Have we lost the plot?
August 15, 2007 by warrick
Interesting burst of sanity in an AGE feature this week by Agnes Nieuwenhuizen who argues for a return to the joy of reading and rejects the polarising polemics of those like Kevin Donnelly who ague that students are being taught text-messaging when they should be learning Shakespeare.
Although slightly off the point, it came in the same week when I found myself in a discussion with a parent who was criticizing the ‘doom and gloom’ approach of texts set for the VCE final year of English. It’s not entirely true, I said, pointing to context-related texts like the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but I did find even my own arguments slightly tenuous at times as I tried to defend what was this parent’s experience of several children undertaking final year English.
It’s certainly not the intention of study design. Their own rules state:
Each text selected for the VCE English and English (ESL) text list will:
• have literary merit and be worthy of close study
• be an excellent example of form and genre
• sustain intensive study, raising interesting issues and providing challenging ideas
• be appropriate for both male and female students
• be appropriate for the age and development of students and, in that context, reflect current community standards and expectations.
The text list as a whole will:
• be suitable for a wide range of students, including second language students
• reflect the cultural diversity of the Victorian community
• include a balance of new and established works
• include texts that display affirming perspectives.
As Nieuwenhuizen suggests, these things are rarely binary opposites, but much more subtle than that.
However, for the record, when my own teaching team was discussing a film text on a journey context for Year 11 English this year, I did find myself arguing strongly for the journey in the recent film Little Miss Sunshine over the deeper, darker and agonisingly sad journey of Life is Beautiful.
Nieuwenhuizen writes:
Sadly much of the focus of the literacy debate, if it can be called that, is not about whether we are creating willing, enthusiastic, capable readers but rather about what some “experts” believe teenagers ought to be reading and, of course, what they should not be reading and on how books should be taught. According to Kevin Donnelly, one of those participating in the roundtable, and an educational consultant and author of the recent book Dumbing Down, teenagers are reading either Shakespeare or text messages; either Jane Austen or YouTube. Like most simplistic, polarised arguments, this one doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Most teenagers, as most adults, live their diverse and rich lives somewhere between these extremes. They also prefer to read between these extremes. And yes, some do choose to read Shakespeare sometimes and may also surf the web and look at, or contribute to, YouTube. They may also read graphic novels. Very sophisticated, many of these. One, American Born Chinese, just won a major US literary award and our own Shaun Tan’s wordless wonder, The Arrival, is garnering praise all over the world, if also some grumbles because it won an adult book prize in NSW. A picture book? And no words? Is this even a book? It is important to note that many, especially boys, much prefer to read non-fiction or graphic novels.
Read the full feature article HERE
Powered by ScribeFire.
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Having received a comment from Mr. Donnelly himself this week due to one of my throwaway lines, I hope he is instead reading blogs such as yours to find out what actual teachers do when considering the merits of English texts for Australian students.
Ha, thanks Graham. We’ll see!
Hi,
Below is a letter to the editor (the Age), which they refused to publish. As an aside, in relation to my experience as an English teacher, while it was some time ago, I taught year 12 English and Literature for many years, was on the panel of examiners for English and marked scripts, also a member of VATE and the AATE for about 12 years, writing for English teacher journals and attending conferences. I suppose, some might say I no longer have the right to write about schools, then again, I could say that the majority of teachers, given most have no formal curriculum training, except Dip Ed, don’t have the right to talk about curriculum development.
Letter to the editor:
It is always good to be mentioned in dispatches, but not when you are misrepresented. Agnes Nieuwenhuizen (How we lost the plot, 11 August, 2007) states that I have criticised teenagers for ignoring the classics, represented by Shakespeare, in favour of popular cultural forms like SMS messages. To my knowledge, I have never attacked teenagers, as such, as my critique of the way literature has been weakened is based on developments related to ‘theory’ reflected by curriculum syllabuses, teacher training and the policies of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English. A more egregious error is committed by Peter Job (Students must value dialogue about our past, 23 July, 2007) when he argues that I contradict myself when I argue that curriculum documents promote a relative and subjective view of the world, there are no truths, while also pushing a politically correct version of issues related to multiculturalism, gender studies and the environment. On page 134 of my book, Dumbing Down, I note the irony that while the cultural warriors of the left argue that knowledge is tentative, shifting and indeterminate, when it comes to their own views, they believe such matters are beyond doubt.
Hi Kevin
I didn’t realise you taught English. Thanks for the comments. I certainly haven’t heard you attacking the students in your articles. The teachers at times, yes!