Horrible Brit Lit and Am Lit Curriculums

[clown4christ]

I have just started teaching British Lit and American Lit at a private Christian school and I am appalled at the curriculum they are using. It seems like it is aimed at making these students hate literature. Am I wrong in believing that high schoolers should not study literature from a historical perspective? This curriculum has them studying literature in periods with the main focus being the historical era as opposed to the literature.

[kilted exile]

I think for a lot of literature, the historical perspective of the times and circumstances surrounding the period where the work is set is important to gain a complete understanding of the writers work.

Examples:

Oliver Twist - some knowledge of the poor law and workhouses required to appreciate the satire & irony.

Huckleberry Finn - Can this be read without considering the time period when set?

Pride & Prejudice - Surely some discussion on the role of middle to upper class women at the time when it is set is relevent, no?

Now, whilst I agree with you that it is possible to learn literary techniques without looking at the historical perspective. I do feel the historical perspective is a necessary thing to be considered also, there is a happy medium somewhere along the way that can be found I think.

Also if reading a piece of literature encourages a student to want to learn more about specific periods of history that must be a good thing

[Virgil]

I have just started teaching British Lit and American Lit at a private Christian school and I am appalled at the curriculum they are using. It seems like it is aimed at making these students hate literature. Am I wrong in believing that high schoolers should not study literature from a historical perspective? This curriculum has them studying literature in periods with the main focus being the historical era as opposed to the literature.

As Kilt just pointed out you need a historical context for the literature. But if the main focus is the historical era rather than the literature, they're not teaching literature. I would agree with you then, especially at a high school level.

[Schokokeks]

Hmm, the highschool I went to wasn't American, but still I had the same impression that the curriculum (or the teachers maybe, after all I never read the curriculum itself) didn't emphasise the connection between literature and its context(s), but rather, as you said, the two opposed, or even literature without context ("just a text that popped out of nowhere, really...").

As I'm not familiar with the American educational system - does your school (being a private one) put up its own curriculum ? If so, who writes it ?

[Kafka's Crow]

Students must not be forced to read literature as a compulsory subject. Modern life has enough facets and they are sufficiently represented by many authors. Emphasis should be on these writers and the contemporary culture instead of forcing art on people who have no respect for it. If somebody really likes literature, he or she should be allowed to choose to study it and in this case emphasis should be on literature, its history, tradition and its evolution. I would even teach classics as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh to these students. It is interesting to see the role classics played in the development of literature in later periods. But for those who are not bothered about these things, I would not force literature on them. Most of the high school students are not good enough readers to do justice to Shakespeare or Milton any way. Classical literature should supplement co-curricular activities like dramas and stage shows etc. in schools. There are other ways of encouraging kids to love literature than to force it on them as a compulsory subject.

[JBI]

Honestly, I get worse in my writer's craft class. My teacher was trying to get us to analyze Araby by James Joyce, and he missed the reason why the narrator has the epiphany.

Oh, another good one is my English teacher not knowing what pathetic fallacy is, yet trying to teach Macbeth.

Oh, if you insist; My teacher not knowing what stream of consciousness is, yet trying to read a Virgina Woolf essay; not a good idea.

Or perhaps you want the time where, in grade 12, they are trying to teach the kids the difference between first and third person point of view. I swear, if you don't get it by that age, you won't.

I think, of course, Shakespeare can never be handled well in the classroom. Twelfth Night, Macbeth, Romeo, and Lear were ruined for a while to me because of it. Lear in particular; I couldn't relate because of the teacher's personal interpretations. It wasn't until I read Bloom's Notes about the play that I finally got it (it's hard being young to read Lear).

Oh, and my teacher forgot to tell the class what the "American Dream" is, I thought that somewhat funny.

But of course, who expects a kid to know better; he hasn't seen anything, I have a degree and my English Teachables!"

[stlukesguild]

I have just started teaching British Lit and American Lit at a private Christian school and I am appalled at the curriculum they are using. It seems like it is aimed at making these students hate literature. Am I wrong in believing that high schoolers should not study literature from a historical perspective? This curriculum has them studying literature in periods with the main focus being the historical era as opposed to the literature.

Students must not be forced to read literature as a compulsory subject. Modern life has enough facets and they are sufficiently represented by many authors. Emphasis should be on these writers and the contemporary culture instead of forcing art on people who have no respect for it. If somebody really likes literature, he or she should be allowed to choose to study it and in this case emphasis should be on literature, its history, tradition and its evolution... But for those who are not bothered about these things, I would not force literature on them. Most of the high school students are not good enough readers to do justice to Shakespeare or Milton any way...

