Vicki Cobb, a well-known writer of science books for children, was not at all happy with the New York Times’ report on How Common Core has affected the English curriculum.
She writes:
“One of the huge misconceptions about the implementation of the CC is that nonfiction must replace a certain amount of fiction in ELA classes.
“The intent, as we nonfiction authors interpret it, is that there should be a lot more reading of high-quality nonfiction material across the curriculum. There are wonderful books about art, music, sports, as well as history, science and geography that have been shut out of must classrooms.
“Unfortunately, nonfiction has been equated with the flat, boring writing that is in textbooks that destroy the desire to read along with the desire to learn.
“Kate Taylor, also exhibits her ignorance of this huge body of nonfiction literature that can enhance reading and learning in her article by not mentioning it. I can assure you that I wrote her about that.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Non-fiction does not have to be boring. When we were studying WW2 this past year, we read, “Unbroken”. My students said it was one of the best books they ever read. Books can be good when teachers choose them, not the powers that be.
LikeLike
Narrative nonfiction is a wonderful thing. Nonfiction doesn’t have to be reading the text of a 19th-century law like I did on the PARCC. Like all literature, nonfiction can help humans be human. Warriors Don’t Cry. Many books about the Holocaust. Any autobiographies at all, for crying out loud. Fiction and nonfiction aren’t in discrete spheres.
LikeLike
Perhaps the Common Core is not to blame so much, more likely the crass and unimaginative curriculum builders, who read “must read” where it says “for example”. This has happened in the math a lot. Almost all the suggestions in the CCSSM say “for example…..”, and Lo! they’re all in many of the curricula now.
LikeLike
Are you saying that the writers of the CCSS aren’t responsible for the examples they choose? They could say, “for example, books about science, history, art or other subjects of interest to children”. But instead they choose, “for example, the Federal Tax Code” (or some such similar nonsense). Gee, I wonder where the curriculum builders get their odd notions?
LikeLike
I agree. CCSS documents state right out that the 70% non-fiction standards is throughout the student’s entire day/year.
However, The WAY that CC has students reading and “analyzing” fiction is nonsense. People don’t read fiction to pick it apart in a New Criticism sort of fashion, focusing on the author’s intent, stating the theme without applying it to real life, and diagramming the characters! CCSS ignore that we read literature because it teaches us to live and die. Come to think of it, so does lot of literary non-fiction. CCSS are on target only when it comes to language and research writing in ELA (which is a misnomer since many of the standards–all but literature, actually– are hardly the exclusive domain of the “English” classroom).
LikeLike
Good books are good books, and I recognize them after many years working as a teacher librarian. Student appeal is of primary concern. Vicki Cobb books populated many nonfiction sections in my elementary school library. The high school students I teach now get the same high-quality choices in the books that relate to curricula they study and might interest them otherwise. I am a much better conduit of that than CC or EngageNY.
LikeLike
John McPhee New Yorker pieces and books are fantastic non-fiction.
LikeLike
I feel lucky to have been involved with a project meant to stem this problem. If you look up http://www.nonfictionbooklist.com, you will find many quality, diverse, nonfiction choices for educators.
LikeLike
I looked at the list of visual arts books attached to the CCSS in draft form. I knew many of the books (a very short list ). There were several well written biographies of famous artists, and illustrated books on architecture. I would call them resource books, suitable for any pubic or school library.
But, I stalled out when I hit the Gombrich, E. H. (1995). The story of art, 16th edition. London: Phaidon Press. Originally published 1950. It is of possible interest is you want to be free of the burden of thinking critically about art history. I also had red flags out when I saw a college humanities assignment (discuss a specific painting and a specific poem) placed into grades 9-10 as an exemplary assignment. The CCSS theory of education started with that concept: just shove down collegiate work to loer grades.
I think the whole project of the CCSS is a demonstration of arrogant incompetence. From the get-go, writers of the standards could not make up their minds about subjects other than math and ELA. They did not know how to treat ELA beyond the skills associated with reading and writing, speaking and listening. So they just invented two classifications for the word thingy–it will be informational or literary. They only consulted with the National Council of Teachers of English AFTER the standards were written.
Look at the overall structure of the CCSS. Beginning in grade 6, teachers and students are required to meet 266 standards for Literacy. Suddenly we have content beyond math and ELA. We have now a curriculum concept, and it is expanded to include: (a) History/Social Studies, (b) Science, and (c) Technical Subjects.
Science is left as is, free of any sub-classifications. Then we have History/Social Studies. These are far from interchangeable, but being in the ballpark is “good enough” for indicating that that literacy may implicate content.
Then there is the rest of the stuff, pushed into the category of “Technical Subjects.”
A technical subject is defined as: ”A course devoted to a practical study, such as engineering, technology, design, business, or other workforce-related subjects; a technical aspect of a wider field of study, such as art or music (CCSS ELA Standards, Appendix A, p. 43).
There is not an ounce of reasoning to support this occupational, technical view of the arts or the worth of studies in the arts beyond workforce preparation. The writers of the CCSS are hopelessly confused about the world of knowledge and how to address it for the purposes of general education versus workforce preparation.
The CCSS writers have a curriculum concept, but they repeatedly deny the standards have anything to do with curriculum.
The curriculum concept is pathetic, unworthy of praise, not of “high quality.” Give it an F.
No.
Give the writers and promoters of the CCSS an F- ( minus) for
—denying that the Standards are addressing curriculum and what matters as content.
—offering up a version of the 3R’s as if ample for education
—representing scores on tests of “snippets of knowledge” as if these are indicators of literacy and predictors of the nation’s economic competitiveness in a global economy.
The CCSS are are triumph of spin over substance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem Laura, is that too few (especially teachers and admins) still don’t recognize/realize/understand your last statement.
Keep writing, yours is some of the best!
LikeLike
What?
LikeLike
My “What?” was a reply to a posting that’s apparently no longer here. Please ignore.
LikeLike
And to add to the author’s response, children need to read quality nonfiction related to a topic that interests them. I think that’s where common core is missing the mark.
LikeLike
Perhaps we’re all gagging on the same olive pit: nonfiction is NOT raw data. Nonfiction for young people can never be tabular information. We all balk and shout at the notion that fiction requires imagination and good writing, while nonfiction is simply reportage, Just the facts, Ma’am. The art and grace and creativity required to make physics or technology or history accessible, meaningful and beguiling beggars the process of making it all up. Writing nonfiction as a human story of discovery and importance demands all the tools of literature – rhythm and music of language, pace, metaphor, character-building, dialogue. Nonfiction writers add the phenomenal balance of staying with the facts. But we have an enormous advantage: the most fascinating and human stories ever told are nonfiction, the most scintillating characters are/were real. It’s our job to deliver them with simplicity and appeal. The Common Core seems to care more about levels of reading and keeping children comfortably within boxes than about literature or excitement. We are the goddamn angel chorus praising what the world is really about, not the evening “news.”
LikeLike
Jan, I agree with you. I write nonfiction. I try to make the story engaging and to employ my best literary skills to hold the readers’ attention. I am not opposed to nonfiction. I oppose a committee telling the nation’s teachers what percentage of their teaching should be fiction or nonfiction. That is hokum.
LikeLike
I agree, because all the “Ha! Ha’s” is great but then you have a hard time getting kids to pay attention to Social Studies and Science. The best thing my kids did this year was a project on habitats. They had to get definitions from a dictionary and more information from the internet. and draw pictures. They all had different habitats to make it a little harder. They did great on the project which was 1/2 of their grade. But very few passed the test. I might add this was 12:1:1 Special Education. It was even exciting for me to see them enjoy it so much.
LikeLike