Teachers Should Stick to the Basics, Rather Than ‘Life Lessons’

One does not have to be an arch conservative, book burner or fundamentalist to be seriously disturbed by the goings-on in Lucy Swindell’s sophomore English class at Kennedy High in La Palma (“Teaching Life Lessons,” June 14).

Those who focus on her choice of books miss the point entirely. Such teachers will not be deterred if a particular book is removed. They will just find another as a fulcrum for their forays into amateur psychology. After all, “Romeo and Juliet,” a classroom staple for generations, is also about suicide, sex and teen-age pain and could lend itself to the same therapeutic application as “Ordinary People.”

Consider the implications:

* In a compulsory setting, students are asked to reveal deeply personal, often painful family experiences without any assurance of confidentiality such as any therapist must provide.

* Because the revelations are an integral part of an English course, do they become part of the work the students submit? How are such expressions graded? Is the reticent pupil downgraded? What of those who lead happy family lives with no trauma worth talking about?

* Teachers who insist students express their emotions may find themselves tragically unprepared for the consequences. Involuntary therapy performed on children in a volatile classroom setting sandwiched between gym and lunch impresses me as the epitome of irresponsibility.

I wish Swindell could be a fly on the wall in my community college class in business communications. I get students who are two to 10 years removed from high school. Most have been through a Swindell-style classroom and are angry and frustrated that so much time was spent on feelings at the expense of real teaching and learning. As adults, many still struggle with the rudiments of English they could have easily mastered in high school when they were not holding down full-time jobs and raising families.

REVA T. MEYERS

San Diego

*

I have no objection to any book being taught in high school, and Judith Guest’s “Ordinary People” is no exception.

I do object to teachers using literature classes to teach “life’s lessons.” By doing this, Swindell validates the accusation that our school systems are more interested in promoting social agendas than in teaching basic skills.

Life’s lessons should be taught by those well qualified to do so--parents, gurus and perhaps even life itself.

KIRK WEISS

Tujunga

*

I would not, in an English class, expect to be quizzed about my family life or discuss the problems facing teens and their parents or teen suicide or sex. I would expect an English class to provide teen-agers with examples of higher thinking and word usage in their literary pursuits.

Last time I checked, it was the responsibility of parents to “teach life’s lessons” according to their principles and beliefs. I do wish the schools would stick with teaching academics instead of trying to infringe on the domain of the family.

JULIANNE WEIGHT

Canoga Park