Johnny Worries About Dumbed Down Literature Teaching

Well, our distinguished leader is worried about the dumbing down of English literature at schools. Never one for speaking specifically about elements of education in Australian schools, he has gone for the mass generalisation and says there's too much of this post-modern "rubbish" taught at schools and not enough Shakespeare.

And TCM's reporter Lachie Heywood has magically linked this PM speech with a comment by the Australian Council for Education Standards Colin Lamnont. He made it earlier in the year about how thirteen year olds didn't understand basic literacy. Forgetting for the moment that his comment may have nothing much to do with the speech by John Howard, doesn't Australia have one of the best literacy records in the world?

Here is the story: http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18878311-3102,00.html

Should "high-quality" literature be taught more than post-modern rubbish?
What is high quality literature anyway? Have no good books been written since the wars?
How do we decide what is the most important literature to be taught? Should only high quality literature be taught anyway?
Do you need to teach high quality literature in order to teach English literacy?

Harold Bloom's Exasperation - Marxism etc and Shakespeare

I was interested to read that Harold Bloom, he of the canon etc, and the nation's "pre-eminent poet" Les Murray were a bit upset after learning that a "prestigious" girls' school in Sydney are interpreting Othello from Marxist, feminist and racial perspectives.

"It is another indication that literary study has died in Australia," Mr Bloom said according to The Australian. The article can be read here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18818644-2702,00.html

Here is some more that wasn't in the internet version of the article. It comes after Mark Howie's quote:

"But Murray said the question showed how the dominant ideology soaking subjects at school was Marxism and a "perverse egalitarianism" to reduce quality to a common denominator.

Murray said the only way to include literature in schools was along the lines of physical education, in which students discover their bodies and what they can do but are not subjected to assessment or examinations.

"If people can be exposed to things of quality like literature and not examined on them, which is essentially punishing them, then it might be nice to have it in schools," he said.

"But it's probably better just to take it out altogether, both for the sake of art and the sake of kids."

Let me know what you think in the comments section.