This is a tricky one because this and similar subjects go by a lot of names. It can vary not only by region but by which level of study we're talking about.
One of the most common is simply "English." This might cause some confusion because if you enroll in "Spanish," it's a language course, but "English" is often a course in reading and analyzing "literature" and writing about it. For example, as a university major, an "English major" spends most of their time on the criticism and analysis of literature. "High school English" typically involves reading classics like Shakespeare or To Kill a Mockingbird and writing essays.
Such studies are often specialized, especially in higher education. When you narrow the field, the word "literature" is often used: "British Literature 101" (often casually shortened to "Brit Lit"), or "I majored in English with a concentration in Southern Gothic literature." It would not be surprising to find even a general survey course described as "Literature."
In recent years and especially in lower grades, I find the "reading and writing"-oriented courses described as "Language Arts." This reflects the fact that they're often placing equal emphasis on writing as well as reading. It also represents an "integrated" approach. In earlier days, some of these disciplines were taught separately. An old popular song summarizes the elementary curriculum as "Reading and writing and 'rithmetic." Along these lines, you still see "Composition" (meaning the craft of expressing yourself in writing) and "Penmanship" (meaning writing clearly by hand) taught as subjects independent from "Reading," especially in some traditionalist educational approaches.
To dig in a little deeper: There might not be a one-to-one translation because there might be a difference in the underlying philosophy. As a musician, I'm very familiar with the "appreciation" idea because a very common university course is "Music Appreciation" (and the similar "Art Appreciation" for visual arts). I've taught such a course and named mine "Music Enjoyment" instead, as I disagree with some of the assumptions about the arts that underlie the word. It comes from an aesthetic viewpoint that distinguishes between "Fine Arts" or "Great Music" as opposed to other artistic expressions. It assumes that the "un-fine art" and "un-great music"—that is, "popular" musics or artistic expressions—don't need to be studied, and that these more elevated works need assistance. It comes from the same sort of viewpoint that considers it a crisis that symphonies are becoming less popular. From this viewpoint, value is inherent in these works, and the problem is with the viewers or listeners who don't like them. The deficit must be that they simply don't "appreciate" this inherent value; they are either deficient in taste ("philistines") or simply unenlightened. So courses like these try to help you develop an "appreciation" for things that deserve to be "appreciated." (While my personal viewpoint is that study and broadening our exposure is great, and these so-called masterworks do in fact have a lot of value that isn't always easy to access, but the ultimate goal is not to "fix" deficient humans by "appreciating" the value of the art object, but to increase our enjoyment by experiencing something in a new way.)
So a "literature appreciation" course might assume that anyone can read bestselling paperbacks for fun, but that we need to be disciplined to "appreciate" "Great Literature." While this attitude might still inform the curriculum (there's a reason all the high schoolers are still reading Shakespeare and To Kill A Mockingbird), increasingly the field of literary criticism is moving away from a viewpoint that makes a polar distinction between what is "worth" reading and what is not, and instead focusing on teaching skills and themes and applying them to diverse sources.
