Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Teachers and Classics- are they too hard for children to read?
The Secretary of State for Education appears to have caused a ruffling of viewpoints on what classics are suitable in the curriculum.
As a teenager I did read Tennyson, Shakespeare and Keats, and I had read a book by Jane Austen.
What you said about some children being almost illiterate, yes you can understand why the teachers would not want to inflict that level of book on children/young people.
My middle triplet Dom, said they had read a little of Dickens Christmas Carol, and he wants to read the book. But he is a very able reader. I know from what he said this evening, that it would be too difficult for the majority in the class.
The reading list that the boys came home with, was a mixture of modern and slightly mid 20th century well known stories.
There were books for each of the three reading levels, so at least it was being targeted to each child's ability.
But I think it is generally worrying that the ability level of teenagers can be so poor.
I agree Dorothy that many 18 year olds do seem illerate and inumerate but this is surely because they are fed pre digested pap rather than the good strong meat of the Bard, Chaucer, Bunyan and best of all the majestic language of the King James Bible
I love that casual mention 'my middle triplet' Carol - just can't imagine carrying and delivering three in one go - do they consider themselves oldest, middle & youngest? (sorry I'm way off thread).
(Ana, sometimes I do consider them that way, especially when talking to people who don't know them well. They are very different in some aspects, and with only two minutes between the youngest and the oldest, people do ask who is the oldest/youngest.
Personality wise they are different, but educationally the twin pair are relatively on the same level- so each gain roughly the same marks in English and Maths.Other subjects,there are tiny variations.)
Literacy levels are probably at their highest ever, however disappointing that may seem. Nevertheless, anyone who wants to impose the classics on all children has no method in their madness.
These books were written for adults in previous centuries, not children.
First comes a love of reading and books. If children are given the knowledge, skills and understanding to enjoy literature at both school and home, a greater number will read and enjoy these authors in adult life.
A child's language won't be impoved by an imposed diet of indigestible material. You just reinforce their sense of failure.
If such challenging literature is within the extended reach of a pupil or a class, he/she/they should be introduced to it. These books should be there, selectively, for those who are ready for them.
All children are different. There are many kinds of intelligences. Blanket impositions on the curriculum of this kind are counter-productive. A brilliant pupil might have a very powerful mathematical ability but struggle with literary concepts.
I can see what Howard is saying, and it does make sense.
The difficulty seems to be in schools that with a set curriculum that flexibility isn't always there. Or am I wrong?
And I'm sure there are a lot of young people in the country who are okay with reading and English, but are unlikely to ever pick up a classic.
Virtually every piece of drama today is a rework of shakspeare they just lose a lot in the update. The degree of literacy today is very poor if you consider the opportnitys available. In the 1800 to 1900 period the poor had almost no opportunity given they had to do it for themseves. Mostly the only reading material aailable to the majority was the authorized Bible and they were inspired by the crashing majestic language. Our young church has 100% literacy and they love the huge visas of the K J version
The way I learned to thoroughly enjoy writing of the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century was to read them whilst also studying concomitantly the relative historical framework.
And, as usual, it's often a question of subjectivity + personal taste. Never thought I'd be raving about John Donne, Henry Fielding and de Laclos. But studied whilst also looking at the times in which they wrote, I couldn't get enough!
And, of course, that's just me. We're all individual with individual experiences and views.
I came across Dickens, Shakespeare, the Brontes, Keats, Wordsworth and others in English at school, but we were a grammar school class. Some of it was a struggle ("These 'jokes' in Twelfth Night - they're funny, why, exactly?"). Some of it was enjoyable - I can still recite most of To Autumn, for instance.
My sister was saddled with Hardy - novel and poems - poor girl. It would have been far better for that class to have been given a wider variety of reading material.
The thing is, ability levels in children vary enormously. Where a group of reasonably intelligent teenage girls might lap up Mansfield Park, a bunch of remedial readers would struggle with anything - but they might enjoy having Treasure Island read to them, for instance.
I've found that, without that early exposure to the classics in school, I might never have picked them up for pleasure in later life, and I would have missed some great writing.
hey, i havent been on here for absolutely ages! but nay moind.
im doing some work experience, one day a week, in my old primary school as i am considering going into teaching post-degree. from what i have seen, there is very little felxibility in the curriculum, and the teachers really just concentrate on trying to get their pupils to reach the level of reading that is their target. does that make sense? :s im rubbish at explaining.
however, primary school kids still enjoy reading, well the majority do. they especially enjoy books they are weird and whacky, paul jennings is a particular favourite in my regular class (personally, can't stand him).
despite that, not only do the kids have to be able to read well but they have to take in the story and know what it is about. i believe strongly there is a ridiculous amount of pressure on kids to do well at school. it really makes me cross, but i shall not start ranting about that :P.
my memories of reading at secondary school, the books we studied were dull save one which had a theme set in the slave trade. i loved doing shakespeare, but i was one of a kind in my school. i got an A* for the lit and A for the lang in my GCSE coursework. books we studied were dull, old fashioned and noone had any interest in them.
yes i understand that it is important to know the great names related to your countries history, and what they have done for our country. but the majority of the classics usually made an impact on the society they were written in. so now, if you dont have an interest history, then what is the point in reading the classics if they are about nothing that interest you? you books that you are interested in dont you?
we cannot force kids to enjoy reading, especially if they are books that dont appeal to them on any level. if there was some appeal in the books then im pretty sure kids would enjoy them more.
In infant/junior school we all read those books which are multi-coloured and specifically for schools - I don't know what they are called but hopefully you know what I mean. I was left on level 7 for two years - which is quite low, while other people were on level 13. I wasn't that happy as by that time i had read The Hobbit. Nobody really took the time to discover if I could read or not.
In senior school we read Wuthering Heights and Lord of the Flies. Half the class had all ready read the books twice before we came to read them in class and half would never finish them.
In Sixth form college I've read Shakespeare, Blake and Chaucer. We still read the books in class and still there are some people who don't read the books until the last minute. I would love to see sets brought back in. I think it's great that the teachers work at the level of the lowest(I don't know how to put it - sorry) in the class but is it fair on the other's? If put into sets wouldn't it be better for everyone because the teachers could go at the speed of the class (all the class) and not just a few.
It's hard to say what children should read and what they shouldn't - maybe the classics are all right but the speed and the depth of analysis is what should be focussed upon.
Katzkrew, do you mean the Oxford Reading Tree system, with the children and the dog, and the magic key. More characters and adventures as the child progresses through each reading stage.
I do feel that in primary school my kids teachers do try to cater to everyone's ability, and where there is something for the whole class it seems to be pitched at a mid point, which will obviously be dictated by how many are at average or below level 4.
Those who need help with reading get time out of the class with a support teacher to do reading, those who are the most able are left to themselves to carry on.
I remember my mum being furious when I started school as the teacher wouldnt give me a reading book until the rest of the class caught up!!!
My son is a natural reader and speller and I find it sad that he doesn't like fiction (well except for Charles Ogden). My daughter on the other hand has struggled but she is getting there, she has just turned nine and is working her way through Roald Dahl (with a bit of help).
I did Macbeth and Much Ado for A level loved the first, hated the second. We also did Chaucer (knights tale, which our teacher made us translate in full). Gerard Manly Hopkins, John Donne (who I still love). Keats and D H Lawrence (who I have no desire to ever read again I hated it.).
I think as long as the teachers make it interesting kids will be inspired to read classics. My teacher I had for Macbeth instilled such life into it and drew modern day comparisions it worked beautifully.
A good teacher is more than their weight in gold. Most of my education on the whole was up in Scotland , partly due to the fact that my father who was in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, was at Lossiemouth[HMS Fulmar] so I studied Shakespeare Midsummer Night's Dream, Julius Caesar, Macbeth and my favourite, Hamlet. I say that most of my education was in Scotland but with with one exception. I was a year and a half in Carlisle,at Red Gables[I nicknamed it Dotheboys Hall on account of its heer awfulness towards the end, the least said about that place, the better with one mild exception, I was introduced to the delights of John Buchan'Thirty Nine Steps and inspired me to read his others later. We did a massive project on it. While at the Convent in Aberdeen, I read The Loved One by Evelyn Wall. his other one 'Fall and Rise or whatever, name escapes me but thought it was rather funny, The Quiet American. Others were reading Faulks,about the wreckers and smugglers.
I think where mistakes are made when teachers and academics start to metaphorically tear a good story to pieces, analyse every inuendo of every sentence - enough to put perhaps even the most avid reader off. I remember years back, someone saying "How I love to read a book right through without wondering if the character or the writer had a sexual hangup. I know exactly what she means. I am currently reading Barbara Erskine's Whispers in the Sand, recommended if you like things on the spooky side. I think that the examining boards and the teachers should be in touch with youngster's tastes in reading literature. OK, what they like may not please everyone but at least they are reading and that is the crux of the point surely and it is something they like rather than being forced to read something they loathe and put off reading. I come across no end of people in my area or people I know who still do not read or do so nearly enough.
You are right, though: the greatest teachers are the greatest of examples and inspire the child to do well in the subject, which means enjoyment of literature, no matter what their taste. "Lord of the Flies" went down a storm in my old 1973 class of skinheads and also with my own children, brought up trotting off to Glastonbury with me and a tent from very young ages!
