Testimony for the Georgia House of Representatives Study Committee on the “Federal Government’s Role in Education”
Title: Comments about the CCSS-ELA in the Early Grades
October 21, 2014
Presented by Caitlin McMunn Dooley, Ph.D.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this House Committee meeting. My name is Caitlin McMunn Dooley, and I am here as an education researcher and a parent of school-aged children in Georgia. I am an associate professor of education at Georgia State University with 25 years of experience as an educator, and I am speaking as a concerned citizen with specialized knowledge about this issue.
I see that you’ve heard from many people already about the process for developing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the private interests involved in that process, the lack of funding and support for the resources and professional development necessary to effectively implement the Standards, and—as you have heard from several teachers—the resiliency of Georgia’s educators to adapt and adjust as yet another mandate is given to them. My comments here are meant to supplement the information that you’ve already received.
My research is about children’s early literacy development. I study how elementary–aged children learn to read and write; therefore, I will talk specifically about the implementation of the CCSS for English Language Arts (ELA). I have co-authored several publications, overseen a dissertation, and am an editor of an academic journal that has featured research on the CCSS for ELA. In addition, my children have attended public schools in Georgia during these transitional years and been administered the Standards of Learning Objectives (SLO) tests that have accompanied the implementation of the CCSS.
I have come to the conclusion that the Standards, while well intended, require some adjustments to make them useful and supportive of learning. I speak today so that you can appreciate and perhaps avoid the unintended consequences of implementing the CCSS in the early grades
My comments are provided as recommendations, with specific citations from the CCSS, and research-based justifications for my recommendations:
· When considering which texts to select, educators need to be aware that (contrary to the CCSS claim) text difficulty and complexity has increased, not decreased,in the last half century.
CCSS CLAIM: There is a need for more challenging text because “K-12 reading texts have actually trended downward in difficulty in the last half century” (CCSS Appendix A, p. 8).
A re-examination of the two studies cited as evidence for this claim refutes this conclusion for the primary-grades (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013), showing that third-grade texts were most difficult in the latest period studied (1980s). Similarly, Gamson, Lu, and Eckert (2013) demonstrated that texts in grades 3-6 have either gotten more complex or stabilized over the past 50 years. Further, studies not included by CCSS writers show that first-grade texts have gotten substantially harder over the past 50 years (e.g., Foorman, Francis, Davidson, Harm, & Griffin, 2004).
Given the lack of empirical support for the CCSS authors’ assumption that texts are becoming less complex, we need to be sure that we are not trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Overemphasis on text complexity can be a dangerous distraction from more pressing issues such as instructional quality, equitable funding for educational resources, and access to a wide variety of texts.
· Be wary of the emphasis on making children progress quickly through “increasingly complex texts,” especially in the early grades.
CCSS-ELA Standard 10 presents goals for students’ ability to read increasingly increasingly complex texts across the grades to ensure proficiency with texts of college and careers by high school graduation.
AND
CCSS CLAIM: “To grow, students must read lots...of ‘complex’ texts” (Adams, 2009, p. 182, as cited in CCSS, Appendix A, p. 4).
Research has not yet identified what exactly makes for “text complexity,” nor are there agreed upon “grade level” texts in my field. The CCSS presents somewhat strict “bands” for grade-level texts that are accelerated in the early grades based on growth-curve analysis of one cohort of children in one state (Williams, 2006). There is no justification to generalize this cohort to the entire population of K-12 students in the U.S.. Nor was the original study about instructional effectiveness; it was a description of growth among a relatively small group of children. That growth curve is now being used as the default goal of instruction due to its prominence in the CCSS.
Critics suggest that the emphasis on acceleration toward increasingly complex texts is perhaps to account for a gap in texts that are complex in the later years. However, researchers do not know if showing a young child a harder text will, in fact, cause that child to become a better reader later. Appropriate reader-text-task-context fit for instructional effectiveness is a function of student proficiency, language, background knowledge, interest, and instructional context.
· Be wary of “close reading” as the primary goal of reading comprehension– it can result in poor instruction and invalid assessments of reading.
CCSS-ELA “Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex works of literature.” (p. 3)
AND
CCSS- ELA “Key Ideas and Details” for K-5 standards “1. Read closely what the text says…” (p. 10); and for 6-12 standards: “1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly….” (p. 60).
The need for children to read “increasingly complex texts” via “close reading” is a claim that is being questioned from many sides (Hinchman & Moore, 2013; Gamson, Lu, & Eckert, 2013; Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013; Mesmer & Hiebert, in press). Pearson (2013), former Dean of Education and long-time reading researcher, suggests that the aspirations for “close reading” suggested by the CCSS-ELA seem anchored in extensive attention to what cognitive research says we do when we comprehend what we read. These expectations represent the mental and situational models of texts that readers construct for close reading (Standards 1, 3, 5) and interpretation (Standards 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). Unfortunately, the standards omit attention to sociocultural aspects of such reading.
Moreover, the widely adopted Revised Publishers Criteria, written by two of the CCSS-ELA authors (Coleman & Pimental, 2012), undercut the standards’ representation of reading comprehension using methods that focus solely on what texts say--close reading--and minimize attention to a child’s prior knowledge and personal interpretation. This is especially troubling because it means that assessments of the CCSS will focus on children’s ability to decipher a pre-determined meaning rather than construct their own. It’s a strategy that is more in line with assessment than instruction and one that is contrary to what we know about how children develop reading comprehension. A Washington Post op-ed by Professor Aaron Barlow wrote about this issue in Feb. 2014.
· Instruction, assessment, and children’s access to texts should not depend solely on text leveling systems like Lexile levels.
CCSS Supplement to Appendix A: “New research on text difficulty” presents correlations of metrics such as Lexiles and ATOS and levels of text.
The CCSS promote quantitative “Lexile” measures (notably, Lexile is a for-profit, private company) at the detriment of significant research on qualitative elements, including (especially) a reader’s background knowledge. Research to refute the claim that readability formulas are appropriate as a basis for state policy is long-standing and substantial (e.g., Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Gamson, Lu, & Eckert, 2013; Klare, 1984). This is likely because the reader him/herself is basically ignored in readability formulas—to the detriment of readers and instructors.
Additionally, Lexiles depend primarily on digital formulas for identifying the difficulty level of vocabulary within a text. This can be a problem. For example, if a reader is reading about a specialized topic—where a specialized term like “digestion” is used repeatedly—then that text will be deemed a higher difficulty level simply because the term is used many times (even though repeated exposure, in this case, may help a reader). Additionally, Lexiles usually do not account for the length of text. For young readers, however, we know that a longer text is more difficult to comprehend (Mesmer & Hiebert, in press) even if the vocabulary level is the same. For early grades, and young readers, the Lexile frameworks are less reliable.
· A broader range of texts should be available and supported by instruction than those promoted by the CCSS.
CCSS Appendix B “Text Exemplars” provides a 100+ page list of old books.
The “text exemplars” in ELA Appendix B are admittedly is not an exhaustive list; however, these texts are actively being promoted and, for all practical purposes, create the new “canon” for readers. The books listed are not representative of an increasingly diverse student population (see Sept. 16, 2014 Washington Post article titled “How the Common Core’s Recommended Books Fail Children of Color”). Additionally, critics have found the average publication date to be more than 50 years ago and the most recent text for grades 6-8 to be 20 years ago.
· In this digital age for our children to be able to compete in a global economy when they graduate, technology and digital literacy should be foregrounded in instruction and more consideration is necessary with regards to how digital texts can be effectively taught and integrated into assessment.
CCSS put technology in the periphery of reading and writing and ignored digital texts altogether as legitimate texts in Appendix B (Drew, 2012).
In an age in which we are seeing the types of texts available to children expanding (hypertexts, websites, multimedia texts, interactive texts), the CCSS list has gone back in time rather than looking forward. Just to give a little perspective, recall that the first iPad was introduced in 2010, the same year that the CCSS were introduced. Times have changed and so have texts.
The Internet is relegated as a hyperlinked informational text, rather than the multimodal digital platform that it is. “The exclusion of the Internet as a central text in the standards and accompanying documents will under-prepare students for the 21st century literacy demands and has the potential to further alienate at-risk readers and writers” (Drew, 2012, p. 324). There is also a lack of focus within the CCSS on media literacy standards as related to critical analysis and production of media and digital texts (Hobbs, 2010; Ohler, 2013).
· Emphasize social, emotional, physical, and psychological health, in addition to academic learning, especially in the early grades; academic learning without the rest is no good.
CCSS for Kindergarten through third grade represent a “push down” of cognitive/academic learning standards rather than for the purpose of supporting holistic learning among young children (Hoffman, Paciga, & Teale, in press; Bomer & Maloch, 2012). I know that this House Study Committee has already seen the Alliance for Childhood’s position statement denouncing the CCSS for early grades. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has also cautioned that implementation of the CCSS threatens to over-emphasize academic learning (especially in math and language arts) and under-emphasize social and emotional learning goals that are fundamental to supporting children’s healthy development. By over-emphasizing the academic elements of education, implementation of the CCSS with high-stakes assessments and accountability will threaten the ability for educators to emphasize other important aspects of children’s learning.
· Reduce the “stakes” associated with the CCSS, especially in the early grades. While the CCSS document does not dis-allow the introduction of additional standards focused on holistic (sometimes called non-cognitive) outcomes, the reality is that the “stakes” will drive what is taught. One example of the “stakes” are the SLO tests, introduced by GA to measure the CCSS as well as provide data for the teacher evaluation. Two things are important to consider here:
(1) Children in grades K-12 take the SLO tests twice for every “course”: once as a pre-test and again as a post-test. Right now, although there is no Milestones test for grades K-2, there are SLO tests for those grades. Early grades teachers complain that the test takes too much time from instruction, the test is more of a test of a child’s attention and, when on the computer, it is a test of computer-knowledge and keyboarding, rather than true testimony of a child’s knowledge.
(2) The Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM) score for each teacher (a mandated element of the ECEA Flexibility Waiver) depends on the students’ SLO scores. This raises the stakes even more, making decisions about whether a teacher is fired dependent on SLOs and further pressuring this cognitive-only approach to instruction.
I say this knowing that the CCSS are part of a package deal built by a consortium of private entities, including the Gates Foundation, New Schools Venture Fund, Teach for America, and other organizations pushing for market-driven changes to the education sector (Ravitch, 2013; Rechhow & Snyder, 2014). When introduced by the National Governor’s Association, the CCSS were part of a deal to create “a set of common standards” along with increased use of standardized tests and increased accountability using those test scores to rate, hire, and fire teachers and to rank states. The federal government got on board with RTT funds and ESEA Waivers—but this boat had already taken sail long before the feds got involved. A recent article by Sarah Reckhow and Jeffrey Snyder in Educational Researcher, one of the most highly regarded journal in education, demonstrates how 15 of the largest funders utilize convergent grant-making to maximize political impact on Capitol Hill and in state capitols around the U.S.—doubling their contributions between 2000-2010.
What is best for private markets may not be what’s best for children’s learning. There is no evidence that this package deal can produce a more effective workforce or improve student achievement (Lavigne, 2014). In fact, the opposite might be true: We have new evidence that our most vulnerable children—students living in poverty—are detrimentally affected by high teacher turnover rates even when the teachers who stay rate highly (Murphy, Hallinger, & Heck, 2013).
In sum, I realize that the CCSS adoption came with the caveat that they could not be significantly adjusted; however, my hope is that my recommendations can spur improved circumstances for children and their teachers.