Читать книгу Common Core English Language Arts in a PLC at Work®, Grades 9-12 - Nancy Frey - Страница 8
ОглавлениеCHAPTER 1
Using Collaborative Teams for English Language Arts
KEY QUESTIONS
• To what extent does your team understand the conceptual shifts represented in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts?
• How often are informational texts used in instruction across the day?
• To what extent do teachers at your school use complex texts?
• Do students routinely discuss and develop texts that feature formal argumentation, claims, and evidence?
• To what extent do teachers at your school focus on speaking and listening activities?
• In what ways do teachers at your school develop academic vocabulary and language?
The tenth-grade English faculty meet to discuss the results of a common formative assessment they had administered the previous week. Together they had developed a pacing guide for an interdisciplinary unit called “Survival of the Fittest.” Their students studied the laissez-faire capitalism of Herbert Spencer in their world history class, while in biology they read excerpts from Charles Darwin on natural selection as well as contemporary articles on this principle in moths and algae and its impact on the treatment of antibiotic-resistant infections. The English classes offered a range of informational and narrative texts for students to read and discuss in their literature circles, including Life of Pi (Martel, 2001), Into Thin Air (Krakauer, 1998), the dramatic version of Les Misérables: A Play in Two Acts (Hugo, Meurice, & Hugo, 2009), and The Perfect Storm (Junger, 1997). Their target text (the one selected for in-class supported reading instruction) was The Odyssey (Homer, 2011). Their purpose was to examine the enduring theme of survival across genres, whether in mythology, magical realism, drama, or contemporary nonfiction accounts.
Unlike most previous state standards, the Common Core State Standards require an integrated approach to lesson development in which teachers build students’ competence toward multiple standards simultaneously. As an example, the teachers’ four-week unit focused on the following standards in reading literature (RL), writing (W), speaking and listening (SL), and language (L):
• Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text. (RL.9–10.2)
• Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. (W.9–10.7)
• Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 9–10 topics, texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. (SL.9–10.1)
• Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. (L.9–10.5) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, pp. 38, 46, 50, 55)
The purpose of the team’s common formative assessment was to determine if students could draw evidence from a short piece of text to support their analysis. Teachers asked the students to read the preface from Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption (Hillenbrand, 2010). The passage recounts a scene from the life of Louis Zamperini, a former Olympic athlete whose plane was shot down over the Pacific in 1943. On their twenty-seventh day floating on several rafts that had been tied together, he and his wounded colleagues clung to life, while the sharks circled. The sound of a plane overhead briefly raised their hopes, which quickly turned to horror when they realized it was a Japanese bomber attacking them. Zamperini and the men hurled themselves into the water to escape the machine gun fire. Believing the bomber had left, they dragged themselves back into the one surviving raft, but the bomber returned to attack once more, and the other men were too weak to go back in the water. Zamperini alone went overboard. The passage ends with a cliffhanger: “the sharks were done waiting. They bent their bodies in the water and swam toward the man under the raft” (p. xviii).
Students were instructed to read the passage, write a brief summary (no more than two hundred words), and then cite two examples from the passage that manifested social or biological selection.
Following the formative writing assessment, the members of the collaborative planning team meet and focus their attention on answering two of the key questions that guide their school’s professional learning community: (1) how will we respond when some students don’t learn, and (2) how will we extend and enrich the learning for students who are already proficient?
“I had lots of kids ask me if they could read the book,” chuckles Rob Mansfield. “Maybe we should add it to next year’s unit.”
Others nod in agreement, and Lauren Harrison, the department chair, invites each of the tenth-grade teachers to share their results. As each speaks, she catalogs the scores on the whiteboard. Mitch Ellison says, “Seventy-two percent of my students scored a 4 or better on our six-point holistic writing rubric. I took a closer look at the papers of those who scored 3 or lower to see if there was any pattern. Within that group, 64 percent had difficulty with citing two examples in the text that supported their claim.”
“Any other patterns?” asks Ms. Harrison. “What troubles did the other students have?”
Mr. Ellison continues, “Here’s where it starts to get a little confusing for me. Broadly, I’d say it’s conventions, but that’s pretty general. I don’t know that I have any useful information that can help the ones who had trouble.”
For the next twenty minutes, members of the team share their results, and Ms. Harrison adds numbers to the chart. They move to problem solving and eventually develop an error-analysis sheet so that each can re-examine the papers of those students who did not score well on the assessment (see figure 1.1). They determine that they will return the papers to these students and ask them to circle errors they found during rereading. The teachers decide that circling alone, rather than correction, is sufficient.
Figure 1.1: Error-analysis form for writing conventions.
Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore for a reproducible version of this figure.
“These are first drafts,” says Mr. Mansfield. “If students can notice their errors, we don’t need to reteach it.”
The teachers then use the error-analysis sheet to form groups for reteaching unnoticed errors.
Later, Ms. Harrison comments, “We all had a clear sense of which students would need reteaching on using evidence to support claims, but conventions and mechanics are trickier. The whole class doesn’t need this instruction, but it’s vital for those who do. With this method, we’re getting better at identifying who needs some short-term intervention.”
Conversations like this are possible when teachers have had the opportunity to work together in collaborative planning teams. To teach the Common Core State Standards well, teachers need to collaborate with their colleagues. In doing so, they can ensure learning for all students. It is imperative that collaborative team members work to answer the four critical questions of a PLC as they devote attention to the CCSS (DuFour et al., 2008).
1. What do we want our students to learn?
2. How will we know when they have learned it?
3. How will we respond when some students don’t learn?
4. How will we extend and enrich the learning for students who are already proficient?
In other words, teachers need to plan together, look at student work together, identify needs for reteaching together, trust one another, and ask for help when needed. Figure 1.2 provides a meeting record that we have found useful in helping collaborative teams work together. As part of their overall PLC work, collaborative teams focus on the four critical questions and begin to build a school culture in which student learning drives the discussions of teachers and administrators. In the case of the tenth-grade teachers, the third teacher practice question drove the discussion.
Over time, teams will modify and change this meeting record, but to start, it is likely useful to focus on each aspect of the tool. At the top of the form (“Collaborative Team Meeting Logistics”), teachers record the grade level, the date of the meeting, who was facilitating, and who was in attendance. Given that there are different phases that a collaborative team uses to complete the work, we ask that the team agree on its focus for each of its collaborative meeting times. Importantly, there may be two or more foci during a meeting, and we ask teams to complete different forms for each shift in focus. The reason for this is simple: the team learns to integrate the stages as a habit of interaction when it names each stage each time. It also provides a record that the team can use to review past efforts to improve student achievement. School systems are very good at documenting when things are going wrong and not so good at recording successes. Using a tool like the one in figure 1.2 provides a record of success that team members can review when they need to revisit a successful time in the past.
The remainder of the logistics portion of the form focuses on the team’s discussion, including the development of pacing guides, teaching strategy implementation, and peer advice and coaching. During some of the meetings, the team will develop common assessments or review the results of an assessment. We recommend that teams use the “Item Analysis Summary” portion when they are discussing assessment results, since there are a number of specific decisions to be made in terms of intervention and changes in practice.
Teachers are able to have these types of conversations because they understand the power of PLCs and the conceptual shifts represented in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts. They also know the specific standards for their grade level and how these are developed across grades 9–12. In this chapter, we will discuss these major shifts represented in the CCSS, especially their implications for teaching English language arts. In addition, we will highlight what is not included in the standards.
Source: Adapted from Fisher & Frey, 2007a. Reprinted with permission. Learn more about ASCD at www.ascd.org.
Figure 1.2: Collaborative team meeting record.
Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore for a reproducible version of this figure.
The Common Core State Standards
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts extends a trend in U.S. education to collaborate across organizations in order to obtain better learning results. Standards-driven policies and practices have yielded notable results, especially in our collective efforts to articulate purposes and learning outcomes to our stakeholders (Gamoran, 2007).
This in turn has led to improved alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment. But the years have also exposed weaknesses of this system, many of which are related to the disjointed efforts of individual states trying to put their own standards in motion. No matter how effective the process or product, states simply could not share them with other states, as no standards were held in common. Consequently, states, like Arkansas and Arizona, could not pool human and fiscal resources to develop common materials and assessments.
