The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System—And How to Fix It by Natalie Wexler
As a literacy educator in the state of Illinois, I have been reading the new Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan (ICLP) that was passed in 2024 and corresponding recommended texts to understand the intent and implications of the plan. I have also participated in training led by one of the authors of the ICLP. There were four books recommended within the ICLP to aid in the development of a deeper understanding. I had already read two of the four recommended books, so I selected this book to read because it was endorsed by my district for the group working on the adoption of a new literacy curriculum.
My first observation of the four recommended books, the others were written by literacy educators and researchers, yet this book was written by an educational journalist (at one time a practicing lawyer) with a clear bias and agenda in mind (reminiscent of Emily Hanford’s, “Sold a Story”). It was evident throughout that the research reported in the book was selected specifically to support her preconceived bias. While I believe there were some valid evidenced-based points articulated; overall, the book felt more like propaganda and a marketing campaign for the Core Knowledge program than a fair, equitable, and well-researched (from multiple perspectives) assessment of problems within our educational system. In my opinion, the book also grossly misrepresented various theories, curricula, and persons. This is irresponsible reporting at best, and establishes a dangerous binary, phonics versus whole language/balanced literacy (NOTE: balance literacy is NOT the same as whole language), that is harmful and inhibiting those in the field of education from moving forward with real solutions that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on student outcomes.
The “right-wrong” binary is not new— “reading wars” have been present in the field of literacy education for years. The casualties of these “reading wars” are the students we serve. And it may sound like hyperbole, but our democracy has also suffered as a result of this “right-wrong” binary because in a vibrant democracy its citizens need to well-educated and informed.
I think it is also important to note that when I was a doctoral student researching for my dissertation, I also fell into this trap of researching to support my preconceived notions. Luckily, I had professors and colleagues who pushed me to research from multiple perspectives, which ultimately lead to a much deeper and clearer understanding of theories, instructional practices, and curricula. Like playing a game of telephone, I learned that has theories and practices are passed down from academics/scholars to teachers in the trenches, the theories and practices often morph into something that they were never intended to be—misconstrued, misrepresented, and misused. As a classroom teacher, I also understand how the daily demands of the job leave little time to deeply understand theories and practices, so we often unintentionally perpetuate these flawed interpretations, and the cycle continues.
I also think it is important to add that over time more schools have leaned into instructional coaching as the preferred method of professional development, which I understand improves instructional practices in a more sustainable way. However, teachers are now getting most, if not all, of their professional development directly from their schools/districts. This leads to what I refer to as “incestuous” learning, or educators learning in an echo chamber, which can further perpetuate misunderstandings and often does not fully incorporate or encourage diverse perspectives. Professional organizations (like NCTE, ILA, ASCD, etc.) provide professional development from a multitude of perspectives, which is necessary for continuous improvement where educators collaborate in professional learning communities by actively challenging each other’s thinking to bring forward the best practices.
But I digressed a bit—back to the book review. As I mentioned earlier, there were definitely some valid points that were brought forward in the book. The most important being that we have sacrificed building knowledge in favor of teaching standards, skills, and strategies in isolation often with short, disconnected passages that do not build, or vertically align, from grade level to grade level. I cannot say this loudly enough, standards, skills, and strategies are NOT curriculum! This lack of knowledge building is evident in several data points. First, reading comprehension tests are in reality a measure of background knowledge and vocabulary, which is one reason why there are not improving because reading education is too hyper focused on skills and strategies in isolation. Given of the overuse of these short passages to teach skills and strategies, students now lack the stamina to read and comprehend chapter books (or textbooks). Second, the embarrassing lack of knowledge many of our students possess in social studies (history) and science. Having traveled internationally to present at various literacy conferences, I have always been stunned at the level of knowledge students in other countries have related to American history and politics that our own students cannot articulate. This is incredibly problematic for our democracy. Third, educators are not formally required to take writing methods courses as part of their teacher education programs, which translates into less writing instruction and writing across the content areas. Writing and reading (and speaking and listening) are intimately linked and need to be taught together—they support growth in each other. They are also necessary to elevate the learning and retention across the various disciplines. We read and write to make meaning of ourselves and our place in the world. We make meaning when we read and write with the purpose of building knowledge particularly in the content areas.
The valid points seem to get overshadowed by the biased reporting. My two biggest issues with the book are the oversimplification of a complex problem, and misrepresenting research, concepts, and people (PLEASE STOP misrepresenting and blaming Lucy Calkins for all of our literacy issues—there is valid reliable research to support much of her work, which has been egregiously distorted). I found it problematic that the case studies appeared to have mostly been conducted in charter schools with early-career teachers. Public schools are bound by different laws and are not able to pick and choose their students, so that perspective should have been included. In addition, there was predominantly one source/curriculum noted to build background knowledge discussed throughout the book—Core Knowledge (in the end Wit and Wisdom made a brief appearance), which is why it felt like a marketing campaign for Core Knowledge instead of credible research. I found that the book at times presented contradictory information related to student engagement when the teaching method was teacher-centered, or predominantly lecture. There are studies that address the issue of student attention, engagement, and retention when a teacher is using lecture as the primary method of delivering instruction that does not support many of the authors assertations. The author also implies that teaching history is teaching “facts” —facts according to who? I would argue teaching history is about storytelling, and the stories are often told by the winner/oppressor. History needs to include stories from multiple perspectives to ensure that all students feel seen, heard, and valued. Lastly, it felt like ultimately teachers, whom I felt were portrayed in a condescending manner, are held solely accountable for student learning outcomes. I would suggest that there needs to be a shared accountability between teachers, administrators, students, families, and the community.
Children do not have one-size-fits-all needs. There is not “one best way” to teach the complex skills of reading and writing (hence the idea of balance literacy). Purpose—building identity, background knowledge, and criticality (Muhammad, 2020)—give meaning to reading and writing thus improving skills and retention. Standardize tests have narrowed our ability to improve the U.S. educational system (we do not learn to pass a test)—there are other forms of data that can, and should, be collected and reviewed to better understand the need of our students. Mandated scripted curricula removes teacher autonomy and disrespects their status as professionals. Ultimately, playing the blame game in this “right-wrong” binary does not solve the problem. We can only have meaningful, rigorous educational reform when the educational community, including all stakeholders, comes together to address the many complexities of the problem. The answer lies with the inclusion of a multitude of options to best meet the needs of the children we serve.
