A post about the Common Core standards “No One Opposes Reading Non-Fiction”) was followed by a lively discussion among readers. Among many excellent comments, this one stood out. Written by Robert D. Shepherd, it raises important issues about how publishers will interpret the standards. And even more important, why do we want to read?
Back in the 1960s and ’70s, many educators around the country implemented Phase Elective Programs. Students would take mini-courses, six or nine weeks long, on specific topics like American Transcendentalism or The French Revolution and read a bunch of related materials–fiction, poetry, plays, and nonfiction–on those topics. These programs came under heavy fire from conservatives because many of the topics dealt with popular culture or left-wing politics (e.g., Superheroes, The Literature of Protest, The Haves and the Have Nots). What was wonderful about Phase Elective Programs, however, was that the curriculum was designed based on the areas of study rather than based on lists of skills to be learned, types of texts to be covered, etc. Such curricula put the topic of study first, recognizing that the reason for reading is to learn about, to understand more about, something interesting and important. To their credit, the creators of the Common Core State Standards have called for reading of connected texts across the school year and across multiple grades. However, that call comes in footnotes, appendices, and white papers issued after the fact, such as the Publisher’s Guidance.
Think of the plight of the editor sitting down to design a new 8th-grade literature textbook based on the new standards. Now, what he or she is supposed to do is a) make sure that the text covers this long list of skills given in the standards and b) make sure that the balance of types of texts is exactly what was called for. Decisions about what texts to include and in what order will be made by this editor not on the basis of which texts are the strongest contributions to some topic of study or interest but, rather, on the basis of which can be used to teach the skills listed in the standards and which will meet the genre quotas for the grade level. Already, we are seeing lots of new textbook programs based on the new standards. And these programs are taking a predictable form. To meet the call for connected texts, these programs organize selections (50% literature, 50% informative texts) into units dealing with what are erroneously called “themes” (e.g., “Challenges,” “Weather”). These “themes” tend to be VERY vague and broad, so the texts in a given unit do not really build a body of knowledge or understanding about a subject of study. They are “connected” texts in only the most superficial senses. A text is chosen for a particular spot in a particular unit not because it is intrinsically interesting or valuable, not because it is the best texts for building knowledge or understanding of some area of interest, but because a) it has an appropriate “readability” according to some mathematical formula (such as an appropriate Lexile level); b) activities can be constructed, based on that text, to “cover” the next few skills in the list of standards (the standards call, here, for treatment of hyperbole and allusion to Greek myth, so we need a text that contains those); c) it contributes to the required “balance” of literary and informative texts (gee, we already have three literary texts; we need three informative texts now); and d) it is vaguely related to the unit’s vague “theme.” With all these criteria determining their choices of texts, it’s little wonder why so many textbook publishers opt for creating written-to-order texts (and paying small change to freelancers to cook those up).
All these criteria lead to an egregious outcome: the whole point of reading is ignored. The reason why anyone bothers to read to begin with gets lost. We read because we become interested in something and want to know about or understand it, or we read simply because we want to be entertained. In the former case, we become interested in, say, vegan cooking or rock climbing or Mayans or space travel or the Holocaust, and we search out the best, most informative, works on the topic and read those. In the latter, we read particular works because we, as individuals, have a taste for science fiction or mysteries or popular science or pop sci self help, and we choose to crack the most interesting titles in those areas that we come across. We do NOT choose our reading because we need to work on our “identifying metaphors” skills. That skills learning happens incidentally because we are readers, and we are readers because we want to know or want to be entertained.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. People MEAN WELL when they put out these standards and other criteria for text selection, but taken together, the criteria undermine the whole purpose of the enterprise of instruction in “reading” and “literature,” which is to create readers.
Yes, I experienced the trend to “thematic” curricula, which was not successful in my view for selection of the greatest works to read. In LA it meant we read books that normally would never be chosen for literary greatness.
I think the goals in reading instruction, however, are much more than just creating readers, or maybe I am not clear in what you mean by that. Creating a reader in 2nd grade is much different than what we are doing in creating a reader in 7th grade or 12th grade. Being a good critical reader is important, and don’t we sometimes become interested in what we read even though we may not have been at first? I think we read for many reasons, and I think our goals in teaching reading are many. Maybe the confusion is in calling it reading as opposed to literature, which is what we do mostly in English classes, and which has different goals that just teaching reading or creating readers.
This is an outstanding statement of a major problem in modern curriculum design.
The combination of Robert D. Shepherd’s post and Robin Johnston’s comment made for some good reading this morning. I found Shepherd’s commentary on textbook design enlightening and persuasive, and I agree with Robin Johnston that we do more in literature class than teach “reading” or create readers.
“People MEAN WELL when they put out these standards…”
These standards were not developed by educators and corporate profiteers are their driving force, so if those “people mean well,” one must ask “for whom and to what end?”
One of my favorite classes in high school was devoted to reading 20th century novels. From it, I read both To Kill a Mockingbird and Fahrenheit 451, both of which have a lot to teach about human nature. If I had been forced to read in order to gain “strategies” my love of reading might have been killed. As a teacher, I struggle with overteaching reading. Kids do need to read for deeper understanding, but it can easily go down the path of boredom. Seventh grade students in my school read The Outsiders. They love it, it is so exciting to see them enjoy reading. That is the important piece that is missing. You have to enjoy reading to put the effort into it when it gets hard. By stressing strategies and text responses, we make reading more work, not fun.
Nittany89, I would love to read more about how you promote more enjoyment of reading. It sounds like you employ a thematic, but holistic approach. These are the discussions we need to be having, from peer to peer.
I teach ESL. In the past, I have used read alouds a lot. It takes some of the pressure off my students. This year, I am using a computer-based reading program. The combination of technology and reading draws my students in. I try hard not to over kill the strategy bit. Sometimes I do a mini-lesson on a particular strategy. I also have some books of paranormal nonfiction, articles on various phenomena which always lead to good discussions. I wish I could just have my students read novels or short stories of their choice, but I have to help boost test scores. There is another period each day in which students have the opportunity to read whatever they choose. I guess that’s a start.
It sounds like your approach is pretty balanced, but I think some teachers over do the “fun” and “joy” of reading as if that is the only objective they have and as if a student reads and likes a book, that mean they are enjoying reading and find it fun. I read for lots of reason, but most of the time I would never describe it as joyful or fun. I read mostly for pragmatic reasons. I want to know something, or further ideas or clarity. Maybe I want to cook something and don’t know how, maybe I have heard some novel is great and I want to know why or maybe I am just interested in a character or conflict. These aren’t fun or joyful occasions really, though I may be very interested and am grateful I can read so I can pursue these goals.
I think a good reader can approach any kind of text and understand it, not be averse to trying it, and appreciates that our own interpretation of what we read can be very different than others’, and we may learn a lot by hearing what others think.
What I have seen in some situations is that stressing the love of reading over everything else means some kids think they are inadequate since they will never love to read (they may be severely dyslexic), and some have developed an attitude that they shouldn’t have to read anything that doesn’t appeal to their personal taste, that their personal taste is all that matters–it is not a good book if they didn’t like it, or that once they have enjoyed the book, there is nothing more to do with it or get from it. I think we have to be balanced and realistic in how we approach reading. It is a versatile tool for many of us, not usually an end in itself.
“All these criteria lead to an egregious outcome: the whole point of reading is ignored.”
‘Precisely why the ELA CCSS will not succeed.
It definitely seems like some good ideas at some points along the continuum of reading instruction have been taken too far. For example, readability is good to consider when teaching fluency with younger kids, but not nearly as important at the 8th grade level, at least not in the narrow sense of readability/lexiles.
I am still trying to understand what mix of informational text and fiction a typical high school student currently reads. Any estimates?
No one knows. We could put a meter in every high school students’ class and spend millions trying to figure it out.
So the 30% fiction split could well be an increase in the amount of fiction that a high school student reads in school?
Creating ‘readers’ means creating people who will choose to read, and know how to enjoy what they read. They will employ different strategies for different reading purposes. They will be capable of parsing a difficult passage of fiction or nonfiction. They will choose to read to their own children. They will pick up a book for pleasure. They will share with others, talking about what they read. I teach an English elective, Reading for Pleasure, which employs student choice, time to read in class, and an enthusiastic audience (me) for students’ insights and reflections. Advanced readers, on-grade readers, remedial readers, IEP readers, readers in a second or third language — all have an equal opportunity to be successful. I give my students the gifts of time and choice. They give me the gift of watching them learn and grow. Where will this fit into the great CCSS scheme?
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!!!
One thing that is very telling is that all of Student Achievement Partners example lessons pretty much just have some variation on “practicing reading and writing skills and habits” as their objective. You might make that part of a coherent curriculum, but you don’t have to at all.
It is simple the purpose of literacy in this age of school reform, NCLB, RTTT, and the common core is to pass their test. Why their test, because the hidden curriculum for conservatives has always been control. Control what people read, and you control a great deal of what they think. The English author and philosopher said “To read is to fly: it is to soar to a point of vantage which gives a view over wide terrains of history, human variety, ideas, shared experience and the fruits of many inquiries.” Hidden behind this conservative Ed Reform agenda is the control of the flight of the mind.
