Jane Austen “too hard” for middle-schoolers?
Alert Janeites Lisa and Kristen sent us a link from The Daily Mail in which educators are protesting the UK’s Education Secretary’s decree that middle-school-age children should be forced to study classic literature such as that written by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.
Mr Johnson announced 10 days ago that 11-14-year-olds must study the classic writers of English literature as part of a reformed school curriculum.
But teachers’ associations said authors like Dickens and George Eliot were too difficult for the age group and accused Mr Johnson of using the issue to win popularity in Middle England.
We’re in a little over our head here, but we are sure that there are some middle-school teachers amongst the readers of AustenBlog. What do you think? We read The Lord of the Rings at 11 and Crime and Punishment at 14, and are deeply resentful at not being introduced to Jane Austen until we found her ourself in our late 20s, so perhaps are not the best judge.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
As I commented in the article, from the quotes given it appears the teachers are not against *all* classic authors being taught to that age group, merely a certain selection at a certain grade level. There seems to be more concern about Dickens and Austen being read by the 11 year olds than those at 14. I myself was a precocious reader but I am quite aware that I didn’t pick up three quarters of the insights about Shakespeare, for instance, when I read Romeo & Juliet at 10/11 than when I read Richard III and Hamlet in high school at 14-15. The issues of textual study, the influence of Greek tragedy, the thematic development etc.?
I agree with the teachers in showing care in the selection. No doubt it would be helpful for the youngest in that specific age group to be given the Shakespeare sonnets, if only in an effort to get them familiar with the language, and the smaller classic works. But quite frankly I’m sure it was much better for me to meet LOTR on my own at 12 so that I could get through it on my own than slogging through such a massive text in class on a deadline. Unless the graduating age in British high schools has drastically lowered there is still time enough for them to enjoy Hardy, Austen and Dickens.
I’m not a teacher though just an opinionated gal.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’m not a teacher either but I agree that it’s better for some books not to be forced upon kids. That’s how we end up with a generation of Austen-haters who see no correlation between her books and modern life.
I too was a “precocious reader” Imani, and I suspect our beloved Editrix was as well.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:40 am
That’s fiddlesticks. My mum read me P&P when I was 7 and it was my favourite book by the time I was 10. I certainly didn’t pick up on all the nuances (I was very surprised indeed when Mr. Darcy proposed to Elizabeth) but I had no problem understanding the language and I suppose my mum helped me if I had- though obviously I can’t remember that- and I loved the humour.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I read P&P on my own at 10, and had read Jane Eyre and Emma on my own by the time I was 12. Those were vastly better than the “Siddartha,” “Lord Jim” and “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” that I was assigned in high school. Those were, IMNSHO, unreadable. We got P&P in 10th grade, and the requisite 1 Shakespeare play every year, but my high school curricula rarely included books that I continue to read and love all these years later.
One book we were assigned that I adored was “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.” But most of the assigned books were horrible. Most of the classics I’ve read have been on my own.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It depends on how the material is presented. When I was 13, my English teacher was a big Shakespeare fan. She presented us with Folger’s paperbacks (the ones with vocabulary, culture notes and pictures on one side, the play on the other), an adaptation/modernization-heavy curriculum (Leonardo DiCaprio had not been invented yet, but we watched the Zeffirelli films and West Side Story), and best of all, she brought in a video camera and we got to act out key scenes from the plays, then watch our own performances. I think we may have even been assigned some Shakespeare-style creative writing projects, though I don’t remember particulars.
I would call this an age-appropriate and simplified (as opposed to sugar-coated and dumbed-down) introduction to Shakespeare. This approach (to quote the article) instilled a love of Shakespeare and engaged us with his work. We looked forward to class each day. Looking back, I understand now this curriculum must have taken a lot of extra, personal effort and been a labor of love for this English teacher.
I’d idealistically suggest that other classic authors could be introduced to middle-schoolers by similar methods. Jane Austen’s juvenilia would especially be of interest to young teenage aspiring writers, and obviously there are countless films and plays from which to choose to bring the text to life. They could even learn a country dance or two. Make it fun – get the class involved in “becoming Jane” or “becoming Dickens” and leave them wanting more, so they’ll want to discover the nuances and develop a more mature understanding of the novels later in life. But such a curriculum would take a lot of individual work on the educator’s part; definitely not an approach that could be standardized, shipped around, and results easily reproduced like an IKEA kit.
Not an educator either, but I was 13 once, and Miss Willis’ English class was pretty much the only bright spot in my middle school years.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:27 am
They ought to be introduced to classic literature- I wish I’d known about it earlier- but most middle schoolers aren’t ready for Jane Austen. I was the only one in my freshman year of high school who enjoyed Emma- most of the rest of the class absolutely LOATHED it (and I do go to an all-girls school). They warmed up to Austen ever so slightly when we read Pride and Prejudice junior year, though.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
My husband was a middle school teacher up until last year (he’s working on his PhD now), and I must say that his students never read anything so advanced as Austen or Dickens. He taught at good school with good kids, though. They read things like (an abridged) Illiad and Odyssey, Bridge to Terabithia, The Diary of Anne Frank, etc. I have no idea if they could have handled/enjoyed Austen, Dickens, or Bronte, but they never attempted it.
At my high school, which was a good one with lots of AP classes and students who went on to prestigious universities, we didn’t read P&P until my junior year honors English class. We read Wuthering Heights that same year (I hated it, and haven’t attempted to read it again since). We read A Tale of Two Cities in my sophomore year honors English class.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I had read all of Jane Austens novels by the time I was 12..If I didn’t understand something I would read the book again or I would or watch the movies version. There wasn’t much I didn’t understand however.