Correct grammar and spelling may be found dotted throughout the greatest of literature. I am dreading the day when teachers use mobile texting language to teach our children.
Mostly, the greatest teachers have the passion, commitment and make sure that they personally/professionally 'bother' to inspire and encourage that love - yes, it is a love.
Sadly, they are few are far between.
And, if a child is not interested in the slightest bit, well, I hope that child is given equal encouragement and inspiration in whatever it is they love.
I also had to read Lord of the Flies and hated it with a passion. I read it again recently to see if it was just too much of a boy's book for me at that age - and - I hate it still.
I disliked Literature lessons at school. Why did I have to read Golding's book while my brother got to read Jane Eyre? Switch books and we may both have done better.
It didn't so me too much harm in the end though. I'm now a third year lit student :0)
What gets me more is that children are being taught how to analyse literature before being - or without ever being - properly taught how to use the English language. That's just doomed to failure. Before I get into trouble with any teachers out there, I do acknowledge that not all schools are lousy at teaching English - just the ones my children attended :0)
I can remember doing Jane Eyre, Lord of the Flies, Katherine Mansfield's short stories, Graham Greene's The Power and The Glory, Henry IV Part one (I can still quote Hotspur's speech on Honour verbatim), Oh What a Lovely War, The Red Pony, The Canterbury Tales (yeuch!) - there were loads of others but the forgettory is not what it used to be. The other thing was we used to study poetry regularly - infant & junior school for handwriting exercises a new poem most days, then properly at senior school - Chaucer, Shakespeare, Hardy, Frost, Brooke, Owen, Sassoon, Spender, Plath all sorts and styles. Talking to my aunt who's a primary school teacher now they might look at one poem a term - if they're lucky - how sad is that?!
Dorothy what you say is true, children's own enthusiasm leads them to reading a variety of stuff and questioning; but the national curriculum seems to damp that down, meeting targets is more important.
I know there are good teachers out there, just as there are bad teachers. I know those of you here who are teachers fall in the good category.
Comments
As a teenager I did read Tennyson, Shakespeare and Keats, and I had read a book by Jane Austen.
See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6368047.stm
My middle triplet Dom, said they had read a little of Dickens Christmas Carol, and he wants to read the book. But he is a very able reader. I know from what he said this evening, that it would be too difficult for the majority in the class.
The reading list that the boys came home with, was a mixture of modern and slightly mid 20th century well known stories.
There were books for each of the three reading levels, so at least it was being targeted to each child's ability.
But I think it is generally worrying that the ability level of teenagers can be so poor.
Personality wise they are different, but educationally the twin pair are relatively on the same level- so each gain roughly the same marks in English and Maths.Other subjects,there are tiny variations.)
Literacy levels are probably at their highest ever, however disappointing that may seem. Nevertheless, anyone who wants to impose the classics on all children has no method in their madness.
These books were written for adults in previous centuries, not children.
First comes a love of reading and books. If children are given the knowledge, skills and understanding to enjoy literature at both school and home, a greater number will read and enjoy these authors in adult life.
A child's language won't be impoved by an imposed diet of indigestible material. You just reinforce their sense of failure.
If such challenging literature is within the extended reach of a pupil or a class, he/she/they should be introduced to it. These books should be there, selectively, for those who are ready for them.
All children are different. There are many kinds of intelligences. Blanket impositions on the curriculum of this kind are counter-productive. A brilliant pupil might have a very powerful mathematical ability but struggle with literary concepts.
Teachers need more latitude for the benefit of future generations.
The difficulty seems to be in schools that with a set curriculum that flexibility isn't always there. Or am I wrong?
And I'm sure there are a lot of young people in the country who are okay with reading and English, but are unlikely to ever pick up a classic.
And, as usual, it's often a question of subjectivity + personal taste. Never thought I'd be raving about John Donne, Henry Fielding and de Laclos. But studied whilst also looking at the times in which they wrote, I couldn't get enough!
And, of course, that's just me. We're all individual with individual experiences and views.
My sister was saddled with Hardy - novel and poems - poor girl. It would have been far better for that class to have been given a wider variety of reading material.
The thing is, ability levels in children vary enormously. Where a group of reasonably intelligent teenage girls might lap up Mansfield Park, a bunch of remedial readers would struggle with anything - but they might enjoy having Treasure Island read to them, for instance.
I've found that, without that early exposure to the classics in school, I might never have picked them up for pleasure in later life, and I would have missed some great writing.
im doing some work experience, one day a week, in my old primary school as i am considering going into teaching post-degree. from what i have seen, there is very little felxibility in the curriculum, and the teachers really just concentrate on trying to get their pupils to reach the level of reading that is their target. does that make sense? :s im rubbish at explaining.
however, primary school kids still enjoy reading, well the majority do. they especially enjoy books they are weird and whacky, paul jennings is a particular favourite in my regular class (personally, can't stand him).
despite that, not only do the kids have to be able to read well but they have to take in the story and know what it is about. i believe strongly there is a ridiculous amount of pressure on kids to do well at school. it really makes me cross, but i shall not start ranting about that :P.
my memories of reading at secondary school, the books we studied were dull save one which had a theme set in the slave trade. i loved doing shakespeare, but i was one of a kind in my school. i got an A* for the lit and A for the lang in my GCSE coursework. books we studied were dull, old fashioned and noone had any interest in them.
yes i understand that it is important to know the great names related to your countries history, and what they have done for our country. but the majority of the classics usually made an impact on the society they were written in. so now, if you dont have an interest history, then what is the point in reading the classics if they are about nothing that interest you? you books that you are interested in dont you?
we cannot force kids to enjoy reading, especially if they are books that dont appeal to them on any level. if there was some appeal in the books then im pretty sure kids would enjoy them more.
In senior school we read Wuthering Heights and Lord of the Flies. Half the class had all ready read the books twice before we came to read them in class and half would never finish them.
In Sixth form college I've read Shakespeare, Blake and Chaucer. We still read the books in class and still there are some people who don't read the books until the last minute. I would love to see sets brought back in. I think it's great that the teachers work at the level of the lowest(I don't know how to put it - sorry) in the class but is it fair on the other's? If put into sets wouldn't it be better for everyone because the teachers could go at the speed of the class (all the class) and not just a few.
It's hard to say what children should read and what they shouldn't - maybe the classics are all right but the speed and the depth of analysis is what should be focussed upon.
I do feel that in primary school my kids teachers do try to cater to everyone's ability, and where there is something for the whole class it seems to be pitched at a mid point, which will obviously be dictated by how many are at average or below level 4.
Those who need help with reading get time out of the class with a support teacher to do reading, those who are the most able are left to themselves to carry on.
My son is a natural reader and speller and I find it sad that he doesn't like fiction (well except for Charles Ogden). My daughter on the other hand has struggled but she is getting there, she has just turned nine and is working her way through Roald Dahl (with a bit of help).
I did Macbeth and Much Ado for A level loved the first, hated the second. We also did Chaucer (knights tale, which our teacher made us translate in full). Gerard Manly Hopkins, John Donne (who I still love). Keats and D H Lawrence (who I have no desire to ever read again I hated it.).
I think as long as the teachers make it interesting kids will be inspired to read classics. My teacher I had for Macbeth instilled such life into it and drew modern day comparisions it worked beautifully.
I think where mistakes are made when teachers and academics start to metaphorically tear a good story to pieces, analyse every inuendo of every sentence - enough to put perhaps even the most avid reader off. I remember years back, someone saying "How I love to read a book right through without wondering if the character or the writer had a sexual hangup. I know exactly what she means. I am currently reading Barbara Erskine's Whispers in the Sand, recommended if you like things on the spooky side. I think that the examining boards and the teachers should be in touch with youngster's tastes in reading literature. OK, what they like may not please everyone but at least they are reading and that is the crux of the point surely and it is something they like rather than being forced to read something they loathe and put off reading. I come across no end of people in my area or people I know who still do not read or do so nearly enough.
You are right, though: the greatest teachers are the greatest of examples and inspire the child to do well in the subject, which means enjoyment of literature, no matter what their taste. "Lord of the Flies" went down a storm in my old 1973 class of skinheads and also with my own children, brought up trotting off to Glastonbury with me and a tent from very young ages!
Correct grammar and spelling may be found dotted throughout the greatest of literature. I am dreading the day when teachers use mobile texting language to teach our children.
Mostly, the greatest teachers have the passion, commitment and make sure that they personally/professionally 'bother' to inspire and encourage that love - yes, it is a love.
Sadly, they are few are far between.
And, if a child is not interested in the slightest bit, well, I hope that child is given equal encouragement and inspiration in whatever it is they love.
I also had to read Lord of the Flies and hated it with a passion. I read it again recently to see if it was just too much of a boy's book for me at that age - and - I hate it still.
I disliked Literature lessons at school. Why did I have to read Golding's book while my brother got to read Jane Eyre? Switch books and we may both have done better.
It didn't so me too much harm in the end though. I'm now a third year lit student :0)
What gets me more is that children are being taught how to analyse literature before being - or without ever being - properly taught how to use the English language. That's just doomed to failure. Before I get into trouble with any teachers out there, I do acknowledge that not all schools are lousy at teaching English - just the ones my children attended :0)
I know there are good teachers out there, just as there are bad teachers. I know those of you here who are teachers fall in the good category.