|
Comment on this article
Read comments
The truth about learning to read well
September/October 2009
by E. D. Hirsch Jr.
E. D. Hirsch Jr.
'57PhD is the author of Cultural Literacy (1987) and The Knowledge Deficit (2006) and founder of the nonprofit Core Knowledge schools. This essay
is adapted from his forthcoming book, The Making of Americans: Democracy and
Our Schools, which critiques the
civic and social goals of U.S. schooling.
Ample research shows
that scores on fill-in-the-bubble reading tests are the most reliable
predictors of Americans' future economic status and ability to become effective
citizens. Reading ability embraces multiple skills one needs in order to become
effective in the public sphere. From the ability to understand strangers and
make oneself understood in turn, other competencies flow. One can learn new
things readily, prosper in school, and possess the general knowledge needed to
train for a new job.
| |
Thanks to No Child Left Behind, much time is being misspent cramming for reading tests. |
No Child Left Behind
reasonably places a big emphasis on reading tests, but that has unfortunately accounted
for the unintended consequence that much time is being misspent on how-to
skills and test preparation. Yet the fault lies not with the tests but with the
school administrators who have been persuaded that it is possible to drill for
a reading test. Summarize, classify, and find the main idea: the bulk of time
in early language-arts programs today is spent practicing these and other
abstract strategies on an incoherent array of uninformative fictions. Ever
since this cramming has been put into effect, reading scores in later grades
have trended downward, because the cramming has driven out the very
thing—coherent content—that could enable children to ace their reading tests.
Reading comprehension
is not a universal, repeatable skill like sounding out words or throwing a ball
through a hoop. "Reading skill" is rather an overgeneralized abstraction that
obscures what reading really is: an array of separate, content-constituted
skills such as the ability to read about the Appalachian Mountains or the
ability to read about the Civil War. The specific knowledge dependence of
reading tests becomes obvious in those given in the later grades. Here is a
passage from a tenth-grade Florida test:
The origin of cotton
is something of a mystery. There is evidence that people in India and Central
and South America domesticated separate species of the plant thousands of years
ago. Archaeologists have discovered fragments of cotton cloth more than 4,000
years old in coastal Peru and at Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley. … Today
cotton is the world’s major nonfood crop, providing half of all textiles. In
1992, 80 countries produced a total of 83 million bales, or almost 40 billion
pounds.
Much tacit knowledge
is needed to understand this passage. It would help to have an idea of how cotton
grows and how it is harvested and then put into bales. (What’s a bale?) It
would help to know that the Indus Valley is many thousands of miles from Peru.
(How many tenth graders know that?) Then consider the throwaway statement that
different people "domesticated separate species of the plant." Ask a group of
tenth graders what it means, and chances are that most will not know. They will
not understand that part of the test passage, no matter how well they can
perform the tasks currently taught in language-arts classes.
| |
Reading tests are unfair to students who, through no fault of their own, have little general knowledge. |
This passage
illustrates the way reading comprehension works. The writer assumes that
readers know some things but not others. In this case, readers were not
expected to know how long human beings have used cotton—the new information
supplied in the passage. That is exactly how a school textbook or the Internet
offers new information: it is embedded in a mountain of taken-for-granted
knowledge. That is the way language always works.
I once wrote a short
piece for Education Week in
which I offered a mock reading test chosen from one of the most influential
books ever written, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. It included sentences such as: "A manifold,
contained in an intuition which I call mine, is represented, by means of the
synthesis of understanding, as belonging to the necessary unity of
self-consciousness, and this is effected by means of the category." I invited
the readers of Education Week to
apply the strategies they compel children to practice: summarize, classify, and
find the main idea. Most, I suspect, were still clueless.
A reading test is
inherently a knowledge test. Hence the tests are unfair to students who,
through no fault of their own, have little general knowledge. Their homes have
not provided it, and neither have the schools.
I therefore propose a
policy change that would at one stroke raise reading scores, narrow the
fairness gap, and induce elementary schools to impart the general knowledge
children need. Let us institute curriculum-based reading tests in first,
second, third, and fourth grades—that is to say, reading tests containing
passages based on knowledge that children will have received directly from
their schooling. To carry out this idea, the education department of a state
will need to announce something like the following: "Here is the specific core
curriculum that students should learn in the first five grades. For the next
five years our reading tests for each grade will contain passages from domains
taken from that coherent curriculum: such as Greek and Roman myths, Alice's
Adventures in Wonderland, 'Ali Baba
and the Forty Thieves,' 'The People Could Fly,' the geography of the Mediterranean
Sea, Julius Caesar, the Hopi and Zuni Indians, Ponce de Leon and Florida,
Canada, the Thirteen Colonies before the Revolution, the speed of light, sound
and the human ear, and the solar system.”
At the same time that
the state made this announcement it would also make available the materials and
professional guidance teachers would need to teach those topics effectively.
All topics the state mentioned would likely be taught. Tests would continue to
drive schooling—as always—but they would do so in an educationally productive
way. Offering children a good education is the right way to cram for a reading
test. 
Readers respond
Obedience schools?
E. D. Hirsch asserts that "ample research shows that scores on fill-in-the-bubble reading tests are the most reliable predictors of Americans' … ability to become effective citizens." But effective citizenship cannot be empirically measured, and cannot be divorced from value judgments.
| |
“Our schools employ a host of behavioral techniques and reward systems that seem to come straight from the Dog Whisperer. ” |
The more the fate of the teachers, principals, and schools has come to rest on squeezing a few more points out of their students the more they have, inevitably and predictably, resorted to even higher levels of coercion and control, and emphasized one value above all others: unquestioning obedience to authority. Worse than test-prep centers, our schools have become obedience schools, employing a host of behavioral techniques and reward systems that seem to come straight from the Dog Whisperer. Ask any kid what it means to "be good" in school, and the response will be: "Being quiet, and doing what the teacher says." Whether that value is conducive to effective citizenship depends, I would suggest, on one’s political viewpoint.
Hirsch admits that as the curriculum has become more test-driven, reading scores have declined. It is entertaining to watch him struggle to explain how the tests are not the problem. When our economy tanked, Alan Greenspan admitted that his hypotheses were flawed. How much educational damage do we have to sustain before Hirsch does the same?
Chris Liebig '87
Iowa City, Iowa

|