Is School Poetry Missing the Heart of the Art?
Emilia Matyja
“Poetry is nearer to vital truth than history.” - Plato
The term ‘vital’ derives from the Latin word vita, meaning ‘life’. Plato suggests that poetry is akin to the very act of breathing—with an essence of life embedded within its words. History records events, but poetry as vital truth (an essential knowledge) captures specific experience. If poetry reflects this truth, incorporating it into educational curricula is essential. But do schools truly honour this or merely reduce poetry to an academic exercise?
Getty Images
One summer evening (led by her) I found
A little boat tied to a willow tree
Within a rocky cove, its usual home.
‘Classics’ remind me of poets like Blake, Shelley, and Wordsworth, whose notable works include “London,” “Ozymandias,” and “The Prelude" (the latter of which is featured above). I recall the social game of creating in-depth analyses of the works, where the accuracy of annotations was as significant as the colour of highlighter and who could recite the pieces from memory. But is poetry taught in schools ‘good enough’? Does it resonate with students or engage modern audiences? And, does it nurture a love for the art form, or stifle it?
Straight I unloosed her chain, and stepping in
Pushed from the shore. It was an act of stealth
And troubled pleasure
The way poetry is taught in school appears to be a double-edged sword: traditional poetry exposes students to contexts and literary figures, yet classes prioritise analysis over connection. Does this method encourage appreciation? Or does it alienate the emotional core of poetry? Poetry enhances language skills, critical thinking, and communication. Former U.S. poet laureate Billy Collins remarks that poetry loosens some of our "fixed notions [to] accommodate another point of view [...] a model of the kind of intellectual openness and conceptual sympathy that a liberal education seeks to encourage.” Discovering diverse perspectives cultivates understanding and empathy in a complex world, while also encouraging a critical approach towards texts.
It is easy to discuss the benefits of poetry, but I must remember how it truly felt to learn poems in school: “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.” This is how I saw poems during my exams. I’d hope to glimpse a familiar title, have an epiphany, and unleash endless analysis. Given the poets I recall, it is no coincidence that the list includes deceased, white, male poets. Though not exclusively, my memory serves as a testament to the emphasis on classics and a specific genre of poets, fostering a limited sense of diversity in my past study of poetry. Due to their antiquated language, classics often seem less accessible to, and quite disconnected from the reality of the students learning these poems’ history and context. Is poetry being dissected rather than experienced? In many educational environments, analysis takes precedence over emotional connection, inhibiting a true emotional connection in an attempt to cling to understanding and analysis for exams.
The horizon's bound, a huge peak, black and huge,
As if with voluntary power instinct,
Upreared its head. I struck and struck again,
The tension between experiencing and dissecting poetry raises the question: Can poetry truly be taught? R. L. Morris asks this exact question in her paper, citing her professor’s words: “If a man sets out to teach poetry, he will end up teaching either history or grammar. There is no such thing as teaching poetry.” Ensnaring poetry within academic criticism risks reducing it merely to an exercise in ‘appreciation’. Does this justify ignoring the “vital truth” of poetry and how its history, context, and lived experience are conveyed to the reader? Academic criticism is precisely the method of uncovering this “vital truth”; however, a liveliness is extracted in this approach, devaluing its emotional impact through guidelines and structures.
It also raises the question of whether the value of poetry is measurable and whether the poems taught in schools are ‘good enough.’ Louise Dudley, who has authored a guide on how to read poetry, aims to provide “knowledge and understanding of great classics,” fostering awareness of literary standards and offering an “intelligent account” of what a reader appreciates or dislikes about a poem. Is a reader’s admiration for a poem that manages to plant a seed of truth and reveal something within their soul not enough? Or must a reader possess the vocabulary, supported by method and context, to articulate how it resonates with them?
Brooks and Warren, in their book, Understanding Poetry, also seek to “make competent readers of poetry.” However, perhaps the question of competency and value is the killer of interest. When we question whether the poetry we are taught in school is good enough, we assess whether it meets literary standards, intelligence, and skill. We should also consider the other side: whether it engages our interest without the need for skillful analysis, and whether it cherishes the art form of expression without requiring us to value its worth.
And growing still in stature the grim shape
Towered up between me and the stars,
How do we judge this? Dudley states that poetry is an “appeal to emotions.” Brooks and Warren, on the other hand, say Poetry must be definite and reach certain conclusions. Poetry imparts emotional depth to subjects; it conveys lived experience through artistic expression.
A debate exists about the purpose of poetry: should it provide conclusions or remain an open, emotional appeal that allows it to be judged based on its emotional, rather than analytical value? This raises the question of what type of poetry resonates with students today. In this age of fast paced media, I am drawn to shorter poetry that requires only a few words to create an impact—and I am not alone. Students today seem to connect with short, raw, and emotionally direct poetry. Widely read poets today include Rupi Kaur, Amanda Gorman, Ocean Vuong, Sylvia Plath, but don’t exclude older poets in the same vein such as Sappho. The length is telling, but the primary connection among these poets and their poems is undoubtedly the content.
The accessibility and personal connection to these poems, which explore themes of mental health, love, loss, and identity—both urgent and timeless—go beyond simple analysis, inviting a deeper understanding of their context and history. It is the emotion within a poem that truly engages the reader, rather than the need to delve into a history which, while providing perspective, doesn’t resonate as deeply as the poems that are widely read today. Our society is more individualistic than ever, driven by entrepreneurship, self-love, personal branding, and curated identities; we seek to discover ourselves through trends, hashtags, and stereotypes that shape our sense of identity. As a result, poems that convey raw states of emotion are often more relatable.
Comparing William Wordsworth’s ‘The Prelude’ with Sylvia Plath’s ‘Tulips,’ we can see a difference in emotional resonance - both poems talk about nature. Wordsworth’s philosophy is about the terror and awe inspired by the mountain peak he encountered on his boat journey as a child. The readers have to grapple with the abstracts of the Sublime (a vastness beyond calculation). Though the poem holds literary merit, it feels distant.
Plath’s ‘Tulips’ is personal and demonstrates an immediate connection to nature.
The tulips are too excitable, it is winter here.
Look how white everything is, how quiet, how snowed-in.
The tulips positioned near her hospital bed symbolise the weight of her mental health struggles. This exposure of her experience allows students to feel the poem, rather than concentrate solely on intellectual abstracts. The burden of the tulips, given to her by someone who hopes for her to live, creates tension between her desire to die and their hope for her survival. Meanwhile, the peak in Wordsworth’s piece raises questions about human insignificance in relation to nature. The personal quality of Plath—addressing identity, mental health, and personal growth—resonates more with the modern world, where students are often searching for meaning in their lives.
The tulips are too red in the first place, they hurt me.
Even through the gift paper I could hear them breathe
This comparison illustrates how the type of poetry taught in schools, whether classic or contemporary, can foster connection or create distance depending on how effectively it resonates with the students’ lived experiences. The emotional intensity and relatable themes of modern poetry may be easier for students to connect with. While the classic poetry taught in schools may be intellectually satisfying, it does not always connect with the emotional heart.
Evaluating poetry as ‘good enough’ is more complex than just assessing literary merit. The classics hold value, otherwise, they would not be considered classics. However, the way they are taught—through rigid analysis and, in my experience, mindless memorisation—acts as a barrier to the emotional connections that students can form with the art. I believe the issue lies not in whether the poetry is ‘good enough,’ but in how it is taught and whether that approach allows students to feel its vitality. By re-evaluating the methods of teaching poetry and concentrating on personal resonance rather than ticking academic boxes, schools could foster genuine engagement of students with the art form.
