Why do schools not read anything bloody cheerful ?

[Howlongtillbedtime]

I really think teens would be engaged with reading a wee bit more if they ever read a positive book.....

So far my son has read
Holes

Maggot moon
Of mice and men
Never let me go
Jekyll and hyde

And that is without the poetry and the Shakespeare.

Where is the uplifting or at the very least slightly bloody cheerful stuff?

Both my boys struggle with English which may cloud my judgement but surely we can have something a little more sodding positive !!!

Totally agree with you OP.

The academic study of literature is not the same as what people might read for pleasure in "real life".

But dull and miserable books/teaching puts kids off completely. There needs to be a middle ground.

I did A level English as an adult. We had to study Seamus Heney - it was all so boring and depressing, it ruined the whole course for me.

There are so many short, classic comic novels that schools could study instead.

Our Man in Havana
Scoop
Decline & Fall
Vile Bodies
Cold Comfort Farm
Catch 22
Billy Liar
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
Pobby & Dingan
My Family and Other animals
Three Men in A Boat
Small Island

They don't need to look far to put some wit into the mix. These all still touch on hugely important issues and themes, but aren't so relentlessly grim. I remember studying Decline & Fall at school. Hated the title. Was dreading it. And then started laughing so hard I couldn't breathe. It was a revelation and it made me read everything by Waugh I could get my hands on.

But dull and miserable books/teaching puts kids off completely. There needs to be a middle ground.
Except dull is entirely down to personal preference (there are some texts my students love that I think are dull) so not grounds to be making curriculum choices.

Miserable doesn't automatically put students off. If anything, look at what gets taken out of school libraries and it's fairly miserable sad texts, serial killers, vampire love stories, hunger games, dystopia that prove to be quite popular.

The problem here is that adults who aren't teaching and making curriculum decisions are making curriculum recommendations based on what they like in a text and would choose to read for pleasure, whereas schools are making text choices based on texts that open up the curriculum, appeal to their students, that students have done well on, that prepare for future study. That will include a range of eras, genres, types, fiction, non fiction, poetry and so on.

I dislike Frankenstein and Jekyl and Hyde (which after admitting I don't like Larkin should get me strung up for an English teacher). I think they are quite dull books to read. Teaching them has given me an appreciation for them I didn't have before and my colleagues were right: students really enjoy them. Students have responded really well to them because we didn't just drone on about sad things. They were really interesting to study as texts even though I'd never choose to read them of my own accord.

Reading for pleasure is a culture created through primary and at home. By secondary the nature of English changes and home still play a huge role in promoting reading. If teens aren't reading for pleasure then I'd be inclined to say they spend 3-4 hours of their whole week in English so the likelihood is that's not what's putting them off.

I found Catch 22 heavy going. Dark humour, I suppose.

There can be a mixture surely? Many years ago my set GCSE texts were Much Ado About Nothing and Pride and Prejudice. We also did The Importance of Being Earnest at secondary. Sure we also had Othello and Of Mice and Men in the mix but it was a mix.

DelurkingAJ
At GCSE the insistence on 19th century British fiction has limited the pool somewhat. Most schools will do A Christmas Carol, but some do Jekyl and Hyde for the 19th century.

The modern text offers have a range of great texts in, but unfortunately schools are more likely to do An Inspector Calls or Lord of the Flies that they already have than buy 250 new copies of new texts when they've already had to buy new 19th century. Plus, with An Inspector Calls it's thematically accessible, limited characters, is good for your 4/5 borderlines and then can be unpicked on a social and political level for the most able.

Shakespeare has a good range, though many centres do either Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth because they're the more accessible texts for all, students buy into the characters, there's some obvious key themes to explore but also a good range of ideas with loads of potential to stretch the top end.

The poetry options are powr and conflict or love and relationships for AQA. Power and conflict covers: war, PTSD, ideology, power in relationships, misuse of power,pride and arrogance, power of nature etc. Love and relationships looks at: romantic love, erotic love (I think), possessive love, courtly lovez family relationships etc.

Unseen poetry can be anything and is great fun.

It's not actually a terrible courses, even though I dislike the length of paper 2.

Holes is quite humorous I thought. In places.

Actually holes is one of the books I liked. The friendships and kindness appealed to me.

Those saying it's always been the same, I'm not sure that's true. I was in secondary in the 80s, I don't recall all we read, but definitely included Cider with Rosie (which I hated, but it's not miserable) Pride & Prejudice, & As You Like It. We did study war poetry - Wilfred Owen, Sassoon etc - but also things like The Death of Sir John Moore at Corunna, Byron's Assyrians (OK, neither cheerful, but very stirring & child-friendly).

Even at A level we studied Volpone, which is downright farce in places.

LolaSmiles you sound like an absolutely amazing English teacher - wish you worked in my kids’ school!

Not amazing, just doing my best and can end up annoyingly invested in books.

I'm quite glad this thread is in chat though rather than education, as I've ruffled feathers in real life for pointing out that often it's not the texts that are a problem but it's the teaching of the text. Even the best texts can be made dull by crap teaching. I adore teaching Macbeth now, but my own memory of it from school was so boring. Our teacher didn't really teach us much, we did lots of group work and sugar paper stuff that I can't really remember much about other than bubble writing, reading around the room, "creative tasks" which as a teacher now I see as the teacher couldn't be arsed (eg write your own potion like the witches). Prepping it to teach was a revelation with how much great content there is to explore that isn't witches and killing. I feel bad for having hated it for years, but it was never the play that was the problem; I'd just had a teacher who was dull and couldn't be bothered.

Must admit that I also like Jekyll and Hyde much more now I teach it.

I don't think it's always been the case that schools only read 'm miserable' books. I think what's happened is that schools have felt under pressure to make KS3 more 'challenging' so things that might have previously been read have been pushed out in favour of more classics and more books that would once have been GCSE books. Personally, I'm in favour of them having a chance to read something lighter or more 'fun', especially in Years 7 and 8.