civilisation, we are acting from socio-political motives; and if in doing so we go to such lengths as to make Shakespeare mandatory, we are being at least as "politically correct" as our multiculturalist foes. We should at least be honest enough with ourselves to admit that.

Finally, Aiwendil2 asks what I would teach in place of the standard western literary curriculum. It's a moot question, since, as I have already suggested, we should get rid of the idea of a standard western literary curriculum (i.e a Canon). My question is: what is the value of having a central authority dictating which writers and texts students must achieve competence in in order to be considered "literate" or "educated?"


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 2, 2005)

I think it is safe to say that the "canon" did not arise spontaneously. Rather, it is something that has existed in "higher education" fairly universally since the concept of education arose. Each culture at each age determines which works are a prerequisite for the young of that culture to read (and hopefully assimilate) before they become full members of the society. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about it. In the West - and especially in Britain and later the United States - certain works of literature were considered "classics" and "required reading" for each subsequent generation. 

Of course, it goes without saying that over the years works have been added - _and_ deleted - from the canon as either other works displaced them or the works in question fell out of favor for numerous reasons. After all, if there were 150 books that educators deemed essential for a "classical" education in 1750, you couldn't keep those same 150 works and continue to add to them or by now, the "canon" would be unwieldly to the extreme and by the time a "student" waded through it all, he would be ready to retire!

There is nothing wrong with changes taking place in the "canon" chosen by educators as a foundation for a student's education. After all, they are only that - a foundation. No one suggests that once the student has read those books, he or she need not read any others! _However_, having said that, I must return to the _motives_ behind the changes: which books are being eliminated and which added - and why. If the motive is purely to better a child's education in an evolving culture, then whether I agree or disagree with the books involved, I can accept the motive. If, however, the motive involves the current malignant concept of "political correctness" and any of its ideologically "multicultural" offshoots, then even if I personally happen to approve of the works (which I probably wouldn't under the circumstances), I would strongly oppose the changes. 

The philosophy of education used to be to prepare a student for a full and worthwhile life by providing him (the her is implied) with the best possible foundation on which to build that life. True, all educators have impressed upon their students to a greater or lesser extent, their own particular philosophy of life. That cannot be helped as we are dealing with human beings; only a computer can impart knowledge in a moral vacuum. However, it is one thing for a teacher to make his own philosophy known to his students and quite another for him to attempt to impose it on them by virtue of a ideologically "slanted" curriculum. And the latter is, alas, what is happening very frequently in "education" today and especially in institutions of "higher" learning.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Mar 2, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay wrote:


> I don't favour "dropping" or expunging Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, etc. from the curriculum--that is, I'm not arguing that we should actively seek to avoid teaching these writers.



I meant "dropping" in the sense of "taking them off the standard curriculum" - which you would do by abolishing the standard curriculum entirely. Do I understand you correctly?



> You argue that it wouldn't make sense to read Jurassic Park instead of the Iliad. I don't see why we couldn't read both.



There is only one reason - _time_. You simply cannot read _everything_. At some level, decisions must be made concerning what to read and what to exclude. Now, this might be at a national level, or at a local level, or at the level of the individual teacher, but it _must_ be done. And since it must be done, it makes good sense to ponder what the best way of going about that process might be.



> But why is the latter "a fundamental component of our literary tradition and is a standard part of the vocabularly of western thought, whereas the former is not?" Indeed, what does it mean to be a fundamental component of "our" literary tradition and a standard part of the vocabulary of western thought?



It means only that many people take a knowledge of the _Iliad_ (and of many other works) for granted, so that one who is unfamiliar with the work will be less able to understand their discussion.

I am against the idea of a "canon" in the sense that I do not think that there is, or ought to be, a distinction between approved, "good" literary works and popular, "consumable" works. I think that a book like _Jurassic Park_ could be as good as or better than the _Iliad_.

But, again, one cannot teach (or read) everything. And, whether they are especially good works or not, there _are_ certain texts that are more significant, historically and traditionally, than others. I point out again that I am very much in favor of diversifying the standard curriculum and bringing in both non-western traditions and non-"canonical" works. But I do not favor abandoning a standard curriculum entirely.



> Finally, Aiwendil2 asks what I would teach in place of the standard western literary curriculum. It's a moot question, since, as I have already suggested, we should get rid of the idea of a standard western literary curriculum (i.e a Canon). My question is: what is the value of having a central authority dictating which writers and texts students must achieve competence in in order to be considered "literate" or "educated?"



Perhaps you misunderstand me. My question is: what would _you_ teach? The decision must be made at some level, whether by a central authority or not. How would you determine which works your students should study and which they should not?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 6, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> I meant "dropping" in the sense of "taking them off the standard curriculum" - which you would do by abolishing the standard curriculum entirely. Do I understand you correctly?



Yes: insofar as the standard curriculum presupposes that the study of texts/authors X, Y, and Z are necessary in order for students to become "educated," "literate," or in Mrs Maggot's terms, "full members of society." But an English Literature curriculum--even a standard one (such as the national curriculum introduced by the Thatcher government in the late eighties)--doesn't _have_ to be set up in such a way.



> There is only one reason - _time_. You simply cannot read _everything_. At some level, decisions must be made concerning what to read and what to exclude. Now, this might be at a national level, or at a local level, or at the level of the individual teacher, but it _must_ be done. And since it must be done, it makes good sense to ponder what the best way of going about that process might be.



Of course you can't read everything: but from this simple point it's quite a long stretch, wouldn't you agree, to making Shakespeare compulsory? No English Literature curriculum in the world is devised without decisions being made at some point by somebody regarding what to read and what to exclude. But here's the thing--not every English Literature curriculum in the world presupposes that the "Great Authors and Works" approach is the true faith--the best or only way to teach English Literature. 

For example, here's how English Literature is taught in my home state of Western Australia. I offer it here so that--amidst all this talk (present company excepted, of course, Aiwendil) of "politically correct" and "ideologically slanted" curricula (minus the details, naturally), devised according to motives other than "to better a child's education in an evolving culture"--if people are to critique alternatives to the current British approach, they may critique the real thing and not a strawman.



> It means only that many people take a knowledge of the _Iliad_ (and of many other works) for granted, so that one who is unfamiliar with the work will be less able to understand their discussion.



I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that many people _do_ know or have read the _Iliad_? I'm not sure that such is the case these days--but then again, you studied high school English Literature in America, and I studied it in Australia. Or are you saying that many people would take it for granted that one _should_ know the _Iliad_?



> I am against the idea of a "canon" in the sense that I do not think that there is, or ought to be, a distinction between approved, "good" literary works and popular, "consumable" works. I think that a book like _Jurassic Park_ could be as good as or better than the _Iliad_.But, again, one cannot teach (or read) everything. And, whether they are especially good works or not, there _are_ certain texts that are more significant, historically and traditionally, than others.



But "significance" is not a value-neutral term: that is, one cannot deem a work to be historically or traditionally significant without making certain assumptions about what it means to be historically or traditionally significant. (In the same way, one cannot maintain that certain texts or authors must be studied in order for a student to become a "full member of society" without making certain assumptions about what it means to be a "full member of society.") Therefore, to maintain, for example, that the _Iliad_ is more significant than _Jurassic Park_ _is_ to maintain that it is better (in the sense of a distinction between a "good" work and a work that is "not so good"). So we don't get away from the Canon that way (even if we were to substitute, for Homer, Franz Kafka, Salman Rushdie or Arundhati Roy). 



> I point out again that I am very much in favor of diversifying the standard curriculum and bringing in both non-western traditions and non-"canonical" works. But I do not favor abandoning a standard curriculum entirely.



Perhaps I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "standard curriculum." If you mean that there are certain texts that _must_ be studied if one is to be considered "educated" or "literate," then you are arguing in favour of a Canon. And all Canons, inevitably, are bodies of officially approved texts and authors organised around the principle that some texts are inherently "good" (and bestow "goodness" upon those who are familiar with them) and others are not.

Let's be clear about something: not all lists of texts--even lists of set texts--are Canons. To return to the WA example, the Year 11 syllabus includes a list of recommended texts, although individual teachers may substitute texts of their own choosing provided such texts are "consistent with the general aims 
of the syllabus." The Year 12 syllabus includes a list of set texts--that is, teachers may choose only from these--but for a very practical reason: the Year 12 syllabus prepares students for tertiary entrance examinations, and examiners (obviously) need to be familiar with the texts students are using to illustrate their responses to the exam questions. I recognise that this is not an ideal situation, insofar as you still have a central authority dictating the _range_ of texts which can be studied. But neither list dictates that _all_ students (i.e. in every school) read _this_ or _that_ certain or author, nor are they drawn up on the basis that the texts contained within are "elite" or "superior." And there is nothing to suggest that the lists cannot be revised or updated. Is this the kind of standard curriculum you have in mind?



> My question is: what would _you_ teach? The decision must be made at some level, whether by a central authority or not. How would you determine which works your students should study and which they should not?



And I still submit that it's a moot question--and therefore, not one to which I have given a lot of thought (to the extent of devising a list of my own). My choices would doubtless be influenced by a variety of factors: my own familiarity with a particular author or text, for instance, or perhaps the popularity of a given text, such as _Lord of the Rings_ (insofar as it might be interesting from the perspective of both the teacher and the student to look at such a text in a number of challenging and unfamiliar ways). Who knows? And who knows if the list I give you today might not be different in a year's time? And since I have been arguing against the idea of a Canon-centred approach to English Literature (i.e. an approach which suggests that there are certain texts that "should" be studied), why would _my_ choices necessarily be made with a "should" in mind?

Furthermore, while you cannot read everything _within_ the classroom, students are (potentially) engaging with everything _outside of_ the classroom. The question of which texts we should or should not teach (or can or cannot teach) is thus far less important than developing in students the kinds of analytical skills and critical thinking that are going to assist them in their engagement with a much wider range of texts and genres, fictive or otherwise, than can possibily be encapsulated in an "official" roster of "approved" works.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 7, 2005)

Insofar as I am concerned, I am more interested in the motive for changing any educational curriculum. If it is based upon what is considered to be the best as far as educating students is concerned, even if I were to disagree with the choices made, I would not necessarily be against it. If, however, it is an effort to mandate some politically correct inclusionary ideology, I would very much disagree. Of course, the educational establishment has reached a point where the two motives might in fact be one and the same! And as that's the case, I would have to research how more "independent" educators received the new curriculum before I would be satisfied with the reasons given by the "establishment".


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Mar 7, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay wrote:


> Of course you can't read everything: but from this simple point it's quite a long stretch, wouldn't you agree, to making Shakespeare compulsory?



Certainly. My point here was simply that at some point, someone must decide upon a list of texts that the students will be studying. It may be a national government; it may be a local government; it may be a school board; it may be an individual teacher. But from the student's point of view the net effect is the same: someone has formulated a list of texts that they must study. If you are really in principle against the idea of a list of required texts, then it seems to me that you must object even to such a list formulated by an individual teacher; but of course this objection is unreasonable since in the end, the teacher must teach something. And I don't see any reason, _a priori_, that the list of required texts generated by an individual teacher is better or preferrable to a standardized list.

It seems to me that what you are really arguing is not that a list of required texts is bad in principle, but rather that such lists are better generated on an individual level rather than a national one. 



> For example, here's how English Literature is taught in my home state of Western Australia.



But is this not a list of "approved texts"? It's a fairly broad list, and a flexible one that gives individual teachers a certain degree of choice - but these are features that I'm in favor of. Sure, if I had designed the curriculum, some of the specific texts listed would be different. I would probably include a few more older works in the list. But these are details. In essence, this is the kind of curriculum I favor.



> I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that many people do know or have read the Iliad? I'm not sure that such is the case these days--but then again, you studied high school English Literature in America, and I studied it in Australia. Or are you saying that many people would take it for granted that one should know the Iliad?



Both. In my experience, the _Iliad_ is widely read. And a familiarity with it is often taken for granted. It even permeates so-called "popular culture" to an extent - look at the recent movie _Troy_, or at Monty Python's wooden horse bit in the _Holy Grail_.



> But "significance" is not a value-neutral term: that is, one cannot deem a work to be historically or traditionally significant without making certain assumptions about what it means to be historically or traditionally significant.



I meant it in a value-neutral sense. That is, I meant only that certain works are in fact more widely read, more frequently referred to, and more influential than others. These are objective facts and need not be understood as indicating that any work is "better" than any other.



> To return to the WA example, the Year 11 syllabus includes a list of recommended texts, although individual teachers may substitute texts of their own choosing provided such texts are "consistent with the general aims
> of the syllabus."



Maybe I don't understand - in what sense are these texts "recommended"? Does that mean merely that the teachers are advised to teach these works, but that if they wish to disregard the list entirely, they may? Or does it mean that the texts they teach must come from this list, unless they are given approval to teach something else?

In any case, insofar as the list actually matters, it _is_ a body of approved texts.

So I guess it seems to me that your principled argument doesn't match up with the kind of curriculum you propose. Perhaps I am misunderstanding one or the other.



> The question of which texts we should or should not teach (or can or cannot teach) is thus far less important than developing in students the kinds of analytical skills and critical thinking that are going to assist them in their engagement with a much wider range of texts and genres, fictive or otherwise, than can possibily be encapsulated in an "official" roster of "approved" works.



With this I am in complete agreement.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 9, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> I don't see any reason, _a priori_, that the list of required texts generated by an individual teacher is better or preferrable to a standardized list.
> 
> It seems to me that what you are really arguing is not that a list of required texts is bad in principle, but rather that such lists are better generated on an individual level rather than a national one.



I take your point: lists of required texts are, at the end of the day, lists of required texts--whether they are composed by a national body or an individual teacher. But I think there are good reasons for preferring a teacher-generated list (or at least a list in which teachers have some input) over a standardised one. For instance, it is not uncommon for teachers to have expertise in certain texts, authors or genres, from which their students can benefit. Indeed, a standardised approach--especially of the kind introduced in the UK by the Thatcher government--shows a certain contempt for individual teachers who, despite what they might have to offer, are effectively told to "shut up and get with the programme." And I strongly suspect this kind of approach arises in a millieu in which it is considered politically expedient (i.e. it wins votes) to display contempt for teacher autonomy (or the autonomy of individual English departments). 

And no, required lists are not "bad" per se. But neither are they ideal. And they (required lists, that is) are certainly _not_ what is of paramount importance in an English Literature curriculum. What _is_ of paramount importance (as I think we agree) is that students walk away with the critical and analytical skills to which I referred in my previous post. And here--I suppose--is a practical reason for having a required list (whether or not it is teacher-generated): in order to hone these skills, students and teachers alike need something to work with. Class discussion (and the marking of papers and exams) would become a rather complicated affair if each class member was discussing a different text! (Still, I'd like to think there is room to go beyond even the individual teacher in the selection of texts, and to allow students to perhaps choose one or two texts of their own). 

