Monday, July 14, 2014

Tom's Common Core Reading Remix

Apparently we're going to start talking about re-writing the Common Core. Given that the last thing most Common Core critics want is a new and improved Common Core, the reaction to this is likely to be ambivalent at best, including from me.

On the other hand, I've found myself trying to categorize the various structural flaws in the Common Core standards, in yet another attempt to distill my analysis, and I ended up feeling yesterday morning like I would have to create an example of the CC standards that avoided it structural faults. So... I ended up with this list, which, I would hasten to note, is meant to simply be a better organized version of the Common Core anchor standards for reading, limited to their current (insufficient) scope and philosophy.

  1. Determine what the text says explicitly.
  2. Determine the central ideas or themes of the text.
  3. Summarize the text.
  4. Determine or infer the point of view of the author.
  5. Determine or infer the purpose of the text.
  6. Describe the style of the text.
  7. Analyze how the central ideas or themes of the text are developed.
  8. Analyze how specific parts of the text relate to each other and the whole.
  9. Assess how well the text achieves its purpose.
  10. Interpret the text, in part and in whole.
  11. Perform standards 7, 8, 9 and 10, comparing multiple texts.

Range of texts for assessment:
Reading standards must be assessed using grade level texts.
Assessment must emphasize reading arguments.
Assessment must include texts from diverse media, formats and academic disciplines.

Note: Citation is a writing or speaking task.

Also included would be detailed performance standards for grades 3, 5, 8, 10 and graduation. Each anchor standard would not have to have performance standards at all grade spans. Where appropriate there may be separate performance standards for different types of texts, but complete duplication of standards across text types is not necessary.

I imagine the primary complaints would be that this version does not emphasize the same "shifts" as the Common Core. The problem is that the Common Core uses redundancy and repetition to create emphasis, which makes their structure an overlapping mess.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in any feedback about my remix. Don't worry, a response does not imply endorsement of the AFT's Common Core position.

1 comment:

Leroy's Mom said...

The next level needs a lot of cleaning. Examples of where you found language describing activities normally associated with writing in a reading standard (which you allude to with the comment on citation).
Similarly, length of writing is not mentioned, EXCEPT under technology where in sixth grade they are required to be able to type 3 pages, which treats it as a physical keyboarding skill, rather than as a depth of thinking skill.
But, you have a good start here. The problem with eliminating CCSS is the old standards in California were not acceptable either.