I was listening to this fantastic interview of Nancie Atwell and Mark Bauerline on Minnesota Public Radio's "Midmorning" show last week.
From the MPR website:
Nancie Atwell: Teacher, seventh and eighth grade English at the Center for Teaching and Learning, a nonprofit demonstration school. She's the author of "The Reading Zone: How to Help Kids Become Skilled, Passionate, Habitual, Critical Readers."
Mark Bauerlein: Professor of English at Emory University and author of "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future."
In this great conversation, they discuss whether or not giving kids complete autonomy in choosing books in order to build their skills and appreciation of reading outweighs the potential harm done by forcing kids to read literature from the cannon.
It's a tough question for me personally because I taught high school English and made a living of getting kids to read books even when they didn't want to because the books were "good for them."
It's also tough for me because my 4th grade son is a fantastic reader, a kid who really churns through books. However, half of the books he reads seem like tripe. But. I'm glad he's reading.
So it's a tough debate. Is all reading good reading? Are classics important to the healthy development of a young person?
It's a well nuanced argument. Here at Search, we cite reading for pleasure as one of our Developmental Assets. It's number 25.
We don't necessarily suggest what they should be reading, we simply say that reading is important. But is reading important literature important?
I know I want kids to read. I want them to read a lot. I want them to read daily. So I suppose I personally think reading is good for reading's sake.
But I also know that I've seen kids get turned onto amazing questions and critical thinking via books that they maybe wouldn't have chosen themselves.
I wonder what my fellow teachers and parents think. Where do you stand on the debate?
Post new comment