Why, oh why, do the schools still ask students to read so much fiction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In social studies and science, kids can get a lot more out of reading well-written non-fiction sources.

In high school history, you need a basic history text. Certainly other resources should also be used. And, new teachers really need textbooks.

I think a text is fine for some background, or to introduce a topic, but I would rather see kids reading really good non-fiction instead of relying on a textbook in history. They will learn more and they will remember what they have learned for a far longer time. There is even a lot of good fiction that can teach history in a more memorable way than any textbook.

[Anonymous]

9:53 What grade and what particular textbooks do you see? I know our local elementary school is not alone in having 0 textbooks because I read about other schools not having them on the VA schools forum.

[Anonymous]

10:17 There is no school that I know of that doesn't use a variety of material. Maybe the parochial schools only because they're short money. Please find me a local public school here that only uses textbooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that's a problem in college for kids who've only used textbooks I guess, but not a current problem for our students today who receive zero textbooks and therefore have no way to organize their learning. Can't there be a middle ground where we use both?

I think Math is where kids suffer the most from not having a textbook.

What school is not using textbooks for math? My kids have always had a text for math (FCPS schools).

Your neighboor in Maryland. MCPS.

Nothing as far as I know, at least in elementary school. Teachers print out worksheets of the internet. The worst I heard was that the worksheet was meant to be in color so the questions would involve things like how many of the ice cream cones are strawberry flavored and how many are chocolate. And they all look the same in black and white.

Not having a text book is one reason why it is so hard for the kids to make any connection between concepts. There is nothing to review after class. Parents cannot help their kids if they didn't learn to do something the same way as the kids are learning now because there are no books to use.

[Anonymous]

I taught elementary school. Textbooks are a waste of time in the primary grades. Except math.

[Anonymous]

10:23- Sorry, I wasn't saying that there is a school that only uses textbooks, just that I get concerned when a teacher is overly reliant on the textbook. I like to see a textbook used sparingly, certainly not on an everyday basis, and more use of other sources. For example, I have a list of fiction and non-fiction books related to American history for elementary age kids that, when read in order along with a good textbook, gives a full and memorable year-long course.

[Anonymous]

Correct, but the problem today is that there are no textbooks so the books and periodicals are presented in somewhat of a random manner. There is no timeline of history taught in elementary. Just random subjects both through the books read in class and in the books they pick out in the library. My child gets to take out 3 books from the library each week plus has access to books in the classroom so there is no shortage of other resources. In the History textbook I had growing up, it started from earlier times and then moved on to later times. We also read other books, but I'm glad my child has more references now. I'm not disputing the fact that they should have more material to learn from. I just wish they didn't give up the textbooks entirely. In Montessori the kids make a full timeline of events. In homeschool classes they use Story of the World or a similar text which also talks about history chronologically. With no textbook allotted, there is little frame of reference for these children and is definitely harder for a parent to follow. We say we want parents more involved especially the ones who work two jobs, but the schools make it so much harder by not having one main reference for parents to refer to. If you're the same person advocating against textbooks, I feel like you're advocating for this based on some college class you're teaching without really realizing what's going on in the schools today.

[Anonymous]

For example, I have a list of fiction and non-fiction books related to American history for elementary age kids that, when read in order along with a good textbook, gives a full and memorable year-long course.

I have no problem with this, except for accuracy.

[Anonymous]

12:40- So, are you saying that in say, American or ancient history in elementary school , the teacher is discussing events but not in chronological order? One week might be Civil War, the next might be Colonial Period? I would say that that would be an unusual way to teach history and one that I have not come across with any of my own kids.

[Anonymous]

With no textbook allotted, there is little frame of reference for these children and is definitely harder for a parent to follow. We say we want parents more involved especially the ones who work two jobs, but the schools make it so much harder by not having one main reference for parents to refer to.

There are many ways for a parent to be involved with school that don't involve a textbook. Are you talking more about homework help for your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you OP. It's truly shocking how scientifically illiterate most people are and frankly I think all the hours spent on literature in K-12 is a big fat waste of time. Haters gonna hate but that's my honest opinion. I had it all shoved down my throat as a kid, never got anything out of it, and now as an adult I never, ever read fiction and it doesn't negatively impact my life in any way. But having a good grasp of statistics and the scientific method is helpful to me every single day. And sadly, I know all too many supposedly educated adults who managed to graduate from college without developing either of those skills. Sad!

You're missing out. I've learned as much about the world from fiction as I have from things that are "true."

Trust me, you don't understand the world around you as much as you think you do.

Wow, aren't you a fun one? I am a professional scientist *and* love fiction. And in case you doubt my logical thinking skills I teach advanced university level statistics. Just because the person above appreciates fiction doesn't mean they haven't mastered the skills you speak so highly of, it just means that unlike you, they appreciate the value of fiction.

Whoever wrote the middle post is smug about their logical thinking skills, but seriously lacking in them given this basic logical lapse.

[Anonymous]

12:57 At the elementary school level that is what's happening.
You can see the FCPS elementary social studies curriculum yourself
http://www.fcps.edu/is/socialstudies/elementary/index.shtml#third
2nd is Indians, Explorers, Mali, and contemporary Mexico
3rd is Ancient Civiliations
4th is US history 1607- present
5th is Ancient Civilizations, Greece and Rome, Middle Ages, and Post Classical East and SW Asia
6th is US history up to 1865

Middle School is divided into two subjects
http://www.fcps.edu/is/socialstudies/middleschool/index.shtml

These are the approved textbook materials. I have no idea what FCPS Trademark Bundle includes. The list includes approved textbooks however each school gets to decide whether they'll use any of them and is in charge of their own purchases.
http://commweb.fcps.edu/programprofile/materials.cfm?ProgramID=84

[Anonymous]

Actually there are debates on whether a fiction work can reveal more than a non-fiction work.
http://publishingperspectives.com/2010/05/can-a-novel-be-more-true-than-a-work-of-nonfiction/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10544918.htm
http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/academic/article/493720/Is-Non-fiction-really-Better-than-Fiction/

[Anonymous]

For myself--and I am in favor of textbooks for history--I learned far more from fiction than from texts. However, I was an avid reader and my first choice was historical fiction. Not all kids will choose that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For myself--and I am in favor of textbooks for history--I learned far more from fiction than from texts. However, I was an avid reader and my first choice was historical fiction. Not all kids will choose that.

Actually I think that historical fiction for elementary school kids is far more effective for teaching history than non-fiction about history for kids. Non-fiction about history for kids is usually dull, oversimplified, and unmemorable.