Crayola Curriculum
February 6th, 2012
Every now and again, there is a convergence, a similar theme that runs through the conversations I have with colleagues at work, colleagues in the field, and folks in my personal life.
The issue? The amount of time students spend doing coloring. For example, the child who circled the correct picture on a primary worksheet on beginning sounds instead of coloring it in … and got it marked wrong.
In this case, the student learned an important (albeit goofy!) reading comprehension lesson: even if the teacher said you could circle the answer instead of color so you could save time, circling is so detrimental that it overshadows the fact that you understood the beginning sound. Thank goodness for assessments. The poor kid got a 60% because apparently, the goal of the task wasn’t to identify beginning sounds (he picked the right choice, so he understood the content). The goal was to color something in. He didn’t, and as a result, his grade book entry demonstrates below-average comprehension skills.
And don’t even get me started on the fact that the kid is already reading, thus making a worksheet on beginning sounds a mismatch for the skills he’s ready for …
It brings to mind Mike Schmoker’s 2001 essay for Education Week, “The Crayola Curriculum.” Here are a few snippets of what he says, though you will definitely want to read the whole thing. In over 300 school visits, supposedly when the school was “at its best,” he observed lots of activities during reading block that had nothing to do with, uh, reading. He found …
Students were not reading, they weren’t writing about what they had read, they weren’t learning the alphabet or its corresponding sounds; they weren’t learning words or sentences or how to read short texts.
They were coloring. Coloring on a scale unimaginable to us before these classroom tours. The crayons were ever-present. Sometimes, students were cutting or building things out of paper (which they had colored) or just talking quietly while sitting at “activity centers” that were presumably for the purpose of promoting reading and writing skills. These centers, too, were ubiquitous, and a great source of pride to many teachers and administrators. They were great for classroom management—and patently, tragically counterproductive.
One of the questions I would occasionally ask teachers during these rounds, especially if it was late in the school year, was whether or not students knew the alphabet and its sounds. The teachers would regularly say no, but add that, after all, these were either poor or second-language students. The question in my mind, never uttered, was this: “Why wouldn’t they be learning the alphabet? Why are they coloring instead of being taught to read?”
…In one high-poverty district where I made several visits, the principals were not only ecstatic, but ecstatic at the opportunity these observations created. In two years, their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test-9th Edition for grades 2-4 went up by 25 percentile points; in math, they went up by 40 points.
That’s just a snippet of Schmoker’s essay, but even a decade later, his words ring true. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve been there. So often, we reach for the craft supplies for a “response activity” in our elementary library classes that’s really a kind of behavior management caulk to fill the space between storytime, checkout, and dismissal. It keeps little exploring hands busy. (They don’t call it busywork for nothing!)
Seriously, I have seen a case where the title page of a book has been copied and the children have been guided to color in the characters.
Coloring is not an art form, right? We don’t have art curriculum objectives that are solved with coloring sheets, so I’m excluding from concern those activities that directly correlate to the learning objective and have explicit art-based instruction around them (e.g., learning to work with pastels to better understand Caldecott art forms).
And I do believe there is some value in sketches and drawings to help young students work through or demonstrate understanding of informational texts. Just like rulers and tape measures to help us convert numbers into concepts.
But just coloring? That’s not what is meant by the NETS*S pillar of “creativity and innovation.” NETS*S mean creative THINKING, not having a tool in one’s hand.
For most of us, Common Core is starting to nip at our heels. If you’re looking for a fast activity, try something with WRITING with your youngest library learners. For example, the word “because” can do a huge amount to help young learners recognize that arguments need to be supported by details. So here are a few potential “because” prompts you could try:
Mudge is a good companion for Henry BECAUSE …
The [animal]would be a terrible pet BECAUSE …
This book does/does not deserve to win a Caldecott BECAUSE…
[Classmate] would enjoy reading [book you’ve read] BECAUSE …
Anansi is a trickster. We know this BECAUSE …
You know my old saw: that as a single person approaching (gulp) middle age, there’s a high chance that I will have nursing home attendants caring for me in the sunset of my life. And I sure as heck don’t want them coloring instead of articulating what should happen. 
What non-coloring sponge activities have worked for you and your students’ development?
PS - For the record, I have nothing against Crayola products — I own lots! — or crayons. It’s not the tool, it’s how it’s used.
