The Common Core emphasizes the importance of “close reading,” that is, understanding the meaning of a text without reference to context or background knowledge, which presumably might privilege some students over others.
In this post, Valerie Strauss explains how the writers of the Common Core conceptualize the teaching of the Gettysburg Address. It was delivered by President Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery, nearly five months after the Battle of Gettysburg, where Union forces defeated the Confederate army.
Strauss writes:
The unit — “A Close Reading of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address“ — is designed for students to do a “close reading” of the address “with text-dependent questions” — but without historical context. Teachers are given a detailed 29-page script of how to teach the unit, with the following explanation:
The idea here is to plunge students into an independent encounter with this short text. Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset. It may make sense to notify students that the short text is thought to be difficult and they are not expected to understand it fully on a first reading — that they can expect to struggle. Some students may be frustrated, but all students need practice in doing their best to stay with something they do not initially understand. This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.
The Gettysburg Address unit can be found on the Web site of Student Achievement Partners, a nonprofit organization founded by three people described as “lead authorsof the Common Core State Standards.” They are David Coleman, now president of the College Board who worked on the English Language Arts standards; Jason Zimba, who worked on the math standards; and Susan Pimental, who worked on the ELA standards. The organization’s Linked In biography also describes the three as the “lead writers of the Common Core State Standards.”
Strauss added a letter from a teacher who complained about the insufficiency of “close reading” when considering a text so fraught with meaning as the Gettysburg address. How is a student to understand the text while knowing nothing about where or why it was delivered?
In this post, Paul Horton–who teaches history at the University Lab School in Chicago–reacts to Valerie Strauss’s column on the Common Core “close reading” of the Gettysburg Address.
Horton writes:
The reading of the Gettysburg Address for the authors of the Common Core Standards is an exercise in the acquisition of literacy. The document is cut away from any context that would allow students to understand its historical significance.
This idea, after all, is the whole point of the postwar evolution of the “New Criticism”: literary value is determined by a work’s internal complexity: the tensions between elements or particulars and symbols, as leading “new critic” John Crowe Ransom who was the founding editor of the Kenyon Review might say.
Students who read the Address will be assessed on developing a short essay discussion of three main ideas discussed. The short essay will be graded according to a rubric that looks for key words, organization, and the repetition of key ideas.
He notes that this vitally important speech is shorn of any historical meaning when it is subjected to “close reading.”
Why the “close reading,” absent context?
It makes student answers easier to grade by machine.
Horton writes:
When the test makers designed the standards and the curriculum, they were not concerned with what the kids are learning or with anything that could possibly resemble knowledge. They created tests that could be graded easily and cheaply, either by teams that had been validated on an airtight rubric, or by computer algorithms.
And he adds:
If you were to write about the unbearable sadness of feeling the weight of hundreds of thousands of deaths and families torn asunder, you would fail your Pearson test. The state Superintendent’s “cut” might feel like an amputation.
Context? Don’t they do that in history class? From what I have seen, the Common Core snippet patrol can pare “Big History” down to a couple of milliseconds of not so cosmic time. History is lucky to get a “New York minute” these days. Schools are letting go of all of the old farts and marms who teach in depth research and who care about “significance.”
If you don’t know that the winter of 1863 was a tough time because of all of those details that the retired and fired teachers took with them when they cleared their desks, you would be a great candidate for teaching the “Gettysburg Address” and History with the script handed you by our genius test makers.
How is it possible for any student to understand the meaning of the Gettysburg Address without knowing the historical context in which it was delivered?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Because the meaning does not matter to Coleman. this is test prep. The only school experience in which students read without context is when they take tests. Coleman does not understand learning. Learning happens in the mind of the learner. Learners always bring context when they read. By excluding the context that arises from shared discussion under teacher direction, you are disadvantaging kids who do not have the background knowledge, such as ELLs.
So the claim is to make it equitable to readers but that is not likely considering the reality of human learning.
Do all states who adopted CCSS have to use the script?
Yes! I sat through this exact lesson at a Professional Development seminar offered at the network and couldn’t help thinking – this goes against everything I have learned about teaching students to read. I spend a great deal of class time building background knowledge. Good readers are constantly making connections to what they already know, to the words in front of them. I teach 11th grade US history to ELLs. My class is challenging for them because of the huge amount of content we need to cover, because English is not their native language and many are lacking in the requisite academic skills, and because they do not have the background knowledge to easily understand these dense texts.
“This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.” This is ridiculous. My own children learned about the Civil War in the 5th grade. Should the 11th grade teacher tell them to forget what they have learned?! Also, I have taken my kids to Washington D.C. – should I tell them to forget that too? If Coleman really wants to level the playing field, he needs to give ALL children the same opportunities and enrichment.
I left the PD thinking – CC is one giant test prep. Carol Burris has it exactly right.
Here is a link to the place where you can down load the lesson:
http://www.achievethecore.org/page/35/the-gettysburg-address-by-abraham-lincoln
Great public school teachers taught me to use original sources. I think when you look at the “original source” of the lesson, you’ll see that the teacher is encouraged to help students understand the context of the Gettysburg Address.
For example, in part of the lesson, the teacher is encouraged to ask students: “““What are the people who are assembled at Gettysburg there to do?” and “What larger war is this battle a part of?”
This suggests, at least to me, that part of the lesson is to help students understand answers to the questions above.
Common Core is an educational
war crime.
It’s even more creepy to actually
watch and hear David Coleman
say this infamous “no-one-gives-
-a-shit” quote at a speech in an
auditorium at the New York
Department of Ed. in April, 2012.
Watch how smug and creepy he comes
across… apart from the potty-mouth…
and how the crowd laughs along with
this educational war crime:
His “no-one-gives-a-shit-what-
you-think” quote is oddly prescient,
as it predicts NY State of Ed
Commissioner John King’s and
the NY State Ed Board of Regents’
attitude towards parents, students,
and educators during these last
few months as evidenced by their
behavior during and after the
town halls.
King & the Board of Regents:
“Hey parents, no one at the
NY State Board of Ed., and
no one among the Board of
Regents GIVES A SHIT WHAT
YOU THINK. We’re going
to foist Common Core on you
if we have to personally shove
it down all your throats… whether
you like it or not!”
Of course, you can opt out.
Here’s the parody of King
and the Regents response to
parents who opt out, or oppose
Common Core:
For Joe Nathan,
For the most part, “The people attending at Gettysburg” is not enough. Don’t be ridiculous. Lincoln was writing for a much broader audience and for history.
Exactly. Well said, Carol!
Carol Burris: yes, this is what happens when you mandate teaching & learning to fit a standardized test, rather than a standardized test to fit the teaching & learning.
And trying to fit teaching & learning into the procrustean bed of standardized testing is a painfully unhelpful endeavor in any case…
Thank you so much for your comments.
😎
KTA,
You really didn’t think you could get this one by me “. . . a standardized test to fit the teaching & learning. ”
By definition a standardized test can’t “fit” the teaching and learning. That is a metaphysical paradox that threatens the entire universe. Be careful where you tread! As the teapartiers like to say “Don’t tread on universal karma!”
I have some answers of my own, regarding the great “Why is this necessary?” quest.
