What if we stopped teaching poetry?

Great Debates
81

The more I think about this thread, the more I wonder if poetry can really be blamed for all that it’s being blamed for. Think about it. How much time did you really spend studying poetry in middle school or high school? Frankly, I think I spent more of my time playing dodgeball. I didn’t learn much from dodgeball, except to run like hell when someone throws something at me. And really, I’d learned that long before dodgeball.

Poetry is one section of one class, something to be wedged in between Julius Caesar and The Grapes of Wrath. I don’t think it can be blamed for morbid obesity, America’s continuing failure to keep track with other countries in math and science courses, and teenagers that don’t know how to spell. There are other things that poetry is to blame for - overly pretentious college students and bad Hallmark verse - but I think you’re giving it a place in the educational system that’s far beyond the place it has.

So here’s a challenge for those of you against poetry in schools. How much time did you spend on poetry in school? Just a rough estimate. Hours per week? Weeks out of the school year? I don’t know. Pick something. Then tell me what you would have learned instead, and how much of it you could have fit in that space of time. How do you think that would have changed your educational experience?

These are sincere questions - I’d like to know what your experience was. And I don’t think that anyone who dislikes poetry is an idiot. People have different things that interest them - you’re not obliged to like anything just because I like it. I’m just trying to reach a better understanding of your point of view.

82

I think what we may be seeing here is that people who didn’t pay attention to poetry in school may be having reading comprehension troubles in their adult life, Dogface :).

emark, you say,

Beyond the sentence fragment problem (which I figure you added to demonstrate your point about the necessity for teaching grammar), this is actually and unintentionally a strong argument in favor of teaching poetry. See, good poetry affects us whether we want it to or not: that’s why political speeches are full of parallel structures, of metaphors, of symbols, of vivid imagery, of rhythm. Those who are NOT trained in recognizing the tools of poetry are vulnerable to confusing the power of the language with the power of the ideas it contains: they may hear the president speak glittering words about evil ideas and believe that their positive reaction to the speech is a reaction to its content, rather than to its form. Those who know the tools of poetry, on the other hand, can recognize that they’re responding to the rhythms of language, to the metaphors, to the symbols; once they recognize that, they can strip the content of the speech away from its form and more elegantly analyze it.

You ask, What if we didn’t teach poetry? Why, citizens would learn less about analyzing public speech, and would be more vulnerable to dangerous rhetoric. Folks would learn less about history, as burundi pointed out. Folks would have less of an understanding of pop culture, and of the development of their culture.

Perhaps as importantly, kids who ARE interested in poetry would have a much harder time getting clear, rigorous study of it. Is that a bad thing? Let this ex-writing-tutor tell you that’s a horrendous thing. You’ve never torn your hair out of your scalp in great bloody chunks until you’ve tried to wade through an essay written by a college freshman who believes he’s the next Jack Kerouac, simply because nobody ever taught him how to analyze what Kerouac was doing.

Good poetry is NOT sloppy, is NOT undisciplined. A good poet spends hours, sweats blood over her poem, revises dozens of times until it looks as if her poem was written effortlessly, so natural does it flow.

If your English teachers have failed to communicate that to you, then I blame either them as poor teachers, or you as a poor student. Certainly the blame does not lie with the poets or with the concept of teaching poetry.

Daniel

PS Heart of Dorkness? Good god, how I wish I’d changed my username to that!

83

As do references to Greek & Roman mythology, US & world history, paintings, sculptures, and music. What’s your point?

84

That school should teach a basic survey of English-language poetry (and Greek & Roman mythology, US & world history, paintings, sculptures, and music.)

Know the world you were born into.

85

I detest poetry and subscribe to the Homer Simpson School Of Symbolism Interpretation, and even I think poetry should be taught in school.

I wish schools would spend more time teaching kids how to write (and not those damn five-paragraph essays either), but I definitely think teaching poetry is an important part of writing and reading education.

