Your non-fiction books were all the other textbooks in all the other subjects. Literature specifically focuses on fiction, not just “books”

Aren't textbooks nonfiction?

So a catholic school ? /s

Dang, yall didn't have textbooks?

Disagree with your underlying assertion that students do not read nonfiction books. Your textbooks are nonfiction.

In terms of more "classic" nonfiction materials, j don't think it's a very important skill. Something like Anne Frank's diary or Night can definitely be powerful, but I don't think reading a secondary source on the American civil war has any more value for a student than a chapter in a textbook.

Eh, fiction books are like non-fiction books but they can tell a more meaningful story.

I'd probably grow up hating reading if I was made to read non-fiction in school.

I think fiction is absolutely fine for classes in literature and language which is often a major core component of education. Historical fiction I wouldn't add to curriculum but are great as recommendation to compare with a lesson for an interpretive context.

Not sure how you can teach STEM with fiction though.

Son you didn't have class manuals?

As others have mentioned, Diary of Anne Frank is the only fitting non-fiction book that comes to mind.

Angela's Ashes is sometimes assigned in high school. It's mostly non-fiction, though the author describes his own conception so clearly it's not all strictly true.

Fiction is more important than nonfiction in my opinion. Good fiction teaches you about the human condition. Studies have shown people who read more fiction are more empathetic for example. The ability to put yourself in the mind of another person is not only good for society as a whole, it's good for the individual because navigating relationships is something you will be dealing with until you die.

That of course isn't to say nonfiction isn't important, but that's what all your textbooks are for. That is nonfiction.

Tldr; I don't think it's a problem at all, no

No philosophy books? Would think some Plato or Socrates would be a good primer that no one can take umbrage with. Diary of Anne Frank I thought was kind of a given as well.

Personally, I think more folks should read "War is a Racket", especially considering how short it is.

I had to read 3 books to write a small report on it. It's just to show comprehension skills, I guess. I don't see an issue with that.

It was similar in my school, I mean aside from objective textbooks like in science or history. Apart from a couple stories, I've never really enjoyed reading fiction, and as a result, I struggled in school as that was the focus for gauging reading comprehension and other metrics.

Where I lacked in desire to read fiction, I was obsessed with poring through the encyclopedias we had at home. I would read ahead in history and math and science. I had no problems grasping the material and applying what I'd learned. In many ways, I feel this was not recognized by teachers and that the education system failed me in this regard.

I love reading to learn about the world, and I understand fiction can provide insight into other people's perspectives, but it is still difficult for me to engage with fiction. It just doesn't interest me the same way.

This isn't to say we should change how we impart the joy of reading to kids. I'm not sure how I'd deal with my case, even if I could go back in time. There's a good fiction plot somewhere in here, I guess. "Man goes back in time to spark new interest in himself to read fiction, ultimately fails, but the child reflects on it later in life and continues the time loop."

To truly answer your question, I feel like I need to read about child development and the education system in general.