Tim Wasem

Book Review #1
Independent Study
July 10, 2014
Readicide by Kelly Gallagher
Readicide is the anarchist's guide to the modern education system. This book offers a
compelling outlook on the language arts classroom and how the teacher should go about
navigating our testing culture. Gallagher's ideas are big and contrarian, and they could make a
huge difference in the quality of students while abandoning the obsession over testing and
maintaining good scores on state assessments. He argues that students arent given room to
sit and think and read for extended periods of time, which he argues is the best way to foster
lifelong reading.
Gallagher strives in this book (or perhaps manifesto) to expose the reasons why schools
in America are producing fewer and fewer "authentic readers" and "expert citizens". The first
term is how he refers to people that remain readers, in any capacity, after they leave the school
system. The second is he a term he borrows from Robert Sternberg, dean of the School of Arts
and Sciences at Tufts University, that is defined as students that are steeped in creativity,
common sense, wisdom, ethics, dedication, honesty, teamwork, hard work, knowing how to win
and how to lose, a sense of fair play, and lifelong learning. But memorizing books is certainly not
one of them. This is a conflicting idea to read because, again, it requires that the teacher almost
fully disregard the systematic, test-based, focus that were encouraged to embrace. Its clear to

me that these skills do not rise from textbook-based curriculum that doesnt give them room to
read books that interest them and write about topics theyre passionate or excited about.
Much of the book is spent describing me pitfalls of NCLB lines of thought about the
teaching of reading. The usage of short passages and worksheets to help students score better
on state assessments works, in a way, but it sacrifices far too much. He describes school
districts that used these methods successfully to raise scores but also saw lower SAT scores
and more of their students finding themselves in remedial college courses. They simply couldn't
handle the critical thinking and reading level required to thrive, or even stay afloat, in college.
Toward the beginning of the book, Gallagher offers this eye-opening scenario: Think
about that comforting place at home where you curl up with a good bookNow answer some
brief questions. When you curl up with a book, do you do so with the idea of preparing for a
state-mandated multiple-choice exam? Do you pause at the end of each chapter so you can
spend an hour answering a worksheet filled with mind-numbing answers? etc. This example
goes on and continues to hammer home the point that the way reading is taught in school
does not correspond with the type of reading we expect our students to do outside of the
classroom or after graduation.
Though this book does come off as anarchistic, his views are actually moderate in the
expectations he has for his students. He's not on the end of the spectrum that expects students
to be immersed in difficult texts that require near constant "analysis". He's also not on the
opposite end of the spectrum, saying that students should be surrounded exclusively by highinterest books that are purely entertainment. As if that would be enough to foster a lifetime of

reading. He lands somewhere in the middle, proposing a "50/50" approach, balancing

recreational reading with academic texts. Students need to be pushed to improve and need to
have the space to learn to love reading by finding what the author calls the "reading flow", that
feeling of getting lost in a book for an extended period of time without being interrupted by
questions and discussion.
My primary issue with the author's outlook lies in the practicality of its utilization. I know
many teachers would love to do this but they are simply not allowed. They work in school
systems that have a steadfast curriculum that is followed by every teacher in order, supposedly,
to control the analysis and validity of testing. If someone's students failed and someone else's
did not, then the first teacher must not be doing a good job because they used the same
materials. Gallagher's ideas would only be possible in a school that encourages teachers to
teach independently. These would be teachers who have control over what they teach and are
permitted to recognize if the "standard curriculum" isn't working and change course. These are
the setting where Gallagher's ideas could be used to the fullest, without sacrificing one's job.
Luckily, Im at a school that given me a relative amount of freedom to try some of
Gallaghers ideas. I certainly plan to use his idea of the article of the week, which gives
students a chance to read timely articles from reputable publications. This practice began
because Gallaghers post-9/11 students didnt know who Al-Qaeda was, and seemed to lack
basic knowledge of the world in which they were living. I also plan to utilize his idea of the book
flood, 50/50 approach, and concept of overteaching/underteaching. These all go together
nicely. A book flood is a situation in which the teacher gives the students access to a wide

number of high-interest books, which they read 50% of the times (the other 50% going to
academic approach). This is the 50/50 approach, and both types of books should not be
overtaught or undertaught. This means that students shouldnt wade through piles of
worksheets and they shouldnt be left to their own devices while reading a difficult novel. Most
importantly, students should be given pre-reading knowledge, and then they should have an
opportunity to revisit small portions of longer sections that speak to the overall theme the
teacher has chosen for the unit.
Gallaghers ideas will stick with me for the near future. They are already helping me sort
out my thoughts about the switch to CCSS and the general attitude of our testing culture. This
year Ill ease into and try to incorporate this line of thinking at a gradual upward pace to see if it
translates to the expectations of my school and myself.