why is there not an expectation that coursework should be interesting and compelling for students?
As you said, you had the executive function of a teenage boy. The works still get taught because they are interesting and relevant. but it’s hard to see that as a kid, as you’re developing vocabulary and literacy and also lacking life experiences to relate.
Schools try to compromise by giving a list of choices and letting students choose from those on what is most interesting. But curriculums only flex so much.
Bad take, Mockingbird is great. Compelling and depressingly relevant to this day.
It’s a good book, yes, but I was not interested in it and I had the executive function of a teenage boy.
If we catered education to only the things that appeal to the most distracted teenage boys it would just be tits and explosions.
Actually I’d like to argue the reflective point: why is there not an expectation that coursework should be interesting and compelling for students?
As you said, you had the executive function of a teenage boy. The works still get taught because they are interesting and relevant. but it’s hard to see that as a kid, as you’re developing vocabulary and literacy and also lacking life experiences to relate.
Schools try to compromise by giving a list of choices and letting students choose from those on what is most interesting. But curriculums only flex so much.
Yeah so there’s this projection of, this is good and valuable to you, regardless what your circumstances and abilities are.
If it gets them writing essays and participating who cares?
Because analyzing themes and connecting it to history and sociology are important media literacy skills that high schoolers should be learning.
A Time to Kill won’t fulfill that?
I think maybe “retributive vigilantism is good actually” isn’t a school-appropriate message.
It’s back to my first point
The parents, apparently.