The Challenge of Common Core State Standards

1. The Challenge of Common Core State Standards Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Valuable RESources • http://www.corestandards.org/ • http://www.achieve.org/PARCC • http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/

27. The Challenge of Common Core State Standards Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com