From all I’ve read and seen, personally, I’m reasonably sure that I’m not being “paranoid” or “delusional”. But I’m waiting for someone who’s “in the know” and “fully vested” in the CCSS to chime in with his or her take. This is such a large shift. With very little leeway. I’d honestly like to have a debate…no tongue in cheek, here. If I’m wrong, then I’ll be the first to admit it.
As I said earlier and is being repeated by others, here: Close Reading can be an effective tool in a remedial reading program. It’s the beginning of the comprehension stage of learning:
Reader: “Scott opened the door.”
Teacher (or peer): “What did Scott do?”
Reader: “Scott opened the door”.
The sentences and passages become increasingly complex and long. Once mastered, the student can move on to more advanced forms of comprehension.
It’s nothing new. It’s ONE tool in the teacher’s toolkit. Sometimes we use it. Sometimes not. Depends on the student. We don’t need David Coleman to tell us how to do our jobs.
Having taught history for a number of years with inner city public school kids, I’m not sure that I’d use this sample lesson. But I might. The idea seems to be to encourage youngsters, initially, to see what they can understand from the speech without understanding the context.
As the directions state, “The idea here is to plunge students into an independent encounter with this short text. Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset.”
But it appears that later students will learn about the context. Of course, it’s important for them to understand the circumstances in which Lincoln spoke.
Here’s a link to a newspaper column I wrote recently with suggestions about how parents & educators might discuss the recent Lincoln and Kennedy anniversaries;
http://hometownsource.com/2013/11/20/joe-nathan-column-kennedy-lincoln-possible-lessons-lives/
Reactions welcome
So if they will later learn about it, the emphasis of the lesson is to get student reaction and input for, possibly, discussion and growth that then leads into the historical context of the speech? So the lesson presented here is just the first part of a larger lesson?
Yes, later in the lesson students discuss the context in which Lincoln spoke:
What happened four score and seven years ago?
The second central concern deepens the examination of what is at stake in the Gettysburg Address by further examining how Lincoln places his words in context. For now, the emphasis continues to be on what students can draw from the text itself to figure out an answer to this question—not to the historical context.
Guiding questions and academic vocabulary:
Text Under Discussion Guiding Questions Instructional Commentary
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” A. When was “four score and seven years ago”? Students have the clues they need to calculate the year. They have been told that score means twenty years, and they have been given the date of Lincoln’s speech as 1863. 1863-87=1776
B. What important thing happened in 1776? This question, of course, goes beyond the text to explore students’ prior knowledge and associations. Students may or may not know that the Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776, but they will likely know it is a very important date – one that they themselves have heard before. Something very important happened on that date. It’s OK to mention the Declaration, but the next step is to discover what students can infer about 1776 from Lincoln’s own words now in front of them.
C. (Beyond what students may or may not know about the Declaration of Independence) what does Lincoln tell us in this first sentence about what happened 87 years ago? Students should now be able to draw on the knowledge that they have gained from reading the second part of Lincoln’s sentence. They should be able to infer: Lincoln says that in 1776 “our fathers” freely chose to begin a new nation dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.
D. Who are “our fathers”? What can we know about “our fathers” from this sentence? All we know about these “fathers” from this sentence is that they started something new. Some students may recall the phrase “founding fathers” which is a nice inference here, since Lincoln identifies these people as “those who brought forth a new nation.”
E. What is the impact of Lincoln referring to such a famous date? This is a hard question to answer without moving on to the rest of Lincoln’s speech. It is enough for students, at this point, to recognize that Lincoln frames his remarks within a very important context, the beginning of the country, and an idea on which the country was based. Students should learn to pay close attention to how any author chooses to begin.
5. Students rewrite their translation of Lincoln’s first paragraph Based on what they have learned, students rewrite their translation of the first line.
What happened four score and seven years ago?
The second central concern deepens the examination of what is at stake in the Gettysburg Address by further examining how Lincoln places his words in context. For now, the emphasis continues to be on what students can draw from the text itself to figure out an answer to this question—not to the historical context.
Guiding questions and academic vocabulary:
Text Under Discussion Guiding Questions Instructional Commentary
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” A. When was “four score and seven years ago”? Students have the clues they need to calculate the year. They have been told that score means twenty years, and they have been given the date of Lincoln’s speech as 1863. 1863-87=1776
B. What important thing happened in 1776? This question, of course, goes beyond the text to explore students’ prior knowledge and associations. Students may or may not know that the Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776, but they will likely know it is a very important date – one that they themselves have heard before. Something very important happened on that date. It’s OK to mention the Declaration, but the next step is to discover what students can infer about 1776 from Lincoln’s own words now in front of them.
C. (Beyond what students may or may not know about the Declaration of Independence) what does Lincoln tell us in this first sentence about what happened 87 years ago? Students should now be able to draw on the knowledge that they have gained from reading the second part of Lincoln’s sentence. They should be able to infer: Lincoln says that in 1776 “our fathers” freely chose to begin a new nation dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.
D. Who are “our fathers”? What can we know about “our fathers” from this sentence? All we know about these “fathers” from this sentence is that they started something new. Some students may recall the phrase “founding fathers” which is a nice inference here, since Lincoln identifies these people as “those who brought forth a new nation.”
E. What is the impact of Lincoln referring to such a famous date? This is a hard question to answer without moving on to the rest of Lincoln’s speech. It is enough for students, at this point, to recognize that Lincoln frames his remarks within a very important context, the beginning of the country, and an idea on which the country was based. Students should learn to pay close attention to how any author chooses to begin.
5. Students rewrite their translation of Lincoln’s first paragraph Based on what they have learned, students rewrite their translation of the first line.
Yes, later in the proposed lesson, the teacher helps students understand the context.
As the proposed lessons suggests (in part), the teacher ask students, “What are the people who are assembled at Gettysburg there to do?” Guiding questions include, “What larger war is this battle a part of?”
You can find the lesson by following the links.
“So the lesson presented here is just the first part of a larger lesson?”
If what Joanna asks is true, it makes all the difference.
Joe Nathan contends that context is to follow. What I gleaned from the comments of Valerie Strauss is that the entire unit is taught without the historical context of the Gettysburg Address.
So who is correct?
Had I the time today (I have to go prepare a turkey and read four chapters), I would like to examine this lesson in its context with the entire unit.
Yes, I’d suggest taking a look at the full lesson, from which I have quoted above. There are explicit efforts to help students understand context.
“The unit — “A Close Reading of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address“ — is designed for students to do a “close reading” of the address “with text-dependent questions” — but without historical context.”
So, Joe, you contend that the above statement is false and misleading?
I’d suggest you download the proposed lesson, available here:
http://www.achievethecore.org/page/35/the-gettysburg-address-by-abraham-lincoln
It includes efforts to help students understand the context.
I’d say asking students questions, and helping them answer questions, is preferable to what is sometimes done in history classes I’ve observed, which is to lecture to students.
More active learning often produces more retention. Of course, I think there are other ways to help students understand issues involved in the civil war. When I taught it an inner city public school, we
a. Conducted debates with different sides represented, after students did some research on the various positions.
b. Read and discussed original documents related to issues around which the Civil War was fought
c. Built a model of the Gettysburg battle field with help from an art teacher.
d. Took some students to Gettysburg.
Our inner city public school had the freedom/opportunity to do these things. I’d wish the same for every public school.
“This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.”
Constructive learning is founded in background knowledge. Leveling the playing field is achieved by increasing background knowledge and activating prior knowledge, not eliminating it. Tests should be designed as either summative, formative or diagnostic – not so that they “could be graded easily and cheaply, either by teams that had been validated on an airtight rubric, or by computer algorithms.”
MDG Later in the proposed lesson, the teacher is encouraged to help students understand the context.
I think constructive, or constructivist learning can be a valuable part of helping young people. I’m not sure I’d use this proposed lesson.
But in reading, a daily newspaper article, for example, students may not always understand the full context. So, I think the lesson is designed, in part, to help students learn to read carefully so they can understand the broader context.
Again, I agree that understanding the broader context of the Gettybsburg is vital.
Joe Nathan
Assessments come after instruction – not before, unless they are being used for diagnostic purposes or creating base-lines.
Newspaper articles do provide context in their titles and throughout articles – but if you pull a paragraph out of a newspaper article and try to read it I doubt anyone will be able to make sense of it. The “close reading” is nothing more than this and it is not a meaningful measure.
MDG, I agree that a formal assessment comes after instruction.
But I think we are talking here about a proposed lesson plan. It begins by asking students questions. Having taught students from Kg through graduate school, I think beginning with some questions for students is a valid approach.
What do you think and have you ever used that approach in your teaching?
Joe Nathan
I use a variety of questioning techniques, but would never use a close reading approach – if this type of curriculum (if you can call it this) comes into my school – It will be time for me to leave the profession.
MDG, we agree about the value of questions. I’m not a big fan of scripted learning for most teachers. But some rely primarily on lectures. I found that mixed learning/teaching strategies are better than just one approach.
Joe Nathan,
You seem to forget that history will be given less and less time in the schools as administrators will focus more on literacy. KIds will be tested on their ability to read. Administrators get this. The bottom line is the test scores, not any kind of context.
Joe, why do you want to invest so much time in responding to these posts? What is your motivation? You seem amazingly naive. I have seen this standardization idea go through three cycles and I have seen it fail three times as have most of the teachers who have been in the profession.
You don’t have enough experience to make these judgements very much like our secretary of education, Mr Gates, Mr. Johnston in your former state, and the staff that Mr. Duncan hired to write the race to the top mandates from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
You sound like you were a wonderful teacher, I am sorry that you left the profession.
Sorry these comments are so late, have just gotten wireless access and a minute.
Wow.
If you take historical context out of say, the Bible, it becomes a rather scary book. Whereas, the historical context makes it easier to comprehend.
I doubt this trend (close reading without context) will catch on. How can it?
I like to think we will, collectively, grow beyond where we are right now with CC and that we can figure out what is truly helpful to students. We have to.
The Common Core ELA standards are great in part because they’ll encourage students to read great historical documents… out of context and without any clue as to why they were chosen? That “model lesson” website needs to be retitled as DontAchievetheCore.com
I’d encourage you to read the proposed (not required) lesson.
In that proposed lesson, As mentioned in a previous comment, the teacher is strongly encouraged to help students understand the context of the Gettysburg Address by asking students questions such as ““What are the people who are assembled at Gettysburg there to do?” and “What larger war is this battle a part of?”
Mr. Dorn, I think we agree that context is important. I think authors of the proposed lesson agree.
As someone who has such passion in “hooking” students right from the beginning with a moment in time such as this, I am finding more and more problems with the idea of “cold” reading or as some say the beginning of close reading, without doing so.
Teachers inspire students by giving them a thirst to want more by sharing those moments in time. “Cold” reading (1st process) does not allow students the opportunity to discuss until after they have read, re-read and analyzed. The problem also is when students take state tests, how will they ever have enough time to use the close reading process (cold read, re-read read & analyze) this with six passages? They won’t. By the way I was told by a rep “then close reading is done different way.” Last year because of close reading, some of my best students found no time to go over what they had written.
Taking apart the Gettysburg Address in this manner is an insult to our forefathers. It’s interesting how a first grader will need to learn about the Euphrates River or a second grader about Hinduism or even a third grader about bombings and killings in Afghanistan with “I wonder” or “I think” while viewing illustrations of such, but for the upper grades we just give them the text to dissect.
To take apart any lesson without having a teacher instill his/her passion for the curriculum-no matter what it is, is like serving stuffing without the turkey.
As one who, after thirty-one years in education, will always consider herself a “Highly Effective Teacher,” no matter what the APPR shows, I will continue to fight for what I believe is right, teaching our children to take hold of learning, beyond the classroom walls or shall I say modules?
Because students aren’t suppose to really know the material in depth. All they need to know are “chunks”, as my new coordinator said, so they can answer the questions. Tests are not looking for thoughtful answers, just a specific answer.
We know that understanding happens when we connect new information to what we know already. So I guess in this lesson they are scripting how to teach to the test.
“All they need to know are “chunks”, as my new coordinator said, so they can answer the questions.”
That coordinator is taking up valuable salary resources that could be used to fund another teacher. I wouldn’t want that coordinator near any student.
Come on Flolindy, name position and school/district. We need to out these people. They can always come here and defend their not so brilliant schemes.
Folks, out these edudeformers!!!
How can you learn anything without some former context? Without context someone can teach what they want and have the student learn what the teacher (company, government) wants them to know. They can rewrite history! Rewrite science! Rewrite religion! Imagine a whole generation learning a new history of America or the world. Sounds like Russia or Nazi Germany. Here comes 1984, Brave New World, Farenheit 451. I know thissounds extreme but just look at decisions the government is making in education backed by large companies.
I think students are always on a “need to know” basis that aligns with their level of emotional development. To make a more informed decision about this lesson/unit, I think we need more context about it:
1. Is it an introductory lesson to a unit? If so, what is the topic: The Civil War, wars in general, speech-making, etc.? In other words, what are we expecting students to learn?
2. To what grade level is this lesson/unit geared?
3. What prior knowledge are the students expected to have before this lesson/unit?
4. What lesson/unit topics will follow this lesson?
With this background, we can make more informed commentary on the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of these standards. I think we can all agree that context is the key to understanding anything, even CCSS, for what greater purpose of education is there but to connect learning into our life context?
My son is reading 451 in class, three pages at a time. They are chunking texts and looking for literary devices. Travesty!
“My son is reading 451 in class, three pages at a time. They are chunking texts and looking for literary devices.”
I’m so tired of buzz words like “chunking” and “literary device.” It makes you wonder how we ever comprehended a thing when we were in school!
Just curious, is this the approach being used at Sidwell (and other similar “great” schools)?
If not, why not.
Exactly!
I have no doubt that Common Core will be poorly implemented and will end up destroying many children. Still, let’s not judge all the people who donated their time to draft the original standards. Many had hoped that ccss would improve science literacy. They look at how the general public views evolution, climate change, etc., and want to improve the world.
Ang, love your photo that looks like xray of dna on my small screen. In honor of Rosie Franklin!
Friends (Quakers) have a special resposibility to counter Arne Duncan. Sidwell shelters Obama girls from destructive RTTT.
Hi Chris,
Yes, that is the famous photo 51, in honor of one of my heroes, Rosalind Franklin.
Who are the well intentioned people who donated their time to develop ccss? According to my understanding the actual authors were a pretty elite and closed group headed by Coleman, and the groups and meetings were window dressing for the already established basis standards.
Completely agree with your last sentence.
Happy turkey day.
Couldn’t tell you about Sidwell. But I’ve visited a variety of great public (and private school) classrooms. One of the techniques great teachers seem to use is to ask students questioned that are designed to help students develop stronger skills, rather than relying on teachers to just lecture.
Dear Joe,
We use history books, not textbooks, academic articles, and documents. In the part of the article that Diane did not post, I make it clear that Lincoln is speaking of all of those who had sacrificed their lives up to that point in the war. I talk about the sacrifice of Louisiana African American troops at Port Hudson, of native American troops in the “Indian” territories and of Tejano Unionists in Texas regiments. I also discuss the NYC draft riots and those around the in and outside of the Union in Nov. 1863 who did everything they could to halt a “new birth of freedom.”
At Lab, teachers set their own curricula, choose their own materials, and devise their own assessments. We are trusted as experts on history. We have always emphasized analytical papers, document analysis, and, most importantly, research papers.
Our history program has produced many historians including a Bancroft Prize winner, a National book award winner, a winner of a Presidential Humanities Medal, and winner of numerous Emmy Awards for History writing for PBS documentaries. WE have produced excellent historians who write from all political and social perspectives.
Students learn history by learning to become historians by digging deeply into research and reading.
CCS snippet reading and the emphasis on test taking will destroy a deep seated passion for history and the Humanities.
Most of the History teachers at our Education Secretary’s high school alma mater are not happy with the thrust of his policies and what they do to history in particular and the Humanities in general.
Paul, sounds like you are doing many fine things. Where do you teach?
Joe,
You seem to have conflated the ccss scripted lessons (and the testing that comes with them) with teachers asking questions and helping students develop stronger skills. And then you set up a false choice between ccss and relying on lecture.
I contend that many ( most) teachers use a wide range of techniques to reach and engage students. I have not been in a lecture only classroom ( in a public school) in many, many years.
And again I ask, has this ” close reading” lesson been used at the schools attended by the children of the elite?
If not, why not?
You seem very invested in the ccss.
Why is that?
Ang, I’m not arguing for or against the Common Core. I was responding to the following assertion, “The Common Core emphasizes the importance of “close reading,” that is, understanding the meaning of a text without reference to context or background knowledge, which presumably might privilege some students over others.”
The example offered was of a lesson which teachers might or might not use, on the Gettysburg Address.
It’s interesting to hear Tracy, above, who asserts she/he used the lesson under discussion and felt it very valuable. I’d encourage you and others to read Tracy’s comment above.
I looked at the lesson and found that it did strongly encourage the teacher to help students understand the context.
Bingo.
I’ve taught the Gettysburg Address for many years. In the past, I’ve been the only one in class (7th grade Lit/LA) who has really “owned” the speech. This past year I used this lesson from “Achieve the Core” and finally my students were doing the work and now this speech is theirs. There are several reasons why:
1) Instead of spending class time previewing the speech with videos, pictures, historical context (with which they are familiar and cannot be separated from the reading) I passed out the speech and told them to ‘have at it.”
2) I told them it is difficult. We read it several times. They struggled and asked the questions that I would, in the past, have typed up on a worksheet.
3) Context is never separated from the reading of this text. I was an English Major, I know New Criticism, but we are talking 7th graders here, in Illinois. I followed the plan and as I set up the context of the speech they asked questions and made comments and the speech became their own.
I’m not a supporter of the Common Core, especially testing. What I see happening in my class cannot be evaluated when students are sitting in front of a computer by themselves. But, these lessons, this one in particular, seem to get at the heart of why we teach these historical documents. This past year, using this plan, I felt the students left my classroom and the Gettysburg Address became a part of their own history, a part of who they are. To me, that’s what literacy is all about.
Thanks for your post. I think it is omportant to hear from teachers who have actually used the material under discussion.
Important was the word I thought I was typing.
This is beautiful, and beautifully
expressed, Tracy.
Unfortunately, the response you would
receive from David Coleman and the
other Common Core pushers would be
the last line of the following video:
That’s right, Tracy. You’re just a
teacher… therefore…
“Nobody (making these decisions)
gives a shit what you think.”
Thanks for sharing your experience, Tracy.
Tracy, I’ll take you at your word as “the only one who has really
“owned” the speech (7th grade Lit/LA)”.
If a 7th grade student were to “have at it” as you say,or even an
“Older Student” (Me) and asked you
to clear up a few things, what would your response be to:
1) Was our Nation created, as suggested in the GA, in (1776), with the
rebellion (Declaration of Independence), or 13 years later with the
ratification of the Constitution?
2) Did Lincoln, at the GA, create a new “Purpose” for the war
(equality and liberty) compared to the prior two years where
Lincoln declared the war was for the preservation of the union, or the
restoration of forts and armories and customhouses, as he declared in his declaration of war?
3) Was Lincoln accurate to claim that the United States had been committed to equality and liberty in its original form and the present conflict was to preserve a nation “so conceived and so dedicated
to the proposition that all men are created equal”?
4) What part of “all men are created equal” includes the institution of slavery, the slave trade, and demands the return of fugitive slaves?
5) When Lincoln declared that the cause for which the Union soldiers “gave their last full measure of devotion” and was “a new birth of freedom” were they fighting for freedom of the North?
Were they fighting for freedom of the South?
Cut it out NoBrick!
None of those questions have anything to do with the mythology of this great nation that has always been dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you were a white landowning male. (For which I almost qualify but the bank holds the mortgage and title). I wonder if I would have been able to vote or would the banker have gotten my vote!
Very well said, No Brick!
This isn’t a new problem – it predates the common core. I remember discussing with a lead teacher the idea of research papers and writing about topics that include the requirement that students include accurate information on scientific topics (for example), history and so on. I was told that it wasn’t our job to judge or comment on the accuracy of the writing, but on the writing itself. This of course is interesting, but foolish .. It assumes that good writing and communications are somehow separate from truth and factual matters. Now it is true that people can write well and be misinformed, but as teachers we should be concerned with the education of the whole person including honest and accurate presentation of non-fiction documents.
Therefore, it appears to be inappropriate to present writing/speeches such as the Gettysburg Address without historical context. The assumption of course is that if the writing is on any topic other than “English Language Arts” or whatever that it should be dealt with by that specialist and that an English Teacher isn’t competent to deal with it.
It was wrong when it was first told to me and it is still wrong. Understanding requires context. Communications is more than simply stringing words together in a grammatically correct way – Prescriptive Grammar at that. This fails on so many levels …
You are extremely competent! Perhaps all of the “incompetent” individuals behind such a scheme should write a brief (i.e. multi-page) research paper on the topic of “Contextual Learning”. Hell, you could write a thesis “on that topic! AND–That’s exactly what the authors of these materials ought to DO! (acquire expertise).
http://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com
We are witnessing the corporate dumbing down of our nation. Whether or not students understand the causes of Gettysburg or how it affected our nation’s identity is not important to these corporate raiders. What is important is profit margins, ane the takeover of our nations most precious asset or public schools.
Context matters most in all human learning and communication. We humans do not “speak”–we speak “about something to someone for some reason in a certain time and place.”Similarly, we do not merely “write” or “think”–we “write about” and “think about.” The about is the kernel of context that makes all the difference in learning and in animating our linguistic competence for using words to get things done. New Literacy Theory established 30 years ago that literacy was a social process and a social event, a contextualized activity, not an abstract exercise in parsing. The famous Gettysburg Address should be taught in a theatrically enacted/studied unit about the Civil War in American history–students construct exhibits and art works and enacted scenes of all kinds to dramatize the knowledge; students cook the typical meals Union and Confederate soldiers would have eaten during those 3 terribly bloody days; students would build a model camp of both sides; students would read last letters sent to loved ones from both sides as soldiers went into battle; students would build relief maps of each day’s most significant battle; then, students would be asked to compose a commemorative or memorial address they would read to inaugurate the Soldiers Cemetery(known as epideictic rhetoric); they would read aloud their addresses and discuss which they think best served the rhetorical purpose for the occasion; then students would compare their own addresses with Lincoln’s brief jewel and with Edward Everett’s very long remarks that same day in 1863. History is a living, participatory discourse or it is a pointless act of hearing words and writing words on command.
Sounds like a very constructive approach, with some similarities to what I described earlier today.
Is this how professors teach about the Gettysburg Address at City University of New York?
Right on the button. My students are having debates and reenacting parts for every big event that leads to the revolutionary war. They eat that stuff up. And these are kids who are 2/3 years behind in reading. I take advantage of their oral skills which
City University of New York is a completely different context than public middle school/high school.
Come on Joe, you can do better than that sly innuendo!
“. . . students cook the typical meals Union and Confederate soldiers would have eaten during those 3 terribly bloody days;”
What so they could have died from botulism tainted “canned” meats???
Well said, Ira! But if you plan to teach in K-12 in the future, throw all that out. And shut down your brain. You won’t be needing that. David Coleman will do your thinking for you in the future.
They apparently did not tie this close reading assignment to scaffolding knowlege which is well researched. Idiots…
I’m sure low readers (reading disability, ELLs, struggling readers not identified) will look at this piece of historical document and shrink like raisins if thrown at them and required to have an epiphany. Social Studies and science are subjects that are filled complicated vocabulary words and big concepts which is meaningless if only broken down into miniscule parts.
It’s no surprise kids born in the US have little knowledge about their own country’s history. As soon as NCLB was implement, the time for social studies at the elem level has disintegrated. A subject of the past that is imperative for the understanding of current society. It is a subject we have open discussions about war, power, greed, segregation, civil right.
Ah–oh! Wait a minute that would implicate reformers and hypocrites who think they are philanthropist.
I just hope enough teachers see this as ridiculous and refuse to teach this way. It just infuriates me!
Close reading is not intended to educate at all, merely to ensure that the students involved have no use for their own knowledge or background reading, the educational equivalent of economic communism. Of course like all socialist equality boogaboos it has unintended consequence of making ANY pre existing knowledge disproportionally valuble. The child who comes from a family that reads and discusses issues has a slim chance of knowing something to make the lesson comprhensible or bearable. Since teachers cannot aid the student with no such slim chance advantage by actually teaching the class, poor no-such is likely to be to confused, bored and frustrated to care. Once again the US education system and the public school are being stacked against the poor by the blleding hearts that pretend to care. Disgusting.
It’s easier for me to view this as a capitalist plot. If school is now all about skills (like close reading) and not knowledge of the world, then Silicon Valley et. al. will have legions of virginal human “microchips” to program at will. Empty of any inefficient, memory-hogging interests like literature or art, all the workers’ neurons can be harnessed by the company for coding, marketing and other cognitive work. Innocent of revolutionary struggles and labor unions, they won’t balk at long hours and low pay. In our post-industrial economy human brains are like computers in a botnet –valuable work horses that capitalists can commandeer more efficiently if the K-12 system smooths the path. Similarly, if schools don’t furnish brains with content, commercial culture will gladly jump in –shaping tastes and desires in a way to maximize corporate profit.
School and family need to fill kids’ minds with nourishing content –e.g. a liberal arts education –that shows kids the Big Picture, not just what corporations want them to know. If not, sociopathic corporations will literally take over their brains. In the old days, capitalism turned workers into cogs; today, it turns us into bot-infected hard drives.
It’s concerning that the CCSS discards any and all other approaches to teaching. Scripting aside, the narrowing of pedagogical methods to a few extremely untested models is bad. That the teachers are then going to be graded on the results that come from this when it has no history of creating persistent results across multiple populations, cultures, and grade levels, is terrifying.
This is one more example that might work in some places. It might not. I don’t think it’s right to boil down the Gettysburg address and indeed most texts to just the bare bones with no background knowledge initially (what if a student DOES know the background info – we just tell them to try to ignore that for now?)
That being said, the recklessness of these methods were chosen, and the ruthlessness in which teachers will be held to make them work come hell or high water, should make most people’s veins run cold.
It’s 29 page guide to “close read” the text of the Gettysburg Address. The guide suggests up to 6 days for this task.
The purpose? “The activities and actions described below follow a carefully developed set of steps that assist students in increasing their familiarity and understanding of Lincoln’s speech through a series of text dependent tasks and questions that ultimately develop college and career ready skills identified in the Common Core State Standards.”
Student activities? : “Students rewrite their translation of Lincoln’s first paragraph – Based on what they have learned, students rewrite their translation of the first line.”
“Students write independently -Based on what they have learned, students rewrite their paraphrase of the third paragraph.”
“Students write an independent essay -The aim of the following prompt is to have students reflect on the particular genius of Lincoln’s brief speech—thereby acknowledging that Lincoln’s words cannot perform the task set before him and the assembled crowd, so he transforms the occasion into one that challenges his listeners to rededicate themselves to the task of preserving self-government and a new birth of freedom” (SIC)
And daily guided discussions – Can you imagine yourself (your ninth grade self!) sitting through such a BORING use of your week?
And with testing eating up such a huge chunk of your teaching time, who could give over a week to only the Gettysburg Address? No wonder kids are crying and hate school.
Maybe the real author of this unit of Achieve the Core is Frank Bruni, who believes that education should be largely mirthless.
Look at it slightly differently.
Are you ever eager to translate a piece of writing you don’t know and presumably have NO background for and written in archaic languages, to learn by answering questions about it, and then put serious effort into re-writing a new translation when you’re done? Those are not activities that interest children or spark curiosity in most.
This covers the continuum of showing that a child didn’t understand it at the beginning and then has a different understanding at the end – but an experienced teacher would have had enough background on their students’ reading and writing abilities without having to do this kind of non-sensical pre-test.
Close reading is ONE tool in the kit of the critic, of the student, of the reader. But it’s only one. Education “reformers” have a really bad habit of choosing a hammer and then treating everything else as if it were a nail.
I happen to be a BIG fan of the New Critics (Empson, Ransom, Tate, Warren, Brooks, Wimsatt, etc). However a LOT happened in critical theory BEFORE AND AFTER these guys, and it’s very easy for New Critical approaches to slip into absurd metaphysics and linguistics.
Here’s what’s valuable from the New Criticism
1. viewing the literary work as a “little world” into which one enters imaginatively.
2. basing the construction of that “little world” on evidence from the text, explicit and implicit
One of the important takeaways from the New Critical approach is a deeper understanding of the way in which most literary texts mean. The “meaning” of the text is not direct. The reader enters into the world of the text, has an experience there, and THAT EXPERIENCE is what has meaning.
However, the notion that one can stick to “the world of the text” is incredibly naive, and an ENORMOUS amount of criticism, before and after the New Critics, has dealt with the many, many ways in which that naive notion fails–one of the most important being that different times and places privilege different readings.
There’s an inherent danger to New Criticism poorly done, and that’s the danger of foisting on others a hegemonic “official reading” made official because it’s the reading done by the person with the power to enforce it. A text like the Gettysburg Address is a great case in point. This text is attached in lots of people’s minds with a mythological Lincoln and a mythological Civil War, and it’s that myth that is typically taught in K-12 U.S. “history” textbooks. And the reading of the Address done in those texts and in K-12 literature texts, however “close” it might be, tends to be one consistent with the myth, and the “closer” it is, the more definitive it seems, even though it is, in fact, grotesquely distorted. Challenging the myth and getting at a more nuanced view of the time and of the text requires a lot of going outside the text–to Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley of August, 1862, and to Lincoln’s letters to his intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed, for example.
In other words, close reading can be no more than a tool for perpetuating the mythos of the folks with the power to enforce their “reading.”
In saying that I am not, BTW, making the absurd claim that all readings are equally justified. So, if you feel obliged to attack what I have said here, attack what I have said, not that straw man. Thank you.
“Challenging the myth and getting at a more nuanced view of the time and of the text requires a lot of going outside the text. . . ”
Kind of like what NoBrick did above, eh!!
Robert: thanks for giving us some helpful background knowledge on close reading. I agree: close reading is great as one tool. To make this the heart and soul of education will be, as Christine and M point out above, deadly dull and truly fruitless. Six days on “The Gettysburg Address”! The text become mere grist for the mill. Kids’ brains become mere mills for processing information. Sadly, most teachers, intimidated by the imagined authority of Coleman et. al., take their word that these pointless labors constitute true education. How long will it take for them to wake up and stop cheerfully celebrating the modules on EngageNY and their ilk?
Why would anyone listen to what this fellow, who has never seen the inside of a classroom, has to say about teaching kids? Ridiculous. I don’t even know why we are having this discussion. The CCSS in ELA are the work of amateurs, and it is shameful that the authors of these “standards” have not already been hooted off the national stage.
It would be one think if they had added their voices to the national discussion. For them to ENFORCE THEIR VIEWS on every teacher, every curriculum coordinator, every curriculum developer in the country is obscene, and it’s SHOCKING that many educrats and even teachers are allowing this to happen.
Even if the lesson includes examining the speech’s historical context later, struggling readers–or even plenty of grade-level readers–are likely to tune out before discussion of historical context comes up.
I’m reminded of Daniel Willingham’s article in American Educator (Winter 2006/07) on the value of teaching reading comprehension strategies:
“Building a textbase is necessary, but it’s not sufficient for real comprehension—that requires a situation model. Consider these three sentences:
Logistic regression allows one to predict a discrete out- come such as group membership from a set of variables that may be continuous, discrete, dichotomous, or a mix. Because of its popularity in the health sciences, the discrete outcome in logistic regression is often dis- ease/no disease. For example, can presence or absence of hay fever be diagnosed from geographic area, season, degree of nasal stuffiness, and body temperature?
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007)
Each of these sentences shares referents, so you could build a textbase. You could use that textbase representation to answer some questions about the paragraph, even if you didn’t understand the meaning very well. For example, if I asked you, “What does logistic regression do?” you could use the textbase to answer, “Predict a discrete outcome, such as group membership.” But unless you have some background in sta- tistics, you won’t feel that you have a rich understanding of the paragraph’s meaning.
How does one get a rich understanding? By relating what you are reading to other material that you already know.”
My main concern is and always has been that these lessons are meant for all. It’s one of the centerpieces of the CCSS methodology. It is mandatory in PUBLIC schools throughout the USA. Why?
I wrote a response to matthewdownhour on the blog site, for anyone who hasn’t read the link. Used all 2000 characters, lol. The last paragraph refers to his assertion that, regardless of a previous poster’s feelings, the SATs and ACTs are and will remain very important for college admission, so incorporating test taking skills is valuable and, therefore, an important part of the CCSS strategy:
matthewdownhour:
“…Worse, the students who are lowest performing and thus need the most help with close readings are the same students who are likely furthest behind their peers and have the greatest gaps in their background knowledge.”
I taught severely emotionally disturbed kids for 15 years. Many of them would fall in this category you’re describing. We used a combination of anger management techniques and a reading program which began with basic phonetics, progressing to reading full stories (fiction and non-fiction) with background knowledge on key points of the text provided prior to the readings. “Close reading” * was a PART of this program, starting at about the 1/4 point and ending about halfway through the series.
This was (and still is) an extremely effective reading program for the students who chose to put themselves into it. And many did. It is a remedial reading program.
There are three very big differences between this model and the “close reading” method that the CCSS is touting:
1) It is not mandatory. It was chosen by my school after it was tested by myself and a couple of other teachers and we showed strong success rates.
2) The advanced students who know how to read or show great promise in reading and ELA were able to use more traditional reading lessons that maintained their interest and increased their knowledge.
3) The program ends up working with a more traditional teaching style of teaching background as a logical step forward in comprehension skills.
I fail to see the logic of forcing all to learn under one idealogical umbrella. With all the research showing variations in learning styles within similar and disparate age groups, I’m surprised that Coleman would even consider it.
BTW: many colleges are lessening their reliance of SAT and ACT scores when considering applicants. It’s becoming pretty obvious that students from families with money who can afford tutoring are the “superior achievers” (aka: “test takers”).
This is the wrong argument.
This isn’t necessarily a bad way to teach a text. I have had several long and thoughtful discussions with a colleague on whether to teach context and background before students begin a difficult text (in this case, a poem). There are good arguments on both sides.
The real issue is that someone who doesn’t know the school, doesn’t know the class, doesn’t know the classroom, doesn’t know the students, is handing out a 29-page “script” to read instead of letting a teacher use good judgment of what it is the class needs and can use the best at this point.
+1000
I keep asking on different threads, “Why is all of this necessary?”. I haven’t gotten an answer yet. The typical, “International tests have shown…” response doesn’t fly among people who can read between the lines and actually see the enormous financial incentives of the people who are propelling the school “reform” movement.
But I’ll ask again: Why is all of this necessary?
Exactly, Judith. Excellent point–without the “context” in situ, a fair discussion of this theory of methodology is without utility. We need more information about this strategy in the big picture. Those who have experience with this particular lesson have offered how this strategy in and of itself is not enough. The concept has been framed by others in this discussion as one of many tools in an arsenal of teaching strategies. I think framing this lesson as the only activity for teaching is among the greatest reasons for criticisms. It is important to have the context of where in the learning continuum this lesson is (i.e. prior knowledge and where this learning goes next), what the objective is, and for whom the lesson is intended (let alone what the context of the learning environment is). As a lone teaching strategy, this very well falls short.
EASY ANSWER AS TO THE “WHY”: The government (the current one) loves the idea of being able to hide the WHY behind the war (the real why, and not the “it was about states’ rights “why”) and which political party was responsible for it.
I’m not convinced that the Gettysburg Address should be used as a close reading. Yes, I like the strategy of close reading and it has a purpose…..but it is only one piece of the pie when teaching comprehension. Close reading helps kiddies delve into a text, but so do the pre-reading, during reading, and after reading strategies that we’ve taught for so many years.
The enterprise of reading the Gettysburg Address without context defeats PARRC’s stated objective of having the students “arrive at an understanding of the text as a whole”. The irony is that in forwarding their own interpretation of the speech, David Coleman and the lesson plan developers have missed Lincoln’s purpose entirely; Lincoln directs the audience to forget the words of the speech, but never to forget the sacrifices made by the soldiers during that brutal conflict:
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
Lincoln wrote and delivered the Gettysburg Address to remind his audience “that these dead shall not have died in vain”. Analyzing the language of the address isolated from the Civil War context that created the tone and message is a hollow academic exercise. Instead, students must be taught the historical context so that they fully understand Lincoln’s purpose in praising those who, “gave the last full measure of devotion.”
“It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”
Full post: http://usedbooksinclass.com/2013/04/15/missing-the-context-misses-the-purpose-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address/
Great point! Let me extend it: all skills-centered teaching dishonors our forebears by implying that learning about what they did is not important –only practicing skills is really important.
“Schools are letting go of all of the old farts and marms. . . ”
Hey now, I resemble that statement!
Good morning, class. I am Common Core teacher model 3472.rev3b. Pull my string to begin lesson CCSS.ELA.RI.9.4b. We shall be spending the next 96 days doing a close reading of the first two lines of Grover Cleveland’s Inaugural Address.
What a relief it is to the teachers of the United States to have, now, the brilliant David Coleman to do their thinking for them ! After all, thinking was SO HARD!!! What a relief! Now we can simply read David Coleman’s scripts to our students, and there will be a great Renaissance of Learning. With these brilliant lesson plans in hand, surely the Singularity is at hand!
Robert
I just completed a 24 hour marathon close read of my toothpaste tube.
At hour 23 I do believe that I could feel the earth move, at which point I had become one with the toothpaste. At hour 24 the singularity arrived and I was actually able to get the toothpaste back into the tube!
🙂
Based on the claims of “college and career readiness” can any one verify that close reading is now a standard practice at the college level. I asked my two college kids about this and they had no idea what I was talking about.
The common core standards are encouraging teachers to engage students in close reading. Much of the focus of discussions of close reading have emphasized what teachers should not do (in terms of pre-reading, or types of questions). I am being asked with increasing frequency what close reading is.
Close reading requires a substantial emphasis on readers figuring out a high quality text. This “figuring out” is accomplished primarily by reading and discussing the text (as opposed to being told about the text by a teacher or being informed about it through some textbook commentary). Because challenging texts do not give up their meanings easily, it is essential that readers re-read such texts (not all texts are worth close reading). A first reading is about figuring out what a text says. It is purely an issue of reading comprehension. Thus, if someone is reading a story, he/should be able to retell the plot; if someone is reading a science chapter, he/she should be able to answer questions about the key ideas and details of the text.
However, close reading requires that one go further than this. A second reading would, thus, focus on figuring out how this text worked. How did the author organize it? What literary devices were used and how effective were they? What was the quality of the evidence? If data were presented, how was that done? Why did the author choose this word or that word? Was the meaning of a key term consistent or did it change across the text? This second reading might be a total re-reading or a partial and targeted re-reading of key portions, but it would not be aimed at just determining what the text said (that would have already been accomplished by this point).
Finally, with the information gleaned from the first two readings, a reader is ready to carry out a third reading—going even deeper. What does this text mean? What was the author’s point? What does it have to say to me about my life or my world? How do I evaluate the quality of this work—aesthetically, substantively? How does this text connect to other texts I know? By waiting until we have a deep understanding of a text – of what it says and how it works—we are then in the right position intellectually and ethically to critically evaluate (valuing) a text and for connecting its ideas and approach with other texts.
Thus, close reading is an intensive analysis of a text in order to come to terms with what it says, how it says it, and what it means. In one sense I agree with those who say that close reading is about more than comprehension or about something different than comprehension, since it takes one beyond just figuring out an author’s stated and implied message. On the other hand, many definitions of reading comprehension include more than just determining a stated and implied message; such definitions include the full range of Bloom’s taxonomy in one’s thinking about and use of a text. If one subscribes to such definitions of comprehension, then close reading is just a description of a process one uses to arrive at such comprehension.
“Close reading” certainly doesn’t seem like it should be a major approach to developing reading comprehension skills. In fact, it seems rather inefficient and counter productive. Words have little meaning to students without experiences that give them meaning beyond definitions. Should young students really have their time wasted with this overly deep, highly specialized, subjective approach to reading?
In April I fully expect to see Pearson ELA items that use the multiple choice format to test these primarily subjective close reading skills.
And then penalizing students (and teachers) when their opinions don’t match the opinion of the objective test item writer.
After 25 years of teaching ELA to LD and struggling readers Gr 4- 11, I am outraged at the lack of application of research on reading. Background knowledge and vocabulary are key components of comprehension. Every teacher knows that many disadvantaged learners lack vocabulary, language skills, and books in the home. Is this insistence on skipping over the context just one more way to undermine public education for disadvantaged children? Or is just money talking?
Snake oil salesmen of the 21st century. Buyer beware.
You are so right. Readers always bring prior knowledge to a text. No student is going to bring the exact same knowledge. A classroom teacher will often have students of varying socio-economic backgrounds, carrying a different backpack of cultural capital. In college, students will begin to explore various disciplines and often they will bring very little background knowledge. In the career world, people frequently take a skill set and dive into a different discipline. A citizen needs to be able to look at a policy issue in a newspaper concerning a subject matter they are unfamiliar with and be able to assess the strengths of an argument. There are numerous moments in life where prior knowledge affects how an individual approaches a text, and in what context they will place it. And by the way, after that laundry list, notice I did not mention a standardized test.
That said, the close reading method does not leave social studies classes devoid of historical context. The case is completely the opposite. As a social studies teacher of ten years, I have struggled to crunch in as much of the state content standards as possible. Frequently the true, deep, philosophical questions of historical studies were lost in a “drill and grill” of whether or not students could spit out identifications of laws, places, presidents and other leaders. I and many other social studies teachers have been silently harrumphing for years that this doesn’t teach students anything.
Students need to be able to dive into a text and contemplate it both with support and independently to gain deep meaning into the nature of life, politics and to understand society. This is not only a college and career ready skill, but a citizenship skill. The close reading method as modeled by Student Achievement Partners is not a “script” but a model of how the method is used by various teachers. If you observe the multiple exemplars on the Student Achievement Partners and other websites (by the way, many are non-profits working to provide teachers with sample studies so that the shift to the Common Core is not as laden with the reform profiteering you so frequently protest), you would see that many of the exemplars vary in the method. The use of close reading allows students to wrestle with the big ideas of an historical era, and frequently to encourage students to make connections to current issues. It allows students to experience vocabulary beyond their current usage, and yes, it takes a lot of teeth pulling work. But as I’ve experienced, young people like to be challenged. They eventually find joy in debating the larger questions surrounding our senses of freedom and justice, and it is such experiences that provide a platform for maturation. The significant difference with the Common Core and close reading is this begins with unpacking a complex text instead of mini-lectures, videos, and simulations. Which is not to say these have no value, only that for too long complex text for all students has been left off the menu.
Close reading allows localities to choose texts, and the supporting content. Common Core standard #9 for grade band 9-10 does indeed numerate seminal historical texts but they are merely a point of suggestion and example. It does not prescribe texts that MUST be read. Also, the standards emphasize students acting as historians. Close reading is necessary to understand an artifact. Surely a historian is coming to a text with prior knowledge, but students still have to investigate and place the document within a context.
There are numerous ways in which teachers are using close reading within this investigative context to introduce, support and enhance historic lessons. Sometimes teachers use a close reading text as a hook to dive into historical detail surrounding a subject, returning to the text to write a piece surrounding the larger question. Sometimes a close read can be used in the middle of a unit to emphasize a point. Sometimes it can serve as a model for writing. One model of one close read does not constitute a “script” which all teachers are expected to mimic, creating drone teachers and drone learners. The teaching philosophy behind this model is based in a cyclical relationship between teacher, student, professional learning community and literacy coach, where greater attention to student understanding is a focus and guide to ensuring deeper understanding, and not just the regurgitation of facts on a multiple choice exam, like a machine, as has been the way for decades.
As important as any of this is the idea that if students regularly engage in close reading – in social studies, science and ELA, they will develop their fluency, their vocabulary, their knowledge and their understanding of how much rich complex texts have to offer, and the rewards that come from the effort. In short they will become better readers.
“As important as any of this is the idea that if students regularly engage in close reading – in social studies, science and ELA, they will develop their fluency, their vocabulary, their knowledge and their understanding of how much rich complex texts have to offer, and the rewards that come from the effort. In short they will become better readers.”
If words are not tied to experience they will be nothing much more than white noise. Close reading will never bridge the comprehension gap for learning disabled, ESL, or disadvantaged students.
That’s a very well thought out and thoroughly presented piece, VTparentteacher. Do you facilitate workshops for the CCSS?
Gitapik, there is no “official” CCSS structure that provides workshops. I am inferring from your question that if there were, you would be concerned. Are you, and if so, what are those concerns?
Nyteacher – Again, I agree with you too! The close-reading process is about approaching students who do not have a full back-pack of cultural capital! Surely throughout the course of a grade level students must work with texts in which they are competent. But, you can’t help a second-grade reader progress to a fourth grade text if they never see a third-grade text. This work could be a defeating process if students aren’t provided with appropriate scaffolds to achieve such a goal. Students in my school who are working below grade level are exposed to a text with an aide prior to classroom work. Another approach we have used is to give students key portions of a text, instead of the whole piece that students working on grade-level engage in. Frequently the issue with vocabulary is about the concrete meaning versus the abstract, and differentiating the two. Why is it that the disadvantaged student doesn’t have the vocabulary needed to achieve? My children are read books well below their grade-level. It is then that they hear, question, comprehend, and integrate that learning into their own backpacks. That’s what we have to do for disadvantaged children. As for students with severe cognitive disabilities, there are a lot of alternatives being developed and I can provide references. I will admit I do not work with ESL students, and am working very hard to find answers to those questions, as I think most of our nations’ teachers are.
VT: I was under the impression, from what I’ve read, that there are workshops for the CCSS. Your post was very informative. I was wondering whether you are a person who conducts those workshops.
I know for a fact that close reading is an integral part of the remedial reading program that we’ve been using for years at our school. My point is that:
1) It’s a PART of that program.
2) It’s not mandatory. We CHOSE it after testing it out with a few classes.
Our school has done a great job working with special needs children. Why do we need CCSS, now?
Gitapik – Thank you for your complementary words! There are certainly lots of other organizations who conduct workshops, and each state has chosen its own way to go about professional development. I have facilitated such PD, but my point here is to encourage its implementation, not sell myself.
Your claims were much more concise than mine were! As to why now – I’d say it should have happened long ago. But, now, we live in a culture that is inundated with information and the future generation’s key to success will be about being able to decipher its relevance and analyze its validity, so that as individuals they don’t become bogged down and overwhelmed, and so that as a society as a whole we don’t become lost in a sea of data. The success of our economy, or at least the maintenance and security of our standard of living, will be dependent upon ALL students & citizens having these skills!
I hope you didn’t think I was inferring that you were selling yourself. Your belief in the value of the CCSS is what prompted me to ask about your role in it’s implementation. I appreciate your reply.
If I’m getting this right, I believe you’re saying that the world we live in (and have been, for the past decade or more) has become increasingly data/text information driven and that we, as a nation, need to be sure that our citizens have the reading and writing skills to not only be able to keep pace with these changes (ALL students/citizens), but to also be able to translate this information, creatively, so that we can communicate our ideas quickly and concisely and be able to create new ideas (the higher achievers).
If such is at least a rough equivalent of what you’re expressing, I’d like to add:
1) My daughter and almost all of her friends are in the public school system and have been for many years. Many of my friend’s older kids who are going to or have graduated college are also products of this system. I am a public school graduate, as are many of my friends.
I have to say that the vast majority of us are much, much more than just able to keep up with these increased demands. We’ve had great educations.Those of us who opted out (I have some friends who are much more trade oriented and not tech savvy) ask questions when the going gets tougher, intellectually. They’re fine.
2) As I said earlier: we’re using close reading as part of a remedial reading program. It progresses from basic sound/symbol relationships to close reading and on to more complex comprehension skills. This program’s been around for awhile and is extremely effective. It’s one of many remedial reading programs that schools can choose from.
I believe that the current choices of state standards and corresponding curriculum/assessments being used in the public schools (which, btw, are continuing to evolve, as always) are already giving our kids the tools they will need to be college or career ready. If anything, I think we need more in the way of trade schools, personally. The question of whether they’ll have jobs awaiting them is an entirely different one that requires much more than the changing of standards, curriculum, and assessment. It’s a national concern.
My question isn’t so much about the validity of the CCSS as why the widespread blanket, mandatory application of it? There are definitely areas in all of our communities, cities, states that need improvement. And we have programs to address those needs. But there are also many areas that are doing extremely well, in General, ELL, and Special Ed, with the tools that they already have at hand. They’re not “failing”. They’re flourishing.
If the end goal of the CCSS is to get ALL students up to snuff (which is a separate area of debate, in my mind…I’m not so sure of it’s validity), then why not offer the CCSS and the connecting curriculum/assessments as an OPTION for individual schools (or districts) to consider? We’re a market driven economy and competition brings out the best in us. But only when it’s done in the spirit of cooperation. Especially in the world of education, here in the USA, with the diverse needs of our multi cultural, often economically challenged population.