1

A Culture of Canonicity By Robbin Zirkle Reflection The Grapes of Wrath. The inspiration for this entire project, written by John Steinbeck, was the bane of my existence for several weeks during my senior year of high school. I was fortunate enough to be enrolled in a progressive school district which permitted frequentlybanned books, with lots of texts to go around. Somehow, I still ended up having to read this particular story about a family chasing the American Dream, and eventually chasing survival. It addresses the haves and have-nots in the United States, and characterizes the reality of moving out West toward prosperity. I understand that the message is important, that students have, for years, read the same pages, yet I recall thinking isnt there a better way to learn this? There are at least five books about the same topic. Those thoughts were put on my mental backburner until my freshman year of college, during which Dr. Carse taught us about the so-called literary canon, the list of books that everyone read in high school along with others that well-learned people ought to read. I found myself infuriatedThe Grapes of Wrath wasnt simply something my senior English teacher forced on me, it is an institutionalized classic that droves of students in high school and college are required to read. I wanted to know why this book, above thousands of others, is revered, and who exactly decided that I had to read it. That annoyance lay dormant until this semester, when I was given the freedom to pick anything I wanted to write about. Given that this is an unturned stone, one of the few left in fact, I sought out to research canonicity and its relationship to American education.

My first struggle in completing this project has been focus. My research questions are many and varied: how is the canon defined? What is the debate over the literary canon all about? How do English Studies programs utilize and influence the literary canon? Should it be changed? and all in all, what makes a book great, and who makes that decision anyway? This is my final list of research questions which guided the construction of this paper. Unfortunately, many had to be left out for the sake of focus; I could have written pages upon pages about the influence of social and cultural changes and how they influence the canon, or about the disparity between what we ought to know and what we actually know, but I do not feel equipped to address them in the confines of a twenty-page term paper. For now, these research queries are those that I am currently equipped to try to answer. After focusing on a few questions, the next struggle in my process was simply sifting through the tremendous quantity of writing addressing the topic of canonicity. For many yearsin fact, up until the mid-twentieth centurythe canon was unquestioned. There were books that you were simply expected to read, and anyone who was anyone read them. That assumption all changed with the advent of post-modernism, when the idea of a canon was thrown out the window because really, who are we to determine what worthwhile literature is? Thus, a great amount of writing was completed regarding the canon and the necessity of its dissolution during the 1980s both in the United States and England. I had to choose between various discussions for the sake of time and my reading levelsome work that I encountered was so dense that I had difficulty comprehending it. This is the first time I have encountered that problem since my required philosophy course earlier at IUP.

The last issue in this project for me was frustration. The wishy-washy contemporary discussions of revising rather than dissolving the canon frustrated me with their inability to commit to anything. Such arguments are frequently allusive and examine the relevance of texts that should be added, rather than texts that might be dropped. There is rarely a discussion of relevance in such work, focusing instead upon representation of diverse individuals as if to be born in one country rather than another makes you essentially different from someone born elsewhere. My frustration in this regard has little to do with representationa diverse body of writers makes sense, but rather because including appropriate works to educate the masses creates the exact same problem of the canon, excluding some authors in favor of others, the phenomenon that has unfortunately caused Chinua Achebes Things Fall Apart to be dumbed-down and included on the syllabus of any class attempting to diversify rather than even considering alternatives, such as Zadie Smiths White Teeth. In an attempt to overcome this frustration, I threw myself into my work for this capstone project in the hope that I might find some worthwhile notion in the end. Thanks to my perseverance, I have been able to expand my research abilities; I have learned to utilize bibliographies, to manipulate Wikipedia articles to find legitimate sources, and my intellectual endurance has improved dramatically. I read a number of (long) books for this project and many articles I elected not to use, which is a huge deal for me, especially since I was working on it while finishing my undergraduate thesis. Quite frankly, this project was more work than any other that I have completed as an undergraduate at IUP, including my Honors Senior Synthesis Coursealthough, I suppose thats how it ought to be. Furthermore, these research skills will

be valuable for me in any field, especially in librarianship, where good researchers excel, and graduate school, where proficiency in research and reading is expected. While I have always possessed great time-management skills, in the rush of getting ready for graduation, completing my degree, applying to and visiting graduate programs, writing a thesis, and finishing capstone, I lost my work ethic. I got lazy, I became careless. The biggest step for me in the Capstone project has been fighting to find the information I needed and throwing out what I didnt, which once more, comes down to focus, which is what this semester was all about for me. Generally, Im a bit of an information hoarder, forcing scraps of ideas into papers where they often dont fit, or adding fluff sections to paper to make a single point. It is this self-contained battle that inspired me most this semester; once more, I found a way to kindle my fire, even when Im mentally exhausted, and even when I feel as if there is nothing left to write. The manner in which I came about re-inspiring myself is strange. Whereas I was frustrated doing most of my research, I became incredulous when I decided to identify suggested reading lists for high school students. I found two interesting sources: a suggested high school reading list from Prentice Hall, a major book publisher, and my own school districts English curriculum for high school students. That research literally stunned me and created a sense of purpose for this entire project, which for me, is no longer about how the canon works, but more about what it says regarding American education. I found a way to make this one topic more interesting to myself, even though Im burned out and ready to graduate. I think that this skill above all others will make me a success; I have found a way to engage myself in a topic that piqued my interest, simply because I didnt find it engaging at all.

Introduction In his poem, Fiction and the Reading Public, Philip Larkin makes a witty commentary regarding the nature of the relationship between literature and the masses. He lists a number of characteristics of novels before stating that if an author can accomplish all of it, [S/Hell] be truly great (23). Larkin postulates that most people believe that a truly great author should write literature that is suspenseful and entertaining, realistic and personal, uplifting and comprehensive, and which possesses a definitive, happy ending and the ability to transcend generations. This is a tall order for any writer, but it also indicates that there are methods which we use to evaluate literature that is worthwhile, or great, before we even begin reading. Larkins poem sets the stage for any discussion of canonicity, that is, the composition of the literary canon. The canon, a ubiquitous yet intangible list of whos-who in authors and texts, is just what Larkin is discussinga set of evaluated great texts. The questions that the idea of the canon raises include how was the canon established?, how has the canon been institutionalized?, what criteria is used to evaluate greatness?, and who decides what is great anyway? These are all questions that framed the premise of this paper, and will each reemerge throughout its discussion. When asked who an undoubtedly worthwhile author is, most people will instantaneously respond, Shakespeare. Indeed, most public high school students in the United States, or at least Pennsylvania, will have read a handful of his plays before matriculating. Truthfully, though, why Shakespeare? In an Address to incoming freshmen at The Catholic University of America, Michael Mack posed that very question: Why read

Shakespeare?.That we should read Shakespeare goes without saying. And that is the reason for this lecture. It is good, on occasion, to question those things that go without saying-and, thereby, to force ourselves to articulate important though unspoken truths (Mack). Thus is the true purpose of this discussionto attempt to articulate how we come about doing what it is we do in English Studies. Many students never question why Shakespeare is one of The Greats, possibly because it never occurs to them to ask. The unasked question however, is whether or not you can ever truly decide if a piece of writing is great? If yes, then what criteria are used, and who decides? If not, then how ought we to decide what to read? This question is undoubtedly important, because it is through this limited collection of texts, this canon, that [society projects] standards of aesthetic excellence as well as the intellectual constructs we call literary history (Lautner 95). While the question of the canon may not have plagued many students, it emerged definitively in the academic community 1980s, resulting in many critical discussions of classic texts used in education in particular. It is during this time that the debate regarding whether or not to expand or revise the canon emerged, as well as the question of whether or not it should exist at all. Therefore, the debate about the canon seems to come to a head between Traditionalists and Postmodernists. Such is the purpose of this paper: to chart the history of the literary canon in England and the United States, and to characterize the debate regarding what to do about the canon: the cases for and against it. After that, the true issue in my minda crisis in educationwill present itself for discussion, along with a pseudo-case study of the suggested reading list of a

