required reading for highschool

[Linda on the move]

Our local schools require reading over the summer, and one of the required books for incoming freshmen is Angela's Ashes. I was surprised by this, partly because it seems like a *popular* book to me rather than a *classic,* but also because the content seemed heavy for 14 year olds. At the bookstore the other night I noticed they had a table set up with all the required books for all the grades, and Kite Runner, The Bell Jar and Native Son were on the table (I'm not sure for what grades). These books also seem rough for highschool students.

On one hand, I don't believe in censorship and I think that teens should have access to these books if they choose to read them. At the same time, handing them to a teen and saying, "of all the things in print, this is the most important thing you can read right now" seems odd to me.

Perhaps I'm just off base. My oldest child is 10. May in a few years these will seem like perfectly reasonable books for her. Also, my kids are homeschooled, so they never have *required* reading anyway. They just pick what sounds good, and sometimes I make suggestions. It's not like this is a personal problem for our family.

I just wondered how other moms feel their teens reading books with violent or sexual themes or books that are depressing. Do you feel differently about the kids picking them up to read on their own or having them required? Is there a difference between a classic and a more recently written book in this respect?

[widdlelou]

I don't have a teenager, but I can give you the point of view of a high school teacher (well now I'm a sahm). For many english classes they aren't totally going with "classics" to teach the students. And classics change, there are new classics. I think Sylvia Plath's the Bell Jar is a classic. Its a pivitol book full of deep thought, and very well written. Its a book I think that is great to read, full of femist thought and thought provoking issues. Its a book that forces deep thinking and a great book to discuss. And bravo for them requiring such deep literature. Native Son is also an important book. I believe I read this in middle school or 9th Grade, it delves into racisim and African American culture during segregation and a whole slue of issues. And Anglea's Ashes is terrific as well. Plus its adding Irish culture and the relgious conflicts and effects of poverty on a person/family/people.

These books are made to hook kids into the class. They need to be deep enough that it will draw out questions and thoughts through their own study and so they can journal them easily. I think that many classics are dealing with many depressing isues. Most of the classics are. And yes there are some sexuality in some of these books, its not the main theme. But you are talking about teenagers here. They are dealing with heavy issues, sexuality and the like. And its good to find different point of view and such in these books. Its what makes literature exciting and important. Most the books I read in high school were kind of depressing, but thats not going to lead a kid to be depressed, but it will give them an intersting point of view that I think will only enhance their life.

Oh and to add one more thing... I think its important also for every once in a while to have a student read a book that manybe they would not probably choose by themselves. It opens up their minds to something new -- new poitn of view, new way of thinking etc. And that is important as well. But taht is imho

[Arduinna]

I'm probably not the best one to answer since we are unschoolers I don't like required reading of specific texts. On the one hand I can see that it can open kids up to experiences and books they wouldn't choose on their own. On the other hand I think that subjects that include violence or tragedy can be too much for anyone, adult or child and requiring such reading material is problematic IMO.

[zinemama]

I guess I think you're off base. Look around our culture. Look at what kids see in movies, hear in music, see on the news. They are not unfamiliar with these topics. Which is not to say that they *should* be reading about them necessarily, but to say that it isn't going to be traumatizing for them to do so.

And especially when it comes to reading a book so gorgeously written, in which the evils of violence, ignorance and poverty are made so stunningly clear. I don't think teens will come away from AA thinking only, "man, that was depressing." They'll come away thinking, "Man, blind obedience to religion does terrible things to people. Living in abject poverty can be soul-destroying. Alcohol can destroy families..." and a host of other very worthwhile life lessons. Which, as we all know, can sink in a lot more effectively through a good story than through dry facts.

Also, the "classics" (which as a former English teacher I'm quite familiar with) are pretty much steeped in war, murder, betrayal, incest and the like, too.)

[Arduinna]

it isn't going to be traumatizing for them to do so.

No one can make a blanket statement that it won't be traumatizing. It's completely rediculas to say that since movies and the news depict violence kids are immune shows a complete lack of understanding of the uniqueness of individuals.

[Oriole]

Well... I firmly believe that MOST teenagers at the age of 14 are ready to read and discuss Angela's Ashes. : It is beautifully written and is a wonderful piece of literature. If your child is too sensitive - I guess you could discuss it with the school to make an exception. *shrug*

I think though, that we worry so much they won't get it, or won't like it, or will be too scared or too confused that our own concerns limit their perspective, since kids tend to pick up on parents' attitudes towards various life topics, kwim?

Taking the standpoint that AA is too traumatizing is the same as saying, let's not read Bambi, or Grimms Fairy Tales, or any book that has death or some traumatic event for that matter, and you'll end up with one short list of books, and a very narrow view of life, imho.

