In response to the discussion about the time allotted to fiction and non-fiction in the Common Core standards, a teacher writes:
One of the things that really bothers me about this mandate is the devaluing of fiction.
Right now we are foolishly engaging in a short-sighted culture of thinking that the only things that matter are “practical” and “measurable”.
Hence, the importance of non-f. Yet, in many ways I have learned more about science, math and history from fiction than I ever did from non-fiction.
Exploring fiction allows readers to imagine themselves as someone else. It teaches them about the world around them and what it means to be a human being. To read things like the Odyssey, even though it is nearly 3000 years old, or the Aeneid, or the plays of Sophocles, or Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, or Shakespeare’s plays, gives students a sense of the timelessness of some questions and traits.
It gives us a gateway into discussing the meaning of honor, virtue, love and other things. It encourages us to ask questions, to explore, to be curious.
It gives us the ability learn from mistakes without damaging consequences. These are skills that are useful in any endeavor in life, from the professional to the personal. To assert that this type of learning is less valuable than learning to decode a non-f text is to assert that the human and idealistic is less valuable.
Moreover, no one can point to where inspiration comes from. Think for example of the role of a calligraphy class in Jobs’ development of the Apple aesthetic.
The skills one learns in working with fiction texts are ones that can be transferred to any area. For example, if one could explore and analyze the meaning of violence in the Aeneid (I’m a Latin teacher, so I tend to cite fiction from my content area) and of Roman culture in general, one can certainly explore and analyze the meaning of violence in our entertainment and our society, a topic particularly relevant in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
The deepest thinkers are the ones who can draw from a variety of sources and areas to approach things in new ways; yet, by depriving our students of these rich cultural texts by whittling them down to very small portions, we deprive our students of that deep well.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Neuroscience research shows the incredible value of fiction.
How the “edu-experts” can ignore this, I’ll never understand.
A must read …
I agree; I once took a class in Victorian History and Literature and learned more from reading Dickens than I did from any history text. Ironically, the novel was Modern Times and the character was the grim utilitarian Gradgrind, to whom David Coleman, the primary author of the Common Core, has been compared.
As a former Latin teacher at the RI School for the Deaf who also taught the Aeneid (in translation), I agree wholeheartedly with this post. The themes of the horrors of war, war resulting in refugees, the dangers inherent in a refugee group attempting to settle in a land already occupied, as well as the responsibility of a leader to his or her group rather than to their individual desires–all of these have serious parallels throughout history and to the present day, which need to be discussed. It seems to me that what is missing from David Coleman’s approach in the CC (and his rant about no one giving a sh-t about your personal opinions in the real world) callously dismisses what is one of the basic values of a broad education–empathy, and being able to put yourself into the position of others. Horrible to say, how lacking in this vital attribute are so many in our society. One important way that this attribute is gained is from an authentic study of literature. What is important in studying literature is not the ability to recognize a fairy tale from a folk tale by a set of characteristics, for example, but the ability to understand the context of a piece of writing (something completely ignored in so-called ELA test prep materials) and the human message that the author was trying to convey. Education develops human beings, not data points/cogs in a machine.
I think we do a disservice to the (many) legitimate concerns about the provenance, imposition and implementation of the Common Core by carping about this red herring. Nothing in the Common Core calls for the elimination of fiction from the English class. They have defined the percentages of fiction and non fiction which will appear the assessments and i think encouraged a more balanced approach to literacy. As somebody who taught in public schools for 33 years at elementary and secondary levels, I have long observed that teachers have avoided teaching interpretation of non-fiction (particularly rhetorical devices) and writing of argument and persuasion. This gap becomes painfully apparent when reading papers done by undergraduate juniors (a level which I have also taught for the past twelve years).
The present author makes the case for the selection of timeless, high quality fiction worthy of classroom treatment and nothing in the Common Core contradicts his assertion. I would much rather that teachers treat Shakespeare, Chaucer or Sophocles than the insipid “young adult fiction” that some teachers feel must be used because they are unable to motivate their students to consider life beyond their own narrow experiences.
Unfortunately, any value inherent in some of the innovations in the Common Core in striking a balance in the English curriculum are completely undermined by the obsession over using high stakes testing to evaluate teachers (instead of students and the curriculum). Common Core, high stakes testing and value added teacher rating schemes (like New York’s APPR) are all inexorably linked in one massive wad of garbage.
High stakes testing is an external requirement by the Feds and states and not required by the standards. Don’t confuse the two. The tests are being aligned to the standards (a novel concept), but are the contrivance of government and testing companies–not of the standards themselves. Lets not mix apples and oranges.
So David Coleman will denounce PARCC and SBAC? Do you expect him to speak out soon against using these tests to evaluate teachers and students?
Help me understand where this divide is made clear and protected? Who or what entity is holding the standards separate from the testing/evaluation/corporate interests?
I suspect they are all in cahoots but they play good cop, bad cop. This is a package deal. Or maybe David and his defenders will soon speak out, but I doubt it.
I suspect the same.
Here is a link to a professional power point from achievethecore.org which is designed to support the CCSS. (David Coleman video-taped discussions can be found on this website.)
Scroll to slide 8 for the recommended fiction/non-fiction percentages by grade intended across ALL instructional areas.
http://www.achievethecore.org/downloads/instructional-leadership-and-the-common-core/2.instructional_leadership_presentation_with_notes.ppt
AMEN!!!! You are right on and I thank you for writing this. I am going to tweet it to pass on your wonderful thoughts!
I understand the sensitivity to protecting literature and the arts from the corporate mentality that is consuming education, and I agree that literature teaches us far more about being human than a social studies textbook. That is why I decided to teach English Language Arts rather than social studies when I became a teacher in midlife. However, I do not think that the Common Core devalues literature. Rather, it seeks some balance.
I have heard horror stories about districts that are dumping literature for sports biography, which shows a stunning ignorance of the standards. In fact, as far as ELA is concerned, there is a much richer expectation of students in considering literature in relation to other art forms and non-fiction that should enhance and deepen students’ appreciation of literature beyond any prior state standards of which I am aware.
As we struggle for integrity against an onslaught of corporate “reform,” i believe the standards are in fact a weapon in the arsenal of teachers who love literature.
Literature teaches us about human character, motivations and their consequences, which are of immense practical importance as one navigates through life. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest it might almost begin to approach the majesty of The Federal Reserve Bank’s “FedViews,” which is specifically recommended by Mr. Coleman.
That insight into human motivations and how they play out might also help us all “read” the political and economic behavior of those pushing for these standards and the testing/school closing/teacher firing regime that accompanies them.
I suspect this is another reason why Mr. Coleman and those he is a proxy for seek to devalue literature: it might increase the likelihood of people questioning their actions in the future.
I think this will mean more money for the book companies and more teachers speaking out about an issue that is important for many of our students who will do post secondary work in college, trade school or other certification programs. Most post secondary students must learn how to read both fiction and non fiction. How about the kids that hate fiction? or the kids that hate non-fiction? Either way, they must learn how to adapt. When you ask our high students they say they are bored and non of what they are reading is connected to their life. Poor kids especially kids lacking reading skills required to read literature like Chaucer and Shakespeare really speaks volumes to what we have done to our unprepared kids in this country. I would drop out too if I was forced to read this stuff. First I would probably text all day in class and then slowly not come to class. Sound familiar high school teachers? What’s up with multicultural literature that addresses a meaningful connection to what our kids want and what they are going through. I think there is a bigger issue here where we must meet kids where they are at.
Kids don’t need a teacher to comprehend insipid YA novels about situations that “meet kids where they are at” and can read it on their own time as free reading. A good teacher relates the timeless themes treated in the works of Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Twain and other enduring classics to the studenets’ lives and current events. The teacher helps students interpret these challenging texts and identify the enduring themes contained therein.
One more Latin teacher chiming in here. When my students ask me why I chose the discipline that I did, I explain that Classical Studies is for people who can’t make up their minds, because they can study language, linguistics, history, art, archeology anthropology, theology math, science, philosophy literature, etc. all at once.
Here is an article that provides a nice rebuttal to the ridiculous argument that the humanities are irrelevant:
http://takimag.com/article/greek_to_us_the_death_of_classical_education_and_its_consequences#axzz1kti2Uqth
From the neuroscience research cited above …
“It is an exercise that hones our real-life social skills, another body of research suggests. Dr. Oatley and Dr. Mar, in collaboration with several other scientists, reported in two studies, published in 2006 and 2009, that individuals who frequently read fiction seem to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and see the world from their perspective. This relationship persisted even after the researchers accounted for the possibility that more empathetic individuals might prefer reading novels.”
Isn’t the ability to empathize with others and consider what it might be like to walk in their shoes the hallmark of a superior education?
Isn’t this exactly what we so urgently need today for our students?
Yes, the corporate reformers are our modern Gradgrinds. Fiction is play — with words, emotions, and ideas — and play is symbolic behavior, the development of which is a very important in laying the groundwork or higher thinking (baby animals engage in symbolic behavior when they “play fight” — they know to stop before drawing blood).
