Audrey Hill is a middle school English teacher who has been teaching since 1987. Recently, when she said something critical of Common Core on Twitter, someone asked if teachers work was “unconnected” to having their kids meet “a high bar.”
Audrey responded with this post, where she says that her students met a much higher bar than the Common Core standards before they were published. Common Core sets a “false bar.”
She offers a series of examples of the high bar her students meet.
I teach to a very high bar. I would argue that my standards for teaching are higher than the Common Core in several respects… particularly in the area of critical reasoning. The 7th grade CCSS are primarily focused upon students learning to use text based evidence to analyze claims made or implied by an author. They do not address using text based evidence to make original claims. This is a great flaw because it reduces the learner to the consumer of information rather than a creator of information. I would argue, therefore, that in my classroom, neither teaching nor learning has been improved by the Common Core. At best, the CCSS has provided a new labeling system. Here are some artifacts that illustrate my bar as well as give some evidence for what I think my job is.
Debate Project: This is a piece of a 7th grade unit on argumentation that I have conducted for the last 15 years in my cluster. I am still in the process of moving it to the cloud. In this project, students’ critical reasoning skills are honed along with their research, writing, reading, public speaking skills, as well as their use of evidence and justification. This year, I am adding the Harvard video so students can get a whiff of utilitarianism (consequentialism) and the categorical imperative in a watered down way. When I have had the time (which I don’t because of the outside intervention and impact of testing on school culture) they read Kennedy, Locke, Chisolm, Paine and Churchill and modeled writing and thinking upon these and others. I also do a lot with rhetorical devices and logical fallacies that are not moved to this page yet. NOTE: The content here will not be reliably measured by the State test, as has been evidenced by schizophrenic scores which shift from year to year for no discernible reason despite clear evidence of my skill as a teacher and my continuing high standards. (I’ll address this in another post about a false bar)
She gives other examples where students work hard to think and create and have original work.
That won’t be measured on the state tests.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Audrey Hill: eloquent and true. As I wrote in another post, children are explorers, not consumers.
AMEN, LeftCoastTeacher!
A teacher at my daughter’s middle school told them a story about her son’s middle school scores on the state test. He scored as below grade level in math which automatically put him in a remedial math class. On the first day, his teacher questioned why he was there. He was simultaneously enrolled in pre-algebra that term based on a placement test done by the school! He was then released from the remedial class.
annat: an impersonalized standardized test got it wrong?!?!?!?
😱
Say it isn’t so!
That’s like saying that pineapples can’t talk and don’t have sleeves and that they can’t beat hares in a one-on-one race…
😎
Another thing that Common Core really doesn’t address is social/emotional development and various other “non-cognitive” skills (important things that can’t be directly tested in a standardized test) and experiences — creativity, persistence, planning/setting goals, working together, presenting one’s self to an audience, delayed gratification, compassion and empathy, overcoming adversity….
They do address these, though not in a good way and using alternate routes, like dispositions in action. The bad guys have many names; it’s a web of govt agencies, naive-association-supported-standards, foundations, think tanks, and corporations with “philanthropic” arms and it is meant to both obscure and confound.
Here are 2 videos that you should watch; both are well worth the time. “Anita Hoge Exposes Psychological Profiling, Unique Nat’l ID’s and Common Core” (13 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMRRuH8XtAE and “Peg Luksik ‘Who Controls Our Children’ How Public Schools Dumb Down Kids” (59 min): http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfInio1sLE0
“They do not address using text based evidence to make original claims. This is a great flaw because it reduces the learner to the consumer of information rather than a creator of information.”
Yes.
So kudos to this teacher and what she does…I am sure her students would do well on any assessments given the type of assessments she describes here..
