As I read Scoggin and Schneewind's Trusting Readers, I found myself inspired, challenged, and honestly a little frustrated—not because I disagree with their vision, but because their vision highlights the realities of the classrooms many of us currently work in. Their argument that independent reading should be built around "time, choice, talk, and teacher support" is compelling because it centers students as readers rather than simply recipients of instruction (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). At the same time, their approach complicates many of the realities I face as a middle school ELA teacher.
Let me step on my "soapbox" for a few:
One of the biggest tensions for me is time. The authors argue that independent reading should be a protected part of the school day because "students need and deserve long stretches of time to lose themselves and find themselves in books" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). In theory, I completely agree. However, I immediately found myself asking: Where does that time come from? Unlike the classrooms described in the text, my school does not have a designated independent reading block. Our curriculum is tightly paced, standards-driven, and often scripted. While the authors suggest that teachers should "prioritize independent reading when planning by putting it into your plans first, not last" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021), that feels much easier said than done when every minute of a 50-minute class period is already spoken for.
Yet this challenge is exactly what makes the book powerful. The authors push me to reconsider whether I have accepted the current structure as immovable. They write, "When time for independent reading is not protected, a greater value is being placed on mastery of curriculum than on developing vibrant independent reading lives" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). That statement made me uncomfortable because there is truth in it. Even when I value independent reading, my schedule does not always reflect that value.
Another question the text raises for me concerns students who are not yet proficient readers. Scoggin and Schneewind repeatedly state that "we trust that all students are readers" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). I appreciate this asset-based perspective because it pushes against deficit thinking. However, I also work with students whose decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills are significantly below grade level. How do we balance honoring student choice and agency while also ensuring students receive the targeted interventions they need?
I appreciated the story of Marquis because it addressed this concern directly. Rather than forcing him away from his beloved superhero books, his teacher honored his interests while simultaneously providing foundational literacy instruction. The authors explain that "while we trust our students to take the lead, we trust ourselves to find spaces of possibility within that work to grow our students as readers" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). This example reminded me that student choice and skill development do not have to be competing priorities.
The discussion of implicit bias also challenged me. The authors argue that educators have a responsibility to acknowledge "how these biases influence their understandings of children and their experiences" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). This raises another important question for me: How do I ethically acknowledge my own biases when working with readers? It is easy to make assumptions based on reading levels, engagement, behavior, or perceived motivation. The text reminds me that students bring complex reading identities into our classrooms and that my job is to listen before I judge. That idea is echoed later when the authors encourage teachers to stop "listening for" mistakes and instead start "listening to" students as they make meaning from texts (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). That shift in mindset feels both powerful and necessary.
The chapters on conferring particularly captured my imagination. I have often viewed conferencing as another task on an already overwhelming teacher to-do list. However, the authors frame conferring as relationship building rather than accountability. They argue that "significant learning cannot happen without significant relationships" and describe conferences as opportunities to understand students' identities, intentions, and strengths (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). I was especially drawn to their emphasis on strengths-based feedback and process-oriented questions. Instead of asking students for the "right" answer, teachers ask questions such as, "What are you paying attention to as you read?" or "What are you wondering about?" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021).
Still, I wonder how to make conferring motivating for students rather than something they perceive as another assignment. Perhaps the answer lies in the authors' insistence that students should help drive the conversation. When students create their own "what-if" questions and reading intentions, the conference becomes something done with them rather than to them.
What captured my imagination most was the possibility of designing the "perfect" class period—a 50-minute lesson that somehow includes required curriculum, independent reading, meaningful conferring, discussion, and book talks. I am not sure I have figured out how to make that vision a reality, but Scoggin and Schneewind convinced me that it is worth striving toward. Their approach asks teachers to imagine what school could look like if trust became the foundation for instructional decisions.
Ultimately, Trusting Readers is not English class as I experienced it growing up, nor is it what I commonly see in many classrooms today. Instead, it presents an aspirational vision of literacy instruction centered on agency, relationships, and joy. While I leave the reading with more questions than answers, I also leave with a renewed commitment to finding small ways to weave independent reading, authentic talk, and student-driven conferring into my classroom. As the authors ask, "What is the best that could happen if you trusted yourself, your students, and the power of independent reading?" (Scoggin & Schneewind, 2021). That question is one I will continue thinking about long after finishing this text...and as I begin pre-planning and working in my PLC.
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment