From the department of “Again already?” there’s hyperventilation about whether or not kids are reading and growing more stupider by the minute because they don’t read.
Truly, take a breath people. Remember that annoying song in 1997 about how everyone has to wear sunscreen but not credit the correct source of all that wisdom? (It wasn’t Vonnegut, fyi). In the middle is this bit of perspective:
Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. And when you do you’ll fantasise that when you were younger prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected elders.
Add to that: you’ll also insist that children should read great and sometimes cumbersome works written by those whom someone has deemed among the great minds and because children are not doing so, they are now growing more stupider by the minute.
No, I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t think kids are stupid, judging by the ones I meet. I don’t always understand the things they worry about – but I bet the things I worry about are as baffling to them.
When I see histrionic articles like this one about what kids are reading and how they’re growing more stupider by the minute, I think to myself:
1. Take a breath.
2. How are you defining “reading?” Can we agree that the definition of “reading” is increasingly nebulous in its boundaries?
Are they reading text in ways you can identify? Are they interacting with stories in forms you have quantified in your estimation of Here Comes Teh Stupids Oh Noes? There are more ways to consume narrative on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
According to a Daily Beast article on the subject of teens reading,
…children should read newspapers and magazines, texts about nature and technology, and biographies—genres that increase real-world knowledge. This is especially important for poor children, who may not be exposed to as much “background” information at home: the random vocabulary, facts, and associations that make it easier to do well on tests like the NAEP and SAT, and to succeed in the workplace.
But for the most part, kids aren’t reading this kind of material. “One of my big gripes is the imperialism of literature, of trivial fictions and poetry,” says E.D. Hirsch, a literature professor and advocate of “cultural literacy.” Hirsch rejects the idea that storybooks are the only books that appeal to children. “Fiction doesn’t have a monopoly on narrative,” he says. “Take, for example, biographies. They have the form of fiction. It isn’t whether kids can read it or not, it’s whether it is taught or not.
In other words, there is value in imagination, whether the intricate narrative is coming from text on a page or screen, or a interactive dynamic world projected on a screen. The narratives and issues dealt with in video games or in comics are not at all worth less than the narratives of classical literature, (just as romances are not of less value than other works of fiction). Alas, the bulk of the article is not so innovative, and rehashes a lot of the Oh Noes Here Comes Teh Stupids hand-wringing while recommending nonfiction in addition to fiction. Why not… let kids choose what they want to enjoy?
Peter M. Dickinson wrote about this back in 2002 in “A Defence of Rubbish” and said,
Nobody who has not spent a whole sunny afternoon under his bed rereading a pile of comics left over from the previous holidays has any real idea of the meaning of intellectual freedom.
Nobody who has not written comic strips can really understand the phrase, economy of words. It’s like trying to write Paradise Lost in haiku.
While I immediately bristle at the use of the word “rubbish,” as it’s so often applied to that which I hold most dear (and to my bosoms, of course) I agree with Mr. Dickinson like damn howdy. Especially this part: “Third I am convinced of the importance of children discovering things for themselves.” And this other part, which addresses my rubbishy fears: “it may not be rubbish after all. The adult eye is not necessarily a perfect instrument for discerning certain sorts of values.”
Sing it, Brother P. I shall hold up a lighter. (Thank you to Christine D. for the links.) We’ve discussed the idea of youth reading and required reading before, and the discussion follows a similar route each time.
but I want to stop short of the shrill and earnest whining that at least kids are reeeeaaaaaaading when seen toting Harry Potter or Twilight or whatever mammoth hardback is capturing attention and making hands wring in agitation. I want to stop well short of that crap, to be sure, because it’s just as patronizing to say so, as if kids should be reading because doing so is good for them and they’ll all arrive at the same level of intellectual joy and wonderpants so long as they consume pages of text.
I disagree with that, and the idea that there’s only one way to learn, and the idea that identifying, quantifying and assigning to value to what a child is reading is more important than asking that child what he or she thinks. I drew a whole set of conclusions about Twilight, but some of the most interesting conversations I’ve had about the first book were with individuals between the ages of 10 and 15. (Note: I used to work in overnight camping so I’m often around children of camp age. Also, summer camp freaking rules).
It seems that as technology changes the way we consume and access information, articles about the state of reading among young people emerge that have all the calm and reasoned tone of a Weather Channel meterologist in the middle of a snowstorm in July. Calm down already.
The only issue I have with kids books it that I expect them to be better written than adult fiction. As someone who learned proper sentence structure by reading (instead of through the school or by conversing with my equally limited peers), I am appalled by the iffy writing out there for kids. I’m not the only one either; a friend of mine is annoyed over exactly that for her daughter (neither could stand to finish “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” but think of the Lemony Snicket series as the best out there right now). I don’t know how kids and teens nowadays learn proper English if not for the “classics” (although I do include Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle in that category). I do read quite a lot of YA books so I’d like to think that I know what I’m complaining about. 🙂 Personally, I can’t wait until my niece is old enough for P. G. Wodehouse.
On the upside, the sheer number of books available to YA readers is incredible compared to what I had back in the day (which is probably why I ended up reading so many books written by dead authors). All I had to read for my teen angst were “Catcher in the Rye”, “The Glass Menagerie”, “Death of a Salesman” and “Long Day’s Journey into Night” (most of which were not assigned by class but I read on my own). Kids now have all that covered with Twilight, Harry Potter (especially the fifth or so book in which Harry was a really annoying teen boy), and too many other books to mention.
Wonderful post! While it is true that a lot of teens I meet do not read Dickens or Poe or Shakespeare they obtain knowledge in other ways. Knoweldge comes in many forms and while being “well-read” is a practicality and even a necessity for some circles of academia, they are not the only form of intellect. My grandfather will get onto my baby cousin’s about not picking up a book, but if I am at work they are the ones he will call to fix the computer. Yet another example, my high school english teacher refused to acknowledge my dog-eard copies of Julia Garwood novels as reading until time for the final debate for the class where I could eaisly compare Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to the Rose series. This same teacher who thought my mind was trashed found out later that I knowledge she did not: how to change a tire.
And as I recall some comic books did pose ethical situations albiet with a supernatural twist (X-Men, need I say more?).
My only gripe is the use of texting language in essays, but then again I was caught using shorthand symbols in essays before I had a cell phone (made a C because of b/c).
My final idea on the subject: if you want your child to read, let them read what they want. Just be a parent that will sit and talk with them about what they are reading, becasue discussing what they are interested in is much better than shoving a copy of Don Quixote, Ivanhoe or even sometihing more modern like Wicked or Catcher in the Rye into thier hands and making them read it.
@karenna
That’s so cool. Go on with your bad self. Reminds me of teaching grammar in college composition courses using the National Enquirer and other tabloids about celebrities.
And I agree, @Christy et al:
It is absolutely important to be able to read and synthesize and process that information. I do think articles like the ones I linked to tend to point to Canon Lit as the easiest point from which to develop comprehension skills. If you read Carlisle or Ellison and write essays about them, you’ll develop those reading skills for information and comprehension. My point is, those same skills can be taught outside of the expected canon, and not even necessarily with text.
I however fully recognize that I am probably waaaaaay over-sympathetic to alternate methods of communicating narrative aside from text because I taught students with severe dysgraphia for a few years – and watched them come up with ways around the text that they could not write, even though they could read and understand. My almost-master’s-thesis, let me show you… well, not it but a really old outline.
@dick: “At the same time, their reactions suggested that they had an almost mystical belief that anything written was therefore correct and to be believed. In my opinion, some concern is necessary. “
First of all, if it’s written on the internet, it is SO true. (heh- kidding!) I taught freshman comp for a number of years, and I don’t think that the “absolute belief in the truth of what is written down” is exclusive to those who stumble when reading unfamiliar texts and formats for comprehension. I think I thought the same until I learned better – that belief in the unquestionable truth of text as written (or on screen) might be somewhat universal if not extremely common.
In reply to Christy:
I agree that reading fiction isn’t enough, though you do learn more through books than you realize. However, I’d expect my children to read those non-fiction texts in school. As far as I remember every class I had in highschool (which isn’t that long ago) had some sort of texts that we needed to read, comprehend and analyze, and the higher we got, the more texts and articles we had to understand.
But I almost never read non-fiction at home, for leisure.
So if there’s alarmbells ringing because the general knowledge isn’t good enough, I believe this might have more to do with the schooling system than with the fact that children read less non-fiction.
Because I honestly doubt that in the days of yarn kids read plenty non-fiction for pleasure. Occasionally maybe, but not plenty.
I’d just like to throw out there that in fact popular non-fiction (history, current events, etc.) sells very well indeed among the adult population, and in my decade of experience teaching high school students who mostly arrived seriously below grade level, the weakest readers generally PREFERRED non-fiction books. (We were using the National Council for English Education model of “ramp-up” for students below grade level, where a portion of each day was spent reading books the students SELECTED THEMSELVES from the classroom library.) I could never keep up with the demand for non-fiction. So the “oh noes, we are taking the pleasure out of reading by making kids read non-fiction” may reflect the specific bias of this site, which is after all by and for people who love to read fiction for pleasure. There ARE lots of people out there who won’t pick up a novel but will read non-fiction.
Side note in terms of lack of general information – of course general information comes from both fiction and non-fiction sources. But saying that poor children aren’t severely deprived in this area is just naive. One of my great heartbreak moments as a new teacher was when I was reading a story called “Zoo” with my students, and asked them to talk about what they had seen when going to the zoo. “I’ve never been to a zoo,” said one fifteen year old. “I’ve been to a museum though. I liked it.” NB: This boy grew up in New York, where there are three zoos and an aquarium, and more than one museum. (And admission is free to more than one of these.) No matter how ignorant and uninformed students from fancy private schools are, they tend to know by osmosis (NOT necessarily from reading) that Vienna is not in Italy, that Paris IS in France, that cloth is woven on looms, and that when an English person wishes for 200 pounds he is not talking about starting a course of free weights at the local gym. (All of the above are examples of things that I have had to explain to students. And the list could go on.) Sorry if this sounds ranty, but my students are bright kids, and they struggle with basic comprehension because their EXPERIENCE is SO limited. Pretending that they are starting from a level playing field makes me see red.
As an eighteen-year-old, I can pretty much guarantee that whenever an adult says “this book/novel/play is a CLASSIC and has incredibly meaningful THEMES and uses SATIRE and METAPHORS and IMAGERY” it makes me want to throw the book in their face and read something that actually interests me. My AP English teacher literally told us the other day that there was a board of old people (professors at “prestigious” schools that I will never even go to) who decide which novels and plays have enough “literary merit” to teach seniors in high school. They completely disregard any books that I find meaning in, because they aren’t looking for meaning, just symbolism that we can spew back at them. I cannot find the words to fully express my hatred for standardized tests, like the SATs and AP tests. There is no way for me to talk about the books, classic or otherwise, that have left an impression on me and that, more than anything, is what I want to do after I finish them. I don’t want to write about theme and character development. I want to sit in a Socratic circle and talk about what a douchebag St.John from Jane Eyre is and how Steinbeck NEVER ENDS effing East of Eden (which, I don’t care if it’s supposed to be epic, is the most unappealing brick of shit I’ve ever had to lug to and from English class).
And also, some people really honestly just aren’t into books. WHY THE MOTHEREFFING EFFER IS THAT SO BAD?! Let the poor kids be, reading is not the be-all, end-all of intelligence. Maybe if teachers and parents and librarians stop pushing books on us, we’ll actually be able to stop worrying, for once, about college and jobs and the future and just figure out what the eff we’re doing.
Sorry. It just gets old after a while. End rant.
“Our civilization is doomed if the unheard-of actions of our younger generations are allowed to continue.” —Inscription on a 4,000-year-old tablet found in the Biblical city of Ur.
I loved Gone With the Wind—it was THE BOOK for me at age 13. I find that way too many people judge it by the movie, which layered on a lot of sentimental antebellum glop to appease the feelings of 1939. I can barely watch the film because of the Stepin Fetchit casting of the roles of Sam and Pork.
The novel is extremely subversive regarding the Old South, the Lost Cause, romantic love, Victorian womanhood (and early-twentieth century womanhood), because it is told entirely from Scarlett’s point of view. Scarlett had no use for any person, place, or thing that did not directly contribute to her personal welfare, and no patience with restrictions that prevented her having her own way. She is unlikeable, true, but she is daring, determined, and energetic. When I was in junior high, heroines like that were pretty thin on the ground.
The one assigned book I couldn’t finish in high school was “Madame Bovary”; I relied on Cliff Notes instead (for the youngsters among us, that’s sort of like wikipedia entries in booklet form). If Gustave Flaubert thought it was tedious to write, then why should I have read it? (I also blamed Emma Bovary’s unrealistic outlook on life on her reading of romance novels – hey, I was young!)
