There’s a Lot to Like about Common Core

So much has been said and written about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); and, as with any new and controversial idea, the public is left with the task of separating the truth from the hype -- on both sides.  I like the Common Core, however.  I’ve ‘met’ the standards, and there isn’t one I don’t like.  I contend that the best of our country’s teachers have been teaching common-core-style for years.   

To illustrate, I picked two examples, somewhat randomly, from the English Language Arts CCSS.  Meet “Read closely to make logical inferences” and “Describe the logical connection between particular sentences and paragraphs in a text.”   I wouldn’t mind going to work with either one because they are more authentic and more demanding than some common educational practices in the recent past. 

Let me explain.  As the English Department Chair and a strong curriculum leader in my past, I cringed when I saw students taking reading quizzes.  ‘Where does Of Mice and Men take place?’ ‘List the main characters in Romeo and Juliet who are dead at the end of the play?’ ‘In Cather in the Rye, why does Holden go to New York?’  Questions of this nature measure either compliance or memory, not comprehension.  The students have either read (or at least read the Cliff Notes) … or they haven’t.  They either remember the intricate details or they don’t.  

The Common Core State Standards for Language Arts demonstrate to me just how far we have come from a “Trivial Pursuit” style of learning in this new century.  I also like the CCSS’ potential to affect changes in instruction – particularly to change the level and depth of the deeper questions we ask.

One argument against Common Core states that the emphasis on close reading strips children of the joy inherent in reading.  Studying the text ruins the experience.  The opponents ask if it isn’t important to help children develop a love of reading … and not just read for information or to evaluate, critique, and compare?’  The ‘just’ is my emphasis because the argument isn’t either/or – either you read closely or you enjoy what you read. 

Let’s look at the first CCSS above and consider “Jack and the Beanstalk,” a story with which most people have some familiarity. Typically, a teacher might want to assess whether or not students comprehended the story: ‘What did Jack get when he traded the cow?’ (Magic beans.)  ‘What did Jack find at the top of the giant beanstalk?’ (The ogre. ‘What is an ogre?’ might be a logical follow-up question.)  ‘What was the first thing Jack stole?’ (A golden egg.)  ‘The second thing?’ (The hen that laid a golden egg every day?) ‘The third thing?’ (The golden harp.)  And so on.

Common Core, however, expects teachers to change their style of questioning and pursue concepts which are not obvious or can’t be found through skimming the text -- concepts which require close-reading.  These questions require kids to both reread and to read between the lines.  A good Common Core question asks, “If Jack already has the hen that lays a golden egg each day, why does he go up the beanstalk for the harp?”  I would contend that as a young reader I would have been much more fascinated by the ‘why?’ than the ‘what?’  Asking me to reread and go back to the earlier pieces of the story for a closer look at Jack would not have ruined it for me.  It would have given it ‘dimension.’

Another argument against common core is that it is too often expects students to fill in the missing pieces when a text is not explicit. ‘How can they do that?’ critics complain.  Kids can’t know what isn’t there.  I once read this example about building bridges in America and it resonated with me.  The first paragraph told about building the Brooklyn Bridge, a

suspension bridge, across a large expanse of water, with its pylons under water.  Another bridge crossed the very expansive Mississippi River; and another, ridiculously high in the air, crossed the Rio Grande.  Each paragraph gave details about how the bridges were built.  

In the second CCSS above, we see that excellent readers sometimes need to connect a series of ideas to arrive at the author’s purpose.  In this example, in each case, the bridge was built despite the difficulties each unique setting presented.  So, the author’s purpose was not “to show how hard it is to build bridges” but “to show how American ingenuity overcame obstacles to get the job done.”  There’s a subtle, but important difference.  It’s our job to make sure our children have opportunities to talk about and refine their conclusions. 

Because I’m in the business, I frequently read and think about the CCSS, which expect kids to think deeply and problem-solve.  I know the standards are challenging, for students and teachers.  But there isn’t one I would dismiss as nonsense. 

[If you would like to read the CCSS yourself, click HERE.]