While reading the first half of Arthur Applebee's history, I had several questions about why we (English teachers) do what we do and why tensions and issues have not changed much throughout the last century and a half.
How do we decide which texts are of "literary value" or "literary merit"? Applebee explains that in the American colonies and after the Revolution, literary value meant morality--texts should teach students to be moral or even religious. Or he mentions that pieces of literature were valued if they were part of the culture of the country and helped create a national unity and identity. The uniform requirements for college entrance exams produced the beginnings of a literary canon, but what I find interesting and ironic is that the texts were pieces of contemporary literature at that time (p.32). These pieces are still on many high school reading lists; why are our lists not comprised of contemporary works? Why are these works still taught with such fervor and conviction, as they were chosen at the time to represent the best works at that time? Perhaps we still have a bit of that notion that certain texts are necessary to give us a cultural knowledge.
English curriculum moved from a study of grammar and rhetoric to a study of literature in its own right. Are we now reversing that shift? It seems that we may now again be placing rhetorical studies, perhaps not above, but on the same level as the study of literature. As the state standards have changed, expository writing as well as literary analysis are now part of the yearly exams, and nonfiction texts must comprise a large part of the reading requirements. The AP Language and Composition course focuses solely on nonfiction texts, rhetorical analysis, and argument writing.
Applebee explains that the Classical Model led to prescriptive methods of teaching grammar and writing and "exhaustive line-by-line analysis" (p.9). Some of these methods still exist today, unfortunately. It seems that we still have a problem trying to encompass within the English curriculum "rote learning of rules and memorization of isolated facts" (p.29) and application of English skills to everyday life.
I am especially interested in the tension between English as a "mental discipline" and English as "appreciation." Applebee states that in the nineteenth century the "purpose of education was to exercise and train the mental faculties, in particular the faculties of 'memory' and 'reason'" (p. 6). I admit that I have used that theory to justify text analysis to my students. When they ask if they will ever do literary analysis later in life, I have to admit that they will not; however, I tell them that they are learning to think, and critical thinking is a necessary tool for life. We continue to have the debate over skill vs. content. The state standards emphasize skills, yet the high school reading lists and the teaching of novels focuses on content.
