I received this comment recently in my email:
“I haven’t really been sure about the hullabaloo centering on the Common Core until this year. What follows are some of my thoughts regarding my daughter’s AP English class. If what follows might be helpful for discussion in your blog, please use my story as you wish. I admire your work and am very thankful for your voice in education.
All the best!
My daughter is taking AP Language and Composition this year and I have been intrigued by the texts used in the class. It happens that I took the same class many decades ago. It amazes me how the reading lists differ from my class as compared to hers! I recall reading a lot of fiction. Her course seems to be almost exclusively non fiction. Has this AP course changed so much over the years that Camus and Miller, Wolf and Hawthorne are no longer useful? As I browsed syllabi for AP Language and Composition for recent years from other schools available on the internet, I came to realize that the difference in my daughter’s class has nothing to do with the decades that separate the instruction I received, compared to hers. What is different is the implementation of Common Core standards! Common Core wasn’t really real to me until now.
Take a look at what my daughter is reading during her first semester:
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebbecca Skloot
Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach
Short pieces such as:
Fish Cheeks by Amy Tan
“How Fetal Tissue is Used in Medical Research” The Week
“Ten Benefits of Reading: Why You Should Read Every Day” by Lana Winter-Herbert for LifeHack.org
“The Ugly Truth About Beauty” by Dave Berry
“Fly the Partisan Skies” by David Brooks
This can be compared to reading lists from several schools I happened upon on the internet, all of which contained texts much closer to what I read so many years ago. This one offers a useful example:
AP English Language and Composition Syllabus 2014-2015 Darla Barnett Terry High School
First 18 weeks
Shea, Renee, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin Dissin Aufses. The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013.
-Excerpts from 19th Century American Writers: The Transcendentalists
-Dead Poets Society
-Excerpts from Mark Twain’s writings
-Arthur Miller’s The Crucible
-Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter
– Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God
Other syllabi include works by Nabokov, Didion, Sontag, E. B. White, Frost, Emily Dickenson, names oh so familiar to me.
Why the difference for my daughter’s class? It turns out that the Skloot and Roach books have been adopted for Common Core as very important texts. They are “informational” and they are geared toward teaching science subjects while being useful for courses such as AP English Language and Composition. My daughter accepts their use for the course – the many kids who are interested in science and don’t really enjoy fiction that much are better served, she thinks, by these books than by the classical texts. However, I noticed that all the works are rather short in length. I asked her how much reading she does this year compared to her previous year’s English course. She replied, “Less, but it’s more in depth, unpleasant reading!” The unpleasantness refers to the fact that her major reading has to do with death, cadavers and a lot of science and politics that explore issues of death and cadavers. But, she can persevere through the course and she really likes her teacher!
Since the course my daughter is taking is focused upon “language” and “composition,” I am comfortable with the idea that she will learn all that she needs to learn using “informational” texts. This isn’t a literature course, after all. However, it must be acknowledged, I think, that the classical literature that served to lead young minds to process “language” and encourage “composition” is being sacrificed to Common Core “informational” texts. The fine minds that produced classical literature are not the influences that shape my daughter’s writing this year. Instead, science writers fill that role.
Common Core is changing education in fundamental ways and I only recently realized how that is the case, given my daughter’s experience. Is this good or bad? I don’t really know. But I do know that I picked up a copy of a short story, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, one of the texts used in several of the online syllabi, for my daughter to read in her spare moments (she read it and really liked it!)! Something tells me that I will be visiting the library many more times in the coming school year to search out classical literature for my daughter’s spare time reading!”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
My son had a difficult time in his college composition class in which he wrote fiction because his CC$$ aligned education focused on non-fiction writing.
Its as if the Common Core founders had no clue that non-fiction writing, was safe and sound in our science and history classes. Why they felt compelled to change the bathwater and abandon the baby is beyond me.
It is as if the Common Core founders were clueless to the fact that non-fiction, technical writing was safe and sound in our science and history classes. Why they felt compelled to change the bath water and abandon the baby is beyond me.
Each of the core disciplines should remain true to their roots as they result in the proper blend of classroom experiences and ultimately help to shape vocational development. With ELA now completely tilted to the side of informational reading and writing, an empty hole in the humanities is left behind.
The notion that science and history could be properly taught through the Common Core approach in ELA, as is happening in may elementary schools is simply not working. My district has tried this for three years and it has done damage to both ELA, science, and history. Common Core in NYS has produced NO actual improvements in reading, writing, and math skills and it has been detrimental in terms of content knowledge in science and history.
So sorry to hear that David Coleman’s tentacles have now invaded the AP program.
Amazing how this admittedly unqualified education reformer has been able to single-handedly wreck the education experiences of over 50 million students per year.
In my neck of the woods, what’s really happening when elementaries “teach” history in ELA is that history comes out disjointed, with no causes and effects or history in sequence. By the time my students come to me for 8th grade U.S. History, they only know scattered bits and pieces. My class is the first time in their lives that they’ve really learned any kind of social studies, and it shows. I have to start every year now talking about countries and continents and oceans–many students have no idea the difference between countries and continents, and often cannot even name the seven continents and five oceans. And the questions I am starting to get–things that used to be second nature to kids by the time they got to me are now all new. I have had the following questions asked to me this year. These are verbatim:
“Did we win the American Revolution?”
“Is Mexico part of the United States?”
“If Mount Everest is in Asia, why are the U.S. Presidents on it?”
“What does U.S. mean?” Once I explained it to her, she then asked, “What is America, then?”
Some of this can be chalked up to clueless teens, the number of questions like this are going steadily up. Many of my students, when they start in my geography classes, cannot find the United States on a world map. History is no longer being “taught,” and I don’t blame the teachers.
However, it means that I cannot get to as much History as I want, because I spend a lot of time teaching things that should have been taught earlier. CC and standardized testing have been DISASTROUS for History education. How are we supposed to have informed voters?
Threatened,
The last thing the reformers want is educated voters. My kids are convinced that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a president. I have to explain one hundred times why Rosa Parks was arrested. I demonstrate by setting up rows of chairs. One kid yesterday referred to Hamburger Lincoln. When I asked who is president now, the entire group chimed in unison, “George Washington!” It will only get worse.
In response to Threatened out West:
I do not know who to blame but students in a resource class thought Martain Luther King freed black people from slavery, and Los Angeles was in Mexico. UCLA students did not know Isreal was a democratic country, albeit one that may have it’s own issues as does the U. S.
It goes without saying that relatively educated adults really have no idea what people think they have learned in spite of all the testing.
x
Yeah, most of my students think Benjamin Franklin was a president that that Thomas Edison “invented electricity.” It’s so discouraging.
No one should be surprised. Once upon a time, schools systematically laid down a foundation of knowledge in order to cure young humans of their native ignorance. Now we leave that task to chance because we have a more important mission: building “skills”. Ask any principal or elementary teacher if she believes in teaching facts to kids. I’ll bet you the answer will be “No, we teach skills.”
The CCSS are awful … Plain and simple.
Yvonne Siu-Runyan: succinct, clear, accurate.
But the rheeality behind CCSS—ably explained by an astute charter member of the corporate education reform establishment, Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a little over two years ago:
[start]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end]
For the original, and much valuable contextual information—
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
Read this posting in conjunction with another one on this blog today, “Amrein-Beardsley: Sheri Lederman Rejects New York’s Offer to Settle Her Lawsuit” and this comment on its thread by SomeDAM Poet: “I guess we now know how ‘objective’ their evaluation system is if they can simply raise ratings of certain people when they feel like it.”
A simple reminder of how firmly rheephormsters take their own “stuff” [thank you, Mr. Bill Gates!] like CCSS. This blog, 3-24-2013, “Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!” The entire posting [with an excellent thread]:
[start]
This is an unintentionally hilarious story about Common Core in Tennessee. Dr. Candace McQueen has been dean of Lipscomb College’s school of education and also the state’s’s chief cheerleader for Common Core. However, she was named headmistress of private Lipscomb Academy, and guess what? She will not have the school adopt the Common Core! Go figure.
[end]
The heavyweights and enforcers and purveyors and enablers of self-styled “education reform” are firm in only one fashion—sticking like super glue to their foundational Marxist credo:
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
Groucho. Today. Tomorrow. Forever.
😎
I agree. I notice that if folks haven’t had a little one caught in the common core mess–say especially 3rd and 4th grade–it’s easy to miss the curriculum changes. I have 2 public school kids, six years apart, so knowing what good elementary ed looked like for my older child alerted me to the changes for my younger child, which were ridiculous. Those, in turn, made me focus on my high schooler’s curriculum. I’d say math for younger kids is unnecessarily complex, writing for both kids is very formulaic–easier to score!–and literature has suffered. Literature, afterall, inspires big and revolutionary ideas. I remember my older child reading Farenheight 451 in middle school. Better get rid of that sort of thing so all the kids fall in line 😦
The author may be confusing AP Literature and Composition with AP Language and Composition. Two different AP courses; he probably took the former while his daughter has taken the latter, which is newer. The former focuses on, as the title suggests, literature, while the latter is, as I understand it, focused on nonfiction writing. I think many students who take “AP English” really mean AP Literature, although in this case it’s actually more like AP Language. (In our building, most AP English kids take the literature test, while a few also take language.) FYI, I’ve had students tell me that a lot of classes will help prepare them for the AP Language exam; I teach AP U.S. History and more than a few students said the writing habits of AP U.S. were very applicable to the AP Language exam.
Do you know what I have found best helps kids in my AP Human Geography class? Debate. Which is shunted aside in favor of sports. BUT, the kids who have taken debate really DO write better, and are better able to handle composing on the fly.
It sounds like you may be right. I find the title “AP Language and Composition deceptive, but it follows along with a skill focused rather than a content focused mindset. So much is lost in the dismissal of historic context (or even discipline context).
I teach AP Lang and Comp and it is a class focused on non-fiction/rhetoric. This course pre-dates the CCSS and has been set-up this way since its inception. In many ways it is like a college 101 course. This doesn’t mean there is no room for literature. There is great literary non-fiction:
Capote’s “In Cold Blood,” Orwell’s “Burmese Days,” Woolf’s “A Room Of One’s Own,” etc. My students also read “Huck Finn,” and The Great Gatsby,” with a rhetorical eye.
As for the notion, the reading list “is not the same when I took the course,” part of the beauty of the class teachers can change the curriculum as new great works can add to the course.
Skloot’s “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” is a beautifully written book that explores the HeLa cell contributions to science and how Lacks’ family didn’t reap the rewards. Skloot questions the issue of bioethics and who has control of our biology. Something relevant to our times and my students.
One more point. You added that you felt you need to have your kids to read the classical canonical because they won’t read it in school. Good for you. Please remember, the CCSS states by the time kids are 12th graders 80% of their reading is non-fiction, but that is in all
their course work. That 20% comes in English.
“My daughter accepts their use for the course – the many kids who are interested in science and don’t really enjoy fiction that much are better served, she thinks, by these books than by the classical texts. ”
I wonder if that serves them well later, though. If they’re interested in science they’ll probably pursue that in college or a job and that coursework or job training is really pretty narrow. My eldest son works in a technical field and he says he and his co-workers really and truly fit the stereotype of knowing a lot about a little.
He doesn’t think this is a great or something to aspire to. He thinks it’s a limitation they run into again and again, so much so that they joke about it.
Sorry…
I have two science degrees, and actual science involves imaginative thought. And, nothing exercises the imagination like fiction.
Now, as for technicians? Well that’s a different story.
Chiara, Re classical texts: I loved school & college, graduated cum laude and am a lifelong inveterate reader (fiction, biography, history). Yet I still can’t find much reason for having read Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Don Quixote in high school.
Your son and his colleagues aren’t unique in knowing a lot about a little. Same could be said about many of the presidential primary candidates …
The problem goes even further. It is an attempt by Coleman and company to destroy the cultural heritage that our classics give to us. Yes, it is important to have text relevant to our time, but it is just as important to read the great literature of the past. You have no idea where you are going unless you understand where you come from. In addition, by not reading the classics, one misses the beauty and depth found in our wonderful hybrid language. As a lover of history, literature allows us not just to learn about the past, but to feel the past. No one man should have the power to change America’s curriculum so radically–especially one who has such a limited view of the purpose of education.
A classic is a classic because it is relevant to ALL times. Emerson described it best in The American Scholar,” in which he describes how the “best books” are such because we can read something written hundreds of years ago and think to ourselves how close its message is to what we ourselves have thought, felt and experienced.
I’m going to go out on a limb (and a bit of a tangent) here and say that the so-called-religious right is a major force in trying to make sure students don’t read literature that teaches life lessons because they want everything to be parent-controlled.
I teach AP Language as well, and the course description from the College Board says that while the test is based on nonfiction texts, fiction can also be used. I use a mix in order to engage students while we practice analytical skills and writing, works such as Frankenstein, The Scarlet Letter, Hamlet and 1984, which are wonderful for teaching students about ideas as well as language. But at many schools, AP Language teachers also have to cover local curriculum, which for some includes American Literature. Our Pre-AP class covers that at my school, so I don’t have to, but others need to teach works like Gatsby, Huck Finn and the transcendentalists etc. for that reason. I agree with the previous posters that this all existed way before Common Core. One of best things about teaching AP is that specific texts are not prescribed, but actually, the introduction to the Common Core basically says that as well, although it does have a recommended list of works in the appendix. I dislike the Common Core, and I dislike the way my district has reorganized courses in ELA as a result, but the list of works for this AP course is pretty typical.
It really sounds like the father, like many of us, has/had no idea that there are two courses with very similar titles but very different agendas. I think we are fighting a battle that doesn’t need to be fought since it is based on a misunderstanding.
There is a place and benefit to reading non-fiction, but it belongs in science class, math class, history, technology, home ec, health, etc.. For example every biology class studying evolution should be introduced to the primary texts and writings of Darwin. EngageNY 8th grade ELA module using Michael Pollans’ book Omnivore’s Dilemma should be moved to Home and Careers Nutrition unit. 8th grade EngageNY module using novel Unbroken needs to be included in 8th grade history class. Reading should not be an incessant chore AKA close reading EVERYTHING.
DO NOT think that EngageNY does history justice. I have read some of the modules for ELA using historical subjects. They are awful. It’s that disjointed “teaching reading through history” garbage that has made my students, and many others, historically illiterate.
Click to access ap-english-language-course-overview.pdf
The AP courses for ELA are sharply divided between language in literature and informational texts. The course descriptions at this website explain the split, a split that is a direct result of the Common Core and decision to promote David Colemen to CEO of the College Board.
The Common Core “literacy” standards for grades 6-12 are clearly biased toward reading informational texts. The justification is job readiness. I think another unacknowledged aspect of this bias is the relative ease of computer scorning for informational texts and “arguments” versus the wonderfully rich connotative and symbolic meanings in literary texts and other eccentricities.
Recall that the CC strongly recommended the selection of readings based on Lexile Scores, a computer generated score for text complexity. There are wonderful examples of the absurd results from the application of this formula to literature and informational text.
The Common Core identifies the arts as a technical subject. No explanation, no justification in scholarship. It comes as no surprise that the Common Core literacy standards of potential relevance to the arts focus on techniques. That short-changes art history and art criticism and the development of some affinity for and understanding of the expressive and cultural dimensions of the arts. In a belated effort to “recover” from this carelessness, David Coleman offered the eccentric opinion that music, dance, and the visual arts are “texts” and therefore should be studied by re-reading them over and over and over and over again, in search of the artist’s intent and without the benefit of any ancillary information beyond the work. Coleman is not just out of his depth in education, but also as person who has not been well educated, certainly not well educated in the arts.
I’m in complete agreement with your points about Common Core and Coleman, but the split between AP Language and AP Literature predates both of them by at least a decade and probably more.
As I mention below, I taught both courses pre-Common Core. AP Language focuses on the rhetorical strategies of nonfiction texts; AP Literature focuses on traditional literary analysis.
We can (and should) blame Coleman for lots of things. This isn’t one of them.
Scoring not scorning… But the scorning of literature is well documented.
I suppose that literature list of a hundred classics to read before you attend college is now out the window. Do the colleges know this? Is English Lit 101 now an introduction to informational science? If the college English courses still reflect renowned literature and not nonfiction, then is this AP Englush class truly making their students “College Ready”?
I suppose it is up to the parents to provide the appropriate resources to supplement what is being taught in the public schools, it they have the wherewithal to find the gaps left by the CC curriculum.
So strange that this curriculum is full of nonfiction about disease and death. Like “college and career ready” means every child should aspire to become a medical pathologist.
“The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers” is not about death and dying. It is about how humans deal with cadavers, especially in a useful medical sense. Perhaps my interest in funerals since the age of six (initiated by viewings in my small home town) led me to this book. However, reading this book can open a conversation about culture and science, stimulating written response.
For an AP language and composition class, I would like to see almost anything by John McPhee included. I incorporated his very literary non-fiction in classes in middle and high school general English and reading courses. The essay “Los Angeles Against the Mountains” in The Control of Nature suited instruction in Los Angeles, while “Travels in Georgia” from Pieces of the Frame provided an alternative life experience in a !ew Jersey high school reading class.
There are so many literary non-fiction choices that could be made that independent teacher selections based on student interests and teacher enthusiasms can spread the wealth throughout the nation.
I find it disheartening that CC is making kids hate reading. They read because they have to find the quote that supports the answer. They read the words but don’t read the story.
What use to be reading non fiction for Science, Social Science, and Math is now pushed into ELA which used to be called Reading. Since when is Language Arts to cover all informational text ?
Diving into a book and being next to the character while the story unfolds is fading away. CC is killing the love of reading.
While I am not familiar with the majority of the titles, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was a recent best seller and a worthwhile read (also rather lengthy). Dave Berry is an author who takes a humerous look at life, so I’m sure that the students will enjoy his point of view which could lead to some lively discussions. David Brooks is another popular author often found on the best seller list.
While these selections might be worthwhile, I don’t think they are at the level suitable for an AP English Lit class, although I’m sure the teacher does their best to make the discussions and writing assignments dynamic and interesting.
My thoughts, exactly. Roach and Skloot are both great writers, but I wouldn’t turn to their works for examples of excellent language and composition. Both are fairly easy texts to read. They would make great independent reading books to complement other texts (many have been listed by other commenters) that would be more challenging for students and would lend themselves better to more in-depth analysis of language and composition.
On a side note, I took the English Language Arts certification test (courtesy of Pearson) a few months ago, and I was shocked by some of the “readings” that were included. There was at least one that resembled an IKEA manual rather than any type of literature or composition. I had taken these same tests in a different state about 8 years ago, and I don’t remember having to identify which screw would go around which bolt.
I’m pretty confident that if I teach a student how to analyze the consequences of a road taken or not taken, they can figure out which bolt to use with which screw. But learning how to properly assemble a pipe won’t provide the same kind of critical thinking that studying and discussing and writing about a work of literary fiction will.
I’ll say it again…. the STANDARDS are not the problem. It’s the implementation of them. NO where does it say to toss out literature. In fact, half the ELA standards are literature based. What is killing my classroom is the amount of time I am required to devote to putting students on the computerized IREADY program. That 45 minutes a day is the time I use to devote to teaching Social Studies and Science. Now my literature (which I refuse to give up totally) time is shortened because I need that time to teach some amount of SS and Science. I have always integrated literature with Science and SS but still I want my 45 minutes a day back.
Yup–or “hear! hear!”
Hello,
The reader may me interested in reading Chapter 05 of my book. The title of the book is “Perfectly Incorrect – Why the Common Core is Psychologically and Cognitively Unsound.”
The title of Chapter 05 is: “Getting Specific: Common Core key shifts in English Language Arts (ELA) which are just plain wrong and/or cognitively unsound for students. In this chapter, for 60 pages, I give chapter and verse about how wrong the Common Core is with regards to the ELA (English Language Arts) requirements. And, unlike the Common Core itself, it’s all based on solid research.
The book is on Amazon and it’s an e-book only. It’s $4.95. Diane Ravitch has named it among the three best books on the Common Core.
My name is Terry Marselle and I am a psychology teacher of AP and IB (International Baccalaureate) Psychology at the high school level as well as an adjunct psychology instructor at Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Connecticut. I have a Master’s Degree in psychology with a concentration in the psychopathology of childhood. If the original person who contacted Diane over this matter contacts me, I will send him or her a copy of the book gratis.
Thanks for reading this.
T.M.
As a couple other folks have mentioned, AP Language is different from AP Literature. The AP Language class (and test) is focused more on the rhetorical strategies of nonfiction texts. I taught AP Language pre-Common Core, and the reading list presented here isn’t terribly dissimilar from my own. The reading list for the AP Literature class, however, is much different and incorporates texts that people would likely find to be more traditionally literary.
So, yeah: Common Core is horrible, but what the author’s describing here is a misunderstanding of what his daughter’s class should be about.
Can anyone answer these questions?
Is David Coleman one of the architects of the reform agenda? (What qualifies him to be in that company?)
OR
Who are his puppet masters ?
Ben,
Reformers do not require qualifications. They make it up as they go along.
Some of them even make up their qualifications as they go along.
Like the fellow who applied for superintendent of new London CT.
“Doctor of Fullofsophy”
I’ve got a PhD
I got it on Craigslist
It’s really worth the fee
And really can’t be dissed
It’s got official seal
From Harvardprinceton U.
With Ivy League appeal
And lots of gold leaf too
I got it for a fifty
They wanted 75
The frame is really nifty
And really worth the drive
I hung it in my den
Above my other laurels
My MD from U Pen
And Noble Prize in Morals
It really comes in handy
When I apply to jobs
The thing is really dandy
And earns me bucks in gobs
I’m really glad I waited
To get my PhD
Cuz Craigslist was just fated
To give the thing to me
Ben,
David Coleman was the “architect” of Common Core. He worked at McKinsey, started his own testing business, sold it to McGraw Hill for millions. He now is head of College Board.
Dave Barry, not Dave Berry. I love to read his work because it is funny, but it should not be confused with the great literature of the past or even present. As part of an AP English class of any sort, it might be good for a comment or two on how he writes, but not in-depth study.
I entered a comment about 1/2 an hour ago. It has not shown up in response to this discussion. Did I do something wrong? I would like to know so that in the future I can make comments that will be posted>
“The Common Corpse”
How apt that Common Corpse
Should focus on cadavers
The stuff of Coleman lores
Perpetual palavers
“Fish Cheeks”
Ah, the best part of the fish. Delicate little morsels that melt in the mouth. Filleted a nice trout (18″ rainbow) my son caught last weekend, smoked (sassafras wood) them on the Weber along with the head so we could get the “Fish Cheeks”. A little saffron rice and baby carrots for a nice meal. Fish cheeks, try to find those in a store.
What? Oh! It’s a novel? Nevermind!
(All apologies to RR!) (no not the Raygun, either)
How do I get a comment posted here? Nothing seems to work. Do I need to be a member?
Michael, I moderate most comments and I was busy
Oh high school students near and far,
don’t be beholden to the common core,
learn the Holden Caulfield core.
Sorry. I just didn’t know how things worked. Thank you.
It is a common practice for conquerors to attempt to totally destroy a culture, a history, in order to place a people in submission. I’m sure the history buffs here can offer many examples, the Norman Conquest, for example. This is not an accident.
The looting of the museum in Baghdad and the American military choice to establish a military encampment on the archaeological site of Ur were no mistake. Neither was the destruction of Dresden. The object is to make people forget that they ever had a history or culture. It is a disgusting, but calculated tactic.
Now, the authors of those disgusting tactics are using them against the 99% in an effort to make them willing cogs in a machine run for their benefit. Coleman (at. all.) are following a very old script.
I don’t believe Coleman has such evil motives. I think he’s concocted a scheme that SEEMS superior to the public school status quo –something that has some of the elements of his Andover education. He’s trying to disseminate Andover to the masses. The problem is, that high-level Andover analysis stuff depended on an invisible substructure of background knowledge that elite kids get at home, at expensive enrichment experiences, and on vacations in Davos and the Maldives. David Coleman (and many mainstream education experts) fail to grasp this. E.D. Hirsch is one of the few clear-sighted education experts who understands this. Average kids don’t have that fund of knowledge WITH which to do high-level reading, writing and thinking. Schools should fill this knowledge void, but David’s fixation on high-level analysis and other convoluted mental gymnastics is actually displacing this important knowledge transmission, as some of the comments above confirm. Without massive scaffolding from the teacher, average and below-average kids cannot manage most tortuous Common Core ELA tasks. Instead of ad hoc scaffolding, we should put aside the high-level activities and first build the solid infrastructure of general knowledge that elite kids get at home by providing a broad, content-rich curriculum. Once that foundation is in place, the tortuous Common Core tasks will be do-ableby most kids without extensive teacher scaffolding. Until that foundation is in place, however most students will fail. What I’m saying is supported by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom put knowledge at the foundation of his taxonomy. Properly read, that means that knowledge must be in place before the higher stuff can happen. Sadly, it’s commonly misread to mean that knowledge is lowly and despicable, and should be dispensed with in order to spend class time eliciting higher-order operations. Dumb.
Andover also has class size of 12
If I’m not mistaken, the CC machine rejects Bloom’s Taxonomy.
You do make an excellent point. If we don’t all start at the same time and place, why expect everyone to finish at the same time and place. It defies logic.
If it were that easy, we’d all be the equivalent of Olympic athletes.
This person’s complaint is moot. AP Language Composition has existed in its present format for many years. The essence of this course is rhetorical writing, and fiction and non-fiction texts are used. Students are taught to take a position and defend it using several techniques. He is probably thinking that this is AP Literature, which deals almost exclusively with fictional text.
This recent column in the Washington Post – What Ivy League students are reading that you aren’t – may be of interest for this discussion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/03/what-ivy-league-students-are-reading-that-you-arent/?tid=sm_fb
Literature is studied in AP Literature and Composition, not Language and Composition.
Aside from that, why is it that the College Board, a profit-making entity with no oversight and no accreditation, is allowed to sell college credits at 3 for $91?
AP Language and Comp is rhetoric-based, and AP Literature and Comp is fiction-based. The courses have been split. AP Lit. remains a fiction and literature-driven course, so I hope your daughter has the opportunity to take Lit., which values Camus and Hawthorne!!
The focus on non-fiction predated CCSS. I remember being told at our first day of school staff development meeting that the focus would now be on non-fiction because tests of previous years had shown that students lacked the skills to extract information from instructional and informational texts.
I remember thinking that a move in this direction would be useful and was glad to make a shift. In fact, the libraries we received had both fiction and non-fiction texts for assessment purposes, lesson plans, and reading choice. In other words; things started out nicely. We were able to establish a balance, making sure to put non-fiction works as a priority.
The CCSS eventually came front and center and took this shift many, many steps further. Fiction has taken a trunk (not back) seat to non-fiction to the point where “extracting information” not only pertains to informational texts but also to fiction and poetry.
This, to me, is the direct result of putting high level decisions on educational content and child/teen psychology into the hands of amateurs. It’s like when Bloomberg forced every school in NYC to use Everyday Math. His reasoning was that it had been successful at the best schools in the city, so obviously it should work for every school. If this machine works well in Factory A, then surely it will work just as effectively in Factories B through Z.
Jane Arnold asks why the College Board is allowed to sell college credits. David Coleman is now the 9th president of the College Board. He was also the chief architect of the CCSS. He is backed by very, very, very big money.
To the parent who wrote this letter to Diane (and any other parent reading this post): David Coleman does not think highly of individual thoughts and ideas. David Coleman was the man in charge of developing the CCSS, with the financial backing of Bill Gates. Please take 0.32 seconds of your time to get an idea of where he’s coming from concerning the education of your child:
“students lacked the skills to extract information from instructional and informational texts.”
What is this “extracting information” skill? Does it work equally well on texts about baseball as texts about nuclear physics? How does one implant this skill? Is there proof? Lots of people apparently believe in this skill, so surely someone can answer my questions.
I tend to believe that this skill, to the extent that one can say it exists, emerges from the confluence of at two verifiably real things: native mental powers (e.g. memory, categorization, etc.) and acquired knowledge. If you’re reading an article about baseball and you happen to know a lot about baseball, extracting information will be easy. Faced with an article about nuclear physics where the key vocabulary and concepts aren’t known, extracting information will be very, very difficult. Our tendency is to look at this and say, “Oh, the child needs better reading skills” when in fact what he needs is a stronger knowledge base. If this makes sense to you, then you see how far off-track the conventional wisdom is, and how the tenets of Common Core are fundamentally wrong.
No argument there, ponderosa. You’re preaching to the choir.
The reins have been handed over to amateurs whose attitude is that the professionals in the field of education are self serving (therefore not to be trusted) and not up to speed in needs of today’s job markets.
I have to say, though, that many of my students’ skills were definitely lacking when reading non-fiction texts. I didn’t need test scores to show me that. Even with material that was within their scope of understanding. My experience in K-6 showed me that it was mainly a matter of maintaining interest and, therefore, motivation to focus on the material at hand. There were some who ate up the science and social studies texts, but many of the kids much preferred novels with interesting plots. Problems presented that needed to be solved.
This brings me to a question that I’ve had for a while, now: should we be placing such a strong emphasis on informational text for everybody to the exclusion of fictional material? Especially in the early grades. Are we shortchanging those whose strengths are in the area of imagination? Not to say that we shouldn’t be focusing at ALL on non-fiction…but this huge emphasis is so typical of the one size fits all mentality that’s been forced on us over the past 15+ years.
Everything I’ve seen in my life, both inside and outside of my experience as a teacher, has shown me that people are different and tend to gravitate towards their field(s) of interest. In the past, this was just accepted. Why are we trying to standardize everything, now?
I have thoughts on the “why” of this, but would be curious to hear some other points of view…
That’s the complaint about standardized testing – the reading passages are geared more towards the general knowledge of suburban children, so that the urban (and rural) student populations are at a disadvantage.
Try “extracting understanding from this informational text” without any prior knowledge about cricket. If you can’t answer the comprehension question at the end, does this mean you can’t read?
