Mandatory Reading in Schools
In the UK, recently published league tables show that one in ten schools have failed to meet the Government’s target when it comes to pupils’ literacy levels.
Don’t worry, dear reader. This article isn’t about UK politics, or a rant about how the Government ought to be doing more for school education. No, instead I’ll be running on a slight tangent to the above comment (but on something which is still related to it, which I’ll explain later), and talking about the good and bad aspects of mandatory reading in schools. “But surely it’s something we need to have! Surely it’s good for our children to have their literary horizons broadened!?” I hear you cry. You would certainly be right in your estimations there…but what’s the use of such broad reading if, when they leave school, the children then decide to never pick up another book?
The problem with mandatory reading in schools is, for the most part, that it’s boring. Granted, the lucky few who are allowed to study things like ‘Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner’ and ‘The Smallest Dragonboy’ would probably argue against that point. But no-one would argue the fact that when Year 10 rolls around, the bombardment of Shakespeare, Austin and Browning begins. Now I’m certainly not saying here that these three writers aren’t worthy of literary exploration. Definitely not! My point here is the fact that many 14-16 year olds find the likes of Austin rather…well…dry. I know of plenty of adults who have completed their education and still find these sorts of books too dry to read. It’s all very well and good to want to give students an appreciation of good literature, but at the same time it has to be balanced against the desire to get them reading outside of school. In other words, we have to give them things that will spark their interest and desire to learn more and read more broadly.
The problem that arises here, is exactly what the government should therefore put on the syllabus. With something as subjective as literature, it’s hardly the case that whatever is chosen will be something that everyone likes. But what if we were to get a little more democratic about the syllabus? Instead of making it a hard and fast rule that every class needs to study a certain Shakespeare play or a certain poem, let the class choose for themselves at the start of the course from a selection. Instead of the overused ‘Romeo and Juliet’, why not let them have the ability to choose ‘The Tempest’ or ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’? Indeed, I know of one or two people who were able to do this for GCSE (lucky sots), and subsequently, they thoroughly enjoyed that part of their course.
Part of the problem is that teenagers don’t see the reason for having to read books such as ‘Jane Eyre‘. How is the tale of a governess set over a hundred years ago in any way relevant? And don’t think I’m knocking ‘Jane Eyre here‘. It’s a personal favourite of mine…but even I can see their point. What’s the matter with updating things a little? Even H.G. Wells would be better to capture the interest of teenagers. In my own personal experience, people at my school definitely enjoyed Steinbeck compared to Shakespeare. There were even one or two in my class who felt guilty for not enjoying Shakespeare as much as they ‘should have’. Here’s another problem. The expectation is that everyone should appreciate the Bard as an amazing writer that no-one else can even touch.
…I’m sorry to say that since coming to University and learning more about other authors of the Renaissance era, Shakespeare impresses me less and less. Don’t get me wrong, dear reader; I still adore some of his works. (‘King Lear’ and ‘The Tempest’, for example). But he isn’t exactly the be-all and end-all. Why don’t we let those at GCSE level express themselves a little more? Finding the good points about a novel is easy. It doesn’t take any courage. But to point out the flaws and what could be better? Surely that shows a level of independent thought? The chance isn’t there, however, and I feel that it’s a crying shame.
As you can see, I’m not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. I think on a functional level, it still works. What I do think, is that we need to call for a little more flexibility. If we can get that balance just right, there’s no reason why those literacy levels shouldn’t be on the immediate rise.
The same situation exists here in the US. We have the focus on literature which is “classic” and with good cause. But it is overkill. Scanning some of the required reading lists, you could be lead to believe that nothing of value has been written in the past 50 years that is worth our attention.
With so many excellent new authors, the mix that could be offered should relate to the students better, offering a mix in time line material and exploring other examples of classic literature. How many people consider Isaac Asimov a classic science fiction writer but we never see his books on a required reading list? Or Ray Bradbury?
There are so many great authors and books out there that are so worth the reading. I am sure that with the right choices of material we could find a new balance to attract those who are on the edge of not being interested. A good teacher should understand this and be given the freedom to choose a substitute to the “required reading list” to attract the attention of a student that may be sparked by something “outside the conventional box”.
great blog, bookmarked it to show my friend
!
Lots of usefull information and inspiration, both of which we all need, thank you for this.
An excellent article with logical points, I have been a lurker here for a short time but wish to become far more included in the future.
This article was recommended to me by a friend. I have to say, this was of value. I will tell more friends about it as well.
Great site!!!
Very nice blog! Bookmarked
[...] while ago, Sara wrote an article discussing the nature of school reading lists, and the fact that some (okay, quite a few) of the [...]