As standards-based assessments rose to prominence in the 2000s, a mosaic of testing results made it virtually impossible to fairly compare the effectiveness of reform efforts across states. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers sought to rectify these shortcomings by sponsoring the development of a shared set of standards each state could agree on. Beginning in 2010, state boards of education began adopting these standards in English language arts and mathematics. In 2012, nearly all the states adopted them and began work on determining timelines for implementation, as well as methods for assessment.
In an effort to capitalize on new opportunities for collaboration among states, two assessment consortia are developing standards-based assessments. Both the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) consist of representatives from states working to develop assessments of the standards. Some states belong to both and will eventually determine which instruments they will use. While these efforts are a work in progress, common themes are emerging from both consortia. For one, it is likely that a significant part of the tests will be computer based. In addition, it is anticipated that benchmark assessments will play a prominent role in order for schools to better identify students who are falling behind. Perhaps the biggest shift in these assessments has to do with the ELA standards themselves. (Visit www.parcconline.org or www.smarterbalanced.org for more information.) In the next sections, we will outline five major changes to how we view literacy teaching and learning.
Shift One: Focus on Reading and Writing to Inform, Persuade, and Convey Experiences
The Common Core ELA standards reflect a trend in literacy that has been occurring since the 1990s: a deepening appreciation of the importance of informational and persuasive texts in a student’s reading diet, or the range of reading genre and materials students encounter across the year. (For now, we will focus our discussion on informational texts, with further attention to persuasive texts featured later in the argumentation section of this chapter.) The reasons for increasing informational text usage are often related to the need to improve content knowledge (Johnson, Watson, Delahunty, McSwiggen, & Smith, 2011) and to meet increased demand in digital environments (Schmar-Dobler, 2003).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), sometimes called “the nation’s report card,” has steadily increased the use of informational text passages on its assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students across the United States. In keeping with this initiative, the CCSS ELA recommend an evenly divided reading diet of literary and informational texts by the fourth grade (see table 1.1), gradually increasing throughout middle and high school. Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean that students in grades 9–12 should no longer be allowed to read narrative text; nothing could be further from the truth. Narrative remains essential as a means of conveying ideas and concepts through story. However, just as a nutritional diet limited to only one or two foods cannot provide sufficient nourishment, neither should we limit the types of texts used (not just stacked on the bookshelves) in the classroom. Furthermore, it is helpful to measure the use of informational texts across the school day, not only in the English classroom, in which teachers use a greater volume of literary texts.
Table 1.1: Grade Distribution of Literary and Informational Passages in the 2009 NAEP Framework
| Grade | Literary Texts | Informational Texts |
| 4 | 50 percent | 50 percent |
| 8 | 45 percent | 55 percent |
| 12 | 30 percent | 70 percent |
Source: Adapted from NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 5.
Just as the reading diet of learners needs to be expanded, so does their writing repertoire. A key practice is to link the reading of expository texts with the original writing in the same genre, as the link between reading and writing abilities is strong for secondary learners (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). However, writing instruction at the secondary level must accurately reflect the forms and processes learners will use in postsecondary experiences. A telling example is the 2004 study of 1,650 Harvard students from their freshman year until graduation. Nancy Sommers and Laura Saltz (2004) find that students had to make profound changes in their approaches to writing. First, they had to shed the notion that writing was about completing an assignment and instead embrace the idea that writing is an essential part of the thinking process. Second, they found that the five-paragraph essay format they had learned in high school had no place in college. Third, they noted that their required readings demanded critical analysis, rather than simple summaries. Sommers and Saltz (2004) note, “One freshman observed: ‘These assignments are an entirely new world. I need to argue a point of view, use evidence, and not accept things just because I have read them’” (p. 138). While not all of our students will attend Harvard, the ability to communicate clearly, coherently, and logically in writing is necessary in virtually any skilled profession, in part because it can’t be automated—a human being is essential.
The Common Core ELA standards for grades 9–12 call for a major investment in the time teachers spend instructing students to raise their ability to comprehend narrative, informational, and persuasive texts. This may require an assessment of where and when students use these types of texts across the school day. Additionally, there is a renewed expectation that students can also write in these genres. Much of the research on expository writing for students in grades 9–12 reinforces what many of us already knew: immersion in these texts, when coupled with explicit instruction, can lead to more sophisticated writing (Graham & Perin, 2007b).
Shift Two: Focus on Increased Text Complexity
Closely related to an emphasis on informational texts is “steadily increasing text complexity” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 2). This has received considerable attention as educators figure out how to apply a three-part model for determining how complex a reading really is. In addition, school teams in the United States are working to design methods for accessing complex texts among students who struggle to read, English learners, and students with special needs. The CCSS ELA define text complexity as “the inherent difficulty of reading and comprehending a text combined with consideration of reader and task variables; in the Standards, a three-part assessment of text difficulty that pairs qualitative [factors] and quantitative measures with reader-task considerations” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 43). In other words, it is multidimensional, with attention given to (1) quantitative measures, such as readability formulae; (2) qualitative factors, such as complexity of ideas, organization, and cohesion; and (3) reader and task considerations, such as motivation and task difficulty.
The issue of text complexity raises the case for backward planning, with the outcome being that graduating high school students are sufficiently prepared to tackle the kinds of texts they will encounter as they enter college and careers. The need for a sense of urgency cannot be understated, as our students have only a precious few years to dramatically increase their capacity to understand complex texts.
In an effort to assist high school educators, appendix B of the CCSS ELA includes an extensive list of text exemplars to illustrate this concept (NGA & CCSSO, 2010c). In high school, these are ordered as grade bands: 9–10 and 11–12. Importantly, these include informational texts for the English classroom, as well as the more familiar poetry, narrative, and dramatic exemplars. These should not be misconstrued as a required reading list. To do so would be to ignore the third dimension of identifying complex texts: reader and task considerations.
Referenced within the standards document is a staircase effect to systematically develop students’ capacity for understanding more complex texts (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a). This should be considered at several levels of analysis: within a unit of instruction, throughout a school year, and across multiple grades. That is, the texts a student uses at the beginning of a unit to build background knowledge are more explicit, while those that occur later in a unit to deepen student knowledge are less so. Similarly, the texts students utilize early in a given school year are less complex than those that occur near the end. Additionally, students’ capacity and stamina for reading complex texts should build across grade-level bands. For this reason, work concerning text complexity should involve at least two collaborative planning team configurations—as English teachers work (1) within grade levels and (2) across high school grades—to articulate a cohesive plan. These horizontal and vertical team collaborations ensure that students experience a cohesive curriculum without gaps or redundancy.
Text complexity poses a major challenge for educators in grades 9–12 as students transition to classroom environments that increasingly rely on texts as a major source of learning. Defining what makes a text complex requires analyzing qualitative factors and quantitative measures, while also considering the characteristics of the reader and the demands of the related task. In addition, the CCSS encourage teachers to look across units, the school year, and grade bands to build a purposeful plan to scaffold student capacity for complex texts.
Shift Three: Focus on Speaking and Listening
While oral language development is widely regarded as a key feature of early elementary education, in practice it is often less important in high school, except for students with identified language learning needs. Perhaps this is due to more text-based instruction or to larger class sizes. Whatever the specific reason, there is a noticeable decline in the amount of meaningful discussion that occurs in classrooms after the primary grades. How can students develop critical speaking and listening skills when a large part of their school day involves listening to low-level directions? Importantly, the lack of oral language development has implications for high school educators, who need well-prepared students ready to engage in high levels of academic discourse.
The Common Core ELA standards for grades 9–12 call for teachers to nest speaking and listening within the context of literacy instruction. These performance-based standards include delivering and listening to peer presentations and exchanging information and ideas featured in these performance events. Speaking and listening also extend to a variety of instructional arrangements, especially small-group interactions across content areas. Students are encouraged to collaborate with one another and communicate in formal and informal settings; like in shifts one and two, they should not be bound exclusively to the reading and language arts block and should be integrated across the school day.
Shift Four: Focus on Text-Based Evidence for Argumentation
A fourth shift concerns the development of argumentation skills, which are a predominant feature in the grades 6–12 standards. This is unfamiliar to many English teachers who may have only experienced rhetorical reading and writing as college students themselves. Perhaps they recall formal argumentation in writing, such as Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) model of argumentation.
• Claim: The position being argued; for example, “Our family should get a dog.”
• Grounds: The reasons given for the claim or answers to the question, “What’s the proof?” For instance, “Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be good companions and to provide security to their owners.”
• Warrant: The more formal reasoning or principle that serves as the underpinning for the claim; this links the claim to the grounds, such as, “Many families choose a dog for a pet for these reasons.”
• Backing: The justification for the warrant; for example, “The Humane Society of the United States says that there are seventy-eight million pet dogs, and 39 percent of all households have at least one dog.”
• Rebuttal: The counterclaim an opponent might assert; for example, “My parents might worry that they will need to handle all the care, but I promise to walk the dog every day.”
• Qualification: The limits to the claim; for example, “I know I will need help in the beginning, because I don’t have a lot of experience with dogs. I know I will need to read more about pet care to get really good at it.”
Toulmin’s (1958) model of argumentation is meant to illustrate that even young children are developmentally capable of laying out a simple argument and supporting it with evidence. The bones of rational thought are completely within the scope of what students in middle childhood can do. Scott Beers and William Nagy (2011) call this discursive literacy and consider this the second step for young adolescent writers after they have mastered the linguistic literacy taught in the elementary grades. Indeed, we regularly teach some aspects already: detecting the differences between fact and opinion, recognizing advertising techniques, and even examining propaganda, editorial cartoons, and letters to the editor. But the discursive literacy needed for more sophisticated writing can be slowed by ineffective instruction. Two elements are missing, however: students are not taught the use of formal argumentation in reading and writing, and they are seldom required to cite evidence from texts to support their claims (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Davidson, 2011; Leithwood, McAdie, Bascia, & Rodrigue, 2006).
These skills can be taught, but they require purposeful instruction. George Hillocks Jr. (2011) suggests introducing argument writing to students through the use of visual crime-solving mysteries that require them to analyze the scene for evidence and use the language of reasoning to make a claim, support the evidence with a warrant, and identify qualifications. Once students have grown more confident with the argument of fact (through crime-solving mysteries), they move to policy arguments (for example, paying students for school attendance). With experience, students are prepared to take on more complex arguments of judgment, addressing issues such as whether “survival of the fittest” is a sociological or biological construct.
In short, the CCSS ELA encourage the purposeful teaching of the elements of argumentation to expand students’ breadth and depth of formal writing. These rhetorical skills are essential as students progress through high school and into the postsecondary world of college and career. Students gain these rhetorical skills through small-group discussions and classroom discourse and as they read and write texts.
Shift Five: Focus on Academic Vocabulary and Language
A final shift in the Common Core standards concerns the development of academic vocabulary and language. As with the other major conceptual changes, this shift’s intent is to foster disciplinary links in order to build learning. This approach acknowledges that vocabulary should not be seen as an isolated list of words but rather as labels that we use as proxies for conceptual understandings. In fact, the language of the standards illuminates this idea. The CCSS note the use of “general academic and domain-specific words and phrases sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 25). This focus underscores two key points: (1) academic vocabulary and language entail the use of a broad range of terms (lexical dexterity) and (2) vocabulary development extends beyond teaching decontextualized words (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b).
Much of the research underpinning this view of academic vocabulary and language comes from the work of Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown, and Linda Kucan (2008), whose familiar three-tier model categorizes words and their instruction.
1. Tier one: These words are used in everyday speech, are used in the vocabulary of most native speakers, and are taught only in the primary grades. However, students who need more language support, such as English learners, will need instruction beyond the first years of schooling. Examples of tier one words include clock, happy, and baby (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002).
2. Tier two: These words (called general academic words and phrases in the CCSS) appear more often in texts than in verbal exchanges. For instance, winnow, boorish, and subsequent are examples of tier two words for high school students. In addition, they are used in many kinds of texts, not just those found within a specific discipline. These words need to be explicitly taught throughout the school years.
3. Tier three: These words (called domain-specific words and phrases in the CCSS) are closely associated with a specific content and also require specific instruction. Examples of such words and phrases in high school English include consonance, omniscient point of view, and stream of consciousness (Marzano & Pickering, 2005).
While teachers often give tier three words and phrases quite a bit of attention, tier two words are more often overlooked. After all, domain-specific words and phrases are closely tied to a discipline and a unit of instruction, and attention is therefore focused on knowing both the definition of the word and its associated concepts. Without instruction with tier two words, students can face more difficulty reading complex texts (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). Knowing that a character winnowed his choices alerts the reader to his deliberative actions. The character’s subsequent boorish behavior conveys to the reader that the course of action he chose resulted in internal conflict that manifested itself outwardly. But unless attention is also provided for these words, readers of complex texts are not able to comprehend at a deeper level. Similarly, students will not use sophisticated terms in their expressive language.
Therefore, an important shift in the Common Core standards concerns the importance of using academic language and vocabulary throughout the school day. Special attention should be given to the types of academic language students require in order to express themselves and to understand the writings of others. Furthermore, the rush to profile domain-specific words and phrases can overshadow the importance of general academic vocabulary that students encounter in many kinds of texts. The investment in academic vocabulary and language is well worth it, as it is a form, tool, and mediator of thought (Marzano, 2003).
Purposes and Organization of the CCSS ELA
In the previous sections, we highlighted five major shifts in the way we look at the literacy development of students in grades 9–12 across the school day. As noted, a primary purpose of the CCSS is to prepare students for college or career choices. Insufficient literacy skills limit one’s choices in employment, careers, and postsecondary education. By spotlighting the importance of literacy development across grades K–12, we hope to collectively consider how 21st century instruction factors into students’ lives long after they have left our classrooms.
The CCSS spotlight college and career readiness with anchor standards. Anchor standards are the threads that tie the grade-level standards together, whether they are kindergarten standards or grade 12 standards. Anchor standards frame each language arts strand: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language. Figure 1.3 explains the different elements of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts.
Source: Adapted from NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 20.
Figure 1.3: How to read the CCSS ELA.
In the next three chapters, we utilize the anchor standards as a means for fostering the work of collaborative planning teams. The following principles for college and career readiness shape these anchor standards and describe the growing capabilities of learners as they progress through school. To be college and career ready, students must do the following (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a).
• Demonstrate independence: Students must comprehend complex texts in all content areas, participate as speakers and listeners in academic discussions and presentations, direct their own learning, and utilize resources.
• Build strong content knowledge across all subjects and disciplines: Cross-discipline knowledge is important for students’ writing and discussions. In addition, students should engage in the research and study skills needed to build their content knowledge.
• Respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline: College-and career-ready students communicate through speaking and writing with a range of audiences and are knowledgeable about the variances of discipline-specific evidence.
• Comprehend as well as critique: Students learn this skill as they read and listen to others. They are able to ask questions, evaluate information, and discern reasonableness.
• Value evidence: Students should provide evidence in their own oral and written discourse and expect others to furnish evidence.
• Use technology and digital media strategically and capably: As they integrate online and offline resources, students should use critical-thinking and communication skills within their digital lives.
• Understand other perspectives and cultures: In order to better communicate with and learn from and alongside people, students should understand a wide range of cultural and experiential backgrounds.
The principles and assumptions that guided development of the anchor standards provide a framework for understanding them and their function in girding the grade-level standards. While the CCSS map the territory for literacy development, they do not pretend to describe every aspect of teaching and learning.
What Is Not Covered in the Standards
Keep in mind that the standards themselves are end-point results. It has been left to educators, instructional leaders, collaborative planning teams, and curriculum developers to design the ways to get there. The CCSS state, “The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 6). This is intentional, as it is essential for educators at the local, state, and national levels to engage in dialogue about essential topics related to content and scope, intervention, methods and materials, and supports and expectations for English learners, students with special needs, and students who struggle.
The Content and Scope
The Common Core ELA standards describe essential outcomes, but do not address all aspects of learning, or even disciplines, that are important for learners. Even within the scope of the English language arts, not all aspects are featured. Consequently, some states have supplemented the standards with additional content. For example, California added 15 percent of content to the CCSS, such as career development documents to the domain Text Types and Purposes in W.8.2 (California Department of Education, n.d.; Sacramento County Office of Education, 2012). The Common Core State Standards are intended to guide the development of formative and summative assessments. It is important for states to cap their additions to ensure they do not undermine this design and make it impossible to develop meaningful assessments that can be used across states. This process will ensure that assessment results based on the CCSS will allow for comparisons of student performance across states. PARCC and SBAC, the two consortia developing standards-based assessments, consist of representatives from states that provide additional opportunities for collaboration among states. Teachers should check their state’s department of education website to determine any content that’s been added to the CCSS.
Intervention Methods and Materials
The standards should be viewed as end-of-grade expectations, but they do not in any way describe either the approaches for intervention or the materials used to accompany them. In every school, some students perform well below grade-level expectations, and some currently benefit from a response to intervention (RTI) approach to learning. RTI involves identifying whether, and to what extent, a struggling student is responding positively to intervention that has been designed to meet the individual learner’s needs. His or her responsiveness (or unresponsiveness) to intervention is determined through dynamic, ongoing assessment that monitors student progress and shapes modifications to the assessment plan. The CCSS ELA do not discuss RTI; however, we will explore this topic in chapter 5.
Supports and Expectations for English Learners
The NGA and CCSSO include people knowledgeable about issues related to English learners. NGA and CCSSO acknowledge that students acquiring English require supports and that these supports should be carefully designed to meet the needs of these students (see “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners,” www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf). They caution, however, that accommodations should not result in a reduction of expectations, which could severely compromise students’ educational progress. The limited information about supports and expectations for ELs in the CCSS implies that meeting the needs of these students is a local responsibility.
Supports and Expectations for Students With Special Needs
Similarly, the CCSS do not define supports for students with special needs beyond assistive technologies such as Braille, screen-reader technologies, sign language, and so on. Use of such devices is determined through an individual education program (IEP) and supersedes educational standards. These devices and approaches are more commonly used for students with sensory or motor disabilities, or in some cases, for those with mild disabilities that involve reading and learning (see “Application to Students with Disabilities,” www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-disabilities.pdf). What has not been determined is how these supports and expectations might be adapted for students with more significant cognitive and intellectual delays and disabilities. It is likely that development of these systems will continue as general and special educators collaborate. Participation and access are priorities, and the CCSS language mirrors that used in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (http://idea.ed.gov): “The Standards should also be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outset and as permitting appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 6).
Support and Expectations for Students Who Struggle
The Common Core State Standards do not provide specific advice about supporting students who struggle with school. Instead, there is recognition among educators that reduced expectations often cause students to fail to reach high levels of achievement. Support for students who struggle with school should be part of the ongoing conversations within collaborative planning teams. As Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker (2008) note, collaborative teams should discuss what to do when students fail to achieve the expected learning targets. During discussions, team members can identify additional instructional interventions to close the gap between students who mastered the content and those who did not, just as the tenth-grade English team did at the beginning of this chapter. This may involve reteaching content through guided instruction or targeting students for response to intervention efforts (Fisher & Frey, 2010). A pyramid of response to intervention that provides teams with systems for intervention can be helpful (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009). In this book, we focus on quality teaching for all students and encourage the development of collaborative planning teams to monitor and adapt instruction to ensure learning for all students. This systematic approach to students who struggle in school has a better potential to result in positive outcomes than reducing expectations or preventing students from accessing high-quality instruction aligned with the Common Core State Standards. That’s not to say that teachers should avoid scaffolding or support. As we will discuss in each of the teaching scenarios in this book, teaching Common Core ELA well requires a deep understanding of the content as well as skills in responding to students’ understanding and misunderstanding.
Conclusion
The Common Core State Standards for English language arts present high school English educators with challenges as well as opportunities. The shifts in our ways of thinking about literacy development are considerable, and require us to collectively look at our own practices and plan collaboratively with our colleagues. These expectations can pose a major roadblock for schools that do not have a forum for conducting this important work. It is not the kind of work that can be accomplished with a few workshops and some follow-up meetings. Determining how these changes will be implemented, as well as identifying the effective practices that have already proven to be successful, will require focused and sustained attention as educators develop curriculum, design formative assessments, and interpret results. Collaborative teams within a PLC are an ideal forum for accomplishing this work. Indeed, the major shifts described in this chapter parallel the characteristics of successful PLCs: they emphasize collaboration and communication across disciplines and grade levels, and they reward those who seek to deepen their understanding of their professional practice.
