Yesterday, we detailed the 12 step process recommended by the Common Core State Standards. While working through the process a few times with a group of colleagues in order to understand the ironic complexity of defining text complexity is probably worthwhile, we think that engaging in this process with the hundreds of books we hope your students will read this year is not only unnecessary but a little ridiculous, and even counterproductive to student learning.
Here is an abbreviated procedure for considering the “appropriateness” of the text complexity students encounter:
1. Give students a book.
2. Listen to students read.
3. Talk to the child about what was read.
4. Decide if the text was too hard, too easy, or just right.
5. Adjust the text selection accordingly and select, or help students select, a new book.
6. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Really. It doesn’t have to be rocket science.
While I can certainly agree with the unrealistic expectation on classroom teachers to analyze every text students will encounter, I do believe it will take more knowledge and skill by teachers then the six steps listed above. The process detailed in yesterday’s post as outlined by the authors of the Common Core State Standards, in part, is somewhat familiar to educators. We have long been able to match readers to text based on quantitative measures. Teachers have begun to discuss the element of reader and task through motivation and purpose, tasks associated with the text, and scaffold supports. The qualitative feature is essentially the new way of evaluating text to match text to reader. As educators we must understand and hone our skills on the qualitative features of text just as we have adjusted to the other two legs of text complexity. I believe teachers will add this filter to their lenses in choosing complex text for instruction. I know I look at text differently now that I have practiced the skill of analyzing text for its qualitative features.