I cannot believe, I've only heard of it today(thanks to RSS)!

Why would anyone propose to not require the reading of fiction in (elementary and high)schools?
Well, Ms. Althouse here proposed that. Here's the link. Do not read the comments yet as I would also like to share a counter-article about her proposal. Just go to these two: Adventure in Ethics and Hullabaloo. The first is shorter but the second is nastier.

My take on the matter? Well, Ms. Althouse mentioned that schools shouldn't force kids to read fiction as some may not be inclined to reading it and she pushed for pure nonfiction readings in schools. Also, she told things about how reading fiction and reading for pleasure is not related to economic success. Maybe, it is not related. I am not sure. The Philippine situation seems to contradict my belief, as I do not think many of the successful businessmen here like to read fiction. Studies point out though people who likes reading fiction have higher scores in standardized tests. Again, higher scores doesn't guarantee economic success. I do not think anything ever guarantees economic success. Anyway, I digress.

Regarding her thoughts on the inclination of children, I do not think many people are naturally inclined to math or science or history yet the schools are forcing them to study it. Why? Ms Althouse says they are "something academic and substantive." And reading is not academic? So all those diplomas for MA's and PhD's on literature are just glorified asswipes? Faculty members dedicated to the study of literature are just bums afraid to do "real work?" Not substantive? Hah! By substantive, she would be referring to its usefulness and haven't tons of studies already highlighted the important role that reading fiction play in the growth of a mature human being?

Also, applying her belief that we should let every child to choose what to study based on her inclinations would just lead to anarchy or at least, a very stupid generation as most children are not naturally inclined to anything academic. It's like the Creationists' argument, schools should teach all the knowledge they could offer; teach both evolution and creationism. With the notable exception that Creationism should not be taught, at least in Science class, because it is not a scientific theory. And schools are supposed to be places where kids will learn what they want to do, what they want to become, what they want to learn and what they want. Depriving them of reading fiction would not lead them to thirsting for it. Not introducing them to fiction is the same as saying that all of the children would become scientists even though science was not introduced to them. With her plan, I would be surprised to see the resulting adults even wanting to read anything. Or maybe it'll lead to a society where thick reference books are the Harry Potter books. Besides, how could you entice people to read thick wonderful novels by depriving them of it and forcing them to read textbooks?

But I do agree that good reading material should be present in schools. Not just fiction and not just nonfiction. But seriously? Non-fiction used to entice people to read? Or maybe it is because I tend to attach the word nonfiction(textbooks, lab reports, case studies, essays, biographies) to the word boring.