A curriculum measured in skills fits perfectly into multiple choice testing formats. It works so well to keep people from thinking A, B, C, D, or E none of the above. It completely eliminates that most dangerous word BUT.
Chales Dicken’s knew this in 1884 when he immortalized the “Conservative Educator” with these lines: “NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”
The Common does not free readers, but enslaves them to proving they read the required reading by answering carefully scripted questions with carefully scripted “Close Reading” responses that rob readers of any aesthetic responses. It eliminates any need to depend on Louise Rosenblatt’s Aesthetic/Efferent continuum. Which eliminates any grounding of reading in feminism, multiculturalism, or critical theory.
In my humble opinion the CC is merely the continuum of that war on women conservatives have been fighting for centuries.
If you want to control what society thinks then simply control what they read, and how they respond.
Even Pink Floyd knew this: ” We don’t need no education We dont need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids.” Reformers realize they also need to control teachers.
Thus Value Added Assessment of teachers link their evaluations to testing.
I’ll end with Marcus Garvey “Free yourselves from mental slavery”
Forgive the omitting of A.C. Graying the English Author and philosopher.
I seriously doubt people’s “well meaning” intentions when creating these texts and criteria.
“The reason why anyone bothers to read to begin with gets lost. We read because we become interested in something and want to know about or understand it, or we read simply because we want to be entertained. In the former case, we become interested in, say, vegan cooking or rock climbing or Mayans or space travel or the Holocaust, and we search out the best, most informative, works on the topic and read those.”
Yes! This is exactly how we pursue education as homeschoolers! The learning and the acquisition of skills happen in the pursuit of fascinating topics. I long for a school that can offer the same. I’m sure it’s possible in theory. I wish it were so in reality. Maybe someday?
Common core writing standard flaws….not just concerns with the reading standards:
Read full post as well:
Common Core’s English language arts standards don’t have just one fatal flaw, i.e., its arbitrary division of reading standards into two groups: 10 standards for “informational” text and nine for “literature” at all grade levels from K to 12. That’s only the most visible; its writing standards turn out to be just as damaging, constituting an intellectual impossibility for the average middle-grade student — and for reasons I hadn’t suspected. The architects of Common Core’s writing standards simply didn’t link them to appropriate reading standards, a symbiotic relationship well-known to reading researchers. Last month I had an opportunity to see the results of teachers’ attempts to address Common Core’s writing standards at an event put on by GothamSchools, a four-year-old news organization trying to provide an independent news service to the New York City schools.
http://inpolicy.org/2012/12/common-core-standards-which-way-for-indiana/
To solve the problem of text books, simply buy the test preparation materials and spend your day teaching from them. How? Never mind! Just prepare the children to take the test, not read! How? You the teacher will be given a script to go with the test preparation materials. How will your classroom management be affected? Never mind, we have armed guards in the school so send the students who misbehave because they are bored and unengaged to the principal. The princiPAL will determine if the student is to be staffed for special education or put on in-school suspension that does not have to be reported to the district. If in school suspension or special education does not work, send the students to the rising numbers of “alternative” schools from which they cannot return because the school from which he was sent is now closing. What a tangled web of feces we weave with corporate take-over of our schools and quiet dismantling of teachers’ union rights.
What a horrible, disgusting, pathetic state of affairs. It is all so discouraging. However, I am more encouraged than ever to subvert and circumvent and do what’s best for the kids. Fire me! Make my day! I don’t give a crap anymore.
This is an inspiring article from the NYT about a man with dyslexia and how he runs his manufacturing company now because of it. Why can’t these innovations be part of our standards, testing, assessment, and curriculum?
I love his closing:
I give employees second chances because I know what it’s like to struggle. Years ago, I gave one of our maintenance workers two or three chances to improve his work habits, and he succeeded. Now he’s head of maintenance and a leader in our manufacturing initiatives. We also hire a lot of high school graduates who aren’t inclined to try college because they feel that it would be too difficult. You have to find a seat on the bus for everyone. I’m a perfect example.
Will there be a seat on the bus under the Gates Foundation/Duncan Dept of Education testing regime?
OR Good test takers only need apply.
Well said, Linda!
What an great story. That is exactly the kind of student who will be lost in the testing shuffle, and yet look what a great leader he has become. It just shows that we have to learn to make accomodations for those who learn differently or not as quickly, they can still be very productive citizens and deserve the chance.
if you look back into the past, an SRA textbook for reading series called Reading Mastery, did just that. There was a great combination of fiction and non-fiction stories that went together. Kids like them ( I still have them and we secretly read them). My point is that all of the chatter is about stuff that is not really ‘new’ but somebody took old ideas and made a random formula. will it help kids learn? maybe. will it solve the problems of society? no. will it improve test scores? who cares?