86

Apparently I’ve been living on Mars, because nobody I’ve ever known spent more than about three weeks out of the year on poetry in high school.

Whereas, from Kindgergarten up through Junior year of High School, the first ten minutes of every english lesson were spent on grammar (and, of course, we had entire classes of just grammer through 8th grade). This spanned schools I attended in Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota, so it certainly wasn’t a localized phonemenon. And, I graduated in '96, so it wasn’t terribly long ago.

The time for serious grammar lessons is early. The facility for learning language decreases rapidly after age 6-7, and this applies just as much to one’s native language as learning a second/third/etc.

High School is absolutely NOT the time for intensive grammar study. Absolutely not.

As for what would happen if we quit teaching poetry… I think we would seen an ever futher stratification of our culture into “high” and “low,” to the detriment of all of us. Kids need the chance to be exposed to poetry, which they may not (probably won’t?) get at home–same goes for music, art, and geometry. Without it, and we already see this to some extent, we reinforce the notion that education is just vocational training (or day-care…), and culture is to be grokked from MTV. That majority will be in tension with the small minority who happen to have the exposure to other cultural media, and polarization to no good ends will ensue.

I think we already see this; look at the distrust and disdain that are rampant for anyone who wants to appreciate poetry or go look at paintings hanging on a wall, and look at the elitist BS that flies the other direction towards someone who freestyles with his friends and digs murals on the freeway wall.

87

coleridge, I’m not sure I agree on grammar teaching. Sure, young kids have a much easier time learning languages, but that doesn’t mean they have a particularly easy time learning the rules of grammar. Intuitive understanding of a language’s workings and explicit understanding of the underlying rules are very different.

That said, I also didn’t have very much poetry teaching in high school; most of our English classes were taken up with novels and other prose works, with a bit of vocabulary lessons and a fair amount of prose writing.

Daniel

88

In an ideal world. Unfortunately, some 9th graders still won’t have the concept nailed and need further drilling. This is in remedial classes and not, for the most part, in college-track classes.

I agree with every other word of your post.

89

Right, right. What I’m saying isn’t that six year olds should be mercilessly drilled on participles and the indicative case–that can wait 'til they’re seven ;). But language skills (including grammar), not to mention anything else that involves a great deal of memorization and repitition, is more easily assimilated the younger one is.

90

Well, maybe you’re right. On further reflection, I think that the most grammar I ever learned in an English (as opposed to a Latin, French, or Spanish) class was in the sixth grade, when I had an utter monster of a teacher whom we all dearly loved and who drilled us mercilessly on direct objects, gerunds (gerunds!), and the like.

So maybe sixth grade is the best time – or maybe the best time is whenever you get a monstrously cruel, wonderful teacher.

Daniel

91

Wow. just imagine a nation where we can change tires, balance checkbooks and cook a mean cassarole. Aim high America!

Learning the English language is not an extra. Learning science, math, a foreign language history, and a bit of art is not an extra. These are the things that elevate us as a nation. They give us the tools for higher thought and a life beyond mere survival. They are also the things that prepare kids for higher education. And ideally, college is a lot more than expensive trade school. Nearly all “great” people who have had a large positive impact on the world have had an education, and as a nation and a planet, it’s a good idea to increase our porportion of great people. And nearly all the great people I know hold the value of lifelong education near to their hearts.

Years ago, education wasn’t as important. Years ago, most of the jobs were in factories and farms. Now when we look for workers, we look for creativity, knowledge and critical thinking skills. And everyone- even poor kids who would likely get shoveled into vo tech education first- deserves a chance to develope those abilitities.

92

First off, until you pro-poetry folks can somehow proove that poetry actually helps people in life aside from Jeopardy questions and MST3K jokes, it holds no water. Sure I read poetry, but I also read Comics and RPG rule books. Proove one helped more than another.

As for what version of America I strive for, I strive for one in which it’s citizens at least can do BASIC day to day life fuctions. Onces those are covered, we can move on to the extras. But had I the chance, I would have traded every high school english class for a few classes of typing and autoshop.

And to be fair, when I was in HS, I had the same issues with math and science, but in those classes I had teachers that took up the challenge and showed me how those relate to real life. My poetry teachers couldn’t. And so far niether has anyone here.

93

sghoul, what would constitute proof in your eyes? Are you willing to require the same level of proof for all educational subjects?

The argument that poetry helps folks understand rhetoric seems self-explanatory, and doesn’t in my mind require any proof beyond explaining the obvious. The argument that it helps kids understand history is similarly obvious. The argument that it helps kids understand their culture is a truism.

I’ve used poetry in my day-to-day life far more than I’ve ever used any math beyond basic algebra. Geometry, pre-calculus, advanced algebra, and trigonometry have never been directly useful for me, whereas I analyze rhetoric all the time during political campaigns.

At the same time, I don’t call for ending the teaching of advanced mathematics, because it helped me learn to think analytically. I may not use geometry when I design a database query, but I do use the skills I learned in geometry class indirectly: whereas in class I learned to design an elegant proof with as few steps as possible, in work I try to design an elegant query with as few lines of code as possible.

I think you’re looking at the utility of poetry in too limited a fashion.

Finally, I know for a fact that reading The Temple of Elemental Evil in junior high improved my vocabulary; where else would I have learned words like verdigris and sconce? So I’m not the least bit dissing RPG sourcebooks or comics; indeed, I trumpet the value of RPGs to parents whenever I can. :slight_smile:

Daniel

94

I was in Honors classes my entire high-school career. There was plenty of poetry, but it was probably no more than one sixth of the curriculum any one year. I never had a problem finding the pentameter, the symbolism, or the expression of any poem I was shown. That being said, I detested poetry.

I was quite the writer in high school, very prolific in short stories and even a novella or two. Many people thoroughly enjoyed my stories, and I always got exceptional marks for creativity, symbolism, and comprehension of the two. All of those old papers are covered with red marks for spelling errors and misplaced punctuation.

Now, as an adult, I take my grammar, spelling and punctuation quite seriously. I don’t write nearly as much, but what I do write is well written both in the context of art and form. I still detest poetry.

I’ve written one poem in the past 4 years, and its short, direct and it rhymes. It’s entertaining and thoughtful, and has a nice little twist at the end. I don’t know how many poems I’ve read from friends who couldn’t find a pentameter in the Odyssey with a teacher’s manual, that used semicolons, commas and apostrophes in the most heinous of places, and were so blandly written as to make me feel dumb just reading them through to the end. They explain this away with artistic license, and just because there might exist inside them a small amount of emotional commonality other’s praise them into thinking they’re the next Frost.

Poetry can be very expressive to an individual who writes it, and very moving to an individual that hears or reads it, but I’d venture to guess that its lost, misunderstood or just not enjoyed by the majority. I would have much rather been cured of those thousand red marks on all my papers in every class, than done well on 2-3 papers a year in one class on a subject I disliked.

95

I made this point in passing previously, but I think it’s time to reiterate it: “poetry” is different from “verse,” which is a form that most (but not all) poetry appears in.

“Verse” means the stuff you all are discussing so heatedly, the stuff that (sometimes) rhymes, the stuff that (sometimes) comes in stanzas, the stuff ticked off in iambs and trochees and dactyls (again, sometimes). That’s “verse.”

“Poetry” denotes writing of the most thoughtful, intricate, emotionally or intellectually or spiritually moving nature. In other words, Poetry= the best writing that humans can make. (“War and Peace,” for example, and other prose masterpieces, are often said to be “poetry that’s written in paragraphs, not stanzas.”) Writing of the highest quality does not need to be justified. We teach it and we learn it because those who study the stuff have decreed “poetry” to represent the human mind at its finest.

