Diana Senechal writes:
I am one of those who do NOT perceive the standards as totally bad. In fact, I see a great deal of potential good in them. (Full disclosure: I played a minor role in the creation of the standards: I suggested some text exemplars and commented on drafts.)
I do see several problems:
1. They need piloting and revision.
a. For instance, the term “informational text” is limiting. A great deal of nonfiction is much more than informational–and a great deal of literature contains rich information (think of Moby-Dick and the passages on cetology).
b. Similarly, in the writing standards there’s a divide between argumentative/persuasive writing and informative/explanatory writing. What happened to analytical/interpretive writing? An interpretation of a literary text is somewhere in between “argumentative” and “explanatory”–but the standards don’t acknowledge this.
c. The specified ratios of literary to informational text serve no constructive purpose that I can see. Yes, students should read nonfiction as well as fiction. They should read historical material in history class, literature in literature class, etc. Also, not every class needs to have extensive reading. One wonderful thing about math and music is that you get to think in nonverbal ways (well, of course they involve words, but they also have their own symbols). If the curriculum is substantial and well designed, students will read plenty of literature and nonfiction (and will learn to think in other modes as well).
d. The “Speaking and Listening” standards have very few references to listening. Granted, listening is implicit, but it deserves more attention. Shouldn’t students develop the practice of listening to a poem, a presentation, or (gulp) the teacher? Shouldn’t quiet students who listen attentively and write thoughtfully get their due?
There are other aspects that might need touching up or changing, but enough of that for now. As for other problems:
2. Many schools have received the message that everyone, including English teachers, should include more informational texts among their readings. The situation that Tim Clifford describes is not isolated. CCSS leaders should state clearly that a rich curriculum comes first–that it should not be subordinated to some narrow aspect of the standards.
3. Along similar lines, although the standards do mention Shakespeare and American literature/foundational documents, they are still heavily focused on skills. Assessments are being created to match the standards; they, too, will focus on skills. This means that students will be tested primarily on skills, as they have been in the past. This in turn may force an emphasis on skills in the classroom.
4. Yes, many literacy programs have gone too far in the direction of personal narratives, generic reading strategies, and low-level texts. Unfortunately, CCSS spokespeople have countered this with extremes of their own. David Coleman (whom I have met and whom I like) has stated that people in the business world don’t care how you think and feel; what matters to them is that you be able to make an argument and support it. Two points: first, this isn’t so. Even in the business world, logos, ethos, and pathos all come into play. Second, the business world is not all of life. We also educate for intellectual, civic, and cultural life, and for the beauty of the subjects themselves. (In all fairness, I wouldn’t be surprised if Coleman had reconsidered his statements by now.)
5. As with many other education reforms, they have been rushed in (thanks in large part to Race to the Top). People are anxious because they don’t know what’s coming (in terms of assessments, for instance) and don’t know how this will play out. States that adopted them for funding may not actually like them or may not find them superior to their own state standards. It would have been wiser to make their adoption entirely voluntary, pilot them, work out the problems, and take it from there.
All that said, they do contain some good, in my view. I applaud the emphasis on attentive reading, high-quality literature and nonfiction (specifically, Shakespeare and American foundational documents), and argumentative writing (with all the caveats I have mentioned earlier). This nudges in the direction of a real curriculum without telling schools exactly what to teach.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
First, if David Coleman has changed his mind about that particular statement or any other aspect of HIS Common Core, he should articulate that clearly to the masses.
Second, the Common Core is being shoved down our throats AS IS. We can talk about fixes all we like, but until Coleman himself works to FIX it/them, we are stuck with the document in ‘as is’ condition. And I haven’t heard anything about Coleman even considering changes. He certainly seems cocksure that the Common Core is perfect.
The tests are being written, the staff development has been in place and is ongoing, the meetings are happening, the speeches have been shouted by Coleman and every administrator from the highhest in the land (I’m looking at you, Arne) down to our local curriculum ‘specialists.’ The publishing companies are rubbing their hands in glee as they push ‘must-have’ Common Core materials to cash-poor schools. Many of the materials I have seen have gone through no changes except the placement of a ‘Common Core-based’ sticker on the cover. Go to any education-related conference and try to find a workshop or publisher NOT pushing the Common Core.
Second, as a kinder teacher, I see extensive flaws in the Common Core. Those who critique it or support it rarely consider the impact on kids (and teachers) in the primary grades. That’s a tale for another time…
It is true that I wasn’t focusing on the earlier grades. That’s because I am not well versed in early childhood education. Also, it was a comment, not an article; I wrote it with blurry vision (literally) and didn’t mean it to be exhaustive or close.
Thoughtful post, as one would expect from the keyboard of Diana Senechal. I especially like this from #4: “David Coleman (whom I have met and whom I like) has stated that people in the business world don’t care how you think and feel; what matters to them is that you be able to make an argument and support it. Two points: first, this isn’t so. Even in the business world, logos, ethos, and pathos all come into play. Second, the business world is not all of life. We also educate for intellectual, civic, and cultural life, and for the beauty of the subjects themselves.”
These words resonate because so many people who know little about education and much about business want to use their money and influence to steer education toward a “business model” (and a lot of sense THAT makes). Why are so many enamored with what business leaders want for our schools? Corporate America may be a piece of the “real world” pie, but it is not the pie itself.
Teachers must approach the CCSS with a sense of balance as their compass. Skills alone won’t cut it. A love for literature must play an equal role (or, as Diana puts it: “We also educate for intellectual, civic, and cultural life, and for the beauty of the subjects themselves”).
Bottom line: Until it happens officially — and even if it never does — teachers may individually “fix” the Common Core by accounting for its flaws on their own.
A belated thanks for your kind words, kenc.
I recommend kenc’s blog, RAMS English (http://kenc.edublogs.org).
done. Fixed faster than the CC standards!
Having worked with the CCSS standards this summer, I agree completely.
3 is probably my biggest concern with CCS. There’s certainly benefit to close-reading/analytical reading, but if you don’t move from analysis to a consideration of the worth and relevance of a writer’s ideas, reading becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise, not a door to a deeper understanding of yourself and others.
That’s deeply true, Dufresne; you’ve finally phrased that vital objection in a way I can wrap my mind around. Do you think you may even have formulated it backwards?
In order to engage in close-reading/analytical reading, you have to initiate the process of considering the worth and relevance of the writers ideas.
Last year, I brought a magnificent primary source to our mandated Common Core training for science teachers. It was an engineering live forum website, where nuclear engineers from around the world had been logged on during the ongoing Fukushima crisis.
They discussed possible interventions and outcomes at a level that was accessible to my students, through the target technical vocabulary I was teaching. It was inherently interesting, with different contributors disagreeing or elaborating on ideas.
There was no way whatsoever to approach it through the Common Core standards, because those actually preclude the step of looking at the worth or relevance of ideas. They churned any “stimulus item” into indistinguishable, homogeneous, meaningless, and boring drivel.
Chemtchr, that live forum activity sounds terrific. I would’ve found it fascinating, and science is far from my forte.
I think in terms of the order of analysis-relevance or relevance-analysis, it depends on the text. If it’s a difficult piece, I think students need to analyze at least to the degree that they have a firm grasp on what the writer’s point is (or in literature, what the plot is) before they can have a meaningful discussion of ideas.
Regardless of the approach, though, I’m confident skipping a discussion of the worth and relevance of ideas makes reading drudgery for most students, particularly with non-fiction. It was hard for me to sit through Coleman’s soporific video on “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Yes, it’s masterful persuasive writing, and I want my students to understand some of the rhetorical nuts and bolts that make it superb writing. But we’re not reading the letter nearly 50 years after its publication simply because it’s impressive prose. If we don’t explore the historical and social context of the letter, its impact, and the relevance of King’s ideas now, then I’m robbing my students of a powerful experience.
Chemtchr,
At best, the standards should represent a part of education, not the whole–and should be treated likewise. In the text of the standards, there’s an acknowledgment that they are not everything:
“While the Standards focus on what is most essential, they do not
describe all that can or should be taught. A great deal is left to
the discretion of teachers and curriculum developers. The aim of
the Standards is to articulate the fundamentals, not to set out an
exhaustive list or a set of restrictions that limits what can be taught
beyond what is specified herein.”
I am not persuaded that they “focus on what is most essential”–but I agree that they do not and cannot cover everything. Nor should everything be CCSS-aligned. We should hold the Common Core to its word here.
Dufresne,
I think David Coleman wanted to convey the importance of reading a text carefully to see what’s actually there (instead of jumping off of it too quickly with context, opinions, and responses).
However, he took that idea too far when suggesting on various occasions that teachers should not provide context, should not read expressively, etc. Insofar as he articulated one aspect of teaching (i.e., emphasis on careful reading), he was on target. Insofar as he dismissed complementary aspects, he was not.
You can provide context, read with expression, AND read attentively. I fully agree that the last of these needs more emphasis than it typically receives. But good teachers use contrasting (and sometimes opposing) principles in their instruction; they know how to go inside and outside the text, and how to read expressively without overwhelming or distorting what’s there.
I remember how certain professors read poems out loud. Sometimes it was their very reading–their emphases, intonation, and rhythms–that illuminated the poems for me.
I believe that “common core standards” are a bad idea to begin with. To standardize a curriculum is to limit student learning and to limit the scope of what school learning can be. It smacks of Soviet style central planning. Worse, the element of a student’s involvement in her own learning is missing, and that is one of the key principles we need to keep in mind as we try to make school tolerable for kids, let alone a place where they can thrive and grow. The sheer weight of boring, humdrum, teacher-directed lessons (and test items!) that will be generated by underpaid editors and overworked teachers during the next few years promises to be oppressive indeed. (Check out Susan Ohanian’s blog to sample some of the nonsense that has already been churned out, including the worst of the “standards” themselves, commentary on how to implement them, and actual tasks and test items: http://susanohanian.org/core.php?showold=yes&page=1).
Instead of more “alignment” and “assessment,” our students need a chance to do more digging, more exploring, more questioning, more creating, more coloring outside the lines, more reading for fun. They need a better chance to feel joy and excitement in their learning, a chance to pursue their special talents and interests, and a chance to challenge their weaknesses in a nonthreatening way. Will the “Common Core Standards” promote this sort of school experience? I don’t believe they will.
The movie and TV industries have a saying that applies to inferior work, whether produced or not: “Hey, everyone got paid.” No matter what mediocrity and tediousness the CCS will spawn in the next few years, the standards writers and publishers and consultants will all get paid. Few of the teachers forced to volunteer their time to implement the standards will get paid, however. Even sadder, the students forced to slog through hastily prepared lessons and confusing test items will be wasting precious cognitive resources that could be employed in meaningful learning. That’s worse than the waste of dollars.
Yes, I’m exaggerating. But this is only true because there are many thousands of sensible teachers who will finesse, ignore, or reject outright the worst aspects of the CCS, embrace the best of it, and reclaim what they can of the autonomy that the standards advocates are trying to steal away from them.
What does it mean to “implement” the Common Core, whether it’s “fixed” or not?
It means to bring a self-validating testing apparatus down on public education, under the control of technocrats who don’t care a rat’s tail about whether the Common Core works educationally. If it centralizes political and economic control of public education resources in their hands, it works for them.
The enforcement measures have already been put into place by its architects. They need some kind of writing samples for computer scoring, because that’s the mechanism whereby they demand accountability to their products from public districts, schools, teachers, and children. They need some bizarre interpretation of the reading and writing process that nobody is doing already, so their products will be the only path to success in their own assessment regime.
The assessment boundaries for the Common Core were written before any Core was published, and honorable people like Diana Senechal were actually just “contributing” a few more pages to the volumes of decorative handwaving that accompany their imposition.
We were all there, and we know how the Core was preemptively imposed. In 2010, before the standards were even written, Democratic and Republican Party operatives threatened retaliation against state legislators who opposed the imposition of legislative “teeth” for the Common Core.
And now it’s being “rolled out”, and teachers across the land are being prepared for it’s “coming”. States are being told (by whom?) that they have agreed to implement its assessment regime, so we can all be held accountable to it.
These national voluntary state standards were somehow adopted by 44 states by a “memorandum of agreement” demanded by the US Department of Education, without the knowledge or consent of the people. Here’s my exhaustively documented recap of that story, if you missed it;
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_educatio.html
I think we can get their heel off everybody’s throats with the simple call Diane Ravitch is making: pilot test the Common core’s pedagogical value, and validate it against some external assessment of actual student success. That’s the least we can do, before we shovel millions of children and billions of dollars into the latest profit-driven furnace of Moloch.
Diane,
Thank you for posting this.
Could you fix my grammatical error in the first sentence? After posting the above as a comment, I posted another one pointing out the error. It should read, “I am one of those who do NOT…” That is, “does” should be changed to “do.”
Thanks,
Diana
Just for clarification: my point in the original comment was not to explain how to fix the standards but to lay out some of my concerns.
If students are reading in their history and science classes (as they should be), I see no reason to limit the amount of literature in English classes. There is plenty of time to read “informational texts” outside of the English curriculum. I never read an “informational text” in an English class growing up. We never even had an English textbook. Instead we given actual books and the lessons revolved around what we were reading. What a novel (pardon the pun) idea!
We finally had our first meeting about Common Core last week. Most teachers don’t have a clue about Common Core. Even the presenters who attended a four day summer institute could not explain what exactly the PARCC assessments will consist of. All we know is that by 2015, the Common Core is coming! The PARCC assessments will replace the newly redesigned FCAT 2.0 and the newly implemented EOCs. In Florida, teachers’ jobs will surely depend on the our students’ test results but so far we have received zero training and no one knows what these assessments will look like. We do know however that they will have to be administered online and we know we don’t have nearly enough computers to accomplish this. Will the Federal Government be providing massive funding for computers and teacher training? Florida received millions in Race to the Top funds, but so far all I have seen from the money is a lousy value added algorithm.
Thank you for your comment, kafkateach. I, too, read nary an “informational text” in English class. In fact, about 60 to 70 percent of what I read in high school was literature, because I studied French, Russian, Latin, and Greek, in addition to literature in English. I read a lot in history class as well; it was in high school that I first read Hofstadter (as well as Boorstin and Woodward). Also, in European History class, we read some philosophical works and excerpts.
I was in no way unprepared for college or the workplace. In fact, the main thing I needed for most jobs (before I entered teaching) was perseverance and the willingness to figure things out. Well, that’s not quite true–it helped to be able to write, think logically, communicate in other languages, and do basic math. In any case, my study of languages, mathematics, and music prepared me well (and also gave me things to think about outside of work). I did read a number of “informational texts” in college and graduate school–with little or no difficulty. Some, of course, were more difficult than others–but with a bit of concentration, I could figure them out. Some were difficult for the wrong reasons (filled with jargon and needlessly convoluted syntax).
Like most people, I sometimes have regrets of one kind or another–I wish I had more of A or B, or done X instead of Y. But I do not regret reading what I read in high school. Granted, today’s world is somewhat different–but not all that different. You’re still in good shape if you can write clearly, persist with challenging problems, and pursue projects of deep, ongoing interest to you.
Do the Common Core Standards leave room for students to pursue their own interests? In my opinion, no. That’s one big reason they’re a bad idea. And favoring “informational texts” isn’t Mr. Coleman’s only misguided notion. He also insists that discussion of assigned readings focus within “the four corners of the text.” Outside of the adjudication of contracts, maybe, a text does not have four corners! Even there, attorneys and judges must refer to common law and legal precedent, the sort of background knowledge Mr. Coleman doesn’t want students to connect with when they’re studying a piece of writing. The whole concept of sticking to the text pointedly rejects fifty years of literary theory and decades of research on reading instruction. And by whose authority? On what body of theory, research, and practice did he base his prescriptions? I’m guessing he used the method favored by all the would-be reformers: PFA (“plucked from air”). The whole CCS enterprise, a bad idea for lots of reasons, should fall under the weight of these two faulty directives–more informational readings and a strict focus on the text–by themselves. They are evidence that either Mr. Coleman didn’t do his homework, or ideological bias is involved. Or both.
Randal,
I agree with you about the “four corners” and have written on this subject here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/dianasenechal/2012/05/04/scaffolding_or_teaching
In addition, I wrote a satirical critique of the notion that “personal narratives” aren’t needed in the real world:
http://open.salon.com/blog/dianasenechal/2012/08/15/the_need_to_eliminate_personal_narrative
Thanks for the links. I’m with you on both issues. Is there anything documenting the thought processes behind Mr. Coleman’s work, or any possible research base he might have been drawing on? Where did the “four corners of the text” idea come from? Or the reduced emphasis on literature and narrative writing? I’ve even had a tough time pinning down what he was reacting against. It’s enough to make a person suspicious. Is he really just a tool for a business and media elite that’s cashing in on a manufactured crisis, as others have suggested?
A lot of research is cited in Appendix A of the standards. But the conclusions are based partially on a fallacy.
The basic argument is this: “We see that college-level reading has attributes X, Y, and Z, so in K-12 education we should take explicit measures toward X, Y, and Z.”
X, Y, and Z might be, for instance, texts of high complexity; a large volume of reading that students must perform independently; and a large proportion of so-called informational texts.
But those designing college courses do not say, “We want to give students complex informational texts that they must read independently.” No–the main goal is to assign good readings ABOUT the course topic. The complexity level will be appropriate for the course and topic.
As I understand it, the “four corners” business has to do with the perception that students must read a great deal on their own in college–and therefore must learn to focus on the text and what it says, without outside “scaffolding.” Indeed, they must–but again, a college course is devoted to a topic or cluster of topics, and the lectures and discussions provide many insights into the texts.
If you take a lecture course in history, for instance, you are typically assigned to a discussion section where you discuss the lectures and the texts. In literature courses, you are continually discussing the texts–and criticism as well.
In emphasizing complexity in itself, informational text in itself, and independent reading in itself, CCSS misses the mark.
Much of the problem is in how the standards are used in the schools. My latest principal stood in front of his entire faculty and stated that knowledge is no longer important, but we are all about skills. Never mind that he didn’t seem to understand that all skills are based on knowledge. Many people seem to think since you can find out about anything about the world on the internet that knowledge in itself is not important to teach. Just look it up. They foolishly misunderstand the importance of context in everything you might research or learn. Doesn’t do much good to read all about the Civil War if you can’t put it in the right century or relate it to what else was going on in America and the world. I wonder if people actually think that most people, when confronted with something they are not familiar with, such as the Afganistan War issues, take the time to look up the history of the Middle East and study it. “Oh, instead of going to the movies tonight with my friends I think I will look up the history of the Middle East and its historical relationship to the rest of the world and study it.” Absurdity plays a big role in the standards arguments.
Well said! Thank you for this comment.
Rachel Levy’s recent post on the Core Knowledge blog speaks to this as well.
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2012/08/17/when-the-common-coreteaching-reading-strategies-2-0/
Thank you for posting this.
Helped me a lot to fix core standards