In talking about a "high school canon," it's important to note that there is no national high school cirricula. At least in this post, I will not touch on whether or not uber-standardization is a good thing in education. But take a look at the subjects in which AP tests are offered (http://www.collegeboard.com/ap/students/subjects.html). They include environmental science, art history, psychology, statistics, and music theory. Are these topics that can be explored with some depth? There are "good" high schools and "not so good" high schools. It would be a mistake to think that the good school teach everything inclusive of what is taught in a bad school and then some extra on top of that. It's a mistaken, egocentric, elitist sentiment to assume that if you went to a top-notch high school that your education approaches completion of what is, can be, or ought to be taught in high school. Several writers, including myself, have written horribly obscure questions on the collegiate level which we justified by dismissively saying, "I learned that in high school." I have collegiate history books and outlines from the 1950s and '60s and from the past decade and there is some shift in the subject matter taught in, for example, an intro world history class. I would not be surprised if high schools are or will be undergoing similar shifts. But then, that is partly related to the business of textbooks and such a discussion among the people who frequent this forum will eventually shift towards evolution. I do have a decent number of textbooks that were used in high schools, so I can say that at least some places have classes in world lit that have selections from authors deemed obscure on the college level. Still, it is not surprising that a lot of HS lit and history comes from Anglo-American traditions, because more is written in English on those subjects and the literature does not require translation. For the sake of comparison, my high school experience included: Social Studies: 1st year-World history; 2nd-govt/econ; 3rd-AP US; 4th-AP Euro Senior year AP English I read three books--The World According to Garp, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and A Canticle for Leibowitz, all of which I recommend. Well, it was composition because I wasn't interested in the reading list for lit. Also, I read lots of philosophy. Science-Bio, Chem, Physics, AP Chem. I went to a Jesuit high school, so eight semesters of religion classes. Then again, one of them included a viewing of The Breakfast Club. I've always emphasized breadth over depth. I've also felt comfortable writing an occasional question from a didactic purpose. When I think academic, I think education. I used to say the canon was a myth, but I've come to accept its usefulness as a schema of knowledge. Still, I deny the existence of a single, objective canon, preferring a multiplicity of canons and a willingness to explore topics that are in some but not all canons. I've also noted the disparity in abilities of playoff and non-playoff teams in high school tournaments. My preferred solution is for the playoff questions to be of a higher difficulty (or prelims easier, if you prefer). Anthony de Jesus, posting way too much on a lazy Saturday afternoon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST