Do schools focus too much on Literature?

[Marxist ßastard]

By the time you get to high school you should be very proficient with grammar, and ready for literature.

And by the time you exit high-school, you will have had time to forget most of it. Grammatical knowledge needs to be refreshed, and built upon, until the point where students are regularly writing five-page (ten-point serif, single-spaced, double-column, kerned and full-justified) analytical essays. Grammar must be taught in high school, and can be filled out with things like speech and philosophy of language when necessary.

 

EDIT:Oh, and students also need to know how to properly split infinitives. And the difference between em dashes, commas, and parentheses. (En dashes – well, why not?) Capitalization after colons, too: That's useful. If you think you learned all there is to grammar before age 10, you're just ignorant of how much you've missed out on.

[myrmaad]

By the time you get to high school you should be very proficient with grammar, and ready for literature.

And by the time you exit high-school, you will have had time to forget most of it. Grammatical knowledge needs to be refreshed, and built upon, until the point where students are regularly writing five-page (ten-point serif, single-spaced, double-column, kerned and full-justified) analytical essays. Grammar must be taught in high school, and can be filled out with things like speech and philosophy of language when necessary.

 

EDIT:Oh, and students also need to know how to properly split infinitives. And the difference between em dashes, commas, and parentheses. (En dashes – well, why not?) Capitalization after colons, too: That's useful. If you think you learned all there is to grammar before age 10, you're just ignorant of how much you've missed out on.

 

 

I was 12 in sixth grade. Maybe a refresher for math as well. I don't see the point of wasting precious high school time on a foundation that middle school teachers should have established.

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't see the point of wasting precious high school time on a foundation that middle school teachers should have established.

If you don't build on that foundation, it will simply deteriorate. And as I've said time and time again, there are lots of interesting and worthwhile ways high-school–level students can build on their grammatical knowledge.

 

If you think grammar is just about verb tenses and whether commas go inside or outside parentheses, that's because your teachers just chose to leave that thread hanging. (Did you notice how I masterfully switched from one stupid extended metaphor to another? Grammar!)

[myrmaad]

I don't see the point of wasting precious high school time on a foundation that middle school teachers should have established.

If you don't build on that foundation, it will simply deteriorate. And as I've said time and time again, there are lots of interesting and worthwhile ways high-school–level students can build on their grammatical knowledge.

 

If you think grammar is just about verb tenses and whether commas go inside or outside parentheses, that's because your teachers just chose to leave that thread hanging. (Did you notice how I masterfully switched from one stupid extended metaphor to another? Grammar!)

 

Don't start putting words in my mouth. I don't even disagree with most of this, except that you're completely illogical if you think you know my position, chapter and verse, on this subject. You have no idea how invested I am. Where did I say not to build on that foundation? That's actually what reading literature is supposed to enhance. You're starting to talk out your butt, because no one has suggested some review isn't necessary at all. It seems to me that the majority think you should have covered most of this ground well before high school, and educators could be doing a much better job of it, if it's necessary to teach sixth grade grammar to 12th grade students.

[Vagrant0]

Although I will agree that there are differences between technical writing and creative writing, I believe my sentiments are still just as valid. Even in creative writing, such as novels and short stories, you still have a need for grammar, and still find mostly grammatically correct sentences. It's only when you get into dialogues, or abstractions that grammar is secondary to getting the vision across. The goal in both is in trying to effectively communicate an idea to the audience, and you cannot do that effectively, long term, without some understanding of how grammar works. Most of the novels being assigned are also probably more in line with more normalized language than abstractions and experimental prose... Or do you know many highschool teachers who are assigning Faulkner, Hemingway, or Kafka (translations not withstanding)? Which is why my point is still quite valid. Additionally, the other side of learning grammar is in seeing where it isn't being used right. This other side is also what makes those writers who make use of abstracts seem more unique, would you have even mentioned Faulkner if this wasn't the case? You have to know grammar to break the rules of grammar and still convey the meaning you wanted, you also have to know grammar to appreciate when those rules are being broken for the right reasons.

 

On a side note, throughout highschool and before there were teachers who would grade things wrong for starting a sentence with a preposition, made it clear that you "cannot do that" as it is "improper English", and just left it at that. It was only when I got into college that the rule was even attempted to be explained.

 

I agree, there are people who have horrible grammar, and there is some need for competent grammar instruction, but the reality is that you just won't find that sort of thing in highschool. The teachers don't have the time to go over it and meet the reading and writing requirements of the state. And the students, as previously mentioned, don't seem to be particularly motivated to learn it. People can always learn grammar on their own if they feel they need it. The same goes for communication. Why should a teacher take the time to drag everyone through remedial education, even if it has some minor value to the rest of the students, just because someone can't form perfect sentences? Isn't it generally more important that people just be able to read at something close to their grade level? You can get by and be successful without having perfect grammar skills, but you cannot get by, or be successful if you can't read and understand what you read. Teachers only have so much time to instruct, so they have to make a decision and hope the other part is already satisfied by the time a student comes to them. In a perfect world, any student which is not up to par should be held back, or sent into remedial education, but the world isn't perfect, and doing any one of those is seen as being more harmful to the student's self-confidence than being an idiot.

[thehim87]

I don't see the point of wasting precious high school time on a foundation that middle school teachers should have established.

If you don't build on that foundation, it will simply deteriorate. And as I've said time and time again, there are lots of interesting and worthwhile ways high-school–level students can build on their grammatical knowledge.

 

If you think grammar is just about verb tenses and whether commas go inside or outside parentheses, that's because your teachers just chose to leave that thread hanging. (Did you notice how I masterfully switched from one stupid extended metaphor to another? Grammar!)

 

The school system is different in France, but we have the same problem : spelling, grammar, teached with old methods are inconsciously considered fascist and old fashioned.

 

I believe in the hard way : learning by heart. Forcing students to learn by heart there grammar rules first all reduces inequality. It gives a chance to the not very smart student to succeed, by hard work, and obliges the little genius to put his face in the mud of work. Moreover, learning by heart leads to an instinctfull knowledge, and not a cold, objective knowledge of the language, as one would think. It settles in your heart, and you will write as you breath. In France, spelling has become a big problem. In a lot of firms, employers are paying junior high schools teachers to learn to 20-40 years old well diplomed employees to speak and write the language correctly. This is directly related to an ideoligical state of mind that thought that grammar was an invention of the dominant elite to select and close their clan to the outsider.

 

I believe in rules. I also believe in breaking the rules. To break a rule, you have to know it by heart.

 

You see, Rimbaud was a revolution of liberty and heroism in the poetry forms and language. Yet, Rimbaud, at the age 14, was the 1st Price of the "Concours general the vers latins", which is a prestigious latin poetry contest. The guy wrote latin fluently, in alexandrins... at the age of 14. Unconcievable today.

 

If learning latin and the mother-language in old ways, can give us other Rimbauds, then I will do anything to come back to it.

[Retribution]

I don't think they focus on literature too much. The English class I'm currently in mostly does writing. I know for a fact they focus too much on bad literature. I like to think of myself as well-read, and nearly all of the books we read in school are complete jokes, that are for some weird reason considered "classics".

[Foxxieboy]

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe it's a pathetic country we live in that our own citizens speak the national language much less fluently and grammatically correct than foreigners who take English as a second language for business and/or personal gain.

 

Take Japan for instance. Many of the corporate leaders in Japan have to know fluent English in the phonetic and grammatical senses in order to do away with middle-men in their dealings with the U.S. and U.K. and THEY speak English more "Properly" than 90% of the American population, and definitely a sizable chunk of the United Kingdom's population (Great Britain being the birthplace of "Proper English").

 

Focusing on literature is fine so long as it doesn't cripple the basic foundations of English grammar and spelling in the process of massive misappropriation of time and effort on the subject rather than balancing grammar, spelling, AND literature.

 

I also think that a big reason for improper grammar is the fact that most American variations of English involve frequent use of improper grammar. The Southern United States is home to two distinct forms of English. "Redneck English", and "Southern English". There are vast differences between them. Where Southern English is involved, it's much less offensive to the ears and mind than Redneck English, though still mind-numbingly bad if you're going for true prowess in English.

 

And places like Chicago and New York, the places with the biggest areas of Slums and "Ghetto" areas, also gives rise to the "Street Trash Dialects", including "G-Unit Language" which calling it English is an insult to America and Britain both, and "Ese Speak", which is the Latino equivalent to "G-Unit Language", and is also equally offensive to the educated individual.

 

I don't know WHY schools are crippling students in terms of linguistics by overly intensive focus on literature (How many times will students tolerate Shakespeare in that period of K-12 schooling anyway?), but as far as I'm concerned, we may as well be saying to our students "We don't care if you can talk and write, just so long as you can keep lining our politician's pockets with your hard labor and unquestioning support".

 

From my experiences, I'd say schools are setting their students up for failure not only by enlisting students for more in-depth classes and testing, but by failing to provide them with balanced educations. It seems k-12 is all about being the "Popular guy with the iPhone and Cheerleader girlfriend" and less about getting a real education. The fact that there's nothing done to deter harassment and other detriments to education is a big part of this.

 

My big example of this is that I was teased and eventually beaten by several of my peers for my sexual preference (Me being gay). They basically got off with a "It won't happen again, will it?" from their coach, and because they were varsity football players, nothing more was done and the coach flat-out told me to "****ing drop it. It can't be helped.", when I damn well know that they should have been kicked straight off the team and even expelled. I ended up having to explain to my own mother that the school is unwilling to help and will do whatever they can to protect their football players, regardless of it being an actual crime they took part in. But with a case like mine, purely "He said, he said", even if we wanted to we couldn't have pressed charges because the school didn't see anything.

 

The football players in question went on to win Districts, but lost State, they dropped out of College, and one was put in jail for an unrelated assault on a gay man near a local bar.

 

My point is that the school's priorities are skewed at best, utterly cluster****ed at worst.

 

English Grammar is the least of the problems they face now.

[Vagrant0]

Two points you missed in the opening there.

 

1: English is NOT the official language of the United States of America. Politicians are simply too spineless to declare anything of that sort. The US does not, at current, have any official language. Spanish street signs are already becoming common in some places. So the ability of speaking or even reading English is not really required for anyone.

 

2: Unlike the average highschooler, most foreigners who intend to come to the US, or do business with the US, take their study of English seriously, and feel they have some reason to learn it. More over, due to all the media attention the election last year, many students around the world have become almost fanatic about learning to speak proper English. So not only do these "foreigners" take speaking English seriously, often they have a deep interest in learning the language and being able to communicate effectively in that language. The same interest and dedication to the language is just extremely rare in American highschools among native speakers. But, I'm sure that if you really wanted to look around, you would find that a fair percentage of students in any highschool around the world have a general disdain for learning the nuances of their native language.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

As an aspiring author, I don't really believe too much emphasis is placed on literature- literature is culture, culture is context, and context is necessary for understanding. I do, however, believe that not enough attention is paid to grammar. From the day I left elementary school to the day I graduated high school, I can't remember a single lesson that focused on word-craft instead of the interpretation of written works. I believe that I have a more than satisfactory grasp of how to use the English language, but most of that knowledge is self-taught. I learned grammar because I needed it to develop my craft and because I have a fascination with the power of words, not because anybody actually bothered to teach it to me.

 

I tend to blame our societal obsession with standardized testing for that deficiency, and many others as well. There simply isn't enough classroom time for all of the material that should be taught; teachers are required to devote too much of the year to test preparation, which contributes little to the learning experience and serves to undermine the average student's interest in learning anything at all of value.

 

Grammar, however, isn't the end of language instruction. Like it or not, there is no real "proper" way to use any language, let alone one as varied and dynamic as English is. What we know as Proper Grammar is merely the foundation of understanding the language- the mechanics of constructing a sentence so that it may be understood regardless of the meaning or even the spelling of a word. Each dialect has a slightly different manner of using the base language- the fundamental rules remain the same, but peripheral guidelines may or may not (i.e. double negatives, which are not considered proper grammar yet see common usage in certain dialects without compromising the ability of someone who does not use those same dialects to understand the speaker). That much, however, should be the focus of elective writing courses- the core curriculum should deal with the most basic, standard usage. An understanding of the adaptability of English grammar is really only necessary if one's focus is on creative writing, where dialogue calls for language as spoken since not everyone speaks using proper grammar.

 

All that said, the grammar I've seen in papers written by my peers, when asked to review each others' assignments for class, has more often than not been absolutely awful. This sort of awful, to be more specific: :wallbash:

 

 

:thumbsup: