Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky

7/22/2019 Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky

1/16

Comparison of Oklahomas 2007 ELA Standards and Common Cores ELA Standards

Comparison of Common Cores English Language Arts Standards and

Oklahomas 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills for English Language Arts

Sandra StotskyProfessor emerita, University of Arkansas

April 2014

Executive Summary

This report responds to the request by State Representative Jason Nelson for a comparison ofOklahomas 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) in English Language Arts withCommon Cores standards in English language arts.1Based on the results of this comparison, thisreport concludes that the implementation of Common Cores ELA standards and the use of anystate tests based on them are unlikely to lead to any academic advance for Oklahomas students,especially its neediest students. Oklahomas 2007 ELA standards were stronger than CommonCores and it is not at all clear why Oklahoma traded in a stronger set of ELA standards for aweaker set with many flaws and hidden strings.

The comparison provided in this report drew on criteria I used for reviews of state Englishlanguage arts standards for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in 1997, 2000, and 2005. Most ofthe criteria are similar in wording to their counterparts in the 2005 review form.

As Table 1 suggests, Oklahomas 2007 standards in English Language Arts are about equalin quality to, if not better than, Common Cores English language arts standards in all fourcategories of criteria. Both sets of standards need strengthening, however.

Table 1: Average Points per Section and Total Average for Both Sets of ELA Standards

CC OK

Reading Pedagogy and Independent Reading 3.3 3

Value of Literary Study 1 2.3

Organization and Disciplinary Coverage of the Standards 1.7 2.7

Quality of the Standards 1.4 1.6

Total Average 1.85 2.4

The reviewers comments in the Fordham Institutes 2010 review of state standards corroboratethe results of this comparison, which serve as the basis for three recommendations:

1. Oklahoma should return to and revise its own ELA standards (PASS, 2007).2. Oklahoma should not base state assessments in reading on Common Cores English languagearts standards. It would be a waste of taxpayers money to base state assessments on standardsthat need even more revision than its own standards did.

3. State legislators should enlist humanities scholars at their own colleges and universities towork with well-trained high school English teachers to design a readiness test in reading foradmission to their own institutions. Those who teach college freshmen in Oklahoma shoulddecide on admission standards for their institutions, not federal education policy-makers orunqualified standards-writers chosen by Achieve, Inc., or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

1The author was a member of the Common Core Validation Committee, 2009-2010. Earlier, she served asSenior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,1999-2003, where she was in charge of developing or revising all K-12 standards documents.


2/16


Comparison of Common Cores English Language Arts Standards and

Oklahomas 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills for English Language Arts

This report responds to the request by State Representative Jason Nelson for a comparison ofthe Oklahomas 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) in English language arts2with

Common Cores standards in English language arts (ELA). The purpose of this comparison is tohelp legislators, education policy makers, and the general public to understand whether Oklahomaimproved or weakened public education in the state by adopting Common Cores K-12 standardsin ELA in 2010.

For the comparison, I shortened and slightly revised the criteria I used in the 1997, 2000, and2005 reviews of state English language arts standards for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.Eliminated items (e.g., the questions on teacher education) were not relevant for a comparison ofstandards.

Most of the 20 criteria used for this report are similar in wording to their counterparts in the 2005review form, as are most of the rubrics for the 0 to 4 rating scale. See Appendix A for the review

form used in this report. I retained the rating scale used in the 2005 review. In the table below,CC = Common Cores English language arts standards, and OK = Oklahomas 2007 PriorityAcademic Student Skills in English language arts.A. Reading Pedagogy and Independent Reading1. The document expects explicit and systematic instruction in decoding skills in the primary grades as well

as use of meaningful reading materials and an emphasis on comprehension.CC Rating: 3

Research in reading is clearly used to inform the acquisition of decoding skills. There is goodcoverage of key comprehension skills across subject areas, as well as use of meaningful readingmaterials.However, not one of the objectives on phonics and word analysis skills in grades K-3expects students to apply these skills both in context and independent of contextto ensure mastery

of decoding skills. Only in grades 4 and 5 are students expected to read accurately unfamiliarwords in context and out of context. The placement of this standard at only grades 4 and 5 badlymisinforms primary grade teachers.

OK Rating: 3

Even though elementary students after grade 1 are regularly expected for the phonemic and phonicsstandard to apply sound-symbol relationships to decode unknown words, for the vocabularystandard, they are regularly expected to use context clues first to determine the meaning ofunfamiliar words. At no point are elementary students expected to sound out an unfamiliar word.No wonder OK kids are not developing first-rate reading skills by the upper elementary grades.

2. The document makes clear that interpretations of written texts should be supported by logical reasoning,accurate facts, and adequate evidence.

CC Rating: 4

The standards indicate evidence is required for interpretations or claims for all texts.

OK Rating: 4

Beginning in the elementary grades, students are expected to locate evidence for interpretationsor claims. (E.g., in grade 3, they are to show understanding by asking questions and supportinganswers with literal information from the text and make inferences by connecting priorknowledge and experience with information from the text.)

2http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/59/documents/StateBoardApprovedFinalMay14.pdf
http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/59/documents/StateBoardApprovedFinalMay14.pdfhttp://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/59/documents/StateBoardApprovedFinalMay14.pdf


3/16


3. The document expects students to read independently through the grades and provides guidance on

quality and difficulty.

CC Rating: 3

Students are expected to read independently, and Appendix B provides a list of exemplars ofquality and difficulty through the grades. However, we do not know if the titles in grades K-8were independently vetted by literary experts or who they may have been. Moreover, CommonCore suggests that teachers use a cumbersome set of factors to determine complexity.

OK Rating: 2

Although the document implies that students are to do wide reading (e.g., a vocabulary standardexpects students to expand vocabulary through wide reading, listening, and discussing), there isno specific expectation for independent reading or its quality and difficulty.

B. Value of Literary Study

1. The document expects and enables teachers to stress literary study in the ELA class.CC Rating: 1

Nonfiction or informational reading has been weighted almost equally to imaginative literaturein ELA at all grade levelswith 10 standards for the former and 9 for the latter at each gradelevel. This balance augurs a drastic decline in literary study in grades 6-12 . English teachersare explicitly directed to increase the number of informational or nonfiction texts they teach.

This means fewer opportunities for students to learn how to read between the lines and developanalytical reading and thinking skills.

OK Rating: 2

There are more standards for non-literary study than for literary study in the high school gradeswhen the sub-standards for research and information are included as part of informational reading.Fortunately, English teachers are not expected to teach more informational than literary texts, achange that would diminish opportunities for students to acquire analytical reading/thinking skills.

2. The document and the standards indicate that assigned texts should be chosen on the basis of literaryquality, and/or cultural and historical significance.

CC Rating: 1

Excellent advice is given in a sidebar on p. 35 and in Appendix B for selection on the basis ofquality and significance. But most standards contain nothing to ensure that teachers or test-makersfollow this advice. There are also no criteria for selecting informational or literary texts, norrecommended authors or titles (just exemplars of complexity and quality at each grade level).

OK Rating: 3

At every grade level from grade 6 on, the general standard for literature explicitly requiresstudents to read and respond to grade-level-appropriate historically or culturally significant worksof literature that reflect and enhance a study of history and social science. Students are alsoexpected to clarify ideas and connect them to other literary works. No lists of recommendedauthors or works are provided, however, to indicate what some of these historically or culturallysignificant works are.

3. The standards promote study of American literature.

CC Rating: 1

They do so only in two standards in grades 11/12. It is not mentioned in earlier grades where itwould be appropriate (e.g., for American folktales or tall tales), and there is no standard onstudying authors who were born in or wrote about the state or region.

OK Rating: 2

In grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, the general standard for literature explicitly requires students to readand respond to grade-level-appropriate historically or culturally significant works of British,American, or world literature. Students are also expected to conduct in-depth analysis ofthemes, styles, and trends of these works across historical periods. However, no standard at anygrade level focuses on American literature and no examples of literary works are given in thesegrades. Nor do any standards mention study of literary periods in American literature, majorwriters in the American Renaissance, or writers from or about Oklahoma.