I think we all know that Ms Hill is the exception to the rule in terms of what teachers do…CCSS doesn’t offer a ceiling but rather a floor…yes if all teachers were like Ms hill we wouldn’t need CCSS…but sadly that isn’t the case
Are you for real??? The vast majority of teachers I know, and I have met hundreds from around the country, do above and beyond every day, and did so BEFORE the stupid CC. Come in and teach my class for a week–I dare you–and see what my students do.
You need to be educated yourself.
Threatened Out I taught math for five years and won national awards…I had colleagues who handed out worksheets daily and gave final exams in material that was below the content (I.e gave algebra II material on a precalculus final)…no not every teacher is like this…yes I am for real…I saw it with my own eyes. Not all teachers are like this
One other thought Threatned Out…you say the vast majority of teachers teach like this but you’ve met “hundreds”…there are way more teachers in this country…also am wondering if your sample is biased and you only have worked with those that are strong teachers
Jlsteach, how does having standards that eliminate higher order thinking, critical analysis and synthesis, prevent us from being worksheet teachers? How does having tests with high stakes that promote mindless test prep instead of project/portfolio-based lessons wherein students research and experiment rather than consume and regurgitate make us better teachers? It doesn’t. They don’t. Education was just plain better before D.C. politicians and Wall Street started micromanaging.
Districts, schools and teachers choose the mindless test prep. No one makes them do this. In terms of the tests, yes, I agree that they are not ideal. However, I’m not sure of a way to easily assess all schools and students. I know, many will say, “Why do we need to do that? shouldn’t we just trust our teachers” But I have written here before that just trusting teachers has left lots of kids behind.
here’s my question – the standards don’t eliminate higher order thinking – rather they help set expectations on what students should know. No where in the standards does it say that you shouldn’t have higher order thinking. Let’s take something basic like adding 14 + 9. Previously, kids were taught to add 4 + 9 to get 13, you take the three and put the 1 above the other 1 and that’s how you got 23. Teachers didn’t explain why you put the 1 above and added. Now students are asked to compose a 10. Take 6 from the four to make a 10. Add it to the 10 in the 14 (10 _+ 4). And now you have 10 + 10 + 3 = 23. That thinking has stemmed from the CCSS. That is higher order thinking rather than rote memorization of the procedures.
I am all for project/portfolio-based lessons wherein students research and experimentation …. and if every teacher did this, then I think our education system would be better. But they don’t, do they?
Jlsteach,
Re your example below about composing a 10 when adding 14 + 9: That approach was used well before CCSS. John Van de Walle, math education professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, discussed that (and use of ten-frames) at math ed sessions in the 90s. Scott Foresman’s c91 Exploring Mathematics K-8 series taught “compatible numbers,” essential to this tactic. The NSF-funded TERC Investigations program taught that approach in the 90s. I’ll bet there are teachers reading this post that can recall composing a ten before the 1989 NCTM Standards.
jlsteach, I always use the Bar as an example. The Bar never has prevented bad lawyers, but it most certainly has denied good lawyers. Standards and tests are not the answer. I do not know if you taught math under the actual CCSS and related tests or prior. I teach math now. The CCSS is less of a floor than a distraction. I also worked for many more years in a standards based industry. Compared to other standards in industry, CCSS is poorly written, incoherent, and unusable. The CCSS standards in math dictate what to teach, how to present the concepts, and when. That’s a national, curriculum. While I know from past posts your contempt for teachers runs deep, I would encourage you to listen to actual teachers and try to understand how a decade of test and punish is destroying education.
Dear Jlsteach,
I have met many more hard working, qualified teachers than mediocre ones, but there is an ongoing narrative against public school teachers, so it is not uncommon for newer teachers to be sold the idea that they are in the classroom to counteract the impact of unqualified and disinterested union teachers. It is a hard narrative to disrupt. For one, it pays. Without it, how would career reformers justify their salaries or find donors? In any case, I am sorry that you have been convinced to think so poorly of career educators as a class by your experience. But, as one, I would like to explore the evidence for your assertion of the low quality of most teachers.
I asked my husband about the algebra question on the precalc final since he was a physics teacher and has degrees in physics and math. He thought a few algebra questions on the precalc final was fine. Precalc is an advanced algebra refresher to take you into calculus. Assuming that your colleague provided sufficient questions to test the precalc curriculum, is there something wrong with a few easier items? Tests do not need to be bloody rigor wars. There is an argument for deliberately using prior knowledge questions in tests to encourage confidence and provide scaffolding to more difficult questions.
Also, I am not sure why you would single out worksheets as evidence of bad teaching. I know it’s the cliche of the bad teacher, but a worksheet is not inherently a bad thing. It’s merely information and practice on a piece of paper.The difference between a worksheet and an online textbook is a matter of the delivery system. Put that same worksheet on line and we call it blended learning and that same inadequate teacher is now a hero teacher of 21st century learning. I’m not a fan of kids being worksheeted to death, no matter what the medium, but you see my point. There are loads of unknowns in your assessment of those colleagues.
Even if we assume that your assessment was correct and that the teachers you mention were all bad teachers. Is that an argument for most teachers being substandard? Consider our international standing. In an apples to apples comparison… in which we account for poverty, our students outperform the students of every other country… including Finland. Someone taught those kids. Far as I can tell, that’s evidence of a strong and thriving public school system and strong teachers. Perhaps you aren’t looking at all the evidence.
Thanks for the response…a few replies:
1. So sure having some review questions of old material on an exam isn’t a bad thing but filling an exam with all algebra I material and Cali g it precalculs, in my mind, is a bad thing. It hurts kids by making them think they are doing well in a class. And then those same kids are the ones that must take remedial classes because their teachers really did not prepare them
2. In terms of worksheets, yes it’s a piece of paper. And I, at times, used them. However as one example, a colleague of mine noted that why not do stations and have students work together on a review as opposed to doing a worksheet? I great suggestion to get kids engaged. How many teachers just give students worksheets all the time? And I never said an online textbook was better than worksheets (candidly I’m not a fan of schools that say they use technology but it’s essentially procedural problems on a computer instead of a piece of paper)
I wanted to continue my response…first I never said all teachers (or even most teachers) are bad but u just noted that I think there are more bad teachers than you or others may admit to. One can point to observation ratings as evidence there aren’t bad teachers but personally I’ve witnessed these observations not working (due to inept or lazy administrators)…
What if one were to say 20% were not strong teachers in a school…that’s 2 of 10 math teachers. If each of hose teachers taught 100 kids a year how many students are falling behind or losing out?
As I said in my original post…ms hill it sounds as if you’re doing great work and i applaud you for it. But I do think, based on my first had evidence, everyone is teaching like you are
One of the best “rules of thumb” for the use of technology is, “Who’s telling the device what to do?” If the kid is not in charge and creating original content based on their interests and needs, it’s a waste of time.
Yes, fmindlin! I remember the old adage: “Garbage in, garbage out.” And it goes on and on…
Reading is receptive.
Writing is expressive.
There actually are CCSS Writing standards that address using-text based evidence to make original claims.
Here are the argumentative writing standards from Grade 7
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1
Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1.a
Introduce claim(s), acknowledge alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence logically.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1.b
Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1.c
Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), reasons, and evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1.d
Establish and maintain a formal style.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1.e
Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
Also some standards for original evidence-based arguments in the Speaking and Listening Standards.
Some of this is so undefined that it is useless: What is a formal style in seventh grade? Does it differ from other grades? How so? These standards give little guidance.
What is a logical organization of reasons? Basically, when an argument is presented, the order of presentation can be anything. The writer can start with the conclusion and then offer reasons, or the other way around, or anything in between. Of course, presenting an argument in formal logic, where one goes from premises to conclusion, is a different matter. I wonder if the authors of the Common Core even know the difference between the order of reasoning and the order of presentation. The first is a matter of logic; the second is a matter of style.
Aren’t claims, reasons, and evidence going to be overlapping categories? A claim is just a statement. All reasons and evidence are presented in the form of statements. Is that the relationship that is supposed to be clarified? And aren’t reasons and evidence basically the same thing in this context? I mean in an argument something that is called evidence for the conclusion will be a reason for the conclusion, and a reason acting as a premise in an argument could be called evidence for the conclusion.
If find it strange that students are supposed to clarify the relationships between the premises in their own arguments. So, the students are not only supposed to write a text that contains an argument, but they are supposed to simultaneously engage in a logical analysis of that argument? What exactly are they supposed to do? Again, no guidance.
I’m glad that I don’t teach at the K-12 level. I don’t have to put up with this sort of nonsense.
Although there are some vaguely worded nods in the direction of original thinking in speaking and listening, I would argue that they are not clear mandates, and, in any case, they are not evaluated on standardized tests of student learning or teacher quality. Also, the structure of state assessment needs to be taught and practiced in order for students to understand how to take them. The only other means would be to insure that all assessment models state testing. Whether you engage in direct test prep or embedded test prep, it undermines the quality and types of learning that will produce adequate growth. Some people may feel that this is sufficient for the task of public schools: learning reduced to a set of skills to be checked off. But, I disagree wholeheartedly. If we are to prepare children, we need to offer them engaging, high quality instruction that supports their full participation. This release question points to why we need to deconstruct test questions and practice to the detriment of organic learning objectives and also points to how test questions do not accurately evaluate the understandings of students or the quality of teacher. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Pqnc3rSoaBTgW9fxkfoWfr9IuHymOfTLHrUv228726g/present?slide=id.gae5b27721_0_9
Audrey. Eric, they’re standards. You’re familiar with standards, correct? They’re broad. Teachers know what formal style is. They know that there are many ways to organize ideas logically.
Claims are claims–what the author is claiming. Some reasons are subjective, some are
supported by evidence.
For what it’s worth, the vaunted pre_CCSS Massachusetts standards included none for writing arguments.
You can take a look at an example of what SBAC did with these standards as far as assessment goes.
Click to access ELA_Practice_Test_Scoring_Guide_Grade_8_PT.pdf
The skills outlined in the CC ELA standards are too difficult to teach to make them valuable and they absolutely CANNOT be tested with any degree of accuracy or reliability. That renders them moot.
I’d argue (no pun intended) that the skills of writing arguments are essential and not at all difficult to teach. Indeed, Ms. Hill’s post is about their importance and how she teaches them.
Here are the related standards in Grade 4:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1
Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons and information.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1.a
Introduce a topic or text clearly, state an opinion, and create an organizational structure in which related ideas are grouped to support the writer’s purpose.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1.b
Provide reasons that are supported by facts and details.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1.c
Link opinion and reasons using words and phrases (e.g., for instance, in order to, in addition).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1.d
Provide a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented.
They become more refined at each subsequent grade level. For example, in Grade 6, students learn to introduce claims with reason and evidence. In Grade 7, they also learn to address possible counterclaims.
It’s been my sense that many complaints about what the CCSS ELA standards lack come from people who’ve never looked at the Writing and Listening/Speaking standards.
I think I’ve made my argument. I’m not opposed to standards, but they can be improved and how they are implemented and measured needs review. I am opposed to annual state testing and high stakes testing in general. It is bad policy with significant unintended consequences for learners and communities. It prioritizes the standards that the test is testing and the structures that the test tests. It impacts relationships in negative ways. It disrupts learning and undermines instruction in intact schools. A coercive, punitive, top down data point system is not in the best interests of children and it does not grow the talents of their teachers. I think there are better more human centered ways to assess student learning and support high standards in schools. Thank you for posting your SBAC question, though… while it is a dull topic, it does require students to perform.
Meanwhile, what are your answers to these questions?