The fact that so much of poetry has been written in the form of “verse” is, IMO, a pretty good argument for studying it, but to suggest that we study it BECAUSE it is written in verse is to misconstrue the entire argument.

96

LHoD,

Saying that poetry’s usefulness is obvious is not nessessarily true. Being able to do haiku, sonnets, or rhyme hasn’t really been useful in my field in any way. Nor has it helped me relate to people, as 99% of the people I meet simply speak in modern communication forms, nor do they make reference to poetry.

Math on the other hand is used every day. Sure, you may not use geometry (despite the entire world ustilizing it) or other higher math, but those aren’t nessessary. I know plenty of HS students who never took a lick beyond basic algebra.

Same for Science. Beyond a basic understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe, average joe does not need higher science…again, you can opt out of those in most schools and simply take basic science.

Yet somehow, even the lower end english classes teach poetry and lit. I don’t see how you can honestly tell me that some 10th grader, reading Shakespear in a monotone is really changing him in any way.

When average kid grows up and gets their average job, the ability to write a poem won’t help him get a better job. But math helps him at the very least economically, as our economic system is based on it. And the universe runs on science, so a basic understanding of it may be good (auguable, but knowing how ones body works is never a bad thing), and grammer/spelling will at least help him wriet so that others understand him.

Again, I am not saying poetry has no use. I just don’t see how it warrents a manditory status over other things like music or art or practical things like home economics or auto shop.

97

sghoul, I’d say that poetry teaches you about the use of language, teaches it on a high level. Check above for my arguments about citizenship, rhetoric, and history to see why I elevate it above teaching music (which is a wonderful thing to teach, but not as vital as teaching about high-level language use).

Daniel

98

For the people on the pro-poetry side, consider: what does poetry teach, what are its benefits, what do students gain from having it as a REQUIRED part of their education?

Now, of your answers (which I assume included critical thinking) could students learn ANY of those from another type of English literature? The point here is that I believe students could gain more from having poetry taken out of the program, and replaced with either some form of better literature, or from “free time” that gives either the student or the teacher the ability to choose which is most appropriate. There is also a cost associated with teaching poetry referred to as “opportunity cost.” There is finite time in high school and in English class that needs to be more effectively used.

What you have failed to show is that poetry is the ONLY way to produce well-rounded students. I apologize for implying that teaching poetry takes away from science and math courses. My high school English courses focused heavily on poetry, and as a result I felt at a disadvantage in my engineering courses because of a lack of basic grammar skills such as basic writing, spelling, and punctuation. Consequently, I blame the heavily liberal arts component of my courses. I struggle with something even as simple as posting on this message board because I lack those basic skills.

The result I see, is that an idiot with an arts degree can make a bad point that’s clear, where as an engineer with a good point struggle to uses words longer than 3 letters.

99

This is absolute BS. What that little experiment proved was that streaming and small class sizes are more effective than the norm. They took a small group of students that all had a similar learning style, adapted a curriculum to them, and were motivated enough to see them succeed. Concluding that poetry saved them was blind and ignorant. What’s more, to say poetry helped dyslexics in no way implies that poetry helps everyone.

100

You didn’t like my previous answer, so try this one: howzabout teaching them something about their own frickin’ culture? As much as I want to kick people in the teeth when they say this to me, Americans don’t really seem to care about what happened in the past, except to the extent that it can be recycled as “retro”. As a result, we have kids who have no idea what the world was like before MTV and video games.

“But that’s the job of history, not poetry”, I hear you cry. Yup, I reply – but the history of a people is the history of their arts, not (as more commonly taught) their wars and their treaties. Not just poetry, of course – literature and music and paintings and so forth tell us not just what people were like but what people were like.

Is that enough, or do we have to have a debate as to why we need to learn history as well?

Meanwhile, here’s another relevant bit of verse that even the people who don’t like poetry might enjoy.