A comment from a reader:
I have a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in English Lit, and I find the Common Core to be only tangentially related to the teaching and learning of literature, culture, history, etc. If one knows literature or history or whatever the subject, there is a richness in the material that cannot be turned into formulaic lessons and checklists. Furthermore, it is turning into another load of how-to-ism and bureaucratic nonsense. And we’ve seen the how-to-ism and culture of testing kill off students’ interest in literature. Our “professional developments” only focus on strategies and cute little random teaching moments that would be suitable for elementary school but not high school where I am. It was the same with the state standards. It is really an insult to the intelligence of teachers and students. All anyone seems to be looking for is a Pavlovian response.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’ve just spent several days with teachers – including HS English teachers – who were designing their own curriculum and units. I understand the concern with the potential testing tsunami. I get the concern with the birth of the standards. But I cannot empathize with some of the concerns raised about the actual standards. Students are being asked to analyze works by authors or artists who represent diverse world cultures (RL.11-12.07a) and self-select text to respond to and develop innovative perspectives (RL.11-12.11a). Where’s the Pavlovian response in these standards? Where’s the checklist and formulaic lessons? Or is it the fact that no matter how good the standards are, it doesn’t matter because of the testing, their origin, and because some influencial writers have declared they’re bad?
I don;t think the standards are bad. My objections begin and end with testing.
*don’t
Ditto. My big worry, and I’m already seeing it, is the 70/30 split of non-fiction (from now until the end of time now called informational texts [like fiction doesn’t contain information]). It’s supposed to be a 70/30 in ALL classes. But watch, the 70/30 will fall on English teachers. I’m already seeing it. Why? Because district administrators like to hedge their bets. Watch- the pre-packaged Pearson English curriculum coming down the pike will be 70/30. Plus- public education is shifting to a very top down management style. Micromanagement and shut up and do it. Shared decision making? What was that? How do you know your administrator is clueless? You confront them with a complex problem and they tell you to differentiate.
Dinosaur, it IS happening here in RI. I think you are correct in your assessment — too many administrators are clueless and never read the footnote about the split applying to ALL classes, coupled with a top-down micromanagement style and the purchase of textbooks written by people who also never noticed that footnote in the Common Core.
But don’t worry! I’m sure Pearson already has plans to roll out an entire new set of textbooks that take the footnote into consideration! They’re just waiting until everyone buys their bogus 70/30 texts and realizes their mistake.
That’s bidness!
Also, here in CT only ELA teachers and math are to be evaluated by test scores after elementary school, so ELA will have to compensate for both literature and non fiction reading.
If the scores on SBAC, for informational text, are low or not up to snuff, they won’t be tracked back to the content areas, only English, so now we have to do it all, an impossible task.
Have you tried the SBAC test? One sample item for High School Writing is to re-type a long passage, and make corrections. It reminds me of the typing class I took in 1980 but worse. Is this what we call rigorous?
****Item 43599:
The following excerpt is from a writer’s first draft of a narrative essay. Read the excerpt. Then rewrite it, revising it to correct errors.
“I had no idea what to expect when I walked into the arena. There were people everywhere, most of them clad in brightly colored jersey’s with different players’ names on the back of them. There were some names I couldnt even pronounce. Me and my friend made our way to the corridor that led to the ice rink. The minute I stepped through the doorway, I could feel a rush of cold air hit my face. I could actually smell the ice! I never thought ice had a smell, but it really does. The next thing I noticed was the size, of the ice rink. There were lines and circles painted all over it, and I knew immediately I wouldn’t understand the rules. We found our seats, and it wasn’t long before the game started. We sat so close to the action that I felt as if I was right in the middle of it, the action was so intense it was hard to follow the puck, keep an eye on the players, and to figure out which team was ahead. When the home team scored a goal. The entire arena erupted with cheering that was so loud, I bet it was heard across town. by the end of the game, I felt so many emotions: delight, disappointment, fear, and excitement. Mostly, though, I felt in awe of the athletes who played this game. They are much more tougher than I ever expected. I suspect others new to hockey will be as impressed as me by this fast, interesting game.”
Now rewrite the excerpt, revising it to correct errors.
Type your answer in the space provided.
The task has no intellectual rigor, but the passage does contain a number of elementary usage errors which would separate those who have read a lot and who have spoken standard English from those who have not. And it can be scored by machine because the response is typed and the errors are the usual ones—sentence fragment, comma splice, plural in s, and other rather basic stuff which in most schools are covered in 7th grade usage and grammar.
Ditto about the standards. I see room for teachers who know their content to meet them easily. The 70/30 spilt of informational texts to fiction ratio is a sticking point, and I agree that the impact will fall on English/LA. Reading across the curriculum is a shared responsibility, and the CCSS are trying to make that point. Sadly, they did this in a footnote (and who reads footnotes???) http://usedbooksinclass.com/2012/04/13/dear-ela-common-core-english-teachers-should-have-more-than-a-footnote/
As for the packaged-Pearson-programs, we have been using digital platforms (Livebinders, PBWorks) to hold resources aligned with CCSS for students to access. Trying to starve the publishing companies in our district. Cost savings are very attractive when textbooks and packaged programs are discarded. I think that was the original purpose of having a CCSS!
I very much agree with the OP. I have taught English and ESL for over 16 years, and have particularly enjoyed teaching American Literature. Well, Common Core has basically blown up American Literature, and my response has been to flee the conventional English classes as much as I can. I think I will be able to stomach teaching CC in my ESL classes and electives, but teaching 10th grade McEnglish has become as depressing as visiting an old friend with dementia who doesn’t remember who they are anymore.
Common Core is cultural genocide. We have students who will never be exposed to American Literature in chronological and historical context. They’ll be too busy learning how to write business letters and doing close readings of free market friendly news articles.
A sidenote to all high school English teachers — remember that some of the best American Literature is non-fiction! I’m thinking Thoreau here…
Exactly, Ron. In a preemptive strike, I have created an Advanced Placement LANGUAGE and Composition THROUGH AMERICAN LITERATURE course (already approved by the College Board) for next year. More “Civil Disobedience,” less “Because I could not stop for death.” Admin approved it I think mainly because of the non-fiction/rhetoric connection. Or because we had to drop Honors American Lit for it.
It’s cultural genocide for anyone who can’t afford a “good” private school. I can’t decide whether that decision was made after kazillionaires looked at pop-culture (that they sell) and figured the masses didn’t need, didn’t want anything better, or what. Throw-away people don’t need the culture teachers have to offer, that’s just for rich folk.
In NYS the test focuses primarily on historical documents, as do the exemplars on the website. Is this the demise of history as a discipline? Why is NYS not following the clear instructions on the common core document regarding the teaching of fiction and nonfiction? Think of the kind of society that arises from a lack of exposure to literature and no formal study of history. This is the kind of society Gates and his cronies are trying to create. Sam Walton has already impoverished a large percentage of our population, now it’s time for the rest .
Flo – I’m in NYS as well and I’m not seeing what you’re describing. History as a discipline is alive and well. The new SS standards that were just released show how the rigor around reading historical documents can be addressed and how students should be doing more complex, challenging writing (i.e. less 3 paragraph essays and more evidence-based defenses of historical claims or events). The actual SS standards remain the same. What leads you to believe the discipline is dying?
Look at the common core exam and engage NY website. The examples for ELA grades are historic documents. Why isn’t the common core testing social studies like math and English? Yes there are standards for social studies yet no exam, so the liability falls on the English teacher.
Exactly….so how do we build cooperation and collabortion when only some of us are under the gun? It is survival of the fittest.
NOOOOO! Please don’t test social studies, too! We need to get OUT of testing, NOT into more. This is the argument I’ve been making with my district. Social Studies testing will NOT make Social Studies relevant, it will just make Social Studies low-level names and dates and nothing else–the reason so many students and adults HATE Social Studies in the first place.
I appreciate what you have to say and agree with you but we (teachers/educators) are on the same side so comments like “…cute little random teaching moments …would be suitable for elementary school but not high school where I am…” are not useful but divisive. As we attempt to disrupt and counter such mandates as the CC let’s do so by thinking carefully about what we say and how we say it. We need solidarity as educators. There’s no room for putting each other down.
I don’t know– I see MANY more references to seminal American works in the CCSS than I ever did in our state standards.
My worry is what students will be TESTED on. They will not be tested on whether or not they can, say, place Mather’s “Wonders of the Invisible World” and/or Paine’s views on organized religion in context and explain the purpose of each. I fear they will be asked to read snippets of God knows what and be asked questions irrelevant to anything of historical, social or cultural importance.
Actually, I DO believe high stakes testing IS designed for Palovian thinking and thinkers. Critical thinking is attacked and lower level superficial thinking celebrated and encouraged. To what purpose? “Follow the money!” (PS: The money isn’t going to follow you – that’s part of the plan, me thinks.)
School is becoming the bad, academic version of karaoke.
Before you can teach ‘critical thinking’ you have to have something to think about. The Constitution is non-fiction.
This is the NYS list by grade level and module, if a school chooses to adopt the curriculum. What many find maddening is that this feels like an imposition rather than a choice.
http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/9-12-ela-text-list.docx
It looks like a pretty solid list to me. I see a lot of things on there that I’ve always taught and a lot of titles I have not. One reason I enjoyed teaching is that I was always able to learn new things. The NYS lists would push me into texts I would not normally, probably, have chosen myself. Thus if I were a NYS teacher, I think I could look forward to having a ‘growth year’ difficult as those always are. I’d sure hope that I wouldn’t have more than one prep though. I’d have to bust my chops to read, understand, and more importantly develop the historical and philosophical context of some of those works. But what’s not to like?
BUT, the list of readings seems hard to me, and would be even harder for students. It’s a beast of a curriculum, but one that college-going kids ought to be able to handle, though not without real work. Doing well on tests over that material would press even me, and I like studying. Someone in NYS has done some good thinking.
I’d be tempted to take the easy way out and just say: “Well, if that’s the prescribed reading list, let’s go for it and do as well as we can with it.”
I was amused by the entry under Module four of the 12th grade: “The Canterbury Tales.” Yes, I’ve taught the General Prologue and several selected tales both in translation and in Middle English, but even though I was supposed to have read them all in college, and since my Middle English is pretty good, I probably could reacquire them, but at enormous cost of time and effort.
I’d really want to take a course, and with a real professor too, in a real classroom. But when to do it? And how to find the money? And, more important, how to find such a professor within driving distance? And more important than that even, how to feel comfortable in a university classroom room filled with 19 year olds who all seem to be so much smarter than I am. Scary. Does the CCSS in NYS provide that kind of professional development support?
That’s a pretty short and random list. Is it definitive, or merely a starting point? Has anyone read Susan Wise Bauer’s “How to give yourself a Classical Education”? It’s a comprehensive self-study guide for independent reading beyond the classroom.
This Common Core folderol for English seems based on the false assumption that teachers of those subjects aren’t already doing things like critical thinking, close reading of texts, etc. The very existence of CCSS implies that these things arent happening, or that teachers are fumbling around, not knowing how to teach their subjects. Outrageous! Just what the heck do they think goes on in Humanities classes? Just because some Hedgeucators recently became aware of certain aspects of pedagogy (that have been going on continuosly for 2500 years) does not mean that they are “innovative.”
That’s an excellent term:”Hedgucators.”
Heaven help us all if their “pedagogical innovation” even remotely resembles the “financial innovation” they’ve subjected the world to.
I believe “Hedgeucator” is a portmanteau originally coined by Jon Awbrey.
All true, plus the fact that tests developed by someone other than the teacher implies that teachers cannot assess!
*tests are being developed. (Sorry, overheated today!)
Pavlov’s dog is right. That is what the deformers want: NO Questioning of the dysfunctional, greedy, bad, ignorant status quo. What a better way to have the young not question. Haven’t we seen this before? Think….Hitler Youth Groups!
And thus concludes any conversation about the meaning, intent, of the quality of the Common Core. It absolutely baffles me that educators who say the goal is critical, independent thought in students resort to the absolute worst logical fallacies and rhetorical statements. I cannot conceive a situation in which it make sense to compare a a DOCUMENT and Hitler Youth Groups.
The Common Core in ELA: technocratic Philistinism.
Summation of Conference Call….
On June 27, 2013 “Concerned Women of America” held a conference call on the national education standards named Common Core with an audience of 400 attendees. The speakers were professional educators concerned with the dangers Common Core presents, just as many parents are.
It was encouraging to hear professionals who were part of the process and examined these standards reach the same conclusion many of us did, that Common Core is not the best way for NC, or any state equal to the task,to strengthen the curriculum which educates their children.
Here are links to the bio information of some of the people who spoke on the Common Core Conference Call:
Joy Pullman, Heartland Institute: http://heartland.org/joy-pullmann
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, Common Core Validation Committee member, http://www.uaedreform.org/sandra-stotsky/
Richard Innes, Bluegrass Institute: http://www.bipps.org/staff/
During the one hour call I jotted down what the participants had to say. No transcript is available which I can forward.
What I learned:
Common Core is NOT a state led initiative, despite the assertion it is. Its standards were the creation of two outside organizations that own the copyrights. The creators are not answerable, nor were critical comments made public, so there is no transparency.
Also, the US Dept. of Education has been deeply involved and has funneled money from other education programs to develop Common Core.
The development process had facilitators, but speakers said it was not open to varied viewpoints as the narrow focus was driven to promote a decided upon set of college-readiness standards, not open to suggestions from others.
Five of the 29 members of the Validation Committee refused to sign off with approval as facilitators would not supply international benchmarks Common Core could be measured against. Additional concern was also expressed about the use if literature, too!
The letters from these five were not made public, but it was suggested information can be found on Stop Common Core website created in Georgia http://stopcommoncore.com/
In addition, Civitas, based here in Raleigh has its own site, http://stopcommoncorenc.org/
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a member of the Common Core Validation Committee ,said she did not sign off on the standards as no benchmarks to compare with were provided. She asked but did not receive the mentioned ‘Intl. benchmarks’ and concluded that most of the ELA standards were “NOT STANDARDS AT ALL”. Also, no relationship with contents, nor were standard research based.
Example: Eng teacher would be teaching much less literary study, it was replaced with “information text”, an ambiguous description. Additionally, teachers say they do not have time to teach much literature with the prescribed curriculum.
NOTE: Teachers who are critical do NOT speak up, as they feel threatened.
Common Core disregarded state Sunshine law.
There is a growing anti-testing movement.
Standards are being used to drive assessments. If standards are weak, so are assessments.
Standards benefit special interests, national objectives, NOT state written or state approved.
Common Core:
Will also have effect on private and home schoolers, as there is no test that does not adhere to it.
Creates an education monopoly and a cottage industry both which benefit from the billions in govt contracts.
Takes away parental/local control which has been the tradition of public education.
Creators are too far away from the education of children.
Dept. of Education is proposing enormous amount of information on students go into a central data base and include non relevant data which will be shared with other agencies at state/national evel. Info. proposed has NOTHING to do with education,
including, religious, voting, medical, etc. This information will go EVERYWHERE! Consider this could be a bonanza for identity thieves….it will become digital DNA!
Lastly, be wary of “defenders” of Common Core. Rather than answer its critics with responsible factual answers they will launch an attack claiming those against it believe propaganda and myths….a clear signal their defense is hollow at best.
The website for Concerned Women of American is cwfa.org for more information.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno