If you've been reading my blog lately you know that literature has been on my mind lately.  What should be my approach, how should I choose books for my children, etc.   Sometimes, when I think about how my oldest son doesn't seem to enjoy reading much, or doesn't seem as scholarly as I'd like him to be, or how my middle son is a slower learner, I feel perhaps it is my fault and I must be doing a terrible job at homeschooling (don't most of us have such doubts from time to time, though the triggers may be different for each of us?).   

We're often told not to compare ourselves with other homeschoolers because it often leads to discontent with our own lives, but sometimes a little comparison can "spur us on to good deeds" for our own families.   And while "bashing" of regular schools is probably not a Christ-like activity, hearing of the problems or lacks in schools can bolster a fading confidence, like mine is from time to time. 

Recently on the BBC website there was an article about the state schools and a possible removal of several books from the recommended list for literature study - a summary of the article (and a link to the original article which does not have much more information) is published on a "Have Your Say" page with comments about the curriculum ~ http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3121&&&edition=1&ttl=20060812121538

Here is the summary: 

Education secretary Alan Johnson has moved to end speculation that classics will disappear from reading lists, saying that pupils will continue to read writers like Charles Dickens and George Eliot.

Last month the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) recommended giving teachers more freedom by scrapping the list of prescribed authors, as part of the review of the curriculum for 11 to 14-year-olds.

The QCA is also reviewing the list of modern authors recommended to schools.

The original article is not what encouraged me, rather, the comments did.   Comments like this one by a former teacher:

I wonder how many here know HOW the classics are being taught these days? I'm a teacher with 12 years' experience (10 in Aus) and was appalled when I began teaching in London to be told to start our 'study' of Great Expectations (Yr 10) by 'telling them the plot'. 4 chapters were picked out to focus on - which I read aloud to them; the students did no private reading - and then we discussed background, themes etc in that context. And that was it. Farce, or what? I've now left the profession.

Year 10 would correspond with Grade 9 in the US and Canada, I believe.  I am going to have my 15 year old son do a lot of reading this year, with little "study" aside from discussing the books with me, but he will be reading them himself, the whole thing, and not just getting the plot told to him and hearing four chapters. I think through our conversations we can deal with "theme" and "background" without much difficulty.   It won't be literature "study" in the traditional "pick-apart-to-death" style, but I can't help but think that reading many of the classics, and letting the books themselves touch the soul, is a superior thing.  How can someone with even a rudimentary idea of British history, supplemented with trips to historically important sites, not understand much of the background of many of Dicken's works, for example?    I'm also recalling something Charlotte Mason said here, about not "getting between" the author and the reader (student) but can't remember the quote exactly.  Maybe you know the one I mean.  I'm aware that background does need to be studied a bit, in order for a book to be appreciated, but surely we can do that fairly easily?

Here's another comment from either a parent or teacher (I'm not sure what s/he meant by "my kids"):

It has already happened - English GCSE has been dumbed down to remove any author born before 1930 except Shakespear - no Dickens or Austen or Bronte for our 15 year olds, too 'difficult', not 'relevant', doesn't 'address diversity'. Instead my kids got a load of frightful modern 3rd world rubbish in 'English'.

Still, every year a few weirdos will choose to pick up a real 'book' and read for themselves, though they had better not admit as much when applying for university.

Austen too difficult for 15 year olds?  I am indeed comforted as I consider even my reluctant reader's abilities now.  

GCSE stands for "General Certificate of Secondary Education" and the exams in different subjects are typically taken at age 15 or 16.   Depending on how well he or she does with GCSEs, a student can enroll in a "6th Form" to study "A" levels for 2 years, with the exams taken at age 17 or 18.  Those who do not do so well with GCSEs either go to a vocational college, go into an apprenticeships (which combines study, practical learning, and some work I believe) or just find a job.   Or, as is sadly too often the case, just go on the dole (welfare).   In Britain the thought is more of "staying on" after age 16, instead of the standard of staying in school until graduating High School, with those who leave at age 16 being called "drop outs".

I am digressing from the idea with which I started out, which is that I am comforted now and feel happy with the standards our children are achieving in our home, after comparing them to what is actually being accomplished in the state schools here (not that I ever wanted my children going to the state schools - public schools as they are known in the US).
I think I agree with this woman who looks back on her school:

My posh school didn't take Lit for O Level - our Head said studying only a limited list for two years would put us off reading for life. Instead we read and discussed EVERY book on the list, and I can't thank her enough. The price of an O Level grade was negligible in comparison with the pleasure I have gained from Jane Austen alone over my lifetime. Perhaps all schools should emphasise the reading and enjoyment and not worry about the GCSE results for English Lit?

"O" Levels are still about, but have been largely superseded by the GCSEs.  O stands for "ordinary" and A stands for "advanced."   Although GCSEs have been the normal standards for 15/16 year olds since I have been here (16+ years) there have been all sorts of changes in the system like the addition of "AS" levels which seem to be something in-between GCSEs and A levels.  The pressure on the kids here, to do well in exams, you wouldn't believe.  Almost everything in the schools is geared to getting the students  to successfully pass the exams, and as we know, teaching to the test makes for neither a broad or deep education.

I enjoy humorous irony so I leave you with "Bart's" comment:

What have those dusty works of literature got to offer us? Nothing, that's what! Not one thing! The brilliant illuminations of flawed genius lighting the foggy path through troubled life? Tcah! Elegantly crafted bitter-sweet autopsies on the suffering of the human soul? As if! The eternal verities? A comforting voice in the silent darkness??? Pah! Do me a favour! Give me a John Grisham anyday. No-one's going to hold a mirror up to my life thank you very much!

:)