Debates in the Dark; Instruction in the Light

A few years ago, I started tutoring a 7th grader named Sarah. Her grades were fine, but she was starting to avoid doing her ELA work because it was “boring.” I told Sarah’s mother that this was probably a defense mechanism. Her daughter was encountering challenging texts for the first time, and in response, she was mistaking frustration for boredom. Also, what books were they reading? I wanted to know. Her mother wasn’t sure. 

At our first meeting, I asked Sarah to tell me about her ELA class, trying to get a better sense of the class. 

“ELA is so boring,” Sarah declared. When I asked about books, she replied, “We don’t read any books.”  I didn’t believe her. This was one apathetic 13 year old. We logged into Google Classroom, where her teacher posted all of the class notes and assignments. I clicked on the link for the previous class. 

We found a powerpoint. First, we saw instructions about how to find the main idea. Then, we saw the following passages about which the students were asked to find the main idea.

“See,” cried a triumphant Sarah. “This is all we do. It’s soooooo boring.” I couldn’t really disagree with her. 

Sarah’s ELA class revolved around a new skill, strategy, or literary device each week. The teacher introduced it at the beginning of the week. They practiced applying it together in class and then independently for homework. At the end of the week, they took an assessment on the particular skill. Sarah’s mom didn’t know what books they were reading because they weren’t reading any. 

No wonder Sarah was bored. No wonder she hated ELA. 

Over the last year, I’ve observed countless debates about reading strategy instruction. These debates generally involve one side accusing the other of being obsessed with either strategy instruction or knowledge-building at the expense of the other. 

One side–“The Knowers”–contends that systematically building students' knowledge and vocabulary is key to producing more proficient readers and writers. They blame isolated strategy instruction–like Sarah’s ELA class–for stagnant or falling reading scores. 

The other side–“The Strategists”–rightly believes that strategy instruction is evidence-based (although not strategy instruction like the kind I encountered through Sarah). They argue that the Knowers have denigrated strategy instruction to the point where schools are removing it completely, replacing it with favored knowledge-building curricula. 

I find these debates infuriating for two reasons. 

First, the participants in these debates mostly agree: No participant is advocating for eliminating strategy instruction. No participant believes that the strategies themselves should be the sole focus of teaching reading comprehension (as they were in Sarah’s 7th grade class).  Both sides agree that teachers should use strategy instruction to help students learn about new content.

Second, these debates are not helping teachers. They’re certainly not helping students learn to read better. In fact, if anything they’re radicalizing some teachers against knowledge-building curriculum, and they’re radicalizing other teachers against effective strategy instruction. That is a very bad outcome. We need content. And we need strategies.

I think it’s notable that these debates are rarely grounded in what’s actually happening in the classroom. You might even call them “debates in the dark” (with apologies to Susan Brady)! 

So what’s the point of this piece? Other than to complain about a tutee’s ELA class and scold the literacy community at large? 

When we discuss and debate classroom practice, we should bring it into the light with artifacts and concrete examples from actual classrooms: videos, writing samples, assessments, worksheets, slides. I know that both sides would agree that what Sarah experienced in 7th grade ELA class was ineffective and soulless. And I’m also confident that both sides would celebrate classrooms like this one or this one or this one where the teachers are leveraging strategies to get students learning and thinking more deeply about the text they’re reading.

So that’s my point. That’s my request. The next time you get into an argument, whether it’s about strategy instruction or something else, on X or in a Facebook Group, bring examples! Get specific about what you’re critiquing or praising or wondering ! The more we can ground our conversations in actual classroom practice, the more constructive and impactful we will be, the more teachers and students we’ll help. That’s what we’re all about the Goyen Foundation: bringing instruction into the light.