Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy piece on Common Core reading from NPR

This piece:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/11/11/356357971/common-core-reading-the-new-colossus

rather neatly exemplifies the promise and problems of detracking as discussed in the now-closed thread. On the one hand, we see an inspiring depiction of a class working with a rather difficult poem and figuring it out--including learners considered "weak." On the other, as the parent of a first grader who is currently reading and writing about a 6th-grade level book in class (thanks to a great teacher), the passages about "unleveling" and making everyone read grade-level text struck cold fear into my heart.

I'd be more worried about the "unleveling" if the leveling hadn't sounded like such a complete mess. No reading of nonfiction, or when they do, the text is modified among the different reading levels to become nonsensible?

"The New Colossus" does not appear to be at a 5th-grade lexile... high school would be my guess.

As long as the first-grader reading at a 6th-grade level has a G/T class available, the article isn't talking about our kids.

I don't think there was ever no reading of nonfiction--that seems like an exaggeration. I know my DD has read tons of ho-hum nonfiction passages for reading comp practice. I do think fiction has been emphasized for full book reading, but I don't disagree with that myself.

I also agree that The New Colossus does not seem like 5th grade level, which appear to contradict everything said earlier in the piece--??

My first grader is reading that book in his regular class, in lieu of the reading the rest of the class is doing.

My experience with leveled reading is that my kids get stuck in a level that is lower than what they read at home. I think DS7 got stuck in an "O", which is like third grade, because he is not able to explain text well from someone else's point of view (and it's developmentally appropriate for him to not be able to do that.) He has been stuck at a level O since kindergarten. The other advanced readers are the same. So because he is stuck on just one skill, leveled reading gives him texts that don't have a rich vocabulary, are phonetically too easy, simply stories and plots, etc. Luckily the teacher lets him bring in his own books from home and she ignores his tested level.

On reading assessments that do not ask the kids to "explain", DS does great, and is at around a 7th grade equivalent (meaning he scores the same as 7th graders). So if leveled readers are given I think it depends on the method used to assess the kids, and some methods are a lot more ridiculous than others. DS is currently reading all the Unicorn Chronicles books in class...they are about 500 pages long and on the back it says 5th grade level. He understands the books just fine. He wouldn't read them otherwise. If the teacher stuck to the "levels" she wouldn't be allowing that and he would probably be reading "Horrible Harry" or "Magic Treehouse" or something of the like.

The article quotes a teacher trainer saying:
"...to make sure all students are reading text that is at their grade level."

What I read in the linked material is:
"The standards call for a staircase of increasing complexity so that all students are ready for the demands of college- and career-level reading no later than the end of high school. The standards also outline a progressive development of reading comprehension so that students advancing through the grades are able to gain more from what they read."

"A progressive development of reading comprehension" is a pretty strong concept which wouldn't be satisfied by everyone reading the same material. Stairstepping isn't going to happen if a third of the class is at the bottom of the stairs and another third is at the top.

Just like the math discussion, it's the interpretation and the implementation. This article illustrates exactly the sort of mis-reading by a responsible party (the teacher trainer in this case) that muddies the waters.

Interesting to see it laid out! I am actually one of the few posters on this forum who does not believe that the Common Core standards are particularly bad or singularly blame-worthy or the primary source of their children's ills. The bigger problem appears to be the latitude accorded individual districts in implementing the Common Core standards as well as the previous standards and practices in place.

I witnessed the transition to Common Core ELA in DS/DD's 5th grade classroom last year. It was at times chaotic because the district was literally still creating new curriculum for 2nd quarter during 1st quarter. They did away with literature textbooks from the big publishing houses. By the way, the curriculum choices were actually quite good. The previous stand-alone pseudo GT classroom was better for my high ability kids, but I believe that our transition will on balance probably be an improvement for a majority of the other students. DS/DD's GT classroom was dismantled and funneled into 3 of the 6 5th grade classrooms. Implementation in those three classroom was bumpy because teachers had to teach to the whole class and then alternately work with each of the three ability groups. For my kids, it was eye-opening and slow-moving when the class work together as a unit. At least in our district, there is a portion of the curriculum in common for each grade as well as distinct curriculum based on ability.

In middle school, the pseudo-GT ELA classrooms use different curriculum from the regular ELA classrooms. My 6th graders are reading full-text Twain and Shakespeare, etc.

I think the transition to Common Core was less painful in our district partly because our standards were already relatively high and the different subjects areas were already integrated and the writing expectations had already been in place for many years. Nevertheless, non-fiction definitely assumed an even larger presence and evidence citing even more prominent.

I am not sure how you would leveled that poem but it looks far less difficult than poems that my oldest read throughout regular ELA classes in high school and that my 6th graders are reading in GT 6th grade. It actually looks like stuff they read in GT 4th, which used a 5th grade text.

Agreed.

However the article describes The article specifies reading text "at their grade level", not "at their ability level", not AT OR ABOVE grade level. No G/T class availability is described.

Based on this evidence from the text (both what the article does say, and what the article does not say, hint at, or imply) the article could be talking about our kids in the classroom.

Which linked materials are you referring to? In "drawing sufficient evidence from texts" (as the standards mention), much of what I see at the common core state standards link to ELA grade 3-12 curriculum standards (Coleman & Pimentel, 19 pages, Revised 4/12/2012) references reading at "grade level".

"Scaffolding" is also mentioned to support students who've not yet developed abilities as readers.

I do not find mention of students who are beyond proficient.

I find one reference to reading at a student's OWN level. This is found in a context which places several parameters on what is deemed a student's choice: A limited amount of flexibility is indicated when the document states

I don't know--I'd say that poem is something my fifth grader might read in her gifted-only class now but that some kids would struggle with. I wouldn't put it at high school, but not fifth grade. Of course, if we look at the Common Core lexile standards we see that standards for reading level by grade have changed:

https://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/

Grade 5 under those standards goes up to 1010 Lexile, something previously considered higher end of 8th-grade level under the old standards. I've contemplated this chart a few times before and wondered at its intent and implications.

In reading the chart, the new common core levels are much broader through 3rd grade, after that they are higher than the lexile levels previously ascribed to each grade.

Because this is not a common core link, but rather a lexile link, it is possible that the intent and purpose of this chart is an attempt by lexile to try to remain relevant (and aligned) in the new era of common core?

As an example, the new CC Lexile standards put Percy Jackson at a "third-grade" level and Harry Potter just slightly out of range for third grade. I don't at all consider that typical third-grade level, though it could perhaps be in a highly competent classroom of chidren of educated parents. I'd say that many average third-graders are still reading things like Secrets of Droon and Magic Treehouse--early chapter books.

It's somewhat unclear, but it looks like they drew the numbers semi-directly from CC materials. (Numbers are asterisked and footnoted as coming from *COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH, LANGUAGE ARTS, APPENDIX A (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION), NGA AND CCSSO, 2012")

Appendix A which you mentioned does discuss lexiles, including "legitimate questions can be raised about the tools used to measure text complexity... ", for example: In comparing the charts in both documents, the ranges do not match. Example:
- Appendix A: grades 2-3 band, "Lexile ranges aligned to CCR expectations" 450-790
- Lexile document: grades 2-3, "2012 CCSS Text Measures" 420-820

Appendix A does not seem to link to or reference the lexile webpage as a resource.

Interesting. Yes, the "Grapes of Wrath" problem is why I think Lexiles are pretty dumb. They're assigned by computer (I mean, of course they are), and boy, it shows. They probably mean more for nonfiction, come to think of it...

The link provided immediately before the quote I referenced from the NPR piece.

and that would be... three major shifts in instruction... n'cest pas?