Question: We are running some professional development sessions on argumentative writing in middle school and have been discussing the differences between “argument” and “persuasion.” We currently have a unit in our curriculum units around persuasive writing and have been talking about claims and proof vs. emotional appeal. We were wondering your thoughts on the subject as we transition to the Common Core.
It’s a “both/and” situation. Successful persuasion relies both upon the argument-evidence formula of argumentative writing and also the emotional appeal of persuasive writing.
At the argumentative level, students must be able to evaluate whether or not a claim (such as a newspaper headline) is supported by evidence. IT’s the classic “make an argument, break an argument” critical thinking challenge, and most daily newspapers and web sites offer real-world examples for teachers to use. It’s useful when teachers help students take that material and separate it out into “claims”, “arguments” and “evidence.” Then they can evaluate competing claims, arguments, and evidence.
However, evidentiary claims are not always the end of the argument. On some topics, such as the death penalty or childhood vaccinations, the statistics alone do not resolve the argument. If the death penalty is, overall, administered in a statistically accurate method most of the time, how do we deal with the fact that some innocent people are executed? Is it like collateral damage in war? Similarly, we value the freedom of parents to make health decisions for their kids, but what about when they expose other innocent children to deadly risks? Quantitative reasoning only helps us so far in these debates – we need both the mathematical and the emotional to help us sort them out.
I’m afraid that I haven’t made this much easier for you and your students, but in general, I think we need to challenge them much beyond the “save the whales” arguments on one side or the “save the dollars” on the other side. Policy (and humanity) depends upon both quantitative and qualitative reasoning.
Literacy is exploding with complexity and opportunities! Today’s literacy needs, in conjunction with expectations in the Common Core State Standards, call for explicit and direct literacy instruction. In particular, Disciplinary Literacy instruction increases students’ comprehension of increasing levels of complex text, as demanded in Standard 10. This type of instruction may represent a significant change for English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines, as indicated in Achieve’s, On the Road to Implementation, (2010).
One question that has arisen is how Disciplinary Literacy instruction coexists with Reading Across the Content strategies. What Disciplinary Literacy experts and studies have disclosed is the lack of generalizability of strategies. That is, secondary students require discipline-specific instructional support as text complexity increases, as noted in the groundbreaking work by experts including the Shanahans: “In literacy development, progression to higher levels in the pyramid means learning more sophisticated but less generalizable skills and routines.” This passage continues, “By the time adolescent students are being challenged by disciplinary texts, literacy instruction often had evaporated altogether or has degenerated into a reiteration of general reading strategies" (Harvard Ed. Review, 2008). As text complexity increases at the secondary level, disciplines requires specific instruction that builds upon strategies provided previously to fully comprehend increasing levels of complex texts. Intermediate students may also benefit from this type of explicit instruction as noted in the Carnegie Final Report, “The skills that students learn up until fourth grade are absolutely critical to later success, but they are simply not enough. Literacy demands change drastically in grades 4-12.” Both the textual demands, and the types of texts used, vary widely across different content areas. “Each content area in middle and high school demands a different approach to reading, writing, and thinking. Texts read in history class are different from those read in biology, which in turn are substantially different from novels, poems, or essays read in ELA” (Carnegie, 2010).
It is important for literacy concepts to coexist and build upon current practices for the secondary levels. The Leadership & Learning Center’s Disciplinary Literacy: Redefining Deep Understanding and Leadership for the 21st Century (Piercy and Piercy, 2011) and onsite seminar are designed to provide guidance and support to both English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines for implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Interactive instructional models and guidance in selecting complex texts, aligned with the cognitive demand within the Common Core State Standards’ Learning Progressions, as described in Larry Ainsworth’s, Rigorous Curriculum Design, are included. Through collaboration between teachers in different disciplines, students will be able to access higher levels of complex texts with the support of discipline-specific instruction and Standard 1’s text-dependent questioning, to enhance deeper understanding. Maryann Wiggs and I are providing models of ELA instruction described in this Blog during the Common Core Tour. Please consider joining us when the Tour arrives near you!
The ELA Common Core State Standards provide enormous opportunities for all students while creating challenges for instruction. With Standard 10 establishing the high expectation that all students read and understand complex text, the key word receiving much attention is, “all.” Yes, the expectation is for every student to independently read complex texts with understanding from Grade 2 through Grade 11 and into College and Careers. Currently, the most frequently asked questions revolve around Standard 10. These questions include, “How can I provide instruction to support my students’ capacity to read complex text?”Also, “Specifically, how can I support my students, who entered my classroom not reading on their enrolled grade level, to read such difficult texts in my content area, (including History/Social Studies, Science/Technical Subjects, Mathematics, and English Language Arts?”
In addition to providing student access to complex text by providing text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, as described in an earlier blog, guiding students to improve their close reading of text increases their understanding of complex text. Questions which focus directly on the text require students to practice close reading.
What is Close Reading?
Close Reading is keeping your eyes on the text to read the content very carefully, paying attention to details. Being quite different from a summary or the big idea, close reading requires active thinking and analyzing of the content to make decisions. You can see how text-dependent, discipline-specific questions support the need for students’ to incorporate close reading of their text because they must cite evidence directly from the text. This is a skill that will remain one of the students’ most practical literacy skills throughout their college and careers. Few disciplines do not benefit from students’ close reading to achieve understanding. The majority of career paths depend on close reading to remain current in the particular field. For this reason, close reading is a skill that supports students’ comprehension in different disciplines. Elementary, Middle, and High School students benefit from the close reading of complex texts in different content areas. If you would like models of complex text instruction which include close reading for elementary, middle, and high school, as required in Standard 10, join Maryann Wiggs and me for our literacy sessions on these topics during the Common Core Tour scheduled throughout the year.
Among the highest priorities of the Common Core State Standards is that students must read texts closely and acquire knowledge.
At each grade level, 80 to 90 percent of the Reading standards require text-dependent analysis. Questions that expect student responses to be text-dependent and discipline-specific require students to demonstrate that they understand the text details and can provide accurate evidence.
Questions that are text-dependent can only be answered correctly by close reading of the text. The evidence in the response comes directly from the text and does not depend on additional information from other sources. Although there is an important role for questions requiring a synthesis of information from a variety of sources, text-dependent questions assure knowledge from a specific text is clearly understood prior to leaping into synthesizing. This level of scrutiny of text increases expectations for accuracy for future thinking, which may include synthesizing, analyzing, and creating. It builds the critical foundation of knowledge needed for comprehending texts used in higher grade levels. Text-dependent questions are not the same as recall questions. They require understanding that extends beyond recalling basic facts. The use of inference is an important skill for close reading. Consider which of the following questions requires students to read text closely for text specific information:
How did Frederick Douglass’ ability to read contribute to his emotional struggle for freedom? Cite examples from the text to support your answer.
In what ways does America represent the hope for freedom that lived in the heart of Frederick Douglass? Although question “b” would generate a rich conversation, the open-ended nature of this question does not require students to demonstrate specific text-dependent knowledge.
Providing a set of sequenced questions is supportive in guiding students’ focus through the text. This set of questions begins with a simple focus on word, details, and the logic presented in the author’s argument, then expands to the entire text. Such a set of questions guides students in making inferences based on the evidence in the text. After grounding their understanding of the specific text, students are better prepared to apply evaluation thinking and offer their sound opinions.
Having responded to a set of text-dependent questions in all disciplines, students increase their ability to read with understanding. Gradually, as their reading skills and foundation of knowledge increase, they expand their capacity to read increasing levels of complex text with understanding.
Standard 10 in the Common Core State Standards establishes the high expectation that students read and understand increasing levels of complex text. This expectation begins informally at Kindergarten and Grade 1 through exposure to books that generate thought and incorporate Tier 2 vocabulary. From Grade 2 through Grade 11-CCR, Standard 10 formally states high grade level expectations for independent reading of complex texts. Providing instruction, which includes text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, increases student capacity for close reading and provides access to increasing levels of complex text.
Additional suggestions for providing “student access” to more complex text will be coming in my next blog. I welcome and value your thoughts on this evolving topic!
Are you or the fellow science educators you support in need of effective instructional strategies and activities specifically related to teaching science? As one of the ‘newer’ topics on the accountability platform of NCLB, teaching science effectively requires a unique set of skills and practices for teachers to employ. As a former biology teacher and administrator, I found Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program, by Lynn Howard, to be full of effective strategies for all educators, new and veteran. Lynn’s resource offers a multitude of interactive strategies for both the students and the teacher, as well as for administrators and instructional specialists to support and coach effective science classroom practice.
What also makes this series so effective and practical is Lynn’s examples which differentiate between lessons targeted for primary, upper elementary, middle school, and high school levels. While the framework is the same, these concrete examples allow for teachers and leaders to have specific models to build off of and implement in their classrooms. They are correlated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science process skills, which demonstrates the relevance and direct link to what teachers need to be successful in serving their students.
The five steps Lynn outlines in the series are:
Establishing an Effective Science Environment
Problem Solving
Conceptual Understanding (often missing in so many science classrooms—MY opinion)
Mastery of Science Information
Common Formative Assessments
These come together in a comprehensive but very manageable system for teachers and schools to employ that will provide the guidance and structure needed for quality teaching and learning in all science classrooms.
Teachers will enjoy incorporating them into their repertoire, leaders will have a guide for coaching and monitoring practice, and students will reap the rewards. The Five Easy Steps for a Balanced Science Program series will provide examples which are very user-friendly and reproducible. No school or district’s professional library would be complete without it!
Just as the Aorta carries blood from the heart, Common Core State Standard number 10 carries increasing levels of text complexity up from Grade 2 through Grade 12 and into College and Career Readiness. In many respects, text complexity is the hallmark of the CCSS as it reveals the depth of educators’ commitment to providing American students every opportunity to be prepared to meet future global challenges. Providing a specific Standard 10 presence in each grade level, including a place-holder in both Kindergarten and Grade 1 to allow foundations to be established, the Common Core’s text complexity standard provides a backward-mapped format to scaffold instruction. Notice the scaffolded expectations in the Staircase for Text Complexity within the following (Grades 11 – Career and College Readiness):
GRADES 11-CCR: By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature (informational texts) at the high end of the grade 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently. By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature (information texts) in the grades 11-CCR text complexity band proficiently, and with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
The combination of the increased text complexity and the depth of cognitive demand within the task, such as incorporating discipline-specific questions, generates higher levels of rigor.
Although text complexity is not a new concept, it has been an expectation buried in the haystack of educational assumptions. Without the existence of specific standards and measurable outcomes, its significance became lost. The Common Core State Standards acknowledge that increasing text complexity expectations is not a simple task. Increasing a student’s capacity to understand complex text is an arduous goal. The path provided by the Common Core State Standards represents commitment to closing this gap, informing teachers, and guiding deep understanding with clear expectations.
As we proceed to expand teachers’ expertise in increasing students’ deep understanding of complex text—and its use with disciplinary literacy instruction—I welcome and value your thoughts.
While The Center’s work to help school systems implement the Common Core is gaining wide recognition, it is important that we remain aware that different clients have different needs. This is particularly true with regard to the contentious issue of whether or not Power Standards still have a place in the era of the Common Core. I’d like to offer my ideas on this, in the same way that I have at our national institutes.
The Leadership and Learning Center respects local decisions on standards and curriculum.
This week, one client said that their state has determined that “all of the Common Core Standards are priorities” and “the Common Core is already prioritized.” Therefore, they will not be using the Power Standards approach. Two other clients said, “We are drowning in curriculum and the Common Core does not make it any better. We need help in prioritization.” The Center remains highly capable of serving the best interests of both clients.
The Center has extensive experience in previous standards adoptions that informs our practice today.
Because our work was widely used in the 1990’s when the number of states with standards expanded from 12 to 50, we have extensive experience and know what to do—and what not to do—when it comes to standards implementation. All of our clients have teachers and administrators who can recall those years as well. The common refrain was, “too many standards, too little time.” The truth then—and now—is that teachers can work as hard as they want to, but they do not always cover every part of a curriculum or every standard. Therefore, “perfect coverage” does not exist. The question is not whether teachers cover everything—they do not—but whether they choose wisely the standards that will be covered. That is why the Power Standards approach helped then and, in my opinion, is still helpful today.
The Common Core Standards are not equally important.
The most obvious example of a Power Standard in the Common Core is “information writing,” a K-12 requirement in English Language Arts, Science, and Social studies. Effective writing instruction takes time for students (making lots of edits and revisions) and for teachers (giving lots of feedback). If teachers give informational writing the time it deserves, then they will not always have time to cover every other standard.
We encourage schools to EXCEED the Common Core.
An essential part of The Center’s work in Rigorous Curriculum Design, Engaging Classroom Assessments, Making Standards Work, and Common Formative Assessments is not just “meeting” prevailing standards but creating opportunities for students to achieve “exemplary” performance—performance far above and beyond the standard. Our consistent message is about meeting and exceeding standards—not about lowering the bar. In fact, there is no evidence that frantic coverage leads to effective learning. There is abundant evidence that focus, feedback, and multiple opportunities to learn are all components necessary to meet and exceed standards.
The Center’s commitment to focus has credibility with teachers and administrators.
Although we know that many states will insist that “everything is important,” classroom teachers know better, particularly in a time of increasing class sizes and diminished resources. Every time I talk about respecting the conflicting demands on teachers’ time, I connect with audiences in a palpable way. We are not seeking to pick a fight with those who believe that every standard is equally important and must be covered. We respect that reasonable people differ on these matters. At the same time, we owe it to our clients to give them our best thinking on the subject. Some will accept our advice; others will not. We will know that we respected the wishes of our clients and also did our very best to serve them.
This is certainly not the last word on the Power Standards controversy, but I hope it sets the tone for the right kinds of discussions. Keep the clients first. Disagree without being disagreeable. Focus on evidence, research, and practical realities faced by teachers and school leaders.
Findings from a survey of state education agencies published Jan. 6 by the Center on Education Policy reveal that states may undercut their own implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
On the one hand, states say they adopted the standards because of their “rigor” and “potential to guide statewide education improvement.” However, states are also “expecting, rather than requiring, districts to…make complementary changes in curriculum and teacher programs.” Districts may or may not develop new curricula, materials, and instructional practices, provide relevant professional development, and implement standards-related teacher induction programs and evaluations.
Maybe state education agencies deserve some sympathy. Local school officials frequently deride them for being heavy-handed and intrusive. Sometimes that is true, but sometimes when school districts want to fend off complaints from disgruntled educators or parents, they use their state department of education as a convenient scapegoat: “The state requires us to do it…”
If one thing is certain in efforts to improve student performance, it is that courageous leadership is necessary from each level of school governance—local, state, and federal. Adopting the Common Core State Standards is an important step, but that is not enough. States have been down this road many, many times in the past. They know that when school districts are left to choose for themselves whether to take difficult steps to improve education, some will not do so. Often, these are districts with persistent records of low performance, and many students from low-income families.
The Common Core State Standards will not have the impact state education agencies want unless states do four things: (1) require school districts to take actions that states know are essential for effective standards implementation; (2) provide high quality and sustained technical assistance to support districts’ implementation of the standards; (3) monitor and assess standards implementation in each school district; and (4) publicly report the status and results of districts’ standards implementation during each of the next five years.
The Common Core State Standards are not stand-alone reform. They are simply statements that describe what students should know and be able to do as a result of their public education. The standards are a challenging vision, but that is all they are. Without more effective curricula, professional development, and instruction, students will not develop the knowledge and skills necessary to perform at standard. State education agencies know this, and they should not leave it to school districts to decide for themselves whether they will “make complementary changes” that will determine whether the standards facilitate improved student performance, or frustrate it.
We embrace standards not because they are perfect, but because they are vastly superior to the Bell Curve—the way that students were evaluated before the standards movement. The Bell Curve gave us the worst of all worlds—it made some students inappropriately complacent just because they “beat” other students, and it labeled other students as failures even if they were proficient. Neither the Wisconsin State Standards nor the new Common Core State Standards are perfect, but they are far better than the Bell Curve. Embracing standards does not mean that teachers have to be like robots—the same standard can be taught in a variety of different ways. Wisconsin teachers have, as have teachers around the world, created new scenarios and new performance tasks to teach standards in different and unique ways so that students are engaged in learning.
Fairness yes, mindless repetition, no.
One of the fundamental commitments of standards-based reform is that of fairness—all students have an equal opportunity to achieve proficiency. But that does NOT mean that teaching needs to be reduced to mindless repetition and identical instruction. Think of a great music class: the end goal may be playing “Minuet in G,” but each student will learn and improve in different ways. Standards-based education does not have to work against teacher creativity; rather, effective implementation of standards depends upon teacher creativity.
Teacher judgment yes, teacher anarchy, no.
The use of standards does require a combination of teacher freedom and teacher support for standards. For example, there are many different ways for teachers to help students reach proficiency in informational writing. But it is not acceptable for teachers to say, “I will not teach informational writing because I don’t believe in it.” The new Common Core State Standards make clear that all students, K-12, will benefit from more informational writing. That is consistent with The Center’s research that nonfiction writing helps students in math, science, social studies, reading comprehension, and other areas.
Don’t wait for Washington to have final answers – take initiative now in curriculum, assessment, and teaching.
2
Do compare your present standards to the Common Core – identify what will not change and where the greatest changes will be for your particular grade levels and location.
3
Don’t settle for off-the-shelf “teacher-proof” curricula and assessments.
4
Do engage teachers in the process of unwrapping the standards and designing rigorous curricula and assessments.
5
Don’t settle for fiction, fantasy, and personal narrative as the majority of student writing assignments.
6
Do increase significantly the amount of informational writing by students, starting in kindergarten.
7
Don’t expect English/Language Arts faculty to bear the sole responsibility for literacy.
8
Do engage every faculty member in every subject at every grade level in a universal commitment to student literacy.
9
Don’t try to do it all at once or all alone.
10
Do ask for help, including online and in-person support from The Leadership and Learning Center.
