The New York Times discovery of the strange new creature called “Reading Workshop” has caused a full-on blog mashup. To assign books or let students choose? That is the question. “The issue is whether that should augment or replace some defined curriculum,” says Eduwonk, who is ”pretty firmly in the augment camp.” Joanne Jacobs opts for the sensible center. But you can’t spell “contrary” without C-A-R-E-Y, and the Quick and the Ed’s main man jumps into the fray, unable to resist taking a swipe at his personal pinata, Diane Ravitch, who had the chutzpah to ask in the Times piece, “What child is going to choose Moby Dick?”
“None, I imagine,” says Carey. “And good!” (Thwap! Thwap!)
I responded in TQATE’s comments, but I’ll spare you the trip:
People in education don’t like to make these choices. Fine. But choice works both ways. If you refuse to say what’s worth knowing, you inevitably choose “nothing’s worth knowing.” Huckleberry Finn? “Kids can live without it.” Shakespeare? “They’ll get that in college.” Langston Hughes? James Baldwin? Maya Angelou? No single work is indispensible, but it’s like pulling a loose thread from a sweater. Keep pulling things out, and eventually all that’s left is “Read whatever you want!” It’s a formula for illiteracy.
We also forget — everyone does — that there are valid technical reasons for common knowledge. The point is not to enshrine a canon, but to understand that language proficiency requires being familiar with a broad range of knowledge in science, history, the arts and other areas that speakers and writers assume readers and listeners already know. Poor readers suddenly look like good readers when they’re reading about familiar subjects. It stands to reason that we should be doing everything we can to make them familiar with more subjects, and shared knowledge, including well-known works of literature and literary allusions (so yes, I’d agree that while it may not be important for eveyone to read Moby-Dick, being familiar is important. Sometimes a little knowledge is just fine).
Lastly, there’s the question of how valuable the 30 different books for 30 different kids approach really is. I was trained in Readers Workshop and had to use it in my classroom. It wasn’t effective, or satisfying. It becomes almost impossible to have deep, rich conversations about books. You can’t possibly be familiar with every book every kid is reading, so you’re encouraged to ask questions that are not terribly deep or interesting: Can you describe the setting? Which character are you most like? Are there any questions you wish you could ask the author? It’s a kind of cookie-cutter, paint-by-numbers way to teach literature. If today’s mini-lesson is “Good readers pay attention to what characters say and do” (yes, we actually teach that to 5th graders) it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about War and Peace or Captain Underpants. At one level, that’s true. At another, it’s just plain silly.
You can easily say “not every child participates in those rich, whole-class discussions.” But not every child is engrossed in reading in the reader’s workshop either. A lot of them are just going through the motions.
Read what real, live English teachers have to say about it at The English Companion Ning (the consensus is we need both choice and challenge.) This debate will get a little national air tomorrow morning at the Fox News Channel. Your humble blogger will guest.
To me, this is defining literacy down, again. I wonder how much of this is driven by two factors: the (lack of) serious scholarship in ed schools and the heterogeneous classes in public schools. We have too many teachers who don’t have serious backgrounds in good literature placed in classrooms where reading levels may be spread across 8 years. It’s a formula for problems. That being said, I can’t see any justification for reading Captain Underpants etc. in school. There are far better choices. BTW, a lack of experience with good literature also contributes to difficulties in writing.
Comment by momof4 — August 31, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
So THAT’s what Readers Workshop is. My kids have been doing that (not this year) but I thought it was extra reading, not the only reading. Shame on me (I was a HS teacher) for not knowing. My neighbor won’t use it for his 5th grade class, good for him. I’ve been disappointed with the curriculum that I’ve seen but even the experienced teachers have a difficult time getting away from the “standardized” curriculum that trains the kids to take tests. You cannot have a meaningful classroom discussion without everyone being on the same “page”, so to speak.
Comment by CaliTeacher — August 31, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Perhaps this makes me a failed teacher, but it always seems that 1/3 of the kids in my classes never REALLY read anything in Readers Workshop. They lose their book or “forget it at home” so I’m compelled to hand them a loaner (a different book) during reading time. And even when they have their chosen book, there’s no serious effort to digest it. When you take this population to the library, they listlessly peruse the shelves and say it all looks boring and never choose a book. I end up having to make a choice for them. Of course what superteachers like Nancie Atwell seem to be able to do is Find the Right Book for the Child and Generate Enthusiasm for Reading. I guess I could give up Sundays (in addition to the current Saturdays) to develop ways to fix my broken Readers Workshop. But I’m more inclined to invest my energies in making good lessons that revolve around substantive literature that I know will nourish kids’ minds. This may not make them LOVE reading, but it will make them CAPABLE of reading serious books in the future.
Comment by Ben F — August 31, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
I’m with you, Ben. I banged my head against the Reader’s Workshop wall for five years. It feels good when you stop. Any “answer” that requires a superstar teacher to work is no answer at all. We could have a support group. Reader’s Workshop Recovery. Hello. My name is Robert, and I am powerless to control my students in reader’s workshop (“Hi, Robert…). The challenge would be finding a place to hold our meetings.
Perhaps the Rose Bowl is available?
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — August 31, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Part of the problem with the reading workshop model is that kids are doing the sort of exercises Robert described above for years. Who is going to enjoy reading if he or she is forced to participate in mind numbing exercises like using context clues for eight years?
As with most things in education: people are too quick to embrace a new method and get rid of the old. Reading Workshop helps some kids enjoy reading, and makes it more socially acceptable for low level kids to read low level books. But, it doesn’t work for all students. And it certainly doesn’t help students learn to read challenging material.
I remember that when I was in middle school we had to read books on our own at home and class novels in school. It seems Reading Workshop is embraced because people recognize kids are not reading at home.
There is a lot more to say. But I think students need to be exposed to a rich array of authors.
Comment by Marnie — August 31, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Robert,
As a former teacher, I could be part of your support group. One of my strengths was finding kids books they would like (I had read at least 2/3 of my extensive library – i love YA!), but I still think Reading Workshop is a crazy way to teach reading. It bothered me that the NYT article made it seem like a new model. It has been around long enough that kids have been doing trite lessons for way too long.
On a related note, this other article in the Books section of the Times seems a great coda: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/books/review/Straight-t.html?ref=books
The scoring system is terrible!
Comment by Marnie — September 1, 2009 @ 12:37 am
Heterogenous classrooms are a problem. But in reading, they are a symptom of an even worse problem: that some students have simply never been taught to read, and that many more have never been taught to read well enough and a high enough rate to become skilled at it. Heterogenous classrooms exist so schools can avoid fixing this problem.
Until they are taught to read properly, and taught about good literature in the process, then they will never have any reason to move past Captain Underpants. Literature stays inaccessible and boring if you can’t comprehend it.
Comment by Allison — September 1, 2009 @ 12:57 am
I was just reading Laura Robb’s Differentiating Reading Instruction, which is sort of a more sensible and sane guide to Reading Workshop, and stumbled upon an example of a ninth-grader forced to read Jane Eyre and The Odyssey. I’ll admit that both of these are challenging texts for even an on-grade-level reader. So the questions for me, as someone who really thinks that students should be familiar with books like Jane Eyre and The Odyssey, are:
–What did the teacher do to help raise students’ motivation towards and interest in the books BEFORE reading them?
–Were they taught within a historical or social context (e.g. a social studies unit on mythology or ancient Greece) that would help students make sense of the setting, vocabulary, etc.?
–Were they taught alongside poems, stories, or contemporary texts that might relate to the original text?
If a student doesn’t like a text you are teaching, well, first of all, it’s a free country and he or she is free to dislike it. Second of all, I do agree that it’s our job to reach out and help to inspire our students to like and enjoy what we are trying to teach. But notice that I didn’t say we should stop trying to teach these texts. The Odyssey in particular is captured in so many allusions and jokes and seemingly throwaway references in Western culture that it’s foolish to not make sure that students have at least a passing familiarity with it.
Comment by Miss Eyre — September 1, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Just so, Ms. Eyre. I took part in a debate on this on Fox this morning, and that’s one of the points I wished there was time to make. You couldn’t walk into a middle or high school classroom with disparate reading ability and background knowledge and so, “OK, class. Tale of Two Cities. Chapter One!” It wouldn’t work and of course you’d lose half the class. But we’re not losing them in *that class.* We lost them from grade school on, when we failed to give them the historic, social, political and literary context that would allow them to appreciate it, and find it relevant and engaging. In this way, “read what you like” becomes an example of making a virtue of necessity. You can’t fail to educate kids and then say “see, I told you they’d be bored!”
