Common Core Activity
Northern Humboldt Union High School District
October 14, 2013
Common Core Standard Video
http://vimeo.com/51933492
Adapted from:
The Common Core State Standards:
Supporting Districts and Teachers with Text
Complexity
Susan Pimentel, Co-Lead Author of Common Core State
Standards for English Language Arts
Matt Copeland, Kris Shaw, and Jackie Lakin, Kansas Department
of Education
Whitney Whealdon, Louisiana Department of Education
If you remember one thing from this PPT.
Text Complexity DOES NOT
mean a textbook.
In fact, there are limited CCSS and NGSS
aligned textbooks available at this time.
But vendors are dying to sell us Common Core
curricular materials.
The Crisis of Text Complexity
 Complexity of texts students are expected to read is below
what is required to achieve college and career readiness:
 High school textbooks have declined in all subject areas over
several decades
 Average length of sentences in K-8 textbooks has declined
from 20 to 14 words
 Vocabulary demands have declined, e.g., 8th grade
textbooks = former 5th grade texts; 12th grade anthologies =
former 7th grade texts
 Complexity of college and careers texts has remained
steady or increased, resulting in a huge gap (350L = 350
Lexile points)
What is a Lexile????
 It’s a unit of measure of reading complexity.
 A Lexile measure is defined as "the numeric
representation of an individual’s reading ability or a text’s
readability (or difficulty), followed by an “L” (Lexile).”
Lexile Scale by Grade Range
Band Level Text Difficulty Ranges of Current School Texts and Readings
Gr. 2-3
420-820
Gr. 4-5
740-1010
Gr. 6-8
925-1185
Gr. 9-10
1050-1335
Gr. 11-Career, College Ready
1185-1385
Text Lexile Measure (L)
Interquartile Ranges Shown (25% - 75%)
1600
1400
OUR MISSION
1200
1000
800
600
High
School
Literature
College
Literature
High
College
School
Textbooks
Textbooks
* Source of National Test Data: MetaMetrics
Military
Personal Entry-Level
Occupations
Use
SAT 1,
ACT,
AP*
Should we worry about this gap?
 <50% of HS graduates can read sufficiently
complex texts
 So why does that matter?
 According to the ACT study (and subsequent follow-up studies)
students who reached the benchmark score (21 out of 36 or better)
in the reading section of the ACT test had:
 a 75% chance of earning a C or better in an introductory U.S.
history or psychology course (two common reading-intensive
courses taken by first-year college students) and,
 a 50% chance of earning a B or better in such a course.
Why does this matter?
The complexity of what students can read is
greatest predictor of success in college
(ACT study)
A challenge for us as teachers
High School vs. College Teaching Practices
 High School: teachers scaffold and support students.
 Teachers typically assess what has been taught—not just
assigned to read.
 College and University: students read complex texts with
substantially greater independence (i.e., much less scaffolding) than
in typical K–12 classes.
 College instructors assign readings, not necessarily explicated in
class, for which students might be held accountable
But what do we need to do in our classes?
 According to the ACT study the clearest differentiator
between success and failure in college was students’
ability to answer questions associated with complex
texts.
 Two surprises:
 pedagogy focused only on “higher-order” or “critical”
thinking was insufficient to ensure that students were
ready for college and careers
 Question level (higher order vs. lower order; literal vs.
inferential) is NOT the chief differentiator either
If you remember a 2nd thing from this PPT!
“What students could read, in terms
of its complexity, was at least as
important as what they could do
with what they read.”
From the CCSS Appendix A
But what do we need to do in our classes?
Have your kids read complex texts. Often.
Measures of Text Complexity
 Quantitative measures:
 Word difficulty (frequency, length)
 Sentence length and syntax
 Some newer measures also measure text
cohesion and other features of vocabulary
 Qualitative measures:




Purpose
Language conventionality and clarity
Text structures
Knowledge demands
Quantitative Measures Resources
Lexile Analyzer:
www.lexile.com/findabook/
AR BookFinder:
www.arbookfind.com
Lexile????
 How do we measure reading Lexile levels?
 Go to: www.lexile.com
 FYI: There are six valid measuring tools--but we’re
focusing on Lexile.com
 What can’t the six measuring tools accurately measure?
 No measure can yet rate drama and poetry.
Activity: Sorting Texts by Reading Level
 Please glance at the four texts on your table:
 That’s One Impressive Moth-er Faker
 Are marijuana gardens destroying history?
 David Freese adds to postseason heroics as Cardinals top
Pirates in Game 5
 U.S. Fringe Festival
 Please sort them from highest to lowest Lexile level.
Title and Source
Lexile Measure
Word Count
U.S. Fringe Festival
NY Times, October 8, 2013
1500 L
876
Europe and England in the Sixteenth Century
Textbook
1380L
N/A
Are marijuana gardens destroying history?
Times-Standard, October 10, 2013
1290 L
817
David Freese adds to postseason heroics as
Cardinals top Pirates in Game 5
Sports Illustrated, October 9, 2013
1190 L
686
Grapes of Wrath, Ch. 19 excerpt
1130 L
940
That’s One Impressive Moth-er Faker
Slate, October 9, 2013
1060 L
627
Text Complexity Model
Text complexity is defined by:
1. Quantitative measures – readability and
other scores of text complexity often best
measured by computer software.
2. Qualitative measures – levels of meaning,
structure, language conventionality and
clarity, and knowledge demands often best
measured by an attentive human reader.
3. Reader and Task considerations –
background knowledge of reader, motivation,
interests, and complexity generated by tasks
assigned often best made by educators
employing their professional judgment.
Reader and Task
Implications for Educators
General Rule:
 For decisions about whether to place a text at the
upper, lower, or middle of a band, use qualitative
analysis. i.e. www.lexile.com
 For drama and poetry, use qualitative measures.
Video: “I Choose C”
Reading Anchor Standards Activity

1. What you are already doing.

2. What you could integrate.
!
?
3. What surprises you?
4. What standards might you need help
with?
COMMON CORE
SPENDING PLAN
Professional Development - $60,400
CCSS funds will be used to support the professional
development for teachers, administrators, and other
paraprofessional educators involved in the direct instruction of
pupils that is aligned to the academic content standards.
Funds will be allocated to each respective school site based
on 2013 Student Population data as reported in the district
CBED report. A per student amount will be determined and
allocated to sites accordingly. Sites are encouraged to
formalize request for professional development activities by
using School Site Council as method for review and approval.
All activities must be directly related to implementation of
CCSS and will encompass activities for both 2013-14 and
2014-15 school years.
Instructional Materials- $120,800
Funds may be used to purchase instructional materials
aligned to the academic content standards, including but not
limited to, supplemental instructional materials. All activities
must be directly related to implementation of CCSS and will
encompass activities for both 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
years. Will also support integration of CTE and anchor
standards via appropriate CTE curriculum and materials.
Funds will be allocated to each respective school site based
on 2013 Student Population data as reported in the district
CBED report.
Technology, Equipment, and
Infrastructure - $120,800
Funds may be used for the integration of the CCSS academic
content standards through technology-based instruction for
purposes of improving the academic performance of pupils,
including but not necessarily limited to, expenditures necessary to
support the administration of computer-based assessments and
provide high-speed high-band with internet connectivity for the
purpose of administration of computer-based assessments.
Year 1(2013-14): $42,000
Purchase total of four computer labs with 35 computers in each.
Two of the labs will be for permanent use at Arcata High and
McKinleyville High School respectively. The other two labs will be
housed in the library and available as portable check-out.
Year 2 (2014-15): $78,800
Based on effectiveness of devices purchased in Year 1, additional
devices will be purchased for full implementation of instructional and
testing support.