What should students read?

This morning I read a fascinating article (What should students read?, an article written by Stephen Wolk) on the role and importance of various types of literature read in schools. Numerous arguments were presented for different types of reading and how books were being read in schools, and while I agree with most of what he has written, I don't agree with everything. I believe that while Stephen Wolk does understand the importance of reading, there are some flaws in how he approaches how literature should be read.

Stephen Wolk begins his essay by contemplating what children read in class and why they dislike reading. Perhaps it's because I am in an AP class, and am different than many of my peers in how I read literature, but I disagree with most of his arguments. He believes that children in the first grade stop reading by the sixth grade only because they think that reading is boring, an argument that made me pause and wonder if Wolk had ever gone to a public school or was just homeschooled for his life. Or perhaps he was fortunate enough to avoid the hardships that come with growing. Admittedly, I don't remember much about what I was thinking about in first grade, but I can remember that my thoughts when I was in sixth grade being entirely consumed by thoughts (and a general lack of knowledge about) death, taxes, the generation gap, and if the girl I was crushing on at the time liked me back. (She didn't, in case you are wondering.) But as I continued to think about what he had written, I got more and more frustrated with Wolk's complete inability to consider what might be causing children to stop reading due to influences from outside of school.

I wasn't always an AP student taking classes in New York. I have spent a fairly large amount of my life moving from area to area. Only a short while ago, I was in another state entirely, with people that were different than the fairly intellectual students at the school I attend now. I had a friend at one of the other schools I used to attend who wouldn't read the books assigned in class, considering them to be boring and beneath him. He would always disrespect the teacher and refuse to do the work assigned. When I asked about him, it turned out that he used to be a fairly good student before his brother was badly beaten by a couple of people that went to my school, and ever since then he had changed for the worst. Obviously not all examples are that severe (although in some cases they can easily be far more severe) but at the very least he, to me, is a clear example of one of the flaws in Steven Wolk's thinking. To completely disregard outside factors (including some more that I have not even brought up yet) shows that he really has not thought too much about what he is considering; or he simply has focused too much on only the schools.

As I continued to read the article, I was slightly dismayed to see some of his ideas. They reminded me too much of my own a few years ago, and the reasons why his ideas can't work in our society are the same as why my ideas couldn't. All of the students in America are subject to a schooling system more archaic than the literature they are meant to read in class. The system has been in place for many years, and doesn't seem to be close to changing soon, as less and less financial support is given to schools and teachers become victims of parents and facility members that refuse to support them or what they are attempting to teach. If there is to be some change in education, it must begin with some support from actual legislation or elected officials, and cannot be done even by the very best of the teachers and educators who are already overworked, underpaid, and under appreciated by the students and parents that rely on them most. In a way, the culture students live in today is a culture that tells them to disrespect their educators and not take school seriously. How many teachers make money equal to that of movie stars or musicians? How many times have places of education been portrayed in the media as useless or unnecessary? While there needs to be some change in how students learn and are taught, it simply cannot be done in the world they live in today.

Another aspect of Steven Wolk's article I dislike is his strange focus on political correctness in literature. He condemns the current classics of literature as being written almost entirely by white males, but what does that have to do with literary merit? How can that even be a factor in what is considered to be worthy literature? Why must that become a factor in what is considered good? More ethnic diversity and racial acceptance would be an incredible thing for every person in the world, but the responsibility to teach such an important thing should not fall upon the shoulders of English teachers.

Steven Wolk's essay is persuasive, and I agree with his argument that students should read literature that applies to them. However, I believe that just saying that does not mean anything. The notion that schools need to change and become more efficent in how they teach and how much love for academics students get out of them has been around long before Steven Wolk wrote his essay. I believe that while thinking about what students should learn is important, the world we live in today demands that implementing these changes is the most important thing. Outside influences, such as the hardships people go through every day and a general lack of funding for schools need to be reduced in some fashion before any change can really occur. While the literature being read in classes may contribute slightly to the problem, I believe that in the end, the students make up their own minds about whether they would like to learn.