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — September 1, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Why are kids being thrown into the “deep end” with works like “The Odyssey” in 9th grade without first encountering the story in elementary/middle school via a children’s version like the wonderful ones by Rosemary Sutcliff or Padraic Colum? If students are familiarized with the basic narrative when they’re younger through a quality re-telling, then they’ll be better prepared to tackle the original in high school or college. And if they never do manage to get a grasp on the original Homer, at least they’ll be able to understand the allusions to the story found in other works.
Comment by Crimson Wife — September 1, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Thanks, Robert and Crimson Wife – two great posts. It’s impossible to make up for 9 years of wasted time when kids hit high school. REAL LEARNING HAS TO START IN KINDERGARTEN, ACROSS ALL SUBJECTS.
Comment by momof4 — September 1, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Another good point, Crimson Wife. If we had a more cohesive curriculum, we’d be able to know what students will be expected to do in middle school and high school, and prepare them accordingly. Sure, some adaptations of classic texts are lousy, but others are quite good, like the Shakespeare series (the name escapes me at the moment) where the original, unabridged, Elizabethan text is placed side-by-side with a contemporary translation. There’s nothing wrong with trying to make challenging texts accessible and fun–what I find disturbing is getting rid of them altogether.
Comment by Miss Eyre — September 1, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
“REAL LEARNING HAS TO START IN KINDERGARTEN, ACROSS ALL SUBJECTS.”
momof4: The following was in the Boston Globe a week or so ago Thoughts?
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/08/30/pressure_cooker_kindergarten/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7
Comment by Matt — September 1, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
I always get the feeling that many English teachers are simply massive snobs. Just as someone like John Forbes Nash can appreciate math in ways that almost none of the rest of us can, and Bobby Fischer was able to appreciate chess in ways that almost none of the rest of us can, there are those who can appreciate what has been hailed by those in the know as great literature that many of the rest of us can’t. And, in their self-righteousness, they feel fully justified in trying to shove it down the throats of all of the rest of us. I really got into reading because my 4th grade teacher had an almost complete set of Rover Boys books which she let me read, all 6,000 pages worth. Later on I really got into Science Fiction, especially Isaac Asimov. I was forced to read things like The Last of the Mohicans, which I hated and did not come close to finishing. I’m sure there are plenty of students, especially girls, who love great works of literature, but you are going to have a hard time convincing me that it is essential for everyone to read and love these books.
Comment by Anonymous — September 1, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Matt: I’m not advocating that, but little kids soak up new knowledge like sponges, if they’re given the opportunity. Read good books to them – classic fairy tales, poetry and good non-fiction. Have them memorized songs and poems. Show them the parts of a plant, illustate heliotropism by sprouting seeds, show them geographical features, learn about the Pyramids etc. It shouldn’t be test prep. If they’ve had an appropriate curriculum, they’ll do fine on tests.
Comment by momof4 — September 2, 2009 @ 10:00 am
@ momof4, compared to what we have now in much preK-3 education, I think I would prefer what is described negatively in the article.
Comment by Matt — September 3, 2009 @ 7:29 am
This is riducolous. It is clear that most of you do not really KNOW the methodology behind Readers’ Workshop. You can/should use rich/deep texts in your minielessons to invite deep thinking which in return creat extremely meaningful conversation. It is almost hysterical to listen to you people describe how ‘horrible’ R.W. is.
R.W. is part of a balanced literacy program. If you were to only teach R.W. you would have issues. R.W. should be taught alongside Writers Workshop and should be part of a literature rich day that includes book clubs, chared inquiry groups, interactive read alouds, word study, etc etc…
It is so sad to hear teachers/educators talk like this. It is the curriculum in a box methods of teaching that we should be bashing. If taught correctly, R.W. produces thinkers and students who love reading.
I have been teaching R.W. for six years now. If any of you ‘complain for a living’ type of teachers would actually take a moment to really look at R.W., you would see deep thinking, wonderful conversations and readers who are engaged and who feel successful.
Comment by Anonymous — October 21, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Anonymous,
What do you mean by “deep thinking” or “balanced literacy” or “literature rich” or “shared inquiry”? These are all jargonal, feel-good marketing terms that mean nothing to children (nor thoughtful adults).
As my thesis advisor once stated, “If you can’t explain your work at a cocktail party to random strangers, you are an idiot.”