I believe that children understand more than adults think they do.

[Arduinna]

Luckily we are talking about teenagers. As such they are capable of communication with people regarding their needs.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Luckily we are talking about teenagers. As such they are capable of communication with people regarding their needs.

Absolutely. And that is the reason why I am saying that most teenagers are capable of reading AA. I haven't heard one say that it is too traumatizing for them. Once again, I'm not denying the fact, that someone's child might not be able to handle it at 14, my point was that it would be an exception rather than a rule, imho. That's why I am not shocked, surprised, or appauled to see it on a reading list in HS.

[Oriole]

I also wanted to mention that I understand Unschooling perspective, I really do. At the same time, if you come into the classroom where classics are discussed, you might be surprised at the deapth of thought and understanding that kids put into serious reading when presented with it.

[SusanElizabeth]

Many 14 year olds have already dealt in their own lives with some of the problems encountered by the family in Angela's Ashes. Some have a parent who drinks too much, and others are from families that struggle to make enough money. So I definitely feel that 14 year olds should be able to deal with reading about these things.

Learning about life and the struggles people encounter is a big part of getting an education. We had to read The Diary of Anne Frank in 8th grade, and I also remember reading The Pearl by John Steinbeck at that age. Anne Frank's diary is obviously very very sad and I remember thinking that if one more terrible thing happened to the main characters in The Pearl, I would scream!!

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

No one can make a blanket statement that it won't be traumatizing. It's completely rediculas to say that since movies and the news depict violence kids are immune shows a complete lack of understanding of the uniqueness of individuals.

I suppose that's true. And if a parent knew that their teen was likely to be traumatized by a book assignment, he or she could make arrangements for that child to read something else.

That said, I agree with pp who contend that it's going to be the rare kid who would be traumatized by an encounter with a book. IMO, trauma does not generally occur as a result of reading. Yes, a sensitive, extremely sheltered kid may encounter unfamiliar topics that may be shocking and disturbing. But traumatizing? I'd be surprised. (Of course, I could be mistaken.)

I say this someone who was a very sheltered (no tv, little popular culture) kid and a dedicated reader to whom nothing was off limits. I read many books that were probably too old for me, but I honestly can't remember being negatively impacted by any of it. (More often that not, a lot of that stuff just went right over my head).

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

I just wondered how other moms feel their teens reading books with violent or sexual themes or books that are depressing. Do you feel differently about the kids picking them up to read on their own or having them required? Is there a difference between a classic and a more recently written book in this respect?

Well, speaking as both a homeschool mother AND a high school English teacher who requires her students to read over the summer, think about your question for a few moments. In the spirit of English teaching, I'll put this in the form of multiple-choice questions.

Do you object to the fact that...

a) These books have "violent or sexual themes"
b) These books are "depressing"
c) These books are "recently written"?

If you object to the fact that these books have violent or sexual themes (regardless of when they were written), then I'm sure you would object to the following texts. All of these texts are written before 1900, and all of them are ones one might be likely to see (or see selections from) in an English, world, or American literature class at the high school level:

1. The Bible
2. All of Shakespeare, including especially the following:
2a. Romeo and Juliet (V/S = violence and sexuality)
2b. Julius Caesar (V)
2c. Macbeth (V/S/Su = violence, sexuality, supernatural)
2d. Hamlet (V/S)
2e. Othello (V/S/R = violence, sexuality, racism)
2f. Twelfth Night (S)
2g. King Lear (V/S)
3. Milton's Paradise Lost (V/S/Su)
4. E. Bronte's Wuthering Heights (V/S/Su)
5. All of Edgar Allan Poe (V/S/Su)
6. J. Bronte's Jane Eyre (V/S/Su)
7. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn (V/R)
8. All of Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (V/S/Su)
9. All of the books I'm going to list below

If you object to the fact that these books have depressing themes(regardless of when they were written), then I'm sure you would object to the following texts:

All of the books I listed above, plus...

1. Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and Antigone (incest, sacrifice, self-mutilation)
2. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (adultery, sacrifice, single motherhood, religious repression, obsession, psychological torment)
3. Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles (rape, illegitimate child, death of child, murder)
4. Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray (homosexuality, drug addiction, murder, suicide, sociopathy)
5. Stevenson, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (murder, suicide, playing God)
6. Shelley, Frankenstein (murder, playing God, stalking)
7. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (fornication, marrying for money)
8. Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels (excrement, political corruption, cynicism)
9. Jonathan Swift, "A Modest Proposal" (human cannibalism of Irish babies)
10. Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince" (cynicism, political corruption, ends-justify-means method of ruling through force)

If you object to the fact that these books are recently written, by which I'm referring to books written no earlier than 1900, then I'm sure you would object to the following texts:

1. All of Orwell
2. All of Steinbeck
3. All of Hemingway
4. All of Huxley
5. All of Alice Walker
6. All of Toni Morrison
...and so on and so on and so on.

I'm sure you're seeing my point, but like a teacher, I've overstated it with too many examples.

[Flower of Bliss]

I don't have a teenager yet (DD is not even 1). However, I was a teen, and I taught teens (math, not English) before DD was born.

I think AA is an awesome required reading book for HS. I read Bell Jar on my own in 7th or 8th grade. I haven't (to my memory) read Native Son, so I can't speak for it. I don't think that the required reading is intended to be saying "of all the things in print, this is the most important thing you can read right now" Who could begin to say that about any book to any person at any time? The idea is a good reading level (and age) appropriate book that will be a good jumping off point for classroom discussions, journaling, essays, etc. The idea is for it to engage the students. They pick books to require so that all of the students in the class can discuss them together. Classroom discussions are so important to an English class. I personally took unrequired Lit classes every semester in College and joined book clubs since for the sole reason of being in a group of people reading the same book and discussing it.

I think a few more modern books in the curriculum is a good thing. Those books feel more relevant to the students. Although I enjoyed reading Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and the like in HS, I also enjoyed reading Joy Luck Club (and I've since read all of Amy Tan's other books as they came out). There was a pretty good sized group of first generation Chinese students in my classes and this book was great for discussion. I found To Kill a Mockingbird in 9th grade to be very upsetting, but in a good way. It made me feel very grown up that we were required to read Catcher in the Rye, absolutely full of vulgarity and sex, in 10th grade. I thoroughly enjoyed the crazy stream of conciousness style of the book. I read Lord of the Flies in 8th grade, but I personally found Macbeth more distrurbing that year. I was really bothered by reading multiple Edgar Allen Poe stories in 11th grade, but it certainly didn't traumatize me. I hated the main character in Madame Bovary in 12th grade, but I still think of the book today (as a new mom staying home). I'm glad I was required to read all of these books, each of which was full of sex and violence. I can't think of a single book I was required to read that didn't have sex or violence in it, or religious issues, or suicide, or death or something. If it didn't have that, what would we talk about? What would keep our interest?

[Ruthla]

Another thing to keep in mind with required reading- chances are that these books are going to be discussed in class, to help the kids put some perspective on whatever they don't understand in the books. It's not like they're just assigning books and then ignoring them.

[silly_scout]

Bravo, Meg Murray (BTW, props for the Wrinkle in Time reference, unless your name really is Meg Murray.)
OP, I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but what do you deem "appropriate" for 14 year olds? When I was 14, I could handle all the themes in Angela's Ashes and The Bell Jar. In fact, if a teacher had read those with me, I probably would've been enthralled (not in a morbid way).
Kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for. They know the world isn't sunshine and rainbows, and they appreciate it when they are trusted enough to read such material.
I am a SAHM now, but I taught high school English at a Catholic school (despite the fact that I am agnostic : ) for 5 years before having my DD. I was in control of my curriculum, but I was constantly toeing the line with administration because of my selections. Sometimes parents and administration would be upset with my choices, but the kids always read and they always discussed, rather intelligently I might add. I rarely selected the "classics" like Dickens or Bronte. We read Bobbie Ann Mason's In Country (about post traumatic stress disorder and Vietnam), A Confederacy of Dunces and 1984 to name a few.
Anne

[Venice Mamacita]

Well, I read "Romeo & Juliet" at the age of 12 for my 7th grade gifted English class (26 years ago) and absolutely loved it. We also read "To Kill a Mockingbird," "A Separate Peace," "Catcher In the Rye," "Lord of the Flies," and "Of Mice & Men." All of these qualify at least as depressing, most violent, and a couple sexual in nature. So IMHO, "Angela's Ashes" for 14-year-olds seems pretty tame. I wish we'd been assigned "The Bell Jar"!

[MillingNome]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

I'm probably not the best one to answer since we are unschoolers I don't like required reading of specific texts. On the one hand I can see that it can open kids up to experiences and books they wouldn't choose on their own. On the other hand I think that subjects that include violence or tragedy can be too much for anyone, adult or child and requiring such reading material is problematic IMO.

:

Except I do not unschool...

I really hate the idea of requiring reading over summer unless it is to say that a student must read at least one book of their choosing. That is the case with my dd. She was required to read one book over the summer, didn't matter which one. She has read I think four books- three checked out from the library and of course HP and the Deathly Hallows (well, she's on page 417 not, soon to be done!).

As for required reading during the school year, I have np with that. DD read the some Poe and The Giver, amoung others. Both of which are not pretty...

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by SusanElizabeth

Many 14 year olds have already dealt in their own lives with some of the problems encountered by the family in Angela's Ashes.

While I agree with that in principle, I doubt that many american 14 year olds have dealt with multiple sibling deaths, or ever having a body laid out in their home. My DH and I have jokingly called AA "The Dead Irish Baby Book" since it first came out.

Learning about life and the struggles people encounter is a big part of getting an education.

good point.

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

If you object to the fact that these books have violent or sexual themes (regardless of when they were written), then I'm sure you would object to the following texts.

There is a big difference between the sexual themes in the books you listed, and the events in Kite Runner (a boy watches as his friend is sodomized) or Native Son (the *hero* rapes and then murders a girl). The fact that Romeo and Juliet wake up one morning together after having sex is small potatoes. In Sense and Sensibility we find out that one of the characters had sex but the sex is never described. That's very different from the books I questioned.

Of all the books you listed, this is the only one I saw in the Required Summer Reading Table:

7. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn (V/R)

If you object to the fact that these books have depressing themes(regardless of when they were written), then I'm sure you would object to the following texts:
.....
7. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (fornication, marrying for money)
8. Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels (excrement, political corruption, cynicism)
9. Jonathan Swift, "A Modest Proposal" (human cannibalism of Irish babies)
10. Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince" (cynicism, political corruption, ends-justify-means method of ruling through force)

I honestly don't like depressing books, but I don't find the last 4 you listed depressing. Swift is funny, Jane Austen aways cranks out a happy ending, and Machiavelli isn't emotional for me -- just an interesting point of view.

But I do wonder why schools would push reading depressing books. So many kids leave school not ever wanting to read a book again -- may be more of mix of fun, uplifting books would be a good thing. A steady stream of books that basically say "life sucks and then you die" doesn't seem healthy to me, regardless of when the books were written.

I've always found Romeo and Juliet to be a strange play for required reading because they kill themselves in the end. I like the comedies more -- Tempest, 12th Night, and so on.

If you object to the fact that these books are recently written, by which I'm referring to books written no earlier than 1900, then I'm sure you would object to the following texts:

I find if odd when books that are less than 20 years old are assigned, but I think that is because it doesn't seem like anything that hadn't be written when I graduated should be required, rather than anything substantial.

1. All of Orwell
2. All of Steinbeck
3. All of Hemingway
4. All of Huxley
5. All of Alice Walker
6. All of Toni Morrison
...and so on and so on and so on.

Oddly, none of these authors were on the "assigned reading table." None. I guess part of the reason that the selections seemed so odd to me is because of what *isn't* assigned. I think that The Color Purple is a far better book about race and sexual assult than Native Son, and Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Look around our culture. Look at what kids see in movies, hear in music, see on the news. They are not unfamiliar with these topics. Which is not to say that they *should* be reading about them necessarily, but to say that it isn't going to be traumatizing for them to do so.

I don't know that it would be traumatizing for them, but I think that the standard should be higher than "not traumatizing."

Teenagers are capable of all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean that those things are best for them.

Originally Posted by Sage72380

I don't think that the required reading is intended to be saying "of all the things in print, this is the most important thing you can read right now" Who could begin to say that about any book to any person at any time? The idea is a good reading level (and age) appropriate book that will be a good jumping off point for classroom discussions, journaling, essays, etc.

There is a nearly endless list of choices. When a teacher makes that choice, they are saying that they think it is the best book for their purpose, and I'm surprised by the choices.

As many teens are super busy, some of them only read what they are required to. The choices teachers make are very important. I'm trying to understand those choices.

Originally Posted by Oriole

I also wanted to mention that I understand Unschooling perspective, I really do. At the same time, if you come into the classroom where classics are discussed, you might be surprised at the deapth of thought and understanding that kids put into serious reading when presented with it.

I think that you might be surprised at the depth of thought and understanding that kids put into serous reading when they are unschooled, but I really don't want to debate that here, because no one is questioning the thought and understanding that kids are capable of (regardless of how they are educated) just the choice of books that we hand to them and say "read this."

[alegna]

If there's going to be required reading, I have no problem with it being heavy.

I had plenty of assigned reading, much of it heavy. The only one that bothered me was Gentle Ben in 4th grade. And then it was mis-represented. We could choose a book from several and I was told it was a "book about a bear" I was very sensitive to animals dying at that age and it really bugged me.

But the super heavy stuff later, I really liked.

-Angela