Common Core State Standards: Opportunity for Reform or Same Old, Same Old…? P. David Pearson UC Berkeley

1. February 2011 Common Core State Standards: Opportunity for Reform or Same Old, Same Old…?P. David PearsonUC Berkeley

2. Acknowledgements • Karen Wixson Standards and Assessment • Sheila Valencia Assessment • Freddy Hiebert Complexity

3. My Relationship with CCS • Member of the Validation Committee • Background work on text complexity with a grant from Gates Foundation • Long (and occasionally checkered) history with standards going back to • NBPTS: Standards for Teaching • IRA/NCTE Standards • Research and development work on assessment

4. Just to remind us College and Career Readiness Standards Common Core State Standards (grade by grade) Assessments to measure their mastery

5. 10 recurring standards for College and Career Readiness Show up grade after grade In more complex applications to more sophisticated texts Across the disciplines of literature, science, and social studies

6. Affordances of the CCS • An uplifting vision based on our best research on the nature of reading comprehension • Focus on results rather than means • Integrated model of literacy • Reading standards complement cognitive theory and NAEP • Elaborated theory of text complexity • Shared responsibility (text in subject matter learning) • Lots of meaty material in writing and language standards

7. An exercise • Take one of the CCR standards and trace it out across all the grade levels to see how it changes

8. 1. An Uplifting Vision: ELA CCSS • Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive, reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex works of literature. • They habitually perform the critical reading necessary to pick carefully through the staggering amount of information available today in print and digitally. • They actively seek the wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with high-quality literary and informational texts that builds knowledge, enlarges experience, and broadens world views. • They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning and use of evidence essential to both private deliberation and responsible citizenship in a democratic republic.

9. 2. Focus on results rather than means • Why? • Leave a place for each lower level to add its own signature • Some decisions about means really are local • Appropriate role for a larger body politic • Balance between our goals and our methods

10. From the ELA Standards Document… • By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. • Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. • Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.”

11. 3. Integrated Model of Literacy • Two views of integration • Integrated Language Arts • Integration between ELA and disciplines • The CCSS are better on the interdisciplinary than on the ELA integration • Corresponds to the actual uses to which reading and writing are put. • Reading, writing, and language always serve specific purposes • Reading and writing, not generically, • But about something in particular

12. The something in particular • What reading, writing and language look like in a domain • The information for a particular topic or unit or chapter • The information in a particular text

13. Our current view of curriculum Social Studies Language Arts Mathematics Science

14. A model I like: Tools by Disciplines Academic Disciplines……….. Language Tools 

15. Early: Tools dominate Academic Disciplines……….. Language Tools 

16. Later: Disciplines dominate Academic Disciplines……….. Language Tools 

17. Weaving is even a better metaphor than a matrix Language Writing Reading math literature Social studies Science 

18. Reading Writing Language Literature Social Studies Science Mathematics

19. 4. Comprehension Complements Other Important Efforts • NAEP • Rand view of Comprehension

20. NAEP • Locate and Recall • Interpret and Integrate • Critique and Evaluate

21. Common Core • Key ideas and details • Craft and structure • Integration of knowledge and ideas • Range and level of text complexity

22. CCSS NAEP • Key ideas and details • Craft and structure • Integration of knowledge and ideas • Range and level of text complexity • Locate and Recall • Interpret and Integrate • Critique and Evaluate • Complexity is specified but implicit not explicit

23. Consistent with Cognitive Views of Reading • Kintsch’sConstruction-Integration Model • Build a text base • Construct a “situation” model • Put the knowledge gained to work by applying it to novel situations.

24. Consistent with Cognitive Views of Reading • Kintsch’sConstruction-Integration Model • Build a text base • Construct a “situation” model • Put the knowledge gained to work by applying it to novel situations. Locate and Recall What the text says Integrate and Interpret What the text means What the text does Critique and Evaluate

25. These consistencies provide… • Credibility • Stretch • Research “patina”

26. 5. Elaborated Theory of Text Complexity

27. Why text complexity? The gap for college and career readiness Jack Stenner’s (lexile guy) depiction of the 200 lexile gap

29. 6. Shared Responsibility • English and Subject Matter • What we said before, reading and writing are always situated in a topic and a purpose. • Knowledge fuels comprehension and writing. • Reading and writing, along with experience and instruction, fuel knowledge. • Reading and writing and language work better when they are “tools” for the acquisition of • Knowledge • Insight • Joy

32. Why sharing now? • The gap for college and workplace readiness • The increasing demands of an informational society • Finally addressing a problem that has always been there • Increasing awareness among disciplinary scholars • April 23, 2010 edition of Science.

33. 7. Lots of meaty material in writing and language • All of the good vocabulary skills and content that we often claim for reading? • As much of an issue for oral language and writing as for reading. • Writing • Media • Argumentation: Claim-evidence-warrant • Form follows function: we write with particular structures to achieve particular purposes • As important for comprehension as it is for composition

34. Constraints, Dilemmas, and Puzzles? • Can we manage the text complexity issue? • How do we disarm the “We already do all this” stance? • How do we avoid a canon of texts? • What do we do about assessment?

35. Text Complexity • Can we really make up the gap? • If we are really honest, we’ll acknowledge that in our current “dumbed down” world, we have LOTS of kids who can’t handle the texts we currently give them • What makes us think that we can up the ante without promoting even greater angst among students and teachers? • Doesn’t text complexity have to be calibrated at an individual level? • Independent-Instructional-Frustration level • What are we going to do about text complexity in Grades K-3? • Lexiles are highly unstable at prior to grade 3

36. Broaden our notions of Text Complexity—Appendix A • Qualitative evaluation of the text • Levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands • Quantitative evaluation of the text • Readability measures and other scores of text complexity • Matching reader to text and task • Reader variables (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) and task variables (such as purpose and the complexity generated by the task assigned and the questions posed)

37. Grapes of Wrath (9-10 Complexity Band) No matter how many indicators we have in place, teacher judgment will have to be used in particular cases. Quantitative Measures The quantitative assessment of The Grapes of Wrath demonstrates the difficulty many currently existing readability measures have in capturing adequately the richness of sophisticated works of literature, as various ratings suggest a placement within the grades 2–3 text complexity band. A Coh Metrix analysis also tends to suggest the text is an easy one since the syntax is uncomplicated and the author uses a conventional story structure and only a moderate number of abstract words. (The analysis does indicate, however, that a great deal of inferencing will be required to interpret and connect the text’s words, sentences, and central ideas.) Reader-Task Considerations These are to be determined locally with reference to such variables as a student’s motivation, knowledge, and experiences as well as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed. Recommended Placement Though considered extremely easy by many quantitative measures, The Grapes of Wrath has a sophistication of theme and content that makes it more suitable for early high school (grades 9–10), which is where the Standards have placed it. In this case, qualitative measures have overruled the quantitative measures. What we really need are even more instructional scaffolds, so we can answer the question, under what conditions of support can particular students read the text? And we are going to need a whole new theory of text complexity for grades K-3? Qualitative Measures Levels of Meaning There are multiple and often implicit levels of meaning within the excerpt and the novel as a whole. The surface level focuses on the literal journey of the Joads, but the novel also works on metaphorical and philosophical levels. Structure The text is relatively simple, explicit, and conventional in form. Events are largely related in chronological order. Language Conventionality and Clarity Although the language used is generally familiar, clear, and conversational, the dialect of the characters may pose a challenge for some readers. Steinbeck also puts a great deal of weight on certain less familiar words, such as faltering. In various portions of the novel not fully represented in the excerpt, the author combines rich, vivid, and detailed description with an economy of words that requires heavy inferencing. Knowledge Demands The themes are sophisticated. The experiences and perspective conveyed will be different from those of many students. Knowledge of the Great Depression, the “Okie Migration” to California, and the religion and music of the migrants is helpful, but the author himself provides much of the context needed for comprehension.

38. 2. How do we prevent the “threre’s nothing new” response? • If educators do the mapping at a fairly general level, they will conclude that we already do all of these things. • Almost any current set of state standards will map onto these standards at the 60-80% level, especially if we include the foundational skills. • Have to examine the entirety of these standards, regard them as an integrated system of pedagogy.

39. Start with the ELA Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Three main sections K−5 (cross-disciplinary) 6−12 English Language Arts 6−12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Shared responsibility for students’ literacy development Three appendices A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks C: Annotated student writing samples Karen Wixson

40. Learn How to Read the ELA CCSS The standards are meant to be read as an integrated ELA program The Reading standards should be read with the complexity information in Appendix A and with the exemplary works that comprise each complexity band found in Appendix B The Writing standards should be read with the writing samples in Appendix C, which illustrate how good is good enough for each genre, grade by grade The Language standards should be read with the skills ladder in Appendix A which illustrates when skills should be introduced/mastered In sum, a standard “alignment” exercise should take into account not just the grade level standards alone, but also how the appendices help define these standards PLUS what comes before and after each grade band

41. ELA CCSS 6-12

42. The opportunity of a lifetime… • We are poised, with these standards in hand, to achieve integration both within the language arts and between ELA and the disciplines • Do we have the chutzpah and commitment to take advantage of this moment?

43. 3. The Textual Canon Dilemma • The tyranny of the example: if it was good enough to illustrate the sort of thing we should be doing, then we should do it!

46. No one will read this disclaimer… Given space limitations, the illustrative texts listed above are meant only to show individual titles that are representative of a wide range of topics and genres. (See Appendix B for excerpts of these and other texts illustrative of K–5 text complexity

47. 4. The VAST unknown: CCSS and Assessment • Assessments will make or break the CCSS movement • This is where we decide whether the movement is • Opportunity for reform • Or • Same old, same old • If assessments are not changed, these standards will not make an iota of difference in teaching and learning

48. The Players in the Assessment Game • Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers: PARCC • Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: SBAC. • State Assessments • NAEP • Testing Industry

49. Constraints • Common Core Standards • Assessment consortia frameworks • Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) • Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) • Different audiences and purposes (summative/formative/diagnostic) • Affordances • Learning progressions • Computer adaptive testing • Automated and distributed scoring • Improved psychometric tools

50. Through-Course, Interim/Benchmark Assessment Visions • PARCC • Signal & model good instruction • Rich & rigorous performance tasks • SBAC • Empirically validate descriptions of learning progressions