divine angst

This is yet another New York Times article that makes me sad. I understand that because school funding is tied to test performance, schools’ hands are somewhat tied as they try to improve the performances of the students who struggle the most. What I don’t understand is why all subjects are dropped except reading and math. Don’t students read in social studies? Or in history? And don’t they do math in (certain) science classes? So, OK, I can see that some students might need extra math. But why can’t social studies and history teachers incorporate reading skills into their lessons? Why do the subjects have to be dropped?

I understand that there are pedagogical differences in the teaching of reading, as a skill, than in the teaching of history. But students who are learning to read must be learning by reading something. Doesn’t it seem like there’s an educational market out there for textbooks and other materials that present history or social studies in ways that are consistent with reading pedagogy? If that market doesn’t exist, is it because there’s no money in it? After all, the school districts that can afford the best materials are those that tend to have fewer problems meeting the standardized test benchmarks. The poor urban and rural schools that need the most help can’t afford it. And that’s unfortunate. A generation of young people will leave school without experiencing the wonder of history or biology or chemistry, because, pedagogically, no one could figure out how to teach them those things while tying in sufficient math and reading skills.