Running Head: ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 1

The Lack of Knowledge in Elementary Education

Patricia Salinas

English 101 R

Professor Dority

 July 24, 2019

 
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 2

The Lack of Knowledge in Elementary Education

Education, a process of providing or receiving instruction and intellect, has a distinct appearance around

the world. Some individuals have the luxury of attending prestigious institutions with a fast array of resources

while others may attend mediocre schools with limited materials. Education can also be provided at home,

hence homeschooling, or online through education programs. Regardless of the method, the examples listed

above are forms of education in the United States of America. Education has advanced immensely since the

18th century to allow all children to have an opportunity at an equal education. However, despite these efforts

and laws such as the Every Student Succeeds Act, there continues to be an achievement gap between high and

low-income students. The primary reason behind this gap is knowledge—information gained through

experience or education. The current American pedagogy emphasizes comprehension through the practice of

skills rather than the foundation of knowledge, leaving the less privileged at a disadvantage.

In the article “Elementary Education Has Gone Terribly Wrong,” the author Natalie Wexler uses an

anecdote to gain the reader’s interest. The anecdote, a short story, recalls Wexler’s experience upon visiting a

high-poverty school in Washington D.C. She describes a first-grade classroom, specifically one girl who was

drawing while the class was working on a reading assignment. Wexler approached the girl and asked about her

drawing which the girl answered: “clowns” (Wexler, 2019, para. 1-7). The girl had misinterpreted the phrase

“draw conclusions” as draw clowns. The real task was to draw conclusions based on a text describing Brazil.

The worksheet which intended to develop the girl’s comprehension skills failed to produce results as the girl

was unaware of the assignment and could not even pronounce the word “Brazil” (Wexler, 2019, para. 7). This

story captures the reader’s attention while introducing the issue addressed in the article.

Wexler established qualifications to write about elementary school education by including her personal

experience. For personal experience, she recalled her visit to a school in Washington D.C. in which she

observed a first-grade classroom (Wexler, 2019, para. 1-7). However, this single visit is not enough to establish

her qualifications. She cites authoritative sources, but such sources strengthen her claim but not necessarily her

qualifications. From researching Wexler, her qualifications are strengthened by the fact that she is an education
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 3

journalist who has written for various publishers including Forbes, The New York Times, The Washington Post,

and The Atlantic (Forbes, 2019, para. 1; Hechinger Report, 2018, para. 1). This specific article was published

under The Atlantic, a well-known and reliable American magazine. Furthermore, the article is an adaption from

her novel The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System—And How to Fix

It. Additionally, she is the chairwoman of The Writing Revolution, “a nonprofit organization created to ensure

that The Hochman Method reaches as many students as possible” (The Writing Revolution, 2019, para. 20;

Greater Greater Washington, 2017, para. 1). The Hochman Method is “a proven, coherent method that enables

all students, and especially those from low-income families, to develop the literacy and critical thinking skills

they need to engage productively in society” (The Writing Revolution, n.d., para. 1). Her involvement in

education can also be noted through her service in the Urban Teachers DC Regional Leadership Council and

volunteer work as a reading and writing tutor at high-poverty public schools (Greater Greater Washington,

2017, para. 1; Hechinger Report, 2018, para. 1). Altogether, Wexler’s experience and work demonstrate a

strong qualification to write about education within the United States.

By describing the American education system, specifically how American pedagogy focuses on

comprehension skills rather than knowledge, the author can establish a common ground with the reader. Wexler

provides a brief history of American education, describing the current structure of school days and the

curriculum followed. She mentions the No Child Left Behind Act but does not elaborate on the specifics of the

legislation. Wexler could have mentioned the previous acts regarding education and acknowledged that the No

Child Left Behind Act was reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act. To provide context, the United

States Congress first passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, reauthorizing the

act in 2001 with the No Child Left Behind Act, which placed important new measures to expose and close

achievement gaps. The most recent education act is the ESSA, Every Student Succeeds Act, which was passed

by Barack Obama in 2015. The ESSA brings awareness to areas where students are “making progress and

where they need additional support, regardless of race, income, zip code, disability, home language, or

background” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., para. 4). Rather than informing the reader of the efforts to
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 4

improve the education system, she only acknowledges the declining state of the education system and the

existing achievement gap. While this background information is enough to understand why the education

system is flawed, Wexler should have provided information about education in a larger context and not just the

negative aspects.

A thesis is not explicitly stated but rather implied throughout the article. The reader would be able to

recognize the thesis based on the statements made about education and the evidence presented. The thesis is the

following: The elementary school education system will continue to perform poorly unless knowledge is

prioritized over comprehension skills. The implied thesis is sufficiently focused on elementary school education

in the United States.

The claim presented in the article is the following: Elementary school education in America is

progressively becoming worse, especially for low-income students, as the education system focuses on

advancing comprehension skills rather than knowledge. The reasons that support the claim are that a focus on

comprehension skills has not made students better readers and instead allowed more privileged students with

prior knowledge to advance further and increase the achievement gap. To perform well, students should be

provided with more knowledge and not just skills. The warrant that supports these reasons is that adapting a

content-based curriculum would allow low-income and minority students to close the achievement gap. The

reasons categorize a lack of knowledge as the primary cause for the gap in achievement levels. While leveling

the foundation of knowledge would decrease the achievement gap, various other reasons also limit the

achievement of low-income students. In terms of her thesis, Wexler did not use authorities or testimonies to

provide support. She primarily used research from studies illustrating the performance of students with different

levels of knowledge and specific examples of student performance. In support of her thesis, Wexler referenced

research from Donna Recht and Lauren Leslie, who performed an experiment in which students with various

levels of baseball knowledge were asked to read an inning description and model the game (Wexler, 2019, para.

13). Another similar study based on birds was also used to demonstrate the relationship between knowledge and

comprehension (Wexler, 2019, para. 15). Statistics from a One Rand Corporation survey were used when
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 5

discussing the source of reading materials (Wexler, 2019, para. 19). Such statistics revealed that a majority of

teachers resorted to materials and lesson plans found online. Specifically, “95 percent of elementary-school

teachers resort to Google for materials and lesson plans; 86 percent turn to Pinterest” (Wexler, 2019, para. 19).

Furthermore, she referenced E. D. Hirsch Jr., author of Why Knowledge Matters, a book that discusses the

“content-focused national curriculum” France had prior to 1989 (Wexler, 2019, para. 27). The book illustrates

how a shift to an American form of education had adverse consequences on achievement levels. Additionally,

the growth demonstrated in Sarah Webb’s classroom, a fourth-grade teacher who adapted a new content-based

curriculum, is an example that further supports the thesis (Wexler, 2019, para. 29).

The writer first appeals to the reader’s emotions through the anecdote of the young girl drawing a clown

instead of working on the assignment. When Wexler asked the girl what she was drawing, she confidently

answered “clowns” without being aware of the assignment on her desk (Wexler, 2019, para. 4). The assignment

required her to practice the following skills: “finding the main idea, making inferences, making predictions”

(Wexler, 2019, para. 7). The state of elementary education and the amount of pressure that is placed on a mere

six-year-old can anger the reader. This appeal to emotion is especially effective for parents who would have to

see their own children experience the same poor education. Additionally, Wexler’s diction holds a negative

connotation that further appeals to the reader’s emotions. Such words include “terribly,” “devastating,”

“egregious,” “plummeted,” “disastrous,” and others. This use of pathos helped strengthen Wexler’s argument

about elementary education.

Throughout the article, the author did not use propaganda devices. However, fallacies are present in

Wexler’s article. One of them is a hasty generalization when she states, “That girl’s assignment was merely one

example, albeit an egregious one, of a standard pedagogical approach” (Wexler, 2019, para. 8). Wexler only

visited one classroom to reach her conclusion about “a standard pedagogical approach.” Her assertion was

based solely on one example, making her statement a fallacy of hasty generalization. Furthermore, the story of

the young girl drawing clowns can be considered an oversimplification fallacy. Wexler credits the girl’s

misinterpretation to the lack of knowledge in the classroom. However, her difficulty in reading the instructions,
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 6

“draw conclusions,” may be due to another reason such as a learning disorder. Therefore, claiming that lack of

knowledge is at fault would be an oversimplification.

When Wexler introduces the current education ideology, she acknowledges the primary opposing point

of view. She states, “American elementary education has been shaped by a theory that goes like this: Reading—

a term used to mean not just matching letters to sounds but also comprehension—can be taught in a manner

completely disconnected from content” (Wexler, 2019, para. 8). She responds to this opposing view when she

writes, “despite the enormous expenditure of time and resources on reading, American children haven’t become

better readers” (Wexler, 2019, para. 11). In doing so, Wexler points out the flaws of such an ideology. Rather

than helping students become better readers, the idea of skills before knowledge is limiting student growth, even

more so for low-income and minority students. Therefore, the current system of education is not effective and

should be altered to benefit all students. Although she does mention the opposing view, Wexler could have

provided more evidence directly against the given view to weaken the opposing argument and strengthen her

own. In addition, most of her response to the view is combined with the support for her own claim. Providing a

clear rebuttal rather than combining the reasoning with the support of her argument would create a stronger

argument overall.

The writer does a great job of noting the advantages of having a content-focused curriculum. The

advantages are evident in the evidence that is provided which illustrates how students perform better when

learning actual content and not just skills. Students in France performed significantly better before France

encouraged schools to adapt an American approach. Adapting the content-based curriculum France once had

would not immediately show results on a national scale. Results would be seen in individual classrooms,

children being eager to learn and becoming curious about new content. Students would become better readers

and grow interested in expanding their knowledge. However, Wexler does not in any way note the possible

disadvantages of promoting more content in curriculums. Each student learns differently and so the advantages

that Wexler describes may not apply to all students. For example, special education students may not be able to
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 7

keep up with new knowledge. The differences in learning abilities is one of the possible disadvantages Wexler

fails to address. In failing to acknowledge them, Wexler leaves a point of weakness in her argument.

Wexler concludes her article by providing another example that demonstrates the benefits of adapting a

content-based curriculum. The example is of a fourth-grade teacher, Sarah Webb, who adapted a content-based

curriculum. “The adjustment from a skills focus wasn’t easy, but soon Webb could see that students at all levels

of reading ability were flourishing” (Wexler, 2019, para. 29). She specifically mentioned a girl who “talked

about plasma all year long” after reading a book about the heart (Wexler, 2019, para. 29). Of a boy named Matt

who had previously struggled with reading but “found himself keenly interested in everything the class was

studying and became a leader in class discussions” after the change in the curriculum (Wexler, 2019, para. 30).

The introduction of content created a sense of enthusiasm that was not present before. That emotion is used to

appeal to the reader’s happiness. Being able to hear of a young child’s growth creates a sense of joy and pride.

With those emotions also comes support for the thesis because the audience would like to spread the enthusiasm

of learning to other students.

Throughout the article, Wexler is clear with the idea that the current American pedagogy is not the best

approach for elementary school students, specifically for low-income and minority students who possess less

knowledge. She emphasizes the importance of having more content taught in the classroom rather than just

practicing skills. In her perspective, the reader should think that elementary schools should adapt content-based

curricula to eliminate the achievement gap and allow all students to reach their maximum potential in

achievement. With this ideology, the reader should support changes from a skill-based to a content-based

curriculum. Parents of young students can provide their children with more knowledge at home after realizing

the significance of knowledge in education. Additionally, parents who are not active in the child’s education can

seek more information about their child’s education and advocate for improvement if necessary.

In essence, Wexler argues that the current education system is not suitable to provide proper education

to all students because the curriculum focuses on specifics skills instead of providing knowledge. Children from

better-educated families do not experience the same disadvantage as children from less-educated families since
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 8

they are provided with more knowledge in their home environment. Without an equal level of knowledge, the

achievement gap continues to grow without progress for low-income and minority students. In order to prevent

the achievement gap from growing and the American education system from deteriorating, schools should

introduce more content into classrooms. Thus, replacing the ideology of “learning to read” with one of “reading

to learn” and allowing children to truly gain knowledge which they can take forward throughout their education.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GONE WRONG 9

References

Forbes. (2019). Natalie Wexler. Retrieved July 17, 2019 from 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/#6a9b2874e294.

Greater Greater Washington. (2017). Posts by Natalie Wexler. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from

https://ggwash.org/contributors/nwexler.

The Hechinger Report. (2018). Natalie Wexler. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from 

https://hechingerreport.org/author/natalie-wexler.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Laws & Guidance. Retrieved July 19, 2019, from 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=pn.

Wexler, N. (2019). Elementary Education Has Gone Terribly Wrong. Retrieved July 15, 2019, from 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/the-radical-case-for-teaching-kids-stuff/592765.

The Writing Revolution. (2019). Board of Trustees and Advisory Board Members. Retrieved July 19, 2019, 

from https://www.thewritingrevolution.org/about/board-of-trustees-and-advisors/.

The Writing Revolution. (n.d.). Advancing Thinking Through Writing. Retrieved July 19, 2019, from

https://www.thewritingrevolution.org.