Tag / literacy

by nflanagan

The ‘Generational Collapse’ in Literacy

There’s been a robust edu-discourse bubbling up over an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled My Students Can’t Read. The (ahem) tl;dr: college students can no longer sustain attention to and comprehension of 20-page articles, so the professor-author of the article has to break such articles into  pieces and spoon-feed comprehension strategies to college freshmen.

My first thought: secondary teachers have been dealing with this syndrome for a long, long time. The author (Tyler Jagt) asks this question: If a majority of incoming students cannot read at a level the curriculum requires, are we admitting students we cannot serve, or offering a curriculum we cannot provide?

There are other questions to ask, when musing about a generational collapse in literacy, but my take on this is that admitting a student (and taking their tuition money) presumes that the institution is willing to provide both the curriculum and instruction that serves those students. Caveat emptor, when the buyer is choosing which students to enroll.

K12 public schools, of course, have no option of turning non-readers away. When I was in charge of assisting ESL students in middle school with their homework, there were individual teachers who used the excuse that they didn’t know how to teach kids to read, so struggling readers were not their problem. But there weren’t many teachers like that. Most K-8 teachers know that students are going to come to them with all levels of reading proficiency. They don’t have the luxury of deciding not to serve those students. They have to figure it out.

It’s actually a pretty good article (although it’s behind a paywall). Jagt resists blaming his students’ lack of understanding and reading stamina on the K-12 teachers who came before, and provides some research on how smartphone use changes the brain:

‘When a student tells me they “kept losing track” of a 20-page article, they may be describing a measurable neurological condition. The neural pathways that support sustained attention are built by use, and they atrophy without it. Your body is a use-it-or-lose-it system, and the brain is no exception.’

There’s also some well-supported evidence that the use of AI (as catch-all phrase to describe ChatGPT, Ask Gemini and other LLMs) has weakened the ability and willingness to write:

‘This is the first neurophysiological evidence that early reliance on LLMs measurably alters the brain’s engagement with writing tasks, and it is consistent with what those of us in front of classrooms are watching happen in real time.’

Jagt also blames the Common Core—which I think is not precisely accurate, although many curricula packages were adopted, K-12, in an effort to align with the Core and boost test scores, such as ‘the practice of pulling “evidence” from disconnected short passages, the same format used on the standardized tests that increasingly determine school funding.’

Dr. Paul Thomas reminds us that ‘there is at least some correlational association between the “science of reading” era of reading legislation (starting approximately around 2012-2014 and then spreading over the last decade) and a decline in students reading for fun, reading whole texts, and reading diverse texts as well as some of the so-called declines in test scores.’

This is not a matter of ‘kids today’ being more indolent than previous generations. We are clearly doing something wrong, beginning with prioritizing phonics in an attempt to boost 3rd grade scores over the slow pursuit of making meaning, and the pleasure of being a reader.

There are other explanations for the collapse of literacy (if, in fact, that’s what it is): the pandemic, the return of orality (what we had before literacy), and what might be called hero worship of cultural figures who see reading and books as pointless. When the POTUS prefers his daily security briefings in video form or, failing that, bullet points, it’s a tough task to convince your average seventh grader that reading a YA novel (183 pages!) is worthwhile.

But some things will always depend on the ability to comprehend the written word, the most reliable, portable and convenient source of information and analysis—and, for my money, entertainment. Won’t they?

We need to focus on the utility and pleasure of being a fluent reader, when the children we’re teaching are ready. Which may not be kindergarten or even first grade. It is the responsibility of pre-school teachers and Composition 101 teachers and all the teachers in between to invite students into the world of literacy. Because, not to put too fine a point on it, refusing to read makes you dumber.

Here’s an example, from local social media. A new restaurant opened up nearby and had not been open for a week when a vigilante group, dressed in black hoodies and backwards ball caps showed up, claiming to be looking for an employee who had been convicted of molesting a child. (This is something they do all over the state, apparently.)

After wandering around in the restaurant, disturbing patrons eating there for the first time, they were asked to leave. The police were called. The vigilantes posted on social media about being prevented from removing scum from the face of the earth. The restaurant posted back, saying nobody working there had a criminal record. And—when I stopped reading, there were 1700 comments discussing the event.

I confess—I was fascinated. I went to the restaurant’s page to see what the menu looked like and ended up getting a good look at how people perceive young men who think they’re improving society by tracking down sex abusers and humiliating them in public.

The comments were mostly laudatory for the vigilantes (#TeamJake!!!)—and short. A couple of words or maybe a sentence. Lots of repetition. Very little logic or thoughtfulness, but lots of inchoate rage at those who are hurting children.

Commenters who took a more restrained approach—What was the vigilantes’ evidence? Had they considered the impact on the new restaurant?—were scolded and accused of being child molesters themselves. Early in the comment thread, a man presented what I thought was a good case for letting trained law enforcement deal with convicted offenders. His comment was three paragraphs long, clearly written and clearly argued.

