21
The answer, I found, is quite simple: the decision has already been made. The standards, whether Common Core or a state’s version, already indicate to teachers which are critical standards and which are ancillary. As educators, it is our job to a.) realize which standards are critical; and then b.) unapologetically teach only those standards. I realize that to some, this argument may initially suggest that teachers have little to no say in what they teach or how they teach it. On the contrary, when guided by the parameters of the standards, teachers are provided the tools needed to alleviate the bloat and focus on the core pieces of their instruction that will most directly may an impact on students.
I opened our first professional development day with a simple analogy: the English curriculum is like a Thanksgiving dinner. Reading (literature and nonfiction) was the meat; writing was the potatoes. Grammar? The gravy. Vocabulary? Spices. Speaking and listening skills? Dessert. I reasoned that though grammar is an important element of writing, no one wants to eat a meal of just gravy. Likewise, vocabulary in the context of reading (which is the only critical vocabulary standard in Indiana) is crucial, but devoting entire lessons to vocabulary was like feeding our students tablespoons of cayenne pepper and asking them to feel satisfied. I saw a lot of heads nodding at that comparison.
This conversation came at a crucial time in our curriculum development. The year before we had recently adopted a vocabulary series, much to the chagrin of many teachers in the department. We had a common writing curriculum which we were proud of and believed in. We taught common novels at a common pace—and we dabbled in adding in nonfiction when we could. Adding in the vocabulary series really made everything about our curriculum feel disjointed. It didn’t feel like we were planning cohesive “meals” for lessons; rather, it felt like we were sampling from a buffet every day.
After committing to the new “Meat and Potatoes” mantra, our department embarked on a two-year journey to revise our curriculum to truly have what we referred to as a holistic approach. We decided the smartest thing to do was what many other teachers, English departments, and schools do every day: teach reading—fiction and nonfiction—in conjunction with writing. The three simply go together. Readers instinctively think like writers and writers often are avid readers. Reading and writing leads to discussion, analysis, and deeper understanding of concepts. We started to embrace Doug Lemov’s argument that, “Every student must glimpse, as much as possible, the power that comes from the world that reading can bring to light”. And also--reading and writing must be together, not separate from each other. The connection is crucial.
It’s important to note that I said the three go together, not two. Our department had to take a long, hard look in the mirror and finally admit that before we transitioned to our 2014 Indiana Academic Standards, we had been ignoring our nonfiction standards. Our state standardized assessment would weigh nearly 30% of a student’s score on nonfiction standards, and they most certainly were deemed critical standards by the state. We had to face the fact that though yes, our science and social studies teachers also taught nonfiction, and no we could not and should not leave all nonfiction to those classes. Don’t get me wrong—we have outstanding teachers in all subject areas in our district, but the simple fact remains that there are nonfiction standards under the English umbrella, therefore we must teach them. Period.