But as I have argued, there is a difference between a simple list of required texts, on the one hand, and a Canon, on the other. A list of required texts doesn't (or doesn't have to) carry the quasi-mystical baggage that is attached to a Canon--that is, it doesn't have to announce that "you are required to read these texts in order to be educated, or literate, or cultured, or a 'full member of society,'" and so on.



> But is this not a list of "approved texts"?



In a sense, yes. But there is nothing in the curriculum to suggest that the texts are "special," "privileged," or "significant." There is certainly nothing in the curriculum to suggest that if students don't achieve competence in these texts, they won't be "full members of society." And there's definitely no compulsory Shakespeare (or compulsory anyone else, for that matter).

And the fact that teachers may substitute texts of their own choosing is not insignificant.



> Both. In my experience, the Iliad is widely read. And a familiarity with it is often taken for granted. It even permeates so-called "popular culture" to an extent - look at the recent movie Troy, or at Monty Python's wooden horse bit in the Holy Grail.



In my experience, it's not so widely read in my neck of the woods, but that's not particularly important. The point you raise suggests a good reason for including canonical texts on a syllabus (without structuring the syllabus around the _idea_ of a Canon): at this social/political/historical juncture, a familiarity with the _Iliad_ _is_ taken for granted--but that is a matter for interrogation and investigation rather than uncritical acceptance (i.e. that it _must_ be so). In other words, under what social, political, historical conditions is a familiarity with the _Iliad_ taken for granted? Or, if--_at this social/political/historical juncture_--a familiarity with the Iliad is taken for granted, what does this say about the dominant values and ideologies of our culture and our times? These are valid questions for the English literature student to pursue--because they don't presume that a familiarity with the _Iliad_ _ought to be_ taken for granted; they ask: insofar as it is taken for granted, why? The student doesn't hallow the canonical text--the student takes the text's hallowed status itself as an object of critique.



> I meant it in a value-neutral sense. That is, I meant only that certain works are in fact more widely read, more frequently referred to, and more influential than others. These are objective facts and need not be understood as indicating that any work is "better" than any other.



So long as it is understood that these texts are more widely read, more frequently referred to and more influential not because they _ought to be_ (i.e. it is the natural order of things), but because they have become so _under specific historical and ideological conditions_.



> Maybe I don't understand - in what sense are these texts "recommended"? Does that mean merely that the teachers are advised to teach these works, but that if they wish to disregard the list entirely, they may?



That is how I undersatnd it.



> In any case, insofar as the list actually matters, it is a body of approved texts.



If so, it remains a much different animal from that which is a feature of the British regime. It is not restricted by any notion of a Canon. That it can be updated--and (I assume) updated regularly--is not quite the source of anguish and controversy that it appears to be in Britain, given the topic of this thread. Year 11 teachers have the freedom to substitute their own texts--which means that the list matters only as point of reference. Year 12 teachers must select from a set range of texts--though no particular texts or authors are mandatory--meaning that the list matters only insofar as it makes easier the task of marking tertiary entrance exams which all students (who wish to go to university) sit. 



> So I guess it seems to me that your principled argument doesn't match up with the kind of curriculum you propose. Perhaps I am misunderstanding one or the other.



I think the WA curriculum is closer than the British one to the kind of curriculum I would like to see--though I did point out that the WA system is not ideal. What is great about it, however--required or approved lists aside--is that it has done away with the idea of the Canon, and that it focuses more heavily upon developing students' critical and analytical faculties.


----------



## joxy (Mar 22, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> ....decisions must be made concerning what to read and what to exclude. Now, this might be at a national level, or at a local level, or at the level of the individual teacher, but it _must_ be done.


How about trying the level of the individual *student*?
And has *anyone* here actually read the Iliad, all of it, or a substantial part?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 22, 2005)

joxy said:


> How aboiut trying the level of the individual *student*?
> And has *anyone* here actually read the Iliad, all of it, or a substantial part?


I read both books - Iliad and Odyssey - when I was in high school but not because it was "prescribed". Of course, I read a translation of both books! I make absolutely no pretence to being able to read Greek either ancient or modern. I enjoyed them, frankly.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Mar 22, 2005)

> And has anyone here actually read the Iliad, all of it, or a substantial part?



I have. I read it and the _Odyssey_ first on my own, for fun, and then again (a different translation) for college. The _Iliad_ was not required reading at my high school, but we did read excerpts from the _Odyssey_ in 8th and 9th grade - that was what initially engendered my interest.

Arthur_Vandelay: Sorry I haven't answered your last post - I haven't had time to consider your points carefully. But I think that we are very nearly in agreement. I agree that giving teachers control of the curriculum has significant advantages. In the end, I suppose I favor a compromise between standardization and teacher control, with emphasis on the latter. It is of prime importance that the system be flexible, even down to the level of the individual student, if possible. I just don't think that abandoning all lists and simply directing the teachers to teach whatever they want is a good idea.