Some memoirs and biographies, while not strictly fiction, also qualify as literature. “All history is biography,” Goethe is supposed to have said. I can think off-hand of St Augustine’s Confessions, Ben Franklin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglas, and Helen Keller, and General Grant’s to name a few.
Poetry, including narrative and epic poetry of course should not be neglected, for just as both our large muscle groups should be developed along with our fine-muscle skills — so we should learn both to perceive both large and important ideas, but also to make fine distinctions.
***
“For the human mind is capable of being excited without the application of gross and violent stimulants; and he must have a very faint perception of its beauty and dignity who does not know this, and who does not further know, that one is elevated above another in proportion as he possesses this capability. It has therefore appeared to me, that to endeavour to produce or enlarge this capability is one of the best services in which, at any period, a Writer can be engaged.” –William Wordsworth, Preface to the Lyrical Ballads (1800)
In their “New World Order” there is no room for thought. Thought is dangerous to them. You might figure out what they are really doing and figure out how to oppose and win against them. It is that simple.
Kaye Peters, I’ve grown weary of the trite “apple and oranges” device that you employ everywhere in your stalwart defense of Corporate Core. You even used it in a gushing apology for Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on Hoover’s fringe-right EdNext. While you might not be uncomfortable that Pearson Education, Inc. has been promoting your writings on CCSS, it does cause some of us consternation. When discussing CCSS in relation to NCLB and RTTT, we’re not conflating apples and oranges, we’re discussing a bushel of rotten apples foisted on us by a bunch of billionaires suffering from the Shoe Button Complex.
To be sure, the revenue minded corporate overlords who coined Corporate Core have never considered high-stakes standardized testing a separate issue from their imposition of CCSS. They are one in the same and they serve the same set of goals in the neoliberal project of privatizing public schools. The Gates Foundation and the Duncan led Department of Education (my apologies for that redundancy) have been quite effective in convincing surrogates (some even in the AFT and NEA, sadly) to crow that they aren’t inextricably linked, but such propaganda is so transparent that astute people see right through it. CCSS isn’t a solution to, but instead it is a deliberate doubling down of the vile policies of NCLB and RTTT.
Privatizer Dr. Catherine Thome’s explanation for the impetus of Corporate Core tells us all we need to know who stands to gain from CCSS: “All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students around the world.”
David Coleman’s contempt for literature in English classes (at least for working class children) reflects both his corporate pedigree and that of his plutocrat handlers. It is no “red herring” to point out this glaring fault of CCSS, but I agree with Mr. Heller that there are other fundamental flaws to this nationally imposed corporate curriculum. We need far more “Grapes of Wrath” and far less “FedViews” in this society. Sandra Stotsky does an excellent job taking on Coleman’s corporate aims in her piece reproduced on the Parents Across America site.
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/the-common-cores-5050-mandate-for-literaryinformational-texts/
Ultimately we must resist CCSS. Susan Ohanian, Professor Stephen Krashen, and the Schools Matter camp are leading the way on this. My recent short has some great resource links for fighting CCSS.
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/12/debunking-common-core-curriculums-so.html
Hear, hear! (And I’m a math teacher.)
I take on Ms. Peters and other’s comments here on Schools Matter since my original post here seems to have fallen into moderation purgatory.
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/12/continuing-skirmishes-with-ccss.html
It is my understanding that no one knows how much fiction students currently read in school. Is it possible that the 30% requirement is an increase in the amount of fiction a student would read?
The absurd thing is there will be no way to monitor this for each grade, school, district, city, state, etc.. It is so absurd…who is going to be measuring time on task for each genre? The implementation when it comes to training, support, materials, etc will vary widely. When this fails and it will, who do suppose they will blame?
Many schools (elemenary and middle) follow the workshop model with free choice reading, fiction and non-fiction. That isn’t going to change just because of
Coleman/Gates/Duncan.
But the concern here is that students will read less fiction. I am asking if any actually knows that students will be reading less fiction under these standards?
Ask David Coleman.
Let us all know how that goes, ok?
But what if the 30% fiction requirement is A HUGE INCREASE in fiction reading. That would be a reason to support it, right?
Please ask David Coleman. Only he would know for sure.
Of course it’s not a huge increase! Fiction is assigned quite frequently in English classes.
But under the standards fiction will still be what English classes assign. I was thinking that some history classes might need to assign more historical fiction, for example, to bring the percentage up to 30% fiction.
A quick thank you to all the Latin teachers out there, from somebody who took 4 years of Latin in high school.
When I began teaching, I was a sp. ed. behaviorist… later on I worked in mental health agencies and got softer… the last 21 years of my 31 year career were spent in regular ed, elementary… since 1995 I was heavily involved in using technology in innovative ways in the classroom (NOT like how it’s used today), and remember preaching how important it was to get kids able to write beyond the writers workshop personal narrative pablum – do some technical writing, etc… now, it appears the pendulum has swung back to a more sensible approach. But wait – common core says (reading) fiction is a waste. Shucks, I was just about embrace it again…
The winds of pedagogy change frequently, but, I tell you what, I see what the common core standards are doing to my school in the few months since I retired, and it breaks my heart. I look at the banks of computers I worked so hard to network, connected via the wires I pulled, the holes I drilled, the connections I punched down – and I see kids sitting in front of them “monitored” by people paid hourly to watch them point and click their way through a “learning program”. Ugh. That is not what I had in mind.
Sorry for the ramble. The Latin teacher’s words touched a nerve, and reminded me about the important stuff.
amo, amas, amat… – Mark
Tell me I’m just having a nightmare. We need to DEFEND using fiction in the classroom?
DEFEND fiction? This doesn’t seem possible. What a horrible reality for education.
I don’t think the use of fiction need be defended. The common core may well require students read more fiction than they are doing now.
Where are are you getting these ideas?
Just find some research which suggests that the CC would lead to an increase in the amount of fiction covered.
Dr. Ravitch posted that no one knows how much fiction and non-fiction reading students are engaged in. If we think about English as assigning all fiction and history, math, and science classes assigning all non-fiction, I would expect students are only assigned 25% fiction.
The absurdity in the Common Core is the imposition of an arbitrary ratio of 50-50 and 70-30 in different grades. This is based on NAEP instructions to assessment developers and has zero relevance to what is taught or should be taught. Since there is usually no fiction in math or science or civics or history classes, English teachers should be free to use their time anyway they want. Who will police what they teach?
Where the ratio gets pernicious is that publishers will calibrate their English textbooks and anthologies to match these absurd numerical mandates.
I think you may be relieved that English teachers are free to teach fiction. Perhaps even more fiction will be taught under the common core standards than is taught without the standards.
This is simply not the reality in the classroom.
I think everyone should refrain from gross generalizations as if their experience is everyone’s. in my classroom, I teach novels, short stories, plays, poetry as I always have along with non-fiction. I have let go of some of the breadth to allow for the depth the new standards expect. In my district, teachers have been at the heart of implementation. Other states and districts may be being small-minded, which both speaks to the latitude the new standards allows (contrary to some comments here) but also to an ongoing weakness in public education–small-minded administrators who spent too little time inside a classroom.
Referring to those who do not and will not embrace the standards as small minded is a gross generalization.
I asked you before if the problem wasn’t the standards but the assessment do you expect Coleman, Gates et. al. to speak out against the onslaught of testing coming our way (SBAC, PARCC). You didn’t respond.
Did you read Noa’s letter?
There has been such a deluge of comments on this that I do not recall that letter. You did, however, misquote me. I did not call opponents of the standards small minded. My comment was targeted toward administrators who are interpreting them without teacher input in the most literal and narrow of ways. As any teacher knows, a narrow-minded administrator can reduce a thoughtful concept to pablum. I think that some of the reaction against the standards that I see here and elsewhere is more of a response to administrative decisions onimplementation than the standards themselves.
As for your challenge about whether Coleman would denounce the tests, I cannot say. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question because I don’t know how I could answer you. I can tell you that I would end all of these high stake tests. They are punitive. I hope that many more will take up the challenge of Montgomery County Maryland’s superintendent to place a 3-year moratorium on testing.
“For example, if one could explore and analyze the meaning of violence in the Aeneid (I’m a Latin teacher, so I tend to cite fiction from my content area) and of Roman culture in general, one can certainly explore and analyze the meaning of violence in our entertainment and our society, a topic particularly relevant in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy.”
And what would your analysis be of each and their connection?
Vergil seemed to think that the human propensity for violence -institutionalized and random – was part of what made civilization possible, and also what would unravel and destroy it. He bore witness to the destruction of his Republic from within and its replacement with a totalitarian, fascist state.
This should sound vaguely familiar…
Thank you, Alan. I thought Virgil was Augustus’s man. Is the Aeneid a criticism of Augustus? Or “mere” tragedy where virtue in excess brings destruction?
I don’t follow your veiled allusion. For Nazi Germany I can make it fit, but for contemporary Amerika?????
For the good of the order, the story of an exemplary Latin teacher in our public schools: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020024309_latin31m.html