The local common core lovers recently posted a myth vs fact about the emphasis of informational text in lieu of established literature. The case they try to make is that the concentration is broad, over many subjects, not just ELA and that informational text is appropriate in classes like History where literature is not called for (Even though CCSSI defines ELA as including social studies, history and tech studies). I beg to differ. I had to giggle today as I spent an afternoon homeschooling my kids on colonial settlement in America. We are reading two works of literature right now, one called Abigail Adams and another called The Courage of Sarah Noble. While we are compiling a timeline, we are not memorizing dates and reading dry statements of fact. We are learning, through story-telling, about the characters that shaped our history such as our first two presidents and their wives, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock and others. I had no idea before reading these books with my children how many of these influential people were related or knew each other. I had no idea what their backgrounds were. Anyway, these books were written using letters left behind from the characters combined with periodicals etc. We feel as though we are getting to know the good and the bad of these individuals and meanwhile our vocabulary is growing as we learn words and customs from the old European English culture. To argue that this is a waste of time or that there is no place for literature in any subject, even math, is ignorant. To argue that informational text should take priority over literature in K-12 education is reprehensible and greedy.
Posted on: Wed, 14 May 2014 03:50:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015