Dina: Let me admit this up front: I can be a professional developer鈥檚 nightmare. I am a skeptical, informed, judgmental know-it-all, and can typically be found sitting in the back with my elbows perched on my knees, listening with unnerving intensity, and asking questions incessantly.
Professional development consultant Cheryl Dobbertin has graciously, even eagerly, put up with me over the past few years, and in May, she visited my school for a session on the English/language arts Common Core State Standards. , and came fully armed to Cheryl鈥檚 session: I trusted her to take my skepticism head on.
She did. And we realized together that there are some critical aspects of implementing the ELA standards that have been obscured by polarizing debates.
Cheryl: No matter what Dina says, don鈥檛 believe that all professional developers and coaches find engaged, thoughtful, questioning teachers to be a nightmare! In fact, they are a constant source of energy for me.
Recently I鈥檝e had lots of opportunities to help teachers think about the changes that the common core is bringing their way. I notice that there hasn鈥檛 been a lot of time or attention devoted to teasing out the subtleties of the standards or accompanying instructional shifts.
Dina and I have identified four myths. These statements often appear to be accepted as fact (and are sometimes delivered to teachers that way) but are not actually aligned with the spirit and intention of the ELA common-core standards. Dina tackles 1 and 4, and I tackle 2 and 3.
Myth #1: Text complexity is a fixed number.
Dina: Let鈥檚 be honest: The ELA teacher in me shivers with intuitive horror at the idea of pinning a complexity number on my beloved, earth-moving texts: novels, plays, poems. Like others, I worry about the overzealous use of arbitrary quantitative measures (such as and ) to mark texts鈥� difficulty.
Imagine my delight, then, to find this statement buried deep in Appendix A:
鈥淚n the meantime, the Standards recommend that multiple quantitative measures be used whenever possible and that their results be confirmed or overruled by a qualitative analysis of the text in question.鈥�
And there it is: All things being equal, qualitative measures of text complexity trump quantity. Qualitative measurement is where we find the breathing room to make considered, nuanced choices about what is 鈥渃omplex鈥� for our students鈥攃ollectively and individually. , in fact, and it made my heart sing.
It鈥檚 important to have this arrow in your quiver. In an educational landscape laced with high-stakes testing, budget cuts, and stress, it鈥檚 going to be very, very tempting for all of us to fall back on 鈥渢he numbers鈥� rather than taking the time to make sure that we have nuanced and accurate arguments about what is 鈥渃omplex鈥� for our students.
Recently, faced with eight reading assessments to create within two hours, I was tempted to go straight to the numbers, relying solely upon them. But I didn鈥檛鈥攂ecause I don鈥檛 trust them entirely, nor do the standards expect me to.
I hope you鈥檒l join me in making well-informed decisions about text complexity despite pressures from administrators or parents. If anyone questions you, point to page 8 of Appendix A of the common core.
Myth #2: All prereading activities are inappropriate.
Cheryl: Common-core training materials (like this , for instance) include some not-so-subtle suggestions that 鈥減rereading鈥� activities and discussions are a bad idea. Over the years, many of us have developed a host of methods to invite students to challenging texts and stimulate the 鈥渘eed to read.鈥� Frankly, the idea that we would say 鈥渏ust start reading鈥� to a roomful of students made me a little crazy.
In my professional circle, we began referring to the 鈥渏ust start reading鈥� strategy as a 鈥渃old read,鈥� and we struggled with whether cold reading was always an effective instructional approach.
But then I tried to understand the meaning behind this message about prereading activities. Ultimately, it was about making sure students built comprehension by actually reading a text rather than listening attentively to what others are saying about that text.
Consider a middle school teacher who says, 鈥淲e are going to start reading Frederick Douglass鈥� memoir, Narrative of the Life of a Slave. This book begins with Douglass telling about his early years, including that he doesn鈥檛 know how old he really is. He was born in Maryland ... 鈥�
That鈥檚 really different from a teacher who says, 鈥淲e鈥檝e read memoirs before. What are some of the rhetorical devices we might find in a memoir? Ok, now let鈥檚 read the first two pages of this memoir together. When you see one of these devices, put a checkmark beside it. Then we will stop to discuss what is going on in this text. Be ready to discuss at least one spot you鈥檝e marked.鈥�
Both of these teachers think they are setting students up to read. But the first teacher鈥檚 preview of the plot doesn鈥檛 create a need to read, and actually makes it easy for students not to read. That teacher is also missing an opportunity to set up the expectation that students should read closely, to analyze the text.
On the other hand, the second teacher activates students鈥� background knowledge and provides students with a beginning framework to help them read closely and analyze the structure of the text. Neither of these teachers is choosing to do a 鈥渃old read,鈥� but only one of them is setting students up to do a 鈥渃lose read.鈥� Over time, the second teacher鈥檚 approach is much more likely to develop students with the capacity to 鈥渏ust start reading.鈥�
The bottom line: 鈥淐old reading鈥� is an instructional approach, not a standard. Experiment with cold reading for the sake of building independence in your students, but there鈥檚 no need to toss out all your prereading activities that guide students in reading and analyzing complex texts.
Myth #3 Answering text-dependent questions is what teaches students to be analytical readers.
Cheryl: There鈥檚 lots of buzz right now about 鈥渢ext-dependent questioning鈥� to help students meet ELA standards. Obviously, we want students to be able to demonstrate their comprehension by responding to questions that drive them back to the text for answers. But let鈥檚 not forget the steps that teach students how to answer text-dependent questions.
In many classrooms, teachers assign reading (鈥淩ead chapter 3 鈥� ") and assess reading (鈥渁nd answer these questions鈥�). The focus on text-dependent questions in the that accompany the core seems to affirm that approach. But these documents omit modeling and processing, which should come in between assigning and assessing.
We can invite students to the reading through purpose and show students how to read for that purpose through a think-aloud or other modeling strategy. Students read. They complete activities that demand they think about the text (graphic organizer, think-pair-share, or about a million other activities). And then, they demonstrate their understanding by answering text-dependent questions.
It鈥檚 the middle鈥攖he modeling and processing鈥攚here students actually get a clue as to how to be better readers. The questions tell us that they got there (or not).
Myth #4: The common core abandons fiction.
Dina: This is the myth most frequently circulating about the core. Here鈥檚 just one of the remarks I鈥檝e heard: 鈥淲hy do we have to shove nonfiction down their throats all of sudden?鈥�
The heart of the complaint is understandable. It was voiced loud and clear by the National Council of Teachers of English in their comments on drafts of the common core and . However, the whole of the complaint as voiced above is not accurate.
To begin with, long before the common-core standards came on the scene, reading specialists like were already arguing that we have wandered too far from analytic, nonfiction reading and writing. And true, the core鈥檚 emphasis on rhetoric and logic was once standard in our schools.
Secondly, the common core does value creative and fictional reading and writing, no matter what provocateur and core author David Coleman says. It鈥檚 right there, a stand-alone, fully written standard, all the way through grade 12. The standards even recommend a full 50/50 split between fiction and nonfiction in the elementary grades, giving way to an 80/20 proportion in the secondary grades.
Bear in mind, as well, that the common core is clear that its recommendations span the reading expectations for all core subjects. As a result, it is not advocating for us ELA teachers to dump poetry and novels except for, say, two months out of the 10 in our school year. Rather, we鈥檙e encouraged to partner with our colleagues in a substantive way, and work together to help kids approach nonfiction texts with critical and active minds.
Admittedly, the common core does make some mystifying genre distinctions. All creative reading and writing is lumped under the 鈥渘arrative鈥� umbrella, implying it is always a description of logical, sequential events, usually personal. This is not only inaccurate (T.S. Eliot鈥檚 鈥淭he Waste Land,鈥� anyone?), but arguably preferences a pragmatic, linear view of writing. Teachers will need to approach this particular facet of the core with the same critical thinking that the core itself advocates.
Dina and Cheryl: We believe it鈥檚 important for educators to embrace the common-core standards, but to do so in a way that honors students鈥� needs and the wisdom of great teachers.
The standards are pushing us to examine our practices, and examine them we must. We must push ourselves in the same way we are being expected to push our students. We educators must thoughtfully read the complex common-core documents in their entirety, write rigorous lesson plans, and listen critically to those who are trying to help us learn and change.
Just as important is speaking up to question and clarify our own understanding of the standards and what they mean for our practice. We must keep 鈥渕ythbusting鈥� our own practices and what we are hearing so that the common-core standards can live up to their full potential. After all, the intention behind these rigorous standards鈥攖o prepare all students for careers and college鈥攊s at the heart of our work.
