Aligning the Teaching Standards with the Common Core Standards (DRAFT)
by Jack Farrell
www.readfirst.net
The California Standards for the Teaching Profession have been instrumental in codifying the expected classroom behaviors of todayÕs California teachers. So successfully have they been integrated into current practice that in most districts they have become the sole criterion for teacher evaluation. Much professional development funding has been spent on improving instruction via these expectations and future student achievement will be linked to the successful implementation of these standards, at least in theory.
I contend that it is possible to observe a lesson where the teacher consciously meets key elements of the teaching standards, the students are highly engaged and any check for understanding reveals a high degree of content transfer, and the lesson can, simultaneously, be relatively poor preparation for college and career readiness. The real impact of the new Common Core Standards, based on the College and Career Readiness Standards, will be to unmask the disconnect between what is held up as exemplary teaching by our graduate schools and the end results for our students. I have spent the last 11 years as either a part-time or full-time released consultant teacher working as a mentor to young teachers. I have logged hundreds of hours of direct observation of teaching, especially in secondary classrooms. In this capacity I have been witness to the fabulous passion todayÕs young practitioners bring to their craft, I have observed the latest strategies as they are infused by these young teachers into their classrooms, and I have seen the relatively small impact they have had on college and career preparation.
To illustrate my point I would like to describe a sample, generic social studies lesson, how it is observed by an administrator largely against the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, and partly how it is matched against grade-level calibrated, content standards. Having done that, I would like to hold the same lesson up to the new Common Core Standards and demonstrate where it falls short in preparation for post-secondary college or career readiness.
The students file into the classroom, quickly take their seats, take out their homework and place it on the corner of their desks, and begin to respond in their notebooks to the prompt on the board which asks them to connect yesterdayÕs lesson with a similar event in their own experience (2.5: Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student learning; and 1.2: Connecting studentsÕ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning goals). The room is arranged in neat rows. There is an agenda written on the left side of the white board, consisting of bulleted topics. The content standards linked to the lesson are also in evidence on the board. The observer notes that the students are responding to the prompt by writing: some in sentences, some in bullets, others in phrases. A few are using the Cornell note-taking procedure and are making diagrams or drawing stick figures to the right of the midline on the page. The students appear quiet and productive (1.4: Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make subject-matter meaningful; and 2.1: Creating a physical environment that engages all students). The teacher sets a 5-minute timer. During the interim, the teacher quickly walks the rows, checking homework assignment completion and making corresponding marks in his grade book (5.2: Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning).
When the bell rings, he asks to the students to put their pens and pencils down. He calls on a student to read the prompt aloud for the class; the student does. He asks for any volunteers to share their responses. Several hands go up and the teacher chooses a hand-full to share their responses. The students tend to briefly summarize what they have written. The teacher asks a few follow-up questions to check for understanding (5.4: Using the results of assessments to guide instruction).
The teacher refers to the agenda on the board and announces the lesson topic for the day (4.2: Establishing and articulating goals for student learning). He asks a student to pass out a one-page graphic organizer to each student. The title of the organizer is the same as the dayÕs lesson topic and is linked to the content standards. The teacher then asks a student to dim the lights and he simultaneously turns on the overhead projector to display a power point slide with the title of todayÕs lesson. As he displays each slide in turn, he calls on a student to read the bullets on that particular slide. He follows this recitation with further elucidation on each bullet point, making special note of any imported pictures that may appear on the slide. Students fill in their advance organizers as the power point slides click by. The teacher pauses often to ask follow-up questions to check for understanding. He uses equity cards to assure he is querying all students (2.2 Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect). He routinely asks students if they need any further clarification (3.1: Demonstrating knowledge of subject-matter content and student development; and 1.2: Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to studentsÕ diverse needs; and 4.3: Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student learning).
As soon as he concludes the slide show and performs a final check for understanding, he asks the students to form groups of four by turning their desks. The students move their desks quickly, with little loss of instructional time (2.6 Using instructional time effectively). The teacher draws the studentsÕ attention to the over-view question at the bottom of the organizer and asks them to discuss this question in light of everything they learned during the power point show and designate a leader to share out the results of their discussion. He sets the timer for 8 minutes (2.3 Promoting social development and group responsibility). During this time period, the teacher circulates among the groups, monitoring their work and answering questions (2.4: Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior).
