River Walk Journal, Inc.

This is no longer the main page of River Walk Journal. We have moved to http://www.riverwalkjournal.org/main/. Please update your bookmarks. This site will remain on our servers but will no longer be updated.

The Sept/Oct Issue is Available:

http://www.riverwalkjournal.org/vol4iss3contents.html

http://www.riverwalkjournal.org/riverwalkjournal4-3.pdf

It turns out that the British aren’t doing any better with reading and literacy issues than we are: The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/07/nschools407.xml) reported over the summer that children from impoverished backgrounds frequently lag behind in literacy skills - mostly because their parents are too overwhelmed to limit television time. 

Groucho Marx once said, “I find television to be very educating.  Every time somebody turns on the set, I go in the other room and read a book.” But for many of these children there is no “other room” to retreat to, and they are forced to attempt their reading, homework, or other activities with the television blaring away. 

As opposed to wealthier families, which may have TV “quotas” (a practice which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends), children in poorer families may watch as much as four hours of television per day, leaving them little time to read (or do other mind- and body-improving things like exercise). 

Studies have also shown that better educated parents tend to use a wider range of words in speaking to their children, spend more money on educational toys, and invest more time in reading to their children. 

Certainly no one can blame these struggling parents, many of whom are working multiple jobs to provide for their children. But if the parents cannot help their children, someone needs to, and the schools are not stepping up to the task. Many disadvantaged children, already behind their wealthier classmates, quickly lose interest in school and come to the conclusion that they’re “dumb,” giving up and drastically reducing their chances for a better education and career than their parents. And so the cycle continues…. 

On the other hand - to end on a lighter note - when it comes to books the U.K. is ahead of the U.S. in one way. As reported by NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14586583), some British doctors have begun prescribing books as treatment for those with mild forms of mental health issues including depression and anxiety. Apparently some of those doctors decided to pay attention to the message inscribed over the door of an Egyptian library: “medicines of the soul.” 

In Teacher Magazine, Donalyn Miller, a sixth grade teacher and self-proclaimed “book whisperer,” describes her techniques to inspire a love of reading — and outstanding test results (http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2007/09/05/06millermentor1.h18.html)

By contrast, this San Francisco Chronicle article discusses Napa High School, a successful “failure” by NCLB standards because it failed one of its criteria, even though the rest of their statistics are terrific. The result? Their freshman and sophomore curricula for English and literature has been replaced by more simplistic anthologies designed to increase test scores (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/09/MNT0RM7VS.DTL&hw=Napa+High+School+state+standout+is+considered+federal+failure&sn=001&sc=1000) In response, teacher Hilary Zunin, an eighteen-year veteran of teaching English, left the school system — and teaching.

So what are we trying to teach in the English classroom, after all? How to read? How to love reading? Or how to pass a test? The sad thing is that these three things are not mutually exclusive — as Miller proves, it is possible to teach a child to read, to love reading, and to pass the test all at the same time.

The solution is not “dumbing down” what students read. It is possible to find quality literature that is still straightforward enough for struggling readers.

The solution is also not replacing literature with anthologies, which tend to be chopped-up bits of stories and poetry that most students will tell you are designed to put them to sleep in moments. I taught struggling readers for many years, and I can guarantee you that none of them would have picked an anthology over Elie Wiesel’s Night or John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men — two of the books Napa High has been forced to replace, and two books I taught for years to reluctant and non-reluctant readers alike.

The solution is to teach quality works of literature using quality teaching techniques to inspire students with a love of reading. After all, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote: “Read the best books first, or you may not have a chance to read them at all.”

I stumbled across a few articles today (thank you, Grist!) about how eco-solutions in schools may also help students’ achievement. First, the New York Times writes about how walking to school, in addition to improving the overall health of students, can help them to be more focussed and more creative:

“The sedentary life also affects their behavior and the ability to learn. Studies have shown that children who engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity show improvement in concentration, memory, learning, creativity and problem solving, as well as mood, for up to two hours after exercise.”

And with 60% of students taking cars to school, the getting there the old fashioned way will cause the atmosphere to ease a sigh of relief as well.

The Washington Post writes about the increasing number of schools seeking certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Students are saying that the increased light and open spaces are helping them stay awake in class.

My dream for my future child? She’ll walk to her sustainably built, eco-friendly school, while reading an Annie Dillard book printed on recycled paper. It could happen, right?

In a recent USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-09-03-texting-language_N.htm?csp=34), incoming president of the National Council of Teachers of English Kathleen Blake Yancey is one of several people discussing the impact of text messaging on students’ ability to write coherently.

I saw this in my classroom — students who were unable to transition from one form of communication to another, whether that was shifting between their original language and English or adjusting to the idea that OMG! and LOL are not meant to be used in the context of an essay.

It’s important for us to remember that literacy does not exclude the different reading and writing skills used by students today. Text messaging, instant messaging, and online research have fundamentally changed their world and their writing. The key for us is not to discourage them from using these tools, but to teach them the skills necessary to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate times to use them. A similar approach has been used with students in urban environments or environments that rely on ebonics, spanglish, or other “unofficial” languages.

