Sigh. I think I need to write a disclaimer about Common Core (I am a middle school special education and social studies teacher as well as a writer and I'm working madly to help align my district's curriculum planning with Common Core).
There are problems with Common Core, but this piece is a particular misnomer. It all depends on how it is applied, but the worst pieces about Common Core lie not in the use of nonfiction (that particular piece is aimed as much at science and social studies as it is language arts) but in its heavy dependence upon the Smarter Balance tests as devised by Pearson (yes, that Pearson of RandomPenguin) and its top-down imposition of standards which have demands above and beyond appropriate developmental standards. Basically, kids need to enter kindergarten knowing what they needed to know upon promotion from first grade just a few years ago in order to meet corporate education deform imposed criteria for high school graduation.
The emphasis on nonfiction in this piece by Fox is a distraction from the real, significant issues. If you want to look into it deeper, I can pass on some links. Or else go read Diane Ravitch's blog--which, really, is the best recommendation of all.
Given that education has demonstratably dumbed down over the decades, I hardly think higher standards can violate development standards, given that much younger children were learning a lot more.
Will it help you to understand my sinking of the stomach feeling if I tell you that this comment to a teacher who is heavily involved in this issue is somewhat likely to trigger a ranty mcrantypants reaction akin to those who've had to do the Feminism 101 or Racefail 101 explanation one time too many? Seriously. Education has not "demonstratively dumbed down over the decades" unless you are following the logic of corporate education deformers that, that...no.
There are so many things wrong with this statement to begin with that...sigh. I think I'll just go away, because the only people who can make such statements with straight faces are either heavily invested in corporate education deform themselves, have bought into the faux deform rhetoric, or haven't a clue.
The mere fact that you use a phrase like ‘corporate education deformers’ unironically shows that you are an extreme ideologue with an axe to grind. Pardon me if, after that, I don’t take anything else you have to say seriously.
Oh, "explanations." I regret to inform you that as a free and equal citizen, you are not entitled to demand that people accept your "explanations." You are welcome to the debate but to no privileged place in it.
Whatever. I won't make the mistake of commenting here again. There is no debate if the basic foundations of understanding are lacking. And if I want to participate in a forum biased as heavily as this one is toward blaming the teachers, there's plenty of other places where such discussion is more important.
As a reader and use of those "ghastly" non-fiction tomes, I feel a need to quote the eloquent General McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge (which I learned about by reading said ghastly works that are clearly not fit for serious readers), when I say "Nuts!"
Seriously, the bias towards literature, and away from the types of books that we used to call "useful" is as obscene as it is absurd. Anyone who believes that reading Kafka will make one a better, more informed citizen than Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy has likely never read the latter (and maybe not the former if they still think there's use to reading Metamorphosis) and shows their judgement on the matter to be terribly unsound.
Now, I don't teach reading, but I do teach engineering. Reading the various technical documents we deal with is not a trivial task, and reading Shakespeare no more prepares a student to handle technical reading than reading a book on reactor kinetics prepares one to handle Beowulf.
The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens. I disagree. Every election, I find myself wishing that my fellow citizens knew something about economics, history, or the constitution - all non-fiction subjects. I can't recall the last time I wished my fellow voters read more Twilight.
Students anywhere in the United States are lucky if they can find Basic Economics in the local library, not the school one. It must be evaluated by the probable texts to be assigned (and actual ones assigned in due course) not by the possibility of using non-fiction well.
Especially if they are so put off reading that they will never read Basic Economics on their own.
Ok, I'm confused. It seems to me that you're suggesting that, because books like Basic Economics are unlikely to be found in libraries, we shouldn't start stocking them in libraries? Help me out here.
As for being put off from reading, I've got my doubts about that entire notion. It seems like adults making excuses for student laziness or cultural issues. Students are put off because we keep telling them they should be.
As per the article, there is no mention of any particular texts being required, only examples of informational texts. I find it rather disingenuous that I am being asked to defend the most extreme forms of that type book. Were I to handle this debate as you are, I would be pretending that your view of the law required that our history books be thrown out in favor of 50 Shades of Gray.
Now, I don't teach reading, but I do teach engineering. Reading the various technical documents we deal with is not a trivial task, and reading Shakespeare no more prepares a student to handle technical reading than reading a book on reactor kinetics prepares one to handle Beowulf.
That’s nice. So you would have first-grade kids read engineering documents, on the offhand chance that one day they might grow up to be engineers? Assuming, of course, that being taught to read from things that they cannot possibly understand doesn’t make them grow up to be illiterate.
The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.
No, the author would have you believe that literature is the key to learning how to be literate. Once you are literate, then you know how to read other things that will allow you to become well-informed. It won’t work the other way round.
That’s nice. So you would have first-grade kids read engineering documents, on the offhand chance that one day they might grow up to be engineers?
That's a... special way of interpreting that. Although it goes against every notion of reason and common sense that I am accustomed to, let me give your reasoning a try, as well. Clearly you would ban all non-fiction from schools, on the offhand chance that, one day, they might not grow up to be engineers.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
Assuming, of course, that being taught to read from things that they cannot possibly understand doesn’t make them grow up to be illiterate.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
No, the author would have you believe that literature is the key to learning how to be literate. Once you are literate, then you know how to read other things that will allow you to become well-informed. It won’t work the other way round.
From the text: Fiction authors try to describe phenomena in a way they haven’t been described before. They use figurative expression to convey abstract ideas. These are writers who create art and expression in a way that tackles difficult philosophical questions in a palpable format; in a way that gets to the root of all things. This is the kind of reflection that trains citizens capable of self-government.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
That's a... special way of interpreting that. Although it goes against every notion of reason and common sense that I am accustomed to, let me give your reasoning a try, as well. Clearly you would ban all non-fiction from schools, on the offhand chance that, one day, they might not grow up to be engineers.
I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
It seems to me that all you have to contribute are red herrings, and we’re already arguing at the bottom.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did, or what your objection to it is) that the last sentence you quoted is this: ‘This is the kind of reflection that trains citizens capable of self-government.’
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost, appear to have considered this equivalent to your own words: ‘The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.’
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just being cynical. I guess I shouldn't make that mistake again. You see, I figured you could understand that the fact that I believe that we should have, as an end goal, the ability to read complicated technical work does not imply that I think that said complicated technical works should be given to first-graders.
Either that, or you believe that I'm teaching engineering to second-grades. It may feel like that, at times, but it is not the case.
That would be like assuming that you intend to expose first-graders to Chaucer. But, unlike you, I won't make that assumption just to try to score points.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
So, if you didn't say that, then I can only assume that you are unaware of "informational texts" (also known as non-fiction) that exist on all academic levels. You have to pick one or the other. Are you being disingenuous or are you ignorant of the variety of non-fiction?
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I'm sorry that literal readings of texts are so difficult for you.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did
Can you REALLY not figure out why I quoted it? Seriously? Maybe you should look at the discussion around it, you might see that it's a citation backing up my interpretation that the author believes that a focus on fiction "will make one a better, more informed citizen" (see, it's right up there in my original post). You might also see that it is a direct refutation to your denial that the "author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens" (see, it's right there in your response). I quoted the author, verbatim, with all context included. If you really can't figure out why I quoted it, maybe the problem is in your own literacy.
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost,
Actually, I was just disagreeing with the author. Other than to say that I believed the article was self-importance, I made no effort to make the other side look like idiots. You're the one who brought the venom.
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
You know, I could go into a big, long-winded discussion about distinctions without a difference and the relation between understanding and being well-informed (which is more than just having facts), but I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I? You complain that I'm misquoting/misinterpreting the author when I used the term "well-informed." However, you have no issues, at all, with misquoting me when you say I'm only talking about "learning bodies of fact as presented."
I love talking with people whose views differ from my own, but I loathe to waste my time on those who are not acting in good faith. I seem to have done so, here. Alas, I've come to that conclusion only after investing more time than you deserve. So I'll hit the post button (because I want something to show for the time) and then keep in mind that you deserve no further consideration. I've not enough time to waste it on the dishonest.
In some situations, where people have manifested untrustworthiness too frequently for it to be chance, and where they can do great harm, it can do a lot of good.
"But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. "
Well, some of them. A good number are designed to avoid conveying info.
I would put the complexity of William F. Buckley up against any of his fiction-writing contemporaries. For that matter, I would put Sowell or Mark Steyn up against any modern writer.
We have had a devolution of the spoken and written language, but it has happened across all purposes and genres. It is a time-based phenomenon, not a genre-based one. Patrick Henry was every bit as complex as the playwrights of his day. William Jennings Bryan's brilliant oratory was poetry. Fiction has become debased in today's society, but non-fiction could only fall so far while still meeting its objectives.
John McWhorter, in his book Doing Our Own Thing calls out the culture as the culprit. Certainly, this is far more likely to be the case than the excess of scientific texts and a dearth of dime-store novels.
Buckley? Bryan? Henry? I think, for sure, the last two are perfectly acceptable for elementary students - Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech is important in understanding the revolutionary spirit surrounding our break with England. W.J. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech is one of the most brilliant examples of American oration possible. In fact, I would introduce elementary students to many of the founders and speakers up through the beginning of the twentieth century. There is much a young mind can learn from Daniel Webster.
I remember reading The Scarlet Letter when I was in fourth grade. I'm sure it added nothing to my young mind. However, the next year, I read my science text, cover to cover, before school the first week of school was over.
Also, it is wise to remember that we are probably all exceptional readers. I'm not quite my cousin who read All the President's Men when he was six, but when I read something is not the wisest guide for suitable ages.
I'm going to have to ask you to stick to one metric.
It seems that you want to a sliding scale of difficulty for fiction, but a monolith of difficulty for non-fiction.
If, as y'all are insisting, we assume that first-graders will be assigned Milton Friedman's Marginal Utility of Money and Elasticities of Demand or Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica, then we must also assume that they will be asked to pick up Dostoevsky from the fiction shelf... maybe even in Russian.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 04:10 am (UTC)There are problems with Common Core, but this piece is a particular misnomer. It all depends on how it is applied, but the worst pieces about Common Core lie not in the use of nonfiction (that particular piece is aimed as much at science and social studies as it is language arts) but in its heavy dependence upon the Smarter Balance tests as devised by Pearson (yes, that Pearson of RandomPenguin) and its top-down imposition of standards which have demands above and beyond appropriate developmental standards. Basically, kids need to enter kindergarten knowing what they needed to know upon promotion from first grade just a few years ago in order to meet corporate education deform imposed criteria for high school graduation.
The emphasis on nonfiction in this piece by Fox is a distraction from the real, significant issues. If you want to look into it deeper, I can pass on some links. Or else go read Diane Ravitch's blog--which, really, is the best recommendation of all.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 06:28 pm (UTC)Will it help you to understand my sinking of the stomach feeling if I tell you that this comment to a teacher who is heavily involved in this issue is somewhat likely to trigger a ranty mcrantypants reaction akin to those who've had to do the Feminism 101 or Racefail 101 explanation one time too many? Seriously. Education has not "demonstratively dumbed down over the decades" unless you are following the logic of corporate education deformers that, that...no.
There are so many things wrong with this statement to begin with that...sigh. I think I'll just go away, because the only people who can make such statements with straight faces are either heavily invested in corporate education deform themselves, have bought into the faux deform rhetoric, or haven't a clue.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:08 am (UTC)And given you opened with "corporate education deform", yes, I would say that debate is not possible without the basic foundations of understanding.
As for whether blaming of teachers is appropriate, you do have a basic conflict of interest that precludes your being a judge in the matter.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 03:46 pm (UTC)As a reader and use of those "ghastly" non-fiction tomes, I feel a need to quote the eloquent General McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge (which I learned about by reading said ghastly works that are clearly not fit for serious readers), when I say "Nuts!"
Seriously, the bias towards literature, and away from the types of books that we used to call "useful" is as obscene as it is absurd. Anyone who believes that reading Kafka will make one a better, more informed citizen than Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy has likely never read the latter (and maybe not the former if they still think there's use to reading Metamorphosis) and shows their judgement on the matter to be terribly unsound.
Now, I don't teach reading, but I do teach engineering. Reading the various technical documents we deal with is not a trivial task, and reading Shakespeare no more prepares a student to handle technical reading than reading a book on reactor kinetics prepares one to handle Beowulf.
The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens. I disagree. Every election, I find myself wishing that my fellow citizens knew something about economics, history, or the constitution - all non-fiction subjects. I can't recall the last time I wished my fellow voters read more Twilight.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 04:41 pm (UTC)Especially if they are so put off reading that they will never read Basic Economics on their own.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 07:27 pm (UTC)As for being put off from reading, I've got my doubts about that entire notion. It seems like adults making excuses for student laziness or cultural issues. Students are put off because we keep telling them they should be.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 06:52 pm (UTC)That’s nice. So you would have first-grade kids read engineering documents, on the offhand chance that one day they might grow up to be engineers? Assuming, of course, that being taught to read from things that they cannot possibly understand doesn’t make them grow up to be illiterate.
The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.
