Common Core First Look

  • Published on
    14-Apr-2018

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    1/57

    Common Core in the Schools:A First Look at Reading Assignments

    by Timothy Shanahan, with Ann Duett

    Foreword and Summary by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee

    October 2013

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    2/57

    2 | Thomas B. Fordham Institute

    The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is the nations leader in advancing educational excellence or every

    child through quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as on-the-ground action and advocacy

    in Ohio. It is aliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this publication is a joint project o

    the Foundation and the Institute. For urther inormation, please visit our website at www.edexcellence.net

    or write to the Institute at 1016 16th St. NW, 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036. The Institute is neither

    connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    3/57

    Common Core in the Schools: A First Look at Reading Assignments | 1

    ContentsForeword and Summary ......................................................................................................... 3

    Background ......................................................................................................................... 3

    The Common Core ............................................................................................................... 6

    Findings............................................................................................................................... 8

    Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 9

    Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ 9

    Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10

    Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12

    What Changes in Instruction Do the CCSS Demand? ............................................................... 15

    Findings ............................................................................................................................... 19

    Elementary School ............................................................................................................... 24

    Middle School ...................................................................................................................... 28

    High School ......................................................................................................................... 34

    Sidebar: How consistent are high school reading assignments? ............................................. 39

    Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 47

    Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 49

    Methodology and participant characteristics ......................................................................... 49

    Research goals .................................................................................................................... 49

    Sampling, access to participants, and survey ........................................................................ 49

    Focus groups ....................................................................................................................... 51

    Readabilities o exemplar texts ............................................................................................. 51

    Endnotes .............................................................................................................................. 53

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    4/57

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    5/57

    Common Core in the Schools: A First Look at Reading Assignments | 3

    Foreword and Summaryby Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee

    For more than two decades, states have been working to delineate what students should know and

    be able to do in English language arts (ELA) and math across grades K-12. Beginning in 2001,

    the No Child Let Behind Act (NCLB) demanded that each state assess student reading and math

    achievement annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. Schools and districts were to

    be held to account or ensuring that students met or exceeded state prociency goals in those two

    subjects.

    These eorts seem to have made an impact in math, where achievement in the earlier grades rose

    between 2001 and 2012. In reading, however, scores have barely budged. At the same time, the

    ederal government pushed its Reading First initiative, which aimed to ensure that all schools based

    their reading instruction in grades K-3 on reading science, particularly as delineated by the National

    Reading Panel, and including a ull dose o phonics and phonemic awareness.

    How can it be that a nationwide push to improve reading has had only a negligible impact on overall

    reading achievement, even among our nations highest-perorming districts and schools? How can it

    be that a country that has been working so hard to boost its students prowess in this key subject

    arguably since Rudol Flesch rst raised awareness o the problem in 1955 with his much-discussed

    book, Why Johnny Cant Read: And What You Can Do About Ithas made such paltry gains? Why are

    other countries surpassing us on international gauges o student reading perormance such as PIRLS

    and PISA? Why are SAT and ACT English scores also fat (or worse)?

    BackgroundNote to reader: This section supplies history and context or the analysis and fndings oered below; i

    you want to skip to a summary o the present study, please turn to page 8.

    Part o the answer, o course, can be ound in the ercely ought reading wars over such issues as

    phonics versus whole language. Never mind that thirteen years ago the National Reading Panel

    ollowing and improving upon a path rst marked by Jeanne Chall back in 1967produced solid

    proo that a strong early-reading program, the kind that works or the vast majority o children, rests on

    ve instructional pillars. The reading wars continued regardless. So did commercial rivalries and

    proessional jealousies in this crowded eld.

    We suspected that there might still be more to this complicated and rather depressing pictureand

    to investigate that possibility we at the Fordham Institute resolved to probe into several possible

    contributing actors.

    First, while No Child Let Behind compelled each state to set ELA (as well as math) standards, their

    quality and rigor varied wildly. Our most recent review o state ELA standards ound that only ourteen

  • 7/27/2019 Common Core First Look

    6/57

    4 | Thomas B. Fordham Institute

    states earned an A or B or the quality, content, and rigor o their K-12 ELA standards. Twenty-one

    states earned a D or an F. This means that, while states may have set standards, the expectations

    guiding teaching and learning did little to advance quality curriculum and instruction.

    Even more troubling, states set their prociency bars at very dierent levels. That meant a student

    who was judged procient in reading in one state could be deemed below basic in another.

    Second, one o the most-discussed (and unintended) side eects o the NCLB era has been that, in

    an eort to improve reading and math achievement, schools have sidelined other vital subjects such

    as history and science. This might seem logical rom a school perspectiveater all, its dicult to

    understand those meaty subjects until students can read. Yet reading comprehension itsel depends

    on content knowledge and vocabulary, not just successully decoding groups o letters and words.

    As E.D. Hirsch, Jr. eloquently explained in a 2003 article, when NCLB implementation was barely

    underway:

    ater several decades o researching this dicult subject o reading comprehension rom varied

    angles in the humanities and sciences, I can report that although what we dont know still ar

    exceeds what we do, there is current scientic agreement on at least three principles that have

    useul implications or improving students reading comprehension. The three principles (which

    subsume a number o others) are these:

    1. Fluency allows the mind to concentrate on comprehension;

    2. Breadth o vocabulary increases comprehension and acilitates urther learning; and

    3. Domain knowledge, the most recently understood principle, increases fuency, broadens

    vocabulary, and enables deeper comprehension.1

    Tons o research underline the links among vocabulary, background knowledge, and reading

    comprehension. And NAEP results show a strong correlation between reading achievement and

    vocabulary. Specically, results show that:

    Fourth-grade students perorming above the 75th percentile in reading comprehension in 2011

    also had the cohorts highest average vocabulary scores.

    Lower-perorming ourth graders (at or below the 25th percentile in reading comprehension)

    had the lowest average vocabulary scores.

    Similar patterns were evident or grade 8 in 2011 and or grade 12 in 2009. (Grade 12 was not

    assessed in 2011.)

    This makes sense when you consider that it i

Recommended

View more >