You are here:   Academia > Must Try Harder
 
Must Try Harder
September 2009

That was ridiculous and the school curriculum must include poetry by Ted Hughes and Seamus Heaney, the great contemporary writers — but not only theirs. Dryden and Byron may be hard going but Chaucer, Donne, Henry Vaughan, Coleridge and Tennyson need not be. (Chaucer is not difficult once the basics of the language have been grasped and untying that knot is great fun.)

There is more to great poetry than any of this, but answering the question "Why?" is never easy. It seems like a cop-out to say, "I just know" but that is almost what Marilynne Robinson does say in one of the best replies to "Why?" I have ever read. In her recent novel Home, Glory, a former teacher, remembers her pupils asking, "Why do we have to read poetry? Why Il Penseroso?" and her reply is, "Read it and you'll know why. If you still don't know, read it again. And again. People have always made poetry. Trust that it will matter to you...It is like a voice heard from another room, singing for the pleasure of the song, and then you know it too, and through you it moves by accident and necessity down generations."

That is true of other things too, things which do not have immediate "use", true of myths and legends for example, from our own country and from round the world. If young people do not hear and learn poetry, myths, legends and ancient stories or read great fiction or see great plays they are being betrayed, short-changed and impoverished but they do not know it, they must take it on trust, as previous generations did. Not all of them will understand. But that is no excuse for not trying.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Retired Head Master
September 12th, 2009
1:09 PM
Another wise and relevant article from Susan Hill. Her percipient words about academic bullying are backed up by educational research. The independent schools are fine but the state schools are hampered by not having the freedom to sort out their own problems, and having to be politically correct. The government's guidelines on bullying mention many kinds of bullying (including "homophobic") but not the academic kind, the most prevalent in the state sector according to educational research.

burkard@tiscali...
September 11th, 2009
6:09 PM
Great article--but Susan Hill is wrong about multiple-choice exams. They are by far the most efficient and objective way of assessing pupils' knowledge, and modern exams are capable of doing this at a very sophisticated level. This has long been recognised in the private sector, where the multiple-choice format is ubiquitous. As useful as it is to be able to organise one's thoughts and put them on paper in coherent prose, this is not an ability which is easily assessed by any objective standard. The repeated exam fiascos are a result of the difficulty in finding an objective marking scheme which is not so formulaic that it destroys the whole purpose of writing essays. Of course, teachers and lecturers should set essay papers for internal consumption. But relatively few students write well. A lot of very bright and capable people can barely string two sentences together. To get an idea of just how bad it is, visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/25/schools.uk2

Sue
September 5th, 2009
1:09 AM
Maybe the content of the curriculum doesnt really matter, especially as we are all completely over-whelmed by the information out available out there. And when was the purpose of education to teach people to think for themselves, ask real questions about everything (and thus get REAL answers), and to kindle their imaginations? It was mostly about crowd control and providing disciplined workers who knew their "place" and did what they were told to do--including marching off to be slaughtered in the imperial wars. But then again children are exposed to the real curriculum which now governs every aspect of our lives almost from day one. A curriculum which is telling them how to be a good unquestioning consumer. I am of course referring to TV and the now wall to wall 24/7 existence of advertising. A new book titled This Little Kiddy Went To Market by Sharon Beder gives a well researched picture of the situation. In the USA there are even cable TV stations targeted at TWO YEAR OLDS. Plus this reference gives a unique perspective of the tragedy of what we have done to our children, and hence ourselves, for a long time now. !7 years after the publication of the book the situation is now very much worse---unmeasurably and INCURABLY so. http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/JCP98.html

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Related content
More Features
Popular Standpoint topics