Blog Post #10: Gallagher's Readicide

Much of the sentiment that Gallagher shows toward the education system is similar to Tovani's point of view. Their critique is on the banking system, which is essentially just attempting to "fill up" students with knowledge, and then prove their "knowledge" on standardized tests. Gallagher concludes that most high school students are not ready for the real world, and not by fault of their own. It is not necessarily teachers' faults either; because of our world of standardized testing, students are not being taught meaningful learning strategies. Like Tovani, Gallagher also acknowledges that students are not comprehending reading as well as they should be. Most students do not know what they are reading, even though they know how to read the words. I also like how Gallagher took the time to point out that students need an introduction to what they are reading by using the "farrier" story. Based off of students' literal locations, they are at a disadvantage to some texts unless they are given background information by their teachers. Since most of the time they do not want to or do not know how to make connections themselves, we (as teachers) will have make that bridge between them and the text. From that point, students can make personal connections with the text in order to understand it better.
Another point that surprised me was Gallagher's view on SSR. In most of my education classes, I have been taught that SSR is a wait of valuable time for students and teachers. But in the studies that Gallagher has shown, SSR turns out to be more effective than directly teaching reading. Many of the values that are necessary for students become readers come from students being consistent readers. Without giving students the time and opportunity for this, how do we expect them to pass any tests or comprehend any reading past an artificial level? Personally, I love SSR. However I do see the downsides to it; we already have so much to teach that it can be very difficult to find time to allow for SSR when that time could be used to teach. The statistics show positive results, though, and I would like to try to include SSR in my class at least once a week. I remember in my school experience that SSR fostered my love for reading and was the one of the main things that encouraged me to be an English teacher.
I also think that the over analyzing point that Gallagher talks about is very important. So many good books are murdered because of the tiny details focused on that do not help students critically think. For example, my sophomore year of high school we had to read A Tale of Two Cities and it was accompanied by an 80 page packet with detailed questions of virtually every word in the book. We were expected to read it completely independently, and answer the questions in the packet. To this day, I still refuse to read that book because of the horrible connotation due to that class.