How will the Common Core State Standards influence your professional work?

[Kent Williamson]

The NGA Center and Council of Chief State School Officers released a public draft of their Common Core State Standards for ELA on September 21. After looking them over, considering NCTE President Kylene Beers' letter about their creation and the work ahead, and reading the response by an NCTE Review Panel to a July draft, please share your thoughts here about how they may support or inhibit your best work as a literacy educator.

[Anne Ruggles Gere]

When I think about how the Common Core Standards might influence our ability to be the best possible literacy teachers, I have several reactions. It is always a good thing, in my view, for literacy education to receive public attention, for the general public to become aware of the importance of the work we all do. It’s also good to see attention to the transition between secondary schools and higher education/workplace. If the US is to move back into world leadership in terms of the percentage of population receiving a college degree and enhance productivity in the workplace, this area needs to be addressed.

But at the same time I have some concerns about the details of the current version of the standards. Why, for instance, is narrative treated as an appendage to other genres? And what effect might this have on writing instruction that calls upon students’ ability to narrate aspects of their own lives? What will be the effect of reading standards that include no attention to the aesthetic dimensions of texts, or even quality more generally? I’ll be interested to hear what others of you think.

Anne

[Louann Reid]

As a long-time NCTE member, I want first to say that I support our organization's willingness to stay in the conversation. I agree with Anne that it is important to address transitions between secondary schools and postsecondary contexts (higher education and the workplace), and I am proud of the review panel members who crafted an articulate, informed response to the July draft of the Common Core Standards. While I see that some suggestions were accepted, I am disappointed that others were not.

I have several concerns about the standards in the current document and how they will support or inhibit my work as a literacy educator. My greatest concern is that literacy seems as narrowly defined as it was when I was in elementary school (reading, writing, speaking, listening). Such a definition, and the work that is then expected of students in reading and writing, ignores everything we have learned in recent decades about multiple literacies and the 21st century literacies that workplaces now and in the future demand. NCTE has done a lot of work in this area and has solid, evidence-based resources that could inform the work of the CC Standards group if they could be convinced that we need to look to the future and not the past.

Another concern is the lack of attention to persuasion or argument in reading. While persuasion is mentioned in the section on writing, there is too little attention to critical reading or critical literacy.

I will stop here because I am interested in seeing what others have to say.

[Judy Wallis]

When I think about standards, I think about teaching and learning. I consider how kids will benefit from our actions as adults. Having spent most of my professional life working to bring thoughtful, coherent literacy instruction to our students, I always welcome venues where we work together to ensure our students move through their educational journey with each year adding value to the previous one.

Now as I work with preservice and inservice teachers in a teacher education program, I see the eagerness my students bring as they strive to make a difference to their current and future students. So, for me, the question is not so much the standards but what we do with them—in classrooms--with kids. How do we make quality learning live in every classroom so that both the teachers and the students find each day preparing them well for an uncertain world—one where thinking in complex and brand new ways will be the norm?

My worry is that these standards may serve to narrow our vision, the curriculum, and our teaching. Standards ought to be the vehicle—the means that move us ahead. I wonder if these national standards will do so. I wonder whose voices aren't being heard in their preparation. I wonder if instead of harmony, we will increase cacophony. For sure, our voices are needed. This is one discussion we cannot afford to ignore because our lives are too busy.

[Sandra Williams]

The standards are generically helpful; however I do not understand the implications for the teacher with respect to expectations of the teacher. Are these standards to apply to a continuum of English instruction over time or are they to apply to every English class, including semester classes (18 weeks) as well? What is the projected time frame for deployment of these standards?

[Leslie Maniotes]

I have much to say here- but I was moved to make 2 main points and will return to make the others at a later time.
First, thank you for providing this space. Second, I am SO happy to finally see someone at the National Level stand up AGAINST the state of testing. The new administration is moving more toward testing as a means to evaluating literacy and schools in general. We all know, as good literacy educators, that this is FALSE and that assessment of learning happens throughout the process and is not necessarily reflected on the tests. We have got to continue to stand up for literacy LEARNING and against this testing climate. Thank you very much for doing so(strongly) in the July report...
more later- thank you again for this forum!

[Mike]

Hi All... hope this finds everyone well!

Certainly worth checking out... but i caution everyone.... the real issue to me isn't about the standards being "good" or "bad"..... the issue is "STANDARDIZATION" period.

My take, we fail to see the "industrial-factory" thinking and its assumptions that follow the development of standards. It runs always in a very predictable manner...regardless of the "quality of the standards".

Think....train track or assembly line and go down the line a bit.....it always goes to the same place!!!

Here is the track and the almost automatic thinking that follows:

Step 1: KNOWLEDGE: All the current knowledge to date...now doubling extremely quickly.

Step 2: Gather "experts" and they decide what is important to know and to learn. These experts now gathered nationally... will "define" the correct body of knowledge. Notice the questions that are missing: for instance..... Do All people need algebra 1 and 2? How about Geometry and Chemistry.... what is missing for the discussion...who's voices are not present?

Step 3: Curriculum: The core content from step 2 is broken down into smaller "chuncks". These chuncks tell you what "every" student should "Know" from kindergarten and quickly moving toward college ( see the P-21 initiatives ) The go grade by grade in a nice, neat, straight line. Peek inside these grade level benchmarks and you will see progamatic maps...day by day...week by week.

Step 4: Purchase progams and materials...aligned with the curriculum maps.

Step 5: Train ( key word train ) teachers to "deliver" the program.

Step 6: LAST BUT NOT LEAST---- TESTS---lots of them to check the quality of the line.

Funny....America has really lost its industrial base...its factories are all but history...yet its thinking is still deeply embedded in industrial age thinking.... Taylorism is alive and well!

Any one out there seeing this go in a different direction????

be well..mike

[Artemis]

You're right, Mike. "Quality Control" has invaded every facet of society. The thing is kids are not cars.

[Yvonne Siu-Runyan (PANA)]

Mike,

You hit it on the nail. WE are moving towards standardization in all areas. There is little room for diverse thinking. I just talked to a parent this evening who was telling me that the teachers don't have basic supplies and yet, the school had money to purchase slick text books with test prep questions at the end of each chapter. Plus, the test prep items had little to do with the content of the chapter. Huh? Is this how the money is being spent? This parent is in conflict about what to do re: high stakes testing and national standards. She thinks NCLB, high stakes tests, and national standards are not the direction this country should be heading, but is confused about what to do.

Thank you,
Yvonne

[Leslie Maniotes]

I just went onto the survey monkey from the standards site and pleaded with them to accept ALL of the changes in the JULY report...especially with regards to writing as process, diversity and 21st Century skills. Thank you for writing the report and being thoughtful about the working of these standards and the effect that that wording could have on learning environments. I encourage you to do the same.

[Artemis]

Did I miss something in reading these standards?...like Literature!?!!

[Yvonne Siu-Runyan (PANA)]

No you didn't!

[Holly Stein]

I appreciate the emphasis on thinking in the writing section of the Common Standards draft, and I'm gratified to see literature included and honored as something English teachers teach. Literature has been MIA in many standards or threatened with extinction. I once worked for a district administrator (years ago) who said, "Those English teachers will just have to get over literature." Horrified, I began seeking a different job. Understanding that the tension will remain between the promoters of the traditional canon and those who want to widen the menu, it is critical to acknowledge that we do teach literature.
I am concerned about the focus on transactional writing. When persuasive and expository writing are valued and tested and rewarded with money, they will be taught. The rest will fall off the curriculum map or will be actively discouraged. Students do need to write to convey information and persuade an audience, but they also need to reflect and tell stories. We did a survey of middle and high school students last year, and that was the one common complaint--that they had to write structured essays and never were given the opportunity to write stories or poems. One girl was writing a novel on her own, clandestinely, at night. It was sad, yet inspiring.
If we think about the people who are impressive and influential in the world, they are often the ones who can tell a story to inspire or instruct. Leadership often centers on an ability to connect to fundamental truths, frequently through common experiences, common stories. Let's not discourage that.