I’ve seen more than a few comments on other posts talking about how forcing middle schoolers and high schoolers to read dry and inaccessible literature (even if it’s important) spoiled their love for reading, or put some people off of reading for good.
Now I’m not a US native so my impressions regarding the US “required reading” education is second-hand, but I’ve had this talk with an American friend multiple times. He absolutely detested having to read The Scarlet Letter and As I Lay Dying and The Catcher In The Rye and said it basically ruined literature for him for 10 years.
I totally get that. And it’s similar in Germany where I went to school - you read some really old texts for their historic importance and to learn about the evolution of literature, and then some more contemporary ones which can be… dry. Not what you want to be reading at 14 or 15 or 16. But at the same time I think there is value in exposing teenagers to literature that they otherwise might never pick up, especially older literature and classics. Maybe nine out of ten kids will hate it, but it might be an eye-opening experience for one in ten. And I mean, some of the point of school is just to expose you to things so you can learn what interests you and what doesn’t.
So I’m torn on this. Personally I liked most of the stuff I had to read in middle school and high school, but then I was a voracious reader and very interested in (art) history and philosophy and all kinds of nerdy things. I was wondering what this (book-positive, literature focused) subreddit thinks? Should all literature education be opt-in, or is there value in making everybody give it at least a fair shot? Should education in literature be done differently? Are there any books that you had to read that you think are particularly bad or good choices?
I’ve heard that the education system ruined reading for people constantly. This is why you really never see college students read fiction willingly. They then revisit the subject sometimes in their 30s, or go their entire life thinking that reading is boring. Yeah, it’s absolutely a real thing.
Also, I don’t see why teachers can’t have students pick their book, either entirely, or from a small pool. Dusty old lit novels that no one finds enjoyable definitely don’t serve any purpose other than reduce the teacher’s work load down to nothing.
I totally agree I think ELA needs to be way more open ended than it is. But there’s a catch 22 there because I’d imagine it would be very tough for a teacher to keep up with 25 different books their students are resding
Former middle school teacher and yes, it is very challenging to have everyone read their own chosen book when trying to teach concepts that every student has to learn. ELA’s not just about reading, so the book chosen has to serve multiple purposes and often act as an anchor for a unit based on a more universal theme or skills being taught.
My approach was always to choose several novels we’d read together, at least one small group unit where 3 or 4 kids would read a novel they chose together, have at least one unit that involved short stories, and then assign one or two completely individual at-home novels that could be anything the student wanted.
A caveat: As a middle school teacher in my particular district I got more leeway to do what I pleased—as long as we covered the standards—than a lot of teachers do. Many (if not most) teachers have little say in what they have to assign because of district chosen curriculum. And high school teachers have to get kids graduating with the assumption that they will need certain background information to take college level English, and those profs need kids to already have a cursory knowledge of authors like Shakespeare in order to build and deepen knowledge.