Perhaps I had good English teachers, but I didn’t mind all the classics they foisted on us for discussions on imagery, themes, metaphor, etc. since I figured that a) at some point someone was going to ask me to write about those things for or in college, b) I’d read the required reading before the class discussions so I got a chance to see if I liked the book before it was dissected to death and c) whatever book it was, it had to be more interesting than my history textbooks (yes, even those obligatory Dickens novels and depressing Russian tomes).
figured that a) at some point someone was going to ask me to write about those things for or in college, b) I’d read the required reading before the class discussions so
My favorite class in high school was a “Classic and Modern Novels” class I took my senior year. There were three requirements 1)read 30 pages a night 2)at some point during the quarter read a classic 3)when you finished a book, you wrote a short essay. That was all. I adored it. 40 minutes a day set aside for reading.
I could chose any book under the sun and each person did. I remember reading a romance novel for the class, my friend slogging through Don Quixote, someone else reading some Hitch-hiker’s. It was a great class that spoke to us as individuals.
My teacher in the class died that year and her replacement changed it to “Read this book, then we’ll discuss it” I was sad to see such a gem go (the class and the teacher).
I’m of the opinion that kids can and will want to become readers if they’re actually *gasp* allowed to read something they will enjoy. I’m very grateful that my parents basically said “read whatever you want” when I was a child – my mom was a wee bit horrified when she later read some of the stuff I’d been reading as early as age 14, and there was one book I remember she told me I couldn’t read until I was 30 (which gave me a powerful urge to secretly get my hands on it anyway), but mostly I read what I wanted, when I wanted. And so I read a lot, although probably not what some would consider “good literature.” When I had a class in middle school on “the classics,” our teacher decided that the best way to go about it was to give us all a monumental list of works she defined as classics and let each individual choose what he or she wanted to read from the list – the only requirements were that we read 3 from the list. Two of my three were Pride and Prejudice and Dracula. 🙂
So I get a little peeved when people say kids should be reading such-and-such. When you’re first learning how to read and further developing those skills, reading takes a lot of effort – if kids find something that makes them want to take that effort, why should we get all bent out of shape over what it is they’ve found? Do we really want to teach them that reading is a boring and/or painful chore, not worth attempting because it’s not like there’s anything on those pages that is even worth the effort?
I remember when I was cleaning up the adult learner reading room at a library branch I volunteered at. I took a look at some of the books that adults in the literacy program were given to read – short romance novels and dramatic fiction, written with reading level appropriate vocabulary. Why is this ok for adults learning to read, but kids are expected to read classics and Newbery Award winners?
The belief that something that is written and in published form must be true is very widespread, and quite possibly goes back to folk-memories of the belief in the supernatural, magical power of written symbols in societies that were mainly non-literate.
The best treatment for this particular error is simply to read a LOT, as early as possible, because then the reader will soon encounter, in printed form, something that he/she knows, from first-hand knowledge, to be totally untrue, and that particular magic spell is broken forever.
As others have said, personal taste is so variable that sweeping judgements about any book, classic or ‘popular’, are bound to infuriate somebody. The only thing that really matters is the ability to read, and read properly. Arguments about types of fiction are based on the observation that most children like to read ‘stories’, and so fiction is the medium used to encourage reading. Actually, it doesn’t matter in the least whether the material read is fact or fiction, or whether, if fiction, it is good or bad. I am sure I was not the only child and teenager in the world who much preferred to read factual books about animals, history and exotic places than novels.
Nobody has said anything about register, about formal and colloquial language. Everyone needs, by the time they reach adolescence, to be able to vary spoken and written language in ways appropriate to the context. Familiarity with formal written language, with older forms of one’s native language, and indeed, other languages, all help immensely with this.
In a society that is based on widespread literacy, language skills, including reading/writing skills, are essential. Arguments about whether a given novel is interesting or uninteresting to the average teenager are a side-issue.
How many adults use their FREE time (not for work or for a class) to read material that they don’t like or find interesting for some reason? Anyone? If not, then why are kids supposed to?
Yes, the ability to read critically and judge text or any media message should be taught and reinforced where possible. However, this can also be reinforced through fiction. “Meyer treats Edward watching Bella sleep is romantic. However, I find it pretty creepy, myself.”
Some books do improve with time and when you get to read them without writing reports. I went back and re-read the Scarlet Letter, which was assigned to us in high school and low and behold it was pretty good.
And to be on the other side of the GWTW war, I always wished that Rhett had taken a bullet when he ran off to join the war. He’s a 30-something jerk stalkng a teenaged girl. Scarlett wasn’t obligated to love him.
