Mr. Buck's Four Recommendations for Elementary School ELA

Mr. Daniel Buck

 Last Friday I published my initial reactions to Daniel Buck’s article, published online by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The article is entitled “Think Again: Should Elementary Schools Teach Reading Comprehension?” Here is the address for the article. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-should-elementary-schools-teach-reading-comprehension#:~:text=It%20asserts%20that%2C%20once%20students,instruction%20across%20multiple%20subjects%2C%20including If you’re interested in how America teaches reading, you should read Buck’s article.

At the end of the article, Buck makes four recommendations and then elaborates on them. I’d like to add my opinion, having taught high school English for almost 30 years.

1.       Include essential content in state standards in a coordinated way across multiple subjects.

Buck says that many state standards are lists of vacuous skill. No argument there, at least from my knowledge of, and my writing and rewriting of curricula, using Pennsylvania standards. They’re terrible. Mr. Buck then recommends that states “specify the movements and literary periods . . . that all students in a particular grade level should cover or provide a list of specific texts from which teachers or districts can choose.” No student choice whatsoever. No joy of students finding texts that they fall in love with. Buck then suggests that students “read a novel set during the Industrial Revolution while students learn about that same period in their social studies class.” Which students in high school this year, let alone in elementary school this year, will cheer about reading a novel set in the Industrial Revolution? And coordinating classes in social studies and English? Our high school tried to set up a coordinated English-social studies Holocaust unit. At least five years passed with blockade after blockade appearing, from teacher’s unwillingness to work with their cohorts, to the inability of guidance to schedule coordinated classes. This is a disaster waiting to happen—and it did happen. Units like Buck proposes turned students off from reading and created the reaction that gave choice to readers.

2.       Require the adoption and use of knowledge-rich curricula.

Buck adds that “many states” adopt the use of the science of reading, which translates to the state school focusing “exclusively on phonics.” Most teachers would agree that a steady, multi-year diet of phonics will kill a student’s interest in reading (although the correct amount in grades 1 and 2 is essential). I stopped by the Knowledge Matters Campaign website and read this paragraph: “To develop students’ reading comprehension muscles from the earliest grades, leading schools use English language arts (ELA) curricula that are carefully designed to build background knowledge in science, history, literature, and the arts, alongside sound foundational skills instruction.” What is being taught in the science, history, and arts classes? When does a student learn the joy of self-selected reading?

3.       Ensure that state and local accountability systems incentivize the deployment and consumption of knowledge-rich curricula.

Buck states, “… [state] standardized tests could be part of the solution.” I don’t believe that. State testing is nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer money making testing companies rich. He suggests that states need more tests, ones that “directly measure historical, civic, and scientific knowledge.” I can only imagine how much a student at any grade level would care about doing well on a civic knowledge exam.

4.       Emphasize the importance of knowledge building in teacher preparation and development.

Mr. Buck and I agree that if teachers learn that the “science of reading” means hitting the students over the head with phonics K-5, “… they’ll fail to teach educators the full account of how children learn to read and comprehend.” And while I don’t think that knowledge-building is the solution to the problem of how students read in 2024, schools could do a better job of teaching knowledge to students at all levels of education, and in a variety of classrooms, not just ELA classes. But let’s keep what is working. Reader’s choice builds lifelong readers and a love of books. Swap SSR time for a unit on ancient civilizations—and then assess the students using a state-developed exam rather than a test created by the home district? What student would choose the latter? What teacher who understands readers would choose the latter?