I get the substack of a writer named Joel M. Miller. His short bio says, Chief content officer at Full Focus. Former VP of editorial and acquisitions at Thomas Nelson. Author of several books, including The Idea Machine: How Books Built Our World and Shape Our Future.
This man knows books. I find his substack worth reading (not all are, and most are not worth paying for). In today's article, he interviews a veteran English teacher, Matt Ryan, of Massachusetts, who started a TikTok group/channel/hashtage (I don't know the lingo for it) called CanonChat. Here is a part of the interview.
As an educator, you’ve been critical of the move by the National Council of Teachers of English to “decenter” book reading (which seems utterly bonkers, if not cultural suicide). What’s the strongest version of the argument you’re opposing—and where does it go wrong?
The strongest version of NCTE’s argument is a claim that is undeniably true: Students now live in a world that bombards them with messages on digital screens and we have to acknowledge this new reality. They argue that “decentering” book reading is not an attack on literature but rather an attempt to correct an outdated hierarchy that “valorizes” the written word over other literacies students need to participate in contemporary culture.
I’d argue that this is precisely why books must be centered. The digital world doesn’t make sustained reading obsolete; it makes it indispensable. Reading full-length works is the only literacy practice that builds skills students need: stamina, inference, and the ability to follow complex threads of meaning. These aren’t luxuries or skills meant only for English majors. These are the very moves that will allow students to make sense of the algorithmically‑driven content that NCTE rightly worries about.
We also can’t ignore that books, especially good books, offer something digital media rarely does: the chance to develop theory of mind. Students inhabit another mind for hundreds of pages, grapple with ambiguity, and follow a character or argument across time. This kind of sustained engagement is the foundation of empathy, critical thinking, and intellectual independence.
Centering books is not a nostalgic defense of print for its own sake. The NCTE should recognize that the written word remains the most powerful tool for developing the very competencies NCTE claims to value: critical reading, thoughtful communication, and the ability to participate meaningfully in civic life. If we want students to analyze media power structures, detect misinformation, and express themselves with clarity and nuance, they need the habits of mind that come from reading challenging, beautiful, enduring texts.
There’s a strong push in English education to let students choose their own books instead of reading a shared text. You’ve pushed back, saying whole-class reading with teacher modeling is more effective. How does that play out in your classroom, and what persuaded you that it matters? Is there documented evidence it works better?
I like this question because I always wonder if we would take the same approach in other subject areas? Do we offer math students the opportunity to choose only the types of problems they enjoy or the operations they prefer? Do history teachers ask students to learn only about the events or figures in history that appeal to them? I do believe that those who promote student-choice reading have good intentions. And the approach seems to make sense: students are more likely to read about things that interest them.
But there are flaws here. One, many students struggle with the actual act of reading. Asking them to work their way through a book on their own might result in the practicing of bad habits. Furthermore, how is a student to know what they might enjoy if they aren’t exposed to it in the first place? One way to develop interest is to share a wide variety of examples with them. I hold with Flannery O’Connor when she writes the following:
The high-school English teacher will be fulfilling his responsibility if he furnishes the student a guided opportunity, through the best writing of the past, to come, in time, to an understanding of the best writing of the present. . . . And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed.
It sounds a bit harsh, but it’s true.
_______
I attended a National Council of Teachers of English conference in Denver in the late '90s. It has huge. I have a few memories, but one was unforgettable. They were championing the teaching of Navajo to young members of the tribe, so that the language would not be lost. One of the leaders of the effort was asked to give the invocation over a meal. He launched into a long, incomprehensible to 99.9% of the people there, chant in Navajo. It went on quite a while, and I confess to getting the giggles; My traveling partner did, as well.
What that had to do with the teaching of English, I still don't know. From what I've pasted here, they have given up on the mission inherent in their title. To "decenter reading books" seems about as woke and educationally suicidal, a form of malpractice, as it could be.
Note: I think the teaching of tribal languages is important work; I tried to get classes in Cherokee at my college before I retired. It's just not teaching English.
Comments
Post a Comment