Poetry in schools.

[billy]

should poetry be taught as a main stream subject in schools?

[dukealien]

should poetry be taught as a main stream subject in schools?

Yes, except for the "main" part.  English (or just own-language instruction) is hopelessly compromised today by ideology; getting beyond that is going to be "back to the future," getting past the all-is-politics Great Wall that went up just about 100 years ago to when literature was literature and appreciated as such.  Which applies to all of art, I suppose.  If you insist upon political analysis, the Illiad can be Greeks-vs-Asians and The Divine Comedy is about North Italian politics of the time; likewise Tennyson can be British-Imperial, Gargantua and Pantagruel... well, you get the picture.

The trick may be introducing true cultural relativity:  what did the Illiad mean to ancient Greeks (and Romans), and why did they think it was good?  Why was the Aeneid written in imitation, and is it any good? Today's faux cultural relativity is just a mask for damn-the-West reverse particularism.  Having a literature, and a poetry within it, is as universal (almost, but not quite) as having a language, that is, a culture.  And all cultures have a subset that's poetry, and a smaller subset of that which is *good* poetry.

Teach that, yeah?

[billy]

Yes, except for the "main" part. English (or just own-language instruction) is hopelessly compromised today by ideology;

if the above is true, then why not teach poetry as a main and not as a subset. if we did wouldn't it enhance [english/language of country], would it it cut away some of the confusion. we have eng lit and english language. both are usually taught as non generic english, poetry is a craft, like woodwork or art. why can't we use the english class to aid the poetry class; it's what we do with math and science; two separate subjects that rely on each other to shine.

[dukealien]

Yes, except for the "main" part.  English (or just own-language instruction) is hopelessly compromised today by ideology;

if the above is true, then why not teach poetry as a main and not as a subset. if we did wouldn't it enhance [english/language of country], would it it cut away some of the confusion. we have eng lit and english language. both are usually taught as non generic english, poetry is a craft, like woodwork or art. why can't we use the english class to aid the poetry class; it's what we do with math and science; two separate subjects that rely on each other to shine.

Good question, and I wish someone with actual teaching experience would comment.  My point was that, at the moment, *all* major non-STEM subjects are corrupted by ideology (in lieu of religion, which it more than resembles).  I was proposing a judo-like twist in which cultural relativity (current shiboleth) is turned against itself by recognizing a specific Quality (good poetry) of all cultures.  Even PBUH wrote some dynamite poetry, or so I'm told.

To do a proper job of teaching Poetry as a subject, though, would require a structure - Poetry Appreciation, Poetry Composition, Poetry Performance.  I got a little of that in prep school, a very little more in Bonehead English at university, then nothing since I was (what is now called) STEM track after that.

Use English to reinforce Poetry? Today's English departments probably think they're doing that by drudging out Frankfurt School interpretations of the great poets and fawning praise for junk by "out-group" authors.  It's not a bad idea, but the whole Education system would have to be reformed first.  (Sort of the way Sherman reformed Atlanta.)

[Todd]

I would love poetry to be taught as a main subject in schools--though I would settle for an elective. I would even more love it if they broke up the class by schools of poetry, and taught technique, scansion, performance.

STEM is starting to be seen as the only valuable subjects to know. Education serves a value beyond simply securing employment.

I'm biased, but yes I'd want to offer poetry in the main curriculum (and other types of art as well).

[Leanne]

Personally I don't think of poetry as separate to any other form of literature, or any other form of writing for that matter. In my classroom I use it for lessons in English, science, maths, geography, social studies... pretty much everything. I use it as both a way to teach and a way for students to express themselves. To do this, I guess more teachers need to be familiar with a wider range of poetry and its potential.

I tend to think that teaching it as a separate subject sets it on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve. Don't get me wrong, I love poetry beyond most other forms of writing - but I don't want to see it rarefied and made into something purely academic and elitist. We already have enough of that going on. I want it broken down, served with spaghetti and beer or foie gras and champagne with equal facility.

So no, I don't think it needs to be a separate subject in schools but I do think it should be taught better in universities to teacher candidates, so that they can use it properly in their classrooms.

[busker]

Yes, except for the "main" part.  English (or just own-language instruction) is hopelessly compromised today by ideology;

if the above is true, then why not teach poetry as a main and not as a subset. if we did wouldn't it enhance [english/language of country], would it it cut away some of the confusion. we have eng lit and english language. both are usually taught as non generic english, poetry is a craft, like woodwork or art. why can't we use the english class to aid the poetry class; it's what we do with math and science; two separate subjects that rely on each other to shine.

Good question, and I wish someone with actual teaching experience would comment.  My point was that, at the moment, *all* major non-STEM subjects are corrupted by ideology (in lieu of religion, which it more than resembles).  I was proposing a judo-like twist in which cultural relativity (current shiboleth) is turned against itself by recognizing a specific Quality (good poetry) of all cultures.  Even PBUH wrote some dynamite poetry, or so I'm told.

To do a proper job of teaching Poetry as a subject, though, would require a structure - Poetry Appreciation, Poetry Composition, Poetry Performance.  I got a little of that in prep school, a very little more in Bonehead English at university, then nothing since I was (what is now called) STEM track after that.

Use English to reinforce Poetry? Today's English departments probably think they're doing that by drudging out Frankfurt School interpretations of the great poets and fawning praise for junk by "out-group" authors.  It's not a bad idea, but the whole Education system would have to be reformed first.  (Sort of the way Sherman reformed Atlanta.)

I like the idea of teaching the poetry, or more generally, literature, of other languages. Alliteration and assonance abound more outside of the body of English poetry than inside. And it also helps develop a level headed respect for other people who don’t look like you.
But that’s in the ideal world. In the real world, where poetry at that age is gay, only haiku and rap will sell.

[Richard]

I use a lot of poetry in my classroom. However, it only covers part of the curriculum, so time needs to be spent on other things like essay writing and preparation for the provincial exam (standardize testing). Personally, I would love the chance to spend an entire course just on poetry, and to break it down by period and just give a full flavor of how important it is to being human. Of course, I didn't really experience that as a student until university, so that raises the question of whether or not high school or middle years students would be ready for an entire course on poetry. As well, I think a lot of thought would have to go into picking what poems to cover because that could make or break the course, but I would love the chance to teach such a course.

[Leanne]

But that’s in the ideal world. In the real world, where poetry at that age is gay, only haiku and rap will sell.

Not so. I've had 15 year old "delinquent" kids writing some badass sonnets and rondeaux. Especially if you tell them they can use fuck in a poem as long as it's not a cliche. Many uncliched fucks are given.

[Richard]

But that’s in the ideal world. In the real world, where poetry at that age is gay, only haiku and rap will sell.

Not so. I've had 15 year old "delinquent" kids writing some badass sonnets and rondeaux. Especially if you tell them they can use fuck in a poem as long as it's not a cliche. Many uncliched fucks are given.

Love the idea of uncliched fucks

[billy]

then maybe we need more teachers like you. i remember my short stint at school, if you wrote three lines of shite you got a pass mark. in [secondary modern] i do admit that if someone wrote poetry for a hobby they were never picked for a team in the playground to play football.

i too like uncliched fucks

But that’s in the ideal world. In the real world, where poetry at that age is gay, only haiku and rap will sell.

Not so. I've had 15 year old "delinquent" kids writing some badass sonnets and rondeaux. Especially if you tell them they can use fuck in a poem as long as it's not a cliche. Many uncliched fucks are given.

[Leanne]

Who gets laid more, poets or footballers?

Actually, maybe don't answer that...

What poetry needs, in my rarely humble opinion, is public de-wanking. The best way to do this is to make it so common, and so universally relevant, that nobody even thinks twice about it being an accepted kind of writing. Now, I'm in no way suggesting dumbing it down - rather I'm suggesting that teachers use their imaginations, be creative, encourage critical thinking, stop spoonfeeding students and tell standardised testing to get to fuck because it's destroying kids' ability to do anything but follow orders to get a grade.

And let them write rude limericks if they want to. Just insist on proper form and meter, and original punchlines with clever rhymes. Nobody is really called Alison Bunt.

[Leanne]

Also, where do you teach, Richard? Curriculums (curricula, whatever) need a good shakeup all over the world.

[billy]

makes sense

Who gets laid more, poets or footballers?

Actually, maybe don't answer that...

What poetry needs, in my rarely humble opinion, is public de-wanking. The best way to do this is to make it so common, and so universally relevant, that nobody even thinks twice about it being an accepted kind of writing. Now, I'm in no way suggesting dumbing it down - rather I'm suggesting that teachers use their imaginations, be creative, encourage critical thinking, stop spoonfeeding students and tell standardised testing to get to fuck because it's destroying kids' ability to do anything but follow orders to get a grade.

And let them write rude limericks if they want to. Just insist on proper form and meter, and original punchlines with clever rhymes. Nobody is really called Alison Bunt.

[RiverNotch]

And let them write rude limericks if they want to. Just insist on proper form and meter, and original punchlines with clever rhymes. Nobody is really called Alison Bunt.

What about Emily Blunt?

[Tiger the Lion]

This conversation reminds me of Dead Poet Society. If the teacher is passionate enough, there are kids that will get it. Not so sure that enough parents will ever "get it",  or want their kids to.

[Richard]

Also, where do you teach, Richard? Curriculums (curricula, whatever) need a good shakeup all over the world.

I teach in Canada, and in a province where the students do a standardized test in grade 12. That standardized test isn't completely terrible because it does make students think about what they're reading, and it isn't just "on the line" questions. However, it does limit how much time you can spend on something like poetry because there is only one poetry question on that test worth 5 marks out of a total of 75 marks.

I find that curriculums need more input from experienced teachers, but that seems to be less of a norm these days. I would love to create a curriculum for a poetry course

[busker]

Who gets laid more, poets or footballers?

Actually, maybe don't answer that...

What poetry needs, in my rarely humble opinion, is public de-wanking. The best way to do this is to make it so common, and so universally relevant, that nobody even thinks twice about it being an accepted kind of writing.

But then you’d get Rupi Kaur

[Leanne]

But then you’d get Rupi Kaur

I think I had that once. The cream worked pretty well.

[Leanne]

"an ear for poetry" is as big a myth as perfect pitch.

Practise makes perfect. If you can't be arsed practising, don't preach.