Common Core

J. Richard Gentry

This post originally appeared in a slightly different form at Psychology Today.

There is much wrong with American kindergartens—but the Common Core State Standards are not to blame. If interpreted correctly, the Common Core standards for literacy enable us to help enhance the kindergarten experience for all kindergarten children—from the underprepared to the most gifted and advanced. Here’s how the literacy standards can be interpreted to support reading and writing in kindergarten without harming any child.

A recent report by early childhood experts amplified by the Washington Post says that “requiring kindergartners to read—as Common Core does”—may harm children. The position paper, written by early childhood experts, states that many kindergartners aren’t developmentally ready to read. While well intended, both the media report and the recommendations of the early childhood experts lead us down the wrong path.

What’s the Harm in Common Core Kindergarten Literacy Standards?

Both the Washington Post report and the research report, which was issued jointly by the Defending the Early Years and the Alliance for Childhood organizations, call for the kindergarten Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to be withdrawn. Six of the literacy standards are deemed “harmful.” In this post, I un-complicate the six CCSS kindergarten standards and ask you to decide if each of the standards would be an appropriate expectation for your child in kindergarten. You may find that the standards are reasonable and desirable once they are demystified and interpreted correctly.

Not only are my interpretations based on cognitive development and socio-cultural theory, but also on a tried and true...

Meet Mr. Wright

Brandon’s first podcast features Common Core for kindergarteners, America’s new aristocracy, Tennessee’s preposterous teacher evaluations, and the benefits of acceleration.

Amber's Research Minute

SOURCE: Katie Larsen McClarty, "Life in the Fast Lane: Effects of Early Grade Acceleration on High School and College Outcomes," Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January 2015). 

Robert:            Hello, this is your host Robert Pondiscio of The Thomas B. Fordham Institute here at the Education Gadfly Show and online at edexcellence.net. Now, please join me in welcoming my cohost, the Beck of education reform, Brandon Wright.

Brandon:         As opposed to Kanye?

Robert:            Which would you rather be?

Brandon:         I like them both.

Robert:            Ok.

Brandon:         I’m not sure.

Robert:            I’m going to let you finish, Brandon.

Brandon:         Oh, I think Beck’s fine.

Robert:            Yeah. I have to admit, I mean I like Beck back in the day. I mean I’m a lot older than Mr. Wright and I feel like he was kind of my generation.

Brandon:         Oh, he was pretty popular. I think his album was Odelay when I was in maybe middle school.

Robert:            You had to go there, didn’t you?

Brandon:         I think I’ve heard more Kanye than I’ve heard Beck, but I think everyone has.

Robert:            In the last 20 years.

Brandon:         Which I think is part of Kanye’s point there.

Robert:            That Kanye, he’s that guy who’s married to Kim Kardashian, right?

Brandon:         I know.

Robert:            He’s famous and he’s in the Beatles now I think.

Brandon:         Yeah. He’s really helping out Paul McCartney’s career.

Robert:            Yeah. That’s Sir Paul McCartney to you. Ok. Now, it is time to play, “Pardon the Gadfly.” Ellen, what do we have for this week?

Ellen:               Robert, this week, you’re writing about whether Common Core is too hard for kindergartners, is it?

Robert:            No. What’s the next question? Ok, we’ll take this one on. Now, there was a report, Brandon, a couple of weeks ago back in January. I’ll be honest it kind of set my teeth on edge a little bit. I’m an elementary educator, although, you probably wouldn’t want me to teach kindergarten. The report basically and it came out from a couple of early childhood education advocacy groups and it made the case that look, Common Core is asking too much of kindergarten or kindergartners. Kindergarten should be a time for play. You should learn language through play-based techniques. It ended up calling for Common Core to be withdrawn from kindergarten.

                        They made a case which just struck me as odd, so I started researching it that there’s no real research to support the idea that early kindergarten reading leads to long-term success. It just struck me as counterintuitive and the more I looked into it, the more I realize it’s really not true. Now, there’ve been any number of studies and by the time this podcast is heard, you can go online and read the Gadfly and you’ll see this deathlessly long piece that I wrote about all the research.

                        What troubles me most about it is I hate to see as or reports like this communicate some kind of lack of urgency about early reading. I mean the one thing that I think is very clear and [inaudible 00:02:52] ambiguous is that so much is said in motion by early literacy. One piece of data from one report, a child who is struggling in first grade has a 90% chance of also struggling in reading in third grade. A child who is struggling in third grade reading has a 75% chance of still struggling come ninth grade. If you look at high school dropout statistics, if you were a struggling reader, you are something on the order of 4 to 6 times more likely to drop out than if you were reading on time.

                        About the last worst thing I think that we could communicate to the field is that there’s a lack of urgency around early childhood reading.

Brandon:         I think I agree entirely. In your piece, you mentioned a bunch of the standards that the reports seems to take issue with, and I don’t, to me they didn’t seem too hard at all. One of the of scary things that one of the authors said is that doing this that early could be harmful when it actually seems to me to be the opposite and kind of not doing it because you think it’s harmful seems to actually be the potentially harmful thing.

Robert:            Yeah. I think I understand the impulse where this comes from. I mean we’ve spoken a lot on this podcast about the deleterious effects in too much testing. I’m not a testing hawk, I think it’s an important principle, but sure, I’m deeply sympathetic for those who say, look, let’s not pressure kids too early. Let them enjoy a play-based kindergarten. I worry that kind of thinking comes from what I would call the educational equivalent of the worried well. In other words, I live in New York City, if you’re on the Upper East Side and you’re educated and affluent, your kid is going to read. It’s not going to be a problem.

                        Kids like the ones that I teach in Harlem and the South Bronx who come from homes whether they’re single-parent homes, less educated homes, they hear less language growing up, let’s face it, those are the kids that ed reform at large is aimed at helping. It tends to be the type of thing where affluent kids sneeze and low-income kids catch cold. If we try to change this for kids on the Upper East Side so to speak that I just worry about the kids from families or some kids like the students that I teach.

Brandon:         Absolutely.

Ellen:               The economist recently ran an article discussing education and class, calling education “America’s new aristocracy.” What’s to be done?

Robert:            What is to be done? The first thing to be done is somebody has to find where Charles Murray is so he can say, “I told you so,” the 4 most beautiful words in the English language. I don’t know if you read Murray’s book a few years ago called, Coming Apart, but this was basically his thesis that educated, affluent people tend to marry other educated, affluent people and they have educated, affluent children. If you grow up less prosperous, we’re creating these kind of divisions and subcultures in America. Now, we’re according to the economist, we’re paying a price.

Brandon:         Yeah. It speaks to a very important problem, but it’s also one that starts seemingly when one gets born. Another economist article quoted that 32 million word thing where if you’re a child of a professional, you hear 32 million more words by the time you’re 4 compared to a child of someone on welfare.

Robert:            Yeah, enough 32 million words, 32 million more words.

Brandon:         Right, yeah. That starts essentially from birth. One of the solutions this aristocracy article suggest is to start early. I think that’s right on point. At the same time, right, these kids aren’t behind just because of their first 5 years. As years go on, they continue to fall behind. This kind of help needs to start young, but it needs to continue essentially through college.

Robert:            Yeah. I’ve described it a couple of different places.

Brandon:         Until they graduate college.

Robert:            Exactly. Something called the Matthew effect which I think was a phrase coined by Keith Stanovich who’s a cognitive scientist at the University of Toronto. It takes its name from a passage in the New Testament’s Gospel of Matthew and I can’t quote it to you, but it’s the one that basically says; the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That is absolutely the case when it comes to language proficiency. That 32 million word gap that you were talking about just primes kids to learn more language. Kids who are in the wrong end of that are primed to learn less language. That gap just grows and grows and grows. It’s a profoundly important issue for those of us who are concerned about raising the prospects for low-income kids.

Brandon:         Profoundly hard to solve.

Robert:            Because what do you do, right?

Brandon:         I don’t know.

Robert:            I mean it’s not as if you’re going to prevent educated people from marrying each other. You can [crosstalk 00:08:03]. I don’t know. Make a case for that.

                        It really is a profound public policy problem, but it may not be a public policy issue.

Ellen:               A teacher’s union in Tennessee just sued the state over its teacher evaluation policies. Do they have a case?

Robert:            What do you think, Brandon? Do they have a case?

Brandon:         I have a blog post on our site now. What I’m about to say probably parrots that. In the state, they just have an absolutely preposterous policy.

Robert:            Preposterous. You have strong feelings about this.

Brandon:         I do.

Robert:            Ok.

Brandon:         When it comes to teachers of non-core subjects.

Robert:            Can you define that for us, meaning?