Giving the students’ personal “languages” a level of respect in the classroom can be difficult for the well-educated or highly literate teacher and professor. However, it can be a valuable method of explanation. Allow the students to make a “slang” or “texting” dictionary explaining all their favorite terms or abbreviations. Then explain to them that much as they would have to use a dictionary to help them speak a foreign language, they need to use this dictionary to remind them what is and is not appropriate in formal educational writing.

Or there’s the more old-fashioned approach — make a list of “essay crimes” that includes these abbreviations and tell the students you’re implementing a “three strikes” policy. They can make these mistakes three times in a paper, but when you find the fourth mistake, you’re giving the paper back and they’ll have to rewrite it.

I’ve tried both. Either way (or if you try something in between), one of our responsibilities as we promote literacy is to encourage them to embrace the various languages that make up their world.

For the first time, economics questions appeared on tests recorded by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Such questions tested students’ abilities to understand personal finance and international trade issues, among other things.

The rules of logic presume that in order for a student to perform well in economics, they should have a sturdy grasp on their reading skills. Yet, the addition of economics questions to the “Nation’s Report Card” produced some interesting results:

42% of the nation’s 12^th graders scored at the “proficient level” or better on economics tests. This means they have a grasp on the challenging stuff (e.g., the effect of oil production on countries who import oil).

79% of 12^th graders who took the economics tests could do “basic level work” (e.g., understand the bearing an individual’s credit history has on their ability to obtain a loan).

Only 35% of the nation’s 12^th graders reached the “proficient level” or better in reading.

What do these results mean? One reason for the high econ scores may be that more high school kids are taking advanced level economics classes. Other factors suggest that the reading exam questions are too tough. Or, it could be that kids are picking up helpful financial lessons at home and work while they are reading less.

Whatever the answer(s) may be, it seems to be a classic case of the chicken vs. the egg: what comes first? You’d think that a student would need stellar reading skills to understand complex financial questions. But perhaps at the end of the day, the numbers are easier than the words.

Click here to read more.

Some times a good thing turns into a bad thing. Thanks to the copious amounts of information available on TV and the internet (good thing), adults aren’t turning to books for knowledge as much as they used to (bad thing). This transition does not come as a surprise—the progression from hard copy to electronic copy seems to make logical sense, given the new norms of our society.

However logical it may be, this sort of “out with the old and in with the new” movement is causing some not-so-logical responses. Take, for example, a man named Tom Wayne’s response to society’s information evolution. Back in May, Mr. Wayne, a bookstore owner in Kansas City, Missouri, discovered that his collection of books had become a bit unruly. So unruly, in fact, his shelves couldn’t hold them anymore, and nobody seemed interested in buying them. He decided he needed to get rid of them somehow. His first course of action: compile the book overflow and distribute it to various local libraries and thrift shops that might be willing to embrace them. But none of these institutions were able to give Tom’s books a new home. It seems that their shelves, too, were buckling from the weight of books that weren’t being read. Tom’s ultimate solution? He built a bonfire and threw his hard covers and paperbacks in.

Tom’s book burning was in protest of “society’s diminishing support for the printed word,” and his towering flames made the ultimate statement that “not reading a book is as good as burning it.” (Click here to read more of Tom’s story.) Fair enough. It just seems a bit backward to me. Isn’t a book usually burned because you don’t want people to read it? I’ve heard tales about books being burned because of their wicked connotations. To some, a pyre of burning words seems to rid themselves—or their society—of content that has been branded “bad,” “inappropriate,” or otherwise unfit for human eyes and minds.

One example of this, at least the one that immediately comes to my mind, is seen in the movie Footloose. Aside from the forbidden dancing, music banning, and Kevin Bacon’s super sweet scissor kicks, there is a scene in which the town reverend, played by John Lithgow, holds a book burning. He claims that the volumes are sizzling with references that will corrupt the town’s young people (like induce them to drink beer and get jiggy to Kenny Loggins music while wearing Converse tennies with tuxedos and prom dresses). In actuality, he’s just playing the role of an overprotective father, wishing to shield his many children from the “real world.”

But back to Mr. Wayne. It seems he burned his books because their words are good. Even though there are no shelves to house them, he believes that his books are decent (i.e., not infused with improper or lewd content). Otherwise, he would not have made such a bold statement to defend their existence. Yet he burned them. I understand that he was trying to make a point, and clearly he got noticed. Nonetheless, I see his action as a harsh waste of words, and I think his fire sent a mixed message. If he wants us to read more books, shouldn’t he keep them around? Heck, give them away for free on the street if he has to. If you take books away, people will take their attention away. They will turn it from the written word toward the internet and TV even more eagerly because their alternative was turned into a pile of burnt nothingness.

Wayne’s fire was eventually extinguished by the Kansas City Fire Department, as he did not have a permit to burn anything. So, he conceded to the law. But he insinuated that this would not be his last burn fest.

Well, at least I can say that Mr. Wayne won’t let “the man” get him down. That is, after all, the Kevin Bacon-like thing to do.

**********************************

*Sad little statistic: Last year, one in four Americans did not read a single book. Read more about the U.S.’s reading habits in this recent CNN article.

*Sadder, bigger statistics: Review the Reading at Risk Report from the National Endowment for the Arts: http://www.arts.gov/research/readingatrisk.pdf