US Schools To Become Even More Dystopian

[Meryuma]

By 2014, books such as The Catcher In The Rye will be replaced with [instructional texts such as Recommended Levels Of Insulation:

American literature classics are to be replaced by insulation manuals and plant inventories in US classrooms by 2014.

A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace.

Books such as JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird will be replaced by "informational texts" approved by the Common Core State Standards.

Suggested non-fiction texts include Recommended Levels of Insulation by the the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Invasive Plant Inventory, by California's Invasive Plant Council.

The new educational standards have the backing of the influential National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and are being part-funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Full story here.

I am completely horrified. This is the enforcement of an incredibly dehumanizing and lifeless worldview in which the company comes before everything: before the individual, before learning, and before the arts. Education in the US is becoming more and more ruthless, coldly practical and opposed to creative thinking. It makes perfect sense that Bill Gates would support this, as it's a proposal in a long tradition of mind-numbing managerial control.

[Kleomentia]

Its idiotic really. On the other hand i really dont give much fucks about it.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I'm all for learning non-fiction in English, but this stuff has no literary value whatsoever. Who actually gives a damn about invasive plant speicies anyway? Apologies to gardeners

[Avenio]

How bizarre. One would think that being able to read and interpret writing, a la in an English class, would be a useful practical skill to teach students.

[Saruhan]

What in the fuck? That means that well be learning American novels that not even Americans are learning about

[Kleomentia]

What in the fuck? That means that well be learning American novels that not even Americans are learning about

Im not finding this as a surprise.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Man, absolutely no part of this story sounds like sensationalism.

Hahahahahah, oh wait, it all does.

[Evil Siamese Cats]

Frankly, I'm all for teaching more non-fiction in schools, but not like that. When I picture non-fiction, I picture, say, biographies or accounts of people's real-life experiences in historically relevant time periods (I would make "Nothing to Envy," an account of a half-dozen North Korean defectors, required reading, for example, before I would make plant inventories required reading. Save that for botany class or wherever.)

[Acrainia]

Because the best way to encourage our students to take interest in reading is to make them read dry overlong reports written by government agencies...

[Hatsunia]

How bizarre. One would think that being able to read and interpret writing, a la in an English class, would be a useful practical skill to teach students.

Reading, writing, and interpreting text are practical skills, but is "finding the hidden meaning of vague literary symbolism" one (the reason why English is my least favorite class, especially when "analyzing" poetry)?

This is a dumb idea, but I agree with Christmahanikwanzikah in that it very much sounds like sensationalism.

[Avenio]

Reading and writing are practical skills, but is "finding the hidden meaning of literary symbolism" one?

Yes, it is. Being able to be proficient in the English language means being able to understand and use literary devices, like symbolism, metaphors, allegory and the like. If I were overseeing hiring for a job that, say, involved writing press releases or advertisements, I certainly wouldn't give much thought to someone who had stilted, literalistic and unimaginative prose because they never learned how to read and write with any degree of skill in school.

[Ashmoria]

no the common core standards are not going to replace literature with manuals.

why would you even believe such a stupid story?

[Norstal]

no the common core standards are not going to replace literature with manuals.

why would you even believe such a stupid story?

Committing NSG's pastime: shaming governments (and other public services the government offers).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Personally I applaud this measure as it will keep our children from idolizing Jodie Foster.

Although, regrettably, it isn't true.

Although maybe it should be, Catcher in the Rye is terrible and I feel naught but the utmost sorrow for the youth of today who must read it simply because it was banned at one point.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

no the common core standards are not going to replace literature with manuals.

why would you even believe such a stupid story?

Committing NSG's pastime: shaming governments.

STOP REPUBLIC-SHAMING US! D:

[Pulau Dewata]

Committing NSG's pastime: shaming governments.

STOP REPUBLIC-SHAMING US! D:

It's fun though~!

