I wanted to write a well-reasoned critique

[Julie in Austin]

of the "reading workshop" concept in this article, but . . .

 

. . . what can you really say to people who think Captain Underpants is an improvement over To Kill a Mockingbird?:confused:

[Word Nerd]

of the "reading workshop" concept in this article, but . . .

 

. . . what can you really say to people who think Captain Underpants is an improvement over To Kill a Mockingbird?:confused:

 

I think that's a misrepresentation of what proponents of the reading workshop approach are saying, and I have no problem with this approach. It's very similar to the arguments that Jim Trelease makes in The Read-Aloud Handbook with regard to reading for pleasure and reflects my own views about developing a lifelong love of reading. It would be silly if teachers completely did away with reading and discussing literature like To Kill a Mockingbird as a class together, but I doubt that would be the case in most classrooms:

 

"Most experts say that teachers do not have to choose between one approach or the other and that they can incorporate the best of both methods: reading some novels as a group while also giving students opportunities to select their own books."

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with WordGirl. It's clear the teachers featured in the article are trying to meet students where they are at and then push their boundaries.

 

Example:

To Ms. McNeill’s chagrin, several students, most of them boys, stubbornly refused to read more challenging fare. One afternoon this spring she pulled her stool next to Masai, an eighth grader who wore a sparkling stud in one ear, as he stared at a laptop screen on which he was supposed to be composing a book review. Beside him sat the second volume in the “Maximum Ride” series, which chronicles the adventures of genetically mutated children who are part human, part bird. He was struggling to find anything to write.

“I keep trying to get you to read things other than James Patterson,” Ms. Atwell said, tapping the book’s cover. “But if you are going to write a book review of substance, you are going to have to find substance in the book.”

 

eta: As far as the last quote given by WordGirl-this is exactly what we do in our homeschool. I pick the books they read for "structured reading" and they get to pick their own books for their "free reading" time. Sometimes they pick fluff and sometimes they pick quality books. Sometimes I read fluff, sometimes I read books with substance.

[Julie in Austin]

I think what really got me about the article was that the teacher most prominently featured--who was teaching gifted students!--couldn't get some of hers to ratchet up to higher-quality literature despite her best efforts.

 

And that's the rub. Sure, some kids who would have hated Mockingbird will pick up The Kite Runner and end up with a love affair for reading. But kids who would have at least slogged through Mockingbird . . . now end up stuck in Underpants land.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Why not do both? Why not have them read classics and other materials the next book? Honestly, why not do 4 classics and 4 free choice a year for her class.

 

As home schoolers we get the pleasure of designing our studies to include many more books than the dc in the article really do. At our school, we get a different novel every week or two. That's a ton more reading! I think our environment allots for both much easier than the classroom environment like hers.

 

Even so, I'd have to see the outcome of this in a much more time tested environment before I could cart off all my classics to the storage room. It's nice to touch the hearts of some this year, but you never know if Mockingbird wouldn't have moved someone.

[chiguirre]

And that's the rub. Sure, some kids who would have hated Mockingbird will pick up The Kite Runner and end up with a love affair for reading. But kids who would have at least slogged through Mockingbird . . . now end up stuck in Underpants land.

 

IMHO, the kids who refuse to move past Captain Underpants are the ones who wouldn't even bother to crack the cover of Mockingbird if it were assigned. I remember most of my classmates relying on the summaries in Cliff's Notes in AP English, they didn't read the assigned text. I even recall doing this a few times myself :blush:, usually when a book was simply beyond my ability to comprehend (The Iliad in 9th grade springs to mind). While I do think teachers need to push their students, you can only encourage them, you can't force them to actually read the text to themselves if they refuse.

 

There will always be some kids (and adults) who hate to read even though they can. I've met lots of adults with good careers (and graduate degrees) who never read for pleasure, ever. Some of them are even IRL friends. I can't imagine not enjoying reading and having a couple of books going all the time, but I'm clearly in the minority. Perhaps the reading workshop will manage to make it a larger minority?

[theresatwist]

I was wondering if someone had started a thread on that article.:001_smile:

 

I think the problem with the system described is that reading To Kill a Mockingbird or David Copperfield requires reading skills that reading Captain Underpants doesn't. Kids today are graduating without the ability to read literature (Dickens, Melville, Elliot, Bronte, etc.) The ability to read literature is a higher and more complex ability than the ability to read the Twilight series. To me it sounds as though this teacher is abandoning the classics for the sake of nurturing a love of reading. The classics when taught well can do just that and there is no excuse in my mind for not doing it. It's very possible that the kids who aren't enjoying or appreciating the classics aren't at that level yet and need more serious instruction to get them there. Why aren't we doing that? That's why we have teachers!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I was wondering if someone had started a thread on that article.:001_smile:

 

I think the problem with the system described is that reading To Kill a Mockingbird or David Copperfield requires reading skills that reading Captain Underpants doesn't. Kids today are graduating without the ability to read literature (Dickens, Melville, Elliot, Bronte, etc.) The ability to read literature is a higher and more complex ability than the ability to read the Twilight series. To me it sounds as though this teacher is abandoning the classics for the sake of nurturing a love of reading. The classics when taught well can do just that and there is no excuse in my mind for not doing it. It's very possible that the kids who aren't enjoying or appreciating the classics aren't at that level yet and need more serious instruction to get them there. Why aren't we doing that? That's why we have teachers!

 

:iagree: I also think that it is important to foster a love of reading but hopefully the parents are doing this more so than the schools:) However, I think schools can spend a little time on fostering this as well, but I still think the classics are important.

 

 

I can remember the classics I was forced to read and almost all of them I was grateful to read after I read them. If I was not forced so to speak, then I may not have read them ever:sad:

[Jean in Newcastle]

When I look at this issue I think of the analogy of nutrition in food. A good "non-twaddle" book is a "living" book that has language and ideas that grab you and pulls you in. It will be the kind of book that you mull over even when you are not actively reading it. Many classics will fit the bill. Some books not considered classic (or perhaps they are undiscovered classics!) will too. It has intellectual nutritional value.

 

A "twaddle" book can certainly be categorized as escapist. But to take the food analogy further, there is trail mix as a fun snack and then there are Twinkies. I would offer a child a Hardy Boys book as an escapist book that still has some nutritional value (trail mix). I know that I'm biased but I consider "Captain Underpants" on the same level as Twinkies. Other than the fact that it uses words, I see no nutritional value whatsoever!

 

Academically speaking, in a classroom, I see a 'academic imperative' of sorts to provide material with some intellectual nutritional value. I have absolutely no trouble with someone choosing a literary "Twinkie" when they are at home or at the beach.

[akmommy]

I have real mixed feelings about the article. While I understand the desire for schools to just get kids reading it doesn't seem as if they are encouraging kids to challenge their abilities. The 7th or 8th grader who chooses Captain Underpants is either a) choosing something well beneath their abilities or b) is in serious need of remedial help.

 

I also think that kids should be required to read some high quality literature and not just mind candy. Maybe giving them a list of approved books and letting them choose from it. That would give the freedom to choose books they will enjoy while still ensuring that it is of good quality.

 

P.S. I don't understand how anyone could not enjoy To Kill a Mockingbird.:tongue_smilie:

Edited August 30, 2009 by akmommy

[dangermom]

I suppose this comes out of a situation where most of the kids do not have a love of reading and do not read for pleasure at any time, and the teacher is trying to encourage that love by playing catch-up on things they should have already learned. Of course, parents and elementary schools ought to foster that love of reading, but they often don't.

