In an October 2008 JAAL Commentary, Moje took issue with the teaching of generic reading strategies in the middle and high school content areas. She argued for teachers to provide “disciplinary literacy” instruction, focusing on the specific kinds of reading and writing that go on in content areas. The present article concurs with that argument to a point. However, the author questions Moje's use of the term disciplinary to describe the kinds of instruction that content area teachers provide—or should provide—at the secondary level. Middle and high school students are better served, the author concludes, by learning to read, write, and argue using relatively nonspecialized language. [Notes. Find the original commentary by Elizabeth Moje, along with a link to an explanatory podcast, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1. See also Moje's response to Heller in this issue at http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.4.5, and continuing discussion on Heller's blog at http://literacyforamateurs.blogspot.com/.]

Over the past two decades, researchers have gathered a wealth of evidence showing the critical roles that emotional intelligence plays in education, work, and life. But what does it look like to translate that research into practice? In this interview, Yale University’s Marc Brackett takes stock of recent efforts to help K-12 educators address the emotional side of teaching and learning.

Kappan’s editor talks with education historian Larry Cuban about the various ways Americans have judged the quality of schools and the success of various efforts to improve schools. For much of the 20th century, efficiency was the watchword, as schools adopted scientific management techniques from the business sector. By the mid-1960s, that goal was subsumed by a focus on effectiveness, which required that schools find ways to measure the outcomes of their efforts. At the same time, alternative models have emerged, challenging the idea that there’s only one “best” way of doing school.

No abstract

Supporters of K-12 arts education often make the case that when students study music, dance, theatrical performance, and the visual arts, they tend to improve in the academic subjects as well. But, as Lois Hetland explains, that’s not the best way to advocate for greater investments in arts instruction. In fact, a careful analysis of a vast amount of empirical research found no conclusive evidence to support the claim that studying the arts leads to better performance in math, reading, or other subjects. To make a stronger case for arts education, she argues, advocates should point to the specific kinds of knowledge and skill that students can learn only through the arts and which can empower them to think and communicate in ways that are essential to their lives and to the health of the wider community.