What is the goal of education? Is the goal entertainment? If so, certainly I can imagine that to expect a student to learn anything he or she is not accustomed to or naturally drawn to is doomed to failure. But I don't accept the Romantic notion that the role of education should be to simply allow a child to follow his or her "natural" instincts. We have tried this for generations... and it has failed miserably.

Certainly I don't feel that the primary goal of teaching literature should be as a tool to teach history... I wouldn't limit the interpretation of any work of art to a single "meaning" or imagine the worth of art is solely to be in the service of "more important" disciplines such as history, sociology, etc... Nevertheless... those links shouldn't be avoided... they ought to be drawn attention to. Nor do I see anything wrong with teaching literature or the arts in a historical or chronological manner... as part of the study of general world history. What is wrong with recognizing that the efforts of Beethoven, Milton, and Picasso are just as essential to our culture as the achievements of Gutenberg, Martin Luther, Copernicus, and the Wright Brothers?

We have been discussing similar ideas in the "Teaching" forums, and I will briefly restate a few of my thoughts upon the topic:

The fact is that we can and should be establishing a standard of "common knowledge". For any culture there are certain ideas, events, achievements and persons that are more important than others... that play a central role in the development of that culture. There is nothing wrong with the idea that at a given age students should be expected to learn about Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, the American Revolution, the "separation of powers" (again I am speaking here of the US... obviously there would and should be different figures in other cultures), the elemental table, how electricity works, etc... Unfortunately... many of our current leaders in education fear this concept due to the the notion that there can be no true "body of common knowledge" and that to establish such facts as required or expected of all students is a form of indoctrination. Personally, I don't accept this. The fact that my formal studies of world literature during the Renaissance focused upon Dante, Petrarch, Chaucer, and Shakespeare in no way prevented me from learning about Cavalcanti, Ariosto, Ronsard, du Bellay, Spencer, Marlowe, Cervantes, Rabelais, San Juan de la Cruz, or Michel de Montaigne. Neither did my education ever prevent questioning what I was taught or even developing a preference for one of the writers I "discovered" later, on my own. If anything, this basis of common knowledge provided a jumping off point... a starting point against which to explore and even discuss other artists... other ideas... other events... other achievements. If I wish to discuss Novalis, for example, with someone having never read any of his work I might begin with discussing Romanticism... comparing him with William Blake or other "visionaries". As such, I am assuming that a working knowledge of "Romanticism", Blake, and visionary art is part of the common knowledge base of anyone having taken the prerequisite World Literature courses.

Essentially, without a concept of what knowledge is indispensable or necessary for one to be truly considered "educated" in a given culture, everything that is being taught is nothing more than trivia. The batting averages of the Boston Red Sox, the songs by 50-Cent that made the Billboard Charts, the films by Tim Burton employing Johnny Depp, the narratives of the Harry Potter books, the first Rap song, the porno films of Jenna Jameson, the psychedelic posters designed by Peter Max... all of these are facts. Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, the American Revolution, the "separation of powers", the elemental table, how electricity works, etc... these are also facts. Without a concept of a "core body of common knowledge" all of these facts are of equal value... none of them amounting to anything more than mere trivia. If we are to converse with each other we must assume a certain body of common knowledge. Without this much of what we can say or express to each other falls meaningless.

Of course, there must be a logical development to the presentation of the facts in a standardized education. What is taught must be age appropriate... and build upon prior knowledge. One doesn't start with an in-depth analysis of the literary and historical references in Dante and James Joyce. On the other hand, I believe it is possible to introduce children to examples of great literature early on. How it is taught to a young student, however, would differ from how it would be taught to an older student or in the colleges or universities. This is fine; Dante is different to me no than he was when I was 20.

I agree that it is possible to overload students with too many facts... however, the problem in the US schools is usually the opposite. Educational theory is pushing for demonstrations of "higher order thinking skills" without the facts needed to make them anything more than an empty abstraction. It is rather like trying to learn a foreign language simply by studying conjugation, syntax, noun-verb agreement, etc... and never actually reading anything... or listening to the language in use. Personally, I would prefer being pushed... challenged to learn more than I thought possible... than being left to my own devices. American schools have long been far too influenced by the romantic notions of education rooted in Rousseau... and picked up by Dewey. Both imagined the "natural" child (like the "natural" human) to be far preferable to the "civilized" and "educated" man/child. Left to his or her own devices the child/man would make the choices that are best suited to his/her nature. Of course the reality is that as we leave the child to his or her own devices they seek out other input... mostly that of popular culture. We assume a child can't be expected to memorize Blake's Tyger or a soliloquy from Shakespeare... but they have no problem memorizing entire rap albums with every M...F...er, B***h, and 'ho' or in analyzing all the characters in Harry Potter or plot twists in The Lord of the Rings As a result we have a huge population "educated" mostly upon popular culture and commercials... who have little or no ability to question the value of that culture... the values being sold to them... the manner in which they are being manipulated... and even less of a concept of history or cultures other than their own.

