My objections are based upon watching classes of immigrant children from Europe and Asia be required to read politically correct material without being exposed to any training in traditional grammar and without being exposed to the canonical texts of the culture of the country to which they have been brought by their parents. I see European immigrants indoctrinated in white hatred by PC dictators of the classroom. I see "literature"classes whose exposure to Dickens is via made for TV adaptations of his works rather than his books. I see pathetic attempts by the English faculty to be trendy- my favorite is substituting "The Wiz" for the genuine article. Today in my native born sophomore class only 1 of 23 present knew what a pronoun is. Three of the students had gone to the same local primary school. They reported that only one of the teachers there had taught grammar at all and only one of kids had been so blessed. Grammar instruction having been abolished by the English faculty at my school, there was no one to teach them the basics but the foreign language department.
Good news for the children whose parents have put them into private schools! The English department is very proud that my school's average on the ACT is 17. Of course our only recent student to make the Ivy League received all but the last three years of her schooling in Poland. She aced my classes.
All of my immigrant students comment on how much better the schools were in their home countries and how much easier it is to go to high school here. Tougher schools produce readers. I observe which students bring their own books to school in order to read them for pleasure. It seems to take four years of American political correctness to kill reading for pleasure.
Back in that Golden Age when university English faculties were required to be masters of the traditional culture and even to be multilingual there was a core of literary works that
English speakers were expected to know. I can identify only two required texts read during my high school years that I have never willingly reread: Silas Marner, and a religious novel selected by an otherwise competent fanatic.
Having dumbed down and relevantized the reading lists the current generation of teachers seems to believe that transparently propagandist reading list selection is not a major factor in killing the interest of the students. “Evolved” is simply a word covering a process of politically motivated book selection by people unwilling to teach the core literature or hostile to it.
One might call it Oprahwinfreyizing the curriculum except that she probably has higher standards.
I don’t understand the problem getting students to read particular books. I assign the work in my classroom. Students who do not do it. get to take the class over again. To be fair, I do take into consideration the LMA problem. Students with limited mental ability are not punished by me.
Also, the supreme leader of my system has decided too many students are flunking and that the solution is to find ways to pass them.
Charlie Dickens was one the most famous authors of his time and subsequently, Gary Soto....well.
Cheers,
R.Reis
----- Original Message ----- From: Gretchen Lee Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:37 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
In a message dated 11/28/2000 7:51:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< My views are not outdated, they are correct. >>
There goes that chasm again. Not lots of room for discussion.
How do you distinguish between multicultural "trash" and "lit-ra-chure"?
(Just curious - do you view _Huck Finn_ as a classic or an antecedent to the
"Ebonics" literature you were castigating?)
If my kids won't read _Lord of the Flies_, but will read _Scorpions_ (Walter
Dean Myers), do I do them any service by making them read LOF because it's a
classic? The themes in both books are similar, and the setting and dialogue
in _Scorpions_ are more familiar to most students today than LOF. It seems
to me that by forcing the classic-for-classic's-sake on them that all I have
done is taught them that English Lit is obscure and boring, and that books
should be avoided at all costs. (AND this message is getting across - some
studies show numbers as high as 70% NEVER willingly read a book after
finishing school.)
It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of going back to the traditional
canon, as if English lit has been frozen and only those works that have been
marinated in time are worthy. This ignores the fact that language and
literature evolve. You can't stop it by calling the voices from other
cultures "trash." Gary Soto's stories about growing up in Fresno are just
as valid as Charles Dicken's tales of growing up in Victorian England. To my
kids here in San Jose, they are a lot MORE valid. And with a lot of
scaffolding, one may lead to a reading of the other.
The important thing I do with literature is to hook my kids on reading.
Practice is hugely important in developing literacy. The more they read, the
more experience they bring to each book, and the better they get at it. They
are willing to take risks on "harder" books. They also need to learn from
books, and for that they need to connect to them. Some can connect to the
hero's quest in Beowulf; others need Star Wars - but the end result of both
is, with luck, a life examined. Connections are made, and a young adult's
world view is altered.
Setting literature up as an either/or (multicultural vs. classics) argument
is faulty logic. Personally I think the approach taken by Joan Kaywell in her
series _Adolescent Literature as a Complement to the Classics_ is the best of
all worlds. While your kids read _Julius Caesar_, they also read _Killing
Mr. Griffin_ or _Downriver_ to help them relate to the classic themes in
Shakespeare. Kids apply the insights they get from accessible novels to
those that would otherwise be obscure or "boring." Once they start making
the connections, they get excited and become self-motivated. That's how you
make lifelong readers.
Gretchen in San Jose
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
----- Original Message -----
From: Gretchen Lee
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
In a message dated 11/28/2000 7:51:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< My views are not outdated, they are correct. >>
There goes that chasm again. Not lots of room for discussion.
How do you distinguish between multicultural "trash" and "lit-ra-chure"?
(Just curious - do you view _Huck Finn_ as a classic or an antecedent to the
"Ebonics" literature you were castigating?)
If my kids won't read _Lord of the Flies_, but will read _Scorpions_ (Walter
Dean Myers), do I do them any service by making them read LOF because it's a
classic? The themes in both books are similar, and the setting and dialogue
in _Scorpions_ are more familiar to most students today than LOF. It seems
to me that by forcing the classic-for-classic's-sake on them that all I have
done is taught them that English Lit is obscure and boring, and that books
should be avoided at all costs. (AND this message is getting across - some
studies show numbers as high as 70% NEVER willingly read a book after
finishing school.)
It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of going back to the traditional
canon, as if English lit has been frozen and only those works that have been
marinated in time are worthy. This ignores the fact that language and
literature evolve. You can't stop it by calling the voices from other
cultures "trash." Gary Soto's stories about growing up in Fresno are just
as valid as Charles Dicken's tales of growing up in Victorian England. To my
kids here in San Jose, they are a lot MORE valid. And with a lot of
scaffolding, one may lead to a reading of the other.
The important thing I do with literature is to hook my kids on reading.
Practice is hugely important in developing literacy. The more they read, the
more experience they bring to each book, and the better they get at it. They
are willing to take risks on "harder" books. They also need to learn from
books, and for that they need to connect to them. Some can connect to the
hero's quest in Beowulf; others need Star Wars - but the end result of both
is, with luck, a life examined. Connections are made, and a young adult's
world view is altered.
Setting literature up as an either/or (multicultural vs. classics) argument
is faulty logic. Personally I think the approach taken by Joan Kaywell in her
series _Adolescent Literature as a Complement to the Classics_ is the best of
all worlds. While your kids read _Julius Caesar_, they also read _Killing
Mr. Griffin_ or _Downriver_ to help them relate to the classic themes in
Shakespeare. Kids apply the insights they get from accessible novels to
those that would otherwise be obscure or "boring." Once they start making
the connections, they get excited and become self-motivated. That's how you
make lifelong readers.
Gretchen in San Jose
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/<br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>
|
