ladyofastolat: (Library lady)
[personal profile] ladyofastolat
This is a predictable rant, because I know I've ranted about similar things before. In fact, I can probably leave half the words blank, and you'd all be able to fill them in. (Now, there's an idea for an LJ post…)

Anyway, someone at work has just given me "100 books every child should read", from this Saturday's Telegraph. It starts with an article by Michael Morpurgo about how schools should promote the sheer pleasure of books and stories.. I agree with every word he says. A terrifying number – Half? Thee quarters? I forget the exact number – of primary school teachers never read a story aloud to their children just for the fun of it. Philip Pullman read through the entire primary school Literacy Strategy and didn't find the word "enjoy" in there once. Novels are reduced to out-of-context extracts, and children are then invited to analyse the use of adjectives. Most school libraries I've seen are dire, full of tatty thirty-year-old books. Some secondary schools no longer have libraries at all "because it's all on the internet now, isn't it?" Scared by the National Curriculum, SATs and league tables, many teachers feel they can't justify spending ten minutes at the end of a day just reading for the fun of it.

So far so good, then. However, after his article, without a word of caution or introduction, we get "100 books every child should read." And what a list it is! Barely a dozen of the books were written within the last 25 years. Few are likely to appeal to reluctant readers. Apparently "early teens", for example, "should" be reading Great Expectations – a book that I'm Dickens never intended as "a children's book."

This list appears to be preaching the opposite message from Michael Morpurgo. "Push the joy of reading" doesn't match with "should". A lot of children never discover the joy of reading because their parents don't read, never encourage them to read, and never introduce them to books. Others, however, never discover the joy of reading because their parents push them too much. Over-ambitious parents can be the death of a child's interest in reading. We've all seen them in libraries: the parent who crossly snatches the child's chosen book out of their hand on the grounds that it's "too easy" or because they've "read it before", gets them a book that's clearly far too hard for the child, and then (presumably) boasts to the other parents, "Of course, she's reading books written for 9 year olds now."

Research has shown* that the children who love reading tend to do better at school. Research has shown that the best way to get a child to love reading is to let them choose their own books. Add that element of "should" and many of them lose interest. Some of them will want to relax at times with a "too easy" book. Some will want to reread an old favourite for the tenth time. Some will spend a year reading a single formulaic series, and loving it. Some will only ever read non-fiction.

This should be encouraged! By all means, try to gently introduce them to new experiences – to "better books", if you like. This is great! I have nothing at all against classics, and loved them as a child. (However, when I try to look objectively at some of them, I do wonder quite why they gained their classic status. I suspect a case of the emperor's new clothes in a few of them.) Read these aloud and enthuse over them, and perhaps the child will come to love them, too; enthusiasm is infectious, after all. But perhaps they won't. Times change. Children change. Interests change. Fashions change. Perhaps that worthy classic will leave them cold, while that "formulaic trash" inspires them and leads them to play rich games of the imagination, and to write stories of their own. It won't last, and they'll move on in time to something else - perhaps to that very classic they scorned six months earlier.

However, tear that "trash" out of their hand and tell that they will have to read this "good" book, whether they like it or not… What message are you giving about the joy of reading then? Reading is a chore. Reading is a test. Reading is something you have to do, not something you do because you enjoy it. "I am not a reader," they will come to think, and soon that prediction will come true. *

By all means, have book lists that suggest books that children might enjoy. Gently lead them to new discoveries. Recommend. Enthuse. But put a list of "100 books that a child should read" into the hands of over-ambitious parents, and I tremble at the result.

* I have read specific research on these issues, so these aren't empty statements. I'm just not citing the details here since this is an LJ rant, not an article.

Date: 2008-01-22 04:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] parrot-knight.livejournal.com
Not all of us did history GCE/GCSE, unfortunately; and I do think that there is a greater bias against understanding in the prevailing educational climate. Admittedly anecdotal opinion in Oxford and elsewhere is finding each successive year of undergraduates less well-armed for study than the year before, both in knowing the questions to ask and having the cultural background that history courses presuppose (though the latter may simply be cultural change and value neutral).

I do think that there is a cycle of expectation-lowering in the public sector; but while I agree with you that understanding someone else's learning experience and learning from it yourself is probably absorbed osmotically, if teaching (whether from the state or not) doesn't try to encourage it, even on the most unpromising ground, then what can it do?

Date: 2008-01-22 05:27 pm (UTC)
ext_189645: (Default)
From: [identity profile] bunn.livejournal.com
My memory is that this sort of thing was also covered fairly extensively in Eng. Lit GCE, but I've never taught that and my experience of it is long ago. Anyway, I spent most of my Eng Lit classes reading non-official books under the desk so maybe I'm wrong.

I just feel that although I had a reasonably good education that covered this area, it left me hopelessly naive about communications via 'official' channels. I learned about those from experience, not lessons. It may be that other people are better at absorbing concepts that they are being deliberately taught than I am, of course. I'm crap at that. Let me try it and break it, that's how I learn!

Date: 2008-01-23 12:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] parrot-knight.livejournal.com
My dissent sought to be more collective, in that I berated the choice of books and was uncomfortable with joining the dissenters who read ahead (though I did); I never went as far as reading other books, though.

'Official channels' I too learned partly through trial and error, largely when editing my school newspaper or soliciting for advertising in my brief and dispiriting career in student journalism.

Date: 2008-01-23 10:13 am (UTC)
ext_189645: (Default)
From: [identity profile] bunn.livejournal.com
I was hugely arrogant when it came to Eng Lit, but I think with some justification: the progress of the class was so painfully slow, with information spelled out in such moronic detail that I really don't think I could have stuck with it.

Our teachers were uninspired and had a tendency to teach by dictating notes which the class transcribed. I perfected the art of writing with one half of my brain while reading a book with the other half. (thinks: I wonder if this is why I can't do sums? I think the sums half of my brain was the one I made write notes while the rest was off having fun.)

Oh, how my teachers must have hated me. :-D

Profile

ladyofastolat: (Default)
ladyofastolat

July 2024

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 21st, 2025 01:39 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios