Today, in the middle of 9th period, Adam looked out the window, and screamed, "It's snowing!" We all turned and looked, and fell entranced by the scene - millions of huge snowflakes, stretched as far as the eye could see, set against the backdrop of an unkempt football field overlooking unkempt Baltimore. And most strangely, the sun was shining like it was the middle of July. We stared for a while. Some kids jumped out of their seats to look closer. We flung the windows open to let the flakes blow in. And we stared and stared.
Because we just read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, we wondered what the weather might symbolize. If it were a storm, and if life were a gothic novel like Frankenstein (which we're starting Monday), then it would signal that something sinister would happen. But a sunny snowstorm? Not sure about that. When a student explained that the snowy snowstorm was a bit of a paradox, I was in English teacher nerd heaven.
After school, we had another one those American Literature debates that I've had since I started teaching. We have to add some intercultural readings to our curriculum. We talk about some absolutely ridiculous stuff, like adding Phyllis Wheatley to our "Beginnings" unit to show that we're "multicultural". That sort of artificial tokenism just bugs the crap out of me. The fact is, it's impossible to do this sort of thing in any meaningful way to a curriculum that is built on chronology, simply because it was almost all white males who were writing for the first couple centuries of American Literature.
My problems with a chronologic curriculum are many-fold. The fact that it's all about studying literary movements, instead of fostering lifelong readers. The fact that the course seems geared to kids who want to become English majors. The fact that the 20th century (heck, and the 21st century) get incredibly short shrift. The fact that the first several months of the course are so dull. The fact that so much of the literature is inaccessible for reluctant readers. The fact that it's not really chronology, but rather our idea of what chronology is, that we've picked and chosen what we want to and then moved on. The fact that this is not history class, it's English class. The fact that the most contemporary novel we teach is Their Eyes Were Watching God (1937).
It doesn't make sense for me to structure a literature course for 15-year olds like a history course would be structured. I like big ideas, core questions, and unit questions.
Well, today, after several years of battle (this is an exaggeration... I battled after my first year of teaching it, and when we restructured curriculum years ago, but I didn't care again until I was teaching it), I finally might have seen a shift. A compromise of Thematic, but chronologic within the themes. This wouldn't pretend to be all-emcompassing. It would, perhaps, make me happy as well as others happy. I'm excited. I will keep this blog updated with the progress. Maybe I don't have to put "Anything but English 2" on my course requests for next year.
Minor Moves: Velazquez, Bell
-
We'll keep track of today's minor moves here. The Marlins have signed infielder Gil Velazquez, Juan C. Rodriguez of the Sun Sentinel reports (on Twitter). Ve...
13 minutes ago
6 comments:
As someone who specializes in women playwrights from 1760-1820 I promise it wasn't all white men writing. There's tons and tons of stuff written by women, even if it isn't canonized. Phillis Wheatley wasn't even the only famous black female poet from the time (though she certainly was the most famous). There's also Lucy Terry. If you want something more accesible, the first American Musical was written by a woman, Slaves in Algiers by Susanna Rowson. She also wrote the first American blockbuster novel, Charlotte Temple. I don't think it's tokenism to think about incorporating women who were wildly famous in their time but history (and male English teachers) have chosen to omit from the average syllabus.
Crap... I meant accessible. Wish blogger would let one edit typos.
The real issue is whether these women would work into our units we've chosen to include in our chronological curriculum, which jumps from Puritanism to Romanticism and Transcendentalism. Also, whether the work is accessible in our textbooks or easily elsewhere.
We don't teach anything between 1760 and 1820 except for a couple pieces by Franklin and Jefferson. That's my big problem with chronology - the picking and choosing idea. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with including women in a curriculum. I do think there's something wrong with adding Phyllis Wheatley and then patting ourselves on the back and saying, "See, now we're intercultural. Now we have a full picture of what was going on in American Literature."
Don't you pick and choose in thematic groups too? I teach American Literature chronologically. Our standards require it. I tell my students not to assume that this is "all" that was going on, but as with any course, there is only so much time.
You absolutely do. But, to me, chronology holds with it a tacit acknowledgement that we're telling the whole story. Thematic doesn't, obviously.
I remember reading literature in high school that was chronology based...and you're right...the earlier stuff is brutal. I remember feeling stupid and frustrated because I couldn't get through some of the books (and I won't mention particular titles because I'm still embarrassed and feel stupid for struggling through the text)
I'm an avid reader and I admit that I'm not one for the classics, though Jane Eyre is the exception.
There is a great deal of modern literature that is wonderful and thought provoking.
I'm curious to what books you will be assigning (and have assigned) your students...I'm always looking for a new book to read.
Post a Comment