The Swedish government’s recent investments in school libraries and book purchases, while well-intentioned, are misdirected, according to a group of 70 literature scholars and teacher educators, including Anna Nordlund, Associate Professor of Literature and Lecturer in Didactics at Uppsala University. Their protest, published in Expressen, highlights the marginalization of literary fiction within the Swedish education system, arguing that a focus on basic literacy skills, while important, neglects the crucial role of literature in fostering a love of reading and developing critical thinking. They contend that the government’s approach, exemplified by the teacher education inquiry’s emphasis on basic reading and writing skills over literary education, treats literature as a mere tool for improving vocabulary and decoding skills, rather than a valuable end in itself. This instrumentalization of literature, they argue, undermines its potential to ignite imagination, cultivate empathy, and foster a lifelong appreciation for the written word.
The crux of the argument lies in the distinction between learning to read and becoming a reader. While the government’s focus on basic literacy skills aims to equip students with the technical skills necessary to decode text, it fails to address the crucial next step: fostering a genuine love of reading and an appreciation for the transformative power of literature. The protestors argue that without this crucial element, students may become proficient decoders of text, but they risk remaining functionally illiterate, unable to engage with complex narratives, explore diverse perspectives, and develop the critical thinking skills essential for navigating an increasingly complex world. They advocate for a shift in focus, urging educators to prioritize the creation of rich literary experiences that spark curiosity and cultivate a genuine desire to engage with the written word.
The current emphasis on basic literacy, evident in the government’s teacher education inquiry which mentions ”reading and writing” over 150 times while omitting any mention of ”literature” or ”literary education,” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of literature in education. The protestors argue that this narrow focus risks producing students who can technically read but lack the critical thinking skills, emotional intelligence, and cultural literacy that come from engaging with complex literary texts. They emphasize that literature is not merely a tool for improving vocabulary and decoding skills; it’s a powerful means of exploring the human condition, fostering empathy, and developing the critical thinking skills essential for informed citizenship.
Anna Nordlund points out the inadequacy of teacher training programs in preparing educators to effectively teach literature. Even classic children’s literature like ”Katitzi” and ”Kulla-Gulla” present challenges for newly qualified teachers who lack the specific pedagogical knowledge and support necessary to facilitate meaningful literary discussions and foster a love of reading. This deficiency in teacher training highlights a systemic problem: the devaluation of literary education within the broader educational landscape. Without adequate training and resources, teachers are ill-equipped to cultivate the rich literary experiences that can transform students into lifelong readers.
The protestors advocate for a more holistic approach to literacy education, one that recognizes the intrinsic value of literature and prioritizes the development of strong readers, not just proficient decoders of text. They point to the reading lists developed by the Swedish National Agency for Education and the Swedish Arts Council as a positive step, but emphasize the need for greater support and training for teachers to effectively utilize these resources. They argue that literary experiences should be the primary goal of literacy education, with improved vocabulary, reading comprehension, and expressive abilities following naturally as students engage with rich and complex texts. This approach recognizes that a love of reading is the key to unlocking the full potential of literacy, fostering not only academic success but also personal growth and intellectual curiosity.
In essence, the protest calls for a paradigm shift in how we approach literacy education. It’s not enough to equip students with the technical skills to decode text; we must also cultivate a love of reading, an appreciation for the power of literature, and the critical thinking skills necessary to engage with complex texts. This requires a fundamental rethinking of teacher training, curriculum development, and the allocation of resources, prioritizing literary experiences as the cornerstone of a well-rounded education. Only then can we ensure that students not only learn to read but also become lifelong readers, capable of navigating the complexities of the world with insight, empathy, and a deep appreciation for the written word.
