Posts by Linda Price5

urbantinker8 said:

I suppose I should probably mention that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how much certain things change over time, though I can never quite pin down why it feels so significant when it happens. It’s funny, really, how we get caught up in these little cycles. I was sitting there the other day—just staring out at the street in Chicago, I guess—thinking about how everything seems to move so fast now, yet some things feel like they haven't budged an inch since I was a kid. Maybe it's just me being overly contemplative, or maybe there's actually something to it. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on forever, but I felt like sharing that thought, if anyone cares to listen. kaže:

Good grief, please don't embarrass yourself like that. 😁

I wonder who exactly is the one currently pounding on the faculty lounge door in a total fury over those decapitated heads and severed breasts found in the literature curriculum. 😁 I guess I was just sitting there thinking about that whole bizarre situation involving the severed hands at the elementary school, and honestly, it’s just one of those things that makes you wonder how we even function as a society sometimes. It feels like one of those dark, surrealist movies you’d see at an indie theater in Seattle or something, where everything is just slightly off and unsettlingly quiet. I don't know, maybe it's just me being overly cautious, but when you hear about stuff like that happening in a local school district, it sort of stays with you, doesn't it? It’s such a strange, heavy thing to wrap your head around, especially when you think about the kids involved. I suppose there isn't much to be said other than it's deeply unsettling, though I guess everyone is just trying to process it in their own way.

Parents.
If you happen to open your mouth about any topic they consider sensitive, they’re on you in a heartbeat. I mean, it doesn't matter what it is—you could be talking about biology, religion, history, literature, or psychology, and they'll be right there ready to jump in.
It seems like whenever they encounter something that feels a bit taboo, or perhaps just sits uncomfortably alongside the standard curriculum—you know, the stuff they're taught in their American history books, English lit classes, psychology seminars, or even Sunday school—they immediately go running to find "information" elsewhere. I guess it’s almost like a reflex, where if a textbook or a formal lecture doesn't align with their specific worldview, they suddenly feel the need to hunt down some alternative truth to fill the gap. Maybe it's just how people react when their preconceived notions get poked, though I suppose it could be interpreted a few different ways.
I swear I'm telling the truth, though I suppose you probably won't believe me anyway.🐔

I mean, okay, but what is actually the point of having these kids sit through some mandatory reading hour? I guess we have to look at the reality of things, because most parents aren't exactly sitting down with books, and they probably weren't reading to their kids back in the day either. Most of these homes don't even have a library on the shelf, and—not to be harsh—but maybe the intellectual engagement at home isn't exactly hitting the mark. So why force them into this hour of literature instead of just letting them go outside and kick a soccer ball around at the park? I don't really see the utility in it. What's the actual gain? Is knowing one extra trivia question about whether they’ll end up watching The Chase more valuable than, say, physical activity? It feels like such a waste of everyone's resources—the students' time, the teachers' energy, and honestly, even the electricity, the fuel, the lightbulbs, and the chalk. It all seems a bit excessive, if you ask me.

If we’re talking about high school—which, let's be honest, is pretty much all I ever want to talk about—I guess it isn't strictly necessary for them to actually accomplish anything at all. Maybe they don't even need to read.🤷
I guess some people just end up with a one or a two on their literature assignments.
I mean, honestly, maybe they just shouldn't go to that school at all. Actually, I guess it might be better if they didn't go to school entirely.
I suppose I really don't know.
If they really feel like they're just spinning their wheels and wasting everyone's time, I suppose they might as well just sit this one out. Honestly, it's fine by me if they decide to do nothing at all.

I’d probably bet you some money that most of those colleagues of yours—the ones trekking out to these overly ambitious, high-flown professional development seminars—don't actually have a clue when it comes to things like test-enhanced learning or spaced repetition. I mean, maybe they do, but I suspect they likely haven't a prayer about how to actually take effective notes, and even if they did happen to figure it out, I doubt they're passing those skills along to anyone else. It seems to me that unless someone is specifically a psychology professor, they probably don't grasp much about the limitations of working memory, or any of those actual strategies people need when the whole point is supposed to be moving information into long-term storage. I guess it's just my hunch, but it feels like there's a massive gap between the lofty titles of these workshops and the actual science of how we learn.

I think I’d be willing to put some money on your head too, honestly, because you seem to be completely off base here.🙂

The MoonI mean, I guess I have to ask, why exactly are you trolling?🍿

Man, this Canadian census list is just a total mess, I guess.🙂
I guess if you look at all these headlines, most people would probably just lose their minds over how many there are, though I don't know. Judging by what's actually being written, it seems like everything is once again just overflowing with elves, dwarves, witches, and that sort of thing.🙄
I suppose I’ve been thinking quite a bit about summer lately, though I can’t quite pin down why it feels different this year, maybe because the heat just seems to linger a little longer in the air than it used to, or perhaps it’s just my own perception shifting as the seasons roll on. It’s funny how we spend all winter dreaming of that specific kind of golden, heavy warmth, only to find ourselves sitting in front of an air conditioner in some quiet suburb outside of Chicago, wondering where the time went. I guess there’s a certain melancholy to it, isn't there? That slow, drifting feeling of July afternoons where the humidity makes everything feel slightly out of focus, almost like a dream you can't quite shake. I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly contemplative, but there's something about the way the light hits the pavement in August that always makes me feel like I should be doing something more productive, even if I have absolutely no intention of actually getting up from my chair. I saw they have A Wrinkle in Time on the shelves—I actually took a moment to read the synopsis, and honestly, goodness help me, it looks like an absolute disaster.🤣

My head is actually starting to ache from the sheer quality of your comprehension.

Why even bother including literature in the curriculum, urbantinker8, if they aren't capable of handling it because nobody ever sat down with a book at home?

Are we really going to pay teachers to sit there and analyze Mark Twain with horses? Why not?

I’d take that bet any day, because you are completely off base.🙂
:

Oh, I am absolutely off base. Ninety percent of your colleagues are using mind maps with their students; eighty-five percent utilize and encourage memory palaces; ninety-five percent lean heavily on the testing effect; everyone is acutely aware of the Pygmalion effect—because you can't step foot in a classroom without knowing it—everyone is scientifically literate, and nobody gives a damn about creationism, homeopathy, or radiesthesia. Instead, they read actual research, and they conduct their own. It's the teacher as a reflective practitioner. 👋
The fact that a massive group of people, after eleven or twelve years of schooling—and I am being very careful to say "schooling" rather than "education"—can't even distinguish a simple negation, has absolutely nothing to do with the teachers. And I am intentionally avoiding the word "educators," because their job is to deliver a lesson, not necessarily to ensure someone learns something.
😁

Listen, smarty-pants, take a look at the NAEP results from the cycle focused on reading literacy back in the early 2000s. Look at how many students fell into each proficiency level, look at the sample questions used for those levels, and then maybe we can get back to discussing your "super-literate" colleagues. 😁

Richard Perez3 said:Honestly, kids just can't really wrap their heads around The Little Prince.
I reread it a few years back when I was in my mid-30s, and that’s when it finally clicked. That rose character? Suddenly felt so much more real.
I wouldn't say I'll go back to it anytime soon, but hey, who knows.

If you think Pinocchio was a tough read for little ones, just wait until you hit Peter Pan (my kid had it over the summer between second and third grade)—but I mean the actual book, not those watered-down modern versions.
I was obsessed with it then, and I still am. But man, the writing is intense; the sentences are super complex, yet it’s beautiful and really makes you think. And isn't that the whole point? To be challenging, to push your brain in different directions?

And look, if a second grader is still struggling with basic phonics and syllables... that shouldn't be the norm. It should be an exception, not something happening all the time. By the end of the second semester in second grade, a kid should be able to actually *read*. Like, truly read. They might get exhausted doing it, but they should be able to tackle those texts. I mean, we did it. Why shouldn't they? Newer generations should be even sharper than us.

Besides, if that's not already the standard (which clearly it isn't), I won't stand for it. I refuse to let my kid live that kind of lifestyle—not in any way. Period. Whatever we went through—and let's face it, that's just basic, fundamental education that worked for countless people—my kid will go through too. Whether it's hard or easy, whatever. Some things will click faster, some won't.

But nothing develops properly when you start underestimating people and what they're capable of. Sure, everyone has strengths, weaknesses, quirks, or maybe even some learning disability that makes things harder, but you deal with that by finding solutions.
You don't solve it by deciding Peter Pan is "too hard." He's not. And I'm not letting anyone take the easy way out for my kid.
Sorry, totally went off on a tangent there.

Who exactly is this "we"?

I certainly could. In my classroom, I had students who were hitting 23 words per minute on those rapid reading assessments.

Some kids just have lower cognitive capacities, while others simply mature at a slower pace. An acquaintance of mine has a child who grew up surrounded by books and adults who read constantly with their kids, yet the child didn't truly start reading until fourth grade (they'd read before preschool, though). Fortunately, she's a sensible woman, so she didn't make a scene or bully the kid about it, nor did the child sit there crying over required reading; instead, she would just read aloud to them. Give it a few years, and that child isn't a little kid anymore—nor are they stupid or slow, far from it. 😁

Children are human beings, complex living organisms; they don't always develop according to the rigid blueprints dreamed up by the Department of Education.

frupy said:if you serve these kinds of titles to kids, angry parents would be banging on the faculty lounge door within two days.
I couldn't agree more.
Why should you be forcing their children to wade through horrific tales of trauma, abuse, or violent crime?

For God's sake, have some dignity. 😁

Who actually storms the school office because there’s decapitated heads or severed breasts in a required reading?😁 Or bitten-off hands in an elementary textbook?

the lack of reading habits at home is just as much to blame

Fine, but what is the point of having those kids in a dedicated reading hour? If Mom and Dad don't read, if they never read to them, if there isn't a single book in the house, and their own IQs aren't exactly staggering—what's the goal? Why sit them in a reading period instead of letting them kick a ball around on the playground? What's the actual utility? To ensure they can answer one extra question about whether they'll watch The Chase? Why waste their time, the teachers' time, electricity, fuel, lightbulbs, or chalk?

here is yet another proof of how clueless you all are regarding these wonderful new methods, outcomes, and "innovations" we're constantly bombarded with at workshops and seminars

I'm not talking about that nonsense. I'm talking about proactively following findings from memory and learning psychology, cognitive science—about a biology teacher actually pulling research from high-quality, peer-reviewed journals on science pedagogy from the internet, rather than being oblivious to their existence entirely.

I'd bet anything that the vast majority of your colleagues attending those pretentious, overly ambitious "professional development" sessions haven't the slightest clue about test-enhanced learning or spaced repetition. They likely don't know how to take effective notes, and even if they do, they aren't passing it on. Unless they teach psychology, they probably know nothing about working memory limits or strategies for long-term encoding.

And they don't know because nobody in education cares about using science as a tool to uncover reality, nor is there any belief that a teacher's job is to master and apply these tools to make learning more efficient. It doesn't interest them because it doesn't impact their personal lives; most people don't learn anything unless they absolutely have to, mostly because they possess the curiosity of a common houseplant.

rowdypanther12 said:It’s less about the word count and more about how broad the scope is—Pinocchio feels like something meant for a second grader. Besides, weren't we just discussing literacy issues where so many kids in the second grade are still basically struggling to sound out words?
Say what you want, but a 200-page book isn't really an appropriate reading assignment for someone who just learned to read or is still fighting to get through a sentence.

Of course it isn't. I suspect part of the issue lies in the fact that many educators, once they receive their credentials, are just relieved they no longer have to be students themselves.

If teachers actually engaged in lifelong learning—if an elementary school teacher occasionally picked up a Walt Disney comic in a language they didn't study in college, if a history teacher took up basic coding, if a math teacher learned to play the ukulele or hosted a premiere reading of Charles Dickens, if an English teacher delved into animation studies or even learned how to fix a leaky faucet, or if a foreign language instructor embarked on a journey to learn Japanese—they would possess far more empathy for their students. They would intimately understand the friction of tackling something entirely foreign. They would know how to smooth out that process for themselves, which would likely make them better at facilitating it for their pupils. They would know exactly what it feels like to abandon a Coursera course because you lack the motivation, you missed a quiz, your partner isn't texting you back, and suddenly, Art History feels like a very low priority.

Furthermore, they would spend less time complaining about dictionaries; nobody has ever died from looking up a definition, yet they rarely experience firsthand how much constant interruption kills the rhythmic flow of prose. Back in elementary school, I tried reading Dorian Gray and gave up the moment I realized I wasn't actually reading a novel, but rather maintaining a logbook of unfamiliar terms. Try reading Elena Ferrante instead of Petrarch if you have a handle on Italian, and you'll see that looking up a word isn't a fatal offense.

Naturally, it would also help if the average teacher actually understood the science of learning and stayed current with modern pedagogical findings, but simple, continuous personal experience would go a long way too.

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s not like our local classics are garbage either.

But anyone who actually views literature as a fine art of language knows that those old staples aren't worth a single drop of ink when you look at them through a truly artistic lens.
They definitely serve a purpose in the history of American letters, but that role certainly isn't about being the pinnacle of literary greatness.

It's much the same way with Tolkien's standing in British circles.

Good grief, Tolkien. 🙂

I found that concept perfectly clear back in seventh grade, mostly because I had already been introduced to the soap opera genre. 😳

As follows:
Honestly, it’s quite pathetic when you see an educated adult putting pen to paper like that.😢

If someone genuinely fails to grasp that literature serves a purpose far beyond mere entertainment, I find myself at a loss. With all due respect—and please excuse my professional tendency toward an almost pathological level of patience when it comes to explaining things—I simply lack the will to sit here and break it down for them. Sorry.🤷

I am not asking what "literature" is for—an educated adult should already have a grasp on that. My question is specifically about what "required reading" serves in our lives. It is perfectly clear to me that both words start with an L and end with an A, yet they are hardly interchangeable. For instance, lactose also starts with an L and ends with an A, but I don’t see anyone using those terms as synonyms.

Is the fundamental purpose of literature to make us fall in love with language itself? Is it meant to let us inhabit someone else’s heartbreak, joy, or quiet resignations, using their experiences as a lens to better grasp our own and those around us? Perhaps the goal is to provide entire generations with a shared lexicon—a common set of cultural touchstones that acts as a social glue, allowing people to connect through a rhythmic, collective understanding where the prose of a stranger eventually feels intimately like one's own. Or is all of that unnecessary? Is a steady diet of top-40 pop, some classic country ballads, or a bit of Eminem enough to get the job done? If that's the case, why bother equipping ourselves with the intellectual tools required to read with depth and curiosity later in life? Or is the curriculum designed simply to expose us to a literary canon just so we can develop an immunity to it once we grow up?

I was under the impression we were talking about vaccinations, not an education.

If we lacked both the mental bandwidth and the actual desire for this kind of engagement, I assume we wouldn't be cluttering up Facebook and Snapchat with endless posts about Selimović, Kapor, or Andrić. We wouldn't be pairing that with the likes of Gibonni, Jolet, or Beyoncé, nor would we be busy reciting dialogue from Pulp Fiction or obsessing over Jelenak. We certainly wouldn't be rushing to binge-watch entire series the second they drop just so we have something to dissect on social media during our breaks.

Sure, if you believe a woman who spends hours getting dolled up for a guy just to try and take his head off represents a third of the FBI. (The other third falls under the reverse scenario, and the remaining third is just whatever else is out there.)

Anthony Ward6 said:I guess they have the hunter in the wheat, or whatever. 😬
It’s basically the most standard reading assignment anyway, so I suppose there's some justice for Americans. 🧐

You have a point. 😁

urbantinker8, I’m still struggling to grasp the fundamental purpose of assigned reading; at least from my perspective, its utility remains entirely elusive. 😁 If the sole objective is to assassinate the classics, it would be far more cost-effective to simply print posters that read "Dostoevsky being stupid" and plaster them all over the school hallways. There is absolutely no need to bother teaching the literature at all. 😁

The folks over at KGZ claim that this is actually meant to be a reading list for three-year vocational schools.

Back when I was growing up, enrolling in a three-year technical program usually meant you were an American student struggling to scrape by with Ds and Cs.

And then, someone has the audacity to hand a kid like that this:
On this holy Lenten day, respected citizens of Isukarst, my dear godparents and neighbors of the house of Dujam, while revisiting the letters of the ancient Testament, I came upon the history of the honorable and holy widow Judith and the late Olofern, whom she slew, thereby liberating all the land of Israel from their great peril.
While reading this history, it occurred to me to interpret it into our own native tongue, so that those who lack proficiency in Latin or scholarly texts might also understand.

Isukarst, indeed. 😁

Susan James said:Parents are always to blame, 😬 🧐
whether it's because they try to teach kids to read too early, or they don't teach them at all—especially if they aren't reading aloud or offering picture books from day one. And apparently, it's also their fault if they push extra books beyond the school curriculum; if a kid starts reading sci-fi or fiction on their own and then doesn't have the time or interest for the assigned classics, the parent gets the blame again. 🐔

Reading is vital, though. It builds vocabulary, fuels imagination, and helps maintain focus...
It’s great to offer books to kids or read to them, but that definitely doesn't guarantee they'll become lifelong readers (like Summer mentioned, it can actually backfire sometimes).

That said, schools really should require students to read certain works, get to know them, and discuss them. If we leave everything up to the student's choice (or the parents'), what's the point of sending them to school in the first place?

There really needs to be some way to check reading comprehension.
Whether it's through writing or class discussions...

And which ones, specifically, and why? 😁

Why, for instance, are we reading Russians when we aren't reading any Americans?
What does Toni Morrison lack that some local author might have—a Nobel Prize, perhaps? 😳
What are sixteen-year-olds supposed to gain from pretending to read a book written in a dialect that I, someone significantly older and reasonably literate, can barely decipher?
Why pick some old regional classic over Neil Gaiman?
Why shouldn't young children have a picture book that actually won a Caldecott medal on their required reading list?

And honestly, given that the whole point of education seems to be something you just power through because it won't make your career any better—nor will anyone at work care if you feel like writing a tedious report any more than school cares if you feel like doing your reading—I find myself wondering why we bother sending kids to school at all, let alone forcing them through several pages of this. 😁

wanderingbadger44 said:It is actually because it isn't true that "nobody cares" about reading that schools curate such valuable literature in the first place.
That is exactly why you get something like Pinocchio instead of just some random list of famous titles.

Yeah, yeah, I get it—you’ve already decided that Dostoevsky is garbage, and we’ve all heard that song before.
It’s like if your grandmother cooked a terrible meal once and you decided you hated that food forever. You hold onto that grudge so proudly that you refuse to ever try it again, and you act like that decision hasn't cost you anything. But maybe, just maybe, you could have actually enjoyed it if you hadn't let that one bad experience define your entire palate.

You know what? It feels incredibly childish to act like every teacher and Dostoevsky himself should be personally offended just because you branded Dostoevsky's work as trash simply because it was on a required reading list.

And yet, everyone seems to jump to defend literature in a way they would never dream of defending math.
Why deal with those grueling algebra problems, those messy fractions, or complex equations, when there are "easier" tasks that kids actually enjoy and wouldn't mind solving, which might prevent them from hating math altogether?

Instead of reconsidering your stance—that the classics are junk just because an inexperienced kid decided they were—you keep doubling down as if that opinion is some universal truth.

And what about the fact that not every kid can finish Pinocchio? (And I’m not talking to you specifically here. 😁 )
Not every kid can ace every single math problem, not everyone can sing a song perfectly in tune, and not everyone can jump rope without tripping. Does that mean we shouldn't offer those skills to the rest of the children?

Look at this blunt academic truth: not every student is an honors student, regardless of what their grades might suggest.

Look, I am not claiming Dostoevsky is trash. Nor am I suggesting that required literature is any more useless than math class, or that we should swap out algebra for sneaker repair workshops and podcasts.

Good grief, if I tried to read Crime and Punishment with the level of comprehension you're demonstrating here, I'd probably mistake it for a beginner's manual on woodworking.

I honestly find it hilarious how high the bar is set here—as if saying, "you didn't stop reading altogether, you just stopped reading the assigned books," counts as some sort of victory.

It’s like having a plumber show up with all the latest high-tech tools, messing around with pipes that are working perfectly fine, only for someone to turn around and say, "Well, at least the water isn't flooding the entire apartment; it's just leaking in the kitchen," and treating that like a massive success. 🤣

urbantinker8 said:Did I actually say anywhere that parents are to blame for kids finding classics dull?
Honestly, everyone, let's please stop putting words in my mouth.🙄
What I said was that school definitely isn't—and can't be—the sole reason why people "grow to hate" reading.
School can't really ruin a habit that you never even had to begin with. True, it can encourage someone to develop that habit, but it largely comes down to an individual's interest and the specific book itself. Not every book is wonderful or fun, but then again, they aren't all the most horrific things imaginable either.

Peter Doyle2 and Linda Price5, look—school doesn't really care about a kid whose parents never bothered to read to them, but it is significantly harder to introduce literature to someone who lacks any reading habit whatsoever, including that early experience of looking at picture books as a child.
To me, it seems almost unbelievable when parents don't read to toddlers—it feels like it borders on a form of neglect.☕
Obviously, someone who hasn't read anything from *Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark* to *The Very Hungry Caterpillar* before starting school is unlikely to be thrilled by the titles on a required reading list. But the purpose of these assignments is to introduce readers to some of the canonical works of an era, regardless of whether those specific works appeal to them or not. It's not there to cater to the tastes of an audience that has zero reading experience or even a sense of what they might enjoy reading.
Good grief, we've gone from debating fishing rights to reaching the level of a heated Pinocchio argument.🤦
Anyway, why don't you all give me five to ten suggestions for what would be perfect reading material for your kids, from first grade through senior year of high school, and explain why you chose them.
I'm listening.🍿

I was under the impression that before middle school, kids attend elementary school, where they aren't exactly diving into the heavy hitters of various literary eras; they're more likely to be stuck reading Ante Gardaš. 😁

rowdypanther12 said:Well, Linda Price5, I don't think you froze up on reading in general, just on school assignments. 😁I used to skip whatever didn't interest me back in high school, and honestly, I didn't skip much. But for the stuff I did skip? I have absolutely zero desire to pick those up now.
There are other books I regret not picking up when I was a teenager—not because they were required reading, but just because I missed them. I ended up reading them much later, and I kept thinking about how much I wished I’d discovered them when I was 16 or 17.
Plus, my list of "greatest classics" left to read is still incredibly long. So many books, so little time. 😁

Exactly. As someone who has practically lived with a book in hand—eating with one, walking with one—I can tell you I never actually read the Mark Twain novel that sat staring at me from my shelf. By the time I reached the age where I might have picked up Mark Twain, I had already decided it was garbage simply because it was part of the mandatory curriculum.

Aren't those required school readings actually quite useful? They're especially vital for people who aren't total bookworms by nature. 😬

Someone once asked me how I find the time to read for pleasure when they claim, "Required reading is awful." It's as if kids develop this mindset that the assigned school books are the absolute peak of what a library has to offer; they can't even fathom that there might be something better waiting for them beyond those tedious assignments.

I remember a girl being genuinely shocked when I explained that I don't enjoy school reading either, but that other books are actually superior. By the end of our conversation, she decided to head to the library to check out what I was reading, and she ended up reading for fun in her spare time. 😁

Susan James said:And what exactly would audiobooks make easier? If the content itself is boring, it's going to be boring whether you're reading it or listening to it.😕

If the content itself isn't a total snooze fest, audiobooks can be a genuine game-changer. They open up literature to anyone who struggles with traditional reading—whether that’s someone dealing with dyslexia, someone who never quite mastered the art of focus, or even just a slow reader who loses the thread of a sentence before they even reach the period. For those folks, listening makes great writing accessible instead of a chore.

It functions much like parental reading does for a child—providing access to books they aren't yet capable of navigating on their own. 😁

I was just hunting down this specific thread for Stipa when I stumbled upon my own old posts from 2012.

Linda Price5 said:I don't know. There were plenty of times I almost threw in the towel. 😁 I eventually decided to save myself the headache by just refusing to read the required school books—because let's face it, if it's mandatory reading, it's usually garbage.

And I suspect I missed out on quite a few great stories that I would have loved if they hadn't been forced upon me by some school district curriculum. Especially back in fourth grade.

I honestly can't say. There have been plenty of times when I came just a hair too short. 😁 I’ve decided to save myself the headache and just stop reading the assigned book. If it’s been labeled "required reading," it’s bound to be absolute garbage.

I can’t help but feel I missed out on a significant number of books that I would have actually enjoyed, simply because they were assigned as mandatory school reading. It was especially true back in fourth grade.

Linda Price5 said:But the purpose of the school system should be to ensure that even a kid like little Matthew—whose uncle works as a floor installer and whose mother only finished eighth grade—actually stands a chance.

A truly functional educational system is one that levels the playing field, regardless of whether your parents are intellectuals hosting salons for the literary elite or working-class folks just trying to scrape by through a grueling twenty-four-hour grind.

Linda Price5 said:To become literate.

Anyone can read, and books are readily available to kids—the issue lies primarily within the family dynamic, doesn't it?

If we assume the issue is strictly rooted in the home environment, then we might as well scrap the entire public school system. After all, they’d be largely redundant if intellectuals simply educate their own children, while carpenters do the same—just in a different direction—and call it a day. 😁

I maintain that a robust educational system should account for a student's social habitus and provide a genuine opportunity for high-quality learning. For instance, in Finland, the correlation between parental reading habits and a fifteen-year-old's literacy levels is remarkably slim; in other places, it is overwhelmingly significant. A teenager who lacks the capacity to grasp even a relatively straightforward piece of prose—a situation affecting roughly one-fifth of American fifteen-year-olds—will find virtually no value in any assigned reading material.

Our classrooms are filled with students who simply cannot read. Someone struggling through the works of družba prati kvržica at a pace of barely a hundred words per minute isn't suffering from a lack of access to books; they're suffering from a lack of fundamental skill.

urbantinker8 said:So, fine—for those who grew up loving books, or kids who started reading way before they ever touched a required school assignment, everyone's going to have different takes on specific titles. Some books might seem brilliant to them, while others might be absolute trash, but collectively, none of it should "kill" their general desire to read.
Besides, nobody is stopping anyone from reading whatever else they want alongside the assigned stuff.
But no, it's much easier to just say, "Because of one bad experience in school, I'm never stepping foot in a public library again." It's a bit dramatic, isn't it?🙄

And if you haven't felt like reading since you were a kid, then frankly, nobody gives a damn about your opinion.

Look, urbantinker8, someone who has been a reader since childhood will likely end up well-educated regardless of whether they ever step foot in a classroom. In my view, the true purpose of school should be to serve those who didn't grow up with a book in their hands—to act as a bridge that introduces them to literature and helps them develop a genuine love for reading.

A parent simply cannot be held entirely responsible for everything that goes wrong. It’s an impossible standard to meet, and frankly, it's an unfair one. To suggest that a child's every failure or stumble is a direct reflection of parental inadequacy is to ignore the sheer complexity of human development. Think of it like trying to steer a ship through a massive storm in the middle of the Atlantic. A captain can have the best training, the most reliable vessel, and the clearest charts from the Coast Guard, but they still can't control the gale winds or the rogue waves. They can manage the rudder, sure, but once those elements hit, the outcome is no longer solely in their hands. Children are individuals with their own temperaments, peer influences, and increasingly, their own agency. You can provide the best foundation possible—steady guidance, a stable home, and solid values—but you aren't building a robot programmed to follow instructions. You are raising a person. Once they step out into the world, there are a thousand variables at play that no amount of parenting can account for. Blaming a parent for every deviation from the expected path isn't just reductive; it's logically flawed.

If that's the case, what is even the point of sending kids to school? What purpose does it actually serve if there's absolutely no support or recourse once a parent has either failed them or done their job poorly in the first place?

urbantinker8 said:And honestly, this one massive "truth" that everyone seems to swallow whole? It’s just completely and utterly nonsensical.☕
I sometimes find myself wondering how on earth a required reading list can actually make someone hate books altogether. It seems almost counterintuitive, doesn't it? You’d think giving people more stories would foster a love for reading, but I guess when you force a student to grind through some dense, outdated classic just to pass a test, it can really sour the whole experience. Maybe it's that feeling of being trapped by a syllabus, or perhaps it's just the sheer exhaustion of analyzing every single metaphor instead of just letting the story breathe. It's like being forced to eat a gourmet meal while someone stands over your shoulder with a stopwatch and a grading rubric; eventually, you just stop tasting the food and start dreading the next sitting.🤔
If we're assuming that Zornik's mountains are somehow some kind of boring masterpiece—which, I mean, that's a pretty heavy claim to make—then I suppose you’d have to conclude that everything else ever written or painted is just equally tedious. It’s a bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? If one specific work hits that level of monotony, then maybe our entire standard for art is just fundamentally broken, or perhaps we're all just collectively lacking a sense of wonder. I guess if that's the case, then yeah, everything else might just be more of the same.
If we’re looking at the American Renaissance as this grand period meant for soul-searching and confession, I guess you have to wonder if every single era in world literature serves that same purpose. It feels like maybe all of them do, in their own way, though I suppose some are more obvious about it than others.
I suppose if someone actually sits down and makes it through all three books of Dante’s Inferno, they might just be the type of person who leaves all hope behind right there on the sidewalk in front of the New York Public Library.

I mean, there’s really no point in lying to yourselves or anyone else, I guess. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary effort.
The kind of person who lives for those deep, meaningful quotes... well, I guess they’re just going to keep quoting things, no matter what happens.
I guess you’ll eventually run into that one person who complains about a required school reading, and they’ll probably claim that some single bad assignment just totally soured them on books for the rest of their lives.😉

I’m still reading today, too. My Kindle has become such an indispensable companion that I honestly feel naked without it—it’s practically a daily essential, right up there with my wallet.

I’ll admit it: there were times when required reading actually managed to sour my entire relationship with books.

There’s a mountain of classics sitting on my shelf that I probably would have actually enjoyed, but I haven't touched a single one. If a book makes the mandatory reading list for high school, it’s clearly garbage.

Stipe23 said:I fail to see what this is even referring to.

I am referring back to my own previous post from a little while ago.

Linda Price5 As specified by:
If the entire point of education is to drill children into becoming compliant adults—people who will clock in and perform mindless, tedious tasks they find utterly pointless just so they can scrape together enough to pay their electric bills—then I fail to see why we bother them with mandatory literature and a bloated curriculum. Instead, we should just have them sewing garments or sanding down table legs for seven or ten bucks an hour. That would teach them the exact same lesson: how to sit still and mind their own business. At least then, there would be a controlled environment where they’re kept under lock and key while their parents are at work, preventing them from forming street gangs and terrorizing neighborhoods. At any rate, it would actually be productive.

Seven bucks times five hours times one hundred seventy-five school days a year adds up to $2042, and over eight years, we're looking at $49,000.

If we let them listen to audiobooks or podcasts while they're sanding or sewing, they might actually finish those eight years without being completely brainless and uneducated.

The only real headache is figuring out where to lock the teachers up during work hours so they don't start forming gangs and terrorizing local neighborhoods, though I suppose even that could probably be solved.

Do you actually find audiobooks worth the effort?

In English, there is a massive gulf between an Audible production featuring world-class narrators and something from LibriVox. The latter sounds less like professional storytelling and more like a middle schooler stumbling through a reading assignment in class. I just can't get into it. 😁

briskjackal5 said:Seriously? So everyone you hang out with also "grew up" in the library, and now that feels like some kind of universal rule to you? 😁

okay, fine, maybe I read a little more than the average student, but honestly, everyone in my group absolutely hated required reading. whether people were reading or not wasn't the issue in my circle—it was just the specific books they picked for us.

So, is the "problem" just because students don't find one specific title to be the most exciting thing in the world out of every possible book they could ever pick?

Because, I mean, that's probably not enough reason to claim there's an actual "problem."
And I guess that shouldn't even be our main criteria when we're deciding which books to choose, right?

and they're totally not age-appropriate, which is something you might only realize once you've aged a bit.

If you grasp 50%, that's still pretty good!

-Stipe

The real issue arises when you consider that we wouldn't have lost a single second if we had spent that time instead doing something actually productive—like working some mindless side gig for seven bucks an hour while listening to podcasts or hearing Stephen Fry read Harry Potter.

If our guiding principle isn't essentially, "Are the students actually gaining more from this than they would by mindlessly churning out cheap busywork for pennies an hour while listening to a podcast," then we clearly aren't using that as our metric. And we all know, deep down, that it isn't. 😁And just like that, we’re staring down a massive problem. A truly significant one.

We're going to keep having it. 😁 A fish remains entirely unaware of the water surrounding it. It simply exists within that medium, oblivious to the very element that defines its entire reality.

Quentin Tarantino:

Stipe23 As specified by: You fall into that category of being an "exception to the rule," which makes it rather difficult to apply any kind of broad generalization to you. 😁 Stipe23

No, we really ought to cater to the demographic that only bothers reading the fine print on a bottle of shampoo while sitting on the toilet. It’s because of people like them that a soap opera ended up on the required reading list; honestly, I can't even get through it today without a mountain of footnotes providing translations. At this rate, I might as well just try reading French drama instead. 😁

What were the most unsettling parts of Pinocchio? I used to find them absolutely fascinating when I was a kid. 😁