Time Vs. Content Coverage--the Epic Battle

As I was thinking back to my high school days and on my own experiences learning history, I recalled an episode from one of my favorite shows of all time: Beverly Hills 90210.  In this particular episode, Brandon Walsh (the main character) who usually loves American history complains to his friends that Mr. Danzel (his teacher) has ruined history class.  By assessing students through impossible, factual-based quizzes, Mr. Danzel has reduced the study of history to little more than memorizing "a bunch of facts."  Some students at West Beverly High, including Brandon himself, feel so much pressure to pass these quizzes they are willing to cheat.  When Brandon confronts Mr. Danzel with his concerns over these quizzes, Danzel defends his teaching methods, arguing that "memorization lays the foundation for a college education where [students'] ideas can be more fully examined."  In response, Brandon wonders who will fully examine these ideas--"A group of kids who have never been challenged to think?"

Within this classic episode of 90210, Brandon and his teacher find themselves engaged in the great debate over depth Vs. breadth in the teaching of social studies content: do we expose our students to as much content as possible to help them know the facts, or do we take Brandon's advice and slow down our teaching to provide opportunities for deep learning of less content?

Throughout my teaching experience, most of the social studies teachers I've met love their content.  They have study it, analyzed it, and have worked hard to become experts.  To know their facts.  And year after year, these teachers are forced into the perpetual battle, pitting time against coverage, often feeling pressure to rush their teaching in order to get through their district mandated curriculum.  Not only is this battle exhausting, but it also does little more than to promote surface-level learning--learning that is subject to rapid forgetting over the course of time.  Students might retain the information long enough to circle the correct answer on a multiple choice test; however, as Brandon points out to his teacher, students will not acquire the deep learning of content material that allows them to reflect upon, connect, and integrate knowledge.  Ironically, it is the very thing we and Mr. Danzel do to “get through” the curriculum that inhibits deep learning.  Our love affair with the content and our honorable mission to impart historical knowledge might be sabotaging the learning of students--students like Brandon who might eventually grow frustrated and fall out of love with history.  This certainly is not the intention of Mr. Danzel or of any social studies teacher engaged in an all-out content coverage battle, but it could very well be an unfortunate side effect.

In the book Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn (2014), Hattie and Yates reviewed a study examining time’s role in promoting deeper learning.  In this study, the same eighth grade curriculum was taught in four different ways--as a full 12 week period or as a cut-down form in either 9 week, 6 week, or 3 week versions.  In all four versions, the same four topics were covered; however, the time allocated to teach each topic was dramatically reduced.  According to the results, this reduction in time made very little impact on multiple choice exam scores.  However, on written tests that assessed the depth of learning, students in the classes with reduced time for learning were unable to pass.  These students, like 90210's Brandon, who received the abridged version of the curriculum could not make connections or integrate ideas across the four units.  Just as Brandon had warned, rushing through the content forced teachers, like Mr. Danzel, to limit opportunities for students to engage in a variety of meaningful and enriching activities that would have promoted knowledge building.  

Think about how many times we as teachers have been forced to cut short a class discussion in order to quickly lecture through the material so kids “get what they need” for a test--and get it fast.  Or think about the teacher who is forced to cancel the class debate, skip an inquiry-based learning experience, or cut an analysis of a primary source document simply because she’s “a week behind” the other social studies teachers battling the content down the hall from her.

When we remove these powerful and engaging learning opportunities in favor of teacher lectures with PowerPointed quick-and-easy summaries of important historical events, we reduce our practice to nothing more than pre-packaged knowledge handed over by an authority figure--or as Steve, the class clown from Beverly Hills 90210, describes it: "a fossil in a suit." Yikes!  We might be able to progress through more material at a faster rate, but are the kids really learning? Could Brandon be right about his assessment of Mr. Danzel's teaching:  Can kids "dig deeper into the broader historical context" if we don't promote their historical thinking skills? 

Hattie and Yates (2014) refer to Mr. Danzel's style of teaching as the recitation method.  Using this method, Mr. Danzel might provide a lecture as described above, or he might interact with the class by inviting students to respond to teacher-initiated questions.  When a student responds, he evaluates the response before moving on to his next question.  This series of questions and answers is typically carried out in an orderly fashion, with the teacher highlighting what he perceives to be the key points of the curriculum.  Unfortunately, these teacher-generated questions are usually low-level and factual, requiring simplistic answers.  Typically, only one student at a time is active while the majority of the students watch and listen--or simply appear to be listening.  Overall, the “conversations” involved in this method are predictable and unengaging.  Students show up to watch the teacher work rather than actively participating in their own learning.