1) Why are teachers of strong capacity and commitment not getting on board Education Reform’s notions of standards and accountability?
2) If Education Reform needs reform, what is going to be the mechanism for its course correction?
Respectfully, I think you made this argument:
“They (the CCSS) do not address using text based evidence to make original claims. This is a great flaw because it reduces the learner to the consumer of information rather than a creator of information.”
I used text-based evidence to refute your claim.
Dear Lucia,
How the standards articulate from grade to grade leaves something to be desired. You have to admit, in some cases the difference is gratuitous. One grade hahs one detail. The next has two details. The next has strong details. Really? Here is RI 1 laid out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zaoA1_e9aY5pgZC8UWhwRbHzHyOQVQ36AFqZ2HWLs_8/edit?usp=sharing
ps Is your name Jenn, by any chance. You remind me of someone.
I concede that point, Lucia. I should have said, “Whether the standard formally exists or not, it is not tested. The State does not address using text based evidence to make original claims.” I appreciate that correction. It clarifies influence that the state test has on what is taught. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The standards are those that are measured on high stakes annual state tests… nothing more. As David Coleman put it, “I think it’s fair to say that when one assesses something, particularly in a high stakes way, one should ethically have the obligation that [it] is worth practicing a hundred times. That means you should test nothing that you don’t think that you want kids to practice, because they will. There are enormous consequences to choosing to assess something.”
I also realize that you probably didn’t go to my blog to read the entire piece. If you had, you would have read this:
3) I argue that the English Language Arts Common Core Standards are deficient in the arena of building the capacity of students to create information. The standards provide for it, but the tests do not measure it.
But thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in my post. Every writer needs a fresh set of eyes.
The articulation of standards leaving something to be desired is a long way from the argumentative writing standards don’t exist, no? As a teacher, you already know that if you want to teach students more than what the grade-level standard calls for, that’s no problem (after all, you were saying you were doing way more than what’s in the CCSS).
I’m concerned about teachers 1) not even knowing which ELA standards are there, or 2) making the case that they must hew strictly to the standards, therefore the standards are bad.
No, I’m not Jenn, though I follow her on Twitter and enjoy her perspective on the CCSS and assessment. After all, as she’s someone who endorses capstone projects, portfolios, and assessments that are learning experiences.
Fwiw, Jenn first caught my eye when she wrote about her favorite CCSS standard, because it’s mine, too:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
Today, with the bogus “information” kids consume through social media, “news” sites, etc., I think every teacher should be taking advantage of what the standards set out, especially those who haven’t already been doing so.
So let’s clarify. I did not say that argumentative writing standards did not exist at all. I spoke about original claims, and I was unclear at the top of my post. That is a fair critique, but if you went to my blog post, I was completely clear in the summation number 3) that though they exist, they are untested. (That was a bit of a relief) It is a problem that I conflated the standards with their assessment, but what is not tested is not valued. In any case, I should have been clearer in the earlier section.
I do not know that I can include whatever more than the standards that I’d like to into my lessons. It takes time from the specific demands of the state test and could negatively impact my standing. Also since I am assessed by my students’ scores in April, I have two months of teaching and learning that will not accrue to me. (an even worse problem for Math because the previous year’s teacher has to teach part of their curriculum for them each year so that their kids will have been taught 9 months of content in 7 months.) And contrary to popular belief, you really do need to teach kids how to take these tests. It would be utterly unfair to expect them to understand what is asked for without preparation and practice. Perfectly capable children can do poorly without explicit or embedded test prep. And even when prepared, the test may fault them for close reading. Note: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Pqnc3rSoaBTgW9fxkfoWfr9IuHymOfTLHrUv228726g/present?slide=id.gae5b27721_0_9
Since we don’t test all the standards, one could hardly say that we are being asked to hew to them in their entirety. Long form fiction is not tested. Speaking and listening is not tested. Written expression is primarily a reading test. Language is not explicitly tested so beyond a certain point, there is no need to focus on full expressive capacity.
I think that this is a problem. Many of the better teachers I know also think it is a problem…. The need for improvements does not mean that the policy that has been enacted to achieve it is the correct one… which brings me back to my questions:
1) Why are teachers of strong capacity and commitment not getting on board Education Reform’s notions of standards and accountability?
2) If Education Reform needs reform, what is going to be the mechanism for its course correction?
First, let me thank you for this discussion, Audrey; I appreciate your taking the time to expand your views.
Since you linked to a NY test, I assume that’s where you’re teaching, though I didn’t know that when I made my first reply. I linked to the SBAC argumentative performance test because I do think it’s a good example of how the skills of writing (and reading) arguments can be assessed within the limits of current testing parameters and formats that states are going with, even if NY’s tests fall far short of that.
You may be aware that PARCC is even developing an optional speaking/listening assessment.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/09/speaking_and_listening_phyllis.html
However, PARCC is widely disparaged, and I don’t think you’re actually arguing in favor of more or longer assessments so that every standard and substandard of the CCSS gets tested. Moreover, I know teachers weren’t arguing for that even before this “new generation” of tests came about. Yet excellent teachers were still, I know, teaching skills that were not going to show up on a test.
I don’t think assessments should be tied to teacher evaluations, but I do think that’s the primary reason all this has caught fire.
I’ll add that my children graduated from HS four years apart; one before CCSS and one after the CCSS was implemented. Their ELA curriculum in those grades was identical–down to the novels, poems, and essays they read and the speech and paper topics and the final capstone project they were assigned for the end of senior year. Also, their high school had long ago integrated social studies and ELA curricula, so that kids were studying historical and political concepts in social studies classes at the same time they were reading related literature in English classes (e.g., slavery/Civil war in US History, Huckleberry Finn in English; imperialism in World History, Things Fall Apart and Heart of Darkness in English class).
“the SBAC argumentative performance test [is] a good example of how the skills of writing (and reading) arguments can be assessed within the limits of current testing parameters and formats”
Can you post just one SBAC test item that accurately assesses reading and writing skills pertaining to arguments? Thanks.
Personally I am very skeptical so it won’t be easy to win me over.
I have years of test writing experience for a major assessment company that will help me judge your posted item (or link).
I saved you the trouble although it does not pertain to arguments. This is for 12 year olds (grade 7). Any one who thinks that this could be scored accurately has never scored constructive response items written by middle school students.
Click to access G7_Practice_Test_Scoring_Guide_ELA_PT.pdf
I posted one above in a reply to Audrey. It’s about pennies.
Here’s another for Grade 11, about public art.
Click to access Gr%2011%20Smarter%20Grade11ELAPT%20copy.pdf
They may have more on their website.
Thank you also for the interchange. I am definitely not in favor of testing every sub strand. I was opposed to annual standardized testing even before it became part of my assessment because it imposed itself upon the classroom in unproductive ways. I am jealous of my time with my students, and I dream of a continuity of instruction that has eluded me in these years of data idolatry and interruption. However, it is interesting and affirming to hear that your children have had the same quality education before CCSS testing as after.
“Standards this, standards that, standards in, standards out, standard shit is all that it’s about!”
Eric Brandon wrote “These standards give little guidance.”
Why might that be? Number one because the CCSS are not “standards” by any stretch of the definition as they were not developed as a metrological (measuring type standard that measures quantity) nor a documentary standard which requires a much more in depth development process such as the ISO’s process, therefore there can be little to no guidance.
If Coleman and Co. would have been smart (I know don’t get me started) they would have named their project Common Core State Curriculum, but that would have not been doable due to prohibitions on federal DoE involvement of curriculum.
There are no legitimate standards in the teaching and learning process Remember standards implies measurement and/or agreement by all users of a documentary standard to “buy into” whatever concept and neither of those obtain.