Thomas B. Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence
Thomas B. Fordham Institute

The Seuss Bigotry of Low Expectations?

Kathleen Porter-Magee Posted by Kathleen Porter-Magee on June 15, 2011 at 6:02 pm

Pam Allyn, a literacy expert and executive director of LitWorld, penned an opinion piece in Education Week entitled “Against the Whole-Class Novel.” The crux of the article is that teachers should no longer assign one book to all students in a class but instead allow students to select books that are both at their individual (or instructional) reading level and that cover topics that most interest them.

Photo by Sarah Kennon

Allyn’s argument—which is becoming a widely-held belief among literature teachers—is seductive in an age where “individualized learning plan” is the watch phrase and blended-learning models aim to let students move at their own pace.

To underscore her point, Allyn shares an example of one of her struggling readers, Sam.

Sam, a 12-year-old student in one of my LitWorld programs for struggling readers, had a breakthrough moment recently. It happened at 3:30 p.m., after school hours, when he picked up Horton Hears a Who! and the volunteer smiled at him, and said, “That’s the perfect book for you, Sam. Dr. Seuss is one of the world’s greatest, most brilliant writers of all.” The book was the perfect level for him as an emerging reader, the perfect pitch of humor and art; in short, the perfect book for Sam.

Back in his classroom, Sam was required to read To Kill a Mockingbird. He struggled against this book every day. He could not decode or comprehend it. He faked his way through it.… It did not help him learn to read, nor did it help him to become a lifelong lover of text. And he was alienated and isolated from his peers.

Allyn goes on to argue:

To read in school what one is driven to read, every day. To read at one’s own pace. To read driven by one’s own passions. To read on whatever device makes the most sense for that particular reader, whether it’s a mobile phone or an iPad. To invite all students to become, in essence, the curators of their own reading lives. This should be our reading program.

If a student has found 16 blogs about boats, let him read those in school. And maybe that student will follow one of those blogs to a newspaper series about a regatta, or to Dove, Robin Lee Graham’s personal account of sailing around the world as a teenager. In these ways, our students will be exposed to a wider variety of genres than the whole-class novel ever allowed, and they will be more compelled to think critically across genres, as the common-core standards will require of them.

As I’ve written before something has obviously gone terribly wrong with the adoption and dissemination of the Common Core State Standards if it is being so readily trotted out to defend the retreat from holding all students to consistently high standards.

And, while I certainly hope that students acquire a love of reading, that is actually not the primary goal of a school’s literature program. Instead, its purpose is to help students read (and understand) a variety of texts—both fiction and nonfiction—that are sufficiently challenging and that expose students to the content they will need to know to be college and career ready. Blogs about boats may be entertaining but they don’t put you on the track to tackle college-level reading. Its not fair to students to pretend they do.

Allyn’s argument seems to rest on the assumption that it doesn’t matter what you read, as long as you read. That’s just simply not true. While students should absolutely be encouraged to pick up books that interest them and read whenever they’ve got a spare moment, what students read in class is one of the most important decisions a teacher can make. By limiting the challenge and complexity of what students read while in school, you limit what they will be able to read—and not read—for the rest of their lives.

Most troublingly, the reading programs that Allyn describes will, if applied in classrooms across our country, only serve to perpetuate America’s enormous achievement gap.

Think about it: if Horton Hears a Who is a “just right” book for Sam, but To Kill a Mockingbird is more appropriate for Sam’s peers, how will Sam ever get to the point where he can read books that are equally as challenging as his peers? And given that poor readers in America are disproportionately African American and Latino means imposing separate and unequal reading lists on America’s youth that fall with disconcerting consistency across the fault lines of class, race, and ethnicity.

That doesn’t mean that we should slap Dr. Seuss out of Sam’s hands. Reading “just right” books in afterschool programs or at home while teachers work to close the reading gap in school is entirely appropriate. But, we simply cannot pretend that reading programs driven entirely by choice and reading level are going to serve the best interests of students like Sam. Students that deserve to stretch to their fullest potential no matter the cards they were dealt at birth. Nor can we pretend that the Sams of the world can magically access these complicated texts. But the conversation needs to center around how to scaffold grade-appropriate books for struggling readers, not about whether they should even be reading them at all.

Every student deserves high standards and every student deserves to have the opportunity to participate with his peers in discussions about complex books that cover varied and interesting topics. Those are the discussions and that is the content that is going to put them on the path to college.

Or as Dr. Seuss himself might have said, “The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

–Kathleen Porter-Magee

5 Comments
  1. I’ll start off by clarifying that I am not officially an English teacher (although I am working towards having that as an option)–I have been mostly a social studies and ESOL teacher. But from what I do know and think about teaching literature, I find very little to disagree with here.

    I think there is a difference between teaching literature and having students conduct research on a topic of interest or encouraging them to read for pleasure. I think if we don’t teach students works such as To Kill A Mockingbird, and we don’t facilitate discussions among students of such works of literature, we are doing them a disservice. If you ask me, teaching literature is teaching content; it’s not really teaching reading, except that the more you read, the better reader you become, but that’s mostly because you are learning as you are reading. Now, To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my all-time favorite books–I read it for the first time I think around Sam’s age and I still remember it–so I am biased in any discussions of this particular example; however, there were books I was assigned (or not) that I thought I would hate that I loved and books that I was assigned that I didn’t like so much or think were so great that were good for me to know about or to have read.

    I can understand where Allyn is coming from in that we also need to find ways to nurture and foster students’ own curiosity and we need to allow more choice in reading materials. But that’s where the blog posts on boats come in–that’s appropriate for an independent research project or reading assignment, but it’s no substitution for literature (in the way that I’m defining literature, at least). I also can see that it would be satisfying for a 12-year-old struggling reader to read Dr. Seuss and I find that he can read it fluently and that he can enjoy the rhymes and word play in it.

    But I would think a twelve year old would be ready to handle the themes and story in a book like Too Kill a Mockingbird, and I agree with you that we should find ways to scaffold and make these great works accessible rather than just not teach them. I also think there are ways to allow more choice and still have students read works of literature. It’s okay for English teachers or English departments or some Literature Authority to choose books for the students to read. Even for pleasure reading at home, for example, my own sons would read Captain Underpants and Calvin & Hobbes exclusively if I let them; I don’t and they end up really liking (and maybe not liking as much) other more literary texts. They would also eat ice cream for dinner every night if so permitted. . .

    I think this is a very hard thing to balance: student curiosity, student interest, student choice, and student preparedness to read a particular book with what students should know about, read, and have cultural literacy in at any particular grade. I also think that student reading ability is a real thing (and perhaps there’s a better term than “ability” that I’m failing to use), but that beyond knowing how to decode that students’ reading abilities are mostly dependent on background knowledge (although maturity is also a factor, but then again I guess maturity is a form of background or prior knowledge in its own right.)

    I feel like I have been pretty incoherent here and that I’ve probably made you sorry you asked for my thoughts. You should ask Diana Senechal what she thinks! This post of hers is of particular relevance: http://www.joannejacobs.com/2011/05/is-nonfiction-more-important-than-fiction/

  2. Toad
    I know I said earlier today that even 1 is 1 too many, so we are in agreement, and as for disciplinary action I also, and totally, agree!

Trackbacks / Pings