When the bell rings to end this part of the lesson, the teacher quiets the class and asks each group leader to report out their response to the over-view question. During this activity, the teacher asks follow-up questions to check for understanding and insure clarification of the over-arching, or big, idea (3.2: Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject-matter).
During the next 10 minutes of class, the teacher asks the students to remain in their groups and to begin to read the next chapter in their text. He asks that each group member read a paragraph and then pass the reading to the next student in turn (3.4: Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate to the subject-matter).
During the final 5 minutes of class, the teacher announces the homework, which is to complete reading the current chapter and answer the odd-numbered questions at the end of the chapter. He also announces a review for the next test at the beginning of next week and, after two days of review, a test by mid-week (4.4 Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning). He asks the students to get out an exit 3x5 card and write 3-2-1 on it. He asks them to write down three interesting facts they learned today, two questions they still have about the lesson, and one thing they would like to learn in the next lesson (5.3: Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning).
What to make of this lesson! The teacher obviously displayed significant evidence of planning and has presented a tight lesson in a well-organized classroom. Student engagement is high and behavior is exemplary. Without specifically examining the homework assignment, the graphic organizers or the results of the unit test, it is difficult for an observer to gauge proficiency against the content standards, but if secondary educators are in the content delivery business, I would wager that there has been significant transfer of content and that the students will perform well on the next test. This teacher has been well-trained by the graduate school of his university, has profited from professional development workshops and likely has quite a few tricks in his bag; that is to say, he possesses enough highly researched strategies to readily engage his students. He knows researchers Robert Marzano and Debra Pickering well. And his students value his class and like him personally. If there is any negative in this scenario, it wonÕt be discovered for a few years, when his students discover they are utterly unable to read complex college texts independently, research and write original papers and craft hour-long essay responses in blue books. If they follow a career path instead, they might find themselves unable to read informational, job-related manuals, complex contracts and government regulations.
LetÕs reexamine the previous lesson through the lens of the College and Career Readiness Standards first. Here are a few of the reading standards, the evidence of which was virtually absent in the lesson:
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.
4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.
6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.
10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently.
There was no indication that this was a text-forward lesson. While the students were supposed to have read the text the previous night and arrived in class with homework assignment completed, extensive interviews with students over the last decade has convinced me that few students actually read the text, or even considered reading it. Students routinely read the questions at the end of the chapter and then skim over the text to locate the correct answers. Modern textbooks provide all manner of clues to aid students in this process, from bold-faced terms to splashes of color to text boxes and footnotes. Students assume the questions are in chronological order and proceed accordingly to skim through the chapter. When they locate the answer, they do not consider reading the larger context. Nor do they consider recasting the answer in their own words. Most simply copy, word for word, the relevant passage. It should be noted that students do not feel they are abbreviating the assignment in any way. They feel they have done exactly what the assignment called for. They are used to skimming websites in search of information and this is merely an extension of their online behavior. Teachers who collect these assignments engage in their own skimming, primarily searching for assignment completion. Those who do walk-around grading abbreviate the process even more. If the intent is to acquire content, at least for temporary storage until an assessment, this system works just fine. Students can certainly choose the correct answer on a multiple-choice test. Throughout this process the student has chosen no language of his own to record the lesson concepts. He has copied words from the text, bullets off of power point slides, words out of the teacherÕs mouth, and marked the correct answer on an objective test, again words someone else has written. He has demonstrated no ability to draw logical inferences from text, to determine technical, connotative or figurative meanings of words. Nor has he demonstrated any ability to detect tone or voice in text. He has demonstrated no proficiency in examining how writers assemble their arguments because, quite frankly, he has not read their claims, nor even considered them important. He is in the content acquisition business and perceives his teacher to be in the content delivery business and so a wonderful co-dependent relationship has developed. This student is utterly shocked when he arrives at the university and is asked to read scores of pages in text-dense books for each session of a class. He has no idea how to attack text and examine how arguments are assembled. He is clueless about how to assemble his own arguments about the meaning of texts.
