I found an interesting piece today in the New York Times, entitled, "What Should Children Read?" Written by Sara Mosle, the work discusses some possible implications of the soon-to-be-enacted "Common Core State Standards," a collection of language arts and mathematics benchmarks which most public school students will need to meet following the 2014 implementation date. Of the many changes involved, the one of interest in this piece centers on the shift toward the greater nonfiction reading.
To give a sense of what that entails, Mosle gives two examples: under the new standards, fourth graders would spend 50% of their reading time with "historical documents, scientific tracts, maps, and other 'informational texts'--like recipes and train schedules." By 12th grade, the nonfiction titles would take up 70% of in-class reading time.
The essential idea behind these reforms appears to focus on making education more practical and real-to-life. As cited in the piece, president of the College Board (and contributor/ promoter of the Common Core) David Coleman says, "'It is rare in a working environment...that someone says, "Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday afternoon but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood."'" Viewed in this way, the desired shift in the Common Core is away from self-expression and toward technical competency.
To a point that sounds at least somewhat merit-worthy; technical competence is important in any field. And with comprehension of technical literature becoming evermore important as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields produce a greater percentage of gainful employment opportunities in the US, a heightened emphasis on nonfiction in that vein could be warranted.
On the other hand, as Mosle points out, "nonfiction is seldom literary, and certainly not literature." There is, however, value in reading it, and her answer to the question what should children read? "isn't more nonfiction but better nonfiction, especially that which provides good models for students' writing." The most useful kind she believes is "narrative nonfiction," or "writing that tells a factual story, sometimes even a personal one, but also makes an argument and conveys information in vivid, effective ways." Characteristic of this writing form is "intense reporting, immersion in a subject, dialogue and telling details."
"Narrative nonfiction" sounds like a kind of journalism, blending the literary qualities of exposition, character analysis, and story-telling with facts and real events. It's a genre bringing together essential qualities of fiction and nonfiction, providing both information and "models" for students to consider as they write their own works.
So what should children read? Frankly I'm uncertain. On the one hand, reading more nonfiction could be beneficial for young people, particularly primary documents and those one frequently encounters later in life (train schedules, spreadsheets, and the like). A little practice with such things in school could help more timid souls gain some familiarity with them before the demands of adulthood occupy much of their energy and time. One might compare it to the way schools (at least my old school) used to teach students how to sew, swim, drive an automobile, and make minor repairs around the house. These are practical skills to have, even in our own time. Yet more and more it seems the instruction of them is being left to others while focus shifts toward standards and standardized tests. That's not to say the older system was perfect or better than what we have today; it just illustrates how schoolwork in another age was made more practical and real-to-life.
On the other hand, too great an emphasis on nonfiction could for many pervert the act of reading into something one does simply for information or to perform a specific task. This may work for some (and I know several people for whom this is reading's sole purpose), but will it help the majority become habitual life-long readers? That I think is an important question whenever considering reading in school; what makes reading pleasant, useful, and habitual? Indeed, I suspect the habit of reading--no matter what the text involved--is more important than form it takes. One of the things I loved about Samuel Smiles' 19th century book Self Help was the way reading played so fundamental a role in the self-education of the artists, inventors, and craftsmen whose lives he described. Many of them had little formal education (unlike most children in the US today), but reading became the route by which they acquired the raw materials for their subsequent personal growth. For Smiles, the lesson to draw from the example of all these successful people was the efficacy of will, perseverance and character. But I would argue they also demonstrate the potency of reading, and how both technical knowledge and literary culture helped these successful people grow into new, more aware human beings. Reading was not only a luxury, but also a rich source of experience, feeling, and knowledge of what others had done before. It was history, legend, example, how-to, and a source of "conversation" with intelligent human beings not in their immediate vicinity. In short, reading seems to have expanded their intellectual, emotional, and moral horizons, a widening of view which might not have occurred if they'd never acquired the habit.
So while I agree with much of what Mosle writes, and on one level what the Common Core seeks to accomplish, I suspect we can only encourage and help young people find texts which "speak" to them. Just a thought, of course.
Happy Friday, friends :)
No comments:
Post a Comment