A reader posted a comment yesterday wondering why so many who read this blog are opposed to reading non-fiction, or in the jargon of the day, “informational text.”
This is a reference to the debate about the Common Core standards, which mandate a 50-50 split between literary/informational text in lower grades, and a 70-30 split in high school grades.
Let me clarify my own view, as well as what I have derived from hundreds of comments by parents and teachers. No one opposes reading non-fiction. You are reading an informational text right now! Teachers of science, history, and mathematics have always assigned informational texts. Few such classes read fiction. So the question comes down to what the English teacher assigns. Probably, if the English teacher assigned 100% fiction, the student would still be reading far more informational text in the course of a week than literature, because of the texts assigned in every other class.
The part that puzzles me is why a quasi-official body, the group that wrote the standards, whose edicts now have the power of the state to enforce them, thought it necessary or wise to create a numerical formula for English teachers. No one else teaches literature. The math teachers don’t. Neither do the civics teachers. (Frankly, it would be great if history teachers introduced fiction–like “Grapes of Wrath”– into their classes to help students get a sense of the lives that people led in other times.)
But sorry, I just don’t get the metrics. Whose wisdom decided on 50-50 and 70-30? Who will police the classrooms? Where is the evidence that these ratios are better than some other ratio or none at all?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Who will police the classrooms?”
That’s the $64,000 question. A lot of rheephorm is about micromanaging, ostensibly to get the “bad” teachers out, but really just to control and standardize. From what I’m hearing, classrooms are already being pretty thoroughly “policed”. Maybe we can hire “rent-a-cops” who can serve dual function – they can be armed to defend against school shooters and they can monitor what and how teachers are teaching at the same time. And we can pay them $8.00/hour to do it. Look, I just “created jobs”!
Dienne, I envision a new fleet of education workers whose sole job is to “police the classrooms”. They will tend to look a lot like the child catcher from Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang, and one of their specialized skills will be the ability to sniff out any “fun” happening in public school classrooms.
Yes, and they’ll be trained by the same people who train TSA workers.
And have names like Elmyra Gulch!
We already have that in Milwaukee Public Schools. They are called the “clipboard police.” They come from Central Office to make sure that all teachers K4-8 (and I assume high school) spend the required minutes teaching literacy and don’t allow for anything but scheduled bathroom breaks. I assume it would be a simple matter to add ratios of informational text to the mix. They are very well paid and have absolutely no impact on improved performance of teachers or students. I don’t know about adding guns though. It might given them an even greater sense of power and self-importance if that were possible.
Kathy — OMG!! What a total waste of school funds. That is INSANE!!! Now I have heard everything. It’s time for the Von Trapp family to help the children escape!!
Marge
There is actually excellent non -fiction supplemental text I use in history classes such as the reader Free at Last: A History of the Civil Rights Movement and Those who Died in the Struggle.” Non -fiction could also mean blogs and reading Wiki Leaks. Seriously. Non-fiction reading is a good thing
If social studies teachers had more time, they could consider introducing poetry, some fiction…but the New York curriculum is quite overloaded. One strategy that has worked very well for our school is to collaborate with the English department, so that our students can discuss the relevant literature of the time period. Interdepartmental collaboration means our students are constantly establishing links across disciplines, which deepens their understanding of texts like Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Wiesel’s Night, and Orwell’s On Language.
Our colleagues work together as a team, and the results speak for themselves. Students can provide a historical context for the literature in their English class, and have a sense of the time period during history. We have even done collaborative projects. But now there is this 70/30 formula…
With the new percentages, we get lost in a game of mathematics, with an understandably paranoid administration that worries that when the consulting team visits, they don’t conform to the appropriate formula. There is less time to collaborate, because the English department is trying to make sure they conform to the rules.
Los Angeles Times chimed in on this debate this morning – editorial page. Didn’t quite see what they were saying except not to be rigid about a ratio.
I have a strong feeling that no one representing government will be requiring The Grapes of Wrath. Too bad for kids, who will more likely be reading The History of Cement, or One Million Tedious Essays that No One Wants to Read.
“A Pictorial History of Historical Pictorians”, with a preface by Mr. Thomas Gradgrind. Sounds positively gramnivorous!
Diane…..at the elem level, non fiction is rare. This could be for a variety of reasons : teacher self selection , minimal time for science or SS, minimal advocates amongst curric coordinators?
Are you talking about just in reading/English classes, or overall? I remember an awful lot of non-fiction in history/social studies, science, math classes. I also remember a fair amount of non-fiction even in reading, as there was usually an introductory blurb before each reading selection in the textbook and sidebar points within the story. Not to mention the grammar/spelling portion of English. Have things changed that much?
Actually, there is a lot of nonfiction available at the elementary level. Publishers have been increasing the amount of nonfiction over the past several years, long before CCSS. Our push for more nonfiction in our elementary schools came as a result of tests featuring nonfiction text as part of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRS), which proudly boasts, “Assessment that drives instruction”.
Not so at my school. Our state test has expository text and informational text, so we cover it all.
There is no evidence! English teachers have always taught informational text in conjunction with the fictional text. Informational text is used to give students the prerequisite background knowledge that they will need in order to comprehend the events within the fictional text, especially if said fictional text has a historical implication. For example, when teaching Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor it would be wise for the English teacher to have students research the Great Depression, sharecropping, Jim Crow Laws, etc.. There is no need for percentages to be assigned to the content area of English because students are already reading informational text embedded within units, as needed. These are just my thoughts on this debate.
Obviously, the “Wonks” who are now in Power need to justify their power by laying down some “data” driven drivel in “non-fiction” form. Lest we do now understand their factual words. Bah!
Diane — I agree. It’s just more “junk science”.
At the elementary level, the boys prefer learning to read non – fiction. That’s usually the “hook” to get them to read.
I wish school reformers would examine developmental issues instead of issuing more bogus stats — ugh!! They need to read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell .
Marge
“Where is the evidence…?”
This is the question I continue to have with Common Core. The experts will cite tangential evidence but cannot supply direct evidence.
I hate to belabor the point, but once again — isn’t it true that the 70/30 ratio given is supposed to be “across the board” (including all classes)?
Assuming this is true, the 70/30 split is really only a problem when administrators misunderstand the CCSS and try to enforce their erroneous assumption that 70% of the reading done in an English class must be nonfiction. Not that this doesn’t happen — it has happened in my own district. But it’s not a fault of the CCSS, it’s a fault of administrators who set policy based on “skimming” the rules instead of actually reading them.
I agree that enforcement will be impossible to maintain without costing far more than it is worth. Never mind the details not spelled out by the CCSS — how does one measure the reading in the curriculum? Do 70% of books read have to be nonfiction? 70% of total pages read? 70% of words read? These are important questions and the CCSS document does not answer them.
If a student does all of the problems on two pages of a math text, does that count as having read two pages?
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.
Your comment is one of the reasons I read the comments on these articles. Thank you. I will send this along to others.
And, sadly, all this top-down mandating of standards and text characteristics takes the innovation and creativity out of the curriculum. If we want kids to become passionate about reading, our focus has to be on giving them reading that people, teachers and kids, can be passionate about. We can’t get there by choosing texts based upon conformance to some long list of previously established criteria, however well vetted those criteria might be.
Excitement about reading is contagious. No excitement in the teacher–no excitement in the students. Students get the windfall of a teacher’s passion. If teachers have no choice in what they are to teach, if they have to use the cookie-cutter materials provided by the publishers who have mastered the creation of cookie-cutters based upon top-down, mandated standards, then it becomes harder and harder for them to be passionate about what they are doing. In my experience, teachers heroically persist IN SPITE of the mandated standards, the mandated texts, the mandated curricula. But I’ve heard many really superb teachers tell me, recently, that they are sick of being told what they have to do, of the micro-managing of their activities, that’s it’s no fun anymore and that they want out.
But….we need to admit that teachers left to their own, with no guidelines or standards, don’t necessarily produce deep, thoughtful lessons. we have to be honest.
This has not been my experience, at all! Peer-to-peer unit collaboration has produced little miracles at my school. Neither my administration, nor the suits that come to our building to deliver packaged PD come close.
Also wondering, Rob. Are you a teacher, and has this been your particular experience? It’s important to establish context.
I’m a principal for over 10 years. I find that both sides in this debate are partially wrong. But to pretend that understanding by design and big ideas are being consistently integrated in all classrooms is just wrong. To pretend that teachers and principals are implementing PBL is wrong too. Teacher created units with the right PD is the best hope.
And you’re saying that textbook publishers, filled with people who have never taught actual students (or haven’t taught in a while) DO produce those kinds of lessons? You’re kidding, right?
Thoughtful project based learning is the best hope
Jennifer — I agree with the point that you are making. My FRUSTRATION comes from knowing that districts are purchasing math programs; software; and textbooks from Pearson Publishing SPECIFICALLY because Pearson Publishing produces the standardized tests. The thought behind that is the obvious one — if we use the textbooks produced by Pearson our students will score better on the tests. What has happened with the math program is that parents have difficulty helping their children with homework ( unless they are engineers and well skilled in math) because the program is so different from the way parents were taught. I am speaking about the Everyday Math Program and currently The Envisions Program. Supposedly these programs are aligned with the Common Core. ( I have my doubts). The reading level on the ELA tests is at least 2 years above the grade level the students are in. Imagine having to read 5 passages and answer questions when you are 8 years old and in third grade. Field test questions are often embedded in the NYS standardized tests. When students come upon a question that is too difficult for them, they shut down and cry. They are 8 years old and do not yet have the stamina to sit and concentrate for 90 minutes.
I feel that the people who write the common core , write the textbooks and write the tests all sit in a VACUUM. I detest the very notion that they are not educators. I am not even sure they are humane. I do not believe that they would want their children or grandchildren subjected to this insanity. Then of course there’s that entire Pineapple & Hare incident which borders on the ridiculous and the sublime!!! The eighth graders were appalled with that passage on their test!!!
Children are not widgets. I do not understand the waste of money of standardized testing. Oh I get the whole investment thing. Let’s just admit that’s what it’s all about. My thoughts — reallocate the money to those trying to rebuild their lives after Hurricane Sandy. I won’t get started on Bobby Jindal & the debacle he is creating in Louisiana. What about suspending testing in Newtown , Connecticut?
I apologize if I was rambling. I’m frustrated beyond belief.
Marge
I agree.
I disagree completely and you underestimate our profession. Shame on you! I am so very sorry you have such low expectations of your teachers. Maybe they don’t feel free to innovate under your supervision.
There are pockets of deep, engaging teaching going on. But it’s not where it needs to be. Line up all the k-12 assessments in the district and analyze what the school values for thinking. Is it low level or high level? Worksheets or projects?
I’m not so sure the assessments really measure learning. I seriously doubt that the standardized tests are reliable and valid or capable of measuring higher level thinking skills.
Which district are you talking about? At my former school, we were blessed enough to be left alone by our administration, who let us develop our own units and collaborate. She knew we knew what we were doing. The kids ended up being very challenged, and we designed multidisciplinary projects.
This was before the CC — which means more starting from scratch.
I don’t know if your teachers are TFA, mostly inexperienced, or not allowed to, as Linda put it, “innovate.”
But much of all the k-12 assessments in the district is mandated by the district with little teacher input. For example, at my previous school it was mandated that all district wide benchmark assessments (nine weeks tests and midterms/finals) be the same. It was also mandated that these tests be multiple choice. Teachers were free to add additional sections that could be hand-graded, but since this data was not tracked and insufficient time was given for hand grading, in practice it was not done. In my particular area of Latin it was possible to pass these tests demonstrating little to no ability to actually read Latin. Indeed, I had to argue strenuously to have sight passages included at all (others wanted to included passages that the students had actually already translated and discussed, thereby testing their ability to regurgitate answers rather than their ability to actually translate Latin). Furthermore, with very limited planning time, it is very difficult to create those deep, engaging units. American teachers generally spend farm more time with their students and less time planning than do many of their counterparts in other nations that outperform us. Another thing is that project based learning is not always the way to go in some respects. Since differentiated learning as well as PBL and UBD were introduced, most teachers require (and are required to do so) a certain number of projects each quarter. However, I have noticed an increasing number of my students complaining about “all the projects.” I also think that worksheets are not the enemy of learning always. Granted that they can be an easy fall back position, but there are effective ways of using them. For example, I create fill in the blanks worksheets for my students to practice with the English derivatives that they are learning. This gives them practice using context clues to figuring out what word fits as well as helping them learn the meanings of difficult words (52 % of all words and 90 % of words of three or more syllables are Latin based). They ascend in difficulty of both the words and the sentences. Furthermore, I try to make them interesting by working in pop culture references. The students learn this way, and enjoy commenting on the sentences sometimes (I got an earful about one of the sentences that referenced “Twilight”). My point is that not all worksheets are bad and not all projects are good.
Really Rob? That HAS been my experience. Look up Interact Curriculum. All created by working teachers. Teachers are professionals. We know how to do our jobs.
Teachers left to their own, without support (which can often come from administrators), or without time to collaborate, can indeed fail to “produce deep, thoughtful lessons.”
Teachers given time to collaborate, support to be creative an innovate, and help when the task is too great for them to be successful on their own, can work wonders.
I have, sadly, worked with horrendous people who have been put in charge of classrooms and who do not merit the title of “teacher.” But – I have also worked with teachers who regularly go without lunch (and grab the odd bite of supper) working on ways to somehow – SOMEHOW! – make those “I.A.ii.b.1” objectives into something relevant to their students, and to do it creatively and beautifully.
If there are teachers who, “left to their own, with no guidelines or standards, don’t necessarily produce deep, thoughtful lessons,” then it falls to their administrator to provide them with support, or to provide them with an exit card in the event that the job is not for them. But please, PLEASE, don’t paint us all with the same brush because you have (like me) had to work with teachers who might not have been able to make the grade for one reason or another. Someone either HELPS those teachers get better or helps them find a more appropriate career. It shouldn’t be on a test, or on a curriculum, to do a job that should fall to an administrator.
There are about 2.5 million K-12 teachers in the country. Some are incredibly able and inspiring, some are terrible, most are somewhere in between.
Really, TE, where did you get that data….define “terrible” and “some” and could you provide us with an analysis of other professions including your own. Where do you place your performance?
From what I have observed, there are a very small number of great economists, a surprisingly large number of terrible economists, and the rest are mediocre.
Bravo!
LOL! Thank you for the chuckle!
I am somewhere in the middle, like most folks.
Do you want me to define terrible? Lets start with the junior high school science teacher in Ohio who taught creationism as science. He did this with minimal interference until he burned a cross into a students arm using a Tesla coil. We could then move to a couple of other teachers my children have had. One who seemed to be delusional in that she would answer a phone that did not ring and have imaginary conversations. Students would also obtain hall passes by asking for her autograph. Another teacher of a class called epic traditions mispronounced the names of every character. She at least left teaching the year after my child was assigned to her class.
Oh, and let me add the pre- calc teacher for one of my sons. I just learned that he was so bored with the math in the class that he simply erased all the marks on his old homework assignments and turned them back in. The teacher never noticed.
Oh, and lets not forget all TFA teachers. According to folks on this blog, they are uniformly bad.
Yikes, hit a nerve, eh?
No one here ever said ALL TFA corps members were bad. You are reading with a filter. You usually relate anecdotal evidence based upon your children and apply a broad brush to the entire profession, the long term, life long educators not the temporary scab kind. Many readers have worked with thousands of children and have experiences to share as well. You don’t always seem to value those perspectives if they don’t jive with yours. Sorry for typos. iPhone.
I said SOME are terrible and you asked for evidence, so I gave you some stories, one from the NYT, others from one child’s experience. Any comments on those? Would you like to explain how even these teachers, like all the rest, are above average?
We all have anecdotal evidence of good and bad teaching, which is proof of individual experience and hard to generalize from. But, let’s say that each of these represent a trend in classrooms today that reform is going to address. Shall we measure a few of the examples and see how reform would address these?
A teacher teaches creationism in his classroom. How will reform reform that? Does privatization and charter mania stem (pun intended) the tide of anti-science teachers teaching creationism? Not so much. If anything, creationism flourishes in reform as religious zealots open charters and use vouchers to promote creationism in the classroom (see Louisiana). As a side note, creationism taught in Louisiana or Texas doesn’t just impact Louisiana and Texas. It impacts content in textbooks, tests and test prep materials in New Jersey, too. Pearson and McGraw Hill avoids content that is problematic in one market so that their product can be sold equally well in all their markets. Expect not to see the word dinosaur or evolution on any test in America for the near future.
A math teacher is deadly dull, and he sometimes doesn’t always check his students’ homework. (gasp) Let’s say he NEVER checks homework, but only reviews concepts and tests them. Let’s say that he tests up the wazoo and brings in the scores just based on an all test/all the time class policy (I know some like that). How will we reform that? I guess the question from the point of view of the administrator is…why bother? Administrators are evaluated by student and teacher scores effectively double dipping on student scores (see New York). What interest would an administrator have in removing or remediating a teacher who might positively impact their own evaluation. Who cares that the score gatherer is boring and killing inquiry with every breath? Who cares that he doesn’t bother to check the homework as long as he reviews the concepts and tests those little bastards till they get it. Who cares that he considers them little bastards? He’s bringing home the bacon.
Educational malpractice supported by reform.
And by those standards he or she is a great teacher and the reformy bloviators want a great teacher in every classroom. Mission accomplished. Hurrah…three cheers! See TE, isn’t reform G R E A T?
Let me reply at the bottom and get a little more room.
I do if I am dictated to read recipes or credit card bills or some ridiculous document in English class. A recipe is best read while actually making something. If the person isn’t making something, I doubt they need to read a recipe. If it is a credit card bill, a practical math course might be the more useful area to focus on in class. Some of the examples of non-fiction reading have been ludicrous suggestions. They are not just asking people to read narrative non-fiction. And what would students do reading documents such as the Declaration of Independence without including it in a historical context? The words themselves mean nothing without the background and people who wrote the document and signed it. Think of all the misconceptions of the Mayan Calendar and what people were writing about when the empire which once created the document was no more.
And my 8th graders read the Declaration. I teach U.S. History, and I scaffold the crap out of the document before and during the reading. It takes us about 2 45-minute classes to do this. Informational text can be done well, but it shouldn’t be in lieu of literature. CCSS people: let the non-ELA teachers, in History, Science, etc. lead out in informational texts, and let the ELA teachers teach literature.
Wow, simple and stupid is always the best. What a great look at this. Always break things down to look at them and here it is in the split of reading between fiction and non-fiction. Where else except an english or literature class would you be assigned the other type? No where is the basic answer. Is it the whole day or only that class that counts. Good question. Now what is their answer? Want to see some real spin? Just wait for their answer to that question.
Many thanks to folks for turning this forced distinction beta fict/non-fict into an illuminating exchange of views, thanks to Diane’s hosting. Wonder if an “American Studies” approach can help us move beyond Coleman’s CC-imposed division of f/non-f. I’ve taught fict/non-fict in my “English” classes, found that developing “critical literacy” among students not based in subject matter or genre but rather in how we learn, the process of studying. Good text to look at is David Roediger’s WAGES of WHITENESS or James Scott’s DOMINATION AND THE ARTS OF RESISTANCE to see cultural history represented in all kinds of social/historical texts–novels, plays, performances, events, etc. The richness of an interdisciplinary, multi-genre, topic-based, project-centered pedagogy is very promising. Coleman’s ilk insists we much choose fict or non-fict, but that’s the way of commanding the world from above, far away from the situations of real possibilities.
BRAVO!!! Irashor.
Marge
I find it ironic and interesting that a local News station is asking politicians to rise above their self interests. It would be so wonderful if that would be the case in regards to investing in Pearson Publishing Company as well. Rise above selfishness and do what is best for children. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Marge
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.
Why is requiring more informational text “devaluing fiction” but arguing for more fiction not devaluing informational text?
I would argue that requiring more informational text is devaluing fiction for a simple reason. In every other class, for the most part, the only kind of reading students do is informational text. Students read all day long informational text in their social studies classes, their math classes, their science classes, etc. In what other class do students regularly have the chance to read fiction? Moreover, generally focus is dictated by ideas about what is important. One can infer that since the vast majority of what students should be reading is to be informational text, then the underlying message is that fiction is of less value than informational text.
It is my understanding that the Engish classes would continue to,teach fiction. It is the other classes that will have students read the informational text.
And that is for the most part how it is now, so this isn’t a drastic change at all. I supplement nonfiction to match fiction, particularly for my boys, all the time. It is one way to get them to reading fiction. Ghosts of War with Purple Heart or Hitler Youth: Growing up in Hitler’s Shadow and The Boy Who Dared. The Coleman edict is not revolutionary.
I did not think it was a drastic change, so I have been surprised at the reaction.
Informational text is non fiction, but not all non fiction is informational text.
There’s probably a clever publishers’ formula at work that hopes to sell a profitable amount of both fiction and non-fiction to young readers (aka: CCS captive clientele).
I am curious about the current split between fiction and informational text. Would you say students in high school typically read 50% fiction? 60% fiction?
The argument that English teachers are opposed to non-fiction because they love literature is an unsubstantiated generalization. Just because you love English doesn’t mean you don’t love non fiction as anyone of my English colleagues could attest to. One does not have to have a bias against non fiction to find arbitrary percentage points embedded in a badly conceived aspect of Common Core suspect. In fact, what interests me is the notion that pointing out weaknesses in the Common Core is a bias of any kind. Is the Common Core so well conceived that it would never need to be refined or reconsidered in any aspect? Really?
I am an English teacher that does not fit the generalization against non fiction. In fact, I have a specific preference for non fiction feature and argumentation which is evident in my classrooms and my own personal reading. In my middle school classes, students read good writing (both fiction and non fiction), although they write mostly non fiction. They write non fiction feature, argumentation and research papers. They write and read for a meaningful purpose: including for magazines created in class, for debate, for a wikipedia style encyclopedia…all of which requires substantial non fiction reading. I use fiction as a focal point of some units, but always I support those units with related non fiction (now called paired passages in our brave new world). I do not, because I love English, have an overwhelming love of literature above all other forms of quality writing. However, I do love quality reading and writing over read a passage answer some multiple choice questions about it, although that kind of instruction is necessarily a part of my teaching now.
From my point of view, the reform movement is a failure not because it won’t ramp up some teachers’ efforts but because it doesn’t actually know what to value in education. The absurdity of requiring or inquiring about specific percentage points of fiction to non fiction as a means to insure rigor just illustrates the idiocy of data idolatry and the somewhat studied attempt of non educator reformists to nail down learning to a specific, codifiable set of skills and guides for teaching them. I think that is the case that needs to be made and the one that real reform minded people would not reject out of hand.
I’d love to hear your comments regarding the ranking of politicians.
Marge
concerned teacher et al,
My comment was meant to support Rob when he stated that ” that teachers left to their own, with no guidelines or standards, don’t NECESSARILY produce deep, thoughtful lessons” (Caps are mine).
Others disputed this, saying I guess that ALL teachers ALWAYS produce deep and thoughtful lessons. I was asked by Linda to support the claim that there are some very bad teachers, so I did. I would learn a great deal from Linda if she would explain why these teachers are in fact good teachers.
As for the creationist, choice would allow a parent like me to avoid having to move to a different part of town to avoid that teacher. It would not change the teacher, but might save the student.
My concern with mathematics education is much deeper than simply paying no attention to the homework that was passed in. Luckily the lack of caring on the part of that teacher (he retired at the end of the year, so I don’t think evaluations worried him very much) had no impact on my son, but may have been damaging to other students in the class.
In any case, I was not arguing that these poor teachers (you left out the one that the students somewhat cruelly nicknamed “loony” and the one that could not pronounce Achilles or Agamemnon correctly for the semester) would be improved by any particular reform. I was arguing that they existed.
I don’t have time for a lengthy exchange. You choose comments to support if they are aligned to your opinion. Those scenarios or opinions that do not match your experiences don’t receive your support.
I never said all teachers always…… Rob is way off base or maybe he is not a good leader. I have worked with many teachers who develop deep, thoughtful units and lessons. Other teachers questioned Rob’s statement as well.
Sure there are some bad teachers, but I have had a lackluster doctor, plumber, electrician, as well as dishonest politicians and lawyers. Teaching is not the only profession with underperformers.
Fifty percent leave within five years and I expect that number to increase if the privatizers can even attract educated people to the profession or maybe they don’t really care if that happens. How experienced does one have to be to conduct test prep drill and kill? A constant churn of newbie Stepford drones and/or a fleet of preloaded devices will do the job just fine….lower health care costs, no pensions, more money for those at the top.
I never said your anecdotes were examples of good or great teaching. The problem is you make sweeping generalizations about an entire profession based upon your children and their experiences. You also disregard contrary examples. Your posts are often very narrowly focused and it doesn’t appear you are willing to process or learn from the experiences of others. If it didn’t happen to you or your family, then it is not credible, therefore your viewpoint is myopic.
How is saying some are great, some are terrible, most are in between a sweeping generalization?
Regarding remarks you made: Of course, terrible teachers exist. No serious person would argue otherwise and most would agree that teacher skill (like that of students, doctors, lawyers and economists) is found on a bell curve with some few being brilliant and some few being disastrous and most being somewhere in the middle. In that regard, we have no argument there. The problem arises when discussions of teacher quality are illustrated with outlier examples, such as the schizophrenic who is nowhere near the middle of the curve and therefore is not worth mentioning as a representative sample of teacher quality. I should have mentioned the teacher who can’t pronounce Achilles properly, because we do need to ramp up entrance into the profession (as in Finland) and that single example made your point well. A person who isn’t sufficiently educated to pronounce the content they are teaching does not have the minimum requirements needed for teaching their subject. That assumes, of course, that the teacher in question was a native English speaker whose pronunciation was an indication of education and not accent. That being said, the required education for teaching music versus athletics, versus English versus Math are not identical and one does not need to be a scholar in all areas to be knowledgeable in their own. As it relates the teaching of creationism as a by product of choice, I find it disturbing that a thoughtful citizen would be satisfied to have creationism taught as science anywhere in the public system. I would think that merely being able to avoid it for their own children would be insufficient. Outside of matters of separation of church and state and the use of public funds to disseminate a particular religious world view, this notion that I just move my child to a different choice school speaks to the whole issue of what a random, unmonitored choice system of dispersed public dollars is doing to the quality of public schools generally and the education of our citizens around the country. I have some other things I would like to say to you regarding your comments, but in the interests of actually being able to read them, I’ll stop here for now.
Actually Linda….Rob is not off base at all. Too many teachers are not prepared well for the job, and too many schol leaders don’t help teachers improve or coach them out of the job.
The problem with these arguments is that the pro-teacher commentators make it seem like every teacher and every lesson is fabulous, while every anti-teacher commentator makes it seem like all teachers are horrible. Neither side is right. But both sides stick to the extremes.
My point is that teachers, without excellent PD to learn about planning deep, thoughtful, minds-on learning, will not NECESSARILY produce consistent great lessons.
It’s a system problem, not solely a teacher problem.
According to you that is….not my experiences at all.
I have encountered too many school adminstrators not prepared well for the job.
How do all the lousy teachers get tenure? From the competent adminstrators?
We need to “reform” the administrative ranks first.
Who will coach the ineffective administrators out of the job?
Would you say, based on your experience, that there are some excellent administrators, some terrible administrators, and most fall somewhere in between?
No, some great to excellent…most terrible.
The same percentages for good and weak principals as for teachers. Most fall in between , just like teachers. Principal programs are not very good, just like teachers preparation. Same could be said for Superintendents.
A fish rots from the head down. Many of us (teachers and students) thrive despite the lack of leadership.
Incidentally, it’s very possible that the teacher was pronouncing Achilles and Agammenon correctly since the current English pronunciation of those names is not, in fact, the way they were pronounced in ancient Greek. So, if the teacher was using the ancient Greek pronunciation, and not the English one, she was correct. This might not be the reason, but it’s possible.
That thought occurred to me as well, but if so the teacher should have explained that to the class. I did ask a friend with a classics Ph.D. About it, and he uses the standard English pronunciation. In any case she was “coached” out of teaching the next year.
I tend also to use the standard English pronunciation for most names, but more than anything because of habit. On the other hand, it’s not a good practice, I have to admit, since pronouncing Latin correctly is in my standards of learning. For example, because my students pronounce “Caesar’ as ‘seize-er’, instead of “kighsar”, they tend to pronounce other words with c’s or the dipthong “ae” in them incorrectly as well. And truthfully, explaining how it should be pronounced really doesn’t make a difference for the students’ pronunciation. Consistently pronouncing it the correct way does, though, without the explanation.So, I’m not sure that I agree that she should have explained it to the class. Incidentally, I have an M.A. in Classics,
The class was an English class called epic traditions, so I would not think it bad practice in that context.
Here was the proper place to put that comment:
Regarding remarks you made: Of course, terrible teachers exist. No serious person would argue otherwise and most would agree that teacher skill (like that of students, doctors, lawyers and economists) is found on a bell curve with some few being brilliant and some few being disastrous and most being somewhere in the middle. In that regard, we have no argument there. The problem arises when discussions of teacher quality are illustrated with outlier examples, such as the schizophrenic who is nowhere near the middle of the curve and therefore is not worth mentioning as a representative sample of teacher quality. I should have mentioned the teacher who can’t pronounce Achilles properly, because we do need to ramp up entrance into the profession (as in Finland) and that single example made your point well. A person who isn’t sufficiently educated to pronounce the content they are teaching does not have the minimum requirements needed for teaching their subject. That assumes, of course, that the teacher in question was a native English speaker whose pronunciation was an indication of education and not accent. That being said, the required education for teaching music versus athletics, versus English versus Math are not identical and one does not need to be a scholar in all areas to be knowledgeable in their own. As it relates the teaching of creationism as a by product of choice, I find it disturbing that a thoughtful citizen would be satisfied to have creationism taught as science anywhere in the public system. I would think that merely being able to avoid it for their own children would be insufficient. Outside of matters of separation of church and state and the use of public funds to disseminate a particular religious world view, this notion that I just move my child to a different choice school speaks to the whole issue of what a random, unmonitored choice system of dispersed public dollars is doing to the quality of public schools generally and the education of our citizens around the country. I have some other things I would like to say to you regarding your comments, but in the interests of actually being able to read them, I’ll stop here for now.
I too was surprised at the response by Linda, Fremontwatch, and Inverness to Rob’s initial point that some teachers are not as skilled as others. I only posted about those specific instances because Linda asked me too come up with some examples.
As for the teaching of creationism, as an atheist living in a very Christian culture, I am used to having to deal with the majority viewpoint. Many who post here speak of the virtues of community control and the role of schools in reinforcing the values of the community. I have argued that this is problematic when it comes to a number of issues, including religion, but my arguments have not won the day here, nor would I expect them to win the day in my very red state.
The parents who complained that their son had a cross burned into his arm were forced to move from their town because of the animosity of their fellow citizens. Sometimes leaving a community is the only option. You might want to read the NYT article about incident: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html
For full disclosure my spouse attended this public school system and was often sent to the principles office for not standing during the reading of the Lord’s Prayer over the load speaker in the mid 70’s. My brother in law was a student of the teacher involved. I MIT even point out that autocorrect even made me capitalize the L and the P in The Lord’s Prayer, so Christian belief certainly permeates the culture.
I did not ask you to come up with specific examples ( by the way which you extrapolate into sweeping genetalizations). Do not use me as your crutch to defend yourself and your myopic views.
Linda,
What you said was “Really, TE, where did you get that data….define “terrible” and “some” and could you provide us with an analysis of other professions including your own. Where do you place your performance?”
So I gave examples of “terrible” for four specific teachers and put myself somewhere in the middle.
I am still at a loss to understand how saying there are some good teachers and some poor teachers is a sweeping generalization. As Concerned Teacher said above, “No serious person would argue otherwise….”.
You ask at the end of your post – “Whose wisdom decided on 50-50 and 70-30? Who will police the classrooms? Where is the evidence that these ratios are better than some other ratio or none at all?”
If you read the ELA CC Standards in the introduction it clearly states the source which is:
Source: National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Here is the link to the Reading Framework from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress
Click to access reading09.pdf
When you read this – you will notice the variety and depth of the educators that worked on this assessment and document.
So Yes, Virginia – there is a place where the numbers come from:)
I was on the board of NAEP for seven years. Those proportions were a guideline for publishers constructing assessments, not for teachers.
There is no valid reason in the wold to tell teachers that they must tailor what they teach to match a completely arbitrary ratio inserted into NAEP, with zero scientific validation, years ago.
If kids are reading “informational text” in science, history, math, civics, and other subjects, their English teachers should be free to teach whatever they love, whether it is fiction or non-fiction.
The ratios are nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense.
I repeat: who will have the stopwatch to police this travesty?
Since e standards require a split of reading that some here at least say is pretty much the split that students currently have, I think travesty is too strong a word.
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/
Your main point in agreement with Rob was that teachers should be guided in order to insure that they create deep, meaningful lessons. Rob believes (if I’ve read the comments correctly) in project based instruction as the best hope; I agree with him. Intrinsically motivating, high quality, project based instruction is the best model for learning. I might like to work for Rob, but only if he has the top kids and none of their parents want their own little private remove from the rest of the kids. I can’t afford to work where there will shortly be a charter war. I have a VAM score to think about. So, who should guide teachers if not Rob the great principal with a vision for his school and his teachers?