Comment by Erin Johnson — October 22, 2009 @ 2:33 am
I have taken the liberty of not allowing several comments posted anonymously this evening on this thread, somthing I do rarely and reluctantly. As moderator of the comments on this blog, I enforce the following policy: You may post anonymously. You may post vituperatively. But you may not do both. The poster is invited to resubmit his comments, if he or she wishes to change either of those conditions.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — October 24, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Research has shown that choice is important. As a kindergarten teacher I’ve struggled the last several years to put choice into an entire academic day for my little five and six year olds. We don’t play nor do we have time for it. This year I’ve started using reader’s workshop as part of what could be described as a five course meal of literacy. My students come from homes without any literacy skills. Eleven weeks ago these students were nothing but normal from my usual behavior problems and unprepared beginning k’s. After using reading and writing workshop along with solid phonics, shared reading (think big bedtime story), guided strategy groups, and individual conferring throughout the day my student have become thinkers. I’m no longer focusing just on how print is organized but really having my children comprehend what we are doing. We focus on thinking about why the author has done this or that. My littlest ones can apply the strategies in their reading, tell me how it has helped them as a reader, and make a plan for how they can continue to grow both in understanding and reading ability/decoding. We read like writers. We question everything. We think about our thinking. Both reading and writing workshop have opened up the higher levels of blooms taxonomy for my children; we are free from the understand verbiage.
When any program feels rote it is not being taught effectively. We need to focus less on what children are reading/writing, and rather focus on the thinking and purposes behind our learning. In order to make all things their own children must be taught beyond how to why.
Comment by Kindergarten Teacher — November 6, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
What a shame, reading your reactions to readers workshop. I could negate all complaints you’ve written about if we were to have a conversation. I’ve seen classes and teachers struggle, as many of you talk about. However, I know from not only teaching readers and writers workshop, but in training others, that if a teacher is well trained, it becomes the absolute best, most effective and enjoyable style of teaching! I would encourage you to look further and talk/observe teachers who have learned how to teach effectively in this model.
Comment by Anonymous — February 5, 2010 @ 5:14 am
I’m not sure if you’re addressing my post or others’ comments, but I taught the workshop model for years–long enough to conclude quite reasonably, I think, that it is neither “absolute best, most effective and enjoyable style of teaching.” If you care to tell me why I’m wrong, I’m all ears.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — February 5, 2010 @ 8:31 am
I’ve taught for over twenty years, and I will tell you that the workshop model is the worst method of teaching that I have ever used. I constantly battle behavioral issues, because the children are bored to death. I am bored to death. The children sit too long and many go through the motions during independent reading. I so miss the days of creative teaching. The children loved coming to school and soaked up knowledge like little sponges.
Comment by Anonymous — December 4, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
I must use reader’s workshop in high school ESL. I have been given one 20 page handout about reader’s workshop, and had one PD session, last Friday to “tweek” my workshop plans for classes this week while our NYC “Quality Review” and a NY State JIT, which decides if a school can continue to survive. At any rate that means 1 hour of training. What a shame. I read online for any information I can get, and people who don’t like workshop abound.
I have taught nearly 20 years, and resent being micromanaged, which has been the worst this year. My concern is that I have 3-5 students per class with IEPs, and all four grades of advanced ESL students spanning ages 13-20. It is hard to follow the formula with such students. On the other hand, with my weakest readers, they are finally reading a book, high interest, low challenge, on their own, and not reading Cliff’s notes to make up for being unable to read a novel or play. I wonder if any other high schools use reader’s workshop? It seems the wrong way to prepare students for the rigor of college.
Comment by anon — March 22, 2011 @ 10:00 pm
It’s sad to hear that so many of you have had a hard time w/RW. I wonder where it’s falling apart for you. My classes are fantastic! I HAVE creative flexibility as the teacher…in fact, daily, my lessons can change to fit the needs of my readers. My students are never “bored” because as a class, we share our reading w/each other. The flexibility of their choice does not mean that I’m still not covering the basics…we’ve read Poe, Bradbury, Alveraz…all w/in our lessons. I am able to document and reteach, (meeting RTI requirements) and I find RW a much more efficient way to meet the standards while at the same time explore the wealth of great literature we have available. It IS a LOT of work on my end though, and if you tackle RW, you accept that.It is definitely not for a teacher who is use to teaching scripted lessons.
Comment by RW advocate — April 21, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
One key problem with both workshop models is that they are rooted in an innatist philosophy of learning and language(Chomsky, Krashen, Piaget). For ELLs the models are time wasters. In my school, the kids do not have much time for Social Studies or Science because of the time devoted to decontextualised literacy work + when they do study these subjects (including math) they do not learn how to write (and therefore think clearly) with the disciplines various discourses.
Comment by pduf — January 29, 2012 @ 12:30 am