Renaissance Learning recently released the results of their fifth annual survey/study of "What Kids Are Reading," which is summarized in this graphic. As I have been reading a great deal about the new CCSS and the focus of Standard 10 on text complexity, I was curious to see, in particular, the differences in what was required reading just over a century ago and how the top 3 has changed over the years. Of the Top 3 in 1907, all are still represented in modern required reading lists, but have fallen in popularity. Even the top 3 from last year have fallen from favor a little, with one dropping to a current ranking of 16th. And, according to their report, the complexity of the required high school reading has dropped since 1907, a finding that has been echoed in much of the research that I have read recently.
Renaissance Learning also notes that some texts that have been used as exemplars within the CCSS in English/Language Arts & Literacy have seen an increase in readership, opening up the possibility that the standards are already beginning to have an effect on curriculum decisions. This would make sense to me, as the exemplars, instead of serving as a starting place for guidance in choosing texts, may serve as a dictate for teachers who are either told by "higher authorities" they must use these texts or who are simply not trained to take the examples from these exemplars and apply them to analysis of other texts that could be more appropriate for their students.
On the CCSS web site, there are a host of resources for helping teachers gauge the complexity of any given text, whether informational or literary. But without awareness of these tools, training on how to use them, and time to collaborate in implementing these tools, the exemplar texts may become a national reading list for students in the U.S.
Showing posts with label complex text. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complex text. Show all posts
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Policy brief preview
Friday, May 31, 2013
CCSS and Informational Text
Last night I had the opportunity to take part in a free webinar
about the CCSS
and informational texts sponsored by The Text Project, featuring presenter Nell Duke. It
was very interesting for a variety of reasons, but one of the points she made
that stuck with me goes back to one of my own concerns with the CCSS:
that people will make assumptions about what the standards mean and will begin
making policy "based" on the standards without having fully read
them. (As you can tell from my previous post, I am really concerned about the aliteracy
of our policy makers.)
This point is relevant to middle & high school language arts/English/reading teachers (which is a group close to my heart, as I retired from their ranks), and to content area teachers at these same levels. It concerns the amount of informational text students are to be reading according to the standards and, most importantly, where they should be reading these texts. Yes, by 8th grade, 55% of the texts students read should be informational texts, according to the CCSS. Yes, this is included in a document with a title that begins "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts." But the possible "pitfall" identified by Dukes, which I have already seen some evidence of in schools I have visited, is that the rest of that document's title, as well as the actual text within, will be ignored, putting an imbalanced onus on language arts/English teachers while also negatively affecting the students in their classes. The rest of that title reads "& Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects." And if one keeps reading below that handy chart on page 5, one will see some very important statements, including this one:
"Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes..."
Yes, folks - all those informational texts are not supposed to be crammed into the ELA class. ELA classes are still predominantly literature classes, even under the CCSS. Students should be reading in other classes. Yes, it would be wonderful if you could pull in texts other than the textbook for this purpose; in fact, it would be beneficial in a variety of ways! How about some news articles about the latest in scientific breakthroughs? A magazine article about the new discoveries at an ancient ruin and what those discoveries tell us about a long-dead culture? How about, instead of just showing students how to make their next project, you give them a how-to guide to read and discuss it with them?
This is, of course, only one of the possible issues that could arise with the CCSS. As with most ideas, the CCSS look good on paper (at least, it does to me); it's once humans get involved in implementation, interpreting and misinterpreting, that the true problems will begin. Can we all just sit down, read closely (like we want the students to do) and try to get this thing right?
This point is relevant to middle & high school language arts/English/reading teachers (which is a group close to my heart, as I retired from their ranks), and to content area teachers at these same levels. It concerns the amount of informational text students are to be reading according to the standards and, most importantly, where they should be reading these texts. Yes, by 8th grade, 55% of the texts students read should be informational texts, according to the CCSS. Yes, this is included in a document with a title that begins "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts." But the possible "pitfall" identified by Dukes, which I have already seen some evidence of in schools I have visited, is that the rest of that document's title, as well as the actual text within, will be ignored, putting an imbalanced onus on language arts/English teachers while also negatively affecting the students in their classes. The rest of that title reads "& Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects." And if one keeps reading below that handy chart on page 5, one will see some very important statements, including this one:
"Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes..."
Yes, folks - all those informational texts are not supposed to be crammed into the ELA class. ELA classes are still predominantly literature classes, even under the CCSS. Students should be reading in other classes. Yes, it would be wonderful if you could pull in texts other than the textbook for this purpose; in fact, it would be beneficial in a variety of ways! How about some news articles about the latest in scientific breakthroughs? A magazine article about the new discoveries at an ancient ruin and what those discoveries tell us about a long-dead culture? How about, instead of just showing students how to make their next project, you give them a how-to guide to read and discuss it with them?
This is, of course, only one of the possible issues that could arise with the CCSS. As with most ideas, the CCSS look good on paper (at least, it does to me); it's once humans get involved in implementation, interpreting and misinterpreting, that the true problems will begin. Can we all just sit down, read closely (like we want the students to do) and try to get this thing right?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)