Brandon:         Meaning teachers who instruct classes that aren’t tested on Tennessee’s standardized test, so things like world languages or fine arts or gym.

Robert:            Hey, gym was a core subject for me. Just saying.

Brandon:         I love dodgeball, yeah.

For these folks or for all teachers there, their annual evaluation where they’re given a 1 through a 5 with 5 being the best is based half on observation and essentially half on something based on test scores. For these core folks, the science teachers for example, their test scores are primarily based on how their kids do on that subject on the standardized test. Those subjects right there, yeah. For the non-core folks, they don’t have these test scores.

Robert:            Ok.

Brandon:         For them, the bulk of this almost half is composed of school-wide performance. What the state does is it sees how well all the students in that school does on all of the subjects on the standardized test. Then they assign them essentially that score.

Robert:            In other words, the gym teacher is being scored on how the entire school does on reading tests.

Brandon:         Right. Say it’s the best gym teacher in the whole world, right? He’s at a school where all of the students there did really poorly in a given year on every subject and on every test.

Robert:            Yeah.

Brandon:         He would essentially be given a 1 and his overall score would drop to I don’t know, a 3.

Robert:            Yes. That’s just goofy.

Brandon:         It’s absurd.

Robert:            Ok. Wait a minute, this means you’re taking the side of the teacher’s union here.

Brandon:         Here, yeah. I mean I’m all for kind of learning-based evaluations when they’re done smartly. Here though, if this is anything for learning-based evaluation, it harms them.

Robert:            Let’s think about this. Here, this is your first Gadfly podcast and right out of the box, you’re going soft on accountability.

Brandon:         No, I’m going smart on accountability.

Robert:            Nicely put.

Brandon:         Right.

Robert:            All right. That’s all the time we have for this segment. Now, it’s time for Amber’s Research Minute.

                        Hey, Amber, how are you today?

Amber:            Hey, Robert, doing great, thanks.

Robert:            Good. Did you watch the Grammy’s?

Amber:            I watched a little bit of the Grammy’s, just a slice.

Robert:            All right. We were referring to Mr. Wright here as the Beck of education reform.

Amber:            Yes. Kanye might not appreciate that, but yes, I think Beck was a deserved winner.

Robert:            Was he? I have to confess, I did not hear his album.

Amber:            Yes.

Brandon:         I’m not sure anyone did. I'm just kidding.

Amber:            I just heard he plays 16 instruments and writes all the songs, so like all right, that’s worthy.

Robert:            At least 2 or 3 people who were given out the award must have heard the album and maybe they just decided they didn’t like Beyoncé.

Amber:            That’s right. She’s won.

Robert:            Look, it’s Kanye West. He’s going to come in here.

Amber:            I know, but she’s sort of over awarded, right, from what I gather.

Brandon:         Her album though was from what I hear was pretty groundbreaking.

Amber:            Oh, really.

Brandon:         Yeah.

Amber:            She’s the one that shows her backside a lot, right?

Robert:            That’s Kanye’s wife.

Amber:            Both of them I believe are backsiders.

Robert:            We’re digging ourselves in much, much too deep of a hole here. Amber, help us out here. What do you got there?

Amber:            We got a new study out. It’s in the latest issue of Gifted Education Quarterly which is kind of a neat journal. We haven’t looked at that one lately. It examines the long-term impact on young adults of skipping a grade, otherwise known as acceleration on subsequent academic outcomes. The analyst used a database called NELS and that tracks a nationally representative cohort of students in 1988 when they were in grade 8. That tracks these kids through high school and then at 2 and 8 years out after high school, so we’re going through year 2000.

                        A variety of high school outcome data were collected like the PSAT scores, the SAT, the ACT scores, their GPA, their college aspirations. Then in college, they looked at the selectivity of the institution, the GPA for every year they were in college, and whether or not they attained a degree, so pretty good robust data sources. All students who had ever skipped a grade prior to eighth grade comprise acceleration group. Ok, it’s kind of a good factoid. The sample included kids who range from grade 9 to age 13 in eighth grade, so it’s a broad range.

                        The students were then matched with a set of older non-accelerated eighth grade peers from the same database. They matched them on gender, race, class, and eighth grade achievement.

Robert:            Ok.

Amber:            Then they look after the match to make sure the matches were good and they basically said that the accelerated and non-accelerated group were identical on those variables. Ok. They’ve put some thought into a comparison group because that’s really important, right?

