In response to a loud outcry about the place of fiction in the English classes, David Coleman and Susan Pimentel have written a description of the requirements for reading in the standards. Susan Pimentel was co-writer with David Coleman of the English language arts standards in the Common Core State Standards.
Coleman and Pimentel insist that fiction and literature will continue to be central in English classrooms. They expect that English teachers will not only teach Shakespeare and poetry, as they have in the past, but literary nonfiction as well.
As readers may know, articles have appeared in the international press about the removal of well-known works of fiction from English classes. I know of no justification for such statements. The standards do not have a list of banned books.
I was hoping that Coleman and Pimentel would have dropped the arbitrary percentages of 70% informational text, 30% fiction. I don’t know of any nation that imposes such ratios, nor any justification for them, nor how teachers and schools are expected to keep track of whether they are keeping the 70-30 goal. Or what will happen to schools that disobey and devote 50% of their students’ reading time to fiction instead of 30%. Or why it matters.
Hey, the publishing industry is happy to supply a boatload of informational text. Isn’t that what is found in all those deadly dull textbooks of math, science, and history?
I’m hoping that Coleman and Pimentel will keep listening and drop those arbitrary numbers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Where did those 70/30 numbers come from? Are they based on an intimate understanding of child/learner development, or on a preconceived “demands of the economy/workforce as it now exists” criteria?
School districts have been responding to the Common Core by purchasing Anthology textbooks rather than using actual books of any genres to they can get the percentages correct.
Anthologies, no doubt, with a big sticker on the cover that says “New and Improved! Aligned with CCSS!” $Ka-ching.$
Absolutely spot-on, Alan. Pearson proved they couldn’t write fiction well (i.e., The Pineapple Story/Question”), but they CAN do textbooks! Or…maybe not…what was that kerfluffle about “blue” blood?
Those percentages come straight from NAEP. It doesn’t make them less arbitrary, but that ‘s where they come from. Yes, there should be more of a balance between literature and informational text than there traditionally has been. But not to this extent.
The fact that NAEP designs its assessments that way should have no bearing on what or how teachers teach. None.
I am wondering why you believe NAEP should have no bearing on what or how teachers teach? Does your statement refer to the idea that state rather than federal government should control what knowledge is assessed at the state level? Or that no test should determine what is taught in schools? Or that NAEP should remain a low-stakes test? Or none of the above? I am trying to wrap my head around this CCSS movement.
My concern is that so many teachers’s comments imply that they teach literature in isolation. One of the (if not the primary) reasons for studying/teaching classic literature is the reference to culture, history, politics, socio-economics, psychology etc other the story illustrates. Teachers who don’t use supporting informational text are not effectively “teaching” the literary selections. Mentoring as ongoing professional development is sorely needed.
“Yes, there should be more of a balance between literature and informational text than there traditionally has been.”
Can you clarify this? Are you saying that traditionally, “informational text” has made up less than 30% of student reading? And if so, what’s the rationale for increasing the relative amount of “informational text” students read?
I’ve seen HS English classes that are 100% novels, plays, and poetry. That doesn’t engage every student. While I like that type of reading, I’m not the student. We can teach students to think critically with literature, as well as informational text. I don’t hold to a proscribed percentage as appropriate. And I think the 70% NAEP/CCSS figure for informational text is out-of-whack.
I’m trying to locate a study the results of which were published in the NEA Journal about 12 years ago. Researchers reported that students who read historical fiction, not only scored significantly higher on standardized history tests, but, when interviewed, asserted that the information they needed to answer correctly came overwhelmingly from their fiction reading – not the textbook. If anyone can find a citation for that study, I’d appreciate having it handy for the next time one of these ignoramouses uses the term, “informational text,” in my hearing.
I will be interested to see how this study controlled for student interest in history. It seems reasonable that a student with more interest in history will 1) do better on history tests and 2) read more historical fiction. Trying to tease out a causal relationship between historical fiction and doing better on history tests would have been difficult.
Does it strike anyone else that using the Huffington Post to make this sort of announcement is well, an odd choice? Coleman and Pimentel are making hugely influential decisions for the entire nation and they’re posting on a site that is full of celebrity gossip and diet tips? It’s not exactly the New York Times’ oped page.
But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by their lack of judgement.
Coleman doesn’t give a ____ what you think….FYI.
It seems to me that good writing is good writing, no matter how people want to classify them.
What sorts of reading does he think they have been doing in the sciences, mathematics, history and social studies up to now?
I do not care what they think. Coleman and Pimentel can write all of the explanations they want. They still have no authority to call the shots on what happens in our public schools. My most sincere hope is to hear teachers across the country simply say, “NO.” If Coleman and Pimentel want to have a sphere of influcence in education, I suggest they start their own private schools, funded by their own money. I’m sure the kids of Rhee, Duncan, Obama, and Emanuel will be the first to enroll.
This may be unknowable, but if not, does anyone know what kind of fiction/nonfiction breakdown schools generally used 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Attached find the article I wrote last fall that no one would print about the end of literature in English. As a 12th grade teacher, I attended all the meetings and heard all the rationale. Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:45:33 +0000 To: rke25@hotmail.com
I was in elementary education 30 years; the amount of time children spend actually reading (any type) was never spectacular, but it has dried up to almost nothing because of test prep. A sad fact is that much reading that is done is for Accelerated Reader and the only interaction regarding this reading is a 5 or 10 question quiz.
After reading the ELA Key Design Consideration document, it appears that the CCSS ELA Standards are aligned to the NAEP test. When the CCSS authors discuss the NAEP framework, it’s important to note that the NAEP framework is a response to what is already being taught in schools across the country. Historically, NAEP has never DRIVEN instruction (until now), it has assessed what is being taught in schools. The NAEP 70/30 Framework refers to what items they use on their test. So, 70% of items on the NAEP reading test at the 12th grade level assess for informational reading and 30% of the items assess for literary reading. CCSS aims to align reading instruction in ALL schools across the nation to this percentage. Considering the media attention surrounding the discrepancy between state standardized test scores and NAEP scores, is it a surprise that the new national standards are now aligned with the NAEP test? The logic goes that with the adoption of the CCSS, state scores should/will miraculously begin to catch up with NAEP. Is NAEP the new test that we’re teaching to? Seems like it.
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration
Also, I don’t think the CCSS are misleading in any way regarding the 70/30 breakdown. The authors make it very clear in the document that this is not the ratio they expect 12th grade teachers to follow in their classrooms. All misguided interpretations of this ratio have been manipulated by the media and by teachers who are desperate for something to believe in after years of being demoralized.