Dangerous Books for Boys? The Literacy Debate

‘What is to be done about literacy?’ is the shrill cry heard amongst business circles and policy makers. Literacy levels of our schoolchildren are generally a source of worry amongst various educational groups and parents. I’ve finally reached the point where the answer has become blindingly clear. It is DO NOTHING. To the authors of the recent CBI/EDI Survey who decry the lack of basic skills amongst school leavers, I say: ‘Back off. When was it decided that we want the churning out of young people versed in ‘basic skills’ to be the raison d’etre of education? You want basic skills, then provide them yourself.’ Traditionally that’s what businesses have done through apprenticeships and job specific training.

Or to politicians and their chums in policy circles who seriously think that literacy should be a measure to determine the success of the new ‘social impact bonds’ and the basis for awarding ‘profits’ I say, ‘Back off. Go read Adam Smith again, (or for the first time), and understand that the terms “investment”, “returns” and “profits” belong to the lexicon of economics and have nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of 4 year olds to match graphemes and phonemes’.

To educationalists concerned that younger people generally seem to be less willing or able to enjoy books I say, ‘Think carefully, when did you last expect a class to read more than an extract just for pleasure? When did you last just talk with pupils about how funny, sad, boring, or exciting a story is?’ When are children expected to read just for the sheer pleasure of it rather than as a ‘tool to improve literacy’? Before anxious ‘pragmatists’ chip in with ‘well, they can’t get any pleasure from books if they can’t read’ – let me say that this is literally not true.

Illiterate people enjoyed Greek myths through oral story telling. Whilst for centuries the Bible was read by a priestly elite, many more people found its meanings through recital and ritual.  Alfred Whitehead pointed out way back in 1929 that emotions such as jealousy, anger, love, outrage and ideas of fairness and vengeance are found in Shakespeare and also in the real lives of all children. Whilst you wouldn’t necessarily expect 5 -year olds to read Shakespeare independently, they can certainly be introduced to his work in other ways. So that when they return to it at a later stage for more rigorous analysis, the substantive meanings are, to a degree, already familiar. That is, provided the teachers think it is a worthwhile thing to do…

It would mean teachers letting go of the talisman of getting pupils ‘to the next level or to the highest grade’ and re-finding a belief that there is something intrinsically precious about literature that makes the effort to introduce it to young people worthwhile. It’s a big ask in an anti-intellectual climate where it seems anything is valuable only to the extent it can be measured. If we can get away from this tunnel vision, instrumentalisation of reading, the grades are more likely to follow anyway, and if they don’t, the child will still have gained a fuller sense of literature (which would be a huge improvement on what they are getting at present).

To anxious parents worried that their child is ‘a level below’ or doesn’t like reading, or only reads football books, I say (and I do know this can be difficult) ‘Stop obsessing.’ Parents reading to children can be wonderful, but only if you enjoy it and do it anyway.  If parents feel obliged to do it – following advice of so-called ‘experts’- then it becomes a chore/instrument or something else from which the scope for spontaneous pleasure and meaning is reduced. If you prefer playing football/dancing/going to the penny arcades with your child – do that. Automatically you will be introducing your child to figurative speech, symbolic codes that are meaningful. This is not to say these activities are ‘as good as reading’ – they are different and important in their own right. If they are part of a family’s everyday, spontaneous way of life, they can help develop some sort of imaginative framework that often makes the introduction of formal reading easier. Yes it is true families with higher incomes are likely (though not necessarily) to enjoy a wider range of social and cultural experiences that do provide Bourdieu’s famous cultural capital, but this disadvantage can be offset by education. Provided of course that schools are actually educating…

So, to conclude, my offering is not quite ‘Do Nothing’ but rather let economists stick to the economy, let parents get on with being parents and, rather than fill their time with training days and courses on how to make reading ‘child-friendly’, give teachers the confidence and freedom to read books with their pupils. Literacy is unlikely to ever be much fun – it is if you like, one of education’s ‘necessary evils’. Literature, however, can be fun and a million other things too.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Alka Sehgal Cuthbert is an English teacher and PhD researcher in education at the University of Cambridge. She is speaking at the Battle Satellite event “Dangerous books for boys? The literacy debate” at Foyles Charing Cross on Tuesday 11 October.

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities