What I am still waiting to see are admissions from our professional organizations. I want to see the, "We were wrong" statements. Instead I see some criticism occasionally but no admission that they took the wrong path and no course correction. What I see instead are a multitude of sessions centered on CCSS, offered because they "want to help teachers." I see journal articles that are basically propaganda. And I see some professionals offering quick fix PD on CCSS.I see this bleeding into other fields. Book publishers now feel constrained to put CCSS standards on materials associated with their books (and, really, it's a book, so most of the EALR standards could apply anyhow, but hey). I see NCTQ purport to measure teacher ed programs based on some sort of skewed system almost as valid as VAM. In other words, I see so many things that can potentially harm the next generation of kids. And I see our professional organizations and some of their leaders remain silent in the face of the insanity being put into practice.
Who decided that reading ON level meant reading ABOVE level? When did that happen? Where were the literacy organizations when it did? Who decided that AR levels and Lexile markers were the important measuring sticks for complex and rigorous texts? Where was the hue and cry from the literacy organizations when this happened? Where, oh where, was the response to the blessed list of books known as Exemplar? Who decided they were exemplar? Why did the literacy organizations not object to this censorship?
At a time when literature for young people is so vibrant, some complex, so incredibly rich, where are the voices of our literacy organizations recommending HUNDREDS of other texts?
How about starting here with the list of the NBA Longlist for Young People's Literature announced this week:
How many have you read? More importantly, how many have the leaders of our literacy organizations read and recommended? I know the answer. Do you?