Life is a high-stakes reading test. Those who pass gain entry to the best humanity has to offer—great literature, active and effective citizenship, fascinating dinner debates, meaningful connections with people across time and space, jobs that are both interesting and high paying, genuine capacity for self-directed learning, etc.
The key to passing is broad knowledge.
That fact is the driver behind the Common Core standards’ requirement that K–12 schooling include dramatically more nonfiction reading, reaching 70% by twelfth grade. I’ve never understood the backlash against this mandate. There is no call for 70% of the reading assigned in English courses to be nonfiction. If students are taking English, history, and science, then two-thirds of their reading should already be nonfiction. Add in some biographies of artists and musicians (in art and music classes) and the 70% requirement is easily met. High schools with solid electives would likely have most students reading 80% nonfiction.
Nonetheless, many English teachers seem to be trying to draw far more nonfiction into their courses. Why? Do they not know that the 70% requirement applies to the whole day? Do they know that their colleagues in other disciplines are not assigning enough reading, so they are trying to fill the gap? Do they fear that whatever their colleagues are doing, they must do more to prepare for the high-stakes tests (since accountability policies unfairly attribute reading scores to ELA teachers alone)? Do they simply not know what their colleagues are assigning because they don’t have time to collaborate?
If only schools would see the 70% mandate as a call for collaboration: English and history teachers could pair great novels and poetry with studies of particular time periods, giving students an understanding of the author’s worldview. English and science teachers could pair science-fiction stories with analyses of the accuracy and potential of the scientific ideas they contain.
If a recent New York Times article is at all representative, such pairings are rare. Working alone, some English teachers seem to be struggling to effectively incorporate nonfiction. One assigned the G.I. Bill along with The Odyssey, which might inspire an interesting discussion, but would likely be based more on opinion than expertise. Others have turned to short pieces on banal topics like cell phones and cheerleading. These anecdotes indicate that teachers are trying to build some set of nonfiction comprehension skills—under the mistaken belief that they could be applied to any nonfiction text—instead of building the knowledge that would make comprehension effortless.
Faith in comprehension strategies is so strong that some teachers don’t seem to have broadening students’ horizons as a goal at all. As the Times reported:
At Midwood High School in Brooklyn … some teachers had taught the same books each year, no matter which grade they were teaching, so some students were being assigned the same books over and over again.
But there was one glimmer of hope in the article:
At Lower Manhattan Community Middle School, the eighth graders began the year by reading a novel in verse about a Vietnamese girl whose family flees the country at the end of the war, along with texts on the history of Vietnam and the experiences of refugees from various countries.
The students were more excited about a unit on women’s rights, focused on speeches by Shirley Chisholm and Sojourner Truth, and a 2006 letter by Venus Williams criticizing Wimbledon for paying female winners less than men.
These two examples are promising because they reveal a dedication to building knowledge of important topics. But they are not as coherent as I’d like. Refugees and women’s rights are very broad themes; there’s a risk of exposure to a great deal and retention of very little. Focusing on a narrower topic, such as the Vietnam War or Sojourner Truth, might give students a more meaningful opportunity to build vocabulary and knowledge. Indeed, the need for background knowledge is likely why students found the unit on women’s rights—a familiar topic anchored with a sports star—more interesting than the unit on Vietnam and refugees.
Knowledge increases curiosity, enables comprehension and other forms of critical thinking, and ensures students pass life’s most important high-stakes tests.
I am a high school English teacher. This year we received new text books for the first time in 10 years. The books are fine. However, they are at least 70% non-fiction. “Core aligned.” In my school district it is not the teachers who scramble to put 70% n-f in the curriculum, it has been mandated. Any teacher worth their salt has always included non-fiction reading in preparation for reading fiction. Authors’ bios and historical background reading provide context and depth of knowledge. In the past, when my students read The Good Earth, they also read about foot binding, the Boxer Revolution, lives of missionaries in pre-Communist China, even concubinage! They were fascinated (and a little titillated) by China. Now we have no time to read The Good Earth, so they have no reason to read all that other juicy stuff. I am sure that there are (have been, will be ) English teachers who plonk a book down in front of students and tell them to read, but what about those of us who have tried to use fiction as the gateway drug to fascination? This does not mean that non–fiction, in general, and our new text book, in specific, aren’t compelling. But nothing beats a novel, poetry, drama for nuance in language and style.
I wish our school board had read this posting before tossing out novel study. I believe that they misunderstood the 70% idea. I would absolutely love it if there were cross discipline collaboration with my colleagues in history or art or science. Imagine reading All Quiet on the Western Front in English class while covering WWI in History class, or Of Human Bondage while studying the art scene of Paris at the turn of the 20th Century in Art! We, as teachers, have never been allowed the time to do this. Or could it be that they didn’t misunderstand, that they didn’t trust us as professionals to get it done?