We are all familiar with this routine.  Think back to your own high school days when the teacher would ask the class a question (a factual question with a clear right or wrong answer rather than a thoughtful-provoking question that would elicit a back-and-forth student discussion).  A few students--usually the same ones every time--would raise their hands to answer the question.  After a while, we all began to figure out the kids who get it and the kids who don’t.  I didn’t get it, but I sure learned how to become invisible during those “discussions.”  If I moved my head into just the right position behind the kid in front of me, I could hide out and never be noticed.  Unfortunately, this trick didn’t work in all my classes.  Every once in a while, I would get the teacher who would ask a question, but instead of engaging in the back-and-forth exchange between the smarty-pants sub-group of kids who love to answer these teachery-type questions, he would purposely call on the kids trying to hide out and act invisible.  In these classes, I spent so much time worrying about being called upon that I had no energy left for actual learning.  

Why do teachers hold onto these routines?  Why does this type of teaching persists in so many social studies classrooms despite decades of criticism and attacks from expert educators?  

Simply put, we and Mr. Danzel teach this way because we are forced to battle the clock to cover the content.  The recitation model is swift, easy, and creates the illusion (the feeling) of teaching.  Content coverage is the worst type of nemesis in our curriculum battle because it manipulates us into thinking we’re doing what’s best for kids.  Mr. Danzel and the other history teachers engaged in this battle truly want students to love the content, to know their facts, and to understand the history of their world.  We want to share our knowledge with them; however, brain research tells us that exposing students to high levels of information presented through lectures and teacher-talk overloads the wandering mind of an adolescent.  All those facts we want kids to know and to love simply don’t stick for most learners.

So what can we do?  First, we need to focus on depth rather than breadth.  

1.  Search for the essential questions or big pictures.  According to Bruce A. Lesh in his book Why Won't You Just Tell Us the Answer? Teaching Historical Thinking in Grades 7-12 (2011), the teacher's role in helping students develop as historical thinkers is to provide students with context and historical information that will allow them to address powerful and thought-provoking questions.  Organizing student learning around an "essential question" rather than a list of content standards compels students to explore the past.  The new C3 Framework for Social Studies States Standards supports the use of compelling and supporting questions as the central element to the teaching and learning process.

2.  Don’t just teach the fact, but give kids time to apply this knowledge.  Simply spending more time on an activity doesn’t improve learning unless there is guidance, instruction, feedback.  Lesh argues that "to fully promote a study of the past, students must be taught and provided the occasion to engage in the development, defense, and revision of evidence-based historical interpretations" (21).  Teachers need to work with kids on both content and process if they are to provide a comprehensive study of the past. 

3.  Create opportunities for quality student talk.  We can’t just put students in groups and encourage them to talk.  We need deliberate strategies to structure these discussions.  Try using the structured Paideia model or or even Socratic Seminar.

In the following example, 7th grade social studies teachers at Woodlawn Middle allowed depth to trump breadth.  For this activity, the teachers shared an image depicting an historical event and asked students to scan the image and circle anything they see that helped them determine who created the photo, when, and why.  At first, teachers guided students through the activity, modeling their thinking as they analyzed the picture.  Eventually, they handed over the analysis to the students, providing time for students to collaborate before writing their analyses.  See below:

The Golden Spike—Primary Source Analysis

Directions:

 Scan the image below carefully from left to right, top to bottom.  Circle anything you see in the image that helps you determine who created this photo, when and why?   Label each item you circle with a short bullet point/jot dot describing what it tells you.  Once you’ve completely analyzed the image, answer the question that follows in a well-written paragraph. 

Question: 

This image clearly relates to one of the historic movements that helped to shape American culture.  Which movement does it relate to and how do you know?

  

In the end, it all boils down to what we believe our role is in preparing students for college and beyond by asking ourselves what we really want students to get out of our class.  Do we want students to memorize the facts, or do we want them to be able to apply historical thinking skills?  After reflecting on Brandon's critique of his history class, Mr. Danzel had a change of heart.  At the end of the episode, after handing out the dreaded mid-term exam, he asks students to tear up the test.  Instead of regurgitating facts on a test he has given year after year, he tells students he wants to "know what [they] think."  He asks students to write a thoughtful response to the following question:  "Using examples from history and your own answers, what do you think our government should have done in the 19th century to save the American Indians?" Brandon, the last student to turn in his response, walks up to Mr. Danzel and says, "That was a hard question, but a good hard question."  In the end, Brandon's love of history is reignited, and Mr. Danzel embraces the challenge of teaching his students to think.  Perhaps in our own battle against the clock, we can remember Mr. Danzel's struggle and let go of content coverage in exchange for deep and meaningful learning.

Works Cited:

"College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards." National Council for the Social Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2014.

Hattie, John, and Gregory Yates. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. London & New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Lesh, Bruce A. "Why Won't You Just Tell Us the Answer?" Teaching Historical Thinking in Grades 7-12. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse, 2011. Print.

Star, Darren. "Higher Education" Beverly Hills 90210. Fox. 15 Nov. 1990. Television.

Equity in the Classroom: Building Background Knowledge

       The bell rings to begin fourth period and seven students slowly trickle into the reading intervention classroom in Anywhere, USA.  Their hands are shoved into their pockets.  They've brought no supplies. Despite the look of complacency on most of the students' faces,  the teacher begins with a warm smile and cheerful disposition and welcomes the new students to the first day of class.  "That doesn't mean we are going to actually read in here, does it?"  asks a student who is slumped so far down in his desk, his face is barely visible:  "I hate reading."  And so begins another teacher's mission to assist those who struggle find books they love while simultaneously building literacy skills and background knowledge.  This scenario depicts the daily battle that many teachers of mainstream classes and intervention classes alike must overcome in schools across America.  Luckily, we have many fantastic educators who are up for the challenge.
 
      At a 2012 conference on reading that I attended, Kelly Gallagher plainly stated: "You have to know stuff to be able to read stuff."  In other words, students must possess background knowledge  in order to be able to comprehend and analyze material on related topics.  Background knowledge can be developed in many ways, but the best source of background knowledge, of course, comes from first-hand experiences and wide reading.  Is it any wonder, then, that study after study reveals that students who come from families who struggle financially often possess less background knowledge than their grade level peers?  When parents are working two grueling jobs and struggling just to put food on the table, can we fault them for failing to find the money or time to bring their children to pricey museums and week-long ski trips?  Can we even fault them for not having the energy to sit down and read with their children at the end of a sixteen-hour work day? 
  
         The reality is that many students across the nation will come to us with limited background knowledge, thus complicating their ability to understand what they read.  Since we cannot take students on daily field trips across the globe, we must instead find ways inside our classrooms to increase students' world experiences.  In their article "Building And Activating Background Knowledge,"  Douglas Fischer and Nancy Frey remind us that "comprehension strategies cannot compensate for missing background information."  In other word, using best practices to explicitly teach students solid reading strategies will do no good if we don't couple our instruction with helping kids develop background knowledge.  I think this message bears repeating. 

You can be the best teacher on the planet, using best practices daily, and if you do not help students to build background knowledge, some will never succeed.

 So how do great teachers help build background knowledge so all can succeed?

Ways to Build Background

1)  Explicitly Teach Vocabulary --  Heather Haggerty reminds us that "Background knowledge plays a key role in a student's ability to learn new information, and vocabulary is a key component to accessing background knowledge.  The words students have to describe their experiences with a  concept will give teachers great insight into what students actually know before the lesson starts."

Studies have shown that little time is actually spent in older grades explicitly teaching vocabulary.  Although many teachers instruct students on how to look up words in a dictionary and how to use context clues, little time is spent formally teaching new words to older students.  However, the research is clear:  if teachers take the time to pre-teach academic words in all content areas, those students with limited background knowledge will be more equipped to tackle texts containing these words than if no time is spent explicitly teaching words.  In order for vocabulary instruction to be effective teachers should provide students with repeated exposures to the same words, allowing students to create connections between the new concept and their prior knowledge whenever possible.  Using the words in discussion, demonstrating which contexts the words should be used and providing a visual picture of the new words are all strategies that will help students to own the new word.   Additionally, short video clips, labeling photographs, and word webs are additional ways to study words while building background simultaneously.

2)  Choose Reading Material Wisely -- With the Common Core pushing teachers to build skills in literacy across the content areas, it is important that teachers choose carefully the texts they will use with their students.   Since we are thankfully no longer an educational system that values regurgitation of random facts above the acquisition of those skills that would enable students to independently navigate difficult texts, choosing texts that will help students to better prepared to make sense of the world in which they live is key.  Although beginning with a high interest topic on celebrities or pop culture might be a place to begin instruction of a difficult learning target, eventually the texts and tasks teachers choose should help students should help to build background.  Prior to reading Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry, for example, teachers could expose students to texts about post-Civil War America and school segregation.  Not only can these texts serve as a vehicle to teach new literacy strategies, but teachers and students can also breathe a sigh of relief that engaging texts can replace the forty-five minute lecture that did little but cause students to tune out and  teachers' voices to go hoarse.


3) Avoid Boxed Reading Materials Programs  In her article, "Seven Ways to Kill RTI,"  Brandi Noll reminds educators that research supports the idea that " commercially produced programs sporadically improve isolated skills such as alphabetics — students’ ability to read words in isolation — but most fail to improve real reading."  This should be good news for educators, since these programs are costly yet unnecessary.  The sad truth, however, is that many systems choose to forgo quality professional development for the easy packaged program.  To add fuel to the fire is the fact that these packaged programs were created without any knowledge of the specific students who will be receiving the intervention.   It is the highly qualified teacher taking the time to know his or her students on a deep level who is able to help students build background knowledge, brush up on reading strategies, and ultimately come to enjoy reading.  Instead of packaged programs, why not ask students to complete interest surveys or anticipation guides as a way to find out what they already know about, what they want to know about, and what they need to know about to be successful with the texts they'll be encountering?  Allowing student choice leads to increased motivation leads to increased background knowledge leads to increased learning.  Find me a child that is intrinsically motivated by the worksheets and quick reads of which many pre-packaged programs are comprised, and I will show you a parent who enjoys who enjoys watching his child strike out at a baseball game.

4) Teach Thematically --  If you browse many of the existing units that claim to be Common Core aligned, one of the first similarities you will probably notice is that they all begin with an essential question.  In a 2012 Conference, Jeffrey Wilhelm suggests starting any instructional unit a thematic question.   This question increases student motivation because students are better able to see a purpose for their reading and exploring of texts.  Wilhelm identifies a good inquiry-based question as one that is enduring, engaging, at the heart of a discipline, and in need of uncovering.  In other words, the question shouldn't be one that is easily answered.  It shouldn't have one correct answer.  It should be debatable.  What makes a good friend?   Is perfection an obtainable goal?    Is war a necessary evil?   Teaching thematically with an inquiry-based question guiding the work helps to build background knowledge because students are able to make connections between the readings.  They may start with little background knowledge on a particular subject and through the unit accumulate a wealth of knowledge that will enable them to be able to read more texts on similar topics with ease.


5) Allow Time For Turn and Talk  --  When building background knowledge, it is important that students have time to discuss and share their ideas with others.  Giving students a few minutes to discuss in pairs or small groups allows them to explore new ideas, share new insights, and make sense of information before being asked to share their thoughts in a whole group setting.  Additionally, by embedding "turn and talk" practices into a classroom routine, the teacher is ensuring that all students have an opportunity to discuss key information as opposed to only a select few students who may choose to participate in a larger group setting.  When time is tight, the "turn and talk" is usually the lesson component that is the first to be cut.  Unfortunately, it is the most needed component to ensure that all can succeed.

         Thankfully, building background does not mean formal lectures given by teachers with little student interaction.   I am sure you have heard before that teachers should never be doing more work than their students.  Turn and talk requires students to take ownership of their own learning.   Giving students opportunities to discuss new vocabulary terms and the texts they read about timely topics on a thematically based unit will work wonders for all. 
   

The Forgotten Stepchild of The Literary World

         When my colleague Erica Martin and I finished our three-year graduate program in literacy from NIU, we felt the way people would expect us to feel:  elated, relieved,  and proud.  At the same time, however, we also experienced another emotion:  fear.  By spending our time reading the latest books and research articles in the field of literacy that had been emailed to us in a neat little bundle and having the opportunity to discuss these new ideas with classmates who were just as excited about literacy as we were, we had become somewhat spoiled.  We were now responsible for our own learning once again.  How were we going to continue to advance our learning and knowledge on our own while at the same time keep up with the demands of our jobs, our children, and our daily lives?   Well, one convenient place that has allowed me to continue to grow and learn from colleagues is Twitter.  I love it because I can literally spend five or ten minutes in line reading an article or blog post and feel as if I am staying current on the new ideas in a fairly expedient manner. 
           This morning, while scrolling through Twitter, a post by Stephanie Harvey really touched a nerve with me:  "Every child every day should hear an adult read something aloud, equal amounts of fiction and nonfiction and at least one poem a day" (@Stephharvey49).  If you recall, the first instructional shift of the Common Core State Standards calls for a "true balance of informational and literary texts" (engageny.org).  In fact, the Core breaks it down even further to percentages.  By 8th grade, students should be reading 45% literary material and 55% informational text.  Shanahan reminds us that these numbers do not apply only to English class, but to the students' reading material across the school day (www.shanahanonliteracy.com).  While I am genuinely pleased to see a heavier emphasis placed on informational text reading in all classes, and I am thrilled that content area teachers are beginning to view themselves as instructors of literacy, I am worried that as an educational system, many schools have misinterpreted the core and are offering students less opportunities to read poetry and other pieces of quality literature.   Personally, I would hate to live in a world where poetry has become obsolete.
            If you think I am overreacting, I ask you to reflect on this question:  when was the last time you (and by you - I mean teachers of all disciplines - not just English teachers) read a poem aloud to students?  Do you read aloud a poem daily as is recommended by Stephanie Harvey in her recent Tweet?  Weekly?  Monthly?  If you cannot remember the last time you read a poem to students,  I would argue that perhaps you should reconsider as poetry should still play an integral part in the learning of students everywhere for the following reasons:

        1.  Poetry's Connection to Social Emotional Learning  While some may argue that poetry is "unnecessary" because most of our students won't grow up to become poet laureates or even English majors, poetry has a strong connection to Social Emotional Learning.  Poetry is about feelings, discovery, and understanding the world in which we live.  It helps us cope when time are tough and celebrate our joy and accomplishments.  As Dylan Thomas explains eloquently, "Poetry is what in a poem makes you laugh, cry, prickle, be silent, makes your toe nails twinkle, makes you want to do this or that or nothing, makes you know that you are alone in the unknown world, that your bliss and suffering is forever shared and forever all your own."  A large part of Social Emotional Learning requires students to be able to see events from the perspectives of others and to value the unique differences in attitudes and ideas that make each of us an individual.   Poetry is the perfect medium to help students grow in this area.  In her recent edutopia blog on the need to continue teaching poetry in schools, Elena Aguilar argues that "Our schools are places of too much "brain only;" we must find ways to surface other ways of being, other modes of learning. And we must find ways to talk about the difficult and unexplainable things in life -- death and suffering and even profound joy and transformation." Sometimes, poetry helps us to put words on the indescribable.
              For those of you that need more "hard" and "fast" proof that poetry increases empathy in students, consider the recent research study in New York City that concluded just that.  In the study, students who were given literary fiction reading assignments scored significantly higher in their ability to recognize and draw conclusions about the feelings and emotions of others versus those who were given non-fiction or genre-fiction reading assignment.  The results of this study really speak volumes to the need for students to be given opportunities to read quality literature and poetry to better understand the world.  They probably won't do it on their own. The world is too full of distractions these days.  They need you, their educator, to help them remember what they did not know they knew.  Kelly Gallagher refers to these opportunities to read and discover oneself through fiction as "rehearsals for life."  Of course, students may not become poets or English majors, but they are all a part of the human race.  Poetry and quality literature enables them to practice life experiences prior to having first hand experience with similar milestones.  Additionally, poems can enable students to comprehend and value experiences they may never encounter otherwise.

           2.  Poetry Helps Students Understand Informational Text on A Deeper Level  Another misconception of the Common Core Standards is that text dependent questioning is the only type of questioning that should be occurring in classrooms.  While it is true that Shift #4 requires students to "engage in rich and rigorous evidence based conversations about text," (engageny.org) we would be doing a serious disservice to students if our discussions were entirely scripted and teacher-centered.  In previous blogs, we have spoken about the importance of achieving authentic student-centered discussions in your classrooms.  And while it is crucial that students first understand the text and engage in discussions that require rereading of key passages and analysis of word choice, tone, and diction,  it is these very discussions that set the stage for students to be better equipped to engage in the commonly misconstrued as taboo reader-response type questions:  How would you have acted in a similar situation?  How do you think the narrator felt when that happened?  These questions are the kinds that drive book clubs and adult reading circles everywhere, because they remind us that we, as readers, bring our own unique perspective to the text.  We engage in discussions of these types because they help students figure out who they are and who they want to be, using the literature to help get us there.  In the years before CCSS, teachers may have begun with these questions.  The problem with this format is that the text did not help drive the ideas of the readers.  It was simply an afterthought at best. The CCSS remind us that students first must possess a deep understanding of the actual text before they can engage in a rich reader-response type discussion.   Poetry, is the perfect medium, to help students make these connections to real-world events.  What could be  more powerful than reading a poem from a hurricane survivor after reading about the science behind the disaster?  What has a more lasting effect on the human heart than reading a poem written by a Holocaust survivor after studying this horrific tragedy in a history class?  To quote Aristotle, "Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history;  for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular."  Why not make the particular more accessible and significant in the minds of our students by supplementing it with poetry?

           3.  Poetry is a Celebration of Words and Language  Those of you who know me probably know of my relentless passion for vocabulary instruction.  Research solidly supports that explicit instruction in words and language increases a student's ability to comprehend challenging text:  a necessary precursor to the Common Core Targets that require synthesis, analysis, and inference-making of these same texts.   What better way to motivate students to learn new words and use them playfully than through poetry?  When I was in college, I took several poetry and fiction writing workshop classes.  I loved that a roomful of adults felt it important enough to sit around a in a circle and discuss the power of words on a page.  During this time, I would often eat lunch with an adult returning student who was also an avid poetry writer.  She carried her poems with her under her arm, and each time she read one aloud it was like she was unwrapping a new gift to herself.  I marveled at the amount of energy she would spend on  contemplating a single word change in a single line of her work, aware that the subtle changes in sound and meaning of the new word could have an enormous impact on the piece as a whole.   How great would it be if we could help our students to channel a bit of this passion for language and words  through the exploration of poetry mentor texts?   

            Of course, I think most of us would agree that poetry has a value in education today.  So why, then, are we, as a system, not investing our energy on it?   I've heard the argument recently, "But I don't have time for poetry!  I'm too busy teaching all these Common Core Standards."  To this, I ask:  are you sure you are teaching the standards?  The 7th grade Literature Targets alone make multiple references to poetry.  Standard Four in Seventh grade reads:  Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of rhymes and other repetitions of sounds (e.g., alliteration) on a specific verse or stanza of a poem or section of a story or drama.  And Standard Five:   Analyze how a drama’s or poem’s form or structure (e.g., soliloquy, sonnet) contributes to its meaning.  The sophistication of these standards is evident;  poetry instruction obviously cannot begin and end with seventh grade.  If you believe you are teaching the Common Core but have eliminated poetry from your classroom, I urge you to do a close reading of those standards one more time. 
            Since the Common Core clearly has emphasized the genre of poetry as important, does that mean teachers everywhere can dust the cobwebs off of their six week poetry unit and begin spending several weeks on identification of similes, metaphors, onomatopoeia, and hyperbole?  Thankfully, not.  Of course, some teachers may mourn the death of this unit, feeling that it was one that students enjoyed.  I would argue that it might have been one that teachers and possibly even some students enjoyed.  I would also argue, however, that the only day in the unit  that was not entirely lost on a vast majority of boys in the room was that initial day when they got to bring their favorite rap lyrics to school and discover once again that music is poetry.  When we teach poetry, we must teach it in a way that is engaging and motivating for all students.
             The Common Core State Standards do require that we teach poetry but that we do it  differently.  Reviewing the two seventh grade standards alone that I shared with you earlier is enough proof of that.  If you notice, both standards require students to analyze.  No longer, thank goodness, is identification enough.  In his article "Why Poetry is Necessary,"  Robert Housden reveals that "Poems are necessary because they honor the unknown, both in us and in the world. They come from an undiscovered country; they are shaped into form by the power of language, and set free to fly with wings of images and metaphor"  (www.huffingtonpost.com).  How could any of this magic happen if we don't allow our students to analyze, to dig deep, and to discover the world an author has created with words?  I would venture to bet that this magic has never once happened in classroom where students first read a poem flooded with obnoxious onomatopoeia and then were asked to create their own example to demonstrate the sound of bacon sizzling.  Kids are smarter than that.  We need to give them the benefit of the doubt.
          In her book Naming the World:  A Year of Poems and Lessons, Nancy Atwell combines published poets and student imitations in sample lessons that can be used with students.  This is a fabulous resource for teachers who are not sure how to start including poetry into their curriculum.   Whether you choose to use Atwell's book or other sources to expose your students to poetry, however, doesn't matter. What does matter is that we as educators band together to make sure poetry does not become the forgotten stepchild of the literary family. 

Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle148501.html#U68CEDlbKRdGrw8m.99

Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle148501.html#U68CEDlbKRdGrw8m.99