Indulge me and say the following out loud: Students should read fewer books and write less expository prose.
Did that feel right? I doubt it. But that鈥檚 the message the National Council of Teachers of English is sending its members. Its recent position statement on 鈥溾�� demands that 糖心动漫vlog 鈥渄ecenter鈥� the reading of books and the writing of essays. It instructs teachers to shift their focus from print media to digital media鈥攊ncluding GIFs, memes, podcasts, and videos.
The statement makes some legitimate points. It rightly calls for greater relevance and engagement in the classroom, for redoubled attention to the core literacy skills of speaking and listening. It insists that students learn to assess the veracity and quality of online sources, along the lines of the good work being done by Stanford University鈥檚 Sam Wineburg and associates.
But the statement鈥檚 call to 鈥渕ove beyond鈥� print is profoundly misguided. The late, great media critic Neil Postman first pointed out that the ability to analyze multimedia flows directly from a strong foundation of reading and writing. Technology can only benefit education where text literacy is given primacy.
Literacy expert Richard Vacca writes that, as adults, today鈥檚 students will be required to 鈥渞ead and write more than at any other time in human history.鈥� Political commentator Thomas Friedman likewise reminds us that the primary skill set for success in the 21st century is advanced proficiency at 鈥減lain old reading and writing.鈥� And yes, speaking. It distresses Friedman that students already spend about seven hours a day absorbed in digital entertainment media.
The central irony of NCTE鈥檚 call to 鈥渄ecenter鈥� text is this: Reading and writing were decentered decades ago. When I ask audiences what two activities we are least apt to observe in an average school, it takes them about four seconds to respond, almost chorally: reading and writing. Many students don鈥檛 even read the scant number of titles they are assigned. An alarming proportion arrive at college as 鈥渂ook virgins鈥�: They鈥檝e never read an entire book.
NCTE could have an immense, positive influence by reminding teachers that books enlarge our lives and experience, nourish imagination, and immerse students in the thought-worlds of people in various cultures, times, and places. Practicing teacher and literacy expert Kelly Gallagher advocates for students to become 鈥渧oracious鈥� readers. He is appalled by the increasing encroachment of pseudo-literary activities, which he has long-dubbed 鈥渞eadicide鈥濃�攖he murder of reading.
In classroom tours, my companions and I observe writing and writing instruction less than any other activity.
Like so many of us, he knows that , offering them new modes of seeing and doing. They allow us to figure out who we are at a critical time of life.
Books also uniquely expand our general knowledge. As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham points out, 鈥淏ooks expose children to more facts and to a broader vocabulary (a form of knowledge) than any other activity.鈥�
And writing? In classroom tours, my companions and I observe writing and writing instruction less than any other activity鈥攅ven less than reading. I saw the results of this when I taught writing to college freshmen. The majority struggled mightily to organize their thoughts into a clear, coherent document. This explains why many students hit an in a variety of subjects when they reach college.
I would love to see the council take the lead on educating its members on writing鈥檚 unrivaled capacity to enable students to generate, analyze, synthesize, and retain knowledge. Writing is almost miraculous in the way it more deeply, logically, and precisely. The eminent education reformer Ted Sizer regarded writing as 鈥渢he litmus paper of thought,鈥� which should therefore 鈥渙ccupy the very center of schooling.鈥� Numerous scholars celebrate writing鈥檚 capacity to help us to express our best thinking in its best form.
The NCTE statement raises other concerns: It strikes me as being 鈥攁nd overly enamored with what students find familiar and fun. And I also believe that it needs . For instance: What actual proportion of the curriculum would the council reserve, perhaps grudgingly, for what they term 鈥渢raditional鈥� reading and writing competencies?
The ELA community should absolutely acknowledge the digital era鈥攂ut not at the expense of books and expository writing. If the council truly desires for record proportions of students to become literate, articulate, and successful, it should first:
鈥�Renounce the ubiquitous practices that are the primary destroyers of literacy, for example, skills exercises (think 鈥渇ind the main idea鈥�); the excessive employment of worksheets, full-length movies, and aimless group work; the arts and crafts projects that masquerade as literacy activities鈥攚hich are rife right up through high school.
鈥�Recenter, after years of decline, an intensive focus on reading, writing, and (thank you, NCTE) speaking and listening. Restoring these to their rightful place represents the most propitious opportunity for swift, dramatic improvements in all of K-12 education.
With so much at stake, we dare not lurch, impulsively, to satisfy contemporary but specious preferences for how we educate our children.
