Reading Education: The New York Times and the missing point

AP Photo: Toby Talbot

There’s been a dust-up concerning the teaching of reading these past couple weeks. Ever since the New York Times published an article promoting the idea that students should choose the books they read in the classroom, teachers, literacy advocates and authors have been offering their two cents.

In the New York Times article, the author opens with an imprecise explanation of text self-selection in the classroom. She states that self-selection is, “part of a movement to revolutionize the way literature is taught in America’s schools.” The idea of students choosing their own books is nothing new. Teachers have been using this method for years. Since the New York Times is a general topic newspaper, and not an education journal, the writer might have taken a bit more time explaining what teaching with self-selected novels involves. About three pages in, she offers some explanation on the methodology, but many readers didn’t seem to make it that far before they spouted off on blogs and twitter posts.

Nancie Atwell, a well-known name in reading education and cited in the New York Times article, felt the need to clarify with a video explaining her student self-selection methods. Popular young adult author Meg Cabot praised the joys of self-selection and two-time Newbery author Lois Lowry poked fun at her own expense, as her Newbery winning title, The Giver, was one of the boxed up novels sent to the storage room. Even the typically technology-leaning education journal, Edutopia, jumped on the bandwagon with a poll asking readers what they think.

The stumbling block in the New York Times article is the oversimplification or misunderstanding of the teaching of reading. Teaching someone to read is not simply opening a book, offering effusive guidance and magically instilling a love of reading by osmosis. It is a science. Those who research the psychological, physical and pedagogical intricacies in the teaching of reading love the literacy advocates who help make their job much easier; but, they don’t value the simplistic view that letting kids choose Twilight over To Kill A Mockingbird will build a strong student. This is probably why the New York Times article got a ton of comments and why Atwell felt the need to clarify.

Many reading teachers, upon initially reading the New York Times piece, thought it was nothing: a blip, a minor story on an old topic, only allowed space in such a high profile newspaper due to the prescriptive nature in the curriculum of late. Later, when reading enthusiasts were tweeting away, the inherent flaw in writing education articles for a general public became clearer. Reading educators knew that, of course, there would be direct instruction, guidance and standards of reading instruction within the self-selection model. Two teacher bloggers, Monica of Educating Alice and Sarah of The Reading Zone, explained that they follow methods used by most reading educators: a combination of self-selection and teacher-selection.

The real reason the New York Times article is important was lost in the scuffle. As standardized testing and accountability are the current driving forces in education, teachers like Sandra Stiles, who are forced to choose from eight district-approved titles, have lost the ability to do what is best for their students. Now, that is an article we should all be reading.