Bear Bahoochie

The Times are running a series of pull outs called “How to give your child a private education without paying a penny.” Today the subject up for grabs is Secondary School English and it came as no shock that the way get a better education in English is to read.

Despite this obvious point (and one much laboured by English teachers and Librarians in all schools) the article had at least one interesting thing- the modern definition of an educated person. Apparently this is “someone who reads fiction before lunch“. On a personal note I might well be in danger here since fitting in my book before I start work would probably kill me (I really do need 7 or 8 hours sleep) – I do, however, read when I wake at weekends so perhaps that will count.

Clarissa Farr (a ‘High Mistress’ at one of the public schools in the article) said “There is no doubt that those students who gain most from the subject – and who do best at it- enjoy reading for its own sake.” In fact she makes a number of excellent points about having a wide reading list and using the texts in school as a jumping off point. I liked her quote:

“Reading is what helps to form us as people and the books we read at school, especially those we study in detail, remain part of our internal landscape for life.”

So true! The scars from reading ‘Death of a Salesman’ and ‘The Crucible’ by Arthur Miller will never be fully healed. I have clear memories of a few of the set texts we did including ‘Flowers for Algernon’ by Daniel Keyes (a depressing tale) and Romeo and Juliet (which I got to study 3 times! Meaning that even now I can quote chunks and I could almost regurgitate an exam answer).

Of course the most obvious point she makes is that your kids will read if you read,  telling them to won’t work if they see don’t see you read. I’d go further and suggest books should be part of the house, found in every room (I can totally tick that one). “But what books should we read?” cry those parents reading the article – fear not The Times provides two reading lists to help. One provided by author Alexander McCall Smith and the other the list of books that Clarissa Farr’s all girls school sends out as recommendations. I have two issues with these lists.

1. The list from the school is meant for girls (it being a girls school) so what about those boys looking for something to read? (though a number of titles will work for either)
2. McCall Smith’s list is 10 classic books and none date past 1960.

McCall Smith’s list is interesting reading in itself he suggests that the ’10 to read by 16′ are:

1. Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
2. Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson
3. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
4. The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
5. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
6. Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
7. Short Stories by W. Somerset Maugham
8. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
9. Collected Shorter Poems by W.H. Auden
10. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Of which I’ve read three, seen the movie version of three others. Perhaps my life is poorer for not having read them (I might still read them) but I can’t help but feel there are perhaps more interesting books to have read by 16. I don’t know what 10 books I’d choose and his picks are in the main as good as most. It is hard to suggest books everyone should read and not be swayed by the current popular titles but I’d argue that a few tweeks might make the list more useful to parents hungry for recommendations.

First off ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ is a much more enjoyable Shakespeare play to self study than ‘Merchant of Venice’, especially as an introduction to him without teacher support – the story is easy enough to follow and some of the banter is excellent.

If you are choosing only one poet Auden does have some excellent stuff including the famous ‘Funeral Blues’ (that the one that starts ”Stop all the Clocks”).  Though I’d probably suggest Roger McGough or John Hegley if they weren’t poetry readers to get them going.

I’m not totally sold that Tolstoy and Maugham are essential reading in life, having never read either I think I’m doing ok. (Though what do I know, maybe if I’d read them before 16, I’d be waking up at dawn to get in some fiction reading before work). What I do know is that the list is missing any fantasy or Science Fiction work and while I dare say Tolstoy is a good meaty choice, I’d replace Maugham with the likes of 1984 by George Orwell or ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ by Douglas Adams or ‘The Hobbit’ by J.R.R.Tolkein depending on how serious they wanted to be.

The comment is made in the article that “reading should be enjoyable, so book choice should reflect not just ability, but also interests.” Yet the reading lists are full of worthy titles that aren’t the best in the cannon of work by that author or ones the young people might have heard of. For instance they suggest ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ by C.S.Lewis rather than the much more readable ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’. I’d argue if introducing them to an author choosing one to get them hooked would surely make more sense.  Certainly if they read all 31 titles suggested in the school’s list they will have a varied read though I’d be surprised if many teenage boys found many of the titles ‘interesting’. (It shouldn’t be a surprise that boys aren’t the intended audience).

On the upside for those parents looking to get recommendations for their teenagers there is one sure fire way to get persoanlised reading recommendations without parting with cash – by hitting the school library (or local one for that matter) and asking a librarian for help. How much cheaper can you get than borrowing the books and getting free advice from a professional who’s job it is to know all about teen reading? Shame the article never managed to mention that as a way to improve your education without paying a penny.