Education: The Relevance Myth

One of the dominant buzzwords in education reform these days is “relevance.” In what is supposed to be news to teachers, we are told that we need to ensure that our lessons are relevant to the lives of our students. It’s not just that this most obvious of concepts is presented to teachers as if it is revolutionary that bothers me; it’s that the push for relevance seems to mean lowering our expectations at the same time.

Enter John Foley, an English teacher from Washington, who believes we should not only throw out books with troublesome words and ideas, but replace them with ones that are easier to read:

Even if Huck Finn didn’t contain the N-word and demeaning stereotypes, it would remain a tough sell to students accustomed to fast-paced everything. The novel meanders along slower than the Mississippi River and uses a Southern dialect every bit as challenging as Shakespeare’s Old English.

I can’t avoid the pedantic observation that someone who believes Shakespeare wrote in Old English probably shouldn’t be teaching literature, but it’s not the worst of the argument. Foley seems to have embraced the mantra of relevance, suggesting we should replace challenging literature from other times in our history with more accessible, more familiar texts. Why teach Harper Lee when John Grisham is available? Why teach Shakespeare when Lost is on Wednesday nights? (Season premiere tonight, by the way!)

Great teaching and real student knowledge will never come from exposing students to the familiar and mundane. Real learning comes from finding ways in which the unfamiliar is relevant to our lives, not just exposing ourselves to the ideas and texts that are comfortable.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts


About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba has been writing about Montana politics since 2005 and teaching high school English since 2000. He's a former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • The classics must be taught in school because THAT is the ONLY place that kids will be exposed to them. And they are classic for a reason. Think about it. I hardly think that john grisham is classic literature. The conept of relevance is just so much bullshit.

  • I don’t think that “relevant is the same as “comfortable.”
    Personally, I have always had trouble learning anything without having some sense of why it mattered. “Because I say it does” is not a good enough reason; therefore any decent teacher should be able to demonstrate relevance.

Send this to a friend