*whispers* The classics aren't locked away in a room to which only English teachers have the key. We are not gatekeepers for the canon, and the only reason we feel we are is because we worry kids won't read those texts in English class otherwise. But so what if they don't?
Tons of books have been written about love, loss, acceptance, etc. Is it better to have every kid be able to say, "Have you read Romeo and Juliet? Me too," or is it better to have kids say, "I haven't read R&J, but I HAVE read _____ and it was great. Should I read R&J?"
Is it better for every kid to graduate having read/been dragged through the same books, or is it better to have kids graduate having read wildly different texts and built their own worldview from those books? Is it better to have the same reading life or different reading lives?
In insisting upon teaching the same canonical texts year after year, we are endorsing these texts as the best that have been written on these topics and for our kids. We are saying that there has been nothing more worthwhile on these topics and for our kids published in __ years.
In refusing to shift and change and disrupt the canon, we are saying that there is no better way to lead a literate life in school than to read these texts over and over again forever. That there is no better way to lead a good life than to have internalized these texts.
And I refuse to believe that a white man in England 200 years ago has more important things to say to my kids than someone writing now about their lives. That's not to say that the canon doesn't contain some wonderful literature. But who are we making space for in our classrooms?
