Brendon’s Article

---

---

“The literary canon structures an imaginary shared culture, perpetuating cultural models accepted by and passed down from teacher to student, from generation to generation.”

(Bender-Slack, 188)

Introduction

In 2018, British Columbia schools began teaching under an updated curriculum. For educators, the most significant change was undoubtedly the replacement of letter grading with a proficiency scale. As an individual concerned with how teachers use literature in classrooms, however, I believe the most remarkable change is the inclusion of Indigenous learning goals in English Language Arts (ELA) curriculums. In grades 10-12, ELA curriculums are now divided into two categories: English 10-12 and English First Peoples (EFP) 10-12. Subin Mathew, a current educator who extensively studied the B.C curriculum, has found that the majority of 10-12 literacy courses focus on Indigenous and Canadian works of literature. One of the intended goals of the updated literacy goals was to encourage educators to teach contemporary works outside of the white literary canon as “the literary canon structures an imaginary shared culture, perpetuating cultural models accepted by and passed down from teacher to student, from generation to generation.” Diverting from the White literary canon is increasingly vital as our student populations continue to become more diverse; thus, making it paramount moving forward that literature be used in ways that challenge white supremacy. This essay will consider the positives and negatives of the updated curriculum: citing the works of Canadian scholars and educators working under the new and old curricula (Mathew, Colarusso, Dei and Linton) as well as some pedagogical insight from American scholars (Gott, Bender-Slack). Ironically, many of the strengths of the curriculum also contribute to its weaknesses. While the new curriculum is a promising development, much work still needs to be done to ensure that teachers can discuss uncomfortable topics involving social justice safely, ethically, and without fear in the classroom. Considerations for curriculum revision are crucial as what students learn through classroom culture in their formative years is replicated as they engage as members of society. 

Curriculum Analysis

In his analysis of British Columbia’s curriculum, Subin Mathew first claims its flexibility to be a strength; as ideally, it gives teachers the ability to initiate critical discussion and cater to individual students and classroom environments. While some provinces offer recommended texts or explicitly dictate which resources are to be used, the British Columbia Ministry of Education provides no such resource. This flexibility offers teachers more autonomy at the cost of accountability should learning goals not be reached. When implemented effectively, this autonomy yields “more success in learning as then the learning pace or content is not determined by schools or teachers, allowing students to be regulators of their own learning.” Curriculum flexibility also allows teachers to teach works they are passionate about, which can facilitate the introduction of contemporary literature. Therefore, teachers are allowed to divest from the traditional curriculum steeped in literary classics; although, this is not without potential consequence as the burden of meeting Indigenous learning criterium falls exclusively to the teacher. Clearly, the role individual teachers play in the success of B.C’s curriculum cannot be overstated, as Mathew states “a teacher’s effective practice in the classroom makes a curriculum successful.” 

“A teacher’s effective practice in the classroom makes a curriculum successful.”

(Mathew, 68)

Although the benefits of flexibility are considered, it certainly seems that the detriments are more numerous. While the curriculum grants teacher and student autonomy, it can also be interpreted as vague “since teachers do not have resource packages to guide themselves in order to bring suitable content to the classroom.” Delane Bender-Slack troubles this in their study, as they assert that many English educators struggle with complex social justice issues as the understanding and implementation of social justice pedagogy is entirely based on their individual understandings. While the updated curriculum extensively references the integration of Indigenous perspectives, cultures, and content in the classroom, a sheer lack of prompts can create profound confusion, tension, and professional pressure. Without proper examples and guidance, many non-Indigenous educators are struggling to implement the new learning goals; especially when attempting to teach different mediums of Indigenous knowledge, such as oral storytelling. As a result, many educators tend to keep their lessons limited to the local tribe or band in their community, thus ignoring larger-scale Indigenous issues on the Federal and Provincial levels. Teachers are not at fault in this regard, however, as the curriculum exclusively focuses on local Indigenous content.  As Mathew asserts, 

“a lack of teacher prompts and vagueness of association with B.C curriculums will negatively impact multicultural education envisioned by the curriculum and this is ironical because in the first place the provision of flexible curriculums itself is to include diverse knowledge bodies in the classroom”

(Mathew, 61)

When not being guided by a curriculum, teachers may not know how to include local Indigenous content and may not be proficient in introducing it; therefore, skills that are important for a multicultural environment, such as empathy and intercultural communication may not develop in students. The exclusion of definitive multicultural content in B.C curriculums can empower cultural appropriation and prejudice toward various diverse groups. Without access to diverse Indigenous perspectives, contents, and cultures within classrooms, the Indigenous curricular expectations cannot be fulfilled. 

Consequently, a default to extensively taught literary classics, such as the works of one William Shakespeare, can occur. Importantly, this pedagogical reaction is not without reason: Shakespeare’s poetry is inimitable, his works contain universal themes, empathy for the human condition, and profoundly influence Western language and culture. Shakespeare’s body of work, like other authors in the white literary canon, frequently promotes moral character. Furthermore, licentious humour and scenes of violence as seen in Shakespeare’s plays can be seen as paramount for appealing to and teaching the video game generation. As Dana Colarusso explains, “in a practical sense, Shakespeare is ideal material for a high-school classroom.” However, this creates a holding pattern in which Shakespeare and other writers within the white literary canon anchor the study of literature. Specifically speaking to poetry, most B.C. teachers rely on Shakespeare and other British writers in their units on the genre. While Shakespeare and other canonical writers can address themes of social justice in their works, much of the literary canon nonetheless creates an imaginary shared culture that perpetuates Anglo-normative cultural models accepted and passed down from teacher to student. When teaching classic texts, teachers can also instead choose to teach social justice through topics which they may have more experience with such as sexism and classism. Furthermore, many of these texts depict racism through a particular character; however, this is problematic as examining and vilifying individual characters isolates racism as individually based rather than institutionalized. By not permitting marginalized groups to speak on their behalf in the classroom, teachers paradoxically position themselves as anti-racist while simultaneously and inadvertently sustaining whiteness through the cultural models portrayed by the canon. The cultural models found in these canonical texts, Bender-Slack warns, “are most often simplified emblematic visions of an idealized or normal reality that spans across cultures.” Indeed, when upholding the canon “educational institutions uphold the status quo, working most effectively for white, middle-class students and families as they replicate current power structures.” To date, incremental use of contemporary literature with a more diverse appeal has yet to usurp Shakespeare’s status as a hallmark of a complete education. 

In addition to vagueness, another detriment of the autonomy afforded to teachers relates to concerns including comfort, fear, and alleged safety. For a myriad of reasons, including the range of complex and sensitive subjects, educators often struggle with how to teach race and racism. For example, many teachers claim that they do not want to change student’s minds or teach values with some even claiming to be in fear of doing so due to complications that may arise in managing these difficult classroom discussions. The fear described is drawn from potential tensions between teachers and parents, students, community values, and school administration. As Colarusso explains, “Canadian families enjoy cross-generational conversations about reading the literary canon in school.” This can create backlash for teachers when they attempt to introduce contemporary novels, or anything not defined as a ‘classic.’ This fear inspires complacency in teachings and can encourage approaching racism from a perceived distance, such as reading a novel set in Africa or The Middle East. Furthermore, educators often cite a fear of making minority students uncomfortable in their classrooms, thus limiting their teaching of social justice, and releasing them of responsibility. Contributing to this omission of responsibility is the belief that racism is a problem for other people to deal with as well the fact that white teachers and students frequently do not recognize they even possess a racial identity. Fear of backlash from administration, parents, and their students causes an immense challenge for teachers; especially in larger and more diverse cities, as they are rendered incapable of fostering the personalized learning the curriculum flexibility is intended to allow for students hailing from diverse backgrounds. 

“Canadian families enjoy cross-generational conversations about reading the literary canon in school”

(Colarusso, 232)

Recommendations for Future Curriculum Revisions

Although the flexibility of the curriculum can be beneficial when properly taken advantage of, the autonomy seems to be more of a con than a pro. While I do not advocate for the rigidity of mandatory texts as seen in the United States, clearly the body of British Columbia educators would benefit from a recommended book list along with a resource outlining how social justice issues may be approached in the classroom. Even if this hypothetical list were to be saturated with “canonical texts laden with whiteness,” discussion prompts and lecture material could provide teachers the resources to systematically interrogate the white privilege and power present in the text itself. Providing teachers with this resource material would counter a problem that can arise with these texts, where teachers and students are immersed in white-dominated narratives that only provide them the option of confronting racism as opposed to it being an unavoidable issue, as it is in real-world contexts. In addition, recommended lists for multicultural poetry would be immensely valuable; as within a Canadian context, multicultural poetry can highlight issues related to cultural diversity and can serve as a potential tool for discussing race and gender issues. As Mathew quotes, “Multicultural poetry as well as other forms of multicultural literature foster intercultural communications in our society.” When teachers introduce poems written by poets from different cultures, it not only allows students to comprehend varied emotions and experience but helps them to understand different cultures and cultural differences while simultaneously presenting them with just and unjust aspects of our diverse society. Moreover, Mathews includes examples of many multicultural poems in his thesis, and points out how they allow students to recognize the prevalence of racism in contemporary contexts. Mathew is remiss in not also considering how this empathy can be fostered when introducing LGBTQ2S+ poets and authors; although, I acknowledge his thesis was specifically grounded in race. 

While I have been critical of the white literary canon throughout this essay, I do not advocate for an absolute removal nor am I blind to the value such texts hold in creating educated citizens in our world. However, during units teachers must acknowledge these texts as dominant narratives of their respective time and place and facilitate classroom discourse around what these narratives perpetuate about class, race, and gender. One method for leading students to this interpretation is introducing current non-fiction articles in tandem to connect literary classics to modern social justice issues. Furthermore, the literary capital of the classics needs to be reevaluated as this fuels advocates of cultural heritage who hold that “educational equity cannot be achieved by depriving students of exposure to literary wealth, or ‘the canon of literature.’” I agree with Colarusso’s assertion that the “prominence of this canon will not endure as Canada continues to assume its identity as a multicultural society attuned to post-colonial discourse;” however, in my recommendations for revising British Columbia’s curriculums, I also echo Bender-Slack’s call for a re-evaluation of why we teach literature in the first place. For this assertion, a quote from an ELA teacher in the same author’s study is invaluable: 

“If you’re not teaching to try to make better citizens, better more thoughtful and humane human beings then what’s the point?…People who don’t even know what a verb is use them just fine every day”

(qtd. in Benderslack, 199).

Indeed, outside of curricular revisions, we must also consider how teachers view literature’s value to students. In this regard, I agree with Bender-Slack that more teacher education programs should attend to classroom and institutional challenges that ELA teachers will inevitably be forced to address when having difficult and often uncomfortable social justice discussions in their classrooms. 

Conclusion

In 2014, British Columbia’s Ministry of Education began work on a revised curriculum which was finally implemented in 2018. Vitally, Indigenous learning goals were introduced to literary studies for the purpose of Reconciliation and the acknowledgment of the oral tradition of First Peoples. The importance of having curricula that focus on First People’s literature cannot be overstated: for non-Indigenous students the process of Reconciliation can become more meaningful. However, the curriculum is also extremely flexible in how these goals are met. While this may be a strength in quintessential scenarios, many educators instead find the curriculum vague and are consequently confused on how best to challenge the white supremacy embedded within our institutions and systems. In essence, the ELA curricula implemented by the British Columbia Ministry of Education only mention components and competencies that must be contained within the content teachers find themselves. Blatantly, a recommended list of texts with outlines on how to use them to discuss social justice issues would be practical for the body of British Columbia teachers. Such a list would especially be beneficial to ensure student exposure to multicultural poetry. As Mathew explains, “multicultural poetry is at the heart of a multicultural society.” As the publishing market reflects, contemporary poetry is not something everyone is reading; and consequently, a recommended list would provide educators a window into the genre they may not have otherwise engaged with. This could help accelerate the rate at which we are shifting pedagogy: where Canadian tolerance is no longer shaped by Romeo and Juliet, and Canadian compassion no longer informed by King Lear. 

“Multicultural poetry is at the heart of a multicultural society”

(Mathew, 48)

---

return