Thus far, I have only introduced a few of the College and Career Readiness Standards. It is important to look at the assumptions behind these standards. Here is a note on the range and content of student reading: ÒTo build a foundation for college and career readiness, students must read widely and deeply from among a broad range of high-quality, increasingly challenging literary and informational texts. . . .Students also acquire the habits of reading independently and closely, which are essential to their future success.Ó As I mentioned before, the only classes where students are taught to examine primary texts independently, in order to gain the critical reading skills necessary for college, are certain A.P. and I.B. classes. This is why the Newsweek ranking of high schools nationally depends almost exclusively on the ratio of seniors to total A.P. tests taken. It is the belief of those in charge of the rankings that more students need to take more A.P. classes and tests in order for them to be better prepared for college. They find that students who are not ready for advance placement classes, but take them anyway and fail the test, are still better prepared for college than the students left behind in the college preparatory classes. This is very wrong-headed thinking on so many levels. Rather than pull an A.P. class down by admitting all manner of bright, college-bound students who are not A.P. qualified, is not the answer. The answer is to adopt the Common Core Standards for all classes, especially those designated college preparatory, and thereby increase the rigor of the entire curriculum.
LetÕs take a look at the progression of two standards for History/Social Studies:
Grades 6-8
5. Describe how a text presents information (e.g. sequentially, comparatively, causally).
6. Identify aspects of a text that reveal an authorÕs point of view or purpose (e.g. loaded language, inclusion or avoidance of particular facts).
Grades 9-10
5. Analyze how a text uses structure to emphasize key points or advance an explanation or analysis.
6. Compare the point of view of two or more authors for how they treat the same or similar topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts.
Grades 11-12
5. Analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured, including how key sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text contribute to the whole.
6. Evaluate the authorsÕ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authorsÕ claims, reasoning, and evidence.
What immediately becomes apparent when examining these standards is the increased cognitive challenges built into a vertical look at the same standards. What becomes apparent next is the assumption that the student is in possession of primary documents that he is supposed to read and analyze independently. A closer examination of all these standards reveals that grade-level work is not scaffolded. Students are expected to immerse themselves in text and struggle with text until mastery. This is the underlying assumption of all academic work. In order to gain access to primary sources, this student must sign up for classes like A.P. U.S. History (usually 11th grade); A.P. English, Language and Composition (usually 11th grade); or A.P. English, Composition and Literature (usually 12th grade).
Nearly every other class relies on a state-approved textbook from a series produced by only a few publishing houses. Most teachers have long ago given up on these textbooks, which have been so scrubbed by bias committees in Texas (on the right) and California (on the left), according to Diane Ravitch, that they lack anything controversial and are nearly devoid of voice and tone. Most educators feel that they can deliver the content orally, in conjunction with power point slides, in a much livelier manner than the texts. Students have come to expect that what they most need to know will emerge from the mouth of the teacher.
In order to fully understand what a paradigm shift the Common Core Standards represent, every teacher and administrator should examine the appendices to the standards where the research is located. Appendix A contains an excellent description of the genesis of the reading standards which an be traced to a 2005 study of the results of the ACT and revealed in 2006 in a text entitled Reading Between the Lines. What the researchers discovered was that:
. . . .students achieving the benchmark score or better in reading—which only half (51 percent) of the roughly half million test takers in the 2004-2005 academic year had done—had a high probably (75 percent chance) of earning a C or better in an introductory, credit-bearing course in U.S. history or psychology (two common reading-intensive courses taken by first-year college students) and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in such a course. (Appendix A, p. 2)
The researchers further found that:
. . . .what chiefly distinguished the performance of those students who had earned the benchmark score or better from those who had not was not their relative ability in making inferences while reading or answering questions related to particular cognitive processes, such as determining main ideas or determining the meaning of words and phrases in context. Instead, the clearest differentiator was studentsÕ ability to answer questions associated with complex texts. . . .The most important implication of this study was that a pedagogy focused only on Ôhigher-orderÕ or ÔcriticalÕ thinking was insufficient to ensure that students were ready for college and careers: what students could read, in terms of complexity, was at least as important as what they could do with what they read. (Appendix A, p. 2)
The implications of the above finding for our work with students, especially in the upper grades of elementary school, middle and high school, is enormous. It is not enough to practice critical, or higher order, thinking skills with simple text. The students need significant practice with importing these skills to highly complex texts, the kind only found now in certain A.P. or I.B. classrooms.
The good news is that is that the Òresearch indicates that the demands that college, careers and citizenship place on readers have either held steady or increased over roughly the last fifty years.Ó The researchers point out that the difficulty of college textbooks Òhas not decreased since 1962 and, in fact, has increased over that period.Ó They also found that Òthe word difficulty of every scientific journal and magazine from 1930 to 1990 examined by Hayes and Ward (1992) had actually increased.Ó The bad news, of course, is that Òdespite steady or growing reading demands from various sources, K-12 reading texts have actually trended downward in difficulty in the last half centuryÓ (Appendix A, p. 2).
So, the post-secondary world has held to its high standards for intellectual rigor displayed in complex texts. The K-12 world of cognitive research, multliple intelligences and learning styles, and corresponding downward-trending texts, has not succeeded in pulling in the outside world. The Common Core Standards are the first concerted attempt in the last half-century to reverse the trend and recognize that the vast majority of high school graduates (7 out of 10 go on to college), are relatively unprepared for the rigor of the post-secondary world.
The frameworks and the content standards have been in California schools since 1997. They involved a lengthy roll out and, even after a decade or more, many teachers only pay lip service to them by writing a content standard or two on their white board each day. Grade-level calibrated, content-standard aligned instruction is still not prevalent in the classrooms I have visited. The roll out of the Common Core Standards, especially under the demand to adopt them in order to compete for critical ÒRace to the TopÓ funding, is liable to create more confusion than clarity. This cannot be a bottom-up adoption, as much as educators like to pay lip service to the need for local Ôbuy-inÕ and union cooperation. It simply will never happen if we wait. This must be a top-down roll-out, but should not be tied to the evaluation process, at least not at first. This is the best opportunity for formative assessment I have seen since the creation of the BTSA program. Superintendents, directors, curriculum specialists, building administrators and department chairs must grasp the importance of these new standards and the implications for classroom instruction before the teaching staffs can receive any meaningful professional development. The observer in my early example of the social studies lesson must begin to look for the College and Career Readiness Standards as well as the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Once an observer begins to look through this lens, the disconnect between classroom practice and college and career preparation will become glaringly apparent. This must be when formative assessment, not formal evaluation, is used to guide the classroom practitioner toward better outcomes for students.
One final note. John Ciardi, poet and critic, once wrote a wonderful essay about poetry and used FrostÕs poem ÒStopping By Woods on a Snowy EveningÓ to make his main point, that Ôhow a poem meansÕ is as important as Ôwhat a poem means.Õ I often cited this essay with my A.P students. I told the class that we were going to spend 50% of our time on what a text means and 50% of our time on how a text means. That is, we were going to answer the question: how does a text mean what it means? This opens up the wonderful world of rhetoric, the art behind meaning. This is something all students should be exposed to, and not just in language arts classes, but in all text-based classes. The author of any text worth studying has exerted some control over how he wants you to react to his text. How did he construct his text such that it has tone and voice? This is no small achievement and skimming his text to look only for content, the talking points of his text, if you will, will never reveal this. I also told my A.P. students that the ability to detect irony is a gateway skill. The A.P. test itself is an attempt to discern which students can detect this important academic skill and which cannot. It is often the difference between passing or failing that particular text-based question. Students cannot learn how authors construct their passages, and they certainly cannot learn how to identify an ironic tone, from bullets on power point slides. There is simply no substitute for close reading, re-reading and analyzing of complex text.
I often feel that our greatest fear as secondary educators is that we will produce frustrated readers. Thus we construct elaborate anticipatory sets designed to both engage our reluctant learners and activate their prior knowledge. We engage in other pre-reading strategies, like studying the difficult vocabulary in a passage prior to allowing our students to read it. We use advance organizers to further smooth the ride. We pull our students from the text by reading it orally in class and stopping periodically to review what has just been read and predict what is coming next in the text. We check for understanding and clarify at every turn in the text. A frustrated reader is to be avoided at all costs. No reader is to be left behind. Read it aloud to insure all students are exposed to the text. I have seen it all, in classroom after classroom.
Any text worthy of academic study is worthy of multiple readings. Students must encounter authentic text in an authentic environment. The communication between writer and reader is a silent and sacred one. A reader must remain Ôin the momentÕ with the writer. It is the writerÕs responsibility to engage his reader and activate his prior knowledge. Why do we invariably assume he will fail at that task? Why do we assume that we must be there to constantly support and scaffold our studentsÕ reading to insure against this failure?
The new Common Core Standards envision a student using his own skills independently to master ever-increasingly complex texts. Retraining teachers to backfill instead of front-load, to treat scaffolds as the temporary supports they were designed to be, to only use scaffolds with those students who need them, and only for as long as they need them, will be our work for the next several years.