I woke up this morning to Rosalyn Schanzer's post on the I.N.K. blog about a December 2nd story in The Washington Post that demonstrates exactly what people don't know or understand about both the Common Core Standards and nonfiction literature for children and young adults. It also represents the tremendous gaps in Appendix B.
I wish that there was at least one reporter at a national newspaper who more closely examined this thing called "nonfiction" or "informational texts" that children are supposed to be reading. Yes, young adult nonfiction is entirely absent from Appendix B starting in middle school. So you can't look at the Core Standards to see examples of appropriate nonfiction for students to read at the secondary level. It was this gap that galvanized Marc, Myra, and I to establish the Uncommon Corps in the first place. We knew the authors of the standards must not have known enough about middle grade and nonfiction literature. It was up to us to start spreading the word.
However, Appendix B has age-appropriate nonfiction titles for the elementary grades! Some are dated, yes, but these are titles that are more than appropriate for students learning to read, and reading to learn in language arts, science, and social studies. Many boys (and girls) love and prefer nonfiction. What is so hedonistic about requiring that it be read when we're talking about the picture books of Steve Jenkins or April Pulley Sayre and so many other fine writers and illustrators? One look at Kadir Nelson's I Have a Dream picture book demonstrates the ways in which speeches can be examined by children and young adults in novel ways. Why are so few reporters actually taking a look at those books and talking to the authors and editors who create these books and the body of teachers and librarians who use them? Why are the same people always quoted in the newspaper as the voice of dissent?
Finally, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS CAN TEACH A BALANCE OF LITERATURE AND NONFICTION/INFORMATIONAL TEXT. No one officially connected to the Core Standards is suggesting in print or otherwise that novels are dead, that literature shouldn't be taught. But literary nonfiction is also literature, and it has a place in the secondary English Language Arts classroom.
It is up to the other subject areas to step-up and start providing real-world reading experiences for young adults, context-rich opportunities to explore nonfiction trade books, digital texts, newspaper articles, government reports, research papers, the works, rather than using a single text book that students don't read in the first place. It is up to principals and superintendents to read the Core Standards and give their teachers the correct information. It is up to every teacher in the building to share the opportunity of teaching young people using a wide variety of texts of all genres and modalities.
I think I got that out of my system. For now.
This year our Sophomores have added new titles to their existing list of classics. They are reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and The Hot Zone. They still read Macbeth, Lord of the Flies, Huck Finn, etc. But now they making connections in Science and in Social Studies with their reading skills. The students love it (especially the reluctant reader boys) and they find these books relevant and exciting. Win-win! Hurrah for the Uncommon Corps!
ReplyDeleteWonderful! Keep us posted on how the students (and teachers) respond to the transition, Pam. I agree, a win-win!
DeleteBravo Mary Ann!, not only for getting up so early to respond, but for injecting some badly needed informed common sense into this discussion. As far as I am concerned, the exciting challenge for us is to incorporate outstanding nonfiction across the curriculum as a means of enlivening the school experience. That doesn't mean dropping fiction. It simply means boosting the rest of the curriculum. And yes, middle and high school content teachers should be teaching reading from their disciplinary perspectives because teaching reading shouldn't stop when children can identify words. It should continue as we support students in making sense of those words and critically evaluating them.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mary Ann for helping beat the drum for nonfiction. Read my post tomorrow and join us in this effort.
ReplyDeleteI have to correct myself, in that there are a few middle grade and young adult nonfiction titles at the secondary level included. I was also pleased to see that a well-researched story on children's literature is on the front page of today's New York Times. While not on nonfiction specifically, it does focus on the very important need for children's and young adult literature of all genres to reflect a more diverse set of experiences, offering "windows and mirrors" for all children. The Times article focuses specifically on the dearth of Latino characters in children's fiction. You can find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/education/young-latino-students-dont-see-themselves-in-books.html?hp.
ReplyDeleteThe article in the Times focused on the the need for children to see themselves reflected in at least some of the books they read. The article implies that there is need for more research on the impact of multicultural literature, since it stated that "research on a direct link between cultural relevance in books and reading achievement at young ages is so far scant." This doesn't mean there isn't such a link. Instead, it points out a longstanding need for more research on the impact of reading children's literature. In the field of social studies this has long been recognized. I am hoping that the move to implement CCSS spurs this research.
ReplyDelete"It is up to the other subject areas to step-up and start providing real-world reading experiences for young adults, context-rich opportunities to explore nonfiction trade books, digital texts, newspaper articles, government reports, research papers, the works, rather than using a single text book that students don't read in the first place."
ReplyDeleteI would love this to happen, but will it? In my experience with the teaching of writing, it ends up completely on the shoulders of LA and English teachers. And everything to do with reading as well. My impression is that the greatest misreading of the CCSS is that the responsibility for implementation is completely in the hands of LA/English teachers. I worry that supervisors and administrators are indeed asking only the LA and English teachers to do this and that would indeed require them to cut back a great deal of the fiction they currently teach in order to get in the percentage of nonfiction required by CCSS. And so that is why there is the sense of profound negativity on the part of many of them.
Do you happen to know whether this is under consideration in those other disciplines? Are the science, history, social studies, and math professional organizations addressing this?
So interesting to hear another take, as I'd just read that Washington Post editorial. I also just posted an interview with a teacher in charge of implementing CCS (and linked to this post). I'm a fiction writer myself,so far anyway, but I know there are tons of talented nonfiction writers out there who I hope will be more appreciated in light of these changes.
ReplyDelete