As I’m reading about students not being prepared for higher level texts, I’m wondering about the effects of two factors.
First, our local high schools utilize block scheduling. This means that students take four classes per semester, with each class being around 80 minutes. So the English class that we took over the course of a year in high school is condensed to a semester. While I think the longer class periods over a shorter time would not be the best approach for many content areas, I would think it is especially harmful in English because it makes it extremely difficult to read long books. I read Dickens’ David Copperfield in 9th grade, as assigned reading. I can’t imagine that is feasible within the confines of block scheduling.
Secondly, with the rise in books published for teens, perhaps these books are being substituted in for the old classics, like something by Dickens. I understand that teachers may want to use these YA novels in order to spark an interest in reading and encourage engaging class discussions. However, I wonder how the vocabulary and overall level of reading difficulty compare with the booklists of previous generations. It takes a certain amount of reading fortitude to grapple with the language of Shakespeare as you read Julius Ceasar in tenth grade. Do we still value that experience and require it of our high schoolers?
One huge factor in the decline of novel-reading in schools is the fact that a lot of students simply don't do homework--or at least, they don't do reading assignments. Often there are no consequences, or minimal consequences, for not doing homework. This was a trend that got exacerbated by the pandemic. It's virtually impossible to assign a novel, especially a lengthy one, if you have to do all the reading in class.
And it seems pretty clear that very few schools are assigning Dickens. They're far more likely to assign YA novels if they assign any novels at all. More than one professor I spoke to told me that if you asked their students to name their favorite book, many if not most would name a YA novel.
In my state (Texas), what schools of education teach has little relevance. Most of our teachers enter education through alternative routes. Even then, most high school English teachers that I have worked with do understand the science of learning and respect the science of reading--even if it that knowledge is just intuitive. This is not new. The problem that I see is that administrators, who often do not have English teaching experience, are motivated by the state test. As teachers lose classroom autonomy, they lose opportunities to build background knowledge and teach sentence-level grammar. Many districts in Texas don't allow novel studies. Houston ISD, the largest district in Texas, says "science of reading" but no longer allows student choice, projects, regular novel studies, or the ability to teach to many of the language comprehension strands of Scarborough's Rope.
Why do teachers have to "sneak in" grammar? Why must they teach passages? We have more than a few students in AP courses in Texas who can't identify linking verbs and abstract nouns. This means that they can't identify the subject of a sentence. If a teacher is not allowed to teach parts of speech because it doesn't lead to quick standardized test results is this because the teacher is "generally unfamiliar with instructional principles grounded in cognitive science" or does that unfamiliarity lie elsewhere?
Saying that teachers lack the understanding of the importance of these skills blames teachers. If teachers don't have autonomy in the classroom, the focus needs to be on lack of understanding at a higher level.
It's never my intent to blame teachers. I'm sure some teaches are aware of methods grounded in cognitive science -- or just have an intuitive understanding of learning that leads more or less to the same place -- but are stymied by administrators. However, I've interacted with many, many educators over the last 5-6 years, and almost all of them have told me they never learned about cognitive load theory, the value of retrieval practice, etc., during their training.
Former prekindergarten and prek-fifth grade STEM teacher, and now a burned out first grade teacher…didn’t burn out until October 2025! Why? Because my previous teaching positions gave me the freedom to intergrade STEM and Social Studies into everything I did. (To give you an idea- my inclusive prek classroom was pretty much a STEM/ Maker Space for 3-5 year olds!). I was able to actually teach stuff that was relevant to my students, and build rigorous connections with science and engineering practices and growth mindset (metacognitive skills) in multiple developmentally appropriate ways. Now as a first grade teacher the focus is heavy on structured literacy in phonics and phonetics (the science of reading stuff) and multiple strategies of solving addition and subtraction problems- WITHOUT RELEVANT connections to science or social studies. All “scripted” curriculums with little room to add to. We are supposed to so 30 min or social studies and 20 min of science- but that’s at the end of the day after the cognitive overload of ELA and math. There is no fun, and no time, to truly teach about local, state, US or world history, let alone do the STEM work I love to teach. No wonder our work force and universities are struggling.
I could go on, but just venting that little hit helps.
(I lost my train of thought- sorry if my comment lost its connection to the original post.)
I’m curious as to why there is no mention of the standardized testing which we have subjected our students and teachers to for decades now. Our curriculums are all geared toward this testing. Our students are incredibly diverse learners, yet we subject them to a school system that is completely oriented towards getting scores on standardized tests. This has had an effect on how students grow as learners. Not discounting the other factors folks have mentioned above, but the culture of high-stakes standardized testing has absolutely played a role in where students end up at completion of their K-12 education.
2 comments (and thanks Natalie for putting this up for discussion):
1. High School in 1967 for me, no, none, nada teaching/exercising in inferencing. Learned from a 3rd year Dev. Psych. course and a Prof McVey who demanded article summaries, comparisons, and our inferences. Ps. he didn't teach this directly, rather via pointed commentary on your paper
2. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY TEACH INFERENCING AS A SKILL ACROSS CONTEXTS! An approach i like is: 1. Give students the question of 'What does A say about B?', 2. Give them mapping skills to analyze the text sections to compare and make sure they can accurately map for main idea and details, 3. Give them venn diagram sheets to isolate overlaps and separate ideas, 4. Make them list similarites and differences, and finally 5. Summarize what you've got in small groups (with pretaught skills of sharing and agreeing and disagreeing humanely).
3. Consider INFERENCING as a META-LEVEL THINKING SKILL, one you take with you to different contents and contexts.
4. If you are really wanting teachers to teach more content, I'd agree in principle, especially given the comment below about 'TEXAS FORBIDS NOVEL STUDIES, PROJECTS ETC.' Looks like the TEXAS FASCISM 'KEEP 'EM STUPID' PLAYBOOK IS UP TO SPEED ON HOW TO IMPOVERISH PEOPLE COGNITIVELY.
Lots of different topics in here. I'll share a few thoughts:
1. Much is written about how "professors are concerned about college student reading abilities." However, all I've seen are data points not comprehensive studies. Useful but leads to questions. For example: Our special education system is a farce that fails intelligent kids with learning disabilities repeatedly. Previously those kids would never attempt college, but now many do go on and will likely struggle with college level expectations. 20% of all kid have dyslexia. Are those students the professors are surprised by ones with learning disabilities? We don't know because we are drawing conclusions based on case studies and poorly defined data points. This needs real research. Further, failure of special education has long been part of the school to prison pipeline for lower income kids. If their families can't afford to pay for help then they come out without the skills for even jobs that need less education. We need to look deeper at who these graduates are that are "bringing down scores" or going out without skills. A legal precedent was made at Supreme Court level that allows high school graduates whose school system failed to provide accessible education to not only sue for remediation but also to sue for financial damages from lost wages. So, if a child with dyslexia is never given appropriate dyslexia intervention and graduates without the ability to read, they can (with long and expensive court battle) sue to have not only dyslexia reading intervention costs covered but also financial compensation for lost wages over the period of time they are now re-schooling. The fact of the matter is that this kind of "accommodation without education" is common and we are seeing it in college and work forces.
2. I am continually surprised by how often curriculum development and evaluation doesn't ask kids what works and what they like. We dismiss their capacity to have a valuable and informed voice in this issue. I know my kids hated the "read this excerpt and regurgitate this data point" type of so called reading.
3. Whole book reading: At one middle school my kids attended all kids were expected to pick a book. The start of all classes English, science, math etc. involved the kids sitting quietly and reading for 5-10 min. as class got ready. Kids selected their own books. This ensures greater interest and also flexibility on reading level. Now in a project based high school my kids have again been assigned to find a book to read during less busy times in their advisory period. Just 2 example of how to squeeze whole book reading into school even if it's not official curriculum.
4. Professors are concerned that students can only pull out superficial points from readings. Well, if our education system teaches kids to learn for the test then that's what you're gonna get. Superficial regurgitation without deep thought.
5. Types of whole books. Many of the classics are steeped in white male patriarchy. We can save those for college students interested in classic literature. There are tons of well written book that dive into topics of real relevance for today's youth. I'd let kids pick most of their own whole book reading and then in High School ask them to read and discuss as a class something more challenging but relevant.
6. School reform is not dead. I write about fixing public education and special education in my substack site: Kathleen Cawley for Navigating Modern Parenthood. Reform is a mess right now thanks to our current administration. Finland reformed little my little over many years. I believe that slow process allows everyone to get on board. But the current threats to and gutting of funding for public schools may leave us with a system torn down and in need of rebuilding.
I think the key to education reform in the US is two fold. First, revise teacher education. Shift our view of teachers to "education scientists." Expect on going research from all teachers. Include the science of teaching the 30% of all students in a classroom who are "neuro-atypical learners." Second, we have to stop barking up the "accountability in education tree." We need a complete shift in focus to the "nurturing the love of learning tree." The goals of the second tree are mentally different. But if we follow them we'll actually solve so many problems. Part of this involves trusting children to have the internal motivation and drive and capacity to learn. They have all of that but we crush it out of them at a young age and teach them to please us by jumping through test hoops. Real reform will require a real shift in thinking.
I wonder what evidence can be provided that teachers are not learning cognitive learning theory and research about learning science. Most education programs require educational psychology and learning theory courses. Candidates apply that in clinical practice. What specific theories are missing? What data services as evidence that it’s missing? While I agree that social studies and science content are often shortchanged in elementary school, the choice is not between “skills” and content. Both are important and kids need metacognitive comprehension strategies sometimes to get at the content. Vocabulary and morphology are also crucial and there is a resurgence of attention to those in many states.
I could say a lot about the divergence between schools of education and the rest of academia, which has led to a divergence in what students learn about educational psychology in an education program vs. a cognitive psychology class in the psych department. If you want details, there's a whole chapter in my book, *Beyond the Science of Reading*, on that topic. I have also spoken to hundreds of groups of teachers on cognitive science, and it's pretty clear that what I'm talking about is basically unfamiliar information.
But to keep this fairly brief, I'll just say there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that ed schools aren't teaching about the kind of evidence I'm talking about -- evidence about cognitive load theory, retrieval practice, deliberate practice, etc. See, e.g., this piece by an educator: https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-it-is-time-to-pay-attention-to-the-science-of-learning/ .
There have also been reports by NCTQ and Deans for Impact. The NCTQ report, Learning About Learning (which may no longer be available online) showed that few ed school textbooks covered basic concepts in cognitive science. A Deans for Impact report surveyed teacher candidates and their professors and found a number of misconceptions about learning in both groups ( https://www.deansforimpact.org/tools-and-resources/learning-by-scientific-design ).
As to your second point: You're right that the choice isn't between "skills" and content. But content should be in the foreground, and teachers should bring in whatever skills or strategies are appropriate to help students understand and analyze the particular content.
Cognitive skills are critical and addressing these skills deliberately and purposefully can be life changing! Look at the research about LearningRx! It is amazing! I have been delivering brain training for 17 years and have seen well over 1500 families changed because of this life changing training!
As I’m reading about students not being prepared for higher level texts, I’m wondering about the effects of two factors.
First, our local high schools utilize block scheduling. This means that students take four classes per semester, with each class being around 80 minutes. So the English class that we took over the course of a year in high school is condensed to a semester. While I think the longer class periods over a shorter time would not be the best approach for many content areas, I would think it is especially harmful in English because it makes it extremely difficult to read long books. I read Dickens’ David Copperfield in 9th grade, as assigned reading. I can’t imagine that is feasible within the confines of block scheduling.
Secondly, with the rise in books published for teens, perhaps these books are being substituted in for the old classics, like something by Dickens. I understand that teachers may want to use these YA novels in order to spark an interest in reading and encourage engaging class discussions. However, I wonder how the vocabulary and overall level of reading difficulty compare with the booklists of previous generations. It takes a certain amount of reading fortitude to grapple with the language of Shakespeare as you read Julius Ceasar in tenth grade. Do we still value that experience and require it of our high schoolers?
One huge factor in the decline of novel-reading in schools is the fact that a lot of students simply don't do homework--or at least, they don't do reading assignments. Often there are no consequences, or minimal consequences, for not doing homework. This was a trend that got exacerbated by the pandemic. It's virtually impossible to assign a novel, especially a lengthy one, if you have to do all the reading in class.
And it seems pretty clear that very few schools are assigning Dickens. They're far more likely to assign YA novels if they assign any novels at all. More than one professor I spoke to told me that if you asked their students to name their favorite book, many if not most would name a YA novel.
In my state (Texas), what schools of education teach has little relevance. Most of our teachers enter education through alternative routes. Even then, most high school English teachers that I have worked with do understand the science of learning and respect the science of reading--even if it that knowledge is just intuitive. This is not new. The problem that I see is that administrators, who often do not have English teaching experience, are motivated by the state test. As teachers lose classroom autonomy, they lose opportunities to build background knowledge and teach sentence-level grammar. Many districts in Texas don't allow novel studies. Houston ISD, the largest district in Texas, says "science of reading" but no longer allows student choice, projects, regular novel studies, or the ability to teach to many of the language comprehension strands of Scarborough's Rope.
Why do teachers have to "sneak in" grammar? Why must they teach passages? We have more than a few students in AP courses in Texas who can't identify linking verbs and abstract nouns. This means that they can't identify the subject of a sentence. If a teacher is not allowed to teach parts of speech because it doesn't lead to quick standardized test results is this because the teacher is "generally unfamiliar with instructional principles grounded in cognitive science" or does that unfamiliarity lie elsewhere?
Saying that teachers lack the understanding of the importance of these skills blames teachers. If teachers don't have autonomy in the classroom, the focus needs to be on lack of understanding at a higher level.
It's never my intent to blame teachers. I'm sure some teaches are aware of methods grounded in cognitive science -- or just have an intuitive understanding of learning that leads more or less to the same place -- but are stymied by administrators. However, I've interacted with many, many educators over the last 5-6 years, and almost all of them have told me they never learned about cognitive load theory, the value of retrieval practice, etc., during their training.
Former prekindergarten and prek-fifth grade STEM teacher, and now a burned out first grade teacher…didn’t burn out until October 2025! Why? Because my previous teaching positions gave me the freedom to intergrade STEM and Social Studies into everything I did. (To give you an idea- my inclusive prek classroom was pretty much a STEM/ Maker Space for 3-5 year olds!). I was able to actually teach stuff that was relevant to my students, and build rigorous connections with science and engineering practices and growth mindset (metacognitive skills) in multiple developmentally appropriate ways. Now as a first grade teacher the focus is heavy on structured literacy in phonics and phonetics (the science of reading stuff) and multiple strategies of solving addition and subtraction problems- WITHOUT RELEVANT connections to science or social studies. All “scripted” curriculums with little room to add to. We are supposed to so 30 min or social studies and 20 min of science- but that’s at the end of the day after the cognitive overload of ELA and math. There is no fun, and no time, to truly teach about local, state, US or world history, let alone do the STEM work I love to teach. No wonder our work force and universities are struggling.
I could go on, but just venting that little hit helps.
(I lost my train of thought- sorry if my comment lost its connection to the original post.)
I’m curious as to why there is no mention of the standardized testing which we have subjected our students and teachers to for decades now. Our curriculums are all geared toward this testing. Our students are incredibly diverse learners, yet we subject them to a school system that is completely oriented towards getting scores on standardized tests. This has had an effect on how students grow as learners. Not discounting the other factors folks have mentioned above, but the culture of high-stakes standardized testing has absolutely played a role in where students end up at completion of their K-12 education.
2 comments (and thanks Natalie for putting this up for discussion):
1. High School in 1967 for me, no, none, nada teaching/exercising in inferencing. Learned from a 3rd year Dev. Psych. course and a Prof McVey who demanded article summaries, comparisons, and our inferences. Ps. he didn't teach this directly, rather via pointed commentary on your paper
2. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY TEACH INFERENCING AS A SKILL ACROSS CONTEXTS! An approach i like is: 1. Give students the question of 'What does A say about B?', 2. Give them mapping skills to analyze the text sections to compare and make sure they can accurately map for main idea and details, 3. Give them venn diagram sheets to isolate overlaps and separate ideas, 4. Make them list similarites and differences, and finally 5. Summarize what you've got in small groups (with pretaught skills of sharing and agreeing and disagreeing humanely).
3. Consider INFERENCING as a META-LEVEL THINKING SKILL, one you take with you to different contents and contexts.
4. If you are really wanting teachers to teach more content, I'd agree in principle, especially given the comment below about 'TEXAS FORBIDS NOVEL STUDIES, PROJECTS ETC.' Looks like the TEXAS FASCISM 'KEEP 'EM STUPID' PLAYBOOK IS UP TO SPEED ON HOW TO IMPOVERISH PEOPLE COGNITIVELY.
it's not a coincidence that the only professor who thinks the kids are the same teaches the teachers. mediocrity in, mediocrity out.
Lots of different topics in here. I'll share a few thoughts:
1. Much is written about how "professors are concerned about college student reading abilities." However, all I've seen are data points not comprehensive studies. Useful but leads to questions. For example: Our special education system is a farce that fails intelligent kids with learning disabilities repeatedly. Previously those kids would never attempt college, but now many do go on and will likely struggle with college level expectations. 20% of all kid have dyslexia. Are those students the professors are surprised by ones with learning disabilities? We don't know because we are drawing conclusions based on case studies and poorly defined data points. This needs real research. Further, failure of special education has long been part of the school to prison pipeline for lower income kids. If their families can't afford to pay for help then they come out without the skills for even jobs that need less education. We need to look deeper at who these graduates are that are "bringing down scores" or going out without skills. A legal precedent was made at Supreme Court level that allows high school graduates whose school system failed to provide accessible education to not only sue for remediation but also to sue for financial damages from lost wages. So, if a child with dyslexia is never given appropriate dyslexia intervention and graduates without the ability to read, they can (with long and expensive court battle) sue to have not only dyslexia reading intervention costs covered but also financial compensation for lost wages over the period of time they are now re-schooling. The fact of the matter is that this kind of "accommodation without education" is common and we are seeing it in college and work forces.
2. I am continually surprised by how often curriculum development and evaluation doesn't ask kids what works and what they like. We dismiss their capacity to have a valuable and informed voice in this issue. I know my kids hated the "read this excerpt and regurgitate this data point" type of so called reading.
3. Whole book reading: At one middle school my kids attended all kids were expected to pick a book. The start of all classes English, science, math etc. involved the kids sitting quietly and reading for 5-10 min. as class got ready. Kids selected their own books. This ensures greater interest and also flexibility on reading level. Now in a project based high school my kids have again been assigned to find a book to read during less busy times in their advisory period. Just 2 example of how to squeeze whole book reading into school even if it's not official curriculum.
4. Professors are concerned that students can only pull out superficial points from readings. Well, if our education system teaches kids to learn for the test then that's what you're gonna get. Superficial regurgitation without deep thought.
5. Types of whole books. Many of the classics are steeped in white male patriarchy. We can save those for college students interested in classic literature. There are tons of well written book that dive into topics of real relevance for today's youth. I'd let kids pick most of their own whole book reading and then in High School ask them to read and discuss as a class something more challenging but relevant.
6. School reform is not dead. I write about fixing public education and special education in my substack site: Kathleen Cawley for Navigating Modern Parenthood. Reform is a mess right now thanks to our current administration. Finland reformed little my little over many years. I believe that slow process allows everyone to get on board. But the current threats to and gutting of funding for public schools may leave us with a system torn down and in need of rebuilding.
I think the key to education reform in the US is two fold. First, revise teacher education. Shift our view of teachers to "education scientists." Expect on going research from all teachers. Include the science of teaching the 30% of all students in a classroom who are "neuro-atypical learners." Second, we have to stop barking up the "accountability in education tree." We need a complete shift in focus to the "nurturing the love of learning tree." The goals of the second tree are mentally different. But if we follow them we'll actually solve so many problems. Part of this involves trusting children to have the internal motivation and drive and capacity to learn. They have all of that but we crush it out of them at a young age and teach them to please us by jumping through test hoops. Real reform will require a real shift in thinking.
I wonder what evidence can be provided that teachers are not learning cognitive learning theory and research about learning science. Most education programs require educational psychology and learning theory courses. Candidates apply that in clinical practice. What specific theories are missing? What data services as evidence that it’s missing? While I agree that social studies and science content are often shortchanged in elementary school, the choice is not between “skills” and content. Both are important and kids need metacognitive comprehension strategies sometimes to get at the content. Vocabulary and morphology are also crucial and there is a resurgence of attention to those in many states.
I could say a lot about the divergence between schools of education and the rest of academia, which has led to a divergence in what students learn about educational psychology in an education program vs. a cognitive psychology class in the psych department. If you want details, there's a whole chapter in my book, *Beyond the Science of Reading*, on that topic. I have also spoken to hundreds of groups of teachers on cognitive science, and it's pretty clear that what I'm talking about is basically unfamiliar information.
But to keep this fairly brief, I'll just say there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that ed schools aren't teaching about the kind of evidence I'm talking about -- evidence about cognitive load theory, retrieval practice, deliberate practice, etc. See, e.g., this piece by an educator: https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-it-is-time-to-pay-attention-to-the-science-of-learning/ .
There have also been reports by NCTQ and Deans for Impact. The NCTQ report, Learning About Learning (which may no longer be available online) showed that few ed school textbooks covered basic concepts in cognitive science. A Deans for Impact report surveyed teacher candidates and their professors and found a number of misconceptions about learning in both groups ( https://www.deansforimpact.org/tools-and-resources/learning-by-scientific-design ).
As to your second point: You're right that the choice isn't between "skills" and content. But content should be in the foreground, and teachers should bring in whatever skills or strategies are appropriate to help students understand and analyze the particular content.
Cognitive skills are critical and addressing these skills deliberately and purposefully can be life changing! Look at the research about LearningRx! It is amazing! I have been delivering brain training for 17 years and have seen well over 1500 families changed because of this life changing training!