I might also point out that there are in fact two somewhat distinct issues here. One is the question of who decides what the students read. The other is the question of what they read. Once the first question is answered, _someone_ must still decide how to reconcile diversity with depth.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 23, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> I might also point out that there are in fact two somewhat distinct issues here. One is the question of who decides what the students read. The other is the question of what they read. Once the first question is answered, _someone_ must still decide how to reconcile diversity with depth.



Good to hear from you!

But why should the reconciliation of "diversity" with "depth" be such a crucial issue in the establishment of an English Literature curriculum? To maintain that it is, is to presuppose that the (capital 'L') List--however "deep" or "diverse"--is what doing English Literature is all about. I return to a point I have made previously--there _are_ other ways to do English Lit. 

Furthermore, where the reconciliation of diversity with depth is considered important, the somebody deciding how to reconcile them must also decide the criteria for determining what defines a text as "deep," as well as what is meant by "diverse." _These_ are not value-neutral terms, either. Can a text really be "deep" (or "shallow") in some _absolute_ sense? The idea of the Canon takes as a given that it can.


----------



## Aiwendil2 (Mar 23, 2005)

By "depth" I mean depth of _study_. If I were an English teacher, I would want to have the students look at a wide variety of works - diverse in both the time of their writing and the literary traditions from which they come. But I would not want to do a disservice to any particular book or tradition by spending too little time on it or by not giving the students adequate background on the time period, the author, and the circumstances of the writing. Whoever designs the curriculum must reconcile the goals of covering a wide variety of texts and of studying each particular text in depth.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 23, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> By "depth" I mean depth of _study_. If I were an English teacher, I would want to have the students look at a wide variety of works - diverse in both the time of their writing and the literary traditions from which they come. But I would not want to do a disservice to any particular book or tradition by spending too little time on it or by not giving the students adequate background on the time period, the author, and the circumstances of the writing. Whoever designs the curriculum must reconcile the goals of covering a wide variety of texts and of studying each particular text in depth.



Certainly.


----------



## Beleg (Mar 24, 2005)

I have a question for you US'ers/UK'ers: 

Are the likes of Hubert Selby (Requiem For A Dream), Nick Hornby (Fevre Pitch), Irvine Welsh (Trainspotting) and Jack Kerouac (On The Road) taught/allowed in highschool? 



> I was referring to a period of perhaps a decade or two in the immediate past. Authors who might make a big splash, but then are forgotten in a few years.* Pop culture literature should not be included in the curriculum.*



Books like 'Vernon God Little' by D.B.C. Pierre and 'Middlesex' fall into this category. Similarly authors like Alan Garner and Robert James Waller will also get the cut.  

I have to disagree with you. Pop Culture literature serve a very important purpose in my humble opinion:

1. It actually helps in getting kids interested in reading/criticism. Teens/children have a limited timespan so they need something they (can) 'dig' to catch hold of their interest, preferably from the very beginning. A book which has a fast moving, tightly woven plot, pop references they can actually 'get', stereotypical hero's/villians that are in vogue is more likely to appeal to a child's interest than a slooooooooooowwww, meandering 1000 page threatening looking tome like 'War and Peace'. 

Relatively speaking, It is more easier to convert a skeptic than a flat out rebuffer. 

As an aside: What type of books do you consider pop-culture? Going by your rather vague defination, would you include Rowlings in this category? Philip Pullman? Hanif Kureshi? Nick Hornby? 


I think, theoretically at least, I am in complete agreement with Aiwendil. It is sad that in practice it doesn't/can't work this way.


----------



## joxy (Mar 24, 2005)

Aiwendil2 said:


> ....there are in fact two somewhat distinct issues....
> One is the question of who decides what the students read.
> The other is the question of what they read.


Those are two questions, two issues; and they are distinct?
Discuss.


----------



## Inderjit S (Mar 24, 2005)

> Hubert Selby (Requiem For A Dream), Nick Hornby (Fevre Pitch), Irvine Welsh (Trainspotting) and Jack Kerouac (On The Road)



Of all of them Kerouac is probably the most useful and famous. As for Trainspotting, good lord, War and Peace was a easier read than that!


----------



## Beleg (Mar 25, 2005)

Why do you say Kerouac is the most useful? Also, do you really think that Requiem for a Dream was an easier read then Trainspotting? Reading that book was one of the most harrowing experiences of my life. I still refuse to watch the movie, which I have heard many people talk of as the most mentally disturbing movie ever to be filmed.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 25, 2005)

Beleg said:


> Why do you say Kerouac is the most useful? Also, do you really think that Requiem for a Dream was an easier read then Trainspotting? Reading that book was one of the most harrowing experiences of my life. I still refuse to watch the movie, which I have heard many people talk of as the most mentally disturbing movie ever to be filmed.



What's wrong with the film? I don't find it more disturbing than other films of this genre, and especially after having read the book, I see no good reason to avoid watching it. It has good acting and provides food for thought.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 25, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> ...good lord, War and Peace was a easier read than that!


HEY!! Let's be careful about knocking War and Peace! For me, it is second only to LOTR in number of times I have read it.


----------



## Shireman D (Mar 25, 2005)

There is some misunderstanding in this thread about the way in which the English National Curriculum works. The same might be said of the thoughts of the journalist who penned the original article. The list of recommended texts is so large that no pupil will read more than a very small fraction, they will have the opportunity to read literature chosen by their own teachers according to their 'age, aptitude and ability'. The list is itself generated through a consultation process involving education professionals and not - as in some English speaking states - by politicians. In all areas of the curriculum there is huge diversity in method, content and delivery. It should be noted that the list that prompted this discussion does not apply in the other three countries of the UK whose Education Departments have differing arrangements.

The veil of anonymity slides a fraction to one side to reveal that outside this list I am a Schools Inspector and a member of a school Governing Body.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 25, 2005)

Shireman D said:


> There is some misunderstanding in this thread about the way in which the English National Curriculum works. The same might be said of the thoughts of the journalist who penned the original article. The list of recommended texts is so large that no pupil will read more than a very small fraction, they will have the opportunity to read literature chosen by their own teachers according to their 'age, aptitude and ability'. The list is itself generated through a consultation process involving education professionals and not - as in some English speaking states - by politicians. In all areas of the curriculum there is huge diversity in method, content and delivery. It should be noted that the list that prompted this discussion does not apply in the other three countries of the UK whose Education Departments have differing arrangements.
> 
> The veil of anonymity slides a fraction to one side to reveal that outside this list I am a Schools Inspector and a member of a school Governing Body.



Thankyou for your contribution, and my apologies for any misrepresentations I've made of the situation in Britain. It's comforting to hear that things aren't as bad over there as I had been led to understand. 

Just one question: does this mean that Shakespeare _isn't_ compulsory?


----------



## Shireman D (Mar 29, 2005)

Q. Does this mean that Shakespeare is not compulsory?


A. Pupils at Key Stage 3 (11+ to 13+) are expected to read one Shakespeare play but because of the 'age, aptitude and ability' test, it may mean that their main contact may be - for example - by watching part of one on video and then dealing with themes from it at a level with which they are able to cope. Some amazing work has been done in this way; one of the greatest strengths of his work is the universality that it has and a teacher would be expected to draw this out by a mix of approaches. We have to realise that the National Curriculum applies to virtually all pupils regardless of ability and it is therefore inadvisable to say all pupils must do this work in this way.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 29, 2005)

Shireman D said:


> Q. Does this mean that Shakespeare is not compulsory?
> 
> 
> A. Pupils at Key Stage 3 (11+ to 13+) are expected to read one Shakespeare play but because of the 'age, aptitude and ability' test, it may mean that their main contact may be - for example - by watching part of one on video and then dealing with themes from it at a level with which they are able to cope. Some amazing work has been done in this way; this work in this way.



I don't doubt it--and my point has never been that it is wrong to teach Shakespeare. What I have objected to is the principle that Shakespeare--or any other author for that matter--should be a compulsory element of the syllabus.

But I think that this discussion does benefit from the perspective of someone "at the coalface," such as yourself. You point out that pupils at "Key Stage 3" are required to read one Shakespeare play. What are the reasons for this?


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 30, 2005)

With most British secondary schools teaching 11-16 year olds, and following a broad English curriculum, there are very few of these classics that will actually be put before the pupils in that time. Far more important is the teaching of the love of reading and what Classic literature has to offer, and to make these books available in the school library and the nearest public library.

I am actually in my local library at the moment. I wanted to Borrow The Saga of the Volsungs, but found that not only did the library not have it, but the whole library system for the entire county lacked any edition of it whatsoever!  I paid a nominal 50p in the hope of nudging the county's bibliographer; and after four weeks I got the note to say the book was now in stock. In Penguin Classics edition (Byock) it had cost them a massive £7.99.

The main reason is, of course, that we have no University in Wiltshire (though we are sandwiched between Bath/Bristol and Oxford), and the demand isn't there; but it won't be until someone puts the books on the shelves for browsers to find and go 'Wow!'.

So whatever the schools stop teaching, they should at least continue to provide the books - and in covers that are attractive; because like it or not, a book is usually judged by its cover (I've read the market research that proves it).


----------



## Shireman D (Mar 30, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> I don't doubt it.... What are the reasons for this?


 
People somehow felt it would not be a 'proper' list without such a prescription, I doubt that they could fully explain it though. It has the feel of something that it is emotional and symbolic, a touch-stone quality so to speak. There is beginning to be a serious debate about what British identity might be like and I would see the decision to _expect_ Shakespeare as an early stirring of those thoughts. 

A second area in this discussion is that many pupils in Key Stage 4 (who are preparing for public examinations) will have a choice of literature which is largely driven by the texts that have been included in the examination syllabi. Schools here have a choice between examination contractors and a school may use more than one - if the English staff prefer one contractor's syllabus and the geographers want to use a different source that is fine. All the contractors are driven by a commercial imperative to supply the examinations that the schools _want_ to use as well as an educative imperative to meet the moderated standards set by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Another feature which the thread might to think about is that cultural texts may be studied in a range of different contexts. At the 16+ level, for example, a student reading Classical Civilization will have to read a range of texts which many would see as foundational to western culture. Foreign language students are expected to read real texts in their language of study (be it German or Gujarat, French or Farsi) quite apart from those who are actually taking English Literature.

Personally, I was very fortunate, in the distant days when I was at school - a Comprehensive School in north London - I got to read (in translation) Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Herodotus and some of the Romans because my Latin was too weak for me to take the end of KS4 exam in it! The slightly snobby people in the A band looked down on us Latin failures and went on to get their Latin Ordinary level certificates - but we had our revenge because we got two instead, one in Ancient History and one in Greek Lit. I then went on to take Classical Civ (Greek bias) at Advanced Level. All this in state school.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 30, 2005)

D Shireman said:


> People somehow felt it would not be a 'proper' list without such a prescription, I doubt that they could fully explain it though. It has the feel of something that it is emotional and symbolic, a touch-stone quality so to speak.



Which is precisely what makes me uncomfortable about a policy of making Shakespeare complusory.



> There is beginning to be a serious debate about what British identity might be like and I would see the decision to _expect_ Shakespeare as an early stirring of those thoughts.



I think that's an excellent point.

If you wouldn't mind my "picking your brain"a little further, I'm curious as to whether and how the British curriculum has changed since the Thatcher government "reforms" of the late eighties. For instance, I've heard about something that British teachers refer to as "Tony's Literacy Hour." What can you tell us about that?

Also, have there been any moves towards constructivism/outcomes education in Britain? Western Australia has very recently revamped its curriculum in that direction.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 31, 2005)

I envy Shireman his education. My state school education was more like 'Experimental House' in CS Lewis' 'The Silver Chair'. My husband went to what a friend called 'Holloway School for Thugs', which was later the subject of a Reader's Digest Article on school turnaround. At least these days they are trying to get some sort of concensus on what education is.

As for Shakespeare - he was one writer at one point in history (though this is challenged too), and I don't see why his work should receive more weight than others.

More than the debate about Britishness is the one about Englishness. Tolkien was interested in this issue, noting that the ancient stories that are so wound up with the nation's identity had been hijacked by the church, with all the leading players turned either into gallant Christian knights or saints, or both. Great stories were written about them, which obliterated the originals from general knowledge. I have since read some of these original stories and loved them. 

Classics? What are they; old books? I'd like to know just what _they_ are comtemplating removing from the curriculum.

*Tony's Literacy Hour*: This is just called 'Literacy hour' really. There is also 'Numeracy hour' - a deliberate dedicating of part of each day to these foundational concepts. My girls started with 'Jolly Phonics' in their Reception year (an excellent concept), and then embarked on a gruelling regime of awful stories with dire plots like "The Queen loses the sausages" etc (The Magic Key stories were an exception - being the only non-soporific range of books). I began to read Lord of the Rings and the Narnia stories to them at bedtime, and before long my girls were sneaking the light back on to read more for themselves, so that by the age of eight they were all confident readers.

Of course, if you really want kids to read the Classics, the best way is to ban them, preferably with sanctions.


----------



## Alatar (Mar 31, 2005)

Litrrcy in english schools is variably. Some day's we are doing modern none heard of aruthers and then Shakesphere "shudder" in fact half my readng grade is on macbeth.
However there is some light in the tunnel in GCSE we will do anamail farm.

I hope its not a train....


BTW i am sorry about spellings i am dyslexic (is that how you spell it)


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 4, 2005)

No, it's not a train. Animal farm is a brilliant allegory of the rise of Soviet Bolshevism, and what happens to a noble and good concept when it falls into the hands of the power-hungry. It's also a great animal story, and was made into a good animated film. Now that's classic! A good read, with curriculum benefits in politics and history.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 4, 2005)

Beleg-Kerouac's novel is important because it captures an important part of American culture at a certain time-perhaps this is a reflection of Western arrogance, and the saliency of cultural changes cannot be totally measured by the countries in which the cultural changes took place, but I think that Kerouac's novel is more important than Trainspotting and Fever Pitch (the only novels out of the three which I have read) because of this. 

Eledhwen-whilst I agree that Animal Farm is a brilliant allegory, I can't seem to agree with you that Communism is a noble concept-far from it: I think it is a form of enslavement. 

If it was up to me I would make sure that comedy accounted for 40% of the course, maybe more-and the comedy would be wide ranging, from Cervantes, Rabelais and Voltaire to Heller, Vonnegut and Bulgakov-though this is a reflection of my satire fetish. 

And Greenwood-I wasn't knocking War and Peace-it is a grea (if somewhat longwinded) novel!


