Page 26 - The Gonzaga Record 1990
P. 26
can immediately understand what is involved in 'teaching reading' or in
'to teach someone to write'. All I can immediately assume from the phrase
is that the teacher's general area of operations is 'literature' and that the
latter is presumed to be of some 'value'. What that 'value' is I have to
define; al so what aims or end result I have in mind for my students -
as it may be safely agreed that neither Shakespeare nor Heaney will help
you to change a light-bulb; and finally, what function does the teacher
have in the process, a process which , after all , does not involve the teaching
of grammar, or formulae, or pronunciation, or special terminology; not
even dates and biographical data, if one is to believe the purists.
Isolated pedantry? No : merely a reflection of the uncertainty in the minds
of Engli sh teachers, the tip of a prolonged debate, especially in educational
circl es in England. It is one of the di stinguishing features ofFr Joe Veale's
arti cle 'Men Speechl ess'* that he defin es a singl e, all-embracing aim for
the teaching of Engli sh, the restoration of ' rhetoric to its traditional place
as the form al obj ect of secondary education ... not ... excluding all
th e oth er va lu abl e obj ects of literary study, but of subordinating them
to that ruling and mas ter principl e'. Nevertheless, remarks in the same
arti cle ca ll into qu esti on as pects of th e sy llabus at that time, its contents
and objects. That these questi ons were not full y resolved by the new sy llabi
of 1968 is ev id enced by the radi ca l changes being made with the Junior
Certi ficate course for Engli sh. (Whether Fr Vea le would approve of them
is anoth er questio n!)
What 1 am about to say includes some of th e reserva ti ons of 'Men
Speechl ess ' . The teac her of literature at secondary school is not concerned
with the prod uct ion of literary criti cs, and indul ging in practi ca l critici sm
at school is a fruitl ess exercise and ed ucati onall y in va lid. What Fr Veal e
has to say about 'stock answers and opini ons th at ca n be di ctated and
memorised' is all th e more in teresting for th e fac t th at in my ex peri ence
on the Sy ll ab us Committee alm ost thi rty yea rs later, one of th e dominant
iss ues was how to exa mine in I iterature with out in vitin g these 'stock
answers', and redu ci ng teaching to the level of a Grind Academy.
'We ll th en, at least yo u ca n ex pose them to literature.' Not so easy,
and almos t imp ossible, if dea lin g with the lin gui sti call y di sadva ntaged.
Besides, the wo rd 'literature' has a suspi cious whi ff of cultural snobbery,
abou t whi ch Engli sh ed ucati onali sts, with a large immigrant student
popu lati on. have become fea rfull y se nsiti ve. 'Literature' has too oft en
been assoc iated with a fixed ca non of wo rk s to whi ch traditi on has attached
the tit le 'classics' and to which, it was deemed, stud ents mu st be 'exposed'.
This assu mpti on di ctated, to an ex tent , th e content of the anth ology of
prose 'essays'- wo rk s by Lamb , Ru skin , Stevenso n - whi ch were held
ur for th e admirati on and emul ati on of stud ents at the tim e Fr Veal e wrote.
or the 'essay' he wro te (in 1957 ):
1 '.\"1111/i c.' 195 7. /\n ex tract i ~ to he found in th e ' Record ' of 1985.
24
'to teach someone to write'. All I can immediately assume from the phrase
is that the teacher's general area of operations is 'literature' and that the
latter is presumed to be of some 'value'. What that 'value' is I have to
define; al so what aims or end result I have in mind for my students -
as it may be safely agreed that neither Shakespeare nor Heaney will help
you to change a light-bulb; and finally, what function does the teacher
have in the process, a process which , after all , does not involve the teaching
of grammar, or formulae, or pronunciation, or special terminology; not
even dates and biographical data, if one is to believe the purists.
Isolated pedantry? No : merely a reflection of the uncertainty in the minds
of Engli sh teachers, the tip of a prolonged debate, especially in educational
circl es in England. It is one of the di stinguishing features ofFr Joe Veale's
arti cle 'Men Speechl ess'* that he defin es a singl e, all-embracing aim for
the teaching of Engli sh, the restoration of ' rhetoric to its traditional place
as the form al obj ect of secondary education ... not ... excluding all
th e oth er va lu abl e obj ects of literary study, but of subordinating them
to that ruling and mas ter principl e'. Nevertheless, remarks in the same
arti cle ca ll into qu esti on as pects of th e sy llabus at that time, its contents
and objects. That these questi ons were not full y resolved by the new sy llabi
of 1968 is ev id enced by the radi ca l changes being made with the Junior
Certi ficate course for Engli sh. (Whether Fr Vea le would approve of them
is anoth er questio n!)
What 1 am about to say includes some of th e reserva ti ons of 'Men
Speechl ess ' . The teac her of literature at secondary school is not concerned
with the prod uct ion of literary criti cs, and indul ging in practi ca l critici sm
at school is a fruitl ess exercise and ed ucati onall y in va lid. What Fr Veal e
has to say about 'stock answers and opini ons th at ca n be di ctated and
memorised' is all th e more in teresting for th e fac t th at in my ex peri ence
on the Sy ll ab us Committee alm ost thi rty yea rs later, one of th e dominant
iss ues was how to exa mine in I iterature with out in vitin g these 'stock
answers', and redu ci ng teaching to the level of a Grind Academy.
'We ll th en, at least yo u ca n ex pose them to literature.' Not so easy,
and almos t imp ossible, if dea lin g with the lin gui sti call y di sadva ntaged.
Besides, the wo rd 'literature' has a suspi cious whi ff of cultural snobbery,
abou t whi ch Engli sh ed ucati onali sts, with a large immigrant student
popu lati on. have become fea rfull y se nsiti ve. 'Literature' has too oft en
been assoc iated with a fixed ca non of wo rk s to whi ch traditi on has attached
the tit le 'classics' and to which, it was deemed, stud ents mu st be 'exposed'.
This assu mpti on di ctated, to an ex tent , th e content of the anth ology of
prose 'essays'- wo rk s by Lamb , Ru skin , Stevenso n - whi ch were held
ur for th e admirati on and emul ati on of stud ents at the tim e Fr Veal e wrote.
or the 'essay' he wro te (in 1957 ):
1 '.\"1111/i c.' 195 7. /\n ex tract i ~ to he found in th e ' Record ' of 1985.
24