The answer to the question is “Yes, our kids is reading.” I work in a junior high school library and we try to provide a broad variety of books. Naturally, the TWILIGHT and HARRY POTTER series are popular, and so are VAMPIRE KISSES and PERCY JACKSON and THE CLIQUE books and sports fiction by Matt Christopher and Jake Maddox, and HOW TO DRAW books and sports/entertainment biographies, and manga/anime books…the list goes on. Yes, students are reading, but not necessarily what some adults believe they “should” read. So what? They ARE reading…and even back when I was in school (in the 1970s), very few students read “the classics” voluntarily.
I had a really cool lit teacher in 7th grade who while she made us read The Odyessy, also let us pick at least one book that we wanted to read – It was the first time I read Clan of the *cough* Cave Bear. The other day I was with my mom at a large chain store in the book store and my 9 year old daughter was flipping through a copy of New Moon. My mom was all “Oh noes she is reading a romance!” I reassured my mom there was nothing but Teen angst and my daughter would be fine. (Not a big Twilight fan, but hey)
My daughter loves the Walter Farley books – actually any book with a horse on the cover. And as for reading with facts – HAS ANYONE HEARD OF MARY HOPE OSBORN OMG! Come on people there are a lot of Junior and Young Adult authors who use factual info from sciences and other arts as part of there books.
Let them read.
To this day I still collect Comic Books and Graphic Novels, at the age of 50. I really don’t care.
yesterday, we had the first Empire State Book Festival. The panel with the comic book/graphic artist novels was well attended by Librarians. (the entire thing was sponsered by The NY State Library Association). They are very happy that kids are coming in and reading Graphic Novels- and they aren’t of the SuperHero Variety. But things like Moby Dick (a book I hate and could never finish), The Three Musketeers and many more classics.
I have never been a believer of what you read as being the most important that but just that they read at all.
My son, who was just accepted in the graduate program in Classics at Columbia University in NYC, began reading the series of Goosebumps books when he was in second grade. These books were poo-pooed as rubbish by the folks who touted Mark Twain and Charles Dickens among “must reads” for youth. Hey, Goosebumps made a reader out of my son. He started there and never stopped. From Goosebumps, he went on to C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling, and then J.R. Tolkien. He threw in a slew of Anne Rice, too. Now, he reads the classics in Latin and Greek. Tell me Goosebumps wasn’t a good foundation…I dare you!
Wasn’t it Bacon who wrote that some writing is to be tasted, some is to be chewed, and some is to be digested? I think all readers can taste, but to chew and digest requires more than recognition of words and their meanings in relation to one another. If one reads that the treachery of 9/ll is equal to that of Dec. 7, 1941, won’t he miss something if he doesn’t know what happened on Dec. 7, 1941? Or if he reads that the Supreme Court upheld the 2d amendment in the case of Sam vs The City of Nowhere, will he understand what the headline imparts? Reading well requires more than being literate, in my thinking, and that, I think, is Hirsch’s point.
About the fiction/nonfiction divide: most grade school nonfiction books are set up like magazines: lots of boxes, inserts, pictures etc. Nothing wrong with that, and my K-6th graders check out a lot of it (more than fiction.)
However, this format doesn’t lend itself as well to sustained reading. Getting swept up in a narrative (fiction or non) is a different reading experience than reading bits and pieces, or reading strictly for information. And one of the best ways to improve reading skills is sustained reading, where you sort of forget the work involved and become immersed. I don’t think its some magical thing, I just think kids (and adults) are inclined to read more when the text becomes absorbing.
Sometimes I think we should actually separate the skills a bit more. Instead of requiring texts that are really meant for entertainment, thus killing the “fun” quality for a lot of kids, we should teach more “reading for information” skills, all the while reading great stories to them and dangling really fun-looking books in classroom and school libraries as bait.
(I work in a school, and sometimes I feel like our constant emphasis on “read for fun and read it NOW” is killing some of the interest kids might have in actually reading for fun.)
I will forever resent those who think that my reading is a waste of time because I choose romance and fantasy over classic literature. I understand that it’s fiction but I’ve still learned so much from them. In high school there was one particular European History test that I passed almost entirely based on knowledge gained frome Shannon Drake’s historical romance. Not only that, but quite often reading sparks curiousity—a word I didn’t know, some fact or phenomenon, a historical event I never new happened. That leads me to search out knowlegde from text books, or the internet.
I read like a fiend back in the day, and my library card was my passport to places I never would have imagined. I look back now and realize what my 8th grade teacher’s expression revealed when I turned in my first book report: The Greek Passion, by Nikos Kazantzakis.
For those whose eyebrows just met the hairline, as hers did, the book is not about THAT kind of Greek love.
I love reading, and all kinds of books, but I’m also inclined to believe that adding images (a la movies and video games) might be a good thing, because reading is essentially a left-brain, analytical, male dominated system, while pictures, emotions, and imagination are associated with the female right-brain learning mode. I say, bring on the girlbrain and let er rip!
This just offends me. I grew up poor, but had a few friends who were from fairly well-off families. You’d have been lucky to find ten books in their homes. Mine on the other hand…you couldn’t walk without hitting a bookcase, or a stack of books because we never had enough shelf space for them.
The most important thing is letting children read whatever interests them. When my oldest was in 5th grade, I got into a tiff with his teacher about his Sustained Silent Reading material. She wanted children to read “upstanding literature for young persons” but, as I explained to her, “This is a kid who took my radio apart at age 4 to see how it worked, and then put it back together again perfectly. Who just wired his dad’s old blue light (volunteer firefighter) to his bike and created a pedal-driven power source. Do you really think he’s interested in ‘Jack and the Lazy Dog’?” From then on, she let him read what he wanted – which was DIY books about electrical wiring, auto repair, home improvements and remodeling, etc.
He’s 23 now, an electrician’s apprentice, and just finished re-wiring the house he inherited from his granddad. And an avid reader.
Jenn- I am right with you on that. We never had much, but we did have one entire 20+ foot wall, ceiling to floor, of bookshelves. The other families in the neighborhood mostly had squat when it came to reading material. I even had a sort of library system, because the kids would come and borrow books to do reports and such. We were out in the country and the library wasn’t a quick drive down the road. We had an entire set of encyclopedias that got a lot of use. And in my house, I don’t think there is a room that doesn’t have shelves and stacks of books in it, including the hallways. Pretentious statements like that one just bug the crap out of me no end.
During the summer btwn 7th and 8th grade we had to do a book report. I chose to do it on War and Peace and was told it was too much for me. I proved the wrong. But I also had some wonderful teachers who knew I could sit in the back of the room, read a book and know what was going on in class, so they left me alone.
Sure, but as a fully grown adult with children of my own, I don’t always know the details of every reference I come across while reading. I am, however, able to look it up. I can plug “Dec 7 1941” into google search and discover “oh, that’s Pearl Harbour.” I can then read any number of online articles about it if I so choose, or I can go back to what I was reading before. The younger generation is even more comfortable with the wonders of the internet and google search than I am. If they already know everything presented in the article or book or whatever it is, why read it in the first place?
AgTigress, you nailed it. There is a shockingly large number of people who come to my town looking for work (we’re booming, when the rest of the continent is still facing huge unemployment—go, Dirty Oil!) who are functionally illiterate. They can’t get jobs if they can’t pass basic safety tests.
There’s now an underground industry of safety test fraud, in which you pay somebody to pretend to be you, take the test, and get the card, so that you can get onto one of the plant sites. Where you will mis-read or fail entirely to read important signs and instructions, and kill somebody.
I read an article several years ago which reported that Toyota chose to build a factory in Ontario rather than one of the southern states, in spite of better tax breaks in that state, in large part because the state’s population was insufficiently literate to be trained by their established methods, and it would cost too much to re-create the training program for them.
What you read matters not in the least. What matters is that you can read, and understand what you’ve read.
In regards to non-fiction – I work as a library clerk and I do see kids check out a lot of non-fiction. The ones that are for reports, IE: California missions, ancient Egypt, various wars, etc they hate. A lot of the kids whine to their parents when checking them out. Their parents respond that they have to do it and can’t read their pleasure books until it’s done. (Pleasure being the Geronimo Stilton, Time Warp Trio, Magic Treehouse, etc.)
Then there’s the pleasure non-fiction, which there is a lot of. Not to stereotype but boys do tend to stick with sports figures, cars, dinosaurs, bugs, germs, and people like Dr. Dre and Ludacris. Girls tend for books about animals especially dogs and horses, (one little girl kept checking out every book we had on dogs until her parents gave in and adopted one), various history books like about the 40s and 50s, artists long gone like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe, and rarely is that one little girl who wants a book about bugs and other “gross” stuff.
I once told my history teacher the reason I hated learning history is because it never taught what I cared about – like the personalities of the people. He just dismissed me but it hit me again years later when I read these huge books that covered the history of England all the way up to the year 2000. The author kept saying that the personalities and quirks of the various kings and queens (like rumors that King James was a homosexual or that King Richard The Lionheart was a pedophile who liked 5 year old boys) “didn’t matter.” That it was only dates and events that mattered. And I thought “YES IT DOES TOO MATTER! It makes history more interesting to know if a queen had OCD or something! More alive!” I didn’t retain anything for his books. However I did retain a lot from Michael Farquhar’s A Treasury of Royal Scandals.
Non-fiction has got to actually matter to the reader before they actually care. That’s why I like true crime or religious books over most history books or books about math.
I don’t think I was ever told there was anything I couldn’t read. My mother says the only thing she was ever told she couldn’t read was “Forever Amber,” at 14. (Her daddy wasn’t having his little girl read famous smut!) We both passed history exams in high school based on our addictions to historical fiction and/or historical romance. She ended up getting a Ph.D in English, so I guess Forever Amber (which she read anyway on the sly) wasn’t such a bad foundation!
Did he mean rumours of of a king’s homosexuality would have had no impact on the events of his reign? The courtiers and politicians of the time were just dandy with that? WTF? Personalities have preferences, which bias decisions, which lead to actions, which spark events. Personality IS history.
Harumph.
Suze – Yep. He pretty much stated that their personalties had nothing to do with events caused by them. That only dry dates and facts were important. It’s attitudes like that from people like this author and my teachers that kept me from ever becoming a history buff.
To Christy,
The author may not have meant to sound elitist,but that statement certainly comes across that way. I do agree that children in poorer areas where the amount of funding given to the schools in their area(both public and private)is nowhere near equal to the more upscale districts within the community do have disadvantages but what is being overlooked is student motivation and inclination.
Some people ,even with a wealth of resources at their disposal just won’t be bothered to increase their store of knowledge while others regardless of limited means to learn and do much more than anyone expects of them. A lot of that begins at home and can be either helped or hindered by the education system.
As for the rest of the article,I’m not crazy about the whole “blame the novel” approach to the lack of high reading scores. Reading comprehension covers all form of writing and if you can understand the mechanics of a murder mystery,you can also figure out any basic instruction manual for a household appliance or description of a major battle in history. The real problem is with the methodology,not the material. As the old saying goes,“It’s a poor musician who blames his instrument.”
JamiSings – what a jerk. I got really lucky in my high school history teachers, I realize now, looking back. Their emphasis was rather old-fashioned at the time – it was on narrative history. That, you know, tells a story about people. I liked it so much I majored in history in college.
And we didn’t even have to memorize more than a handful of dates. Though misspelling “Mediterranean” could get you in a world of trouble!
@Suze:
I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that James was a homosexual (since homosexuality as an identity is not something that’s applicable for the early modern period. The closest period description you’d get would be a sodomite, and I don’t think anyone called James that), but he did have male favorites, and there were lots of anonymous libels that would mention the “king’s ganymede,” etc. Of course the courtiers knew about the king’s predilections—no real secrets in a monarchy where the monarch lives under public scrutiny most of the time. They might not have thought that James’ overwhelming favor towards his favorites was a great thing, but it was the way it was, and they worked within the system they had. For example, after the fall of one of the favorites, George Carr, there’s a letter from one courtier at court to his family in the country describing the fall from favor and telling them to send one of their attractive male relatives, in the hopes that he might catch the king’s eye next. They might not have loved the system, but it’s not like they could do anything about it (just one of those things about a monarch—you’re stuck with the one you have).
Neat! My mom is a pack-rat when it comes to books and instilled this characterisitic in me: textbooks, encyclopedias, romance novels, non-fiction it did not matter. I’ve actually thought about putting everything we’ve got through the L.O.C. (Library of Congress) calssification system to get them organized and see what was there- then I realized I’d spend most of my time re-reading old favorites so it would never get done.
@Polly:
I don’t know much about James, but according to a documentary I watched, Edward II had some serious political problems because of his very flamboyant male lover, and eventually was deposed in no small part because of that relationship.
My point was that you can’t separate the personal from the historical. History is just current events from the past. Pretending that people and their foibles have nothing to do with the events of history just makes no sense to me.
century34! How does it know?
My reading skills tested at a ninth-grade level when I was in first grade. I firmly believe I owe that entirely to my mother, who made sure I was never without a book or two during long car rides and who let me read at the dinner table from age seven onwards. If today’s adults want kids to read more (or read Teh Important Literature, debatable as the merits of that may be), they had better make sure they get them reading early. Parents, it’s on you.
And as a teenager who enjoys J. K. Rowling and Shakespeare equally, I am frankly depressed that I seem to be the exception rather the rule. I didn’t always like Shakespeare, though, and I certainly despised listening to a bunch of disinterested kids stumble through Othello in English class. I learned to love Shakespeare through acting. Approaching Measure for Measure as a play to act rather than Teh Important Literature to BS an essay on was a major turning point for me. Somehow making a text relevant to a student’s interests (see what I did thar?) can often make a ton of difference.
IMO, the main problem in all these discussions about what young people should be reading (and they are always the same discussion) lies in the assumptions that are not stated. One of them appears to be that the world of reading and the time you spent immersed in it are both basically finite. So you would either be reading “good books”, or “bad books”, and you better stick to good books, whatever they are, because otherwise the train is gone. Therefore, the reason why people make such a big deal of kids reading the old-long-musty-classic “good book”, is that the kids are a captive audience while in school or parental home, and this is seen as the only time window to cram those books down their throat (never mind the kids’ interest, maturity level and emotional readiness). Again, the unspoken assumption here is that a free grown-up wouldn’t touch those classics with a ten-foot pole, which is quite a vote of non-confidence for those same classics that the “cultural literacy” people are supposedly promoting. If a person’s reading life was viewed as endless and boundless, the either/or framework would have absolutely no place in public discourse regarding reading. May be that is what all who argue about should instead think of.
I’m pleasantly surprised to find that E.D. Hirsch is promoting nonfiction reading. Those of you who are upset about the comment that children in a lower socioeconomic class lack background knowledge, it is unfortunately generally true. Often there is generational poverty and lack of education or interest in it, and the parents in that situation are not quizzing their kids at Sunday dinner on the contents of the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy or leaving Toni Morrison hidden in a box in the closet.
Something you might not realize is that teachers often define reading as “reading chapter books”. In the library I ran, I had very frustrated kids because their teachers wouldn’t let them do their book reports on nonfiction books. These kids were STARVED for nonfiction. Animals, machines, and sports were particularly popular. But in schools, nonfiction reading often “doesn’t count”. Newspapers, comic books, and magazines aren’t “really reading”.
I was just having a discussion with a friend of mine who is a high school science teacher. She is supposed to be teaching with an anchor text chosen by the English teacher- Fahrenheit 451. What the heck does that have in common with high school chemistry? Fahrenheit 451 is a great book, but come on.
I personally have come to find the “gateway drug” theory of reading patronizing. Goosebumps doesn’t have to lead to Edgar Allan Poe, it can just be enjoyed because it’s enjoyable. And when kids enjoy what they’re reading, they read independently. And when they read things of their own choosing, independently, they will eventually read successfully, most of the time.
To be fair to the “give them what they need” school, I read The Yellow Wallpaper in college, didn’t understand it, and hated it… and now I get it, and I am glad I was exposed to it. If it hadn’t been assigned, I don’t think I would have tracked it down on my own, or even known about it. Dumping everything in the canon because it’s not immediately relevant doesn’t make sense any more than only teaching what kids are already reading. It’s the attitude that kids should only read “appropriate” books that is offensive.
I have a 7 year old daughter and a 5 year old son. Both love to read. We have always taken them to the school book fair and buy them several other books throughout each year. This year’s book fair came as a surprise when we took our daughter (she has attention deficit disorder). She has been reading a chapter a night in the Percy Jackson series, so we were expecting her to say she wanted something like Harry Potter or some other fantasy style fiction. Instead, she picked out Little Women. And yes, she understands what she reads as does our son.
We have always allowed them to read what they want, but when they are done with their most recent book, we ask them what the story was about, what the favorite character was and why, why they thought it was good or bad, what the point of the book was, and a whole lot of other questions. They can answer these questions and often give other information we haven’t asked for. They also come and ask us if they don’t understand something.
They both will pick up the weekly paper we get and read the headlines and stories and ask questions. This is not an every week happening, but if a headline catches either one’s attention, we get questions we often have to look up to let them get more information.
My daughter is already looking at my stack of Richard Tankersley Cusick (yes, I know YA at my age *blushes and giggles*) asking when she can start those and our son wants to know when he can start my husband’s Dragonlance set. They both read one grade level above their current grade and I feel a lot of it is because we let them read for pleasure.
They don’t always like the books they are assigned to read in school, but they go ahead and read them and comprehend what they are reading. If you let them learn with something fun, they will learn to appreciate the written word, whether the story itself interests them or not.
As my favorite high school teacher said “read for pleasure, read for profit…“and I still believe if you begin reading for pleasure you will be able to read for profit.
Sorry… Richie Tankersley Cusick. I misspelled the first name.