I tend to agree with you but I don't really know how to fix the problem.
For example, I hated Dickens when I was forced to read him in high school but adore him now (so much so that I specialized in Victorian lit, if not the man himself LOL). And I have tons of anecdotes about people who had similar experiences: hating a book they "weren't ready for" in middle school or high school but coming to love it later on in college or as an adult. So I definitely think there's something to that idea.
The problem is that it's so subjective. I loved Shakespeare in 9th grade and it was a good fit for me, but many of my classmates didn't feel the same way. It would be hard to create a curriculum that fits well for everyone for that reason. Because of this, I really like the Accelerated Reading program that they have now in US schools; they didn't do this when I was in school and I wish they had because it would have saved me a lot of boredom. Essentially, the kids do a lot of reading on their own time and on their own reading levels rather than being forced to do a lot of reading the same book together which may or may not be a good fit for them.
Also I think reading these books early is important because many people don't go on to college where they might be exposed to the classics (which is fine; I think people can make wonderful, lucrative, and fulfilling lives for themselves without going to college), and I do think it's important for our citizenry to have at least a certain degree of exposure to literature.
Finally, I think one of the goals of K-12 is to prepare those students who want to go to college to succeed there, and one of the things I struggle with often with my students is that they have to learn how to successfully read things that bore them or challenge them. It's easy to read something you find interesting; not so much with that boring Biology book or Sociology article. LOL So I do think some experience reading stuff you don't like or that is "too hard" builds useful reading skills.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-04 02:54 pm (UTC)For example, I hated Dickens when I was forced to read him in high school but adore him now (so much so that I specialized in Victorian lit, if not the man himself LOL). And I have tons of anecdotes about people who had similar experiences: hating a book they "weren't ready for" in middle school or high school but coming to love it later on in college or as an adult. So I definitely think there's something to that idea.
The problem is that it's so subjective. I loved Shakespeare in 9th grade and it was a good fit for me, but many of my classmates didn't feel the same way. It would be hard to create a curriculum that fits well for everyone for that reason. Because of this, I really like the Accelerated Reading program that they have now in US schools; they didn't do this when I was in school and I wish they had because it would have saved me a lot of boredom. Essentially, the kids do a lot of reading on their own time and on their own reading levels rather than being forced to do a lot of reading the same book together which may or may not be a good fit for them.
Also I think reading these books early is important because many people don't go on to college where they might be exposed to the classics (which is fine; I think people can make wonderful, lucrative, and fulfilling lives for themselves without going to college), and I do think it's important for our citizenry to have at least a certain degree of exposure to literature.
Finally, I think one of the goals of K-12 is to prepare those students who want to go to college to succeed there, and one of the things I struggle with often with my students is that they have to learn how to successfully read things that bore them or challenge them. It's easy to read something you find interesting; not so much with that boring Biology book or Sociology article. LOL So I do think some experience reading stuff you don't like or that is "too hard" builds useful reading skills.
It's a quandary though.