Tag Archive: CCR

Why I Support the Common Core

July 2, 2012

I’d bet a Galapagos Tortoise that no one decides to become a teacher based solely on the prospect of adhering to a list of teaching standards.

So, here’s a great question: why in the heck should we care about them?

(Hint: It’s not because some armageddon is coming in the form of a standardized test that will rank my soul against every other educator in my building.)

Here’s an infographic version of this post that I created at Easel.ly.

They call for challenging all students with complex texts

One of my great regrets as an educator is the year I wasted teaching remedial students with the remedial Language! program that my district spent millions on. (We didn’t call them remedial classes; they were  ”accelerated”). One of my most freeing moments as an educator was when my bosses told me, “Okay, those first year test results were terrible; do what it takes to grow your students as readers and writers.”

Those magic words terrified and electrified me.

I felt terror because I could no longer blame a bogus curriculum for bad results, yet I was thrilled because I already knew that my students were capable and longing for so much more. I knew that, even though my students were allegedly the antithesis of their peers in “Gifted and Talented” classes, they could handle GT-level challenges.

So, during that first year of freedom, I stumbled upon a two-pronged approach:

  1. I would require students to read self-selected books on their own (for the sake of spawning recreational reading habits, building stamina, creating a readerly ethos in our learning community),
  2. but I would also require us all to read books that were appropriate for the seventh-grade level. This meant that my students at a seventh-grade reading level would be challenged at a somewhat comfortable level, and my below-seventh-grade reading level kids would be much more challenged.

Surprisingly, the second prong of my approach did not foment a revolt from my low reading level kids (at least, not for long). This is because there was a key resource in the room that enabled them to cope with complex texts: me.

The CCSS simply believe that the key to raising reading levels is not merely giving each kid a book that just above his/her reading level; rather, it’s to give kids the chance, every year, to read books that are increasingly complex, regardless of where their skills are at. In other words, even if a student enters ninth grade with a fourth grade reading level, he should still be taught how to grapple with a book like Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. If this sounds cruel to anyone, that’s because you might undervalue the power that a teacher can have in helping students learn to read texts that are well above them, and you also might undervalue a kid’s desire to leap over a high bar.

(For the record, challenging “remedial” students with texts like The Diary of a Young Girl and Romeo and Juliet didn’t come from my own brain; I owe a great debt to Rafe Esquith and his book There Are No Shortcuts.)

They call for engaging all students with complex texts

Not only do the CCSS require students to read complex texts; kids are also expected to argue about them, write about them, discuss them, analyze them, and make connections between them.

Oh, and towards that end, kids are expected to know stuff; knowledge about the world is a key part of the CCSS. By the grace of God, education is moving away from treating reading comprehension like something that happens within a vacuum. We’re done pretending that a kid from rural Wyoming can comprehend a story about sailing with the same ease as a kid from Salem.

The end result is a text-rich, knowledge-informed, literate culture within classrooms around the country.

They call for preparing all students for college and career

The CCSS debunk the myth that, if a student is not “the college type,” he/she will not need skills similar to those required by a college-bound student. The person who can’t read complex texts, who can’t make evidence-based arguments, who doesn’t know how to listen and speak and use language effectively within a variety of settings isn’t ready for college or work: he/she is just screwed.

Thankfully, the CCSS gets this, and this is one more reason that I support the CCSS…

…even while I still don’t love standards.

4 comments

4 Ways to Screw Up (and Fix) In-class Arguments

May 24, 2012

Yesterday, something awesome happened during lunch: our school’s burgeoning “Nerd Club” decided to hold a debate on which video game console is the best. Here’s how Sean M. got it kicked off:


This was so much fun. I applaud my students for taking it upon themselves to carry out an intellectual debate during their lunch time (I couldn’t help but be reminded of one of my favorite essays of all time: Gerald Graff’s Hidden Intellectualism, which is found in the back of They Say, I Say). However, there’s only one word to describe today’s lunchtime debate, and I think all present would agree with me.

It was a train wreck. (Okay, two words).

Today’s debate reminded me of three key ways that in-class arguments can go awry. If your goal is to screw up an in-class argument, try these. ;)

1. Let Dominators Dominate

Every class has its dominators–the kids who love arguing, or who are great at it, or who love to win, or who simply love to talk. These kids are great to have, but they require special management if a truly argumentative classroom is to form. This is tricky work because, on the one hand, you don’t want to stifle them into undue frustration, but, on the other hand, they will stifle and frustrate a majority of your class if left to their own devices.

Here are some ways that I manage my dominators during in-class arguments:

  • Require all students to speak once before any can speak twice (this works best with formal debates).
  • Use the notecard system to ensure that you’re calling on everyone, not just kids with their hands up.
  • Limit the length of time that each person can speak (I use the simple online-stopwatch.com).

These are some ways to help dominators and the rest of their peers develop their argumentative skills side-by-side without driving each other insane.

2. Ignore Disrespect

At the start of the year, I found that students assumed the way to win in a debate was to make your opponents appear as stupid as possible. Now, don’t get me wrong: a great debater knows how to systematically dismantle any opponents argument. However, in the process, a great debater is also respectful of her opponent, making sure to accurately represent the opposing side. In fact, I think the most compelling arguments are those that summarize their opponent’s arguments in a manner that the opponents themselves would summarize them.

Civility and grace are crucial skills that lubricate public life, create a classroom worth being in, and win arguments.

3. Allow Crosstalk

I think there are times when the sides of the argument need to respond to one another, but that is definitely not while opponents are delivering an argument. To avoid crosstalk, here are some simple strategies that I use:

  • Consistently shutting down crosstalk, every time it occurs, by simply saying, “No crosstalk, please.”
  • If running the debate on some kind of a points system, deduct a point for cross talk (I don’t have much experience with points-based debates; my goal this year has been for students to enjoy arguing simply for the pleasure of the intellectual exercise, not merely for the sake of winning)
  • Create a session during the debate for cross-examination; for example, today’s lunch debate schedule could have looked like this:
    • 5 minutes research
    • 5 minutes team strategy planning
    • 3 minutes initial argument for Team A
    • 3 minutes initial argument for Team B
    • 2 minutes cross-examination for Team A
    • 2 minutes cross-examination for Team B

4. Skimp on Prep Time

One cause for yesterday’s lunchtime train wreck was definitely a lack of prep time. As you can see from the video above, Sean did give time for research–an important part of preparation (SL.CCR.1) if you desire to facilitate evidence-based arguments (R.CCR.1), not to mention opportunities for mini-research tasks (W.CCR.7).

However, what we didn’t do is include time for the teams to discuss strategy.

As a result of these four fails, our first-ever lunchtime debate was, as I said, a train wreck: dominators dominated, disrespect reared its head, crosstalk spread epidemically, and unplanned strategy’s proved weak.

Yet, this is one reason that I love teaching: even a failure is a success because in that failure you can learn something valuable.

CCSS Anchor Standards Mentioned in this Post:

  • SL.CCR.1: Prepare forand participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
    • One manifestation of mastering the argumentative range of converstions is when students can debate the socks off of an opponent, even if they are given any teammate and an unfamiliar topic, as long as they have some time to prepare.
  • R.CCR.1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
    • Requiring students to provide cited evidence for their arguments within a debate is one way to implement this standard.
  • W.CCR.7: Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused questions,demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.
    • Debates are a great chance for students to conduct quick, focused research for evidence that will support the side they are arguing for.
Related articles

Leave comment

What’s the Big Deal about Text Complexity?

May 23, 2012

In case you haven’t noticed, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for ELA and Content Area Literacy place a heavy emphasis on text complexity (R.CCR.10). In short, the developers of the CCSS believe that college and career ready (CCR) students are able to read and make use of complex texts independently.

Why the Obsession with Complex Texts?

Appendix A contains the argument for emphasizing complex texts. In short:

  1. The text complexity of required readings K-12 has gotten easier over the last 50 years.
  2. The text complexity of required readings in college/career settings has remained stable or increase over the last 50 years.
  3. There is a significant (up to 4 Lexile grade levels) gap between the average reading ability of a high school graduate and the text demands of postsecondary life.

This is enough to make me crazy. If our students leave high school with a significant gap between their independent reading ability and the text demands of postsecondary life, it’s going to be very difficult for them to flourish. Postsecondary student flourishing is the lifeblood of my mission as a teacher.

So, what should be done about this? That’s where the 10th anchor standard in the reading strand comes in (R.CCR.10). Students need consistent practice at reading complex texts on their own. This requires using a simple literacy teaching model like the kind Mike Schmoker lays out in Focus. If you’d like me to write more on that literacy model and my experiences with it, just leave a comment below!

So, moving on to text complexity. How do we know if a text is appropriately complex for the grade level that we teach?

First, Check Out Appendix B

When I first began engaging with the CCSS at the beginning of the 2011-12 school year, I consulted Appendix B, because this document is basically a list of exemplars sort by grade level and genre. If you’re looking for examples of complex texts that are appropriate for your setting, start with Appendix B.

Next, Understand the 3 Key Factors in Determining Text Complexity

The CCSS uses a balanced approach to determining whether a text is appropriately complex for a group of students. As you can see from the infographic above, text complexity cannot be solely determined by computer, nor can it be solely determined by people outside of your classroom, nor can it be solely determined by you.

To me, this makes sense. The teacher has to be valued as a key professional in the evaluation of text appropriateness for his/her particular students, but there also has to be some objectivity, both that offered through algorithmic analyses of texts (quantitative measures) and that offered by professional qualitative analysis of texts.

At the time of this writing (5/23/12), no agreed-upon methods for determining qualitative text complexity exist, but we can be sure that the midnight oil is burning in offices around the country towards this end. Unfortunately, profiteers will likely step forward and offer paltry methodologies for measuring qualitative text complexity, but I believe it’s only a matter of time before some reliable qualitative text measurement tools become usable for classroom teachers like me.

And finally, the “reader and task” portion of the text complexity recipe allows for an appropriate amount of local flexibility and professional judgment. As I mentioned yesterday, such room for flexibility was a key principle in developing the CCSS, and I pray it is one that makes the standards viable for many years.

CCSS Anchor Standards Mentioned in this Post:

  • R.CCR.10: Read and comprehend complex literary and informational textsindependentlyand proficiently.
    • Until a widespread consensus is developed on which texts are appropriately complex within the qualitative and quantitative measurements, I highly recommend checking out Appendix B of the CCSS ELA for a list of exemplar texts and tasks. I used it for at least two texts in the 2011-2012 school year–Oedipus Rex and Things Fall Apart–and my students enjoyed reading both books when they were appropriately scaffolded.

Important!

If you haven’t done so already, please join us. It’s free! Click here and begin receiving Common Core anchor standards articles like this one in your inbox every time they’re posted.

6 comments

Older posts «