A Non-Freaked Out, Focused Approach to the Common Core — Part 5 — Every Kid Talks

Prior to the Common Core, I nurtured a belief that not all of my students needed to talk. After all, some are shy (I was, as a secondary school student), and mandatory speaking events can bring about fits of visceral terror for the introverted.

But since then, my thinking has changed significantly.

My first cognitive shift came during a field trip to a Amway, a global corporation based in nearby Grand Rapids, MI. On our field trip, Amway employees from a diverse array of jobs conducted career round tables with our students. As I walked around and eavesdropped and, later in the day, listened to the keynote speaker from the Human Resources department, one skill repeatedly stole the show: the simple ability to communicate with people in person for a variety of purposes and in a variety of settings (essentially, SL.CCR.1).

It’s not sexy, and, like Thomas Newkirk has accurately stated, “Standardized tests are ill-suited to evaluate” it. And yet, speaking is critical for just about any job that requires you to wear pants (and probably many that don’t).

Another shift occurred  when I began reading the work of Schmoker and Graff, and, starting last summer, the Common Core standards themselves. They all seemed to suggest that simply getting every student reading, writing, and talking would do much to prepare students for a diverse array of post-secondary demands. And so it came to be that I grew convinced enough to implement three simple strategies for ensuring every student spoke just about every day. I have been honing them ever since. Read the rest of this entry »

Non-Freaked Out Common Core — Part 4 — Argument and Debate

shy student pwns debate If there is one way that you can begin implementing the writing and speaking/listening portions of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in a simplified, manageable, high bang-for-your-buck fashion, it’s simply this: have students argue.

Frequently.

Whether you teach science, social studies, technical subjects, ELA–even math–argument is a dependable path to enlivening your classroom, promoting long-term student flourishing, and pwning the heck out of a large chunk of Common Core literacy standards.

But don’t just take my word for it. In an article back in 2011, gurus Jerry Graff and Mike Schmoker (their books Clueless in Academe, They Say / I Say, and Focus have hugely shaped me) warned that, though the CCSS held promise, especially compared to the preceding generation of state-created wish lists, there was still too much fluff. Their fear was that the high impact standard of argument might get watered down amongst the rest.

Separate and way not equal

Even though the research appendix discusses the “special place” of argument in the CCSS (p. 24), the only hint of such importance outside of the appendices is that the “argument standard” (W.CCR.1) comes first.

This is problematic; many will not read the appendices and, as a result, will likely spread their curriculum too thin by trying to equally teach all 10 of the basic writing anchor standards. The simple problem with trying to equally teach all 10 is that, frankly, it can’t be done well, at least not by an average teacher like me.

And honestly, it’s not just a teacher thing. Students enjoy becoming excellent at the biggies and spending less time on minutiae.

Choosing to focus

Common Core State Standards: Modes of Writing by Grade LevelSo if you’re an average teacher like me, I advise the following non-freaked out, focused approach to the CCSS writing and speaking/listening standards: Read the rest of this entry »

A Non-Freaked Out, Focused Approach to the Common Core — Part 3 — Close Reading

So there’s been lots of talk about close reading this year, even though it’s far from new. And the hype makes sense; close reading is pretty much the heart of R.CCR.1, the very first of the reading anchor standards in the Common Core. With this in mind, my colleague Erica Beaton and I have written about it previously (Erica’s post and mine), and we even presented on it at the Michigan Reading Association Conference in March.

As with most hyped stuff, there’s a lot of misinformation out there about close reading, a lot of “beating texts with a hose” just for the sake of doing it, stuff that confuses kids and makes reading weird and unnatural.

And thus begins the third part in the series “A Non-Freaked Out, Focused Approach to the Common Core,” in which I share the key tenets I’ve been using this year in my 9th grade world history and comp/lit (ELA) classes.

But before we get into it, let me say this post has been hugely informed by my work with Erica Beaton, whose coattails I rode to MRA and who developed an awesome Prezi (that Prezi, by the way, is where the underlying structure of this article, and many of its images, come from). Also, the analogies in this post are Erica’s (the toy-crane game, the breadcrumbs). Anyways, thank you, Erica, and readers, you should check out her blog and follow her on Twitter because she is cool.

So what is close reading?

If you came into our classes and asked our students what close reading is, what they’d probably describe is something that can be boiled down to this: the careful interpretation of a text wherein which readers pay close attention to the way ideas unfold as they read. Often, this involves annotating texts for the sake of slowing ourselves down and recording our thinking so that we can do cool stuff with what you read.

It’s not terribly sexy. Read the rest of this entry »

Older posts «