Common Core State Standards Blog

Recent Blog Posts

  • Q&A - Argument vs. Pursuasion in the Common Core
    Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.
    11/21/2011

    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...

    Read More >>

  • The Text Complexity “Staircase” in the Common Core Standards
    Thomasina Piercy, Pd.D.
    04/08/2011

    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,...

    Read More >>

  • Prioritizing the Common Core State Standards
    Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.
    02/14/2011

    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.

    1. The Leadership and Learning Center respects local decisions on standards and curriculum.

      2. 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.

    2. The Center has extensive experience in previous standards adoptions that informs our practice today.

      3. 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...

    Read More >>

  • States Hold the Key to Core Standards Implementation
    Hayes Mizell
    01/13/2011

    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....

    Read More >>

  • How can we as educators ensure that we are focusing on standards while simultaneously developing student creativity?

    Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.
    01/12/2011
    1. Standards yes, standardization, no.

      2. 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.

    2. Fairness yes, mindless repetition, no.

      3. 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...

    Read More >>

  • Design and Organization of the Common Core State Standards

    Maryann Wiggs
    01/06/2011

    One of the most salient accomplishments in design considerations of the ELA Standards document are the learning pathways that a student follows as they advance from one grade-specific standard to the next, leading to proficiency in each of the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards. While the anchor standards taken together serve to provide focus on what matters most for College and Career Readiness in the area of English language arts, coherence is accomplished by the explicit articulation of knowledge and skills along the learning progressions. The specificity of the content within the learning progressions makes visible and clear the expectations for student learning (CCSSO & NGA Center, 2010). In other words, the grade-specific standards clearly define competence at every level of schooling.

    The “spiral effect” is a useful metaphor relating to the ascending level of difficulty embedded in the content of each grade-specific standard as it approaches the College and Career Anchor Standard. The CCR serves as the central point or significant learning expectation toward which all grade-specific standards aspire. As students move along the plane of a particular learning trajectory they study the same expectation each year at ever increasing increments of complexity and sophistication. The gradual cycling through repeated exposure to iterations of the same concepts and processes each year breaks complex learning expectations into...

    Read More >>

  • Top Ten Ways to Get Ready for the Common Core
    Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.
    12/15/2010
    ...
    1 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.
    Read More >>
X
Loading