large textbook company, the curriculum of a progressive public high school, and the liberal arts curriculum at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Finally, I will attempt to come to some conclusions about evaluation of texts, diversification of the canon and the relevance of Shakespeare before extrapolating what readers can do to effect change. History As the canon is not a tangible list sitting around on any single persons desk, its origins are debatable. Some will argue that it began as early as 1777 when Dr. Samuel Johnson published his introduction to Lives of the Poets, in which he identifies tension between the newly empowered private companies and the emerging common reader, who read for enjoyment or to gain specific information and for no other reason (Kaplan and Rose 32). Other pens will argue that the canon was established in 1904 when Walter Raleigh created a reading list for the first course in English literature, identifying certain texts as worthwhile for study (Kaplan and Rose 10). I am disinclined to agree with either of these points for origin, feeling that the canons true institutionalization began somewhere in between, with Johnsons argument setting the stage for its origins and Raleighs list reinforcing its existence. During the mid-eighteenth century, critics rediscovered Spenser, Shakespeare and Milton, labeling them as transcendent, sublime, and classic, and creating the so-called Canonical Trinity in English literature. This evaluation was a supreme departure from popular thought regarding literature; until the mid-eighteenth century, modern literature was believed to improve on the works of the past (Kramnick 1087). Eighteenth-century critics, instead, revered the works of

the Canonical Trinity and began to view such work as irrevocably lost work not possible to eclipse in modern times. How did these attitudes emerge, however? I believe that reverence for the past precipitated thanks to the commoditization of books and knowledge following the transfer of publishing power from the aristocracy to private publishing houses. This shift in publishing ability created a common culture which consumed common texts, jeopardizing the sanctity of literature. As such, tension between high and mass society took a seemingly tangible edge, with cultural ideas suggesting that texts belonging to each half represents those worlds. As such, the canon represents an attempt to [fix] literary history andthe literary canon for the modern age (Kramnick 1087-8) and to refine the tastes of English-speakers (Kramnick 1089). These movements, while undoubtedly present in the United States, are most carefully recorded in the realm of British history. The emergence of the canon in American education most decidedly occurred during the mid-twentieth century. It has been said that [lack of shared common culture] was experienced most acutely in the aftermath of the war, that stern test of a nations self-definition and purpose. Educators responded to this crisis, after both world wars, by setting up programs in general education, or great books as they were more popularly called (Kaplan and Rose 54). Thus, classics in the canon emerged in the United States as they had in England.

Canonization and the Modern Era While an understanding of the establishment of the literary canon is important, especially in regard to education, so too is its process and relevance to contemporary readers.

As to relevance, the canon limits and delineates many readers understanding of literature. Furthermore, it is institutionalized through education, patronage, and journalism (Kaplan and Rose 98). That is, books that are supported by the masses may be read by the masses. In the traditional sense, these books are the so-called Classicsthat is, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and some of their colleagues. The process required for new or newly discovered work to enter into the canon is more difficult; whereas the Canonical Trinity are given due attention in education, journals, and book sales, non-Classics do not. In The Canon and the Common Reader, Carey Kaplan and Ellen Cronan Rose explain the process by which a text may be canonized, identifying two primary requirements: commercial success, and introduction into academia. Commercial success is particularly interesting, because, as Kaplan and Rose point out, it is not dependent upon readership, but rather coverage in publications such as the New York Times Book Review, which distinguishes between ephemeral popular novels and those to be taken seriously (69). Publications such as this and the seven other gatekeeper journalsNew York Review of Books, New Republic, New Yorker, Commentary, Saturday Review, Partisan Review, and Harpersenable the Cultural Elite to learn about such texts through professional reviews. How do texts gain access to such periodicals? Quite simply, through advertising; with dozens of new books printed each week, critics are inclined to reach for those that they have heard about, placing a great deal of power in large publishing houses with extensive financial resources. Kaplan and Rose go on to note that, if a novel was certified in the court of the prestigious journals [gatekeepers], it was likely to draw the attention of academic critics in more specialized and academic journalsand by this route make its way into college curricula

10

(Kaplan and Rose 71) through PhD work, papers at conferences, and the syllabi used in high school and college classrooms. Kaplan and Rose point out, however, that there is a particular obstacle to the presentation of papers and panels discussing new texts within one prestigious organization: the Modern Language Associations (MLA). One of the largest resources for professionals in English Studies, the MLA is, in itself, a gatekeeper for many texts. For many years, non-canonical texts were shut out of the annual convention, until the election of Louis Kampf as the vice-president of MLA in 1968, which opened the door for greater representation of marginalized interests (Kaplan and Rose 75). The acknowledgement of marginalized interests does bring up one of the primary items fueling the current debate regarding the canon. It is significant to note at this point, that there are limitations in education in many ways thanks to accessibilitythat is, the availability of copies, the discovery of works, the option for paperback publication and antholigization, as well as format (novel, film, performing art, etc). It is important to note at this point that in an English-speaking nation such as Great Britain or the United States, culture inhibited the ability of people of color and women to publish through the beginning of the twentieth century. Furthermore, current social constraints, such as controversy regarding lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual individuals, may have a similar impact on such groups abilities to be published and recognized. As such, readers create a hierarchy of greatness which attributes value to a variety of texts, reinforcing the difference between Common and Elite culture. These hierarchies, however, create reputations among authors, making room for one author or genre, and none for another. It is important to note here that these levels of greatness are not set in stone; for