 

More and more (when I work as a librarian), I see a lot of kids who never get to choose their reading. Their schools do Accelerated Reader or a similar program (oh how I hate AR) and give them lists of approved titles. Most of those books are already checked out, but they have to find one from the list. That neat-looking book they want to read isn't on the list and there's no time to read more than one, so no dice. Then, when they find a book from the list that they don't want and have to read, they have to take a test afterwards--and AR is supposed to make kids love reading! :banghead:

 

These same kids are brought in by their parents who want to choose all their reading and push them towards challenging books. Now, I am all for reading as much as possible and good challenging books, but it is simply not appropriate to try to make your 3rd grader who is clearly not enthused about this ("but he reads at a 4th-grade level!") read Treasure Island. For pity's sake, please let him pick his own books to read! Do Treasure Island as a read-aloud, that would be wonderful!

 

Yes, high-school students should be reading their own choices on their own time and learning to read serious literature at school. But that pre-supposes that the students have already had years of choosing their own books, enjoying what they read, and keeping up with a habit of leisure reading along with school. And relatively few kids are allowed that gift at a young age, when it is best developed. When faced with a classroom full of kids who can read but don't particularly care to, I have to say that I think the love of reading should come before delving into serious literature--and indeed that the one is a necessary foundation to the other. I suppse, then, that teachers who do this are doing remedial teaching on kids who have never learned something that they ought to have learned long ago.

[Word Nerd]

Dangermom, my aunt is a recently retired public school librarian and media specialist, and she could have written your post, especially what you said about AR.

[theresatwist]

I understand Dangermom's argument, however I think that love of reading should be taught well before middle school. Given that these kids aren't there I'm not sure what the best approach is.

 

However, I believe if a person is going to become the kind of person who reads to challenge their beliefs and challenge their abilities that we need to be hitting them hard, if you know what I mean, in middle school. By middle school kids have the emotional and intellectual ability to begin appreciating a lot of the classics. I'm not sure what I'd advocate in remedial classes. I think I'd have to learn more. But, certainly in an advanced track middle school English class I do not believe that children should be choosing all the books they read. I'd support a program where each child chooses one book a month to read on their own and report to the class about. Self-directed learning is wonderful. But in middle school kids, no matter how advanced, are still learning a lot about how to read. They are not ready to be so completely self-directed at that stage.

 

I have always thought that comprehension tests for reading were problematic, especially the multiple choice variety. Kids then start competing to read the largest number of books. I remember this happening when I was in school. We need to be teaching kids that quality is more important than quantity. They should be learning to write thoughtful essays (essays, NOT summaries) on what they read. You can do well enough on a multiple choice test simply by skimming. At the middle school age we should be teaching kids to read deeply.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here is a great article about some inner city kids who have tackled Shakespeare. I love the attitude and views of the teacher. http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Jan2002/Jan23/PRT23-247Article.html

 

I think we often underestimate kids. And it may be considered snobbery by some, but I do think that you can set some standards for literature/reading - and that some books really are not worth spending the time on. I believe that we have an innate sense of beauty in us and that if fed, we will respond to that. The response might not be immediate if it has been squashed repeatedly their whole life but it is there.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Jean in Newcastle

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think that it's worth remembering that many teachers cobbled together classroom sets of books like Call of the Wild or The Diary of Anne Frank or other shorter, dramatic novels out of a response to literature textbooks that would often have a representative but abridged chapter of some piece of literature. The teachers who pushed reading literature 10-20 years ago weren't doing it because they were literary snobs. They were doing it because they felt that there was more life in Pride and Prejudice than in an abridged chapter of this and a chapter of that.

They wanted classroom sets so that everyone could have the book in their hand and take it home to read it.

 

Having said that, I think that we push books that aren't that great, just because they have a teen or youth protaganist. Many of these books weren't written for teens. But we make our students suffer through them anyway.

 

But what do I know? I have an English degree and I could never get the hoopla around Catcher in the Rye. Now Romantic poetry? William Blake? Austen? There we've got something to talk about.

