... Reading for Fun: An Unfulfilled Potential?
"... if the chief problem here is that kids aren’t finding books they “like to read,” perhaps there is something within the current system that is not only preventing kids from “liking” literature, but prohibiting a sense of self-discovery. "
Schools assign kids books because those books are "great," important," etc. - and usually they are. That doesn't mean the kid is ready to read them. The first step is get the kid to like the act of reading - and the best way to do that is to let them find for themselves whatever it is they can't put down until they finish it. If you're 13 or 14, it's unlikely to be Moby Dick.
I know what you mean, Frank. A lot of kids cut their teeth reading Harry Potter! Which is okay with me, LOL, as long as they read!
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. I flunked Junior English in High School, and while there were several factors, one was definitely the fact that, when assigned an author study, all the writers I was reading outside of school (and I was reading a lot of authors outside of school) were not politically viable for a high school author study (Kerouac being one of the milder of the bunch). Couldn't get into the ones they would allow me to write on. Nowadays, I'd know to suck it up and get it done, but back then, I simply couldn't.
ReplyDeleteI tutored Aussie high schoolers for their HSC (exit exams) for a few years when I was younger, and was consistently surprised by the Shakespearean plays they were assigned--Othello, Hamlet, King Lear (how does that translate for a high school student). That may not be the sort of reading material that appeals to most high school students, but I know my public education tended more toward R&J, Julius Caesar, Merchant of Venice, and Macbeth. All of course closely tied in to civics studies, whereas the real meat was in the plays I found the Aussie kids studying.
I think, sometimes, that students are far more sophisticated in their literary taste than the public education system will allow for. Sometimes less sophisticated, too, granted, but it has always struck me as a bit of a mistake not to defer, at least somewhat, to a child's natural interests when considering how they should be educated. Unfortunately, it's a system like any other system, and when push comes to shove, efficiency trumps effectiveness pretty much every time. That's a pity, because I think society as a whole suffers from every voice we lose by doing so.
It'd be great to think that the education system was more geared toward rewarding reading at all, rather than insisting that a particular set of books be read. The classics are important, but it's usually just a matter of time before a child who loves to read heads that direction on their own. A child who doesn't like reading, on the other hand, can barrel through any canon they're presented with and come out no better for it.
Of course, I completely disagree about force-feeding kids great books, poetry and plays. Yes, let them read "other" books. That's fine. As I said in my recent blog, and as folks who commented said, books like To Kill a Mocking Bird (assigned reading) had a powerful and long lasting effect on them. (Of course, as one person commented, so did Black Beauty!)
ReplyDeleteLynne AKA The Wicked Witch of Publishing
What seems to have happened with regard to The Catcher in the Rye may be instructive. Teachers think its just the sort of book high school kids will love - because the teachers loved it when they were in high school. But a story The Inquirer did a few years ago indicated that today's kids don't find Holden Caulfield anywhere near as interesting as their parents did (they think - as I did, actually - that he's aprivileged, self-centered whiner). It's hard to predict what kids will like - and probably the best way to encourage them to read is the way Paul Goodman suggested: let them see you doing it.
ReplyDelete