On the "Johnny Magical" Interpretation of the Pedagogical Gap

I agree with Johnny Magic in that Eckert's ideas on reading strategies in the general English classrooms would be beneficial to younger students. I think the most critical thing a teacher can do for their students is give them a context with which to interpret the materials they are reading. “Critical thinking” is certainly the theme in higher education, but I don't see why this skill is not introduced to us at a much younger age. Even young children have the ability to analyze and gain meaning from their experiences. However, this skill is not developed in their reading practices until much later. I believe this is due to the fact that teachers place such a great emphasis on the mechanical aspects of reading. They are more interested in the memorization of facts that “education standards” require students to know, rather than developing the student's abilities of interpretation. I think I have become far more interested in texts since I have been introduced to the “college” way of thinking because I am able to interpret for myself, rather than “expecting-even requiring-teachers to explicate nuances of the text.” It would have been much more interesting to read texts in high school if I had a “literary lens” already developed. As it stands, I can't even remember most of what I was forced to memorize back then. I think it definitely makes things stick in your mind more when you learn to work with the material and search for possible interpretations of it. I think the best thing I have noticed in upper division literary courses is the willingness of most teachers to consider multiple viewpoints on a reading. Though there are still those teachers in all education levels that will stick rigorously to their imposed interpretive doctrine, I think it is much more productive to encourage analysis, and the ability to explain interpretations than it is to simply require meaningless memorization or mechanical reading.