Here's the link to the article from the London Times about the move afoot to "modernize" the English national curriculum.
Read the article and then take a critical look at the assumptions that are being made in the process about the purpose of studying English and what function the Classics are seen to serve.
What interests you about this discussion? How is the nature of this discussion different than the one we've seen on the website of the parent organization in Kansas trying to pull the "vulgar" books off the curriculum?
Comments
It would be really interesting to see the official list for that English curriculum guide. The article said 11-14 year olds must study at least one Shakespeare play, and when I was 13 (eighth grade), I remember reading and acting Macbeth. Quite honestly, I still have a hard time reading Shakespeare, yet it is considered mandatory in young teenagers. I don't even think Shakespeare's 'messages' are all that significant. I think students, no matter what age, need a little bit of everything for their English classes. Ditching the classics is downright stupid; they're called classics for a reason, and although they may not all be pleasure reading, they're still incredible pieces of work that most definitely should be taught in school. I guess to answer your question, the function of classics is anybody's guess; it's whatever you want them to be. They could be a model example for what you are teaching (dialogue techniques, etc.), or the more practical function - a demonstration of excellent English literature.
Modern writers should also be taught, because like I said, I think students need a little bit of everything (regarding time periods & literature). -kari iverson
Posted by: Kari at February 27, 2005 09:01 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)