Literature is still taught in schools. Programs in other subjects have changed, new textbooks have been written even for mathematics, and only such a subject as literature is still being studied. In the notebooks of the students, Onegin's description is still written, discussions about Famusov and Chatsky. Is a cardinal reform of the course of literature at school necessary or not?
There are two opinions on this score. On the one hand, this program has already been worked out. It starts with simple and easy to read literary works, poetry is affected to the best of extent, prose is fundamentally. The works of Russian authors dominate overseas literature. What is the bad characterization of Onegin in the student notebook?
It is by his example that one can see how a person who is practically devoid of national roots lives! Raised by a Frenchman, superficially educated (everyone would have such a superficial education), the egoist, in general, is a cosmopolitan, a man of the world - this is a brief description of Onegin. And if a child understands this, nothing will prevent him from reading further, switching to foreign classics.
On the other hand, modern literature is indeed poorly represented in the program. Works written in the 20th century are published only in children's reading textbooks, but more serious books are hardly offered for reading in secondary and high schools. The interest in literature among adolescents is not so great, and there is still a mandatory characteristic of Onegin instead of the works of Selenger.
Indeed, if you look from this point of view, literature programs need to be reformed urgently, and that’s all: from the fifth grade to the eleventh. Otherwise, interest in the subject will run out completely. Have the children read at least something that they don’t read at all.
Pupils of the school, in general, are divided into three unequal groups:
- Children reading. They are a minority, but there are and always will be. They are not afraid of Onegin’s characterization, arguments about Tolstoy and Chekhov, they have already read all this and discussed with adults.
- Children who read a little, not too willingly, but with the stimulation of this process are ready to start reading books adequate to their age.
- And finally, those who do not read and will never read. For such people, I would like to organize courses on teaching reading literary works. Unfortunately, such children are literally three-quarters of the class.
Thus, it is clear that changes in the program will attract a very limited contingent to the literature. But with the change of topics in literature, a special national flavor and orientation of the program will be lost. How will the transfer of moral principles occur, if not through literary works? How the child will learn what is possible and what is unacceptable, what is good and what is bad, if not through literary works. After all, not every family regularly raises these important topics. And the characterization of Onegin in this matter, by the way, comes first. Just like thoughts about Natasha Rostova and awareness
of Turgenev’s works. In the meantime, controversy persists in the pedagogical community, a line appears again and again in student notebooks: “Description: Eugene Onegin.”