No, the author would have you believe that literature is the key to learning how to be literate. Once you are literate, then you know how to read other things that will allow you to become well-informed. It won’t work the other way round.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 07:23 pm (UTC)That's a... special way of interpreting that. Although it goes against every notion of reason and common sense that I am accustomed to, let me give your reasoning a try, as well. Clearly you would ban all non-fiction from schools, on the offhand chance that, one day, they might not grow up to be engineers.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
Assuming, of course, that being taught to read from things that they cannot possibly understand doesn’t make them grow up to be illiterate.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
No, the author would have you believe that literature is the key to learning how to be literate. Once you are literate, then you know how to read other things that will allow you to become well-informed. It won’t work the other way round.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 07:32 pm (UTC)I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
It seems to me that all you have to contribute are red herrings, and we’re already arguing at the bottom.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did, or what your objection to it is) that the last sentence you quoted is this: ‘This is the kind of reflection that trains citizens capable of self-government.’
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost, appear to have considered this equivalent to your own words: ‘The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.’
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 08:02 pm (UTC)Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just being cynical. I guess I shouldn't make that mistake again. You see, I figured you could understand that the fact that I believe that we should have, as an end goal, the ability to read complicated technical work does not imply that I think that said complicated technical works should be given to first-graders.
Either that, or you believe that I'm teaching engineering to second-grades. It may feel like that, at times, but it is not the case.
That would be like assuming that you intend to expose first-graders to Chaucer. But, unlike you, I won't make that assumption just to try to score points.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
So, if you didn't say that, then I can only assume that you are unaware of "informational texts" (also known as non-fiction) that exist on all academic levels. You have to pick one or the other. Are you being disingenuous or are you ignorant of the variety of non-fiction?
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I'm sorry that literal readings of texts are so difficult for you.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did
Can you REALLY not figure out why I quoted it? Seriously? Maybe you should look at the discussion around it, you might see that it's a citation backing up my interpretation that the author believes that a focus on fiction "will make one a better, more informed citizen" (see, it's right up there in my original post). You might also see that it is a direct refutation to your denial that the "author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens" (see, it's right there in your response). I quoted the author, verbatim, with all context included. If you really can't figure out why I quoted it, maybe the problem is in your own literacy.
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost,
Actually, I was just disagreeing with the author. Other than to say that I believed the article was self-importance, I made no effort to make the other side look like idiots. You're the one who brought the venom.
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
You know, I could go into a big, long-winded discussion about distinctions without a difference and the relation between understanding and being well-informed (which is more than just having facts), but I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I? You complain that I'm misquoting/misinterpreting the author when I used the term "well-informed." However, you have no issues, at all, with misquoting me when you say I'm only talking about "learning bodies of fact as presented."
I love talking with people whose views differ from my own, but I loathe to waste my time on those who are not acting in good faith. I seem to have done so, here. Alas, I've come to that conclusion only after investing more time than you deserve. So I'll hit the post button (because I want something to show for the time) and then keep in mind that you deserve no further consideration. I've not enough time to waste it on the dishonest.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:40 am (UTC)Well, some of them. A good number are designed to avoid conveying info.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 01:26 am (UTC)We have had a devolution of the spoken and written language, but it has happened across all purposes and genres. It is a time-based phenomenon, not a genre-based one. Patrick Henry was every bit as complex as the playwrights of his day. William Jennings Bryan's brilliant oratory was poetry. Fiction has become debased in today's society, but non-fiction could only fall so far while still meeting its objectives.
John McWhorter, in his book Doing Our Own Thing calls out the culture as the culprit. Certainly, this is far more likely to be the case than the excess of scientific texts and a dearth of dime-store novels.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:47 am (UTC)I remember reading The Scarlet Letter when I was in fourth grade. I'm sure it added nothing to my young mind. However, the next year, I read my science text, cover to cover, before school the first week of school was over.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:11 am (UTC)Also, it is wise to remember that we are probably all exceptional readers. I'm not quite my cousin who read All the President's Men when he was six, but when I read something is not the wisest guide for suitable ages.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:33 am (UTC)I'm going to have to ask you to stick to one metric.
It seems that you want to a sliding scale of difficulty for fiction, but a monolith of difficulty for non-fiction.
If, as y'all are insisting, we assume that first-graders will be assigned Milton Friedman's Marginal Utility of Money and Elasticities of Demand or Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica, then we must also assume that they will be asked to pick up Dostoevsky from the fiction shelf... maybe even in Russian.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:28 am (UTC)