A case for English literacy (English lit)

My two school-going children have lots of observations and questions about their schooling experiences. One of them is about why there is Math literacy (math lit) in South Africa but not English lit. The math lit they talk about is the separation of (& choice between) math lit (focusing more on practical math) and (pure) math (retaining more theoretical aspects of math or for more complex problems) in this country from 2006. To compare the situation, the current practice of English teaching (1st language) would be similar to insisting on compulsory pure math for everyone. One aspect my children are specifically concerned with is the relevance and usefulness of various literacy components in the curriculum, like analysing poetic devices, Shakespeare and other cannon literature masterpieces (which might be similar theorems and proofs in pure math).

The two subjects have many similarities. First and foremost, both are fundamental school subjects. If one doesn’t do well in these two, one will struggle with others. Two, probably due to their fundamental nature, what one learns in both subjects is not limited to the classroom and tests. Instead, they are relevant and useful in everyday life as well. Three, they both have a more theoretical and a more practical application aspect. Although practical applications tend to arise/build from theoretical foundations, theoretical knowledge often covers much more than what is needed for practical (daily) uses. Fourth, few aspire to become a literature or math major or build their career on this (a writer, poet, mathematician, etc), although even with those, I find  Amy Tan’s story—a celebrated American Chinese writer interesting: she not only hated her own university literature class when she was a literature major but also vocally protested over over-analysing of her novel in literature classes.

Math phobia (particularly for more theoretical aspects of math) is quite common in many countries, and among not only students but also adults. On the other hand, few people claim to have a literacy phobia, but one thing many university lecturers in this country attest and lament is that many students (undergraduates & postgraduates) are not at the level of academic writing required/expected at the varsity level. This is particularly puzzling for high(er)-standard literacy teaching and learning suggests. Something is not right here: either forcing everyone to do English (aka pure math) is not right, or the current English teaching and learning falls short of helping students to master necessary literacy skills.

Let’s put aside the question of who exactly the literature masterpieces are first (or the misattribution of Shakespeare to be the person who wrote the pieces attributed to him. Listen to Gary Arndt’s Podcast on this topic for more details on this not commonly known information). One problem with focusing on cannons and classics is that much of it is outdated for this day and age. This also applies to the content of writing formal letters but not how to write emails. Instead of reading and analysing canon literacy masterpieces and literature devices, more contemporary materials can and should be used. Besides this, more practical reading and writing, for example, reading and writing different kinds of texts, including summary, analytical, building argument, finding evidence to support arguments, etc, will all be much more useful than the time spent on analysing literacy masterpieces and literature devices. And this is precisely what separation and choice of English lit can and should focus on.