Robert:            Sure.

Amber:            Key findings; accelerated students who scored significantly higher on the math sections of the PSAT, SAT, and most of the ACT; they also earned higher grades in high school. Once at college, accelerated kids also earned higher grades in their second year and overall. I don’t know what happened in the first year. It’s a little strange.

                        Both groups were admitted to similarly selective colleges and both had similar rates of graduate degree completion. Though accelerated kids were slightly more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree.

                        Finally, accelerated students also took more accelerated courses and advanced courses and participated more often in various educational opportunities. I mean the bottom line is I mean most people would agree that accelerated kids by virtue of being accelerated have something different about them, right.

Robert:            Sure, right.

Amber:            They’re potentially more self-motivated. I think the findings sort of bear that out because you find that accelerated kids keep doing stuff that accelerates them. It’s sort of like a cycle. That’s a good thing, right?

Robert:            Maybe this was beyond the scope of the study, but no social issues. In other words, a lot of times, parents get concerned when their kids have the opportunity to be accelerated. They don’t want to be the youngest kid in their class.

Amber:            That’s right. They did not look at that at all. It was completely quant study, but yeah.

Robert:            Didn’t seem to have any ill-effect.

Amber:            Right. I mean apparently, who knows whether these kids were joked on or I mean certainly, there could be some social consequences, right, to sort of being the youngest in the class or maybe it’s the opposite way and kids are like wild, this kid’s really bright or whatever.

Robert:            Right.

Amber:            Academically, right, it looks no negative effects if only positive or in some cases, no effect at all. Yeah, I mean I think it was a well done study. I mean I think like most of these studies, we can’t get at what the “it is” that might be driving some of these impacts. I mean they do their best they can to measure on all the observables, but there’s a whole set of unobservable stuff that’s not being measured. Still, it was a reasonable comparison group. These kids overall performed just well on these various robust measures.

Robert:            How common is acceleration?

Amber:            Yeah. It’s a great question. It was 1% on NELS database.

Robert:            Oh, wow, very small.

Amber:            Yeah, very small. They had a question there where they were asking parents whether their child had been accelerated when they found that those data were less reliable than just looking at the age of their kids and where they should be respective of their grade level. Yeah, not too many, I mean I feel like I mean my experience in schools, I just didn’t see this too often. Did you guys see it in your own?

Robert:            You see the opposite quite often where kids were retained, but they were not accelerated, sure.

Amber:            Yeah.

Brandon:         It probably seems to depend on whether a state or a district allows this, right? It seems like from this states that don’t or districts that don't should.

Robert:            There’s no good reason not to.

Amber:            Yeah. That’s right. It’s a good point and I know we’re doing a gifted study on state policies and you’re making me wonder how much of this is actually in or not in the state law in terms of whether they’re allowed to do this. You’d think it’d be one of those things that state law would be silent about or definitely encouraged. Can’t imagine why they want to prohibit this.

Robert:            Or at least open it up to a lot more kids. We’ve spent a lot of time in this podcast and then our blog’s talking about differentiation. This is one way to do it, right, to the accelerated kids.

Amber:            Yeah. That’s right.

Robert:            It’s a challenge, good. Thanks, Amber. That’s all the time we have for this week’s Gadfly Show. Till next week.

Brandon:         I’m Brandon Wright.

Robert:            I’m Robert Pondiscio for The Thomas B. Fordham Institute signing off.

Speaker 1:       The Education Gadfly Show is a production of The Thomas B. Fordham Institute located in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit us online at edexcellence.net.

Almost every article and column written about the nascent GOP presidential campaign mentions Tea Party opposition to immigration reform and the Common Core—and most candidates’ efforts to align themselves with the Republican base on these two issues. (A Google News search turns up more than 11,000 hits for “Common Core” and “immigration” and “Republican.”)

When it comes to immigration reform, it’s easy to understand what the hard-right candidates oppose: any form of amnesty for people who entered the country illegally.

But what does it mean when Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul, or Bobby Jindal says he “opposes” the Common Core? Reporters* might ask them:

  1. Do you mean that you oppose the Common Core standards themselves? All of them? Even the ones related to addition and subtraction? Phonics? Studying the nation’s founding documents? Or just some of them? Which ones, in particular, do you oppose? Have you actually read the standards?
  2. Or do you mean that you oppose the role that the federal government played in coercing states to adopt the Common Core? Fair enough, but don’t you share that exact same position with every Republican in Congress and every other Republican running for president, including Jeb Bush?
  3. Do you mean that you think states should drop out of the Common Core? States like Iowa? Isn’t that a bit presumptive, considering that you’re not from Iowa and the state’s Republican governor wants Common Core to stay
  4. If you do think that states should reject the Common
  5. ...

Editor's note: This post originally appeared in a slightly different form at RegBlog.

Most public policy issues fit roughly into one of three categories. The first contains fundamental matters of principle—what we generally call “social issues,” such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights. The second bucket includes topics that are more technical in nature: how to make various systems or sectors work better. Here we might put nuts-and-bolts issues like infrastructure or procurement reform. The third category is for issues that have elements of the first two, both fundamental matters of principle and technocratic questions of implementation. Health care reform certainly belongs there.

Category three is also where education reform in general, and Common Core in particular, belongs. There are clear matters of principle: Should all American children have equal access to challenging coursework? Do states have the right, perhaps even the responsibility, to set standards for their public schools, or should all such control remain with local school boards, educators, or parents? But technical questions are important too: Are the standards high enough? Are the tests properly aligned with them—and also psychometrically valid and reliable? Who is responsible for helping schools develop the capacity to teach to the new expectations? How should we respond to implementation struggles, as with the current confusion around some math topics?

This dual nature of Common Core as an educational and political issue is important to keep in mind over the coming months as state lawmakers debate whether to “stay the course” or “turn...

You may have missed it over the holidays, but NPR ran a fascinating profile of Jason Zimba, one of the primary architects of the Common Core math standards. The piece, by the Hechinger Report’s Sarah Garland, an exceptionally thoughtful education reporter, traces Zimba’s career from Rhodes scholar and David Coleman’s business partner to “obscure physics professor at Bennington College” and unlikely standards bearer for the math standards that he had so much to do with creating.

Garland makes much of the fact that Zimba spends Saturday mornings tutoring his two young daughters in math. We’re told he feels the math his kids are getting at their local Manhattan public school is subpar, and that’s even after the school began implementing Common Core. “Zimba, a mathematician by training, is not just any disgruntled parent,” Garland notes. “He's one of the guys who wrote the Common Core.”

Some will surely see irony in Zimba feeling compelled to supplement what his kids learn in school with breakfast-table math lessons—more schadenfreude for Common Core critics—but there is no irony. As my Fordham colleague Kathleen Porter-Magee noted in another great piece you might have missed in recent days, even the best standards don’t help teachers ensure that all students master the content and skills set forth in those standards. That’s what a good curriculum does—a point pressed by Zimba in the NPR segment. "I...

Editor's note: This post was originally published in a slightly different form as an op-ed in the Washington PostIt was subsequently republished in the Denver PostTampa Bay TimesSalt Lake TribuneTampa TribunePhiladelphia InquirerCommercial AppealPost and CourierPost-StandardNews TribuneNews Journaland Capital Times.

In November, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush suggested to hundreds of lawmakers and education reformers gathered for his foundation’s annual summit that “the rigor of the Common Core State Standards must be the new minimum.” Furthermore, he said, to “those states choosing a path other than Common Core, I say this: That’s fine. Except you should be aiming even higher and be bolder and raise standards and ask more of our students and the system.” Several Republican politicians, including Louisiana Senator (and gubernatorial hopeful) David Vitter and Mississippi Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves, promptly took up his suggestion, calling on their states to replace the Common Core with standards that are even more challenging.

In theory, this position is exactly right. Academic standards are the province of the states; it’s within their rights to have their own standards if that’s what their leaders and residents want. Furthermore, though there are benefits to having common standards in terms of cost savings (for taxpayers) and continuity (for students who move across state lines, including the children of military families), most of Common Core’s upside stems from its rigor, not its sameness.

But if our fellow Republicans move to embrace standards that are even higher than Common Core,...

Perhaps the highest praise you can heap on another writer’s work is to acknowledge a tinge of professional jealousy. You read a blog post, column, or piece of reporting and think, “Damn, I wish I’d written that.” Here are some of the pieces—about Common Core and education at large—I wish I’d written in 2014.

