Photo: By MdE (page at dewiki | page at commons) – own photo, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1134659

This week, I was asked to be more mindful about the level of language in the material I’m using with my learners. Admittedly, this is not the first time I’ve been asked this. I’m getting better, but finding the right level of sophistication for my students is obviously important, and it’s something that I particularly need to focus on as someone who sees complexity everywhere and who likes the full range of texture proffered by the English language. I’ve had to really work to tune my assignments and expectations to the level of the class and really be mindful of my language when I need meaning to be totally clear. I think I’ve been successful in tuning my expectations and language in these contexts, at least for the most part.

I would never assess students on things that are obviously beyond their level. But the context of this advice was a classroom management technique I’ve been trying out. Instead of asking for attention, I’ve simply been launching into reciting poetry. Within 2-3 lines, they are paying attention to the poetry. I’m not sure if this class is unique, but it works far better than the standard ways of getting attention – bells, counts, etc. To the point where I’ve been pondering using the approach outside of just poetry classes.

Through this technique, I’ve been trying to read a wide variety of poetry. My big objective for the unit is to have them come to a really expanded understanding of what the definition of poetry is. I’ve also been playing with ideas of authorship – who is privileged and who is not as an author. I’ve been diverse in what I read – everything from Edward Lear to Shel Silverstein to contemporary Canadian poets to student work, to my own poems to, this week, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I try to balance between accessible and inaccessible with mostly accessible works. There is no test on these poems, and we don’t attempt heavy analysis. In this case, I chose Coleridge’s Kubla Khan because it had a rhyme scheme similar to one I wanted them to use in a quick write. I knew they could hear the rhyme scheme even if the subtlety of the meaning was beyond them.

But the question is, should I have used something more accessible? Would it have been better to use something written more explicitly for children?

One question that I’ve thought of is this: Does the beauty and intrigue of the rather foreign language of a great Romantic like Coleridge have the potential to engage in a way that something with easier meaning does not? Is it like listening to a song in a language you haven’t mastered – you don’t get all the words and that focuses you on other aspects than what the words mean. Aspects like ‘how do they sound?’ ‘what’s the rhythm?’ etc. All of these are aspects that can be hard to understand as a learning poet.

Earlier this year, I read a book by Rafe Esquith, a grade 5 teacher who became famous for putting on full productions of Shakespeare in his inner city classes in Los Angeles. They were fearless – Lear, Hamlet, the whole Shakespearean cannon was open to them. The classes were diverse – ELLs, kids with parents who have low incomes and little education, etc. If he can do it with those students…

And so can I stitch in some similarly difficult texts for my grade 5s? Or do I need to always think of the lowest common denominator? In a Montessori school, I will often have 3 grade splits. Just as we need to differentiate for the lowest capacity learners, we also need to differentiate and provide a rich and stimulating environment for the high fliers. This enrichment can come from those bits of lessons that you know are not central to the objective and that you know you won’t evaluate. I spend a lot of my time prioritizing the learners who need a hand up. This is an opportunity to shift the priority for a few minutes to those who enjoy enrichment.

And so, I would say that yes, it is okay to use high literature in class, but I have the following criteria for when I do it:

-A students’ ability to understand and dive into the meaning is not being assessed,

-The meaning of the poem is not the focus or even a major feature of the lesson.

-It is in a context where a variety of levels can be presented over time.

Ultimately, I will respond to the students in front of me. At present, the engagement level spikes when I read poetry. I will use that and test where the boundaries of that engagement are. I’m curious to see just what the boundaries are for the learners, but I’ll never find the boundary if I don’t push it. If I see the engagement level deflating when I open a book, then I know its time to adjust and pull out Shel Silverstein and Kenn Nesbitt once more.