COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
• In 2009, the National Governors Association, Council of Chief
State School Officers, and the Gates Foundation developed a set
of core standards for the English Language Arts and
Mathematics
• Since then 45 states and DC have adopted these standards
(about 85% of teachers and students in the U.S.)
• In 2014-2015, current state tests will be replaced by one of two
exams that will be taken by students in about half the states
STANDARDS CHANGES ARE HARD, BUT THEY ARE
ESPECIALLY HARD IN THIS CASE…
These standards are at a higher level than previous standards
These standards have a different style and organizational structure
that makes them more challenging for schools to work with
Common core standards are based on different theories (reading
comprehension, writing, differentiated instruction) than past
standards, so they are qualitatively different in several ways
THIS PRESENTATION…
• Will give you insights into how and why these standards are
different
• Will familiarize you with some of the major challenges of teaching
with the common core state standards
1. BACKMAPPING
• Traditional standards started with kindergarten and then added
years of work on top of those (and have focused heavily on
existing curricula and notions of development)
• The common standards began with college and career readiness
standards and then backmapped from there
• This means that the standards demand growth aimed at
ensuring students reach graduation targets (rather than
depending so heavily on what we have done in the past)
• This makes these standards more challenging than past
standards
1. BACKMAPPING (CONT.)
Implications:
• The common core standards are markedly harder than past
standards since they are designed to ensure that students reach
graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we
have done in the past)
• Larger percentages of students likely to fail to meet these
standards
2. COORDINATED STRUCTURE
• Standards are usually not much more than random lists of skills,
knowledge, and strategies
• But the common core state standards have very strong
progressions and an organization that requires attention
• Reading comprehension is divided into 2 and 4 lists of standards
(each list has 10 standards and these standards are analogous,
meaning that it is worthwhile to consider all of the #1s, #2s, etc.)
• Strong connections across comprehension, oral language, and
writing
2. COORDINATED STRUCTURE (CONT.)
Implications:
• Do not divide standards by grade level for professional
development (teachers need to study the progressions)
• Do not try to divide the standards by report card marking for
instructional focus (they need to be coordinated—text is more
important)
3. CHALLENGING TEXT
• Theory of standards in the past: schools needed to focus on
cognitive skills and text was largely irrelevant or uncontrolled
• Theory of the common core: Text difficulty is central and all
cognitive skills have to be executed with texts of a specified
difficulty range
• Item #10 in all of the reading comprehension lists focus on text
difficulty and specify the Lexile range that has to be the target
3. CHALLENGING TEXT (CONT.)
Implications:
• Students will likely be taught from texts that are more challenging
in the past
• Less emphasis on “guided reading”
• Greater emphasis on stretching students to meet the demands of
reading harder text (rather than on placing students in the
leveled reader according to instructional level or in using low
readability textbooks)
• Need to learn how to scaffold challenging reading (without
reading it to students or telling them what it says)
4. DISCIPLINARY LITERACY
• Past standards have not made a big deal out of reading in
history/social studies or science
• Past emphasis was on learning how to read (and the idea was
that students could apply these skills to content area textbooks)
• However, research is revealing unique reading demands of the
various disciplines (reading history is not the same thing as
reading literature, etc.)
• The common core state standards requires specialized reading
emphasis for history/social studies and science/technical
subjects
4. DISCIPLINARY LITERACY (CONT.)
Implications
• The ELA standards should be shared by the science and history
departments
• It is essential that science and history include texts in their
instructional routines
• Content teachers will need to emphasize aspects of literacy that
they have not in the past (these are disciplinary standards, not
content area reading standards—the idea is not how to apply
reading skills and strategies to content subjects but how to teach
the unique uses of literacy required by the disciplines)
5. INFORMATIONAL TEXT
• Past standards have usually emphasized both literary and
informational texts
• However, this emphasis left the distribution of this emphasis to
the teachers
• The common core standards requires the teaching of
comprehension within both informational and literary texts
• These new standards emphasize informational texts equally with
literary texts (in Grades K-5) and literature falls to 25% after that
5. INFORMATIONAL TEXT (CONT.)
Implications
• Text selections are going to need to shift greatly (textbooks and
leveled books)
• Primary grade teachers are going to need to raise their comfort
level for working with informational text (informational text will get
a great emphasis in upper grades, too, but this is not as big a
change for these grades)
• Need to guard against informational text being taken over by
literary treatments of factual information (such as biography)
6. CLOSE READING
• Past standards have been based largely upon theories of reading
comprehension drawn from cognitive science
• These theories have emphasized procedures or strategies that
readers could use to guide their reading (e.g., summarization,
questioning, monitoring, visualizing)
• The common core standards are also based upon theory, but
literary theory not psychological theory
• These standards depend heavily upon “New Criticism”
6. CLOSE READING (CONT.)
Implications”
• Students will need to engage to a greater extent in deep analysis
of the text and its meaning and implications
• Less emphasis on background information, comprehension
strategies, picture walks, etc. (though these still can be brought
in by teachers)
• Greater emphasis on careful reading of a text, weighing of
author’s diction, grammar, and organization to make sense of the
text (more attention to how text works)
• Rereading will play a greater role in teaching reading
7. MULTIPLE TEXTS
• Past standards have emphasized the reading of single texts:
students had to learn how to make sense of a story, article or
book (with perhaps an occasional emphasis on multiple texts)
• The common core state standards emphasize the interpretation
of multiple texts throughout (at all grade levels, and in reading,
writing, and oral language)
• Students will still have to be able to interpret single texts, but
much more extensive emphasis on reading and using multiple
texts (about 10% of the ELA standards mention multiple texts)
7. MULTIPLE TEXTS (CONT.)
Implications
• There will be a greater need for combinations of texts that can be
used together
• Need for greater emphasis on text synthesis (how to combine the
information from multiple sources into one’s own text or
presentation)
• Need for greater emphasis on comparative evaluation and
analysis
• Need for a consideration of non-text sources (e.g., video,
experiments)
8. WRITING ABOUT TEXT
• Past standards have emphasized writing as a free-standing
subject or skill
• Students have been expected to be able to write texts requiring
low information (or only the use of widely available background
knowledge)
• The common core puts greater emphasis on the use of evidence
in writing
• Thus, the major emphasis shifts from writing stories or opinion
pieces to writing about the ideas in text
8. WRITING ABOUT TEXT (CONT.)
Implications
• Writing will need to be more closely integrated with reading
comprehension instruction
• The amount of writing about what students read will need to
increase
• Greater emphasis on synthesis of information and critical essays
than in the past
9. ARGUMENTATION
• Past standards have tended to treat text as being just a form of
neutral information
• The common core state standards begin with the theoretical
premise that texts (and other forms of language) are a form of
argument
• Arguments depend upon the use of evidence and reason
• Given the emphasis on argument, critical reading (and writing)
take center stage in the new common core standards
9. ARGUMENTATION (CONT.)
Implications
• Teachers will be expected to teach students to discern the
arguments underlying a text or presentation
• Need for a greater emphasis on trying to figure out author
perspective, tone, position
• Much greater emphasis on the use of evidence
• Greater emphasis on making one’s own arguments (persuasion
is only one aspect of this)
10. TECHNOLOGY
• The emphasis on technology has been minimal in past English
language arts standards
• Again, the idea has been that students would learn generalizable
reading and writing skills and then they could apply these within
any context or technology
• The common core state standards reflect a much heavier
emphasis on how to take advantage of the affordances provided
by technology
10. TECHNOLOGY (CONT.)
Implications
• Students are going to need to know how to search, read, and use
information drawn from the Internet
• Students are going to need to know how to use word processors
and other technological supports in their writing
• Students are going to need to know how to use presentation
software in their oral presentations
• Students are going to need to know how to use various online
references
CONCLUSION
•
The common core state standards are based upon very different
theories and conceptions of teaching than our current standards are
•
Teacher preparation and textbook design are largely based upon
theories and approaches that are (somewhat) inconsistent with those
supporting the common core standards
•
Changing instructional practices to better support the standards will
require a major professional development and materials
transformation
VALUABLE RESOURCES
http://www.corestandards.org/
http://www.achieve.org/PARCC
http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/