GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

How “the rich get richer” in reading for understanding

In response to yesterday’s post about the Core Knowledge Reading Program, reader Smith asks,

Is he saying their is a core set of content that would prepare a student to understand a randomly selected reading passage on a standardized test? Could someone explain this idea to a non-ELA teacher? I’ve always assumed those reading passages could range from “The Mysteries of Ancient Egpyt” to “Sally’s Bad Day at School” to “Roger’s Time Machine Adventure”. How is content selected?

Great question. It’s true that the content of test reading passages varies, and I don’t think anyone believes that a child can be prepared with content knowledge specific to every possible topic.

Rather, some children enter school knowing thousands more words than others, and this difference compounds over years of schooling in a “rich get richer” scenario called the “Matthew Effect” by researchers. (Don’t take my word for it: this study, one of many, found that by age 3, children of parents with smaller vocabularies not only knew fewer words, used fewer words per hour, and used a smaller variety of words per hour, “but they were also adding words more slowly.”)

Hirsch summarized this effect in a 2006 article in American Educator:

Many specialists estimate that a child (or an adult) needs to understand a minimum of 90 percent of the words in a passage in order to understand the passage and thus begin to learn the other 10 percent of the words. Moreover, it’s not just the words that the student has to grasp the meaning of—it’s also the kind of reality that the words are referring to…. When a child doesn’t understand those word meanings and those referred-to realities, being good at sounding out words is a dead end. Reading becomes a kind of Catch-22: In order to become better at reading with understanding, you already have to be able to read with understanding.

Echoing Hirsch, cognitive neuroscientist and child development expert Maryanne Wolf notes in her book Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain,

Unbeknownst to them or their families, children who grow up in environments with few or no literacy experiences are already playing catch-up when they enter kindergarten and the primary grades. It is not simply a matter of the number of words unheard and unlearned. When words are not heard, concepts are not learned. When syntactic forms are never encountered, there is less knowledge about the relationship of events in a story. When story forms are never known, there is less ability to infer and to predict. When cultural traditions and the feelings of others are never experienced, there is less understanding of what other people feel.

So, the more the child knows about the world, the more language experiences the child has had across a range of literary genres, and the more vocabulary the child knows, the more likely the child can use the reading comprehension strategies teachers spend so much time on, like learning new words from context or making predictions about what will happen next. Children without that background knowledge and vocabulary gain less from each text encountered, and the gap widens.

A child who knows 90% of the words in a passage on the English Language Arts (ELA) test, and who has read or heard similar types of texts, has a fighting chance of figuring out unknown vocabulary and understanding the story; a child who knows only 80%  and has never encountered a text in that genre may be stuck.

More to come on how content is selected, and what teachers in upper elementary, middle, and high school — even or especially content area teachers — can do to help kids understand what they read.

  • Smith

    OK, I’m starting to get my head around this, except for one thing: Isn’t there “content” in whatever kids are reading now? What’s in this new curriculum that my sons aren’t getting at school, but might be getting at home? Is it content and vocabulary that is systematically broad-based rather than being randomly selected?

  • Ira

    This core knowledge thing is interesting to me. I agree with and can attest to the profound truth in the idea of the “rich getting richer,” when it comes to comprehension and vocabulary development.
    As someone who has spent considerable time trying to find ways to teach individual comprehension skills, like identifying the main idea and inferring, to kids years behind grade level, I have felt the frustration of balanced literacy and its attempt to isolate the craft of reading into a series of skills.
    And yet I do still believe in the notion that reading is more than just about compiling a larger vocabulary, as Hirsch seems to begin to allude to when he talks about the “reality that the word are referring to.” I feel that there is a break down in the understanding of how words work together, of syntax that really keeps my struggling readers behind. I’m not confident that a core knowledge curiclum would neccesarily address this issue, of helping kids figure out how academic language works

  • Lindsey

    Smith – from what I understand, one of the basic ideas behind core knowledge is a “curriculum core” that establishes certain content (deemed necessary for general reading comprehension) that should be taught in specific grades – trying to really build substantial knowledge of these “key” topics. This is to avoid a child reading books about reptiles in 3rd grade, 4th grade and 5th grade and then never learning anything about Ancient Greece. The article that Kelly pointed to in American Educator lays out this idea near the end in Section V of the article… “Gaps and repetitions [in content] are the reality of American students’ school experience even when they stay in the same school—and the gaps are far greater for those many disadvantaged students who must change schools..” So you are right – it is a system of content and vocabulary rather than allowing teachers to randomly select the subject matter…

  • Smith

    Thanks, Lindsey, you saved me from have to read the article (week 1 is always exhausting).

    I’m reminded of the time I took the GRE many years ago. My practice book had a list of the 1000 words most likely to be on the test and recommended studying them. I thought the idea was foolish – how many new words could I learn in a week and what were the chances they would be on the test? However, I finally took a stab at them and was able to learn a surprising number of them in a short time – I think it was at least 100, maybe 200 – since they weren’t totally unfamiliar. I was very happy when two or three of them turned up on the test. I hadn’t gotten any “smarter” yet I was able to boost my score a bit. I never would have guessed a systematic approach would work for something where the possibilities seemed so random and infinite.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Follow GothamSchools

RSS

Feb. 10: You’re invited!

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

44 comments so far today

Our Twitter Updates

  • a lengthy conversation on CTE schools. DOE is closing 3; they will open 12 new in next 2 years. Shael shows rare emotion in his defense. 10 mins ago
  • Public comment period ends. Moving much faster than what was expected. Most protesters didn't speak and UFT got here too late to sign up. 48 mins ago
  • Update: they're back in now and there is a.considerable police presence near the stage. Crowd has thinned considerably #warofattrition 57 mins ago
  • An activist just drew gasps from his fellow protesters. ”I hope your kids get their asses kicked by all the kids here” he tells the panel. 1 hr ago
  • NYPD has closed auditorium doors. Students protesting in lobby are now locked out of the meeting. 1 hr ago
  • More updates...

Archives

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
?>