Really appreciate this substack. It’s altering our approaches to teaching in both my classroom and our organization. Really love the implication sections of the paragraphs, and also appreciate the embedded research explanations.
Thank you for this. A colleague in literacy leadership was talking today about the trouble with packaged knowledge-building curricula that features content too complex for a given group’s age/grade level (an example she offered was teaching first graders about the Mayans). She wasn’t expressing concern about appropriateness of the content, just purely the complexity match (or, mismatch). I tend to agree with Bruner’s famous “any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development,” but I don’t think her point is necessarily at odds with it. I wondered if you could point me in the direction of any resources that offer nuanced discussion of building knowledge-rich curricula that carefully considers the concern she’s raising. Let me know if anything comes to mind!!
Hi Andrew, thanks for your reply! I think we likely see eye to eye on many things. I’m very aware of Hirsch’s work, role, influence—and of the many ways his work falls short of what I believe serves the interest of all students. Freire was foundational to my formation as a teacher and remains an anchor for all my work. I’m always making the path by walking, and I’m always returning to him and holding up my ideas to see if they align with my values.
The same is true of culturally sustaining pedagogies. They have always been at the forefront of my instructional practice.
Your point about cultural funds of knowledge is an important one, and undoubtedly for this reason there will be no one size fits all knowledge-building curriculum. This is exactly why I’m so frustrated and disappointed to discover that so many districts are willing to go ahead and pay for a program for k-5 when they have both the human talent already in district (including community stakeholders beyond the classroom!) and the opportunity to build something of their own which serves their specific populations.
All that said, in my many years in the classroom, it became increasingly clear to me that my HS students reading at least three grade levels below grade were lacking a TON of knowledge they needed about the world to make sense of the text. This doesn’t mean they didn’t have important cultural knowledge to bring to bear in so many ways. It doesn’t mean that knowledge doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean that knowledge doesn’t aid their comprehension. But it wasn’t enough. My entire program was based on an intensive independent reading workshop (access to if I do say so myself an amazing classroom library as well as, thankfully, a wonderful school library), supplemented with very intentional, responsive, regular article and vocabulary study (explicitly taught), and I surely did watch my readers grow both before my eyes and on their Star reading tests. (At that point, Star reading tests essential relied on vocabulary knowledge, and I believe that this was a satisfactory measure of their reading progress.) My efforts were measurable fruitful. But they didn’t grow enough. They jumped by years often, but they did not always get on level. They may have gone from a GL 3.6 to a GL 5.8 in one year. Amazing. But not. Enough. To support their ability to think critically in the world as they move into adulthood.
I see the current focus on knowledge-building curricula as an important piece of the puzzle that will support the students I taught to make sense of the world at an earlier grade level.
Implementation will vary wildly, and that is what I’m trying to parse out. I’m not willing to dismiss the entire enterprise as banking method education. I just don’t believe it to be true. You cannot navigate systems of power without an understanding of those systems. And that understanding is not just going to materialize for student who cannot access texts. And I don’t believe they are going to be able to fully access complex texts in time on their own, without knowledge-building, even with a comprehensive IR program that provides them access to a wide variety of options. I can only base this evidence on what I have seen in my own career of 18 years working grade 6-post secondary , but I think from what I’ve seen in your comment above, you’d agree that educators’ expertise is a worthy source of information.
Yes, when I say “comprehensive,” I am talking all the bells and whistles (which are actually just what is necessary!)—robust program with near daily book talks (usually me, sometimes them), conferring, book passes to build our lists, craft study with YA and adult fiction mentors, the works! It was a thing of beauty. I miss it! But due to family reasons cannot work full time at the moment, so I supervise student teachers in their final clinical placements and try to preach the gospel of IR & reading workshop to them. :)
"Frank Smith told us this 30 years ago." My copy of Smith's Understanding Reading has come in at the library, and I'm picking it up tomorrow. I've been thinking a lot about how we teachers can know which experts to trust (part 1 is next week's post), and I will be looking for the research supporting Frank Smith's opinions. I'm also drafting a post on 'instructional illusions', which have plagued our field. At some point, the recommendation rubber needs to meet the research road.