4/16


C. Organization and disciplinary coverage of the standards1. They are grouped in categories and subcategories reflecting coherent bodies of scholarship or research.

CC Rating: 1

The organization of the 10 anchor standards for Reading does not reflect scholarship or research.The grade-level standards are mostly organized according to language processes, but majorsubcategories do not reflect coherent bodies of scholarship or research in the secondary grades.

The writing standards are misleadingly organized as argument, narrative, or informational, eventhough academic arguments are not identical to persuasive writings, and practical or personalwriting is not necessarily informational or narrative in nature (e.g., diaries).

OK Rating: 2

Oklahomas standards are divided into four major strands: Reading/Literature, Visual Literacy,Writing/Grammar/Usage and Mechanics, and Oral Language/Listening/Speaking. These strandsand most of their sub-strands are generally coherent, for example, Standard 1 under Reading/Literature, on vocabulary, and the sub-strands on Grammar/Usage etc. However, the sub-strandcalled Comprehension/Critical Literacy (Standard 2 or 3, depending on grade level) and the sub-strand on research and information (Standard 4 or 5) are mixed bags of objectives, some of whichbelong under literary study.

2. The standards clearly address listening and speaking. They include use of various discussion purposes

and roles, how to participate in discussion, desirable qualities in formal speaking, and use of established aswell as peer-generated criteria for evaluating formal and informal speech.

CC Rating: 3

They address most of these elements but do not address the use of established criteria forevaluating formal and informal talks, presentations, or speeches.

OK Rating: 3

Speaking and listening are addressed in a separate strand. But they are not coherently developedthrough the grades and do not include use of student- or teacher-developed evaluative criteria.

3. The standards clearly address reading to understand and use information through the grades. They

include progressive development of reading skills, knowledge and use of a variety of textual features,

genres, and reading strategies for academic, occupational, and civic purposes.

CC Rating: 2

The standards clearly ask for reading to understand and use information through the grades.However, they do not clearly distinguish modes of organization (e.g., chronology) from structural(or textual) elements of an expository text (e.g., introduction, conclusion), do not progressivelydevelop informational reading skills from grade to grade, and omit such important concepts asidentifying topic sentences.

OK Rating: 2The standards in comprehension/critical literacy and in research/ information cover manyinformational skills, including study skills and types of references and how to use them. But thereis little progressive development of informational reading skills in any one sub-category from K to8, and structural features of informational texts (e.g., introduction, conclusion)are confused withorganizational features (cause and effect, problem/solution) throughout. Nor are the differencesbetween dictionaries and glossaries clarified. Dictionaries list most popular meanings first, whileglossaries provide technical definitions.

4. The standards clearly seek to develop strong vocabulary knowledge and dictionary skills.

CC Rating: 1

Although the vocabulary standards highlight specific figures of speech and rhetorical devices,they do not teach use of glossaries for discipline-specific terms, or words that must be taught(e.g., foreign words used in written English that do not appear in an English language dictionary).Common Core leans, incorrectly in many cases, on use of context to determine the meaning ofunknown words. For example, it is difficult for students to interpret correctly a literary, biblical, ormythological allusion in context, as in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.7.5aInterpret figures of speech(e.g., literary, biblical, and mythological allusions) in context, if they have no knowledge of the
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/7/5/a/http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/7/5/a/


5/16


texts that have served as the basis for these allusions and if the reading standards do not point tosome of these significant texts, authors, or events.

OK Rating: 3At each grade level, there are useful vocabulary standards, and the sub-strand on vocabularystudy appears first in the document, highlighting its importance for reading. Over the grades thestandards spell out most of the different categories of words that should be learned as such (e.g.,foreign words, Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon word parts, idioms, figures of speech, and literaryallusionswhich require students to do research). However, the vocabulary standards wronglystress use of context to learn some of these categories (e.g., idioms), and fail to indicate thedifferences between general academic vocabulary and technical vocabulary (and where to locatetheir meanings). Use of dictionaries and other references appears under Research and Information.

