Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • High Achievers
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • Scholars Program
Flypaper

We’re teaching mediocrity in literature classrooms

Daniel Buck
2.10.2022
Getty Images/GlobalStock

Since the beginning of the common school movement in the 1800s, we have valued our institutions of public education for their unifying nature, and the creation of a literate populace is an essential element of that goal. But much modern-day English instruction accomplishes neither. These middle school and high school classrooms barely resemble what you or I remember from our school years. A common approach to literary instruction, the “workshop model,” features a different novel for every student—invariably always young-adult fiction—and no collective discussion of a shared text. Its most common manifestation, Lucy Calkins’s Units of Study, permeates thousands of schools across the country, while the general model is near ubiquitous.

In fact, calling Calkins’s approach a “curriculum” is charitable. It centers no specific books or knowledge and is more a set of practices for the teacher to follow. Despite its popularity, distinguished professor of education Timothy Shanahan has written that there’s “not a single study that supports its use.”

Among the faults of the workshop model is its lack of rigorous texts. Like strength training, the mind requires tension to grow. When students self-select novels, easier books appeal, and so, like lifting a bar with no weight over and again, literacy stagnates. Shanahan writes that students need “exposure to sophisticated vocabulary, rich content, and complex language” and a workshop model does not guarantee such exposure. Like a literary buffet, one student may spend a semester with varied, rigorous literature such as Edgar Allan Poe and another with Diary of a Wimpy Kid.

I’ve spent time as an instructional coach in classrooms that use both the workshop and traditional models, where a teacher guides students through challenging books. The best teachers struggle to get students to read self-selected books, with many slipping phones between the pages, but even the worst teachers can fumble through a classroom reading of Frederick Douglass’s vivid autobiography.

In the few instances where the Units of Study does foster a shared text, it comes in two forms. In one unit, they deem a whole class novel “too long” and so encourage teachers to only read short excerpts amounting to about twenty pages total. Otherwise, the unit only asks the teacher to show clips of a movie. It’s all a heroic act of lower expectations, and a collection of unproven teaching practices, both of which leave our students floundering. With inadequate approaches to basic literacy, the stabilizing structure of public education cracks.

The curriculum also falters because it lacks a robust sequence and a shared curriculum of literature and knowledge. E.D. Hirsch has spent a career advocating for the importance of what he originally called “cultural literacy,” the common knowledge of history, science, and literature that we all take for granted. His thesis is simple: Our knowledge determines our ability to read as much as an abstract reading skill. This simple conclusion explains why an American could easily follow a paragraph about football but lack all comprehension if reading about cricket. To grasp a typical op-ed, a student needs to know about our constitutional order, chattel slavery, World War II, great American heroes, and other important historical and scientific facts.

Another shortcoming arises, perhaps even more serious, when our schools lack shared texts: It atomizes the classroom and thus contributes to the atomization of society. When my school required me to use it, the Units of Study “curriculum” amounted to five to ten minutes of whole-group instruction before students spent the rest of class cloistered off into separate corners of the room, reading their own books with little to no sense of community. We didn’t laugh together at Mercutio’s jokes or lament Tom Robinson’s verdict.

We say that we value public education because of its unifying nature—these buildings bring together members of disparate communities with varied interests for a common purpose—and then foster a hyper-individualistic classroom culture and structure. The literature classroom is the ideal place for communitarian ideals. Here, students learn to discuss controversial ideas and share aesthetic experiences. But we squander this opportunity to strengthen society and forge citizenship.

“Don’t be a Scrooge.” “All men are created equal.” We value “the content of a man’s character.” These phrases and allusions are as much a part of our language as dependent clauses and conjugations. If anything, they are what give our language life and color. However frayed our country may be otherwise, they give us a commonality and shared worldview. But that only happens when everybody encounters and reflects on them. Much as an economy requires a common currency to function, we need a common language, which in turn requires a common set of texts.

I’ve seen a common literary culture foster community even at recess of all places. I required my students to memorize a poem. One young girl, new to our school, had remained on the fringes of social circles through the beginning of the year. However, as a group of friends practiced their poems while playing four-square, she finally had something in common with them, started reciting it with them, and so had an excuse to also join the game. That shared text built community.

Our schools ought to be places that foster this common development of a robust language through both basic literacy and shared texts. Alas, as our country fractures, things will continue to fall apart if our classrooms do not create a literate public, and the center certainly will not hold if our common schools do not even work to build a center.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders

Daniel Buck is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Fordham Institute, teacher, and author. He earned his master's degree in curriculum and instruction from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, along with bachelor's degrees in English literature and the Spanish language. His work has appeared in various publications including National Review, City Journal, RealClearEducation, and Quillette.…

View Full Bio

Sign Up to Receive Fordham Updates

We'll send you quality research, commentary, analysis, and news on the education issues you care about.
Thank you for signing up!
Please check your email to confirm the subscription.

Related Content

view
High Expectations

How much education is a public responsibility?

Chester E. Finn, Jr. 2.2.2023
NationalFlypaper
view
High Expectations

Will ESAs change America’s definition of “public education?”: An interview with Ashley Berner

Robert Pondiscio 2.2.2023
NationalFlypaper
view
High Expectations

Schools have been adding teachers and student support staff, even as they serve fewer students

Chad Aldeman 2.2.2023
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1015 18th St NW, Suite 902 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]