Working Draft on Reasons the Required Reading List is a Pile of DOO DOO

 Some thoughts on the Required Reading List process. 

The legislature made a law. Now TEA has to figure out how to get that done. The main problem right now is HOW that was done. (The law is another bag of worms that should have been left in the compost bin of ideas. How do we get them to backtrack on that and realize they didn't solve a problem and created more of them?) 

The survey is flawed. 

1. Not enough teachers participated. 
2. The survey didn't ask the right questions and teachers didn't know how their results were going to be used. 
3. When teachers use a text, they have a purpose also tied into their existing scope and sequence as well as the needs of their community and the characteristics of their learners. When they recommended something to the survey - that context is missing. They could not comment on their trajectory or use of the text. 
4. When teachers design and implement curriculum, texts serve a purpose to move from simple to complex across the school year. And, sometimes, we move back to a more simple text to explore a complex skill, compact time and cover multiple progressions, and to examine a complex theme or topic. It's an active, dynamic process based on what the learners are experiencing and demonstrating. They survey did not capture the dynamic nature of the purposes of texts. 
5. Other lists consulted in the 10,000 reviewed were not made for the expressed purpose of making a required list. That's not what the suggestions were intended to convey. Misuse.
6. Probably more to say, but I'll let others add to the problems here. These are enough to invalidate the results.

The process was ungrounded. 

1. Research is a process. It begins with what has come before and examines ideas through a rigorous process. It appears that research has been added to the rationale AFTER the law was made. And the study was only about 9-12. https://alscw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/forum_4.pdf That study was NOT done to justify a required state reading curriculum K-12. They do not cite background research or theoretical guidelines. They do not explain their methods. It was also about HONORS curriculum. There's some good stuff in there. But the study is flawed in terms of scientific research criteria for design. And: Note that this is ONE study. One. NEW STUFF: The study was published when Stotsky was 77 and used surveys that were already old and irrelevant - especially for use fifteen years later! Stotsky retired 2 years after this publication. Stuff has been published since then if you didn't know. And pedagogical and cultural shifts are significant.  
2.  Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers - This is the group that published the "research" TEA is using to justify the list. The "research" was self-published. Their own executive council approved it. No blind peer-review panel as is expected for scholarly journals and research. It's a position paper, y'all. It was for commissioned studies. You know, someone pays for that. The article was to spur literacy advocacy and discussions about public policy around what high schoolers read. It's NOT based on theory. It's not scholarly. It's not what TEA even requires for scholarly scientifically research based data. Y'all! That ain't right. 
3. There are no stated guiding factors (from research) about design of the list. The survey itself din't have guiding factors grounded in best practices in design, methods. It wasn't research or rigorous. It was a multistep administrative process. 
4. The survey size is not big enough to represent the teaching population. There was no real examination of WHY the texts are used or chosen. 
5. The survey really only tells us the average number of texts to set requirements for how many texts are used. This does NOT mean ANYTHING ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS. That would be like asking people how many fast food burgers they ate a year without looking at what that did to health. 
6. There was NO background research. There was NO theoretical guidelines to justify anything. 
7. This list is an outcome of public policy and NOT any kind of thing we would expect to do to our kids without reasoning and logic.
8. Looking at 10,000 other texts from resources means that they found out what was popular. Not what was effective. 

Feasibility: 

1. Reading takes time. Did you know that teachers got in trouble in the past during observations because kids were just reading? Administrators say they'll come back when teaching and learning are going on. Um. Y'all. 
2. How long does it take to read all that stuff? How much instructional time will be needed? Here's some data considering a 6th grader. 
1. TEA says, kids in 6th should be able to read for 40 minutes or longer per session. Interesting.  Classes are generally 45 minutes. Take attendance. Set the objective. Close. You now have less than 30 minutes. So there is NO time in the day where that could actually happen. 
2. According to TEA, kids should be reading about 30 minutes a day on things they CHOOSE to read. Um. When? 
3. TEA is recommending that 19 texts be chosen for 6th grade. Average 6th graders "should" read at 180 words per minutes - at the high end. So that would be 80-95 hours to read all the stuff. IF the kid takes more time - slower readers - that would take 96-114 hours. This is just the time it would take to read the test - not for the discussion - not for the required vocab that will also be required now - not for discussion of vocab in the book - not for comprehension and skills - not for anything associated with comprehension, author's craft, no time for lunch, recess...etc. 
4. So if a school has 180 days...elar has 135 hours for 6th grade. At 180 words per minute, the list would take up 70% of the year. At 150 words per minute, the list takes up to 85% of the ELAR year. So there's only 16-30 percent of instructional time for everything else - even BEFORE the required vocab crap is added? Unsustainable. 
5. Even further - if we have 45 minutes, and we have less than 30 minutes left in class, we'd need to read every minute of every single ELAR class for 190 days - 10 days longer than we have required by law. And that means that there is NO choice reading at all. So - the list is actually impossible. It violates TEA's own requirements. No one is sick. No assemblies. No fire drills. No announcements. No visits to and by the counselor. Um. Y'all. This is dumb. Sure, we can add more texts and do our own pacing. Whatever. As if.  Here's a chart for 6th grade: 

3. Category	Time Calculation	Impact on Curriculum
   Total Annual ELAR Minutes	8,100 Minutes (45 mins × 180 days)	The "Container" for all learning.
   Administrative/Setup Time	~2,700 Minutes (15 mins daily for attendance, objectives, closing)	-33% of your available year.
   Actual Reading Time Left	5,400 Minutes (90 Hours)	What's left for everything else.
   Time to Read the Draft List	4,800 – 5,700 Minutes (80–95 Hours)	Consumes 89% – 105% of available reading time.
   "Everything Else"	Writing, Vocab, Discussion, Skills, State Testing	Negative Time Remaining.

How do we opt out of it all? This is nuts. I was going to write some more...but...isn't this enough of an explanation to say no and ask the legislature to go back and lick over its sick calf? 

NEW STUFF: Here's a time study for the 9th grade list: 

Category	9th Grade Calculation	Impact on Curriculum
Average Text Length	~70,000 words (Novels)	Requires sustained focus.
Typical Reading Speed	200–250 wpm	High school standard.
TEA Recommended List	12–15 complex texts	Includes Shakespeare, epics, etc.
Reality Check	~120 Hours of pure reading	Exceeds total available instructional minutes for the entire semester.

A mathematical dead end: We still have to have kids reading in sustained independent reading each day for 30 minutes (choice reading), plus the TEKKS including Inquiry and Research, The Writing Process, Oral Language, ELPS, and the genres NOT covered by the list. 

Basically - covering all of the works in 6th grades mean that teachers have 9.4 days per major work, including all the standards in the TEKS. 

And - HB 1605 says that we just have to pick one book. ONE. Per grade level. This current list is an administrative choice and overreach - and not a legislative mandate. Essentially - we now have a Bibliography of Frustration.