At the highest level, we have deep pocket, corporate change agents guiding the policies of a Secretary of Education with no teaching experience. At the state level, we have a growing number of state commissioners of education who have as few as 2 or 3 years of teaching experience (in charters). Presently, we are growing a multitude of ivy educated go-getters with all sorts of disparate ideas about how to reach high personal position or be entrepreneurial while pursuing social change. As any rational person would note, the top is heavy with inexperience. For those who believe that fresh, untested ideas are just so great, that may not be matter of concern. But, for the rest of us, expertise is flowing downward.
Currently, the prevailing winds say that teaching will be improved through external pressure. The test will provide data which will drive instruction and determine teacher and administrator quality. Teachers will be monitored to insure that they do their jobs by administrators who want to keep their jobs, and the Common Core will provide higher standards. Charters will provide agitation to districts and require them to compete for the best students. The really or nearly unteachable students (which we will quietly pretend we don’t think exist) will end up in schools of last resort… call those public schools. But, that’s okay, because any public school that want to survive will find a way to keep involved parents happy. They’ll bang out that test, while monitoring their teachers, hiring PD consultants, engaging entrepreneurs and publishers who will fairly profit from making a better product that teachers will implement in order to become better teachers. Efforts will be made to improve teachers colleges… maybe hold those schools accountable for how their students’ students perform on tests over time. Everyone will be accountable, well almost everyone. Because all the while that we are undergoing this “only-painful-for-adults” disruptive innovation, we’ll be tapping the best minds to take over education at the highest levels. After all, everyone knows that best minds would be wasted if they stayed in the classroom. Best minds want to be leaders, right out of college (or maybe two (okay, three) years afterwards, if necessary.) Here’s an idea…. If we want to improve instruction, let’s reform the means and speed by which people attain policy positions and positions of leadership and authority in education.
(Don’t be delusional) Obviously, that’s not the direction we’re going to go in. Private dollars will determine our policy. After all, who pays the piper? “Visionaries” like Bill Gates, the Broads and TFA figureheads like Michelle Rhee will call the tune. And they share the view (despite all evidence to the contrary) that work place rights diminish student performance. If they can add more charters regardless of quality (teach anything you want, creationists), there will be fewer teachers who are unionized which supports the endgame: increasing private access to public dollars and removing employees as a significant impediment to profit (and excellence, of course).
It is possible to have difficulty with a particular policy to encourage excellence without saying that that there should be no policy to encourage excellence.
I feel like we are living through the worst vision for leadership possible… the vision that decisions should be made by people that have no responsibility for outcome and conversely that the people who have all responsibility for outcome should make no decisions, the vision that leaders don’t need to know the people or the product they are directing. That talking points are, for the well connected, identical to experience and expertise. On the ground, the relationship of teacher to administrator and teacher to child is tainted. Production is codified, passion for subject and charge is funneled through a check list, student growth is progress monitored like cells in a petrie dish. Did Johnny grow a quarter of a percentage point this week like he was supposed to? Leadership is reduced to one premise: More work will be produced by people when they are afraid of what will happen to them than when they aren’t. People at my level need a little cattle prod.
I don’t think that this is strictly an educational shift, by the way. It’s all over, like a fat riddled in most work cultures and only getting worse since we fell into recession. We see it in industries that downsize while expecting the same level of production (and profit) at a half or a third or quarter of the staff. We see it in an aging population of workers who know that they will shortly be excessed just for being 50 (Is there anyone who doesn’t know someone in that situation?). We see it in families that are never home to eat meals together out of the reasonable fear that making it to the family table at night could shortly mean there will be no meals to put on the table at all. And now we see it in the classrooms of America where learning is a market to be exploited, children look like dollars, and teachers are tools to be used and discarded. Whatever the real reforms that need to be made, education is a convenient battleground; it is an easy place to undermine the notion of workplace rights in a civil society. No one seems to be able to make the case that what we need to do for children does not negate the right of working people to protections… right to decent working hours, a living wage, protection against wrongful termination and workplace discrimination (including age and salary discrimination), the right to reasonable health care and a dignified old age. These are rights that everyone should have and in some countries, they do. But, we live in a country where an airline can declare bankruptcy, dump its pensions, sell not a single airplane or decrease its CEO salaries and still stay in business. We live in a country, and I work in a state, where a mayor can require a functioning school to take all the students who are forced out of surrounding charters, use those newly acquired students’ scores to close the school, take over the plant and dump all the teachers who worked there… regardless of merit. Is that reasonable? Should employees have no recourse? It seems to me that the republicans only care about people before they’re born. And our Blue Dog democrats DFERs only care about them while they’re children. Universal human rights don’t make it to the table. Only the privileged are allowed intrinsic motivation now. The rest of us shall have survival as motivation. Keep working and keep your head down.
Actually I thought I was agreeing that SOME teachers would need help in creating deep and meaningful lessons. Others no doubt would be able to do that on their own.
not a terribly big issue either way
I agree. Was not really sure why it raised such a ruckus.
If you don’t know why it raised a ruckus its probably because you don’t live with toxic monitoring or an all test all the time test prep culture. You aren’t exhausted from trying to meet expectations that are constantly shifting or filled with pernicious anxiety about the future. You don’t worry that even though you do good work you might lose your job anyway. You aren’t demoralized. It’s easier to being the armchair quarterback.
Yes, yes, concerened teacher.. YES….we live it, breathe it, experience it, we are the ones there day after day after day. It is an entirely different story when it IS your life and the lives of our kids…..hundreds and thousand of them, not just the ones we are raising in our own homes.
It is exhilarating and exhausting. We are soul weary tired, demeaned, beaten and battered.
Once in a while TE have something kind to say. God bless you and your family. Happy New Year.
My job security comes from the confidence my employers have in me and the fact that replacing me would require them to pay significantly more than my salary. I don’t have any job protection, and could be dismissed at the end of any academic year with no recourse.
I don’t agree with a system in which people can be dismissed at will for no better reason than that an employer wants to lower overhead with cheaper workers or prefers younger faces or has some particular bias toward or against some other. I think society needs protect workers against that sort of dismissal.
Only children imagine that justice prevails in an unregulated workplace. It is nothing but self serving illusion to believe that merit runs the free market and that merit will keep you safe. In any case, whether you personally are fortunate enough to have some desirable skill, can be had more cheaply than some others or are merely the beneficiary of inertia … that is not universally true for others, as has been evident in the truly heart wrenching experiences of friends and family of mine since the start of the recession. If you are content to leave your prosperity and the safety of your family to the whim of others, that is certainly your business. But it isn’t a badge of honor or adulthood. I rather think that you might have an awakening of a different kind should you someday be dismissed without cause or be on the receiving end of blatant injustice. That is, of course, unless you are among those who work strictly by choice and entertain yourself with jobs you don’t need.
But the profession of teaching exists because farmers were “fired” when it turned out we did not need every sole in society to produce food
Is that lemon sole or rubber sole?
And in any case, your supposition about why the teaching profession exists sounds a gross simplification to me.
Simple perhaps, but not simplistic. People are free to devote themselves to art, science, and even teaching because it now only takes a small fraction of the population to provide the food and shelter that everyone requires.
All homonym confusion aside, we are not replacing jobs as we find technological ways to remove them. I don’t happen to think that teachers are obsolete, but even if a case was made for a primarily video and software delivery of instruction, the fact is that society exist in a contract with its members and if you remove jobs and don’t replace them, eventually you have social unrest. If we continue on a path of destroying middle class career paths, there will be an Arab Spring here someday. And it will be well deserved.
I agree that if people do not find other worthwhile activities our society will be in trouble. I am an optimist about our ability to find other activities.
Perhaps you might salt that optimism with the rate of unemployment we are now experiencing, the numbers of unemployed recent grads, the increasing number of 50 year olds being excessed to decrease overhead and the impact of outsourcing on the health of our economy. I’m sure you know, as an economist, that the rate of unemployment doesn’t include people who are working part time or who have abandoned looking for work altogether. Perhaps you might talk to food banks to find out how many people are currently working full time or more, yet still need to resort to foodbanks to feed their families. And since I’m sure you’re more well versed in economics than I (being a teaching economist after all), you might consider that the European country that is weathering the economic downturn with the least disruption to its economy and its workforce is Germany has a very strict policy for hiring and firing workers. They keep their work inhouse and they are careful when they hire because firing or laying off an employee isn’t a willy nilly do what I want when I want because I’m a captain of industry act. A company pays a full two years of salary to an employee that is “downsized” or dismissed. A world that preferences the job creators has not actually worked in our favor at all. We continue to bleed jobs, decrease access to the middle class while ignoring the facts right in front of our faces.
This is, of course, a very old concern, dating back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Perhaps the Luddites are finally correct, but I doubt it.
Germany is not the only European country with strict laws limiting the dismissal of workers. Spain, for example, imposes very high severance costs on any company dismisses workers. Firms there understand that they should only hire a new employee if they believe that employee can be profitably employed with the firm over the next 30 or 40 years. That is such a high bar that firms hire very few. The youth unemployment rate in Spain is over 50%.
Teachings economist- I find the comments you are making about the hiring practices in other countries thought provoking. I would be interested in reading a study about all of the friends and family that have been given jobs they are not qualified for, but they get the job because the are related to a politician. ( local, state & national level). What about a study of our senators who are voting for laws that are based on political contributions rather than what is best for the country? A rubric on each senator ‘s leadership would be quite interesting.
Marge
I am not sure how political patronage or the impact of political contributions are connected to my post. Perhaps you could help me to understand a bit more?
Teaching Economist- thoughtful hiring insures success. When one is forced to over look the best candidate because they are strong armed in to hiring friends or family of politicians who may not be the most qualified candidate for the job leads to having to suffer the consequences of a less than desireable employee who has a sense of entitlement.
That’s what your post triggered in my mind. This may have been outside of what you were thinking, but then isn’t that what a good comment is supposed to do —??? Provoke thought????
Marge
You are referring to division of labor; I am referring to the evolution of social organization. It is true that if we don’t have to produce our own food, we can pursue other activities, but to state that schooling exists today solely because we “fired” farmers when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one IS simplistic. It ignores the potential of events to evolve human consciousness as well as change their circumstances. The originating cause is NOT the end of the story. New philosophies of government and human rights came out of that cause; attitudes toward social organization and cultural norms changed. Universal free education is not merely a byproduct of industrialization, it is an evolution of social structure. Your tribute to the impact of industrialization implies that change occurs unfettered by human control or direction, that a technological advancement requires a particular response and that human culture is just an amoeba responding to stimuli. We should all just get with whatever change is on the plate even if that change is damaging.
Let us at least acknowledge that it is the same old, same old will to power and power’s ability to pursue self interest that drives most change. New technologies just provide a modern means for achieving that old end. Some people believe, and I am one of them, that we can do better than put a new dress on an old pig. We have the consciousness and the ability to evolve society… that evolution isn’t a better internet, it’s a better sense of our purpose and our place….it’s the opportunity to recognize the bonds of mutual responsibility between citizens and their government, employees and their employers, and employers and the society that generates them . It would be good if we did, because there is an evolving public notion of what government is for and what a person has a right to expect in exchange for their labor and their allegiance. In that sense, I’m with John Locke.