So far, I've only read the introduction and Chapter 1 of Readicide, and I'm already nodding my head, underlining great quotations, and audibly agreeing with the author. One of Gallagher's biggest points in Chapter 1 is that because of the overwhelming expectations of performance standards, teachers are obligated to briefly go over a wide swath of material instead of going deeply into fewer topics. Gallagher says that when we curtail adolescent curiosity, we lose them completely in the mental sense. I could not agree more.
When I studied abroad in Oxford during my junior year at Mercer, I was given so many fantastic opportunities. One of these was the ability to take only two classes per eight-week term. During one of my eight-week terms, I took "Women in Developing Nations" and "The Novels of E.M. Forster." For each class, I (alone) met with an Oxford don, and after I took a week to read immensely and think deeply, we exchanged ideas about what I had read and written. Throughout the week, the topic of the reading was on my brain constantly--because of the discovery learning aspect, a natural byproduct of literacy in the classroom, I took ownership in my learning process and felt confident and interested when having my conversation with my instructor.
I share this story because I have experienced firsthand the deep learning about which Gallagher writes. By juxtaposing that experience with the startling statistics of Readicide, I fully concur with the author's assertions that "inch deep, mile wide" learning and teaching-to-a-bad-test is not nearly as effective as "mile deep, inch wide" learning and intellectual curiosity.