A pair of centuries and some late wickets put South Africa in a strong position with Australia 4 for 112 at stumps on day two of the second Test in Port Elizabeth. South Africa was bowled out early in the final session for 423, after AB de Villiers (116) and JP Duminy (123) both ground out tough, vital centuries for the home side. Nathan Lyon finished with 5 for 130 after bowling tirelessly all day, while Australia’s fast bowlers uncharacteristically struggled on a lifeless pitch. Wayne Parnell’s (2 for 19) first three balls featured the wickets of Doolan and Marsh, as the left-armer made the most of his Test recall. Parnell coerced edges out of the Australia pair with fine line-and-length bowling, needing only a fraction of movement to earn the scalps. Warner and nightwatchman Nathan Lyon (12 not out) faced a number of close scares to reach stumps unbroken. De Villiers grassed a regulation chance behind the stumps when Warner was on 39, while Lyon was also dropped by the usually safe hands of Duminy and given not out when replays proved he nicked one behind to the keeper.
1) Which best describes the “fraction of movement” needed to earn scalps in this cricket match?
a) nicking behind the keeper
b) edging out a lifeless pitch
c) breaking fine-line wickets
d) stumping vital centuries
That is, indeed, a perfect example of how ridiculous the close reading concept can be. Prior knowledge is a key component to understanding text.
The library that we were given were for K-6 and most of my kids were at the 1st and 2nd grade level. Those non-fiction books were fairly easy for the kids to work with.
Wow. I took AP English in Fair Lawn, NJ in 1967-68. Nearly fifty years later, I can’t recall everything we read, but I know we started with the Illiad & the Odyssey, and some of the classical Greek tragedies. We also read CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and KING LEAR.
It would be enlightening to look at scholarly work on AP English curricula over the last century or so. It would likely also be quite depressing.
http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/Stotsky-Optional_ELA_standards.pdf Appendix A and Appendix B give quite a thorough range of the selections ; there needs to be some professional autonomy in the choices and the local school department in the high school can make selections based from the framework…. as far as the “common-ness of core” I would toss it out
Jean – I looked over the appendix.
While I didn’t always agree with the age level placement of some authors (though I suppose which of their works is chosen at a certain grade level and whether the book is meant to be read aloud), it was an excellent selection.
One point – Anna Sewell (author of Black Beauty) is listed under both American and British authors. She was born in England (hers is a fascinating story).
The nonfiction works recommended for high school were also more scholarly than the choices for the above AP Course. Nothing wrong with nonfiction, but shouldn’t the selections have some sort of historical or scientific significance?
that is the point; the faculty in a local school can use more professional autonomy in the choices… I think she includes a broad range …. there will always be “canon wars” (in math/reading/literature) but they can be worked out in local agreements in curriculum while staying within a broader framework (and hopefully maintaining some scope ad sequence)
While I didn’t always agree with the age level placement of some authors (though I suppose which of their works is chosen at a certain grade level and whether the book is meant to be read aloud), it was an excellent selection.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
I think they are suggestions (not prescriptions) and , again, professional autonomy is within the prerogative of faculty with the specialized training and expertise… Also, there would be room for additions and new developments. Stotsky says that is something she can live with… It is not a prescription — faculty would have choices and develop within individual high schools. I have been watching what the local students in 9th grade are being assigned…. it is interesting (in a Greater Boston high school) and then what my niece in Albany is assigned for comparisons (it’s only two schools so just anecdotal)
The nonfiction works recommended for high school were also more scholarly than the choices for the above AP Course. Nothing wrong with nonfiction, but shouldn’t the selections have some sort of historical or scientific significance?
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Jean,
Stosky is, indeed, an excellent reference.
She removed herself from the CCSS planning team, fairly early on.
Here is one link that describes her feelings about he CCSS:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/questionable-quality-of-the-common-core-english-language-arts-standards
I haven’t compared this Appendix with what is actually in the MA curricuum frameworks but they are older and she made this available in 2013 (to me, it represents more than just what is in common-ness of core which is just a string of objectives and there are tens of thousands of those)
Stosky is, indeed, an excellent reference.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Another:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765634632/This-is-why-I-oppose-Common-Core.html?pg=all
Mt thoughts…
Many times, AP Lang and Comp will be for junior year and incorporate American Literature (after all, no fiction or drama and little poetry was written by is authors until the early 19th c. The focus of Lang and Comp is rhetoric and analyzing how an author (rhetor) accomplishes what he or she wished to accomplish. SO– Douglass, Thoreau, Emerson, Franklin, Jefferson, are all excellent studies for an AP Lang course that also serves as an American Lit course, There will be fewer novels, though I would argue that Scarlet Letter can be analyzed for AP Lang, as can The Great Gatsby or In Cold Blood.
*MY thoughts