 

I look at a school teacher as someone who has to try to stretch the students beyond where they are comfortable. To my mind, too much of modern education is about making the student feel good, not about becoming better.

[LibrarianMom]

of the "reading workshop" concept in this article, but . . .

 

. . . what can you really say to people who think Captain Underpants is an improvement over To Kill a Mockingbird?:confused:

 

Having heard Ms. Atwell speak about 15 years ago, I think the reading workshop approach is great. The key is sharing what you are reading and doing the mini-lessons about literary concepts. When you study the approach, it has many similarities to Charlotte Mason with short lessons and narration.

 

Many kids are going to "hate" whatever the teacher asks them to read simply because it is assigned. In this approach, students are reading more and they are responding in writing to what they are reading. They are narrating the books they read and throwing some criticism in as well. Am I happy that some 7th graders are reading Captain Underpants? No, but I also think that was one book used to make a poor point. The students in the class will have a range of reading levels and are at least reading something which they would, unfortunately, probably never do on their own as too many children do not have reading role models. I recall from my own PS librarian days a particular 7th grader who was in special ed and labored all quarter to read Where the Red Fern Grows. When he finished it (and passed the AR test), he and the staff were ecstatic because it was a huge achievement for him. This student later moved out of the district, but I had a chance meeting with him while visiting another school where he was a freshman. I was elated to find he had a book in his hand.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Having heard Ms. Atwell speak about 15 years ago, I think the reading workshop approach is great. The key is sharing what you are reading and doing the mini-lessons about literary concepts. When you study the approach, it has many similarities to Charlotte Mason with short lessons and narration.

 

 

 

I read In The Middle for a graduate education class 10 years ago. It is one of only two books that I have held on to. I do think that her thinking on reading and writing has some really good points. She tends to start with the idea that the students are already readers and writers, although not in the areas that are typically academic. She puts a lot of emphasis on building compelling reasons to read and write.

 

I agree with a previous poster that you just have to keep working both ends at the same time. You have to recognize where the student is at the moment, while also not being content to let them stay there.

[Haiku]

But fans of the reading workshop say that assigning books leaves many children bored or unable to understand the texts. Letting students choose their own books, they say, can help to build a lifelong love of reading.

 

Children have plenty of time to read books of their own choosing. Unfortunately, many children choose not to read and instead waste their time texting, playing video games, and hanging out at the mall. It is not the school's job to provide kids with leisure reading of the trashiest sort; it is the school's job to challenge the kids and inspire them to intellectual pursuits. The kids who wouldn't be readers anyway will at least be exposed to the classroom discussion about To Kill a Mockingbird.

 

I think this is another example of a school trying to address a lifestyle/parenting/family culture issue and not an educational one.

 

Tara

[ekarl2]

of the "reading workshop" concept in this article, but . . .

 

. . . what can you really say to people who think Captain Underpants is an improvement over To Kill a Mockingbird?:confused:

 

 

There's a happy medium here. I assigned a quarterly book report when I taught PS. The kids could pick their own book to read, but it had to be a classic. I had to sign off as did their parents. they always started with, "classic books are boring!"

 

If you have a kid who likes Captain Underpants, give him The Three Musketeers to read. Like the A-list/Clique books (dreck)? Here, try anything by the Bronte Sisters or Jane Austen.

 

If they had a low reading level, I gave them an adapted version of the story. At least they got the story and broadened their horizons a little.

 

People are so concerned about making books relevant ... what is relevant to a 12-year-old who is never pushed outside their own little zone? It's the teacher's job to make it relevant.

[katilac]

I cannot comment on the how much choice students should have in their reading material right now, because my brain came to a screeching halt whe I read the bit about the boy who turned in an assignment that was blatantly plagiarized - - he printed it off the internet, leaving the original source intact :001_huh:.

 

She admonished the boy and asked him to redo his entry.

 

Oh, well, as long as she admonished him. I'd hate to think he just got away with it.