Press-ing Matters
Read Paul Thomas' post about the need for a press that covers education reform by doing due diligence, researching the facts, reporting the facts. You can read the post here: http://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/u-s-and-education-reform-need-a-critical-free-press/. And if you are not reading this blog regularly, do so. Thomas is one of the clarion voices in our field.
I want to tie his call for a better press to a post Donalyn Miller sent me to last week. Titled An Obituary for Close Reading, it is a piece from the Teaching the Core blog site. So, be aware of the source when you go to read this piece: http://www.teachingthecore.com/an-obituary-for-close-reading/. I agree that there is too much buzzwordification. Actually, the real problem is the commodification of learning. But in being critical of buzzwordification, this blog actually ignores the person responsible for close reading becoming a buzz word. That person would be the architect himself, David Coleman. Go look at the "lesson" he presented for what close reading should look like under CCSS. That is where it all started going wrong. The blame rests squarely with CCSS and not with the professional books this blog criticizes.
I have been more than a little critical of "close reading." It commodified what used to be called critical reading, something that has been the cornerstone of literary practices for a loooong time. But CCSS had to have its own buzzwords so that books could be replaced, PD conducted, old practices supplanted. So, when this blogger notes the demise of close reading it is, of course, tongue in cheek. Would that it were true. And if everyone has a different definition or notion of close reading, perhaps the standards are not what they need to be? Perhaps the implementation has been disastrous? And, perhaps it is time to declare the death of CCSS? It does seem to be in critical condition of late.
Why the push back to close reading? Because much of what we heard went smack up against what we knew were best literacy practices. If there is blame, let us point the finger to outward but inward. Lay off the snarky and ill-informed remarks about professional books. Start the snark with CCSS and the "standards."
I want to tie his call for a better press to a post Donalyn Miller sent me to last week. Titled An Obituary for Close Reading, it is a piece from the Teaching the Core blog site. So, be aware of the source when you go to read this piece: http://www.teachingthecore.com/an-obituary-for-close-reading/. I agree that there is too much buzzwordification. Actually, the real problem is the commodification of learning. But in being critical of buzzwordification, this blog actually ignores the person responsible for close reading becoming a buzz word. That person would be the architect himself, David Coleman. Go look at the "lesson" he presented for what close reading should look like under CCSS. That is where it all started going wrong. The blame rests squarely with CCSS and not with the professional books this blog criticizes.
I have been more than a little critical of "close reading." It commodified what used to be called critical reading, something that has been the cornerstone of literary practices for a loooong time. But CCSS had to have its own buzzwords so that books could be replaced, PD conducted, old practices supplanted. So, when this blogger notes the demise of close reading it is, of course, tongue in cheek. Would that it were true. And if everyone has a different definition or notion of close reading, perhaps the standards are not what they need to be? Perhaps the implementation has been disastrous? And, perhaps it is time to declare the death of CCSS? It does seem to be in critical condition of late.
Why the push back to close reading? Because much of what we heard went smack up against what we knew were best literacy practices. If there is blame, let us point the finger to outward but inward. Lay off the snarky and ill-informed remarks about professional books. Start the snark with CCSS and the "standards."