Tim Shanahan of the University of Illinois at Chicago has long been indispensible on literacy—and never more so than in the era of Common Core. In November, he waded into the “close reading” thicket with a pair of clear-eyed posts on the importance of prior knowledge in reading. The second of Tim’s two-part post offered particularly useful guidance for teachers on dealing with knowledge deficits when teaching reading comprehension. A third installment is promised and hopefully coming soon. 

As long as I’m casting a jealous eye at posts about reading: I also wish I’d written this one, by my Fordham colleague Kathleen Porter-Magee, on how reading standards mislead teachers. I’ve said more or less the same thing for years, but Kathleen said it far better.

Math educator Barry Garelick is no fan of the Common Core. I simply don’t agree with his assertion that the standards demand “all math should be taught using the techniques of ‘reform math.’” But no matter. He did the field an enormous service with a series of posts at the Heartland Institute’s blog titled “A Common Sense Approach to Common Core,”...

Just in time for Christmas, my Fordham colleague Mike Petrilli has left a present under the tree for inquisitive children and busy parents who don’t think the sky will fall if the kids get a little screen time now and again (it won’t).

Over the course of a year’s blog posts, and with the help of several able Fordham interns, Mike curated some of the best streaming web videos on Netflix, Amazon, and elsewhere. He then aligned them with the Core Knowledge Sequence, a robust list of subjects from pre-K to eighth grade that undergirds the curriculum at some of the nation’s most successful schools. These have now been repackaged into a neat little website he’s calling “Netflix Academy.” Homeschoolers for whom Core Knowledge is a subject of near-religious devotion will also be grateful for this resource. 

You’ll find videos on science, literature, and U.S. and world history. Click on “Science,” for example, and you’ll see a drop-down menu organized by knowledge domains (aquatic life, mammals, insects, outer space, etc.). Within each domain are direct links to streaming videos from Netflix, National Geographic, PBS, YouTube, and others sources. You’ll also find movie versions of classic children’s book and lots more. It’s entertainment with high caloric content.

“As E.D. Hirsch Jr. has argued for a quarter-century, the early elementary years are the ideal time to introduce children to the wonders of history (natural and otherwise), geography, literature, art, music, and more,” Mike writes.

I heartily agree....

Before the age of standards and tests, teachers generally taught the textbook. They began on page one and got as far as they could before the end of June, sometimes racing through the last four chapters in less time than they devoted to the first.

Standards, testing, and accountability changed that. Now there are clearly defined goals that all students must meet, and teachers are asked to ensure not just “coverage,” but that all students master a predetermined set of content and skills.

That means today’s curriculum and instruction are driven not by where you began but by where you want to end up. In a data-driven, results-oriented classroom, good teachers begin with the standards and “backmap” from June to September to ensure that the most critical or difficult topics get the instructional time they deserve.

This approach makes sense for most subjects, where the standards describe the actual content that students need to master within and across grades. Math, for instance, is a hierarchical subject with a logical progression of skills and content. Yearlong curriculum plans can be devised and focused on ensuring adequate time to master all of the key standards. And teachers who themselves are math experts may well be able to piece together a coherent program that meets their students’ needs using the standards as their guide.

Reading, however, is different.

Beyond the foundational reading skills, standards in this realm don’t articulate the content that students need to learn to become good readers. Instead, the standards...

[Editor's note: This is part two of a multi-part series on the use of prior knowledge in literacy. It originally appeared in a slightly different form at Tim Shanahan's blog, Shanahan on Reading. The first post can be found here.]

 In my first post, I focused on the controversy over prior knowledge. Common Core has discouraged enhancing reading comprehension through the introduction of information external to a text.

That challenges the most popular ways of introducing texts in schools—telling students information about the text topic or exploring student knowledge relevant to the topic. CCSS proponents bridle at such practices. They want students to become independent readers, which means they’d be able to read texts effectively without extra information.

They also blanch at the idea of students constructing text meanings without sufficiently accounting for the author’s input; texts should mean something closer to what the author intended than what a reader might choose to make it mean.

The problem with de-emphasizing existing knowledge is that reading comprehension depends on reader knowledge. We use what we know to draw inferences, clarify ambiguity, and store information in memory. Banning explicit attention to student knowledge can’t “level the playing field” between rich and poor because you simply can’t stop students from using what they know when they read.

I promised to provide some instructional guidance for dealing with prior knowledge during reading comprehension lessons (and shared/guided/directed readings). Here are ten guidelines for dealing with prior knowledge.

  1. Don’t overdo it. Research shows that providing readers with key
  2. ...

Pages