Reflection 4: State of Literature

In a school where half the cohort comprises of NA and NT students, Literature is dead. Literature is dead not because students lack the capacity to learn the subject. Literature is dead because school believes subjects like Design & Technology, Techinical studies and EOA will be better for students.

I don’t deny that many students in Fajar Secondary School are not proficient in their language, but I also don’t believe that they are incapable of taking Literature at Upper Secondary level. The school does not offer upper secondary Literature. We were not told why either. In this school, perhaps only a handful of the entire English and Literature department are “Lit-trained”. That is to say, many “picked up” Literature along the way, when they were assigned to teach at Lower Secondary. With Literature as my CS1, I was only given 3 periods of literature class a week. It is hard to describe the state of Literature in my school because it is rather non-existent. Principal does not address it. There is no departmental meeting for Lit. I have too little exposure to Literature classes to make a sound judgment of student’s perception of the subject.

For now, secondary one students are working on poetry. I am currently teaching Secondary 1(A) poetic devices. In term 2, students will look at An Inspector Calls, a play by J.B. Priestley. Also next term, students would have 3 tests and a project to complete on poetic devices. I just think that it is all a little too overwhelming for Secondary 1 students with only 1.5 hrs of lesson a week. It seems more like a “touch and go” routine.

For assessment, students are not graded in secondary 1. They have quizzes and projects through the year which will account for their SA and CA results. While I think this is commendable, making literature non-examinable and offered only at lower secondary can be a double edged sword. A wrong message can be sent to the students of Literature being unimportant.

The ST report seems to reflect my school’s Literature culture. By denying Literature as a subject to be taken at Upper Secondary meant that students will not have to take the subject seriously at Lower Secondary. Nonetheless, at the same time, it can also be said that Literature then, can be made a fun subject to study since it is non examinable (only for sec 1) and does not affect their secondary 2 streaming. However, how can Literature be fun when teachers still have an SOW to follow and given only 1.5 hrs a week to teach? This week, my 1(A) students went on a leadership camp and we missed 1 hour of lesson. With activities going on and lessons being cancelled as a result, Literature is affected the most. I also agree in the article that having fewer students taking literature is a vicious cycle that only a change culture and attitude of people can break this cycle. Fewer students taking Literature at O levels meant that fewer students would take Literature at A’s and University. That would mean that fewer teachers would join MOE as literature teachers and eventually join the schools, making Literature an even more difficult subject to provide in schools.

I believe that as of any subject, it is the attitude—and not the innate flair for a subject that matters. No one was born good at math, or science, or humanities. We choose to learn what we want to learn. We build our talent based on our interests. Literature majors chose to take Literature not because they were good at it, but because they love it. If we don’t allow students a healthy, non-biased and safe environment to choose the subjects that they want, then Literature will always remain dead as death can be.