A blogger who calls him/herself “LiberalTeacher” explains how the requirements of the Common Core transformed a novel he loved: The 39 Steps by John Buchan. When he was a student, the book held him spellbound.
He wrote:
I tutor many students and two weeks ago one of my students needed help in analyzing an excerpt from The 39 Steps. Of course it was just an excerpt because as we all know Mr. Coleman feels it is a waste of time for students to possibly read and enjoy a whole novel. But what was even more amazing was the fact that this excerpt was in a 6th grade common core workbook. Obviously, I read it in high school and remembered that many concepts had to be explained to us at that time. I recall being fascinated learning about the cultural differences between us Americans and the British in the waning days of its Empire. The book is obviously beyond the scope of an average sixth grader. But I had to confirm this for myself. I decided to use common core’s favorite readability formula on this excerpt—Lexile. Lo and behold, but not surprisingly, the Lexile score was 960. To put it in terms that we old teachers understand, the book is on the 10th-11th grade level. After all, to Arne, David and Bill, rigor is the “code word” of the day.
The excerpt my student read was the first couple of pages from the book. The excerpt starts with the protagonist’s experience in visiting London from South Africa where he is mining engineer. Richard Hannay is described in this excerpt as being somewhat uncomfortable on this trip to his native land. He feels out of place and bored. All of a sudden, upon returning to his apartment, one of his neighbors barges in to his “flat” and after suspiciously checking all of the rooms say this sentence: ‘Pardon,’ he said, ‘I’m a bit rattled tonight. You see, I happen at this moment to be dead.’
What did this common core workbook want the student to do with the text? First, he had to read it twice. Of course, a close reading had to be done. His task was to circle key phrases that showed the “tone” of the passage. This was difficult for him because of two reasons. First, he had no understanding what was meant by tone and I had to explain and give him concrete examples of this common core concept. Next, the passage itself floored him because he had no background information to hook into. He had no conception that the main character was a colonial from a British African colony and that he felt out of place now in his mother country. Why should he know any of this when this curriculum forbids students from using any background information—especially in the area of social studies—when pieces of text are analyzed?
The teacher then explained how his student reacted to the excerpt and how little he understood of the novel, which he had–of course–not read.
But why did the book matter? The teacher still remembers how it affected the way he felt and thought. Analyzing the decontextualized text as a “close reading” missed whatever was important to him when he had read it years ago.
He writes:
When I read The 39 Steps, I recall so many lively discussions. It was the time of the Vietnam War. One discussion I distinctly remember centered on the theme of risking your life for your country when your nation in itself was deeply flawed. We also discussed some of the political issues brought out in the novel, such as powerful industrialists profiting from wars and conflicts between nations and that it was in the interest of such people to forment war. The discussions that we had over this book represent real higher level thinking skills. It is the type of critical thinking skills that create a citizenry that questions its government. It is the type of learning that creates a true educated citizenry that is able to participate in relevant political discourse. Forcing students to read and describe the structure of a passage five years above grade level is not education, but frustration that will lead to a hatred of learning because it is purposeless. Whereas this novel gave me a life-long love of spy novels and got me thinking about wider issues, the excerpt my student read led to confusion, misunderstanding and a feeling of inadequacy.

I put together this list of required readings for 9-12 when I was told by our curriculum director that we could, with few exceptions only teach “informational texts” in English class, because it was what Common Core Standards required. Here is my list with the explanation following of why it is an informational text:
A New Curriculum for the Common Core
Ninth Grade
1. The Odyssey – A Traveler’s guide to aging gracefully, with sections on Parenting, building effective life-long relationships, and finding peace with God.
2. Oliver Twist – The young person’s guide to life on the streets.
3. The Sea Wolf – A guide to success in the workplace and getting along with difficult people.
4. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – A how to guide to getting in touch with the darker side of our natures and learning to manage it.
5. Romeo and Juliet – A guide for young people on the consequences of unhealthy relationships with a section on community policing.
6. To Kill a Mockingbird – A handbook on effective lawyering and making the legal system work for you with a section on making lasting friendships.
Tenth Grade
1. The Secret Life of Bees – A manual for raising bees and strong families.
2. Hamlet – A useful guide on how not to build a happy family life, with a section on madness in children and how it can be recognized.
3. Fahrenheit 451 – A manual on how to establish an effective school curriculum and how to deal with books that do not belong in the curriculum.
4. Catcher in the Rye – A do it yourself guide to recognizing sincere and insincere people with sections on telltale signs to insincerity.
5. The House on Mango Street – A guide to building a healthy community.
6. A Separate Peace – A guide to knowing who your friends are with a section on athletic training and perseverance.
Eleventh Grade
1. The Last of the Mohicans – A manual on cross cultural relationships and diplomacy.
2. The Red Badge of Courage – A guide to effective soldiering.
3. Walden – For a change a story about a man living in the woods.
4. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – A handbook on deception, parenting, and human discord.
5. The Crucible – How to recognize and treat witches, warlocks, and wizard. An antidote to Harry Potter.
6. Ethan Frome – A do it yourself guide to domestic tranquility.
7. Grapes of Wrath ¬– A how to guide to surviving the coming economic collapse.
8. Their Eyes Were Watching God – A how to guide to living the good life, with a section on raising capital and a gamblers “how-to”.
Twelfth Grade
1. Beowulf – A manual on leadership and crisis management.
2. The Canterbury Tales – A brief history of the rise of the middle class.
3. Le Morte d’Arthur – A manual on statecraft and creating a just society.
4. Macbeth¬ – A guide book on goal setting and how to execute those goals, with a novel approach to the execution of goals.
5. Gulliver’s Travels – Travelogue recounting trips to unusual places.
6. Frankenstein – A handbook on cloning and the development of artificial intelligence.
7. Great Expectations – A handbook for the quintessential gentleman.
8. Wuthering Heights – A guide on how to establishing one’s self on the property ladder with a section on effective community relationships.
9. The Importance of Being Ernest – A guide to the proper naming of children, with a section on giving them a good start on making a life of their own.
10. The Dead – A how to guide to planning the perfect dinner party and Christmas celebration.
LikeLike
lol. what a delight!
LikeLike
And that’s it, exactly. Literature is guide to living and dying. That’s it. That’s why it exists. Bravo.
What was your CD’s reaction?
LikeLike
I gave it to my department chair who treated it like a closely guarded secret. She, CD, never changed her position, but she pursued her nefarious goals less assertively after awhile even though the policy never officially changed. I made it an objective to find articles in magazines, newspapers, and journals that argued for the importance of teaching the humanities and use those exclusively as my informational texts, a practice I follow to this day. This way the information my students receive instructs them on the insufficiency of information for information’s sake.
I agree, there is a sense in which literature is a guide to living and dying in the sense of living more fully, more wisely, and more meaningfully so that when we die our lives have counted for something. As opposed to pursuing information that makes us more useful drones while alive so that when we reach the time of our death we haven’t been too much of a nuisance.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Oh, I LOVE your style, christophernorthjr!
LikeLike
It is clear that the Common Core emperor has no clothes. The challenge is for teachers and school leaders to teach the close reading strategy and then move on to provide the rich experiences with literature that they know is a key component of a quality education.
LikeLike
I agree completely. Close reading doesn’t have to be used just with “informational” text.
LikeLike
I just finished reading an article from “The New Yorker” which required an extensive knowledge of the nuances of football. This article appears in the “Code X” workbook for New York City 6th graders. The author of the article is arguing a case for when a touchdown might not have been beneficial during a game. I had a very difficult time understanding the article because I lack background knowledge in football – I don’t watch the game and could not understand much of the football terminology in the article (nor could about 98% of my students). I actually had to get another teacher in to explain it to us all in order for my students to have a fighting chance at answering the common core questions. This is happening with every text. Teachers are basically acting a translators for the excerpts and the questions. Last week, we got off topic of answering dull questions citing “text evidence” and began a lively discussion over the events in Ferguson. I have never seen my students so interested and engaged.
I think that the objective of the common core is to create a citizenry who will never question. This makes for a nicely compliant workforce.
LikeLike
You just had the type of experience that ESL teachers have to negociate on a daily basis. In order to get the student to understand, the teacher must build a rather large scaffold including vocabulary, language elements, cultural and historical references. All of this is more easily accomplished with a great deal of context. Of course, making these types of connections are easier with a great deal of context, and context is missing when students are given decontextualized excerpts from a larger works.
LikeLike
At least that certainly seems to be the goal of the testing.
LikeLike
Many years ago when the Common Core was published, it became clear to me that all of this gibberish was nothing more than requiring kids to read material at their frustration level. One of the tenets of my profession is that you NEVER ask kids to read at this level. This has been true all during my professional life…40 years. To call it “close reading” is BS. There is nothing “close” about it. If you want to get kids to improve their comprehension, it can be boiled down to two easy steps. First, they must be truly engaged in what they are reading. Secondly, they must have the background knowledge to make the linkages necessary. As adults, we learn in two ways…through models and our experiences. The Common Core malarky fails to address any of these items in any detail. Enough of this baloney. Let teachers do what they know works with students. Coleman and Company don’t know what works nor do they care.
LikeLike
Hear, hear!
LikeLike
I second your comments. Also…good word choices in your post. The Common Core is indeed gibberish, malarkey, and baloney.
LikeLike
Hey, that’s a good set of examples to use in a CC-workbook-type exercise on synonyms, adjectives, and connotation vs. denotation!
LikeLike
Amen and then come and tell MY administrative team this. They are forcing vet teachers to do something totally different than what they know works! It IS insane and yes, it IS malarky.
LikeLike
This post should be required reading for all educators who think they need to put aside everything they know about teaching and follow the Common Core party line.
LikeLike
Great example of how developmentally inappropriate “rigor” is actually a dumbing down of the curriculum.
If the faux Democrats had just come forward and said they had the same agenda as neo-liberal Republicans, to close virtually all public schools and make them private, they could have spared millions of children from years of this kind of torment. But, then, it’s too obvious that privatization is beneficial to business, not the public good, so those politicians and billionaires would not have been able to declare that it was a “civil rights issue” and claim it’s all “for the kids.”
Funny how all the non-educators from the ivy leagues and big business leading education in this country today don’t seem to have considered the fact that the people who were responsible for revolutions in the past were not highly educated folk, including those that caused the first robber barons to be reined in and whose actions resulted in major changes to working conditions and labor rights in this country. If the elites want an uneducated citizenry, that is just the kind of history that bears repeating.
LikeLike
Teacher Ed: take the first sentence of your comment.
Add it to the last sentence of the above posting: “Whereas this novel gave me a life-long love of spy novels and got me thinking about wider issues, the excerpt my student read led to confusion, misunderstanding and a feeling of inadequacy.”
Voilà! CCSS has achieved the purpose for which it was created.
Which is exactly why the leaders of the self-styled “education reform” movement have as their banner—“Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!” [a teaser for a blog posting and thread on this very website]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/23/common-core-for-commoners-not-my-school/
$tudent $ucce$$ makes so much ₵ent¢. Just why does that “shrill” and “strident” Ravitch woman object to it so much?
Go figure…
😎
LikeLike
Liberal teacher read this book as a high school student, but the excerpt is from a sixth grade workbook. I question how it was decided to be used with sixth graders. I am certified as a reading teacher. Trying to teach students on their frustration level is not good teaching. Students should attempt to build comprehension in a gradual incremental level so that the student meets with success while gaining confidence and control over the material. Success breeds success! Another problem that Liberal Teacher points out reminds me of what Chomsky refers to as surface and deep structure. You can teach students the meanings of individual words (surface level), but without a larger understanding of how the part connects to the whole (deep level), your student will be struggling. This would include connotative meanings, irony, tone, voice, etc. We cannot expect students to run before they are able to walk.
LikeLike
Who brought up this word ‘rigor’ and changed its meaning? It is creating havoc in the classroom and putting unnecessary pressure on teachers…
LikeLike
It appears that over time ed reformers have taken over the language of education and made it something Orwellian. When I started teaching terms like “Critical Thinking,” “rigor,” and “close reading” had a real content that was meaningful and worth aspiring towards. They have come to mean almost the opposite of what they meant when I started teaching. The new terminology (or the new definitions) are not only being used to change the nature of the content we teach they are being changed in ways that make it difficult for teachers to talk to each other because the language no longer means what it once meant. One way to silence a people is to take their language and make it mean something else. Once we lose our language it becomes very difficult to talk to one another.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
When I began teaching, we didn’t talk about critical thinking, rigor, and close reading. We talked about thinking, working hard, and the purpose for reading and reading for meaning. The vocabulary today creates this sense of “boot camp” urgency.
LikeLike
2old2tech
I was not trying to argue about the terminology that is best but that the terminology has been usurped and its meanings made ambiguous at best. To a large degree that is making us incomprehensible to one another. There was a time when I could use the language I used and you could use the language you used and we would be understood and at the end of the day found we meant much the same thing by the language we used. Even some of the terms you use, like “reading for meaning” have been taken over by “reformers.” The purpose of language is to help produce clarity, to make ourselves understood to one another. But because of the way the language has been redefined by reformers we can no longer be sure we understand each other or that others will understand us. If I were to express my ideas to another using the language I used to use the meaning of that language has been so perverted that those listening to me might conclude I meant the opposite of what I was saying. That to me is real harm, does real damage, because it inhibits our ability to talk to one another and be understood. Like all teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal. In that kind of world what does it mean to be equal. It doesn’t mean anything at all.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Chris, I didn’t take what you said as offensive. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Just adding a bit of the “When I was your age,…” perspective, which, as far as I can tell, supports your viewpoint.
LikeLike
2old2teach
You weren’t offensive. I understand the frustration that comes with trying to be clear in an age that seems to delight in ambiguity and obfuscation.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Oh, Chris! Reread what I said and your answer. Bottom line is,I think we agree with each other.
LikeLike
2old2teach
Sorry I wasn’t clear, I do agree we are saying the same thing and that what you said does add to and expand my comment. I did not intend to be critical. As they said in the good old days, keep on keepin’ on.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Neither one of us intended any harm. Perhaps we should just kiss and makeup. 🙂
LikeLike
I just finished listening to this book last week on Livrivox.org, read by Adrian Praetzellis. I thoroughly enjoyed the adventures of Richard Hannay, a bored and unsuspecting businessman who is drawn into events that change his life. He is approached by Franklin Scudder, a sort of rogue spy who has faked his death to avoid detection by powerful, sinister forces. He confides in Hannay, sharing disturbing secrets about an assassination plot, then is murdered. Hannay is then launched into a series of adventures and death-defying escapes as he attempts to vindicate himself from murder accusations and tries to reveal plans that will have grave consequences for governments around the world.
As much as I enjoyed The 39 Steps, I can’t imagine 6th grade students (basically 12 year-olds) reading excerpts from this book without prior background knowledge, emotional maturity, and solid reading skills. The author of this blog is correct – a purposeless “close read” of a small, isolated part of the book does nothing to generate meaningful discussion about important topics and themes, make connections to real-life events of the past and present, and promote real critical thinking. There must better-suited, more developmentally appropriate choices for 12 year-olds than this!
I can relate to the bloggers’s feelings about a favorite book – memorable and rich with thought-provoking ideas – reduced to a mundane Common Core exercise. I teach second grade in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) website has links to specially developed Common Core units in ELA. One second grade unit is an author study of beloved author/illustrator Tomie dePaola. Last year I downloaded, read it and put it aside. By the time Tomie dePaola’s life experiences and imaginative stories had been dissected, analyzed, neatly packaged into “purposeful” lessons aligned to Common Core, the life and joy would have been sucked out of reading most of them. No thanks!
Throughout the years, I have shared many Tomie dePaola books with my students. We have laughed, cried, pondered and puzzled over, discussed, and reveled in these wonderful stories for the sheer joy, love, and excitement of discovering, reading and re-reading them. To me, that’s what reading with young children is really all about. Each year I focus on the work of several wonderful children’s authors, hoping to instill a love and appreciation for reading and good storytelling. Tomie DePaola is one of my favorite authors, and my students delight in reading, listening to and sharing his stories year after year. I will continue to share wonderful literature that sparks imagination, inspires curiosity, provokes questions, and touches the hearts and minds of my precious second graders.
LikeLike
I went to a local community theatre to watch “The 39 Steps” and in this community it was a requirement for adult theatre and college students to attend. Why would it show up in a workbook for 6th graders? I remember a professor revealing to us that we could still use PICTURE BOOKS for middle school because research showed how integral the picturesque settings could be. He taught us how to engage the students in a way that would increase creativity and spark engagement/desire. Alas, that was in 2002 when the world still had common sense.
The new methods want us to confuse, dumb down, and pretend that we are following some course of action. We are not reaching the kids with this rigorous tactic of doing stations, coloring, using faint sources of technology, and harping on close reading. A reader close reads ANYWAY. Let us first INSPIRE and MOTIVATE the students in the way that the teacher sees fit. I heard someone say this method was instituted by a person named Coleman. In the little towns, we don’t even have names to associate with who is changing the classroom environment and in inner city schools, how do we do close reading and rigor when the kids talk while you are talking, fight and move around when they want to, run out of the classroom if they hear a fight, record everything on their cellphones, text other students in other classes while you are talking, use IM and other music sites when they are to be using online tutorial programs and lessons–? I mean, REALLY? Some kids in these Title I environments could care less about ANY literary lesson, it seems, and if we are all forced to follow one particular book as a pacing guide and it’s filled with mainly repetitive examples of informational text, then we have defeated the purpose because we have not assessed the demographics of the room environment and the neighborhood/community mentality. Like someone said earlier, the Ferguson case inspired sincere engagement. Nothing was phony or indoctrinated with educational jargon. The kids just wanted to know what happened and were ready to respond with cause/effect, comparison/contrast, and problem/solution tactics. Now, I have to go back and teach them how to edit their thoughts properly but it was a start.
LikeLike
Hi Liberal Teacher,
In my latest incarnation covering a variety of classes, I have run into this method of reading excerpts. In one class, a student was required to read an excerpt about a mill. When I finished a lengthy explanation of a mill, he still could not make heads or tails of the selection. My
guess is he did not do previous close readings of The Little
Red Hen. In another class, they were reading an excerpt from Little Women, one of my all time favorites. Even I could glean little from my close reading despite my intimate familiarity with
the text. It may be due to my senility, but I will admit to having great difficulty figuring out the answers to the questions presented. Sorry
David Coleman, but I do give a shit about the children’s feelings.
LikeLike
New Criticism Lite, aka New Criticism for Dummies
LikeLike
Common Core: Reach for the stars, while we blot out the night sky!
We’ve mistaken debate for dialectic, rigor for foundations and dislocated, strained and meaningless logic for truth and reality!
Could we have done any worse? Hey, that’s a great timely, provocative and real-world question with multiple answers! Though, it would require the due research that we never did. Okay, back to building our rocket in mid-orbit without space suits. “Dr. King, could you float me that Allen wrench. I don’t think Ikea meant for this wood to be in outer space. Hey, Gates, move out of the way, we’re getting ‘Dumb and Dumber To’ by satellite! It’s all legal out here!”
LikeLike
“We’ve mistaken debate for dialectic, rigor for foundations and dislocated, strained and meaningless logic for truth and reality!”
We haven’t. “They” have.
LikeLike
‘We’ is Common Core, speaking in the first ‘person’.
LikeLike
You need to print this, mount it, and send it to principals all over the world. I realize the Boards and Superintendent mandates the principals to follow rules, but I’ve come to see that principals run their schools based on their own biased desires and what THEY think works. Often times, they are quite tyrannical.
Thank you for mentioning the grandfather of educational confusion in our country: Bill Gates!
LikeLike
Close reading is one of many, many tools in the toolkit. If Coleman had had a clue, he would have known that. If he had had any background at all, he would also have known that it was practiced primarily on short lyric poems. See, for example, William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930) and Cleanth Brooks’s The Well-Wrought Urn (1947), the two great classics in the close reading genre. See also Brooks and Warren’s Understanding Poetry (1938). Coleman”s “new, higher standards” were old news fifty years ago and by that time had already been roundly criticized by careful thinkers. For an early and I think devastating critique of the approach, see E. D. Hirsch, Jr.’s Validity in Interpretation (1967).
There is a time and place for New Critical close reading. It is one tool of some limited use. But, again, if Coleman had had a clue, he would have known that much of 20th-century criticism was in reaction against the limitations of the New Criticism. Formalism, Structuralism, Intentionalism, Deconstruction, Historicism, New Historicism, Marxist Criticism, Feminist Criticism, Reader Response, Deconstructon, Colonial Studies, Interpretive Community Criticism–one could make a long, long list of the alternatives to New Criticism even when practiced well (which it isn’t by Coleman and the Colmanettes around the country). Even in the relatively small arena of lyric poetry, the New Criticism was practiced fairly successfully only with a small subset of that poetry–work that depended on elaborate figures and conceits such as the metaphysical poetry of Donne and Herbert.
But in fact Coleman did not have a clue. It is shocking and shameful that he and his “standards” have not been laughed off the national stage by English teachers who know better. It’s long past time that those who do know better started educating their administrators and colleagues about this and the many, many, many other howlers and misconceptions in the CCSS for ELA. A lot of damage is being done to kids due to a steady diet of Coleman-inspired nightmare lessons.
Maslow said it long ago. If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail. Coleman had a hammer and didn’t even know that behind him was a workshop full of thousands and thousands of other tools, equally valuable, but for different purposes. If you want to measure small distances, a hammer will not do. You need calipers or a micrometer. If you want 12th graders to read Plato’s allegory of the cave, which is one item on Coleman’s suggested reading list, you had better place the thing into some conceptual context.
Texts exist in context. Of course they do. You literally can’t read them “in isolation.” If Coleman had had a clue, if he had had any familiarity with the past 150 years of hermeneutics–the science and art of interpretation–he would have known that. If someone says, “Better tie up those loose ends,” it matters whether that person is a macrame instructor or Tony Soprano talking about a hit.
LikeLike
This post and these comments vindicate E.D. Hirsch whose big heretical idea is that reading comprehension is utterly dependent on background knowledge. Ergo schools need to teach background knowledge (telling kids to “activate background knowledge” doesn’t work if kids haven’t been given the background knowledge!). Reading ability is not a muscle that gets stronger with exercise. This is the faulty metaphor at the root of Common Core (and, more broadly, the reading strategies approach to teaching reading). After one masters decoding, reading ability is largely a function of how much helpful information resides in one’s long-term memory banks (e.g. what “colonial” means; the intricacies of football). Googling all this is impractical; it has to be built in. If you know 90% of the words and concepts, you can use “skills” to figure out the other 10%. But if you only know 50%, no amount of “skills” will enable you decipher the rest. Background knowledge is indispensable. Sadly few American teachers have been exposed to Hirsch’s insights, and our struggling readers continue to struggle as a result.
LikeLike
And, of course, even before Hirsch entered the education fray with his work on background knowledge, he had already made a name for himself in hermeneutics by making the case for interpretation as recovery of the author’s intention, distinct from the work in and of itself and distinct from it’s significance to the reader. Hirsch’s Validity in Interpretation is largely about the many ways in which one must go outside the text, while remaining grounded in it, in order to understand, at all, what’s going on in the text. Relevant to interpretation as recovery of intention are the literary and historical context, the author’s biography and body of work, the period in the author’s career in which the work was produced, the genre of the text and the conventions of that genre, and much, much else that is extra-textual. And many of those who would not put the author’s intentions first, as Hirsch does–Fish and Greenblatt, for example–would agree with him about the importance of those extra-textual matters.
Coleman didn’t know what he was doing. He is yet another example of the promotion of Wunderkindens by the Neoliberals, who have absolute disdain for our profession and its traditions and body of learning and knowledge. Coleman and his supporters didn’t and don’t know how much he didn’t know; neither do they know how much he didn’t know that he didn’t know.
And, they don’t care to learn. Theirs is to command. Ours is to obey.
LikeLike
cx: its, above, not it’s. A typo
LikeLike
cx: Wunderkinder
LikeLike
This is the faulty metaphor at the root of Common Core
yes yes yes!
LikeLike
very well said, Ponderosa!
LikeLike
I totally agree, Ponderosa. What you have described is a the heart of “The Gap,” It is a language and content gap that is often referred to as “cultural literacy.” In addition to language issues, ESL teachers deal with this gap all the time. No amount of strategies will fill the void unless enough content is present to be a foundation. Strategies will be useful when enough prior knowledge to activate.With younger students there is also the issue of readiness. Trying to teach a six month old to walk is fruitless. The CCSS take none of these realities into consideration.
LikeLike
The CCSS in ELA was work for hire produced by a “lead architect” without the requisite relevant background and paid for by a plutocrat who wanted a single set of national standards produced overnight so he could have those standards to which to key the educational software he envisioned in hopes of dramatically reducing education costs by replacing teachers while simultaneously enriching himself even more. This thread deals with only one of the vast number of howlers in the CCSS in ELA, which can most charitably be described as a compendium of rules based on common but ignorant misconceptions, or folk theories, about the teaching of English.
LikeLike
If we had new physics standards like the “new, higher” ELA standards, then those would enjoin teachers to explain how fire is caused by the release of phlogiston, space is filled with a luminiferous aether, and moving bodies come to rest in their natural places when they have used up their inherent motive force. Many are the “new, higher” CCSS ELA standards that are that prescientific.
LikeLike
There are many examples of the stupidity of “back-mapping” (reverse engineering) in the CCSS. Basically the writers of the ELA standards just shoved down some college requirements for reading into grade 9/10 and then shoved down grade 9/10 reading to earlier grades, and so on until the jig was up around grade four because the people who wrote the CCSS are clueless about learning to read and the basics of teaching and learning anything.
Perceived relevance and curiosity count for a lot in learning anything, and without any knowledge of the context or content of “texts” not much will make sense. Here is an example of the CCSS shoving down collegiate content. (I have posted this example more than once).
Here is direct evidence of recycling college into the CCSS. Standard RL.9-10.7, calls for students in grades 9-10 to “Analyze the representation of a subject or a key scene in two different artistic mediums, including what is emphasized or absent in each treatment (e.g., Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” and Breughel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus). ”
This standard is identical to a benchmark assignment in the American Diploma Project that pre-dates the CCSS. The example in the CCSS came from an Introductory English Survey Course at Sam Houston University, Huntsville, TX and the assignment appears on pages 98-99 in Achieve (2004) American Diploma Project (ADP), Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts, http://www.achieve.org/readyornot (see pages 105-106).
This standard and the “example” illustrate one meaning of “rigor,” namely, making 9th or 10th grade assignments the same as collegiate studies. In fact, the Internet is choked with sample essays that respond to this exact prompt.
The Lexile score for ELA reading selections is dumb. Literally dumb. It can’t deal with poetry. It produces bizarre recommendations for a writer such as Hemingway. For some great examples of how dumb these Lexile scores can be just key in “dumb Lexile scores” and see what you get.
For gibberish parading as precision check out the Quantile measure from the same company, MetaMetrics. Here is the description: “Since growth is expected from one school year to the next, Quantile measures do not translate specifically to grade levels. Based on research studies conducted by MetaMetrics, this chart provides ranges for typical student performance at a particular grade or math course. The Quantile ranges at each grade level reflect the middle 50% of students based upon their performance on tests that report student Quantile measures.”
“These Quantile measures do not imply grade level expectations. They provide descriptive information and are appropriate for norm-referenced interpretations only.” “A norm-referenced interpretation of a test score expresses how a student performed on the test compared to other students of the same age or grade.” This explanatory text for teachers offers circular reasoning and leaves much ambiguity about the significance of “grade levels” and Quantile measures. That gibberish is followed by a grade level chart with Quartile ranges and this note: (*Measures below 0Q are reported as EM—Q where “EM” stands for “Emerging Mathematician”).
https://quantiles.com/content/benefits-for-learners/grade-levels/
We need more accounts of the stupidity enshrined in the CCSS, the meaningless metrics supporting the pretense of objectivity, and the equally flawed premises of the tests that are being foisted on students and teachers. This is big time fraud, with pre-publication endorsements from Governors and others who signed on and promoted these standards before they were published–basically recommending vaporware as if great policy.
Contrary to the marketing hype, these standards are not internationally benchmarked. They are not fewer than some other standards—1,620 CCSSS at minimum, counting parts a-e. The CCSS are not based on evidence of their efficacy: They have not been field-tested. They are not the result of international guides for standard setting that call for participation by those affected by standards and with a publicized means for revising them. The CCSS must be used verbatim, word for word.
The CCSS are not informed by labor market research on “career readiness” for the successive cohorts of students who must endure the demands of the CCSS as guinea pigs. The writers of the standards wrongly assume there are one-size fits all “generic careers and college-ready standards” for every Kindergarten student— Kindergarten!!!! You fail Kindergarten if you are not college and career ready before entering grade one. This is a ridiculous expectation. The writers and promoters are selling snake oil —a premise suitable for a comedy club routine—but this is not a joke
The CCSS are not informed by reasoning about the intended and unintended consequences of a nationalized system of education focused on two subjects with all other curriculum content construed as important only if it is taught to enhance skills in reading and math— the 3Rs.
I found not one ounce of reasoning for the classification of the arts as “technical subjects.” Look at the glossary in Appendix A,,page 43. Technical subjects are defined as “A course devoted to a practical study, such as engineering, technology, design, business, or other workforce-related subject; a technical aspect of a wider field of study, such as art or music.”
There can be no doubt that the CCSS are designed to enable mass marketing and mass-profits from a product that should be called out as a one of greatest frauds in the history of education in the United States..
LikeLike
Laura, thank you for your scholarship!
BTW, we did a pairing of the Auden and the Breughel in a 12th-grade college prep lit text when I was an editor at McDougal back in the early 1980s. This is, indeed, old, old stuff.
And what you have to say about Lexile scores is spot on. I recently ran a Lexile on Longfellow’s “Paul Revere’s Ride,” which has been a staple of fifth-grade lit texts for half a century. Result: graduate level.
And this line from Dylan Thomas
Time held me green and dying
clocks a Lexile of less than 2nd grade, even though it is very sophisticated conceptually.
This isn’t data-based decision making. It’s numerology.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: you do realize, I hope, that you are putting numerology in disrepute by associating it with CCSS and lexiles.
😱
Next thing I know, you’ll be saying that VAM is no more scientific than phrenology.
😳
Honestly, numerology and phrenology already suffer unspeakable pain from negative pubic perceptions. Putting them in the same junk science box as CCSS and its conjoined high-stakes standardized tests and lexiles and such would be a death sentence.
Facts, logic, coherence and decency are potent combinations. So please watch what you write.
If you’re not careful, reality will win over rheeality.
And would that be a good thing?
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee]
And she knows what she’s talkin’ ‘bout…
😎
LikeLike
Well, Krazy, I would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the CCSS for ELA are more scientific than is phrenology or that VAM and school grading based on test scores are anything other than varieties of numerology. I have long thought that the Coleman videos should be played on late-night television opposite the Psychic Network infomercials, for they are about equally evidence-based.
LikeLike
BTW, if you have a particularly unruly class, you can always threaten to make them sit through Coleman’s explication of the Letter from Birmingham Jail.
LikeLike
Thank you for your insightful analysis of the CCSS. The erroneous assertions and assumptions need to be challenged. Parents should be informed of the fraudulent scam being marketed as “rigor.”
LikeLike
The same geniuses who, a few years back, were giving “trainings” (Roll over. Sit up. Bark Good boy.) on “activating prior knowledge” (not giving the students any background knowledge, mind you, but activating whatever vague notions students already happened to have-see Ponderosa’s comments, above) are now giving “trainings” on attending to the text without contaminating the readings with background information.
The same ones who, a few years back, were giving “trainings” and issuing adoption guidelines requiring “whole, authentic texts” are now giving “trainings” on using snippets from novels and book-length nonfiction for “close reading.”
Up is down. Backward is forward. Coleman’s amateur bullet list is a set of “newer, higher standards.”
Clearly, there is no idea so idiotic and self contradictory that it will not be embraced, enthusiastically, by educrats in state and district departments of education.
LikeLike
For some lessons, I have spent more time scaffolding prior knowledge than I have devoted to the essence of the teaching point.
LikeLike
This is OFTEN necessary!
LikeLike
Another thing that kills me is that there are so many people who think that Coleman’s hackneyed “read closely” mandate is some sort of revelation. FOR DECADES, the standard format of the basal literature text was to have guided reading questions in the margins alongside the selections and questions following the selections that went part, by part through the selections, first posing factual questions, then analysis questions, then synthesis questions. Coleman’s lack of knowledge of standard practice in ELA is breathtaking. He didn’t know this. He also didn’t know that almost all high schools teach the American lit survey course in grade 11 and the British or World Lit survey course in grade 12, so his “new, higher standards” call for doing American lit in both grades 11 and 12.
You see, U.S. education was in terrible shape, so it would have been a waste of time for Coleman to learn anything about it before setting out to dictate to every teacher, curriculum coordinator, and textbook author in the country precisely what he or she had to each when, how, and to whom.
Ignorance and arrogance. A toxic cocktail, that.
LikeLike
What Sherwood Anderson says in the introduction to Winesburg, Ohio is relevant to this whole discussion of “close reading”:
“It was the truths that made the people grotesques. The old man had quite an elaborate theory concerning the matter. It was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood.”
Coleman and Co. latched onto this one little truth, applicable in its place for particular purposes, and made it into a Summa paedagogia.
Grotesque.
LikeLike
Nice to see people reading and writing about Buchan at all. His work had gone out of fashion by the time I was in college. He was an extraordinarily talented and accomplished man.
LikeLike
One of the many terrible ironies in all this is that the CCSS in ELA were not subjected to anything like a close reading. Coleman’s amateurish bullet list would not have survived such a reading. It would not be acceptable work in an undergraduate English methods course. Again, it’s basically a list of rules based on common misconceptions, or folk theories, about the teaching of English.
LikeLike
ELA as practiced by a lot of state- and district-level educrats is every bit as faddish as, say. haute couture is. A hoary practice–asking questions about the text as one proceeds through it–gets a new name (wowie zowie–text dependent questions!!!), and the educrats think that they are promulgating something new. That they think this reveals only their ignorance of conventional practice in their own field of pretend expertise.
Coleman’s ignorance of what English teachers and ELA textbooks actually do was almost total. It was exceeded only by his ignorance of the sciences of reading instruction and language acquisition and his of best practices in the teaching of literature and writing.
LikeLike
It’s darkly humorous that Gates paid Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners 6.5 million and got a bullet list as hackneyed and misconceived and unexamined and unvetted as the one that Coleman delivered. What a scam.
But again, what’s shocking is that Coleman was not unceremoniously laughed off the national stage by our nation’s English teachers and professors, who have a professional responsibility to call out this crap.
LikeLike
OMG! 6.5 million! We could have thrown together a list for a whole lot less.
LikeLike
Oh, that’s nothing. Bill paid far more to the CCSSO to promote this crap.
LikeLike
Great gig if you can get it, huh?
LikeLike
It would have been one thing if Coleman had simply put forward his ideas as suggestions. He could have been part of the ongoing national conversation about methods in ELA. But that’s not what he did. He presumed, with no relevant experience nor expertise, to dictate what outcomes were to be measured to every scholar, teacher, curriculum coordinator, and textbook writer in the country.
That is unforgivable.
LikeLike
“It would have been one thing if Coleman had simply put forward his ideas as suggestions.”
From what we know about Coleman, I’m not sure his putting forth his ideas as suggestions would be any less arrogant and inappropriate.
LikeLike
Thank you all for commenting on my article. I enjoyed reading all your insights. My purpose is simple. When I write about how real students respond to this curriculum that is as ridiculous as a three dollar bill, it reveals the insanity of those that have perpetrated this fraud on America’s children. By the way, the student had an ELL background because he is the child of Russian immigrants. His father is a dentist and his mother is a nurse. Both languages are spoken in the home. He passed what I considered a very easy proficiency test when he was in first grade, but obviously continued to have gaps in academic language. Ironically, now NYS has a language proficiency test based on the CCLS. Now it is too hard and very few ELLs can pass it. What happened to the happy medium?
LikeLike
A wonderful piece, liberalteacher. Thank you!
LikeLike
Thank you for your insightful article. As far as ELL students go, it takes many years for them to function as a coordinate bilingual. Even when students achieve “proficiency,” they may still have awkward syntax from time to time due to the influence of the first language. They may need more scaffolding to understand jokes, poetry and material deeply embedded with American culture. Nuanced language can be confusing for them.
LikeLike
Excellent piece.
At the start of this school year, I did a little experiment and taught Poe stories to grades 9 and 10 heavily using the Pearson Common Core workbook. I found this approach much too “new criticism.” If I had done ONLY CC, kids would have been turned off entirely.
I actually am mainly and American lit teacher (but it’s a small, rural school, so all English teachers teach a variety of courses). Thus, I am used to excerpts — from the works of William Bradford, John Smith, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. Of course a HS class isn’t going to read Franklin’s entire Autobiography or all of Notes on the State of Virginia from Jefferson! However, when we get to fiction, poetry or drama in the 19th and 20th centuries, doing only excerpts is a horrible idea, for the reasons stated above. Even with whole works, I have to teach the historical context. Imagine reading The Scarlet Letter without any knowledge of either the author’s time or the setting.
LikeLike