The Vancouver Sun reports on a huge good-news story (covered in Q&Q Omni last month): the B.C. provincial government’s new CanLit curriculum requirements for high school courses. About Jean Baird, who ran the lobbying effort, the Sun writes:
Baird is married to George Bowering, who was Canada’s first poet laureate, and she may well have wondered why teens aren’t given his books to read or those of their talented writer friends.
In work she did for the Writers’ Trust of Canada, she has been championing this cause — or, as she puts it, “pushing this boulder” — for years.
Recently, she refined the idea, deciding to focus on B.C. schools, rather than the whole country’s, and to push for a little CanLit in each grade, rather than a stand-alone course that would end up being an elective.
The literary establishment lined up behind her — her list of signatories “ran to over 50 pages” — and, with B.C.’s English language arts curriculum undergoing a review, the education ministry went for it.
This is a brutal, dishonest article. What it doesn’t mention is that Terry Taylor was squarely opposed to Baird’s initiative because it is in conflict with a teacher’s enshrined right to set her own curriculum. I.e. Taylor was pro-teaching-canlit but anti-legislation-requiring-it.
I think the paragraph quoted above, about Bowering and his friends, is very much to the point, as are Grady’s comments about spinoff benefits. Our public schools are not markets for literature; the passing of this legislation is good news, no doubt, for Canadian publishers, but a bad thing for education and the teachers who provide it. Presumably, now, a good teacher can be punished for failing to provide the requisite Cancon in her course, whereas a dull one who follows the guidelines won’t be.
If anything, we should be fighting impartial campaigns for the teaching of more books, regardless of origin, because books are increasingly being squeezed out of courses by other media. If more books are taught, and teachers are made more aware of what good Canadian books there are, then more Canadian books will be taught. Making it mandatory, without actually educating the educators, will only lead to a lot of lacklustre teaching of subpar literature.
Beware the “talented writer friends.”
That was a brutal, dishonest response, Mr. Wells.
Having put two kids through the Canadian public education system, I can now say I don’t give a damn about a teacher’s “enshrined right” to set his or her own curriculum. My kids were exposed to “The Crucible” and “Of Mice and Men” by terribly exciting teachers who were working their enshined rights for all they were worth, as opposed to the old dull crank I had who led us all through “Two Solitudes” when I was a teen in the ’70’s.
Don’t get me wrong–I love good American writing as much as the next Canadian–but where the hell are Canadian writers supposed to come from if Canadian writing isn’t explored in the classroom? If teachers are too lazy or too unimaginative to find good Canadian writing to teach, then yes, legislation is necessary. Our public schools are not markets for literature? Gee, I think numerous British and American publishers would disagree–our schools have been a terrific cash cow for them.
Get a grip. Our schools are not markets for OUR literature. Such legislation would be good for Canadian publishers? Hell yes—is that supposed to be a bad thing? But you think the answer to book apathy is to, ah heck, fight for the teaching of more books! There’s all that “other media” out there! Okay, so here’s the deal: If there’s such a wretched horrible squeeze on to get a bloody book taught in a classroom–make mine a Canadian one, thanks. And if it takes legislation to make that happen–go for it.
Ms. Lloyd, you are to be commended for the translucency of your defeatist cynicism. Bra-vo. At least, unlike Jean Baird et al, you’re not trying to cloak it with idealistic rhetoric.
Dull teachers are legion, yes. A major problem with legislating curriculum content, however, is that it doesn’t affect only dull teachers. Teaching is, fundamentally, a creative occupation and it is an interactive one. As Terry Taylor–whose advocacy of Canadian literature is far more healthy than Jean Baird’s–argued eloquently on the discussion boards of the Legislate Canlit facebook group, she needs to be able to respond to the particular makeup of her class, to have the flexibility to tailor a curriculum to their interests and requirements. Curriculum legislation is a significant hindrance to that vocational freedom. It’s lovely that you “don’t give a damn” about this, but as someone who is married to a teacher who is the daughter of a retired BC Teacher’s Federation negotiator, I think it’s extremely important–which is why teachers fought to have that right enshrined in the first place. At least, it matters if we don’t want to discourage creative thinkers from getting into the profession.
Another significant problem at play is economics. The books that get taught year after year are books available in mass-market paperback format. They’re cheap in the first place and they get re-used because there’s no money in the budget to get new ones every year. Not very many Canadian books are printed in this format and the ones that are tend to be published by foreign houses with Canadian branch plants. (And yes, this includes McClelland & Stewart, “The Canadian Publisher.”) This sort of legislation therefore stands to benefit those publishers and authors who are already doing quite well, thank you very much. It is by no means good for Canadian literature, or publishing, broadly speaking.
In the “get a grip” department: “where the hell are Canadian writers supposed to come from if Canadian writing isnt explored in the classroom?” I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but it actually needs to be answered. Let’s consider a few Canadian writers. I wonder how much Canlit Michael Ondaatje read in school? MG Vassanji? Leon Rooke? Goran Simic? Carol Shields? Elizabeth Bishop? Irving Layton? Christ, they must have formed themselves ex nihilo, like onanistic Egyptian deities!
Ms. Lloyd, I’m a Canadian Writer; hell, I’m even a Canadian Anthologist. Here’s a sample of my high-school reading:
Aeschylus
Aristophanes
Marie-Claire Blais
ST Coleridge
Joseph Conrad
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Homer
Henrik Ibsen
Margaret Laurence
DH Lawrence
William Shakespeare
Sophocles
Yukio Mishima
If this reading list is remarkable for its length, breadth and depth, it’s because I didn’t attend a public high school. _This_ is the problem that needs to be addressed: the huge gap between where our schools are and where they should be.
Coleridge, Conrad, Dostoevsky, Lawrence, Shakespeare and Mishima have been far more important for my development as a Canadian Writer than were Laurence and Blais (tho I did enjoy and profit from reading their books, especially _Mad Shadows_). A writer’s province and nation is literature–good literature–regardless of where it comes from; and if she’s going to be inspired in school, it will be by good teaching of good writing–and lots of it–not by books with nation-specific content.
We are not talking about students in a creative writing class, we are talking about high-school students-
students required to take English to graduate. It only makes sense that they be taught
literature that will resonate with them, and if it takes, they can move on to classes
with content consisting of the impressive list Mr. Wells has assembled. Shakespeare will always
be taught in high-school.
An additional advantage to having Canadian Literature taught in high-schools
is the historical context it will provide. Instead of having all the kids fired up on hormones and
reading Catcher in the Rye, why not offer some more relevant angry young person material like MacLennan’s
‘Return of the Sphinx’ or Van Camp’s ‘The Lesser Blessed’? Not only will the students
feel less isolated, they learn more of their history as well.
Bravo B.C.!
Mr. Culhane,
Neither Terry Taylor nor I is arguing against teaching Canadian books. Please pay attention. And my point was that, in high school, Conrad’s _Heart of Darkness_ resonated far more with me than did Laurence’s _A Bird in the House_. The fact is, you can never tell what will resonate with students. But I’m betting on books that are well-written and well-taught.
Mr. Wells,
I never suggested you did argue against teaching Can-Lit in high-schools. That would be ridiculous. Do not patronize me.
In that case, sir, your call for Van Camp over Salinger was beside the point, wasn’t it? If it wasn’t, then what precisely was your point (other than avoiding getting teens “fired up on hormones,” which, to the best of my knowledge are naturally occurring substances and not ingredients in American books)? The issue is whether curriculum content should be mandated, or whether it should be left in the hands of the trained professionals who actually teach the courses.
This matter of “learning more of their history” is bogus. Who is “they”? Van Camp’s novel, e.g., is about a Dogrib kid in the Northwest. What does this have to do with the the specific experience of a child of Bangladeshi immigrants in Rimouski? Literature is not necessarily a good way to instruct history; many Canadian books, e.g., have no identifiable “Canadian content” per se. (Some works of fiction, drama and poetry can be used constructively in history classes, and I’m all for integrating them in a multi-disciplinary way–if the teacher feels comfortable doing so; and teachers should be encouraged to become comfortable with such approaches, since the instruction of history is often dry-as-dust.) I’m not saying that the Bengal-Quebecois kid wouldn’t dig _Island of the Lesser Blessed_–personally, I think it’s a terrific book and wouldn’t argue with any teacher who put it on her curriculum–I’m saying that if he does, it has nothing to do with it teaching him about his own history, but because it’s a compelling story with credible characters and very sharp writing, taut with dramatic tension. These things are far more important in literature classes (or English Language Arts as they’re now called) than thematic content.
Again, a misunderstaning. Don’t be so sensitive. I do realize, Mr. Wells, that getting fired up on hormones is a naturally occuring process. I was in no way suggesting it is a result of American books being read by teenagers. That would be bogus. Van Camp’s novel is far superior to Salinger’s for all the assets you list toward at the end of your post. But like it or not, it also teaches a great deal about the condtions in the Northwest through its uncompromising illustration of the town’s poverty and alcoholism. I call for Van Camp over Salinger because The Lesser Blessed simply offers more to an English Language Arts student, I am one.
The teacher should control the classroom–no argument there. But the union strongly supported the legislation, probably because they are having a difficult time getting students excited about the older material.
If you’re right about the BCTF supporting legislation that compromises rights earlier won by the teachers–in order to get some new books purchased!–it’s a very sad statement about the state of the education system. This is a strangely oblique way to address a problem that is, at root, bureaucratic (i.e. the resources available to a teacher) and not pedagogical.
Do you have a source confirming that the BCTF is behind the legislation?
I would direct you here: http://www.artstarts.com/programs/writers.html
A survey was done with members of the BC teachers of English Language Arts (a branch of BCTF, no?) —97.8% of teachers believe it is important to teach Canadian Literature in schools and 88.9% think a greater variety and volume of Canadian literary titles should be used–maybe less Margaret Laurence and more Hugh Hood.
I agree the problem is with the resources. It is in the publishing houses best interest to lower their costs to the school-boards. A comprehensive web-site should be set up for teachersand students, similar to the Canadian Encyclopedia.
I was already aware of those numbers, as I quoted the same report on my blog last December:
http://zachariahwells.blogspot.com/2007/12/hey-writers-leave-those-teachers-alone.html
This isn’t the same as the teachers being in support of a mandated percentage of content; a survey is not a formal vote, nor are these “members” of an association (phrased otherwise, they’re simply English teachers and the BCTF is their union). There was a question on Baird’s survey specifically addressing the question of a set percentage of Cancon in the curriculum and for some reason Baird didn’t include stats on that one in her response. Probably because teachers in general are leery of gov’t interventions in the classroom, so the answers didn’t do much to support her cause. A rather noteworthy omission, at any rate. I’d be very curious to find out how that question was answered.
As an English teacher (or member of the BC Teachers of English Language Arts, if you will) friend of mine just pointed out on my latest blog post about this, the whole matter’s probably irrelevant since there’s not likely to be new funds forthcoming to acquire new books. Kill the pig!
I’d also like to point out that BC’s largest organization for children’s writers and illustrators (www.cwill.bc.ca) was dead set against this. Now, perhaps someone at Quill and Quire should ask – why would CWILL BC oppose something that should get their books into high schools?
On two points:
The mandate is for “significant” literature. This is a term that no one wants to define, and it will probably mean that Van Camp’s books will be kept out of the curriculum because of it. Is his work “significant”? By a Canadian, historical perspective? Chances are students will not be reading Van Camp, but instead they’ll be reading literature such as Margaret Lawrence, Margaret Atwood and others who are clearly not writing to the teen crowd. Teachers who may have wanted to use current Canadian literature that speaks with the voices of teenagers will have their hands tied.
The second reason for opposing this initiative was the alliance with Artstarts. CWILL BC has been in discussions with Artstarts to get that organization to advertise that teachers who book using Artstarts’ grants can go outside the booking service, owned and run by Artstarts, and invite any professional author from CWILL. Baird’s research that she relied heavily upon even stated that the best way to encourage the reading of Can Lit was to have author visits.
Artstarts currently enjoys a mammoth amount of funding from the BC Government, and it is up to Artstarts to decide how this money is spent. Judging by the Artstarts website, it would appear that schools must spend their Artstarts grants using the Artstarts booking service. A simple addition of weblinks to other qualifying organizations would solve this – and this is something that Artstarts refuses to do.
CWILL offered to come on board with this initiative on two conditions:
1) Artstarts pledge in writing that they will not use this initiative to create a special “author” booking service of their own. (Authors have minimum fees based on the Writer’s Union, CANSCAIP and CWILL rates. Artstarts fees are significantly less.)
2) Artstarts add CWILL BC to their website so that schools would know they can use Artstarts grants to book CWILL authors.
CWILL BC receieved neither of these consessions, and so we opted not to be a part of it.
Are teachers really permitted to set their own curricula at the high school level? I recall my teachers (English teachers in particular) in Ontario in the mid-’90s being pretty clear about having almost no control over what books they taught.
Yes, in BC they are. The main restriction is availability of books and/or money to buy them. The same books tend to get taught over and over again because the school has them in stock already.
And my Ontario high school teachers in the early-to-mid nineties had similar freedom. Granted, this was a private school, but I still graduated with an Ontario Secondary School Diploma, so presumably public school teachers could have taught the same books. Your teachers were probably not giving you the full story–if you can believe it.
The way I was given to understand it was that the curriculum was set by each department, but how the material was to be taught . However that may not the be case. The following is from the Ontario Ministry of Education’s site:
“What is the role of the Ministry of Education in curriculum development?
The Ministry of Education administers the system of publicly funded elementary and secondary school education in Ontario, in accordance with and under the authority of the Education Act.
The Minister of Education, through the ministry, issues curricula, sets diploma requirements and sets policy for student assessment.
What are curriculum documents?
Curriculum documents define what students are taught in Ontario public schools. They detail the knowledge and skills that students are expected to develop in each subject at each grade level. By developing and publishing curriculum documents for use by all Ontario teachers, the Ministry of Education sets standards for the entire province.”
It seems that private schools may have a little more leeway, which would not surprise me very much, otherwise what would be the point of spending all that money?
“but how the material was to be taught was up to the individual teacher” was how that first sentence was supposed to end.
I doubt that Zachary’s overheated comments reflect the opinion of many mature individuals. For a country as deep in excellent writers as Canada is, it is indefensible that hardly any are taught in schools. The public shool system is clearly malfunctioning in giving students the impression their country has no writers worth reading and requiring calsses to read one Canadian book per year in high school language arts is
a mild response to a scandalously imbalanced situation.
Parent of Two: Like everyone else bemoaning the decline/demise/dearth of Canadian Literature in the classroom, you have no data and no proof. If my comment was “overheated,” yours is incredible hyperbole. “Hardly any?” Christ, even my poems have been taught in classrooms in several provinces. Including BC.
As a BC English teacher, I am directly impacted by the new BC English Language Arts curriculum. I am pleased to observe that the curriculum document as a whole is well researched, embeds best current pedagogical practice, and reflects the positive trends in many BC classrooms of 2008 designed to meet the needs of all learners in our public school system.
The new curriculum document mandates that English teachers use text in all forms including oral language and visual and informational text, as well as literary text, and that we ensure that both aboriginal voice and Canadian literature are a part of every BC high school students studies. Teachers and school boards in BC play a key role in choosing literature, and in using both print and non-print text resources which reflect student and community interests and needs, and which engage the diverse range of students in our classrooms.
I am keenly interested in these progressive changes to the English Language Arts curriculum, and believe that the new English 8-12 IRP document provides a timely and visionary direction for education in the province, as well as reinforces good practice already evident in many BC classrooms. Core educational practices in the document such as assessment for learning exist in many schools across BC, but, as this is the one professional practice, that more than any other helps improve student learning, it is important that we all embrace the strategies that help our students learn. Likewise, though Canadian literature is commonly studied in many schools and classrooms in BC, by including the study of at least one work of Canadian Lit per year in the new IRP document, the new BC English 8-12 curriculum visions an educational system where all students will have access to Can Lit.
In his blog post on this site, Zach Wells alludes to correspondence on the Can Lit in BC Schools Facebook site from last fall. I was very surprised to find my name and my purported perspective mentioned in the blogs on the Quill and Quire site, as my thoughts have evolved since last fall when I first participated in the dialogue about including Can Lit in the new English curriculum. Last fall I argued that there existed many classrooms across the province where CanLit was already the norm, and wondered why mandating CanLit was necessary. Since then though, my views have altered. Although in the Quill and Quire blog posts there is a sense that I was consulted about the issue, this is not the case.
Let me clarify here then, and present a more accurate representation of my ideas at present. I have not written publicly since the initial Facebook group on the issue, but was interviewed by both the Vancouver Sun and CBC Radios Almanac in July 2008 on the new curriculum changes. My perspective presented in these media, and also on the Facebook site, identify my view that the inclusion of Canadian literature in all BC classrooms is congruent with current educational practices as practiced in many classrooms in the province. I also expanded on some of the innovative ways that teachers in our school and district, as well as in others in the province, are using to further embed Canadian voice in their classrooms: Lit Circles, online Lit Circles, Writers Festivals and residencies, You Tube, and so on.
Heres why my position has altered since last fall in regards to mandating the inclusion of Can Lit in BC classrooms
I have spent these past seven months looking deeper at the issue both through the lens of my own professional practices and those of my close professional colleagues. As part of my professional life, I attend and present at a variety of conferences which brings me into contact with a wide range of teachers from across the province. In my experience then, many BC teachers already include engaging Canadian content in their classrooms. The Canadian literature offerings may range from CBC Radios This I Believe website a great source of podcasts and short narrative essays by both amateur and professional Canadian writers – to teachers using YouTube to showcase Canadian poets such as Al Purdy, Shane Koyzan, Stuart Ross. BC teachers use a lengthy list of contemporary Canadian short fiction, poetry and novels from local, regional and national writers.
In our school district, Arrow Lakes (SD 10), we hold an annual Writers Festival for all our students K-12, and invite writers living in our community and region as well from across Canada to work with our students in writing residencies and workshops. Likewise, many BC teachers engage in the practice of literature circles, an innovative literature study strategy pioneered by BC literacy expert, Faye Brownlie, where students choose from a range of six to eight novels that match their interests and reading levels. Gone are the days when it is adequate to teach a single novel to a whole class, as English teachers today strive to reflect local student needs and cultural diversity.
My original stance therefore, was that there was not a need to mandate Canadian content as this was common practice amongst BC English teachers already. Indeed, of the hundreds of teachers with whom I have spoken at conferences and at provincial exam marking sessions, most are innovative and excited about their use of good Canadian literature in their classrooms. Some use poetry anthologies with strong Canadian content, some teach Canadian novels to a whole class while others use Lit Circles to allow students to choose Canadian books. Some schools and districts share books to allow a wider range of literature than is possible with limited resource budgets.
However, some teachers also admit that there are bookrooms in their schools full of the old nuggets that we, as students, were schooled in decades ago there is not much Can Lit amongst the dusty shelves of some schools in BC. Some of these novels are wonderful and still relevant and important for students to study. And they are a great basis from which to grow a wider collection of more contemporary literature too..
In the Kootenays, where we often have had to be creative and innovative as a result of our rural isolation, the practice of using high quality Can Lit appears to be pretty widespread. Amongst my urban colleagues, there are patches of brilliance in the use of wonderful Canadian literature, and there is high interest in figuring out how to further increase Canadian content.
My perspective has therefore changed for three main reasons:
1) The practice of using Canadian literature is embedded in many teachers’ practice already – it is not an add-on, but a validation of already good practice for many teachers
2) Most teachers are keen to expand their use of at-level, Canadian and aboriginal text to meet the needs of their students. First Nations resources are being shared amongst school districts, as are multicultural Canadian voices.
Therefore, this change in the curriculum gives teachers the green light to continue and extend this wise practice. Choosing differentiated text through the lens of selecting books that include Canadian, aboriginal, multicultural and gender voice, is crucial to meet the needs of all our students in the diverse classrooms of today. Ensuring that students have books in their hands that they can read and understand, is essential for improving their reading skills and success in becoming lifelong readers. At-level text then, that reflects the composition, diversity, and interests of the learners in our classrooms our responsibility in the much more complex landscape of the classroom in 2008.
Teachers are eager to use text that works for kids and to expand the collections of good, engaging, interesting books for the learners in their schools. Indeed, one of the most significant professional aspects of connecting with other teachers at conferences and at provincial exam marking sessions, is the sharing of new literature that we have tried in our classrooms. The new BC ELA curriculum supports this practice.
3) One novel or one play or one collection of poetry is not an onerous amount of Canadian lit to include in every classroom in the province.
The conversation about how to support one another in identifying pieces of literature that resonate for students and how to better network to share best practices does need to happen though.. And – there are creative low or no-cost strategies such as Lit Circles or sharing resources within or across school districts that make the implementation of this aspect of the new curriculum feasible for all schools.
Truly this is where we ought to put our efforts to make good things happen to meet the needs of students using the synergy, talents and positive CanLit experiences of our BC English teachers while pushing the envelope to extend our practice.
Its almost September an exciting beginning to another new school year. And BC has some great teachers who will make good things Can lit and otherwise – happen for their students.
Thank you, Terry Taylor. Your post does more than settle my mind on this initiative–it makes me feel ever so much better about today’s educators in general. It also had the very beneficial effect of shutting up the mininformed Mr. Wells.
Thank you, Terry Taylor. Your post does more than settle my mind on this initiative–it makes me feel ever so much better about today’s educators in general. It also had the very beneficial effect of shutting up the misinformed Mr. Wells.
I am glad parentoftwo feels good about education. That’s what she should think because it’s all about having a good time, learning with no effort, listening to your iPods during class, and thinking you’re learning about good literature because it’s CANLIT. If people can be bamboozled into accepting all this, then everyone can pat themselves on their collective backs and feel good. The trouble with the public educational system is that it’s…awful. Basically it’s a bureaucracy filled with deception and gobbledygook, and an easy path for careerists to advance and earn high salaries. Jilks mentions the unconscionable way principals run schools (having teachers hand out promotional materials). What do these principals care? Are they even smart enough to know the broader issues of education? Do they have advanced course content in their purported areas of expertise? Or do they have the rock-bottom qualifications and interminable theory courses to add something to nothing. So there can be curriculum documents from the MOE and armies sitting at the school board offices pouring over these documents, and people running around the school doing peripheral jobs that someone has deemed ‘supportive’ to the classroom. None of this will make an iota of difference for the students. How can classroom teachers and their students take learning seriously in an environment such as this one? It is a system in conflict with itself. But I’m glad parentoftwo feels good.
To the earlier comment about the Ontario school system:
I also went to high school in the 90s. We were always told that books were selected by the teachers; although, there was a specific list of books “not permitted” at each school. For example, for some reason unknown to me, OTHELLO was not allowed to be taught at our school. I was also told that Timothy Findley was not allowed at others.
PS: I’m just the messenger of this comment, so don’t everyone gang up on me personally….
Да, такой блог однозначно надо раскручивать сильнее – что б как можно больше жителей интернета о нем узнали! :)