What happened next was interesting. Commenters went after the reasonable man: You expect me to read all that? Who do you think you are?  Blah blah blah. You probably have a record, too.

At least two dozen people accused him of being too smart for his own good, one of those pointy-headed liberals who think they know it all. People who read books and use big words, rather than relying on common sense.

It was proof to me that we have a lot of work to do if we want a literate nation.  

by nflanagan

Racing, Striving, Accelerating, Winning. And Reading.

I wrote the core of this piece a decade ago, but it feels evergreen. Back then, we were trying to improve reading scores by offering kids rewards. Including pizza. Have we left competitive reading behind—or are ‘supplementary’ programs to raise scores, like Accelerated Reader, now being supplanted by the Faux Science of Reading?

When my kids–now adults–were in elementary grades, their school participated in Pizza Hut’s Book It program. The idea was to promote reading by giving kids coupons for free individual pizzas if they read a specific number of books or were the “top” readers in their classes. Whole classes got pizza parties for reading the greatest number of books. Teachers and principal were solidly behind the program, promising public recognition for kids who read the most, silly adult stunts (from head-shaving to roof sitting) and assemblies if all classes achieved certain goals.

My daughter was immediately down with the Book It concept, strategically selecting and plowing through books to stay a volume or two ahead her classroom competitors. Soon, I was signing off on a dozen or more books per day–easy, short books–to keep her in the running for “best” reader. The free pizza coupons were piling up on the counter. It never was about the pizza, however. It was about the chart on the wall, where students tallied up their reading “scores.”

My son, on the other hand, was not a competitor. Both my kids–thank goodness–were early, fluent readers. He was reading a lot, at home, including car magazines and nonfiction books written for adults. But the Book It chart on the wall, the kids lining up every morning, excited to fill in the squares? Nope. He didn’t want to play.

He pointed out that his sister had taken to raiding the boxes of outgrown picture books in the basement, essentially juking her stats. Some of his buddies had only a couple of books listed on the chart (and they weren’t dumb). It was only suck-ups who were geeked about the long line of filled-in squares after their names. Another stupid contest.

After thinking about it for a few days, we agreed. I sent identical notes to teachers, saying that as a family we’d decided not to participate in competitive reading. Since I was also a teacher in the district, and not looking to make cranky-waves at my children’s school, I added some gently worded “I understand why you’re doing this–but no thanks!” language.

And that was that. Until I picked my son up one day and saw The Chart, with his name blacked out, and “Mom doesn’t believe in competition” carefully spaced out over all the empty boxes after the black mark. I asked the teacher why she wrote that–and she said she was trying to emphasize to the other 3rd graders that Alex wasn’t a poor reader or insubordinate. It was his mother who was responsible for Alex not being part of their rah-rah Book It team.

Whereas, of course, the kids with lots of empty boxes were incapable or defiant– not team players. You could tell, simply by looking at The Chart.

In the great scheme of reading instruction, Book It (which has changed its program in the meantime) is relatively benign compared to other reading-for-points programs. It’s just a cheesy (sorry) pizza-for-reading reward scam that gets “free” coupons with the Pizza Hut brand into homes and schools. It pushes kids to read for points and prizes, rather than pleasure and information. It emphasizes quantity over quality reading experiences, data over delight. It attaches a tangible (high fat) reward to an act that should be inherently exciting and deeply rewarding. And it slaps a big chart on the classroom wall so kids can readily identify winners and losers. It uses social pressure and food to force children to read competitively.

But other than that, no problem.

At least Book It (which is still being offered) doesn’t pretend to be a full-blown reading program. Nor is it offering cash for reading books, an experiment to see if paying kids for reading raises test scores.

The official competitive reading program du jour at my kids’ school was Accelerated Reader, and  ultimately, research on Accelerated Reader was not encouraging. Stephen Krashen provided even more chilling findings on competitive reading programs:

Substantial research shows that rewarding an intrinsically pleasant activity sends the message that the activity is not pleasant, and that nobody would do it without a bribe. AR might be convincing children that reading is not pleasant.

If you think Accelerated Reader has had limited impact on reading programs in this country, check out this Pinterest page. Evidently, it’s not OK to simply read and enjoy a book anymore. You need a balloon to pop, a paper car to race, or public recognition for your Jedi reader status. You might also be asking questions about whether Accelerated Reader  aligns with the Science of Reading, the new kid in town, reading-wise. Answer: not so much.

What to do, what to do? Contrary to popular opinion, how to teach reading is not “settled science.”

My friend Claudia Swisher, English teacher extraordinaire from Norman, Oklahoma taught a high school course called Reading for Pleasure. It was the antithesis of reading for points, pizza and pecuniary rewards. Claudia rejoiced when reluctant readers found enjoyment in reading and acted as book whisperer in helping them select engaging material. She talked with them about the books they read. She modeled reading herself, in every class. There were no tests. But her data showed that students grew, in measurable and immeasurable ways, from this experience.

Why aren’t all students reading for pleasure, every day?