Really appreciate this substack. It’s altering our approaches to teaching in both my classroom and our organization. Really love the implication sections of the paragraphs, and also appreciate the embedded research explanations.
Thank you for this. A colleague in literacy leadership was talking today about the trouble with packaged knowledge-building curricula that features content too complex for a given group’s age/grade level (an example she offered was teaching first graders about the Mayans). She wasn’t expressing concern about appropriateness of the content, just purely the complexity match (or, mismatch). I tend to agree with Bruner’s famous “any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development,” but I don’t think her point is necessarily at odds with it. I wondered if you could point me in the direction of any resources that offer nuanced discussion of building knowledge-rich curricula that carefully considers the concern she’s raising. Let me know if anything comes to mind!!
Hi Andrew, thanks for your reply! I think we likely see eye to eye on many things. I’m very aware of Hirsch’s work, role, influence—and of the many ways his work falls short of what I believe serves the interest of all students. Freire was foundational to my formation as a teacher and remains an anchor for all my work. I’m always making the path by walking, and I’m always returning to him and holding up my ideas to see if they align with my values.
The same is true of culturally sustaining pedagogies. They have always been at the forefront of my instructional practice.
Your point about cultural funds of knowledge is an important one, and undoubtedly for this reason there will be no one size fits all knowledge-building curriculum. This is exactly why I’m so frustrated and disappointed to discover that so many districts are willing to go ahead and pay for a program for k-5 when they have both the human talent already in district (including community stakeholders beyond the classroom!) and the opportunity to build something of their own which serves their specific populations.
All that said, in my many years in the classroom, it became increasingly clear to me that my HS students reading at least three grade levels below grade were lacking a TON of knowledge they needed about the world to make sense of the text. This doesn’t mean they didn’t have important cultural knowledge to bring to bear in so many ways. It doesn’t mean that knowledge doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean that knowledge doesn’t aid their comprehension. But it wasn’t enough. My entire program was based on an intensive independent reading workshop (access to if I do say so myself an amazing classroom library as well as, thankfully, a wonderful school library), supplemented with very intentional, responsive, regular article and vocabulary study (explicitly taught), and I surely did watch my readers grow both before my eyes and on their Star reading tests. (At that point, Star reading tests essential relied on vocabulary knowledge, and I believe that this was a satisfactory measure of their reading progress.) My efforts were measurable fruitful. But they didn’t grow enough. They jumped by years often, but they did not always get on level. They may have gone from a GL 3.6 to a GL 5.8 in one year. Amazing. But not. Enough. To support their ability to think critically in the world as they move into adulthood.
I see the current focus on knowledge-building curricula as an important piece of the puzzle that will support the students I taught to make sense of the world at an earlier grade level.
Implementation will vary wildly, and that is what I’m trying to parse out. I’m not willing to dismiss the entire enterprise as banking method education. I just don’t believe it to be true. You cannot navigate systems of power without an understanding of those systems. And that understanding is not just going to materialize for student who cannot access texts. And I don’t believe they are going to be able to fully access complex texts in time on their own, without knowledge-building, even with a comprehensive IR program that provides them access to a wide variety of options. I can only base this evidence on what I have seen in my own career of 18 years working grade 6-post secondary , but I think from what I’ve seen in your comment above, you’d agree that educators’ expertise is a worthy source of information.
Thank you in kind for engaging!
Yes, when I say “comprehensive,” I am talking all the bells and whistles (which are actually just what is necessary!)—robust program with near daily book talks (usually me, sometimes them), conferring, book passes to build our lists, craft study with YA and adult fiction mentors, the works! It was a thing of beauty. I miss it! But due to family reasons cannot work full time at the moment, so I supervise student teachers in their final clinical placements and try to preach the gospel of IR & reading workshop to them. :)
"Frank Smith told us this 30 years ago." My copy of Smith's Understanding Reading has come in at the library, and I'm picking it up tomorrow. I've been thinking a lot about how we teachers can know which experts to trust (part 1 is next week's post), and I will be looking for the research supporting Frank Smith's opinions. I'm also drafting a post on 'instructional illusions', which have plagued our field. At some point, the recommendation rubber needs to meet the research road.