Gallagher draws our attention to Finland--they finished first in a recent international reading study of 57 countries (115). Buried in the same paragraph is the fact that they are ahead in math and science as well. By the time we get to the next page, though, Gallagher has forgotten all the rest. "How did the Finns build the best readers in the world? By eliminating standardized testing and emphasizing the importance of reading and critical thinking, by nurturing deeper thinking and creativity, and by leading their students away from the drill-and-kill instructional approach that is currently permeating American schools" (116). News flash: those changes didn't only improve scores for the Finnish in reading, but their math and science performance was certainly improved by the same elimination of standardized testing, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking, nurturing creativity and deeper thinking, and leading students away from drill-and-kill instruction. Gallagher misses opportunities to raise issues that all American teachers should think about because he is interested in talking about how the Finns do what he promotes in his book about reading.
Earlier in the chapter, Gallagher had me interested. Creativity used to be the best kept secret of education in the United States. Now, we're giving up that prized edge for the sake of testing (114). I'm on board with all of that because it relates to every discipline. Then, out of left field comes Gallagher's interpretation and conclusion, "We are intentionally surrendering our 'secret weapon,' and in doing so, we are killing readers along the way" (115). Come on, Gallagher! It's about more than readers. Does it take creativity to read? Does it take creativity to solve society's problems? I'm much more convinced of the latter than the former.
I think Gallagher suffered from what my undergraduate professor called "waning exuberance" while he was writing Readicide. His earlier chapters are longer than his later chapters, and the later chapters mostly repeat the content of the earlier chapters. It bothers me that Gallagher would publish a book that is only book-length because he repeated his material and then make even more money than he already has by doing so.
For many reasons, I find it hard to take Gallagher's agenda seriously, but mostly because it is exactly that: an agenda. At least he doesn't hide that fact like some politicians do.