11

example, different common types of prose and poetry have, over time, been elevated and deflated. For many years, the novel was discounted as not serious enough for academic study, yet it now is the subject a great deal of literary study. The Great Debate Before embarking on a discussion of the cases for and against the canon, it seems imperative to explain what this debate is really about, and who is involved. First and foremost, any individual educated at a public school in the United States is impacted by the literary canon, and oddly enough, most of these people have little to no say in that which comprises it. Furthermore, there is great dissent among academics; some scholars move to open the canon to new writers of diverse backgrounds, whereas others maintain that you cannot possibly know what is great during the modern era. While this debate may seem of little consequence, I would like to point out that F. R. Leavis stated in his 1969 book, The Great Tradition, I pronounce Milton negligible, dismiss the Romantics, and hold that, since Donne, there is no poet we need bother about except Hopkins and Eliot.except Jane Austen, George Eliot, James and Conrad, there are no novelists in English worth reading (Leavis 1). That is, no other authors are relevant except insofar as they influenced these four novelists. Knowing of their existence, Leavis discounts Dickens and the Bronts, among other authors that many readers know and love, yet Leavis is hardly a radical, antiquated curmudgeon: as of April 23, 2012, more than one thousand books and articles cited his work. Leavis thought, as well as postmodernist attitudes of inclusion, are all influencing the curriculum used both in high schools and universities in the United States. The Cases For and Against the Canon

12

Most modern critiques of the canon center on its lack of diversity; it is primarily comprised of texts written by dead, white, English-speaking, middle- to upper-class men. It is often expressed that canonizing these authors in place of others represents a time warp (Kaplan and Rose 5), and that exclusion of alternative points of view represents an attempt to control the human experience. Kaplan and Rose point out that the assumption that common readers will flounder in unrestrained diversity unless directed by an omniscient professoriat is both insultingly paternalistic and willfully blind to the diverse needs of common readers (Kaplan and Rose 46). To put it simply, limiting the field of eligible works to dead white Englishspeaking middle- to upper-class men also limits readers potential for learning and for experiencing literature outside of the perspective of one subculture. Educators are eager to argue this point, stating after all that the canon has expanded, now including the work of authors who represent varying perspectives, such as Chinua Achebe. While the inclusion of this mans work is significantThings Fall Apart is a 1958 novel written from a Nigerian perspectiveit is often the only non-American, non-White text on the reading list. I feel, regrettably, that Things Fall Apart is a text added to reading lists to make them seem more varied, but that unfortunately leave behind great books, such as Zadie Smiths White Teeth, which I would love to see in more classes. The aforementioned issue of only presenting one text by one non-Canonical author also presents another issue in that it forces authors to become singularly representative of their race, gender, orientation, or other subgroup. It is the same phenomenon that occurs frequently in womens literature classrooms when students and professors alike call on the

13

single man in the room to represent the entire male gender. This action pigeonholes members of a group, making them completely representative a group to which they belong. If we accept that the literary canon is reflected in both education and curriculum, then the question is what is gained by the institutionalization of the canon? After consideration, it seems that the single best answer to this question is that the canon establishes continuity. Not simply continuity in education, ensuring that Americans have read common texts, but rather continuity that enables readers to understand how authors fit into the framework of those who have come before them. Furthermore, in the spirit of eighteenth-century critics, the literary canon does ensure that really superb authors who are dead, white, English-speaking, middle- to upper-class men are not left on dusty shelves in the recesses of great libraries, for how are we to learn if we never look back? While dissenters often claim that the canon is insular (and to some degree, they are right), one ought to recall that the process of canon formation has never really been a process of exclusion no historical or social act responds well to exclusion. Historical pressures governing the process of canonization have always been biased toward the widest possible strategies of inclusion (Guillory 44), and for much of the last several hundred years, readers have been primarily white, English-speaking, middle- to upper-class men.

The True Dilemma After considering the history of the canon as well as the debate regarding opening it, closing it, or throwing it out the window, it seems to me that the real dilemma regarding literature falls upon education as a whole, and that there is, indeed, a crisis afoot. My

14

hypothesis when beginning this project was that diverse programs of study are not as diverse as they would have us believeand goodness, I was more right than I could ever have imagined. I selected two items for my pseudo-case study of texts that are utilized in high schools and colleges: a reading list published by Pearson (a major textbook publisher) for grades nine through twelve and the curriculum in English classes at the high school level in my hometowns State College Area School District. Pearson publishes, on its website, a list of texts for suggested reading for grades nine through twelve. Of these one hundred authors, 86% are white, 77% are male, and not one was published after 1996. It excludes authors such as Alice Walker and Toni Morrison, but includes four texts by John Steinbeck. The State College Area School District, situated in central Pennsylvania, has the good fortune to be situated near a large university, meaning that it receives a great deal of funding from taxes and is set in the midst of a diverse population. I graduated from the State College Area High School in 2008 feeling reasonably enriched and blessed to have attended such a diverse school. Much to my horror when looking at its reading list in 2012, I found that while it added works such as Persepolis and Things Fall Apart, the English program abandoned The Color Purple. Furthermore, very few frequently-banned books were included, with no Native American authors, one Asian author, one Middle Eastern author and five black authors out of a total of forty-five texts. [For visuals of all of these statistics, please view the attached Appendix] Just after I finished reviewing these two sources, I was able to meet with Dr. John Marsden, my professor, regarding my project, and he pointed out that English Studies programs, such as that which I am completing at IUP, allow students majoring in English to

15

complete the program having read somewhat-diverse texts such as Things Fall Apart, but having studied absolutely no Shakespeare. I pointed out that with limited timefour years in college, four years in high schoolwe cant possibly read everything. But why is Shakespeare left in the dust? Shakespeare is also left in the dust in public schools, which seems hard to believe, given that many students are required to read his work. That said, an assessment tool used in some states called Accelerated Reader gives point and reading levels to books by using a readability formula that measures texts for difficulty of words, length and other features, in which, the highest-scoring Shakespeare play, Hamlet, is given half the value of the lowest-scoring Tom Clancy novel (Strauss). It seem that the true dilemma, leaving Shakespeare in the dust and rendering Chinua Achebe somewhat obsolete, is a misguided idea of what creates a well-rounded student. High school students are forced to perform well on standardized assessments, emphasizing correctness rather than thought and opinion. Likewise, Liberal Arts curricula in universities suggest that classes such as The Dynamic Earth are essential to being well-rounded, even if a student gains little from the course. Mack asserts that A liberal arts education is designed to help you clear your mind of prejudices, biases, and habitual errors so that you plow, plant and produce a rich harvest. But how does eliminating experience and replacing it with The Dynamic Earth enable students to read Shakespeare? It seems that expanding human knowledge has created a competition for time, not just with English students, but with students in all disciplines.

16

Next, in regard to public schools in particular, is the issue of teachers. Unfortunately for many educators, it is impossible to find a teaching position and to attain scholarly distinction on the basis of broad appreciative study of literature (Welles and Hill 465). Furthermore, in attempts to quantify and measure their discipline, English educators are attempting to scientize English Studies, making it dull. While many students find writers such as Shakespeare boring and difficult for this reason, Welles and Hill point out that Shakespeare was written for the common man, for the groundlings, for the unscholarly Globe patrons who walked in from the cockfight on the street (Welles and Hill 467), so there is no reason for this to be the case. The fact of the matter is that literature and the canon is one way that American society dispenses cultural capital and perspectives about life to students. Unless students are to read everything, it seems that some sort of evaluation of what is really important to read and know must happen. But who is responsible for this step, and how should it be taken? Conclusion What do all of these ideas, this crisis, and this debate come down to? There is a legitimate case petitioning the way English education works to change. There is something to be said for the canonfor the Shakespeares and the Achebes. If, however, there is not room to continually add texts to that list because of time constraints, then the real question is what is taking up time at all? Perhaps it is time, as stated in Primary Canon, to challenge longestablished notions of what counts as 'good quality' in relation to textsand to ensure that the curriculum of the twenty-first century reflects the variety and breadth of reading material encountered by [people] in their daily lives (Marsh 259), because ultimately, the purpose of

17

reading literature is to understand and assign meaning to life and beauty, and to add depth to that knowledge which you are already fortunate enough to possess. More concretely, though, how do we do this? First, we must stop regaling authors simply for being individual and unique, unlike any others, and rather pay attention to the history in their work, and enjoy it as a whole, rather than such and such esoteric quote or stanza (Eliot). Furthermore, we need to accept that development is not synonymous with improvement, But the difference between the present and the past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an extent which the pasts awareness of itself cannot show (Eliot). But most importantly, we must stop reading because anyone has told us to do so and rather read because a text tugs at something deep inside of us. So, why read Shakespeare? Is it because he is important? Is it because he is the predecessor to other significant authors? No. Shakespeare is a phenomenal read for any student simply because of what he has to say about life, and about how you may grow to see yourself through his characters, regardless of whether or not you are a man or a woman, black, white or green. In the words of Michael Mack, [reading] isn't just about your head, it's also about the heart. And, returning to Shakespeare, I can say that he can be particularly helpful in understanding the heart (Mack). That is, you can become better at the art of living and fulfilling yourself by reading works like Shakespeare, but it is your responsibility to find those books on your own, regardless of whether or not they are required of you in a classroom. Read what is modern, read what is old. Read that which your grandmother has on her bookshelf, or that which you find in a corner of a far-flung bookshop. But for goodness sake, do read.

18

Works Cited Core Titles/Themes and Core Assessments. State College Area School District. State College Area School District Secondary English Department, 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <http://www.scasd.org/Page/166>. Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Tradition and the Individual Talent. The Sacred Wood. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1921. Bartleby.com. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://www.bartleby.com/200/ sw4.html>. Fowler, Alistair. Genre and the Literary Canon. New Literary History 11.1 (1979): 97-119. JSTOR. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/468873 .>. Guillory, John. Canonical and Noncanonical: The Current Debate. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. 3-82. Print. - - -. Canon, Syllabus, List: A Note on the Pedagogic Imaginary. Transition 52 (1991): 36-54. JSTOR. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935123 .>. - - -. The Discourse of Value: From Adam Smith to Barbara Herrnstein Smith. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. 269-340. Print.

19

Kaplan, Carey, and Ellen Cronan Rose. The Canon and the Common Reader. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1990. Print. Kramnick, Jonathan Brody. The Making of the English Canon. PMLA 112.5 (1997): 1087-1101. JSTOR. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/463485 .>. Lautner, Paul. History and the Canon. Social Text 12 (1985): 94-101. JSTOR. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/466607>. Leavis, F. R. The Great Tradition. Introduction. The Great Tradition. By Leavis. 4th ed. New York: New York University Press, 1969. 1-27. Print. Mack, Michael. Why Read Shakespeare? Freshman Convocation. Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Catholic U. 10 Sept. 2008. The Catholic University of America. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/RDSpeeches/ 09freshmanconvocation.cfm>. Marsh, Jackie. The Primary Canon: A Critical Review. British Journal of Educational Studies 52.3 (2004): 249-262. JSTOR. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556055 .>. Strauss, Valerie. Why Read Shakespeare When Clancy Can Get You a Pizza Party? Washington Post, 29 Jan. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/01/28/AR2007012801173.html>. Suggested Reading for High School (Grades 912). Pearson. Pearson Education. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/reading_list/high_school.html>.

20

Welles, Orson, and Roger Hill. On the Teaching of Shakespeare and Other Great Literature. English Journal 27.6 (1938): 464-468. JSTOR. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/ stable/805429 >.

21

Appendix

Pearson
White Black 1% Asian 1% 3% Amerindian Hispanic

9%

86%

SCASD
White Black Asian Middle Eastern 2% 2% 11%

85%

22

Appendix (continued)

Pearson
Men Women

23%

77%

SCASD
Men Women

22%

78%

23

Appendix (continued)

Pearson
Pre-1900 1900s

30%

70%

SCASD
Pre-1900 1900s 2000-Present

7% 40%

53%