[Occupied Deutschland]

Reading and writing are practical skills, but is "finding the hidden meaning of literary symbolism" one?

Yes, it is. Being able to be proficient in the English language means being able to understand and use literary devices, like symbolism, metaphors, allegory and the like. If I were overseeing hiring for a job that, say, involved writing press releases or advertisements, I certainly wouldn't give much thought to someone who had stilted, literalistic and unimaginative prose because they never learned how to read and write with any degree of skill in school.

To be fair, the problem is that that symbolism oftentimes/sometimes gets taken to ridiculous extremes wherein either
A) Every word on the page is somehow supposed to be symbolic of a totally "meta" existential statement the author is trying to get across. The author would never write a mundane thing like "He walked through the door." he must mean that the subject of the piece was [blah blah blah] when the author meant "He walked through the fuckin' door!"
B) The symbolism is subjective to each teacher and we merely teach kids how to parrot what teach thinks the story is about in order to get a good grade.

[Condunum]

Personally I applaud this measure as it will keep our children from idolizing Jodie Foster.

Although, regrettably, it isn't true.

Although maybe it should be, Catcher in the Rye is terrible and I feel naught but the utmost sorrow for the youth of today who must read it simply because it was banned at one point.

I couldn't make it past the obnoxiously drawn of explanation of how he shifts the car.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Man, absolutely no part of this story sounds like sensationalism.

Hahahahahah, oh wait, it all does.

no the common core standards are not going to replace literature with manuals.

why would you even believe such a stupid story?

Dear God, I hope both of you are right.

[Potlimitomaha]

By 2014, books such as The Catcher In The Rye will be replaced with [instructional texts such as Recommended Levels Of Insulation:



I am completely horrified. This is the enforcement of an incredibly dehumanizing and lifeless worldview in which the company comes before everything: before the individual, before learning, and before the arts. Education in the US is becoming more and more ruthless, coldly practical and opposed to creative thinking. It makes perfect sense that Bill Gates would support this, as it's a proposal in a long tradition of mind-numbing managerial control.

Looks like someone hasn't been in an American school in a while.

[Risottia]

By 2014, books such as The Catcher In The Rye will be replaced with instructional texts such as Recommended Levels Of Insulation:

Good riddance. "The catcher in the rye" sucks balls, and all it could be used for is as insulation material.

On the other hand, "To kill a mockingbird" is a great piece of (juvenile) literature. Oh well, I guess pupils can still go and read it by themselves - just as I did.

Also... I fail to see a source for the list of "books being replaced".

[Norstal]

Man, absolutely no part of this story sounds like sensationalism.

Hahahahahah, oh wait, it all does.

no the common core standards are not going to replace literature with manuals.

why would you even believe such a stupid story?

Dear God, I hope both of you are right.

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the- ... s-vs-facts

In English‐language arts, the Standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.

[Potlimitomaha]

Personally I applaud this measure as it will keep our children from idolizing Jodie Foster.

Although, regrettably, it isn't true.

Although maybe it should be, Catcher in the Rye is terrible and I feel naught but the utmost sorrow for the youth of today who must read it simply because it was banned at one point.

Most of the people in my class either loved or liked Catcher in the Rye. It is a book for us growing up in the 21st century.

[Risottia]

Most of the people in my class either loved or liked Catcher in the Rye. It is a book for us growing up in the 21st century.

*pat pat* You eventually grow out of adolescence.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Personally I applaud this measure as it will keep our children from idolizing Jodie Foster.

Although, regrettably, it isn't true.

Although maybe it should be, Catcher in the Rye is terrible and I feel naught but the utmost sorrow for the youth of today who must read it simply because it was banned at one point.

Most of the people in my class either loved or liked Catcher in the Rye. It is a book for us growing up in the 21st century.

I dunno, if I wanted to read a book about growing up in the 21st century, I'd recommend Ordinary People.

Which, coincidentally, was required reading for me in high school.