Why, oh why, do the schools still ask students to read so much fiction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

I am always amazed, in a bad way, when educated people put down fiction. How do you feel about art? What about music? If you don't believe in literature, there is no reason you should value those either.

You're doing your kids a major disservice by not having fiction in the house. On top of being educational (in terms of information and facts as well as empathy and the human condition), reading fiction is FUN!

It is not that I don't believe that fiction has a role. I just feel that other things have an even more important role. It takes seconds to look at a painting, and if you love it, you stare at it for 10 minutes. It takes a long time to read a book, with all that work the book should at least be educational.

There aren't enough facepalms in the universe to adequately respond to that.

+1

+2.

+3.

If the poster meant what she said in the quoted post, then whatever schools she went to obviously failed in making her an educated person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the kids are taking a reading course and they spend a ton of time on Greek Mythology which has NO, ZERO application in their lives today. Maybe if you go on Jeopardy.
Would it not make more sense to have the kids read a good review article on diabetes that about the Greeks? You kill two birds with one stone, first they REAd and the yearn helpful information.
SICK of the Greeks and Shakespeare.

[Anonymous]

As a descendant of Zeus, I am personally offended.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the kids are taking a reading course and they spend a ton of time on Greek Mythology which has NO, ZERO application in their lives today. Maybe if you go on Jeopardy.
Would it not make more sense to have the kids read a good review article on diabetes that about the Greeks? You kill two birds with one stone, first they REAd and the yearn helpful information.
SICK of the Greeks and Shakespeare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of Zeus, I am personally offended.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the kids are taking a reading course and they spend a ton of time on Greek Mythology which has NO, ZERO application in their lives today. Maybe if you go on Jeopardy.
Would it not make more sense to have the kids read a good review article on diabetes that about the Greeks? You kill two birds with one stone, first they REAd and the yearn helpful information.
SICK of the Greeks and Shakespeare.

I think you should smite that poster. We mortals would all be grateful.

[Anonymous]

I mean, the kids are taking a reading course and they spend a ton of time on Greek Mythology which has NO, ZERO application in their lives today

Have you read Greek mythology? Do you have any understanding of the themes and morals in it?

[Anonymous]

A history book about a certain time might explain events and major characters of the period. A great fiction text from that time might reflect on, question, critique, wrestle with the issues. A reader might actually gain a clearer picture of the events or a more profound commentary from fiction. There are infinite ways one can learn from the classics. Of course one should read non-fiction, too, but to say that Greek literature is no longer relevant is to say that discussing ethics and philosophy and family dynamics is not relevant. Yes, there are other ways to wrestle with the massive questions but, what makes you think the other ways are better? Or more profound? Or more complete? Or more convincing?

I teach literature and history at the college level. I never tell my students that I am trying to instill a love of literature or appreciation of art. What people take pleasure in is their own business. I stick with the more practical reasons. I am trying to make my students good readers of texts--all sorts of texts--so that they can become critical thinkers, so that they can spot contradictions and flaws in logic, so that they can take on challenging questions and stick with them and construct robust arguments, so that they can detect patterns of thought and become stronger thinkers. And I think that reading literature, and analyzing it, is a path to a higher order of thinking. I do not think that it is the only path. But I will say that I teach very bright kids from every discipline and they can all benefit.

[Anonymous]

In addition to all the other great points, children should read literary fiction because having empathy is important. And it turns out non-fiction does not, in fact, help improve their emphatic skills:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand who is going to monitor the common core standard that calls for 60/40 non-fiction/fiction. Nice job for a staff member?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of Zeus, I am personally offended.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the kids are taking a reading course and they spend a ton of time on Greek Mythology which has NO, ZERO application in their lives today. Maybe if you go on Jeopardy.
Would it not make more sense to have the kids read a good review article on diabetes that about the Greeks? You kill two birds with one stone, first they REAd and the yearn helpful information.
SICK of the Greeks and Shakespeare.

I think you should smite that poster. We mortals would all be grateful.

lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand who is going to monitor the common core standard that calls for 60/40 non-fiction/fiction. Nice job for a staff member?

It's all part of the planning. At the secondary, it's monitored by teachers and dept chairs during content or interdisciplinary teaming.

At the elementary level, it's done through grade level meetings.

One person doesn't go around and monitor the use of expository vs. narrative texts. Carefully planned units can handle that.

[Anonymous]

Why does all education have to have a "practical" application? It can be argued that studying history and culture has a practical application anyway, in the sense that it makes you culturally competent in a global world and an informed citizen who uses the power to vote responsibly by being informed through context. Not every piece of knowledge you acquire has to be directly applied to a paid job. Life is more than work - or at least it should be. Some of you have a seriously narrow view of what life is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does all education have to have a "practical" application? It can be argued that studying history and culture has a practical application anyway, in the sense that it makes you culturally competent in a global world and an informed citizen who uses the power to vote responsibly by being informed through context. Not every piece of knowledge you acquire has to be directly applied to a paid job. Life is more than work - or at least it should be. Some of you have a seriously narrow view of what life is about.

+100

[Anonymous]

It's all part of the planning. At the secondary, it's monitored by teachers and dept chairs during content or interdisciplinary teaming.

At the elementary level, it's done through grade level meetings.

One person doesn't go around and monitor the use of expository vs. narrative texts. Carefully planned units can handle that.

This is one of those standards that makes me dislike common core. It serves no purpose--and monitoring it will take effort that could better be used teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's all part of the planning. At the secondary, it's monitored by teachers and dept chairs during content or interdisciplinary teaming.

At the elementary level, it's done through grade level meetings.

One person doesn't go around and monitor the use of expository vs. narrative texts. Carefully planned units can handle that.

This is one of those standards that makes me dislike common core. It serves no purpose--and monitoring it will take effort that could better be used teaching.

OK - It's easy for teachers to understand but apparently non-educators have a difficult time with this. And in all fairness, making me do briefs on law cases would drive me over the edge, as we all have our own strengths.

Planning is monitoring. I plan a weekly agenda with daily lessons. However, my lessons are evaluated each day and tweaked if re-teaching is necessary. So if kids are having a difficult time with an organizational pattern - cause/effect, for example - I'd most likely introduce another essay or shorter expository piece that follows that pattern. So while I may not do "40%" as an English teacher (It may be 30%.), I will make certain that my students know how to recognize patterns in expository pieces.

No one will fault you for not tackling 60% or 40%. What matters is whether or not students master the objectives.

[Anonymous]

No one will fault you for not tackling 60% or 40%. What matters is whether or not students master the objectives.

I am PP to whom you are responding. I taught school for years. My point: as a goal, 60/40 may be fine. As a standard, it is stupid.