----------



## Shireman D (Apr 5, 2005)

The Literacy Hour was a clever piece of salesmanship by politicians who were desperate to be seen to be doing something: it is essentially a requirement that all primary schools shall teach children to read. Er ... ...

You'll _never_ guess what the Numeracy Hour requires them to do!

What school would not have done so? OK, yes, there is Lewis's *Experiment House*, clearly a very dodgy establishment. Oh - and as one who went to school in a similar part of North London, I can assure our correspondent, that her name for Holloway School was not all it got called (especially when they beat us at soccer).

Back to the Liquorice Hour:

The problem with this kind of gesture policy is that the MPs who flock to impose these 'reforms' generally have very little direct experience of education in state schools. For example, Kenneth Baker who was the Thatcherite Secretary of State for Education when the National Curriculum (for England and Wales) was introduced freely admitted that he made it up on the back of an envelope just before the speech in which he announced it. Outcome: no more domestic science (perhaps they did not do it at Eton). Response: children still do cooking - oops sorry - _Food Technology _and sewing - no, you fool, that's not what it is called - within Design Technology.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 5, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> Eledhwen-whilst I agree that Animal Farm is a brilliant allegory, I can't seem to agree with you that Communism is a noble concept-far from it: I think it is a form of enslavement.


Yes, as Bolshevism; I was thinking more along the lines of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists - R Tressle.



Shireman said:


> I can assure our correspondent, that her name for Holloway School was not all it got called (especially when they beat us at soccer).


The only subject Holloway school excelled in at the time, so I'm told! There are some very interesting 'memories' entries in Friends Reunited (eg: remember being held upside down in the tuck queue so your money would fall out of your pocket?)


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 6, 2005)

> Yes, as Bolshevism; I was thinking more along the lines of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists - R Tressle.



? I don't understand.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 7, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> ? I don't understand.


Sorry, I didn't even say it's a book!  this might help.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 7, 2005)

I understand. (Or at least I think I do!) Since I haven't read the book, I can't really comment much, but the statement about the "selfishness of capitalism" struck me as being somewhat ironic-since capitalism is a form of economics, and inanimate-perhaps the selfishness of "humanity" would be a more apt term for the misnomer?

Nevertheless, I hold _any_ form of Marxism to be a form of enslavement- a unrestrained Caeserism-Freidrich Hayek once commented that some 19th century Socialists were often hampered from bringing in their reforms because they were too liberal. 

We are seriously diverging off topic here-if you would like to start a thread on Communism then by all means we could continue the discussion there.


----------



## joxy (Apr 7, 2005)

I assumed that the noble concept claimed - rightly - for Animal Farm was the principle - in its initial unqualified form - that "all animals are equal".
The equivalent concept in human terms was a characteristic of early Christianity and became the principle of socialism and of socialism's poor relation communism.
Unfortunately the nobility of the concept was all too easily marred by its hi-jacking into Marxism and Bolshevism.
Equally unfortunately, noble as it may be, the concept simply *does not work!*, as those Christians discovered long before the USSR even tried it!

And yes, our present government, which tries so hard not to be described as socialist, thinks they came up with a brilliant and highly original idea when they decided to teach reading and arithmetic for an hour in every school every day.

Inder: You didn't know Tressle? 

A_V: What is "constructivism/outcomes education", and is it better than teaching kids to read, write, and do sums, and telling them to be nice to each other?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 7, 2005)

joxy said:


> A_V: What is "constructivism/outcomes education", and is it better than teaching kids to read, write, and do sums, and telling them to be nice to each other?



I'll interpret that question as tongue-in-cheek: but just in case it isn't, constructivism/outcomes education is a teaching _methodology_ (a shift away from the behaviourist approach which has traditionally predominated). Kids _still_ learn to read, write, do sums (_and_ be nice to each other)--advocates of outcomes education simply argue that under their approach kids learn to do these things _better_, and will be better prepared for life and work under contemporary economic conditions. For more information, see:

Constructivism: from Philosophy to Practice
What is Constructivism?


----------



## Shireman D (Apr 10, 2005)

An interesting sidelight on this general theme may be the present demonstrations in China against a new school history book that is printed in Japan and less than fully explicit about Japanese behaviour during their illegal occupation of China.

Point being that in a country where all school books are very definitely prescribed, the Chinese find it difficult to understand that because a book is published in Japan does not mean that it is 'approved'. This kind of idea has been around a little in our present discussion.

p.s. Eledhwen - I think it is fair to say that everyone (Holloway included) thought that Laycock School was much worse!


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 19, 2005)

It seems to me that 'ditching literary classics' might be just a wee bit impossible  First you have to define what is meant by 'literary classics', and then you have to decide which books fit into the definition. Only then can you ditch them; and some people might say (for instance) "Hooray! I never rated _ _ _ _ _* anyway." (*insert author's name). while others are scandalised. How do you compare Orwell, Tressle, Durrell, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Tolkien, Rowling, Caroll? Who decides what is a literary classic? And if they decide they are going to teach them; they'll get stick for the ones they miss out!


----------

