Leadership | Burkins & Yaris

Celebrating a Milestone!

March 18, 2013 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 5 Comments

Today is a special day. Exactly fifty-two weeks ago on this very day, we launched Burkins and Yaris, Think Tank for 21st Century Literacy. Our first post, simply titled Welcome to Burkins and Yaris, shared that “with six shifts and thirty-two national standards in literacy, schools are in the uncomfortable position of figuring out where to begin implementing the Common Core.” We charged ourselves with the responsibility “of closely examining the educational landscape” and poised ourselves “to be your guide through the Common Core and the next generation of literacy learning.” Ironically, in addition to being the anniversary of our first post, this is also our 300th post, which seems a fitting way to commemorate such an important milestone.

This year has been an adventure for us. Over the course of the past year, we have wrestled with issues, struggled to make deadlines, connected with incredible people, and forged what we trust will be a lifelong friendship with each other. We have kept a meticulous record of this journey which we’ve archived in this big green binder that Kim keeps in her home. As you can see, it is filled with post-its and dog ears tracking our thinking about where we’ve been and our thoughts about where we might go next.

…and we have plenty of thoughts of where we will go next. But first, we need to indulge ourselves in a nostalgic trip down memory lane so this week, our plan is to share some thoughts about our writing process and highlight some of the things that we’ve learned through this adventure.

Our hope is to end the week with “favorite” posts, both ours and yours, and ask you to remind us of the post that resonated most with you so we can include it in Friday’s compilation.

We end today by saying a heartfelt thank you to all of our readers. Your comments and feedback serve as the fuel for this journey. We appreciate you and look forward to another great year!

Filed Under: Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Informational Text, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, critical thinking, Implementation, Instruction, Leadership, Reading, Writing, writing process

Common Core Instruction, Like All Good Instruction, Is Not About Fish Tossing (Part 2)

October 16, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 4 Comments

We are excited to welcome back our friend, Christopher Lehman, for the second post in this guest blog series. Chris is an author, speaker, educator and a Senior Staff Developer at the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, Columbia University. His latest book, Energize Research Reading and Writing, is about teaching students to love (not loathe) informational reading, informational writing, and the research skills described in the Common Core. You can follow Chris’s smart thinking on his blog and on Twitter.

This is How You Rig a Spinner Bait, Watch

Many conditions go into a strong teaching-learning relationship. Brian Cambourne details several in his research [one of his classic articles can be found here]. With the widest and most essential condition being engagement and all others falling into place within that umbrella: immersion in a study; clear demonstration; positive and clear expectations placed on the learner and that the learner takes responsibility for when and how to apply skills; time for use (e.g. practice) is given; freedom to approximate and not be perfect right away but grow over time; and plenty of responsive feedback on those attempts.

If you were with me, my father, and grandfather fishing on Pewaukee Lake when I was a boy this all may sound a little something like this:

It was all fishing, all the time. My grandfather didn’t assign: “go catch a fish by Friday.” Instead, we talked fishing, bought fishing gear and muddy worms, rented a boat, paddled out, fishing, fishing, fishing. We lived, breathed and baked in the sun to fish. Naturally all of our conversations came back to it all day.
My father and grandfather expected I could cast, watch the bobber bounce on the lake, and do a quick tug just as it dipped in. They both overtly said “you can do it,” but also inferred a sense that I could by giving me the tools and sitting back (Peter Johnston’s beautifully dense yet practically slim volumes are treasures on the language of expectations: Choice Words and Opening Minds).
They also, however, knew I wasn’t born a fishing prodigy – so when necessary they would show me how-to. Not just explain, not have me guess the right steps, nor walk me through every point on a fishing graphic organizer, but demonstrate setting up a worm on a hook or proper reeling-in technique. These demonstrations were clear and to the point.
Then, they gave me the time to practice and choose how and when to use the skills I was acquiring. If I wanted to just sit in the boat for a bit I could, cast my line far out or nearby, I could make attempts.
All of this meant sometimes fish got away, sometimes the line snapped, sometimes we caught a big one. All of it led towards improving our technique and, frankly, enjoying it along the way.

In a recent post “Research Instruction: Who Decided It Should Be A Tremendous Bore?” I argued that we need to stop handing out so much stuff in the name of teaching research and instead teach and then let students practice, make mistakes, and make decisions. Peter, an AP Biology teacher, did just that to some inspiring reflections. This is not just the case with the Common Core’s research skills, however, it is for all of the expectations—and frankly for all good teaching. Ask yourself:

Do you assign opinion writing or teach opinion writing?
Do you tell students the themes you believe a novel holds or do you demonstrate how you interpret texts? Then allow students to draw their own interpretations, teaching them to revise those approximations based on evidence?
Can students apply skills to the text you looked at together? Are you equally confident they could do the same now with other texts without your direct involvement?
Do you edit errors in papers or do you teach students to find them themselves?
Do you lead conversations or do you facilitate them?

In this current era we can feel pressed into a deliver, deliver, deliver, check, check, check mentality when it comes to the standards. But if we want students to learn, then it is essential we provide the conditions for this to take place. Good instruction is not tossing salmon at students and hoping they catch them for tonight’s meal. It is about teaching them to fish (or to catch fish or whatever the case may be).

Filed Under: Common Core State Standards, Complete Literacy, Leadership, Planning for Instruction, Uncategorized, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Instruction, Leadership, Writing

Common Core Instruction, Like All Good Instruction, Is Not About Fish Tossing (Part 1)

October 15, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 6 Comments

We are excited to share this guest post by our friend, Christopher Lehman. Chris is an author, speaker, educator and a Senior Staff Developer at the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, Columbia University. His latest book, Energize Research Reading and Writing, is about teaching students to love (not loathe) informational reading, informational writing, and the research skills described in the Common Core. You can follow Chris’s smart thinking on his blog and on Twitter.

Seems like everyone has “Common Core” stamped on their products and approaches these days, a bunch of it is great and a bunch of it is meh. The good news is that you get to decide just how to support your students in achieving the expectations of the standards (as I described in this post). I would like to suggest some considerations as you wade through instructional choices.

Toss Someone a Fish vs. Teach Her How to Catch a Bass

An ancient proverb goes something like: give a man tips for test taking and on the day of the test you will walk around in horror as he doesn’t use any of them. In our panic around high stakes testing we give students tricks for underlining terms, jotting marginalia, and multiple choice cross-offs. Yet, on test day a huge majority of students—in their own, very real panic—employ almost none.

Why? Because on the day of a test—or stretch that metaphor to include college graduation or even simply the move from October’s unit to November’s—students do not apply what we have taught, they apply what they have learned. It is truly that other more popular proverb at play: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

Ultimately, what we are doing is aiming for transference. Students’ ability to take what we are teaching and transfer those skills and concepts into their own independent work. To become automatic with them. To be able to cast, feel a tug on the line, and reel back in, whenever they are in need of a meal.

This means our teaching must be more than just checklists of standards we “taught,” and instead be purposefully organized to lead to students doing the work without us (if you didn’t click that link it’s worth it, I promise). In other words, as a fifth grade teacher smartly reflected at the end of last year: “you know, when students turn their final drafts in I feel like I should be giving myself the grade. I realize I have way over coached them, it’s in essence my great essay not really what they can do. I need to let go more.”

Before this post continues tomorrow, we (Jan and Kim) urge you to stop and think about transference. Do you over-teach? Is your students’ performance a reflection of what you have taught or a reflection of what they have learned?

Filed Under: Common Core State Standards, Leadership, Planning for Instruction, Reading, Uncategorized, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Chris Lehman, college and career readiness, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Instruction, Leadership, Reading, Writing

Friday “Favorites”

July 20, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris Leave a Comment

With more than 100 blog posts under our belt, we have chronicled many important topics surrounding literacy and the Common Core Learning Standards for English Language Arts. Once these posts have been published, most get buried in the archives lost to our reading public in spite of the fact that many are still timely and relevant. In an effort to keep the conversation going, we have decided to dedicate Fridays to revisiting old posts. Each Friday, we will direct you back to an old post with a short blurb of new thinking or our reason for selecting this one as a “favorite.”

This week, we encourage you to reread CCSS & Frustration vs. Instructional Level Texts: Comparing Apples and Oranges.
There is a great deal of discussion happening in the literacy community about frustration level vs. instructional level texts, as you can see in this recent post by Tim Shanahan titled Common Core or Guided Reading. (Be sure to read the comments as well as the blog post!)

Because so many decisions in education are done in the name of “research based,” we think it is important that educators are informed and thinking about the quality and relevance of the research cited to support the assertions that are shaping the landscape of language arts education.

Filed Under: Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Reading, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Close Read, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, critical thinking, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Writing

Responding to PARCC

June 19, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 1 Comment

PARCC stands for The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. It is a consortium of 20 states, which will develop the assessments that those states will take to measure how well students are learning the Common Core State Standards. The following diagram indicates which states are participating and which are governing/participating.

Between now and Friday, June 27, 2012, educators have a chance to respond to the PARCC Model Content Frameworks for ELA/Literacy. It is critical that all educators take the time to review this document and respond with any concerns, as these modules are designed to be the instructional bridge between the Common Core State Standards and the assessments that will hold us all accountable to these standards.

So, while you may not feel like you have much to say about the instructional frameworks, take a second look at them because they are a blueprint for the assessment that your students may be taking. Here is the link to review and respond to the content frameworks. We will share our thoughts about these frameworks over the next week or two.

While the document is almost 100 pages long, the introduction is just 11 pages and gives you a pretty good overview of the rest of the content. If you are a classroom teacher, then you can find your grade and read the section that describes it. As you are reading, consider these questions:

1. Is the instruction the PARCC is recommending balanced? Consider the balance between text genres, between production on demand vs. student choice, consider explicit instruction vs. independent reading/practice, consider writing vs. reading, consider complex texts and instructional level texts, etc.

2. Does the overall framework make sense? Look at the diagram for the time and content distributions for your grade level.

3. What is superfluous? Is there anything that doesn’t really belong?

4. What’s missing? Think about your day in the classroom with your students. Go through your schedule in your head. What is left out of PARCC?

As we mentioned before, these assessments will measure student achievement in several states and impact teacher effectiveness ratings. Though the document is long and complex, feedback from real educators will help mold the path of future literacy instruction.

Filed Under: Close Reads, Instruction, Leadership, Policy and Research Tagged With: CCSS, Close Read, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Instruction, Leadership, Policy and Research

Contagions, Frankenstein Monsters, and Mathematics Properties

June 18, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 3 Comments

You know those movies about viral outbreaks where the scientists are on a race to find out the origins of a contagion? You know the ones, where the researchers are looking for the first primate that was sick or the location of the mosquito that bit the first human that became sick with the disease that started armageddon? Well, Appendix A represents that first germ of the Common Core contagion, or at least its origins are early in the viral spread of college-and-career-ready thinking, as represented in this document, Aspects of Text Complexity: Why Text Complexity Matters (Liben, 2010), which appears to be an early version of Appendix A.

Our earliest work with the Common Core State Standards dug deep into Appendix A. In fact, concerns about inaccurate statements about the percentage of informational text use in classrooms today led us to discover some significant issues with the scholarship of Appendix A. (See A Close Read of the Common Core’s Informational Text Recommendations, Part 1)

Appendix A, however, was not adopted by the states that did adopt the Common Core State Standards. However, what “not adopted” really means is rather nebulous, although it seems safe to assume that the heft behind Appendix A was lightened and it was demoted to optional-ish once it assumed its “Not Adopted” title.

Conversations supported by literacy leaders, such as Lucy Calkins and Janet Allen, have reasonably suggested that we stick with the Common Core proper, as these actual standards describe what educators are to teach but leave how they will teach up to schools and districts. This makes sense to us, for the most part.

However, as we dig into the work of PARCC (The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), the organization responsible for developing the assessment that 20 states will administer to gauge how well they are teaching the standards, it seems that a Frankenstein monster, Appendix A, is alive and roaming the countryside. PARCC has developed a set of instructional frameworks that are to support educators in preparing for the tests that they, PARCC, is creating with the $186 million grant it received from the U.S. Department of Education. It seems that PARCC is riding squarely on the shoulders of Appendix A, perhaps even more so than the actual standards, as denoted in this statement in the PARCC frameworks currently open for review and feedback:

As described below, the four sections capture the key emphases within the standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language (including vocabulary). These emphases reflect the research basis for the standards found in Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards. These emphases will also be reflected on PARCC assessments (No emphasis added.). (PARCC, p. 4)

The PARCC Model Content Frameworks for ELA/Literacy are intended to serve as an instructional bridge between the Common Core, which doesn’t tell how to teach, and the accountability measures associated with them, which will measure that which was taught. So, while the Common Core clearly states that the how of aligned instruction is up for discussion and professional interpretation, the particular how, as presented by PARCC, is directly linked to the assessment what with which educators and students in 20 states will be evaluated and is explicitly connected to (drumroll, please….) Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards.

We all know that assessment drives instruction. Now it is even connected to teacher compensation. So, A = B = C … then if Appendix A is flawed = the standards are flawed = student assessment is flawed ….

Filed Under: Implementation, Instruction, Leadership, Policy and Research, Research Tagged With: CCSS, college and career readiness, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Leadership, Reading

Our Top Ten Common Sense Responses to the Sh*t People are Saying about the Common Core

May 11, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 2 Comments

A week ago, we published a “Top Ten” list rank ordering the ten, craziest things we have heard people say about their implementations of the Common Core State Standards. The tendency in reading these descriptions of education gone amok is to blame the Common Core and/or its authors. In reality, we are in charge of how we respond in a given situation.

If a school eliminates narrative text from elementary classrooms in an overzealous response to the Common Core, which clearly states an even distribution of time across text types, are the misinterpretation and the corresponding mis-implementation the fault of the standards and those who wrote them? We don’t think so.

While we see places that the standards and their rollout need to be criticized, we also see plenty to celebrate. A blurry division is typical of most things in life, requiring non-categorical thinking (vs. categorical feeling) that demands a level of maturity. Many educators, however, feel compelled to align themselves to one extreme perspective or the other. Those holding tightly to a negative perspective will look at an article about a school that has burned all its narrative texts and say, “I knew the Common Core State Standards would lead to this!”

Furthermore, these extremes are not the norm. While they are egregious, they don’t represent the majority of Common Core implementations. (Hence the title, crazi-est!)

The purpose of last week’s list was to alert everyone to the risk of slipping into extremism, as we are all vulnerable to this. To think otherwise is naive and binds us to our own incremental changes that move us in the direction of extremes we never intend. The purpose of this week’s list is to help refocus and bring us back to a place of balance and common sense.

Our Top Ten Common Sense Responses to the Sh** People are Saying about the Common Core

10. “Our state standards align to the Common Core, so we really don’t have to change anything.”
Really? You might want to reread. The biggest changes are changes in perspective, and these are easy to overlook if you focus on the standards proper.

9. “In order to meet the requirements of Shift 2, we are reading during P.E. for one class period per week.”
Wow! Your students must all be in great shape!

8. “The only professional learning our school district is offering next year is on the Common Core.”
The spirit of the Common Core embraces best practices. While PD that focuses on high levels of engagement, fostering good conversations, or raising the quality of student writing might not have “Common Core” in the title, such professional learning will help teachers achieve the goals of the Common Core.

7. “All questions we ask of students must be text-based questions.”
In order to answer implicit questions, the hallmark of complex text, students must use their background knowledge. So teaching students to connect their experiences to the text will actually help them answer text-based questions.

6. “In our school district, schools are only allowed to order informational texts for classrooms and school libraries. We are not to spend any money on other genres.”
The Common Core calls for a 50-50 balance between literary and informational text at the elementary level. What we might want to look at more closely is the quality of the texts that we purchase in every genre.

5. “All of our elementary instruction is changing to whole group lessons.”
As children work to read complex text, many will require scaffolding. Some of that can happen in small groups. In addition, just students will read more grade-level complex text, does not mean that they will no longer read instructional level text. There will always be a need for balance.

4. “We took two weeks to closely read that paragraph.”
There’s a difference between close reading and killing reading. If it takes that long to closely read a paragraph, we will never accomplish the Common Core goal of reading widely and deeply. Not to mention that we will make our students hate reading!

3. “Now that the Common Core is here, you know there’s not enough time for us to do independent reading.”
“Extensive reading” is valued by the Common Core. If we’re not making time for independent reading, then we’re missing part of the big picture.

2. “Ninety percent of the reading in elementary schools needs to be at frustration level.”

All we can to say is “ugh.”

1. “We have to teach students not to make personal connections to texts.”

Seriously? How do you plan to do that?

Filed Under: Alignment, Close Reads, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Reading, Text Complexity, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Reading, Reflections, Text Based Questions, Text Complexity, Understanding the Shifts, Writing

How to Teach vs. What to Teach

May 10, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 2 Comments

Sessions on the Common Core were in abundance at the IRA National Convention in Chicago last week, and it seems that every presenter described a different definition of text complexity. While explanations of complex text varied, one consistently referenced determinant of complexity was whether the point of a text was explicit or implied. Most presenters agreed that texts that convey meaning through implicit messages require readers to think more and are, consequently, more complex.

If we assume that the Common Core State Standards and their surrounding documents are complex texts, what are the implicit messages they convey? In yesterday’s post we quoted a heading from the Common Core which articulates an emphasis on outcomes rather than means. Renowned literacy leaders whom we respect, such as Lucy Calkins and Janet Allen, state that it is up to literacy educators to figure out how to teach the content detailed in the Common Core. Simultaneously, however, they are amending their practices to better align with the State Standards. Is asking more text-based questions than before not responding to an implied pedagogical direction from the Common Core? Isn’t changing the way we introduce texts such that we frontload less background knowledge acting on an instructional dimension implicit in the standards?

Furthermore, like it or not, the Common Core State Standards are the voice of those who wrote them, and the surrounding documents and videos offer insight into the intent of the authors. While we do not suggest that educators bend without question to instructional suggestions proffered by Common Core authors, we do think it may be naive to dismiss or ignore the instructional guidance that is fruit of the Common Core tree.

For example, the authors who developed the standards have crafted parameters for the publishers of curricula. After conversations with publishers at IRA, there is little doubt that these guidelines will influence the instructional materials from which teachers can choose. Consider, for example, the following paragraphs from the new publisher criteria. The first relates to Reading Foundations and the second to developing student fluency.

Materials aligned with the Common Core State Standards need to provide sequential, cumulative instruction and practice opportunities for the full range of foundational skills. The elements should be gradually interwoven–from simple to complex–so that students come to understand and use the system of correspondences that characterize written English.

Materials should include routines and guidance that will remind teachers to monitor the consolidation of skills as students are learning them. Consolidation is usually accomplished through systematic and cumulative instruction, sufficient practice to achieve accuracy, and a variety of specific fluency building techniques supported by research. These include monitored partner reading, choral reading, repeated readings with text, short timed practice that is slightly challenging to the reader, and involving the student in monitoring progress toward a specific fluency goal.

If you have any doubt, read through these recently revised recommendations to publishers developed by Common Core lead authors, Susan Pimental and David Coleman. If you’re curious about the ways in which these have changed, this document, sent to us by Richard Tracey, compares the original version of the publisher criteria and the revised version.

Given that the Common Core and the publisher documents were developed by the same group, that the district choices for materials will be limited by these criteria to some degree, and that the same authors are now receiving substantial funding to influence implementation in other ways, can we really say that the Common Core does not address how to teach? Perhaps, they don’t in the explicit, letter of their content. But their implicit, spirit may be more about the how of implementation than about the what.

Please note, we are not offering a value judgement on the quality of the instructional how implied through the Common Core’s content and development. We are simply noting that we need those who are suggesting that there are no such recommendations to help us evaluate what is and isn’t sound about the Common Core’s implicit instructional recommendations.

Filed Under: Alignment, Close Reads, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Policy and Research, Reading, Uncategorized Tagged With: CCSS, Close Read, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Informational Text, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Reading

A Focus on Results Rather than Means

May 9, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris 1 Comment

If you’ve ever ridden The Scrambler at an amusement park, you know that once you sit in the ride and buckle your seat, it whips you from one side of the platform to the other, leaving you guessing which direction it will go next, taking your breath away as it suddenly jerks to the right or left when you least expect it.

Right now, education is in a similar state. With information about the Common Core rolling out daily, people feel that as soon as they understand one idea about the Common Core, along comes the next, jerking them in a different direction, leaving them confused and trying to catch their breath before the next idea rapidly shifts them in yet another direction.

If there is one idea suffering tragically from this fate, it is instruction. The noise surrounding how to teach reading is garbled—Close reads? Whole group instruction? Read only grade level texts? Basal readers? Teach guided reading? Or don’t? Educators are aligning curricula and materials to these new standards, and they are thinking about how the next generation of reading instruction will look. With so many mixed and conflicting messages, it becomes hard to make informed decisions.

The only way we have found to quell this shifting tide is to return to the Common Core and its satellite documents to complete our own close reading of these texts. The Common Core explicitly states that “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.” It goes on to say, “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.” The bold faced heading introducing these ideas reads: A Focus on Results Rather Than Means. (Common Core Standards, p4) The language presented here leads us to believe that the standards tell what, while sound pedagogy should guide how.

However, we are not convinced that this settles the matter. Documents such as Appendix A and the Publisher’s Criteria for ELA/Literacy are widely circulated materials intended to guide text selection and curricula creation. In what ways do these documents direct the how? That’s what we’ll look at in tomorrow’s post.

Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Filed Under: Alignment, Close Reads, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Reading, Writing Tagged With: CCSS, Close Read, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Reading, Writing

Weekend Round Up May 5

May 5, 2012 By Jan Burkins & Kim Yaris Leave a Comment

With daily blog posts and regular updates in our “Favorites” file, we know keeping up with what we’re sharing can be hard. In case you missed anything, here is our week in review:

Blog Posts:

Monday:

About our Favorites

We made a quick announcement about what we will be placing in our ”favorites” file.

Tuesday:

Know-It-All

Another post where explore the notion of a “close read.” Our conclusion: sometimes we trade off close reading for connections, thereby missing the author’s point.

Wednesday

Buyer Beware

We were thinking about the short-cuts we sometimes take in the name of saving time and caution readers that there might be hidden costs to materials labeled “Common Core aligned.”

Thursday:

Baseball and the Common Core: Lessons in Leveling the Playing Field

What can be learned from Moneyball, Billy Beane, and baseball that can help us put the Common Core initiative in perspective?

Friday:
Sh@!t People Say about the Common Core, Part 2

It seems that people are saying the darndest things about the Common Core and some of them don’t make much sense. We poke a little fun at these and implore readers to use a little common sense!

Recommended Resources from our Favorites File

Common Core Standards Drive Wedge in Education Circles
What’s the controversy behind the Common Core Standards? This USA Today article presents the argument from all fronts citing criticisms from Diane Ravitch that the standards have never been field-tested to David Coleman touting the renewed emphasis on content.

What Should Be Common in the Common Core Standards?
Very poignant IRA blog post written by Janet Allen imploring teachers to use what they know about good teaching as the work to understand and implement the Common Core Standards.

Dear Governor: Lobby to Save a Love of Reading
In this article, Anne Stone and Jeff Nichols look closely at ELA practice questions and note the reductive nature of assessments. They “lobby” for fostering a love of reading. Though this article came out in January ‘12, its message is always timely.

Socially Complex Text and the Common Core
Greg Mcverry expresses his frustration with the “hubbub revolving around text complexity” pointing out that the definitions for complex text don’t take into account the technology demands of 21st Century learners. He argues that it is impossible to address the true nature of Text Complexity without using the Internet.

Filed Under: Alignment, Close Reads, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Musings, Policy and Research, Reading, Text Based Questions, Text Complexity, Uncategorized Tagged With: Background Knowledge, CCSS, Close Read, Close Reads, Common Core, Common Core State Standards, Implementation, Instruction, Interpreting the Standards, Leadership, Policy and Research, Reading, Reflections, Research, Text Based Answers, Text Based Questions, Understanding the Shifts