Anonymous wrote:The argument against literature is about as intellectual as the argument against math because we all won't go into STEM fields.

Yes. Most math is not relevant. I have never, in my life, had to solve a quadratic equation outside of math class. Also, biology. I don't need to know the parts of the cell! And chemistry -- balancing an equation? I mean, really. And don't even get me started on physics, especially electromagnetism. Totally ridiculous.

(However, I do, in all seriousness, support anybody's efforts to get The Catcher in the Rye off the mandatory reading list. It's only on there because somebody 40 years ago thought it was relevant to teenagers. It's not.)

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.

You have a very limited view of "educational."

And maybe OP's writing skills would be stronger if she had ever learned to read fiction.

The argument against literature is about as intellectual as the argument against math because we all won't go into STEM fields.

Anonymous wrote:"When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools." --William Shakespeare

Perfect quote for OP's complaint!

There has been a lot written on the subject of the modern world reading and experiencing more non-fiction and the problems associated with this. You can even see the change in TV and discussions around the table. Sitcoms are out and real world drama is in. There must be a balance between understanding real life and our hopes and aspirations through fiction.
Another great article on the subject:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman-future-libraries-reading-daydreaming

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that one of the things Common Core is trying to change? Having students read more non-fiction?

Yes but MCPS interpreted this as replace science instruction with reading assignments that include science as the topic. Not a good solution.

People who go into education are weak on STEM and heavy on humanities. There is a natural bias and comfort level with reading and analyzing fiction. Everything else is ignored or second class.

I agree that reading fiction is important but it is overdone in the schools at the expense of other subjects. Changing this, means changing the requirements to get an education degree so you can have teachers who know how to teach other subjects.

How is it overdone? Are the kids reading novels in biology? Are they reading poetry in history class? Are they reading short stories in math class? I took some fantastic literature classes in high school, but the only classes in which we read fiction were lit classes--all the other classes were "non-fiction." I don't see how fiction can be taking over if it's one class out of what, six?

Isn't that one of the things Common Core is trying to change? Having students read more non-fiction?

Yes but MCPS interpreted this as replace science instruction with reading assignments that include science as the topic. Not a good solution.

People who go into education are weak on STEM and heavy on humanities. There is a natural bias and comfort level with reading and analyzing fiction. Everything else is ignored or second class.

I agree that reading fiction is important but it is overdone in the schools at the expense of other subjects. Changing this, means changing the requirements to get an education degree so you can have teachers who know how to teach other subjects.

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons Finnish children are accredited with being so smart is because of their love of reading.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120425355065601997

Off the main topic, but I found this to be interesting:

Fanny earns straight A's, and with no gifted classes she sometimes doodles in her journal while waiting for others to catch up. She often helps lagging classmates. "It's fun to have time to relax a little in the middle of class," Fanny says. Finnish educators believe they get better overall results by concentrating on weaker students rather than by pushing gifted students ahead of everyone else. The idea is that bright students can help average ones without harming their own progress.

I would like our gifted kids to behave more like Fanny, instead of showing off about how bored they are.

Would much rather have my kids read The Six Wives of Henry the VIII than Shakespeare. That is real life. Harsh, but real.

One of the reasons Finnish children are accredited with being so smart is because of their love of reading.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120425355065601997

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.

No fiction?

Your poor children!

How does one think outside the box and reach for unreachable solutions when you squelch any opportunity to lose yourself in the crestive side of the brain?

Science without creativity is useless.

Is this concern really coming out of your child's experience in a classroom or something parents are just worried about might happen? There are plenty of non-fiction books being taught and read in schools. I only have a 3rd grader, but between all the subjects, he spend at least half of the time reading non-fiction. OP doesn't think fiction is educational. I think that says a lot about her intellect. 7:55 doesn't think literature book from this past century is important enough to teach. The problem really is that most adults are not reading fiction anymore so they forget it's importance. Our society is becoming more narcissistic because of it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fiction-readers-an-endangered-species-2013-10-11

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.

OP, this forum is for PARENTS. Sorry you are having trouble in English this year.

To be fair, she had issues with Greek mythologies and Shakespeare. She did not need to be pushed into anything.

The actual reading list can of course be debated. Maybe you think some of the "classics" did not survive the test of time, probably they were really not classics. But I am not sure a narrow definition of relevance is what we should be after either.

New poster. I know this is not going to be popular, but I sort of agree with OP. No, I'm not suggesting schools eliminate all fiction books, nor do I discourage my own children from reading fiction. But I do think schools spend a lot of time teaching "classics" that are great books, but not really so relevant. Yes, keep Shakespeare and all the mythology, because those run so heavily though all of our culture. But do students really need to read books like Scarlet Letter, Catcher in the Rye, etc? I consider those lesser classics. Also, there are tons of amazing non-fiction books too, covering not just history but science, psychology, economics, and technology. It seems a teacher/school could replace some of those fiction works with great non-fiction books, and make the lessons better. I suspect however that most literature teachers are former literature majors (like me), so they are more familiar with the fiction world, and not as adept with non-fiction.

I think lots of people are pushing OP into a strawman argument, claiming she wants to entirely eliminate all fiction, and by extension all imagination. I don't think that's a fair reading of what she proposes.