Dear David,
I know you must be pleased that the Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states.
And now as president of the College Board, you will be able to align the content of the SAT with the Common Core.
But David, the Common Core is becoming a laughing stock at the same time that it has become Official Government Dogma.
Read this in the Washington Post from a writer who ridicules the 70-30% rationing of informational text to literature.
Maybe you will brush that off, and say it is the usual lefty rant about all the great things you learn by reading The Great Gatsby.
But then read this in the National Review by a writer who is a graduate of Hillsdale College.
Maybe you ignore these complaints.
Maybe you feel that you are so powerful and important that you can brush them off and watch disdainfully as everyone falls into line.
David, let me offer a piece of unsolicited advice.
I know you have explained and explained that the Common Core is not anti-fiction, is not anti-literature.
But when you have to keep explaining, that means you have made a mistake.
Those who agree with you are paid to agree with you.
The Common Core is increasingly seen by the literate public–the very people whose support you need–as anti-intellectual, anti-literary, anti-the things of the mind that can’t be quantified.
There is only one way out of this dilemma.
You must revise the standards.
You must drop the crazy numerical requirements of 50-50 and 70-30.
You say it won’t affect English classes, but publishers are rapidly revising the content of ELA textbooks and anthologies to reduce literary content.
I understand when you say that by “informational text,” you mean Lincoln’s speeches, not EPA guidelines, but no one else gets it.
The only way to end the barrage of ridicule now being heaped on the Common Core is to eliminate those absurd statistical demands.
Because they are absurd; because state and district officials have no way of monitoring whether teachers are complying; because there is no rational justification for setting a numerical balance between fiction and nonfiction, the numbers must go.
The ridicule will continue as long as the numbers remain in place.
That’s my advice.
I hope you listen.
Diane
Well put, Diane!
Unfortunately, he “doesn’t give a **** what people think.”
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
To resolve this issue, they would not have to touch a single standard, just a paragraph in the introduction to the standards.
Literature can be a hook for kids, a hook that makes them lifelong readers. In my school, our 7th graders read The Outsiders. They absolutely love it. Many of them are non-readers, and they love it. They get involved, we have great discussions. They write insightful pieces on the novel.
Yes, non-fiction has a place, too, but it should not push out fiction, especially in Language Arts classes.
Listen up David. This is sound and sage advice from one who has been in the cross-hairs of controversy before.
I expect the same response as the one you got from the President.
The revision could be to reverse the numbers for ELA classes – 70% fiction, 30% nonfiction. That would at least make it clear that the guidelines may not be met by taking fiction out of ELA.
I wouldn’t want to take the rule away, just clarify it. The intent should be to challenge students with additional non-fiction to increase overall reading, not to take fiction out of the ELA curriculum.
I’m not opposed to the 70/30 rule unless it is misunderstood to mean “take fiction out of ELA.” If schools and publishers really are misapplying it this way, then yes, the standards need to be revised to put a stop to it. And I guess the rule is going to be misunderstood.
There is no good reason to set a statistical criteria for teaching English
Diane,
This morning I attended a presentation by my son’s middle school administration about the Common Core curriculum. 70-30% was never mentioned. The teachers seemed very enthusiastic about the program because they claimed that, ultimately, they would no longer be “teaching to the test” because the Core integrates the test. “Depth over breadth” was the catchphrase of the morning. As a reader of your blog I am skeptical, but if I hadn’t known anything else, the curriculum seems like it will introduce a whole new level of rigor to our children’s academic learning.
I have this sinking feeling that my kids are now part of a grand experiment. For good or ill I do not know.
I don’t know either. We have to wait and see how it works out. No one knows.
It turns out Coleman has possibly contradicted himself. In the Huffington Post article, Coleman says:
But in another article by Coleman:
This article written by Coleman is the Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, 3-12.
I found this article on the Delaware Department of Education’s Common Core web page. The article is billed as ” designed to guide educators in providing support as they work to align materials and instruction with the Common Core State Standard.” So this is what Delaware is telling its teachers, administrators, and publishers about the 70/30 fiction requirements.
I agree that those ratios should be dropped entirely. Also, “informational text” should be changed to “nonfiction.”
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/17/how-to-fix-the-common-core-standards/
Sadly, I am turning into a serious conspiracy theorist. ANTHEM lives.
Diane, How does one person have so much power to revise standards for the education of most of the students in the US? I would argue standards are the most ridiculous idea that the US education system has ever had. No one is standard.
This is a great puzzle. I am still waiting to hear why David Coleman was a member of the board of Rhee’s StudentsFirst and what part of her agenda he shares. I think it shows poor judgment or really scary ideas about education.
Well said. I hope he listens!
Diane,
Why do you not speak out against Common Core? These standards strip states and local schools–teachers and parents–from any say in what and how students learn. Revising them isn’t the answer. Past standards have already caused great harm.
A subject framework for professional teachers to follow is all that is necessary for professional teachers, but previous standards and the tests that accompany them have already been harmful to students all the way down to kindergarten and preschool!
The CCSS are not democratic. States and local schools are shut out of most curriculum input.
And David Coleman has used such vulgar language. I don’t think he should have any say in what children learn. He has never been a K-12 teacher. What is his expertise?
I’d like you to rethink your stance on CCSS and David Coleman.
Nancy Bailey
I’m thinking, watching, learning. I see value in a broad national set of guidelines. I have seen good ones that assure that all children have the arts, civics, history, the sciences, foreign languages, but do nt tell teachers how to teach and do not create a scripted curriculum.
How is it that the entire public educational establishment has fallen for this ridiculous project of a bunch of governors? Can you hear the peals of laughter coming from the staff lounges of Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab schools? The king has no clothes. It’s past time to blow the whistle on this scam.
Coleman may not think EPA guidelines will be required reading, but EPA seems to think so. EPA Region 3 plans to integrate their Env. Ed. with Common Core as they look towards “emerging new science framework/standards.” http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2012/12/wading-into-standards-weeds.html
Diane,
A teacher in RTTT winner (?), Delaware, I am confronted almost daily with the requirement to cooperate in both unreasonable and fraudulent actions.
The latest is to have my students- all of our students- use a bubble sheet pre-dated September 1, to record answers to a DEDOE issued pretest that was administered in late November to early December. Additionally, teachers are required to bubble in, on the same predated form, our scores of open response items for which there is a rubric.
These “pretests” will be part of our annual evaluation, and could result in teachers being rated unsatisfactory, and placed on improvement plans.
Additionally, students are required to sign these falsified documents.
Common Core: yes, our state has adopted it, and as a math teacher, I am most familiar with impact in my content. As I learn of its impact on literature and fiction, and some suggested “informational” substitutes, I cannot help to think that this is part of some great master plan- yes, a conspiracy, to reduce freedom of intellectual thought, to constrain the American middle class to the limits of robotic obedience. “Don’t think about this. Just do it. Don’t question. Don’t challenge.”
This is the real difference between teaching with informational texts and literature. We are creating a society of workers rather than thinkers.
The state of Delaware, ahead of the curve, already requires their teachers to be such “workers” rather than principled workers.
Diane,
A teacher in RTTT winner (?), Delaware, I am confronted almost daily with the requirement to cooperate in both unreasonable and fraudulent actions.
The latest is to have my students- all of our students- use a bubble sheet pre-dated September 1, to record answers to a DEDOE issued pretest that was administered in late November to early December. Additionally, teachers are required to bubble in, on the same predated form, our scores of open response items for which there is a rubric.
These “pretests” will be part of our annual evaluation, and could result in teachers being rated unsatisfactory, and placed on improvement plans.
Additionally, students are required to sign these falsified documents.
Common Core: yes, our state has adopted it, and as a math teacher, I am most familiar with impact in my content. As I learn of its impact on literature and fiction, and some suggested “informational” substitutes, I cannot help to think that this is part of some great master plan- yes, a conspiracy, to reduce freedom of intellectual thought, to constrain the American middle class to the limits of robotic obedience. “Don’t think about this. Just do it. Don’t question. Don’t challenge.”
This is the real difference between teaching with informational texts and literature. We are creating a society of workers rather than thinkers.
The state of Delaware, ahead of the curve, already requires their teachers to be such “workers” rather than principled teachers.
Diane,
I was one of those who was very leary of the push for non-fiction in high school, but through nearly three years of working with the Common Core in St. Paul, Minnesota, I have come to understand the importance of forcing non-fiction into English classrooms as well as forcing social studies and science teachers to teach literacy related to their content. While the ratios, as you pointed out, are hard to enforce, they play an important role in pushing teachers out of the same old content. No one who has worked with the Core literacy standards sees them as anti-intellectual. In fact, we see them as rigorous and designed to foster critical thinking. What I have come to realize over the years is that I teach discreet genre-related skills for poetry, drama, the novel and memoir. Why was I sending kids off to college and work without teaching them how to engage in complex, informational and non-fiction text? Now I have partners in that effort in other content classes down the hall. it makes sense.
I am not paid by Coleman. In fact, I am a recently added member of the Core Advocates team he previously planned because I challenged him. I also serve on a national team through the American Federation of Teachers. I came to this work a skeptic set on buffering my students from the damage of one more ill-conceived “reform.” I have become an advocate because the more I work with the standards, the more I respect them. I suggest that those throwing bombs from the sidelines roll up their sleeves and learn. As for textbook companies, they will always try to dumb down content. Well-trained teachers are the answer to a poor textbook, as always.
the decision made to weigh heavier on expository text as opposed to literature had to do with what students are asked to read and understand in college. the majority of students entering college are not going to be english majors. they will be asked to read non-fiction, understand it and be able to challenge or defend the piece much like an ordinary citizen would do right here on this blog. unfortunately literature is slaughtered for students in middle and high school and we beat the love of reading right out of kids. i usually agree with you diane, but the time to face the change is now and the common core is providing the path.
I just spent a weekend training to become a Common Core ELA coach in my state. As a veteran middle school teacher (28 years in middle school ELA), I am very excited that students will no longer be spending months practicing discreet skills in order to pass a standardized test. Common Core is rich; it is challenging; it will teach our students to read deeply and search for meaning. As for the literature / informational text breakdown, 45% / 55% refers to a student’s entire day, not just ELA. And, while ELA will add complex informational text, we will continue to teach the stories, poems, and novels we have grown to love.
I remember sitting in high school reading short story after short story in my (“academically talented,” or whatever it was called) English class and finding the whole thing a waste of time. I don’t think I learned much of anything from it aside from the definition of denouement.
I am generally not enthusiastic about imposing strict curriculum guidelines on teachers, but I’m afraid this emphasis on non-fiction might be a step in the right direction. I do not believe that close reading of fiction actually teaches the sort of critical thinking involved in reading non-fiction. How is it going to teach someone to examine the evidence provided or the logic in an argumentative text?
“I understand when you say that by ‘informational text,’ you mean Lincoln’s speeches, not EPA guidelines, but no one else gets it.” Do you really think this? I think plenty of people get it. Perhaps some educators are pretending not get it to score rhetorical points.