I'm pretty stressed right now at school, for a variety of reasons. My English 2 class - the one with the much more at-risk kids, the one with the high-stakes graduation requirement test at the end of the year, the one with the kids with the low level - is stressing me out because it's the first time anyone in our team has taught the course, and we're left inventing the wheel over and over again. I can barely keep up with all the work in that class alone. At this point, I'm doing a lot of faking it with the grading and probably will end up having to do some eyeballing to assess what grades the kids earned this last quarter.
I also hate the curriculum. My hesitation about the teaching the curriculum in a chronological way have come to fruition. We spent the first four months of the school year on Puritanism, Transcendentalism, Romanticism, and now Realism, and I'm just bored to tears by it all - so what? So we can teach a History course? No, not really, but several would argue that it's so we can teach the kids how American Literature developed. And I just don't care that much and certainly don't think the kids do. I want my kids to love literature, to see how it's an important tool for figuring out the world around them, for experiencing their own lives and those of others.
Give me an American Literature curriculum to teach, and I'd focus on ideas. What are some of the chief ideas of America? The idea of the American dream, perhaps (Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, and Raisin in the Sun). Maybe the idea of the individual place and importance in society (Walden, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Scarlet Letter, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Perhaps the idea of the immigrant experience (Dreaming in Cuban or The Joy Luck Club or maybe some non-fiction), or the experience of a racial minority (Native Son or The Known World or several others), or the experience of war (Crane, Hemingway). Perhaps the idea of the religious experience in America (the Puritans up to The Color Purple).
No, it wouldn't be all-inclusive, because you wouldn't get to half of that. But it also wouldn't pretend to be. And it would be about ideas, which I just think are so much more interesting than chronology and style or even ideas about writing.
Notably absent above is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which I think I hate as much as the kids do. I can see some value in teaching it - it's interesting to ponder whether the book is racist, and interesting to look at the satire of it, and for kids to wrap their heads around the controversy surrounding the novel both then and now - but I just think it's repetitive, silly, and that there's just not that much below the surface. I want the novel to be so much, I think, which is part of my problem. I want it to be a great anti-racist novel, I want it to be hilarious, I want Jim to be noble. But I still debate in my head whether it's racist (Jim certainly does some stupid, demeaning things), I don't think it's that funny (why does it meander so much?), and doubt if it's the great anti-racist novel (why all the silly king and the duke episodes? I hate the king and the duke).
So I'm sloggin through a book I'm really down on, and, at the same time, I'm pondering how in the world this piece of literature is helping them in life when they could be reading a great book on both the immigrant experience and race in America - namely, Barack Obama's Dreams of my Father. It's not like they'll most likely pick up that book sometime in their life; these kids are mostly not readers. The kids would get three times as much from that book - and I'm talking not just the ideas, but also the vocabulary - as they get from dumb Huck. And I'm just using that book as an example because I just read it. I'm sure there are tons more books the kids would love over Huck Finn. And, of course, it's not about what the kids love; but it is about making them lifelong readers and learners. Huck Finn, which I don't think one kid really likes, isn't doing that at all.
In my Junior classes, I've spent almost the last week having individual conferences with my students about their writing. It's hard. I'm pushing them harder than I've ever been pushed as a writer in high school or college, and they're responding well. However, the rest of the class is unsupervised and just keeping busy on independent work while I'm talking with the individual student. With classes of 37 or 38, it gets tedious to go through them all, as well as finding appropriate work for the rest of the kids to be doing.
The essays are due tomorrow, though, so that should help matters for a bit.
Not to mention that my room is still full of kids until after dark.
Not to mention one of my favorite students was almost kidnapped by that stereotypical man-in-a-van on the way to school on Monday, and all of her materials are at police headquarters being fingerprinted, and she's understandably shook up.
Not to mention one of the most disappointing students I've ever taught - and I've taught him for two years now - is featured heavily in the student newspaper today. Just what his ego needs. I don't know if he's learned one thing from me in a year and a half. Some days, it certainly doesn't seem like it.
Catalog shopping and a naked man on a fire truck
-
Woman murdered in Arbutus in a "domestic," awkward stock image used,
details scant. But hey a Mercy hospital's use of technology to detect
strangulation br...
43 minutes ago

7 comments:
What you describe only goes to show just how much is out of our control as teachers. And then the larger society wonders why our kids don't know anything.
I teach in chronological order...American and British Literature. I teach maybe one to two works from each time period and have novels going at the same time that span different time periods. The state tests are geared toward chronological.
How far do you get? That's another big problem I see with that... so hard to fit in modern lit.
Our state tests are geared towards skills.
Why does Jim have to be noble? It's not okay to have racist attitudes towards noble people, but it's also not okay to have racist attitudes towards people who make poor choices, right? I think you've touched on the most interesting set up in the book (which, admittedly, I never got through.. I liked the fence painting book better). and forgive me, because I didn't intend to write a thesis statement this morning, so this may not make sense....
It's kind of a peculiar thing, this obsession with ideals. sometimes it seems as if it's okay to marginalize people who aren't charismatic, pretty, or even good decision makers.
For example, on New Year's Eve a player for the Denver Broncos was shot in a limosine after a party at about 3 a.m. He died in the arms of a teammate. A sports commentator went on ESPN and said, 'His team just lost a game, what was doing at a party?' Message boards at CBS sportsline filled up with commentary like, 'why would take a limosine through a bad neighborhood?' and 'why wasn't he with his kids?' Now this wasn't the majority opinion, obviously.. but somewhere the collective consciousness it's becoming okay to blame the victim, I think... And I think I need more coffee.
I'm a little sad to read that you dislike Huckleberry Finn so much, especially while having to teach it! It's funny, because I remember not liking the book when I first had to read in, which I think was in 10th grade. And I was someone who normally liked English. I don't remember perfectly, but I think it just bored me. Not enough thought in the actions.
Ultimately though, we spent so much time on it (think months), and my teacher was so passionate about it, that I ended up really admiring the book. I still think about it fondly, and have my old heavily marked up copy of the book around somewhere.
I haven't read it in quite awhile now, but maybe I'll look back and try to see more specifically the things I came to love about it. Themes of escape, and living the dream were parts I currently recall. I just remember really having to STUDY it. It's an old-fashioned kind of book, not a quick read if you want to get in depth.
Anyway, not every book appeals to every person, but I hope maybe Huck will grow on you and your students.
Danielle: Jim is noble, but he's also really dumb and demeans himself a lot. So it's not really about whether the characters act racist towards him, or whether his portrayal by Mark Twain is one that is racist or not. It depends on your reading of the book, and when I read it in a way where he knows everything he is doing, I just can't fit all the pieces together. I think your analogy with the football player is interesting, but I don't think I'm blaming Jim here - it's Twain I'm blaming.
I'm still thinking through it, though, and I guess that's a good point in favor of Huck.
S: Thanks for your comments. I hope so, too.
A history friend of mine once taught US history backwards: she had the kids look at the world we live in now, and then looked at the immediate causes, and then further back at the causes of those causes. It could be interesting to teach a literature course in tandem with that --
Post a Comment