Carol Burris, award-winning high school principal in New York, is one of the leading critics of the Common Core standards. She has studied them closely and finds them to be a mess. The problem, she says, is not “implementation,” as their advocates say, but the standards themselves. She notes that teachers’ support for Common Core has rapidly declined. The more teachers use them, the less they like them.
In this post, she suggests what must be done to fix them.
One possibility is to adopt the Massachusetts standards, which were far superior to the Common Core standards, but Massachusetts dropped them in order to get millions from Arne Duncan. Besides, Arne Duncan, now the czar of American education, might punish states that dare to replace the Common Core standards, even with superior standards like those of Massachusetts.
So here is what Burris proposes:
1. Insist that the State Education Department rewrite the standards so that they are clear and coherent. She gives examples of standards that are incomprehensible.
2. Ask experts on early childhood education to rewrite the standards for pre-K-third grade. They were written without the participation of anyone who understood the developmental needs of young children and need to be completely revised to make sense for young children.
3. “Reduce the emphasis on informational text, close reading and Lexile levels.
There is no evidence that reading informational text in the early grades will improve reading. Informational text in primary school should be read as a one means of delivering content or included based on student interest. Ratios of 50/50 (informational text/literature) in elementary schools and 70/30 in high school are based on nothing more than breakdowns of text type on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, not on reading research. The force-feeding of informational texts in the primary years is resulting in the decline of hands on learning in science and projects in social studies, as my teacher’s email attests. At the high school level, literature is being pushed out of English Language Arts to make room for informational text. For example, take a look at the readings of Common Core Engage NY curriculum modules for 9th grade. Literature is minimal, replaced by texts such as “Wizard of Lies,” a biography of Bernie Madoff, and articles that include “Sugar Changed the World,” “Animals in Translation” and “Bangladesh Factory Collapse.”
The standards, she writes, overemphasize “close reading,” reading without context, as though young children should be subjected to the ideology of the “New Criticism.” There must be room for teachers to decide whether and when to use literature or informational text. There is no evidence for the standards’ privileging of informational text over literature.
In short, the Common Core standards are a mess. They were written in stealth, imposed by the lure of federal dollars, and the resistance to them by the public and by teachers is growing. The only question now is whether the standards can be “fixed” (they are copyrighted and no one is supposed to change them) or whether they will be abandoned altogether.

Reblogged this on logging entries in my life and commented:
I vote that they do the final suggestion. How about you?
LikeLike
The link to Carol’s blog post brings one to the comments, but the post itself is not viewable, as far as I was able to tell.
LikeLike
Ponderosa
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/10/06/how-to-start-cleaning-up-the-common-core/
LikeLike
Thank you! This works.
LikeLike
We must rid ourselves of CCSS altogether. I like Ms. Burris and value her opinion. However, offering fixes and asking for delays in implementation plays right into the reformers’ hands.
LikeLike
Agreed. The best way to clean up CCSS is to toss them in the garbage.
LikeLike
I appreciate the informed criticism, but I also think the CCSS should just be tossed and recognized as failing to qualify as standards, period. There are standards for writing standards. None of these were followed in writing the CCSS
The need for national standards is questionable, especially at a level of detail that produces 1,620 standards to be met, not counting all of high school. The distributions of standards by grade-levels are not rationalized or documented by research. Fictions produced by some notion you can reverse engineer standards from thinking about college entry and career entry–which colleges? which careers? one size fits all, filmaking to finance.
These standards are pitiful expressions of our national aspirations for education.
These standards have been misrepresented from the get-go.
They were paid for and marketed by a billionaire’s foundation, Gates.
They were written by people who have no credibility as experts in education.
They are designed to frame all studies in the arts, sciences, and humanities as little more than tools for teaching reading and math. This is one of multiple cockamamie ideas. The arts are relegated to the status of “a technical subject” no explanation, no rationale, no consultation, pre-judgments and prejudices passed off as if a consensus document.
The Lexile and Quantile metrics and computer-determined screening of teaching resources must go.
Every other curricular concern is supposed to align with the CCSS. If you teach physical education you must make sure that you are addressing the grade level standards for reading and for math. Same for every other subject. This is ridiculous.
The CCSS need to be abandoned to signal to federal and state officials that all of the other policies they have attached to the CCSS are no less flawed than this well marketed, carefully branded agenda for education. misrepresented in almost every respect from the get go. Not state led, not teacher-rich input, not well-researched, not internationally benchmarked and so on. Read the footnotes.
We should call a screeching halt to the farce of checking on Kindergarten kids to see if they are “college and career ready” before they enter grade 1. This national policy and standards framework deserves ridicule, not respect. Call it what it is. Absurd.
This generation is being subjected to total fantasies about what they need to “know and be able to do” by grade 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc. in a scenerio for the future that is so far off in time for our younger students that not even the Department of Labor has any facts or stats on what “careers” might be on deck for this generation.
The breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of the creators of this “architecture for American education” needs to be called out.
Further tinkering with the CCSS should be stopped.
What this nation needs is some serious thinking about the civic purposes of public education in a democratic society, and what life offers and requires beyond going to college and getting a job.
LikeLike
Well stated and I completely agree.
LikeLike
“These standards are pitiful expressions of our national aspirations for education.”
From where does the need for “national aspirations” spring?
Has this country not been served well with locally developed curriculum?? (within the framework of being constitutionally acceptable)
How insane is the push for “national standards” considering the concept of educational standards and the accompanying standardized tests are COMPLETELY INVALID AND ANY USAGE OF THE RESULTS UNETHICAL???
LikeLike
Laura,
Thank you for this response. It resonated strongly with me. Our local schools here in Alexandria, Louisiana (Rapides Parish) are experiencing the full-blown absurdity of the CCSS this year. Although I have been vaguely aware that I was against some or the other aspect of the Common Core before now, it is only this past 10 days or so that I have been galvanized into action (reading information, asking questions of teachers and administrators, etc.) What moved me to action? 1) Ridiculous amounts of pre and post tests (hours per week) supposedly designed to “drive instruction” but that instead are driving both teachers and students to tears. 2) Marked narrowing of the curriculum (a teacher admitted to me that they “didn’t have much time” for social studies and science because much more time was necessary to be spent on math. Excuse me? 3) Alarm expressed by a former colleague (a high school elective teacher) who has been “encouraged” to incorporate math and ELA objectives into her classes. She refused. 4) Illogical reasoning by district leadership who cite “effective school practices” and “teacher evaluation” when justifying giving excessive amounts of district-mandated pre and post tests to children as young as four-years-old for the purposes of gathering “proscriptive” data on children 5) Flooding of local FB help boards by comments from parents who are perplexed by Eureka Math. 6) Gathering of parents and students at a board meeting a few weeks ago to decry a pupil progression change making grades letter grades instead of percentages. (On the heels of the board having to revert the grading policy back to percentages, it is discovered that many schools have a “no zero” policy and advocate testing and retesting children until they pass. Other schools tell faculty even zeros must be counted as 50% in the grade book to keep from skewing data results.) What in the world is going on?
Interestingly, I keep hearing the same talking points and intimations used to explain the so-called pushback to CCSS in this area: 1) The status quo is being challenged. Push through this. Any opposition is a result of closed minded resistance to excellence in education. 2) Louisiana has been ranked low in national education polls for so long. Don’t you want our children to achieve more and compete with the world? 3) So children are experiencing failure, and parents are having to come to their aid? That is healthy. Embrace failure! (I suppose this is why the administration is such a fan of “no zeros” and “zeros that look like 50s.”) 4) You don’t like Eureka math? Then you are an enemy of critical thinking and “rigor.” It’s not because it has been poorly conceived as a curriculum. You (even though you have an advanced degree) must be a moron. 5) Teachers who dare to criticize (or even be honest) about their frustrations surrounding so-called data driven instruction and new curricula must be “resistant to change,” opposed to innovation in education, subordinate, and just plain lazy.
As a parent, I have come to the conclusion that the “narrow and deep” focus of CCSS are NOT designed to develop critical thinking. They are designed to ensure that the largest numbers of students develop “skills” in math and reading. That is all. Gone are the days of trying to develop well-rounded students steeped in the liberal arts and sciences. Gone are the days of widening a child’s horizons through a variety of experiences. Gone is any possibility with truly preparing students for our uncertain future with CCSS. Tests. Numbers. That’s all that matters. It reminds me of Le Petit Prince. The Little Prince knew all too well that “big people” were only concerned with the irrelevant — numbers, data, facts. The Little Prince’s insistence on the power of imagination and curiosity would surely be stifled here in our Rapides Parish Schools. And he, like many of our students, would be forced to grow up way too soon, becoming a “big person” before his time.
Best regards,
Cecile Barnhart
LikeLike
I will add that you read my new book, “Brainstorming Common Core; Challenging the way we think about education” Endorsed by Randi Weingarten and Time magazine 2010 most influential Will Allen. Add to that New Orleans advocate Karren Royal Harper and the new hope for the future Dr. Angela Dye. It details not only what’s wrong but more importantly how to fix CC. It does not speak in generalities nor does it depend on rhetoric. Just simply the truth in detail. It is at the publishers preparing for print as we speak.
It addresses what is said correctly in this article and also leads us away from a testing fiasco to one of whole child reform. Again the details give a pathway to success for all students taking them from where they are. Those of us, speaking from the trenches, must be heard.
http://www.wholechildreform.com
LikeLike
how to fix CC… That is not the solution. See my comment above
LikeLike
I agree that we should not scrap the Common Core because we need to make certain that students across the country learn the facts about health, science, and history. But instead of unilaterally imposing these standards from Washington, we should use the Common Core (or a revised version thereof) as the basis for the development of a standard curriculum for each state.From my perspective the next President would ideally require each state to create Standards Teams and use the Common Core as the basis for the creation of a rigorous but realistic set of State standards. The Standards Teams could include curriculum content experts from state universities, representative classroom teachers, and developmental psychologists. The sooner we get curriculum writing out of Washington and back in the hands of professors and practitioners the better.
LikeLike
wgersen
I don’t think you have read the CCSS I don’t think you know who paid for the project and marketing the standards.. I don’t think you understand that these were not written, reviewed, or revised by a process that respected the expertise of teachers and experts in teaching English language arts and mathematics at the various grade levels.
Nobody in the federal governmnet wrote the standards.
The standards do not include specific facts about health, history, or science.
States had standards before the CCSS. In some states, those standards were more ample than the CCSS and precisely because they were written by or in consultation with experts from state universities, teachers, and in almost every case had multiple reviews by other experts before they were published.
LikeLike
I know that Gates et al wrote the current de facto US government standards … and I know that States DID have standards before CCSS… but I’ve also read too many articles about state standards and local board “standards” that re-wrote history (see Jefferson County CO, for a recent example), withheld health information,and put creationism on an equal footing with evolution… and there were some fairly cockamamie standards in reading and math as well… I think Carol Burris’ notion of having some kind of US framework makes sense to avoid the kinds of standards that some states had in place in the the past and some states might impose in the future to satisfy their constituents.
LikeLike
Perhaps Massachusetts’ abandonment of the state standards, in addition to $ from Arne, had something to do with the fact that Mitchell Chester, state Commissioner of Education, is chairman of PAARC?
LikeLike
And why hasn’t anything been done about this conflict of interest?
LikeLike
Absolutely! As an experienced Massachusetts teacher, I would much rather be using well-written and time-tested standards of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for ELA and Math than the CCSS we have been forced to adopt. It’s all about the power, greed, money, and connections.
LikeLike
Carol Burris as always has been one of the great leaders full of educational research based knowledge, for so many of us. Why isn’t NY listening? How much longer will NY State keep wasting money and time on this disaster? I can’t believe the Governor nor the Board of Regents isn’t taking a stand on this.
Each and every day children are presented this way of teaching as many are told to teach using the modules and must abide by the Common Core Standards. If one looks at all the evidence proven since 2010 by those of us who have utilized the standards and modules and top to bottom approach, we know this is not the way to teach our children, yet so many remain silent and do their jobs. We see a huge problem with the ones in the trenches not speaking out because they are not allowed to do so. It is like we the teachers are being told we do not know, after receiving Master Degrees in Education, how to teach.
The strategy of close reading does not really work and finds children too bored to complete the necessary assignments accurately after several re-reads. Informational text usage at ages of elementary grades should be appreciated, not torn apart for “rigor.” Burkins and Yaris have given us their findings of how close reading impacted one of their own children’s educational learning. Think about how old you were when you were taught citing evidence and paraphrasing that are now taught in fifth grade. Actually, think about HOW you were taught to read. I would be very interested if any passion you have for reading has been due to dissecting (rom what I see that is how I feel students are doing) information at a very young age. Especially some of the content in the very early grades that I thank goodness I never had to learn then. I guess “Dick and Jane” weren’t so bad after all.
I can’t believe someone can’t show the groups who think this is so wonderful the harm it has done. Two years in a row more than 60% of NY State Children have failed to reach proficiency. My husband and I have looked at data from every part of NY State. It’s obvious that the tests are flawed.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to admit that our children can’t continue this pattern with tests that are flawed and standards not written by educators. Moral when the results were received was at an all time low, by teachers, students and parents, but now the new buzz of how wonderful everything is and it is getting better, makes one want to cringe. Getting better? Who sees this? I see many adapt what has been given. I see wonderful teachers realizing they didn’t get into teaching to become a robot and have scripted lessons Wake up New Yorkers. This is going to take parents, grandparents, and the entire school community to stop this national disaster. Common Core Syndrome is reaching an all time high. Our kids can’t wait ten years! Neither can we. Somebody, do something about this now! Hit that delete button!
LikeLike
I meant “Morale” not moral in a paragraph above. My apologies.
LikeLike
I agree. NYSED is not listening and doesn’t want evidence or input from the most respected administrators and teachers in the profession. In fact, they no longer see to have an education profession, just a business model of private run but publicly funded schools with a temporary and non-unionized staff. In NYS, we need parents and educators to focus on getting bipartisan pressure on our legislative politicians, and push test refusals to grow exponentially. No one at NYSED cares.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think all the states should take Ms. Burris’ first option and adopt the Massachusetts Standards ASAP. Arne Duncan has very publicly said several times that states can have any ol’ high standards – as long as they are high enough. Dare him to state officially that he doesn’t think Massachusetts Standards are as “rigorous” as Common Core.
LikeLike
Massachusetts needs to re-adopt the Massachusetts Standards. As the article mentions, we dumped those for RTTT $.
LikeLike
Obama Administration continues their single-minded focus on charter schools:
“The U.S. Department of Education announced 27 new grants today totaling $39.7 million under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) to expand high quality charter schools, and open new charter schools across the nation. These grants will support charter schools’ efforts to increase high-need students’ success, especially in underserved areas, in 12 states.
“These charter school grants will help open new charter schools and expand or replicate those with a record of success to help ensure that every student has access to high-quality educational opportunities that prepare them for college, careers and life,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.”
Meanwhile, existing US public schools get threats, economic sanctions and a concerted, endless, orchestrated chorus of “public schools are failing” out of DC.
Maybe the next election we could hire some people who actually value public schools to run public schools?
LikeLike
I think Ms. Burris will probably have plenty of time and room to improve the CC standards in NY, if she’s at all patient. Does anyone really believe national ed reformers will stick with this? Once the tests are locked in they’ll be on to something else and people in NY can come up with anyway they like to hit the “cut score”, I would imagine.
They’re already onto something else. They’re selling edtech to public schools and embarking on a huge federal charter school building project.
I imagine she’ll be left to deal with the Common Core without much intervention, interference (or support) here shortly 🙂
LikeLike
This is a very disappointing article by Principal Burris. She really should know better. Poorly written standards. Fuzzy ELA standards that focus on subjective and abstract skills that cannot be taught or tested. Math and ELA standards that are developmentally inappropriate for the primary years (not to mention IEP and ELL students). Standards that have a two year record of unmitigated failure when put into practice here in NY, under the test-and-punish federal regime. These standards would be mere suggestions that could be mostly ignored if not for the RTTT/NCLB waiver rules that require, through force of state and federal law, the use of companion assessments and the use of student scores for the purpose of teacher, administrator, and school evaluations. Blaming the standards is no different than blaming the implementation. Suggesting, through default, that better standards can save us from this mess is disingenuous at best. The Duncan-Gates cartel want nothing to do with states messing up their plan. This is a four-headed (CC standards, CC tests, APPR, Test data mining) monster that cannot be slayed without the repeal or re-writing of the ESEA. Coleman and company knew that there were individual state standards (most notably, MA) that could have acted as exemplars for the country. They did not ignore them by accident. This piece by Ms. Burris certainly gives many who are less informed a false hope that fixing the standards will fix the problem.
LikeLike
The article also falsely suggests that the CC standards are able to be fixed. The founders purposefully created standards that had NO mechanism for review or revision/improvement. No built-in feature that would allow them to evolve into even better standards for 75 million students, Pre-K to college. The best that any state has managed to do so far, in order shed the toxic stink of “Common Core”, is to re-brand them – that is to dress what are essentially the same bad standards, in a better sounding name.
LikeLike
Look at the fine print and terms of use for the CCSS. You are not free to fix them up, tweak them, pick and choose among them like a menu. Those are non-negotiable dimensions of the standards and for the reviews of curriculum materials for CCSS compliance–these being put in place now.
The standards are copyrighted, and they must be used verbatim–word for word. They are not, in this respect, subject to “fixing” or “tweaking,” or “re-rewriting.” All your state can do is add standards, but these must comprise no more than 15% of the total of the standards for ELA, same 15% rule for math….and those additions must be planned to function in separate modules. This means, for example, if NY state wanted to add some standards pertaining to the achievements of New Yorkers in literature, that would be clearly noted as a separate module of standards.
LikeLike
Exactly Laura. This is why CB’s article surprises me.
I continue to appreciate your vigilant attack on SLOs and SGOs, Thank you.
LikeLike
It’s funny, because Utah is crowing all over the place in the media that they can “change the standards” if they need. It’s so aggravating, because it’s a total lie, and yet the media is reporting it. Even Utah’s State Attorney General says that, “Utah controls its own standards.” I kind of wonder what would happen if a state DID change the standards? http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58498129-78/common-core-utah-standards.html.csp
LikeLike
NY Teacher: I wouldn’t be surprised if Burris were thinking along these lines –“I hate the standards and want them to go away. But I’m not going to let the CC proponents paint me as a mere naysayer so I’ll propose some reasonable amendments. The CC proponents will now be backed into a corner because they know they cannot accept any amendments –every CC textbook and other material that has been created in the past three years will have to be scrapped and redone. Every SBAC/PARCC test will have to be scrapped and redone. The whole giant edifice is built on one particular set of specifications. These cannot change.” So suggesting amendments seems like a smart rhetorical ploy to me.
LikeLike
Let’s see how Arne reacts to her suggestion.
LikeLike
So who knows the solution to getting rid of this nightmare?
LikeLike
The repeal of the ESEA (NCLB) act is one way. This requires an “act of Congress” which is a phrase now found in the Book of Oxymorons.
Another is a Constitutional challenge regarding federal overreach.
A third way for NYS is to send back the $700 million Cuomo won in the Race to the Top contest, reject the NCLB waiver rules as well, and then accept the USDOE punishment for failing to meet NCLB/AYP goals (100% proficiency as of 2014) which will result in every Title 1 elementary and middle school in the state being sanctioned with a very inconvenient set of hoops to jump through. This would require a tremendous amount of parental/political pressure on Cuomo, NYSED, and the Board of Regents. Aside from a violent revolution, this will never happen.
LikeLike
How to “clean up the common core standards”…
With a good bucket, some bleach and as many mops as it takes…..
With a good internet erasure of anything common core related on the world-wide web… I am sure we could hire certain countries to do this job… or unemployed “ed reformers”
With a worldwide contest open to fiber artists…”How to transform any common core hard copy publication into a 3D form of art worthy of looking at….
LikeLike
‘Common Core? Don’t sweat it”
Cleaning up the Common Core
Like cleaning up a pig
The pig will roll in mud some more
And really loves to dig
LikeLike
California’s previous standards in ELA were also highly regarded and those standards and the Mass. standards had a strong influence on the national Common Core standards. In California, our State Board adopted the national standards (with some changes) and then instituted a process which actually substantially followed Carol Burris’s suggestions which resulted in an ELA/ELD framework explicating the standards.. The recently adopted framework can be viewed at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp.
The framework offers sound advice on how to progress from standards to a coherent instructional program that addresses the question of access to the Common Core for all students and sets the framework in a broad liberal arts approach. Most importantly, the framework was developed and extensively reviewed by educators (including significant primary and other teacher representation) and has received strong support from the educational community in our state.
There were four well-attended statewide focus groups reviewing the standards and offering suggestions for the framework. A framework committee was appointed containing a majority of teachers including several primary grade representatives as well as language arts and English Language development experts. After the framework committee finished drafting its recommended framework there were two 60 day review periods and an extensive review by the California Instructional Quality Commission which also has strong teacher representation. The State Board of Education then adopted the document after further public input. There was an overwhelming consensus from this process that the standards were developmentally appropriate and that the more active, engaging classroom envisioned by them and the framework would be hugely beneficial to our students. Specifically, in answer to some of the concerns raised by Carol Burris, the primary teachers and everyone else involved thought the standards right for younger children. They also agreed that a balance between literature (novels, biographies, poems, plays, and later on essays) and discipline based informational text was beneficial and were sensitive to the need for informational text to support a broad curriculum in history/social science, science, and the humanities.
The framework reflects the overarching goals of ELA/ELD literacy and instruction. By the time California’s students complete high school, they should have developed readiness for college, career, and we added civic life; attained the capacities of literate individuals; become broadly literate; and acquired the skills for living and learning in the 21st century.
California has grounded the framework in these broader purposes of the language arts. We want students to be able to understand complex text and ideas; and be able to reason, analyze, persuade, and problem solve. We also wish them to encounter a rich liberal arts education—learning about the world, civic life, and the human heart, helping them reach their potential, and being well-read. We recommend that our youngsters encounter a significant representation of the best classic and contemporary literature including novels, biographies, essays and plays as well as coherent content informational text in science, history, and the humanities. We would like them to experience the joy of reading engrossing stories and fascinating material.
So the ELA/ELD framework is about two main thrusts: First, attention to the totality of what students read both on their own in independent reading and in school in their liberal arts disciplines (including literature) during their school years, and second, the analytical, reasoning and literacy skills necessary to comprehend and apply knowledge from a variety of text structures. Both ideas are stressed in the national Common Core ELA standards. As an example of this dual purpose, the framework recommends an organized independent reading program for each student to supplement what is read in school and provides advice on how to implement such a strategy in Chapter 2. It also makes the point that everything a student reads doesn’t necessarily have to be analyzed.
One of the unique aspects of the California framework is the full integration of CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy and the CA–English Language Development Standards both adopted by the California State Board of Education. The integration of ELA/ELD which was made easier in California because the main ELD development group headed by Dr. Kenji Hakuta of Stanford based its standards on the Common Core, addressed what ELD students would need to succeed in learning the Common Core and offered specific suggestions on how to accomplish that goal. The framework provides examples of classroom practices in which ELD teachers, ELA teachers and content area teachers collaborate to provide equal access to the rigorous instruction required by the CCSS.
Five Major Organizing Themes
The framework has five major organizing themes meant to support the development of curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment to improve instruction: meaning making, language development, effective expression, content knowledge, and foundational skills. These are discussed in general in Chapter 2 and become the organizing components for the grade level clusters in Chapters 3-7 which provide suggestions on how to organize and deliver curriculum and instruction. The five themes fit in the broader context outlined above and help organize the standards into useful areas of instruction. They should be taught where possible in an integrated fashion. All are about developing the ability to understand text and apply knowledge and all five reflect the transition to a more active, engaging classroom envisioned by the CCSS.
The foundation skills theme (which is further explicated and summarized in a white paper on foundation skills cited in the link to the framework cited above–at the bottom of the linked page under the resources title) addresses ways teachers support students to get meaning from quickly recognizing printed words already in the student’s vocabulary—a major task of instruction from mid-kindergarten through mid-second grade. The framework provides guidance on helping children learn to decode and use the tool of full-alphabetic sounding out in becoming automatic with a growing number of words during these early years. It suggests using a linguistic progression of letter/sound correspondences from easier and transparent to the more complex ones (because of the complex and non-transparent nature of English linguistics). The framework recommends materials to be read by the student at the beginning should match and provide practice in the combinations which have been taught (decodable text). The documents encourage instruction which encourages students to make the transition to trade books when they become sufficiently adept at recognizing enough words and letter/sound combinations to comfortably read them. Of course, a rich oral-reading and discussion program should accompany this strategy.
The language development theme addresses how to support students in understanding a growing number of vocabulary words, learning academic language, and negotiating syntactical complexity. It offers advice on how to organize a research-based curriculum in these areas.
The meaning making theme aims to help students infer, connect, and use strategies such as close reading or meta-cognitional techniques to help understand both literature (including novels, biographies, essays, plays, and poems) and discipline based informational text.
The content knowledge theme advises how to develop student background knowledge, provide support and motivation for the discipline areas such as biographies of key figures and events in history or science, and assist students in tackling the different text structures in the disciplines all of which improves comprehension.
The effective expression theme provides suggestions on deepening understanding by having students write, argue, or discuss in argument, explanation/inform, and narrative styles. This theme also includes writing and speaking conventions and spelling.
Each of these themes encourages an active, engaging curriculum with multiple opportunities for students to apply what they are learning in a variety of ways. The framework is chock-full of exemplars of this type of instruction by incorporating numerous vignettes and snapshots of classroom strands and examples of the connection to content areas.
The framework also has chapters on assessment, access and equity emphasizing interventions, criteria for adopting materials, and professional learning, leadership and program supports.
The assessment chapter emphasizes the role and provides guidance for immediate and short term formative assessment and the intervention and equity chapter stresses the importance of rapid intervention (RTI and multi-tiered instruction) for all special needs students to prevent failure. The professional learning chapter underscores the crucial importance of professional development and collaboration across disciplines, team building and learning communities, continuous improvement, and the support and leadership structures necessary for system-wide support in the implementation of the active and engaging classroom instruction envisioned by the common core standards and this framework. The framework contains multiple exemplars and vignettes as a guide to professional learning.
Appendix A of the California Framework written by Carol Jago, Associate Director of the Reading and Literature Project at UCLA. It deals with the important role of literature in the CCCS. The appendix also addresses the issue of the level of text complexity and recommends a broader approach than say just lexile levels. It also contains suggestions for helping all students access complex text. There are recommendations and and links to compendiums of the best literature and informational text by discipline. The framework has taken a balanced approach that some material should be at independent reading levels, some more difficult for particularly interesting topics, and, finally, some challenging text for instruction which needs to be scaffolded.
I hope this framework will help provide useful assistance in the nationwide effort to improve the quality of instruction for all children. Even though there may be disagreement on some aspects of the Common Core standards, most of the standards have wide-spread educator support, are consistent with what are best teachers and experts have been advocating. Translating them into effective instruction will greatly improve the education our students receive.
LikeLike
” Even though there may be disagreement on some aspects of the Common Core standards, most of the standards have wide-spread educator support, are consistent with what are best teachers and experts have been advocating.”
Posting this nonsense will not make it true.
LikeLike
Mr. Honig,
It seems to me that If the new textbooks based on California’s motley and sprawling new ELA frameworks are any good and if schools actually follow these textbooks instead of doing full-on test prep, then there is some hope for a bit of real liberal arts learning in CA ELA classes. Or, in the slim chance that schools bravely eschew the textbooks and devise original curricula based on their own intrepid forays into the frameworks’ thickets, and pick out the good elements therein and avoid the bad, there is hope. But it seems to me that neither of these half-rosy scenarios is likely while high-stakes tests loom. The mild, equivocal voice of the frameworks will be drowned out by the test prep alarm siren the minute sub par results come in.
LikeLike
I just read Carol Jago’s Appendix A of the CA ELA framework. Like all of her writing, it is sensible and clear. She exhorts us to pick great literature, including whole novels, for kids to read. She reminds us that literature teaches empathy and helps us develop a coherent view of the world. But she fails to make a case that the subtle, important impacts of her teaching approach will register as higher SBAC scores. There may be no reward for teaching literature Jago-style; in fact there may be a huge penalty: scores that fall below those of the teacher down the hall or the school across town. To heck with Jago; tell me how I can save my job and my reputation by jacking up kids’ SBAC scores!
LikeLike
First, there should be a meta-standard describing how to create, revise, and approve the standards in a framework.
The standards should be open source. No copyright. States, districts, schools, teachers should be able to modify and extent the standards within the framework. The process should be decentralized and flexible.
The standards at the top level should be abstract and general. Instead of “you must teach congruence using rigid motions” the top starts with “congruence must be taught”. Short and readable. Refinement and extension is applied as the standards work down to the local level.
Get rid of arbitrary grade level structure.
Standards evolve collaboratively and periodically given a zero-based review. After all, we do have an Internet.
The standards are disassociated from high stakes testing. The trap is the tests become the standards.
… a start.
LikeLike
Which, of course, would kill the standardized tests coming out of this, which is a great thing.
The biggest thing to do for CC? Get rid of the standardized testing!
LikeLike
An excellent discussion of the process and some of the work on ELA in California.
Here is a question, not just for California.
Has comparable time and talent been recruited to consider or re-consider anything other than ELA and mathematics?
What about efforts to rethink content and aims for studies in the arts, sciences, social studies, and foreign languages–the whole set of expectations and curriculum as students experience that in the span of a single school year, and across the grades?
Granted that reading and writing are the ultimate tool subjects. Does that mean that everything else that might be known and admired and regarded as human achievements and worthy of study in schools are now just bootlegged into the curriculum as an afterthought?
Are these other subjects really viewed as little more than illustrations to be mustered for the purpose of learning to read and compute, go to college and get a job?
As a nation, we seem to be valorizing an elaborated version of the 3Rs as the be-all-and-end-all of education–and educational research–and at the same time drowning in standards.
Ohio had 3,203 standards on the books in 2013, about 267 per grade–that was before the new national standards in the sciences were published, including technology and engineering, and also before the just released standards for music, dance, theater, the visual arts, and the newly recognized media arts.
My point is that people who are writing all of these standards and tweaking this or that part of the agenda are not looking at the totality of expectations for this generation–technically on the books, and increasingly regarded as mandatory. Maybe it is time for every adult who pontificates about education to face some questions on a version of the program “Are you as smart as a fifth grader?” but with question from all of the subjects for which there are fifth grade standards. Repeat for every grade level.
LikeLike
Carol, California is currently developing a Science framework based on the Next Generation Science Standards which were recently adopted by the State Board using a similar process to the math and English efforts. We are also currently updating our History/Social Science framework. We want to make the point you stress that a broad curriculum and instructional program is an essential part of the overall effort to improve instruction (of which Common Core is only one part) as we build support mechanism for capacity building, learning communities, and continuous improvement. Our ELA/ELD framework contains numerous vignettes and suggestions of how to connect to the other disciplines.
LikeLike
It is not only the standards at issue. It is indeed the implementation and interpretation of them as well. The standards are not just a document that was provided to states to implement and interpret how they see fit. It is clear when reading comments on this blog which describe the identical interpretation and implementation of the standards in multiple states, including states which are developing their own tests, that there is a far-reaching entity with plentiful resources behind the scenes running the show. For instance, many states are implementing close reading with written responses which cite the text as early as Kindergarten. However, the use of text evidence to support answers doesn’t appear in the CCSS until grade 3.
I read the CCSS for ELA in Kindergarten well before their implementation and they did not appear to significantly differ from the existing standards. It wasn’t until the implementation trainings about rigor, close reading, text complexity, citing text evidence etc. across ALL grade levels that I realized the huge deviation in interpretation, and it’s a national phenomenon. Who is dictating with such specificity and on such a mass scale this interpretation and implementation of the already flawed CCSS which requires K-2 students to meet standards that are written for third graders? Are district leaders questioning why these students should be expected to perform at a level which meets standards that are years in the future? No! They are salivating over it. In fact, my district modifies our resource’s PARCC aligned unit tests to make them more difficult. That actually makes sense to people whose goal is to boost their egos with a high national ranking rather than doing what is in the best interest of our children.
Also, the Coleman-Gates crowd needs to read some informational text themselves. They should read a public school student’s schedule. Apparently they are under the impression that students sit in a language arts classroom for eight hours a day and therefore read only fiction. A close reading of a schedule would show that the majority of a student’s day is actually spent in other subjects in which factual knowledge is acquired through… wait for it… reading non-fiction, informational text.
LikeLike
Great point. From what I can see, districts aren’t closely reading the standards and coming up with their own interpretations. They aren’t even reading the frameworks (like California’s) that aim to assist in interpretation. They’re going straight to the EngageNY website and grabbing its off-the-shelf curriculum.
LikeLike
This is because we have seen two rounds of CC testing. Other states, I think, are presuming that NY has some sort of edge on beating the tests. Why else would they be flocking to our DisEngageNY modules? They are bad cookie cutter activities that violate the sacred oath of teaching: bore no child.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree, with Ponderosa. This is INTERESTING. All of a sudden, one day out of the clear blue, I see teachers running around the school hallways talking about “modules”, “modules” “modules”….. I mean the faculty room copiers are running out of toner because so many people are hurrying to copy these “modules” that the State of New York has apparently created. And, I’m thinking, what? Lunar modules. Modular homes. Where did this word “module” come from? I think the people who are masterminding this whole debacle know quite well what will happen if they put a “model” or “modular” or whatever they call their package of stuff online. It’s disingenuous…it’ oh so cynical. They surely know what so many people in schools will immediately do. I just looked up the meaning of the definition of “modular” yet again. I think it’s very telling that the bureaucrats who are doing the bidding of Gates, Coleman et al. Inc. feel so at home with this particular word. They may like to think that they are “critical thinkers”. They are anything but that. They want us to be modules. They want us to put modules in our kids’ brains. I have to wonder, maybe they want to be modules, too?
LikeLike
DisEngageNY modules in ELA are thinly veiled test prep manuals that do not help to raise scores. They have proven to be an utter waste of time and money, and have displaced any enrichment in literature that students were getting prior to their creation.
LikeLike
NYS paid private vendors to create the modules. It is these vendors, not NYSED reps or Tisch’s flying-monkey Regents fellows, who “educate” teachers about the modules. Private entities are driving instruction, with state approval, in NYS. The modules contain the background knowledge and vocabulary to address multiple-choice questions on the state tests. Just follow the thematic threads-nature, biological testing, genocide, human rights- from grades 3-11 in ELA and you will see the content of the test questions. Why this content? Looks like an agenda. Why are certain topics included while others are ignored? One might ask why no full length novels nor the literary essay are taught in any of the modules. Parents and many teachers and administrators do not know this. These details need to conveyed to the public. The standards say to “read closely, ” a nod to comprehension. So why are we doing “close reading, ” David Coleman’s favorite method. Now colleges are jumping on the CC bandwagon. DePaul university now has two tracks: common core and honors. That’s where this is going.
LikeLike
Excellent description Nimbus. These modules are popular because they are easy to use. However they are dull, boring, ineffective for both test prep and even worse for life prep. Routine use which is mandated in some schools represents the antithesis of inspirational teaching.
LikeLike
Our entire faculty (and every faculty in the district) was subjected to a “professional development” session yesterday supposedly about the ‘shift in writing standards’.
We were told that 1. They don’t know how the tests are going to look in a few months because they aren’t written yet. 2. They don’t know what to tell us about teaching students to prepare for the tests because know one in FL has figured out what will be tested exatcly. 3. They don’t know how the unwritten tests will be scored yet because no one in FL has figured that our yet. 4. Children in 5th grade will be required to type their answers despite the fact that we haven’t and don’t teach keyboarding skills in elementary schools and despite the fact that we don’t have adequate technology resources to do so. 5. Before the students write their cold, hard factual pieces they will have to close read 4 or 5 passages of something that no one in FL has figured out yet.
Disaster waiting to happen.
Talk about an insulting waste of valuable time for teachers too!
Why are we still embracing the standards movement at all after its abject failure to do much of anything but make education boring and punitive for the last 12 years?
Standards-driven education fragments the curriculum and leads to teaching isolated skills and facts and this is not how people think or work.
I have to hand it to the standardistas — they have done a complete and thorough snow job on the American people to the extent that few bother to even question if having standards serves any purpose at all other than to prop up their extremist ideological attacks on education and teachers.
Well done Fordham ideologues!
LikeLike
If the Common Core standards are really not about control and profit, then why are they copyrighted with no opportunity for modification?
Why didn’t Arne Duncan simply talk to Massachusetts about the possibility of adopting their standards as a basis for national standards that could be modified as each state saw fit? (perhaps with a moderate licensing fee for states that adopted them so that MA could recoup some of their development costs)
Why did David Coleman, Bill Gates and the rest even have to be involved if there were already existing standards that had been developed by teachers and others knowledgeable about education?
The copyright issue is the dead giveaway because it is the only thing that can assure a “uniform” standard into the future that just a few companies who make tests and educational software can rely on to enjoy a virtual monopoly.
If states are free to change things as they wish (even using the same standard as a base), there is no way these companies can develop and maintain one size fits all products.
This is all about maintaining control over education and ensuring a reliable profit stream far into the future.
LikeLike
Scam, scam – thank you DAM
LikeLike
Are the former Massachusetts standards available somewhere? I haven’t seen those.
LikeLike
You can find them on the mass DOE website.
Doe.mass.edu
LikeLike