Dear Colleagues, I have been out of the loop for a while due to a serious illness, but now that I am back on task, I am deeply saddened by the running dogfight concerning the new Lit programme. I think that the teachers who have taken the time to comment to the list are worried about what is best for their students, and not looking to crucify the individuals who have worked on developing the new modules. I love Literature. I have never stopped teaching it and I put a good deal of effort into choosing pieces that suit each individual class.This year I am teaching a short story unit based on fairy tales, which includes works that present parody, feminism and the Holocaust - not what you find in the average literature book. Sometimes I teach works that have been translated in an effort to expose my students to the world they will inherit. I do this because the majority of English speakers in the world today speak English as a second language. These authors may not write in my native tongue; but they are a part of my reality - and my students'. However I am not surprised that your survey preferred older pieces of Literature. Schools are facing a financial crunch and are not about to invest in unlimited resources for the "krizot" of the English staff. You use what you can. And with all the best intentions considered, not every teacher has the time to invest in something unknown and untried. They are too busy correcting countless drafts of their students' projects. During project season, my average evening of correcting papers ends at about 1 am - every school night. I know that I am not alone. So now if I want to keep to the standard I believe in, I understand that I can expect to forgo sleep for the entire school year, because I will choose the log. This is mostly because I want to teach works that I think will widen the students horizons, but also because after looking at the sample exam I know that even my best students (who are also Hebrew Lit majors and know a thing or two about examining a piece critically) can not pass it. As for the comment that "the teachers who are complaining... are the ones who haven't taken the course" - I believe that it is a blow below the belt. The schedule of courses was announced after the academic year began. I can only speak for myself (albeit I am sure that there are many other teachers in the same position) - but I can't just march into my principal and tell him to change the schedule because now I have to run to take a course. Yes, I asked and was told no. It was a reasonable response. The last information given at our staff meeting informed us that there may not be a course in the summer - you know limited resources. So again English teachers will be sent into the fray unprepared - and this time not so willing. Yes, there are on-line course, but frankly after my last experience with an on-line course I am less than enthusiastic to travel that road again. I agree with Jimmy and David that we can not blindly jump on the new bandwagon. Will these changes make our students stronger in English? Will they be able to better comprehend the texts that they will have to study in university? Will they have the background knowledge to express their concerns about our country clearly and fluently to news reporters (unlike our politicians) when we face another crisis. Will knowing HOTS and LOTS help them find their way in the subway in New York or the underground in London? I wonder. Best, Ariella Kopels ----------------------------------------------- ** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org or - http://www.etni.org.il ** ** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx ** ** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ** -----------------------------------------------