From Apple to HP in Maine

Source

I have moved back and forth between the Apple and PC platforms regularly, both for home and for school use. I don't see tool platform as a big issue.  Yet my teeth grated when two weeks ago Maine's governor LePage announced that the 1:1 contract that has been placing Apple devices (laptops and iPads) in the hands of students for 10 years is basically defunct.  A new contract has been awarded to HP for as-yet-to-be-announced (for absolute certain) laptops and tablets.


Reasons:

• HP's bid was lower by about $33 per seat per year for laptops 
• According to the governor, the PC is the tool our students must use because it is what they will "see and use in the workplace"
• HP convinced the governor that the PC is the tool our students must use because it is what they will see and use in the workplace
• An Apple tool is an elitist tool which most students will not encounter in "real adult life"

- The cost of retraining Maine's teachers and IT personnel was not part of the announcement. 

- The cost of replacing/re-contracting for apps successfully used in Maine's classrooms was not part of the announcement. (But today, coincidentally, there is an announcement that Google is launching an Android app store, Google Play for Education, so it will be easy to spend the money districts don't have for apps.  Considering that the announcement contained this sentence, "And, as long as each student has their own Google account, teachers can deploy their app selections to the tablets for an entire class or grade from their own account",  it might not be as easy to use as the announcement announces.)

- The cost of replacing Apple machines and apps purchased for district and school administrative use was not part of the announcement.

- The cost in time of (some) IT staff for reinstalling/reconfiguring server-side software was not part of the announcement.

- The cost of virus and malware prevention/detection/management apps and implementation was not part of the announcement (yes, I know few viruses are written for Macs...).

- The cost of new laptop cases/tablet covers (as needed) was not part of the announcement (it may be part of the contract, I don't know).

- The cost in time for transfer of student portfolio and teacher instructional materials from OSX or iOS-specific file formats to Windows 8 (or 7 - this has just changed and may change again) document formats was not part of the announcement (for schools not using Office for Mac).

- The cost to teachers in time lost for addressing the important areas of curricular expansion and adjustment due to new CCSS and Next Generation Science Standards was not part of the announcement.

- The additional cost to low-performing (D or F) schools and their districts, already shouldering higher budget demands in the name of test score improvement, was not part of the announcement.

- The cost to parents replacing Apple devices purchased for home with PC devices - was not part of the announcement. 

The additional cost to districts and schools wishing to maintain the Apple platform as a choice was part of the announcement.  This could range from relatively small to the equivalent of a teaching position, or more.

Districts will come out even or lose, depending on local vote, which might be by the school board or town meeting.  Most will lose economically.   Or make changes in the classrooms that will directly impact student learning and educational programs.

MacDaily News had this to say: 

"Only iPad has a meaningful library of apps. Only iPad can access school textbooks via iBookstore created by iBooks Author. Only Mac can run iBooks Author. In fact, only Apple Mac can run all of the world’s OSes and software. Only Mac. Only iPad."

(Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2013/04/30/state-of-maine-tells-schools-to-buy-hp-notebooks-running-windows-8-instead-of-apple-macs/comment-page-3/#hf3ry8iJ1FhgjXmX.99 ")

The most important points to be made about this decision (as of today, a done-deal) are these:

• Industry does not widely use the buggy Windows 8 (probably the reason HP switched the offer to Windows 7 after the announcement).
• By the time a Maine 7th grader is "in the workplace" - let's assume he/she has at least 1 year of post-secondary education or training - no operating system will look like Windows 7 (or 8) and no laptop PC (if they even exist) will look like the HP ProBook 4400.  
• Maine is, also according to the governor, concerned that not enough HS graduates complete secondary education before entering the workplace.  This adds 2 - 4+ more years of technological change between graduation and workplace.  
• The academic world of today (post k-12 even in Maine) is platform independent.  Need a PC to study science?  We got it covered.
• Not all work is STEM-centered or business-centered.  Even assuming that the PC platform is currently more visible in these arenas, a significant portion of Maine's graduates will enter the arts and humanities, and small or home business arenas, where Apple is a top player because it is reliable and family-friendly.  Maybe Maine's governor does not care about these kids -> adults, but I do.  
• Kids are not workers - they are kids.  Apple products are, at this time, more consistent, secure, and app-rich (educationally speaking -> engaging) than the competition.  This is not elitism - it is the truth that comes from my long years of experience with both platforms in the classroom, with my adult children, and with grandchildren.  
• Apple and Maine together have created a digital environment that supports k-12 learning.  Undoing this in order to meet the questionable needs of a workplace future is just plain short-sighted.  HP does not [I can not tell you my source, but he/she is highly placed] have a great track record with follow-through or quality control in this arena.
• Even in today's workplace, most used-for-work apps and software are proprietary - tweaked  or designed for the specific use in the specific industry.  Think auto mechanics. Think hair dressers.  Think Maine government. Think industrial engineering. Think medicine.  Think food-supply inventory.  Think payroll.  Think Best Buy and AT&T geeks. Think office cubicle. Think your local graphic artist or writer. Think lobsterman.  Kids need to learn to be adaptable and creative with apps - hardware platform does not matter.  (This is not an argument for change when the cost-of-change is considered).  From my point of view, today's most creative and creation-making apps (that are not web-based) are iPad or Apple apps.
• iTunes is not supported in the Windows 8 environment.  What will happen to music and podcast libraries as the HP contract goes forward?  Oh - unless HP for ME stalls out at Windows 7.

On the other hand, I know that PCs are powerful tools.  Access is so much fun that I used to play with it every day (sorry - it is not in the basic Office plan).  Numbers does not hold a candle to Excel.  Hacking Windows is really fun for hackers.  Powerpoint is used to be more powerful than Keynote, and it is used to be ubiquitous in the educational and business worlds.   Many programming language compilers are built only for the Windows platform.  The new Smarter Balanced digital tests are designed to run better on PCs.  I don't know specifically about Windows 7 or 8 (except what I read), but app integration on PC laptops has always been good on the PCs I have used and taught with. That's a plus. Same for the quality of graphical and video apps.  OK for kids at least, even though all of the pros I know use Macs (shouldn't our artistic, musical and publication creating kids be using Apple tools?).  And viruses can definitely be contained if users are vigilant (and the right apps are installed).  

My take on this?  Maine can be forward-thinking, save money, and get more bang for the buck in the long run by addressing a few specific weaknesses in the HP-exclusive k-12 contract.  For example:

• Invest in successful curricula and programs by using contract savings to support requests for desktop and laptop Apple hardware and apps, and mobile devices and apps, that teachers want because they will be used in classrooms and have no equal in the Windows environment.  The state should not be open to accusations of limiting educational growth on the student level.  Especially not in the arts.
• Put state money into giving educational IT staff complete training in both platforms (including licensed repair of PC and Apple machines).  This will prepare the state for a platform-independent system by the time the next contract rolls around.
• Design MLTI and DOE training sessions with three and only three goals.  Let all other app-specific PD be handled by in-house and local discipline-specific workshops (e.g. transitioning from iMovie or Keynote, from Numbers to Excel).  My big three goals for MLTI:
• Teacher comfort and expertise in Google for Education apps and extensions/add-ons
• Teacher comfort and expertise with web-based apps that support the new CCSS goals (the 4 C's, textual analysis, communication of mathematical thinking, authentic publishing)
• Teacher comfort and expertise with management of cloud storage for educational use (Google Drive and Dropbox would be my choices, but there are many others).
• ... can't think of another good idea.

End of rant.  If you want to visit the dichotomous, often vitriolic, environment this decision has spawned, visit As Maine Goes.  Let's hope "so goes the Nation" is a NOT.  

My next post will cross-evaluate the most highly evaluated apps for education.

Why NOT to Read Using an Interactive App

Interactive is a buzzword.  Be careful, fellow teachers, how you employ it in the ELA classroom. 

It sounds like a great idea: apps that take on "the challenge of ensuring that every student is meaningfully moving forward in a given reading assignment—and not just faking it." (SLJ Reviews Gobstopper and Subtext).  The two interactive ebook reading apps reviewed by SLJ  work like the Kindle app on fire, or better yet, Kindle mated with Nearpod.  

Subtext

As shown in the screen shots, teachers can embed annotations, quizzes, blog-type discussions, tags, links (to rich media/video and web pages), underlining, and highlighting into the text the students read.  The purposes are to keep the students focused on the task of reading, to direct and enrich their reading with materials provided by the teacher, and to align these to the CCSS - all by layering discussions, tags, links, rich-media, annotations, and highlighting on top of the text. 

Gobstopper - showing video of teacher embedded

Maybe it's just me, but this seems to fly in the face of current trends to make students responsible for their own learning. It seems, in fact, to be exactly the same teaching philosophy that resulted in the reading packets and book-based websites much criticized now as the core of poor ELA teaching.  Gobstopper unabashedly offers "Curriculets" for the titles they provide for download (not too many titles yet, by the way, but many CCSS classics are there) which are really "fully baked" curriculum packets for the teacher, and Subtext allows the teacher to access embedded materials provided by other teachers.  Both will save teacher-generated media for the life of the app. It's a filing cabinet or laptop folder of printables in a 21st Century costume.   

The difference is that there is an attempt here, at least in Subtext, to engage students in a social media type discussion of text, which can now happen online or in-app rather than in the classroom.  Given this difference, and the wider text selection, I would vote for Subtext over Gobstopper.  Actually, I would never send serious students to a web app named after a revolting form of candy.  It leads me to wonder about the seriousness of the app's creators.  It certainly says something about their low opinion of the American student.

For the student, using either app is much easier than independent or worksheet-guided reading - one-stop shopping and no original thought needed. When you enter your classroom, you will know exactly what the teacher wants you to think about - or think. No need to open a blog or wiki or webpage or Edmodo.  No need to speak up in class.  No real reason for class.

For the teacher, using either app is much easier, after the initial effort to create or select embeddable content, than duplicating reading guides, making a website, or turning personal annotations into discussion guides to use in class. Gobstopper users can simply use the canned Curriculet. Subtext users can, if they wish, use the embedded questions and annotations of others - or lurk and copy these. The quizzes in both apps are self-graded reading checks (we used to call these "checks for understanding," but now they are just checks for reading) and the discussions are digital and archived, so the teacher can review them or just check off a participation grade. I would guess that not too many teachers will take part in the discussions - that would be too much like grading.  

It used to be that a student had ultimate reading choice; she could choose NOT to read or NOT to read deeply or NOT to think about the reading.  Grades probably were effected, but that student survived ELA, often by listening, sometimes by using cheat notes, and usually with an understanding that NOT doing had a negative consequence (which she may or may not have cared about...).  Her teacher had to work harder to engage teach that child (I am assuming that he does care, although that is surely not always true). Both student and teacher profited from this extra effort.  

Unless higher education has changed dramatically since my days, the college student still has the choice NOT to read or NOT to read deeply or NOT to think about the reading.  

We used to prepare students for the consequences of those critical decisions.  That was part of teaching independently responsible learning.  These interactive apps take away the opportunity to make reading choices.  In fact, I think they make it possible for a student to believe she is reading just because she responds to all of the layered-in objects.  In fact, I read p. 3 of Gatsby entirely by clicking the icons.  I would, I think, have been a star in the class the next day.

And for what gain?  Surely not for increasing a love of literature.  Take another look at the screen shots above.  Would you be able to really read Gatsby with all of that highlighting, underlining, iconography and pop-ups on your screen?  This may be the single worst way imaginable of guiding students into a love of literature and language.  

Not to mention the time it will take students to complete an assignment (Gobstopper recommends two chapters of Gatsby as an assignment length). Reading as a student, I got through about four interactive pages before I had enough.  Tired of interruptions.  Tired of taking part in discussions.  Tired of pointless quiz questions.  And I wasn't even reading with 25 other students.  

What I ended up doing was selecting two neglected sentences and writing disruptive annotations for others to discuss.  And I had no idea what was going on in the novel - a novel I love and have read non-interactively at least four times.  

Interactive is a buzzword.  Be careful, fellow teachers, how you employ it in the ELA classroom.

Close Commenting: An Essential Skill

Conversation snippit: see 2nd paragraph

Have you ever read a blog post, Facebook update, or online news article then scrolled casually down, only to find CONTROVERSY?  These are not only the liveliest but also often the most thought-provoking scenarios in my web-day.

Consider this post by John Spenser at Education Rethink, a blog which I follow with a critical eye. John is gutsy and writes exactly what he means to say. But do you think he thought that Do We Still Need Schools and Teachers (A Thought on Holes in the Wall) would elicit a series of responses from Sugata Mitra?  I have met with Mitra (in a living room in Maine...) and I am not surprised.  I am a bit disappointed that John did not extend the conversation more.

Another of John's posts (Facebook), resulted in a long discussion about the content of a math test question.  Although I agree with John on this one (he continues his own thoughts in a 2nd blog post), I have to admit that many of the comments gave me pause.  I have not yet done so, but it seems to me that by stepping back and re-reading these comments, I might be able to isolate a significant problem within k-4 math education.

We are talking about small pieces of text in a list, yet the above are examples of the type of discussion that we should require our students to engage in.  In fact, standards ARE requiring students to have these discussions.

Close Comments are comments that extend, critique, further support, refine or otherwise analyze a specific argument or element in a text (yes, this could be a media text).

Consider your local online newspaper - it doesn't have to be the Times.  On a good day, literate and intelligent readers extend the conversation begun in an editorial, letter or article.  On a bad day (at least in Maine), after reading the comments you might consider moving to another state.  Either way, close comments from readers propel you, the reader, to more closely consider the issues and information, and they might propel you to reread the original text or follow a link suggested by a comment writer.

Think about this: If we expect - require - students to write not just 120 characters but full paragraphs about ideas - as we now must do beginning in grade 3 - why do we not require students to fully comment on the online texts they read, review, or edit?

I have taken to closely commenting on Scoop.it content that does not merit wide dispersal without comment.  More often than not, someone responds to my criticism, often multiple people, and a conversation is engaged. Were I simply to rescoop a scoop, post, or tweet, I would not be entering a conversation.  By and large, sharing tools lead to a scatterplot instead of a conversation. This has its place, surely, in trend detection and trend creation, which are critical thinking elements, but it is not an action that develops an essential thinking skill for learning.

In contrast, Close Commenting is itself a critical thinking skill.  

Excellent comments generate conversation.

But wait - there is more.  As noted in this Dot Earth post by Andrew Revkin, commenting can serve a social, political, and even an ethical purpose. This is all educational, for the reader as well as for the writer. We can view "crowd-commenting" as a mechanism for issue groups to "build their online presence through more engagement in comments on articles or blog posts" (source). What is a student analyst if not an issue group of 1? Through the mechanism of a commenting conversation, that student will develop, refine, and adapt his ideas and their evidence. 

Imagine if student "crowd-commenting" (or comment blitzing, to use Revkin's phrase) were used to:

• analyze a film's use of visual imagery to develop meaning  (sample: respond to The Shining Code 2.0)
• debate, using textual evidence, questions such as "Who is responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet?" (respond to anchor paragraph or essay)
• present evidence supporting a poet's use of imagery to develop meaning (respond to anchor essay)
• trace an author's development of character or POV using textual evidence (respond to a passage or short story)
• explain the use of fairy tale patterns in The Hunger Games (respond to film of HG or to an animated video of "Hansel and Gretel"...)

And so on.  

But this will only work if the comments are factually and logically accurate, precise, and complete.  Emotional, unsupported, or vapid commentary, which often crowd the Comment field, can be effectively drowned out by extensive and documented discussion pertinent to the issue at hand (not necessarily in support of the initial assertion, either).  

The educational value of Close Commenting goes beyond the value of blogging.  When we require deep, critical, commenting, and assess it, we build the skills of both writing and close reading.  It is an essential skill.

At any age or school year or subject, a Close Comment should have these elements:

• a specific reference to a key element of the text (the original text or a comment to which the student is replying), quoted and introduced correctly: __________ [or You] states/asserts/proposes/criticizes X/assumes/identifies X, "______________________.") - this demonstrates that student has done a close reading of the source text
• a transitional or introductory word or phrase, which should avoid using "I" (Another argument/example/interpretation - On the other hand - The opposite is true - etc.)
• a discussion or logical explanation of the validity of the point being made
• (optional) a concise summary of what has been said

Sound familiar?

How to?  Do not just ask a question.  You must provide analytical or informational or argumentative text to which students will respond (not creative text).  I personally like provacative science texts, cartoons, short videos (include ads) and "out there" interpretations of events or texts.  Make yourself a collection of these appropriate to your students and your school.

The space (real or digital) to which you post this text must have a reply feature.  The space must be visual in that all Comments and the reply thread are visible to readers. Some suggestions:

• Safe: 
• digital classroom - using a blogging platform to which students have been given accounts (such as Google's Blogger through Google Education, Kidblog or edublogs), use a private post to post a text - invite students and begin the conversation 
• digital classroom - using an ed.Voicethread account to which students have accounts, post a text - invite students and begin the conversation
• ditto Thinglink
• post text on large paper or paste onto poster board - student can respond on index cards and attach responses, maintaining the vertical alignment of online comments and with horizontal space for branching (replies)
• digital use a "brainstorming" platform (such as to create a web
• Less safe:
• Scoop an article (after you have created an account and a Topic for yourself), send students to the URL or embed your Topic elsewhere online, and let the conversation begin
• use any blogging platform that can be accessed through your school, post a text, etc.
• embed Close Comments in YouTube videos that have been posted to YouTube
• Badges:
• recognize the best student Close Comments by making them source texts or by posting them in some way - in your comment, point out what makes this an excellent example

There are other tools for Close Commenting.  If you have a favorite, let me know.  Other ideas?

The New Face of Plagiarism

screen shot from .jpg image of poster, embedded in Educational Technology and Mobile Learning

I recently ran across a link to an embedded Must Have Poster on Copyright Guidelines for Teachers. I put a posted copy of this poster up in the teacher's work room at least 8 years ago. I have traced the poster's creator to the Technology & Learning site, but have not been able to find the source of the .jpg that has been embedded at this link.  The poster, it turns out, is all over the net, often on academic sites. Somewhat odd, because internet distribution is not part of the granted use license (see above).  Moreover, the chart itself is woefully out of date; its distribution as a "must have" guide to copyright is not academically sound.  Filmstrips?  And what of freely posting projects that include sound and video downloaded from the Internet?  Bad, bad, bad.

Or else the rules have changed, are changing. I think we have to consider some rule changers. For the time, I am limiting discussion to text.

Jonah Lehrer resigned his postion as staff writer for The New Yorker over a question of cheating. It seems that he made up quotations that he attributed to Bob Dylan in his best-selling book Imagine.

Forbes is tough on Lehrer but does not condem him. His work, in their words, was "not outright plagiarism," merely the "misdemeanor" of "fabrication."  The Times is subtly tougher on Lehrer, ending the article with a quote from an interview that appears to demean Lehrer himself as a self-created, trending, shallow persona. Just the type of person who would fabricate.

But hold on. I always thought that fabrication was a creative activity.  Plenty of great creative writers have fabricated dialogue - entire scenarios - for living, breathing actual people, my fav being the Queen in Bennett's The Uncommon Reader, and often for dead people too, as in Farmer's wonderful Riverworld and many current hit films.

And then there is Jane Goodall, who stands guilty as accused of plagiarising whole passages of her new book from Wikipedia and other sources (read about it here and more damningly in The Daily Beast).  Goodall has not yet been drawn, quartered and otherwise humiliated, as was Doris Kearns Goodwin (read the first story here), but she may yet be. Of course Goodwin bounced back, after a rather short hiatus and a few interviews with Imus, to become the expert behind Lincoln. Maybe it's something about "good" names, but we seem to be a little light on plagiarism now-a-days.  It is easily explained away as merely a "problematic" "situation" - surely neither expert meant to suggest that the uncited text was passing off another's idea as her own. In fact, it was not idea-text at all - it was informational text.

Then there are the persistent, frequent instances of news and other informational texts appearing under multiple mastheads. Have you seen this yet today?  In the Lehrer case, many other articles state "he made it up" and then go on to recycling or remix the Forbes and Times articles.  Of course, the writers of these pieces aren't guilty of fabrication because the text they are using was not fabricated. It was simply paraphrased or, in some instance, copied whole hog, without attribution.  I guess that's not plagiarism either.

Nor is MoMA's poet laureate Kenneth Goldsmith plagiarizing when he practices what he terms "copyleft" and "manages" text produced by another into a different form. He states in an interview with Mark Allen for The AWL, "The new creativity is pointing, not making. Likewise, in the future, the best writers will be the best information managers" (Proudly Fraudulent).  

Last, what about "editing for hire"?  Parents and peers - even many teachers - heavily edit for free.  But new services like Essay Editor for iPhone take this to another level. A bare-bones text can, for a fee, be totally smoothed and reconstructed by anonymous "experts."  Who's to know?  Who's to stop it?

So it seems that there are some new rules students need to know about.

Rule #1:  Making up "sounds true" textual evidence is OK if the context into which the fabrication is placed is fictional narrative.  But don't make it up if you are framing your text as informational non-fiction.  Unless of course you are writing creative informational non-fiction, in which case you are free to create. When in doubt, make a film.

Rule #2: Recycling text from a source is OK if you are creating your own text in the same format (tweet to tweet, blog to blog, digital article to digital article, print book to print book, etc.), which is just moving words around, not really claiming they are your own original ideas. It is also OK if you are using a text to create a fictional text in a different genre (Wikipedia to fiction or poetry - Dos Passos did it too!).  But don't think you can get away with recycling text if you move it from one format to another (digital encyclopedia to print book or student essay, for example) in a scholarly, informational context.  When in doubt, sound clever, never serious.  Or make a Google Presentation.

Rule #3:  Paying for Text Editing/Total Revision is OK if you are lucky enough to find an expert editor who writes perfect English and who can decode your original ideas and embed your recycled information.  When in doubt, have your parents hire a tutor.

I'm sorry, Maggie Messitt, but your thorough board of resources to help students avoid plagiarism is a waste of time.  All we need to teach a student is that anyone else's text is really just information to be managed, or remanaged, unless the student's product is not fictional print text, in which case he can not under any circumstances fabricate; in any case he is free to purchase the remanaging of his sketchy text and submit it as his own work.  At the very worst, he will get a B or an eventual reprieve.

"Oh how the mighty have fallen" (unclear citation and derivation - I refuse to accept a rock band as a source).  In case you are still not clear on my position, I am not happy with the rampant plagiarism and lack of citation that I see everywhere. But is this the lesson of the Internet that we can not unteach?  Is it worth the effort for every student?

Close Reading and Poetry: Why Poetry and the Common Core Don't Mix

[update: In case you disagree totally with my premise, you can stop reading and click here to find three titles recommended for Meeting the CCSS Through Poetry.]

There are times when a passionate and highly qualified ELA teacher needs to disregard the advice of experts. The teaching of poetry is one of these times.

To be blunt: Poetry should not be read using a Close Reading Method.  This will destroy for students both its beauty and its power.

As you know, The Method recommended and now being modeled for teachers all over the country and in numerous videos requires a 3-step read:

1. What does the text say? (may include teacher read-aloud - some recommend marginal and in-text notation, although these are generally discouraged)
2. How does it say it? (reread, focus on structure and language, tone, mood, symbol, POV, etc.)
3. What does the text mean? (relate to other texts, to me and my life maybe, author's purpose, support ideas or thesis with textual quotations)

Shanahan argues that not all texts require a close reading, because they are not deserving of it. I would hate to have poetry lumped into this category, and therefore disregarded in ELA classrooms.  

I argue that no poetry requires a close reading because poetry deserves something else.  What?  My thoughts are captured (and better expressed) by poet James Dickey. His (selected) thoughts can be found in this piece from Brain Pickings, "How to Enjoy Poetry."  In sum, he is saying that poetry must be made intensely personal from the first reading. A poem does not mean in the same sense as a narrative, argument, or informational text.  That is not to say that any meaning is OK. A reader can be totally wrong about a poem. 

For example, Frost's wonderful poem "Spring Pools":

These pools that, though in forests, still reflect
The total sky almost without defect,
And like the flowers beside them, chill and shiver,
Will like the flowers beside them soon be gone,
And yet not out by any brook or river,
But up by roots to bring dark foliage on.
The trees that have it in their pent-up buds
To darken nature and be summer woods---
Let them think twice before they use their powers
To blot out and drink up and sweep away
These flowery waters and these watery flowers
From snow that melted only yesterday. 

The poem can be grossly over-read (as it is here), over-simplified (as it is here), and definitely it can be confounding (as it is here).  As is true of much of Frost, dichotomy obscures meaning; dichotomy often, in fact, is the meaning.  Not at all simple. Not at all impersonal. All of the images are open to a dichotomous interpretation. Students asked to parse this poem will find it easy to support a simple meaning (nature is violent, for example) without grappling with the deeper questions embedded in the poem.  

Should students be asked for meaning, when the poet does not offer it?  

Many poems require feeling deeply - in the sense of using all of the senses as a reader rather than emotion - rather than finding meaning.  That is Dickey's point. To teach poetry, then, it is important to examine the text itself (How does it work? What is the effect of...) for the purpose of understanding and translating the feelings aroused in the reader. In Dickey's words, "You will come to understand the world as it interacts with words, as it can be re-created by words, by rhythms and by images."  

The reading of poetry can not reduced to a formula with accompanying organizer. I am afraid this will mean that fewer and fewer ELA teachers will teach poems that do not have a clear thematic relationship to another text - less complex poems that Shanahan and I would agree do not merit a close reading.  What will be lost is the joy of the single word, the moment of clarity when a reader makes a personal and deeply realized connection to...something.  

ELA teachers need to fight to keep great poetry in the classrooms.