Ed Week, December 8, 2010

The Commentary in this Ed Week got my attention because I have been thinking quite a bit about reading, writing, and cognitive skills since starting my Literacy class.  The article called "Let's Spread the Blame for Reading Underachievement" by Sandra Stotsky discusses the lack of a common national core curriculum in high school English classes.  Not only does there not seem to be a canon of texts that high school teachers generally assign, the texts that students do read, do not increase in difficulty from grade 9 to 12.  This really surprised me!  I thought all American high school students read "Beowulf," "The Scarlet Letter," and Mark Twain's collected works.  I happen to be a big reader and loved reading all of these in high school.  According to the article, 72% of students in standard or honors courses read "Romeo and Juliet," 68% read to "Kill A Mockingbird,"59% read "The Crucible," and 48% read "Julius Caesar" in their high school careers.  Percentages for most of the other works read in high schools fall below 30%.  My husband pointed out that three of the four works listed above that are often read are actually plays.  They are thus, relatively short and not as demanding as "Moby Dick" or "Life on the Mississippi." I think students would benefit from reading across all genres, from Graphic novel to Jane Eyre.  Fiction and Non-fiction should also be included.  I also think that Reading is critical to the development of writing and cognitive skills.  Reading is a kind of input, that is a pre-requisite for production of quality writing.

What is perhaps of even greater concern is the way texts are being dealt with in high school English classes.  Students are not being explicitly taught how to do analytical close readings of texts.  High School teachers are instead favoring personal responses or focusing on the historical or biographical context of literary works.  This would explain to me why many college students I have encountered struggle with developing an argument and citing evidence from the text to support their thesis.  These are critical analytical and thinking skills.  Stotsky calls for several measures to deal with this situation, including a revision of the English curriculum, teaching the analytical study of literature, and professional development to train teachers how to do close, analytical readings.  I am still a bit surprised that all of this would be necessary, because I thought that the Core standards established by the State of Oregon would have already made these things requirements.