[Kafka's Crow]

Sorry I am drunk and it is 02:00 (AM) where I am, so do forgive any typos etc. (Bloody Bacardi!) Nice post Stlukesguild, appreciate the time and thought you put into it. The key words in your post are "at a certain age." I have seen teenagers fuming at Shakespeare and calling him 'retard' just because they could not appreciate his writings. I don't blame them because you either love literature or you don't. I remember how the teacher skipped poems in my text book and I read 'Charge of the Light Brigade' on my own. That was 26 years ago and I was only 11 years old. Then I read 'Sweet and Low' just because the teacher did not cover it and it was written by the same poet. As I grew older I had the good fortune of being in the class of a teacher who had some interest in literature. By the age of 12 I knew what 'Poet Laureate' meant as 'Daffodils' was written by Wordsworth 'the poet laureate of England' (exact words) who loved nature etc etc. Last two years in school I was taught English by a teacher who not only cared about literature but also thought about her students and how they reacted to what was taught. If I wrote a nice essay on Wilkie Collins, she was there to find the future bookworm in it. She wrote to me after I had finished my school and advised me to focus on literature and become a teacher of literature as I had the correct mix of interest, knowledge and aptitude. I followed her advice as no other teacher had seen my enthusiasm before. It had all started with a teacher choosing to skip some of the poems in my textbook.

Instead of trying to educate everybody, focus your energy on the ONE who genuinely wants to educated. 'You can't put in what nature left out' (Marcus Buckingham). Find the power, the enthusiasm, the fire in your students' heart. It is very unlikely that you would find a whole classroom full of literature enthusiasts, you are more than likely to find one or a handful (if you are lucky) and cherish the gems that you find, lead them, nurture them and pass on your enthusiasm to them. Enthusiasm is infectious. I remember when I started as a young English Teacher back in '94, my students followed my reading list and bought and tried to read whatever I was reading (I taught for only one year and read 'Agony and Ecstasy' and 'War and Peace' and Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History among other things in that one year.) I still remember one of my students showing off his brand new copy of War and Peace, our discussions of Napoleon (somebody's younger brother would keep on coming back to our class and he was likened to Bonaparte). I have seen how enthusiasm catches on. We lack that enthusiasms in today's teachers. If you can't find enthusiasm in teachers, there'll be no enthusiasm among the students.

Never did I ask for a total absence of literature from the curricula. I advocate 'relevant literature'. Our multicultural, multi-faceted societies are more demanding of their citizens as they expect us to know more about the people in our surroundings. Contemporary literature can be used to cultivate this understanding along with an understanding and knowledge of language and literature. I am glad that in Britain, at least, the educationists have started thinking in these terms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6331869.stm
(I did mourn for Yeats's exclusion, up until now, I did!)

I am sorry if it all sounds very utilitarian but this how it is and this is the way forward. Nobody teaches Homer in schools, Homer still lives. Everybody knows that Shakespeare is the greatest Englishman ever. This fact is not going to change whether our schools teach Macbeth or not. Why can't we use history to teach literature instead of using literature to teach history? (now here is another thought!) Instead of using literature to illustrate what happened in Dickens's London, we can use history to teach about the circumstance that led to Dickens and his writing. After that it is up to students to make up their minds whether they want to know about Dickens or not. (The Brothers Karamazov was mentioned only once by one of my teachers while discussing Death of a Salesman, still Karamazov is the best book I have ever read.)

Edit: I have seen the typos etc in this post and wll correct them tomorrow as in my present state, I will only make things worse!

[J.D.]

I will say this even though it is somewhat of an ideal-world scenario. If we are teaching American Literature, for instance, we ought to be able to draw on what a student has learned in history class--which means we don't have to put the primary focus on teaching history. We can access background knowledge that students already have. In other words, we reinforce rather than teach history.

Of course, those of us who have been in a classroom and tried to teach literature know that there are--often many--kids who have passed their required history classes and yet have no concept of history at all. So we end up teaching more history than we a) thought we would, and b) ever want to.

Ideally, I would teach literature in pairs, always teaming a classic piece with something contemporary that compliments it. In fact, I plan to pitch this idea when I rewrite my American Literature curriculum for next year.