5. The standards clearly address the reading, interpretation, and critical evaluation of literature. They

include knowledge of diverse literary elements and genres, use of different kinds of literary responses, and

use of a variety of interpretive and critical lenses. They also specify those key authors, works, and literarytraditions in American literature and in the literary and civic heritage of English-speaking people that

should be studied because of their literary quality and cultural significance.

CC Rating: 1

Most of the above areas are covered but very unsystematically. Most literature standards lackexamples of authors, works, literary traditions, and literary periods and only sporadically addressthe major genres and their characteristics. Only a few high school level standards indicate specificcultural content. Even a reference to mythology in the elementary grades asks for identificationonly of mythological characters (ELACC4RL4).

OK Rating: 2

Although the general standard for literary study in high school indicates that culturally andhistorically significant works of American, British, and world literature are to be covered in 9-12,the literature standards do not point to specific traditions or authors in Oklahomas literary historyor in American, British, or world literature. Sample titles are sometimes given in the elementarygrades but not in higher grades. And there are no lists of recommended authors or titles to indicatedesired reading levels or literary traditions. A statement asking for grade-level appropriate textsbegs the question; what are grade-level appropriate texts?Literary elements, techniques, and terms are well sequenced and taught. But the standards donot distinguish the chief characteristics and sub-genres of each of the major genres to be studied

through the grades, as in grade 10: Analyze the characteristics of subgenres such as satire, sonnet,epic, myths and legends, mystery, and editorials. Oklahomas high school English teachers needto write high school English standards and provide sample titles for each reading standard.

6. The standards clearly address writing for communication and expression. They include use of writing

processes, established as well as peer-generated criteria, and various rhetorical elements, strategies,

genres, and modes of organization.

CC Rating: 1While there are a great many standards on writing, the sub-strand on argument confusesargument with expression of opinion in the elementary grades and with persuasive writingthroughout. There is no scholarship to support the three types of writing proposed by CommonCore and thus this strand badly misinforms English and reading teachers throughout the grades.There is also nothing on the use of established or peer-generated criteria for evaluating writing or

written presentations.OK Rating: 2

The writing processes are covered and the genres of writing are classified (e.g., in grade 8, ascreative, narrative, expository, argumentative, persuasive, reflective, and descriptive) in a waythat does not confuse (as Common Core does) academic arguments with persuasive writing orexpressions of opinion. But there is nothing on the use of established or peer-generated criteriafor evaluating writing or written presentations, there are too many types of writing for teachers toteach and assess, and often what are to be taught as writing skills have not but should have beentaught earlier as reading skills.


6/16


7. The standards clearly address oral and written language conventions. They include Standard Englishconventions for sentence structure, spelling, usage, penmanship, capitalization, and punctuation.

CC Rating: 1

Oral and written language conventions are addressed, but the vertical progressions dont alwaysmake sense, many standards are placed at inappropriate grade levels, and much of the linguisticterminology is inappropriate at the grade level it appears: e.g., grade 2: Use adjectives andadverbs, and choose between them depending on what is to be modified. Or in grade 4: Usemodal auxiliaries to convey various conditions. And what is a grade 8 teacher to make of:Useverbs in the active and passive voice and in the conditional and subjunctive moods to achieveparticular effects?

OK Rating: 4

All of the needed details for written/oral language conventions/grammar/usage appear in student-and teacher-friendly language in sub-objectives.

8. The standards clearly address the nature, dynamics, and history of the English language. They include

the nature of its vocabulary, its structure (grammar), the evolution of its oral and written forms, and the

distinction between the variability of its oral forms and the relative permanence of its written form today.

CC Rating: 3

Common Cores standards on word origins and etymologies are useful. But there is nothing on thedistinctions among oral dialects or between oral and written forms of English, or on the history ofthe English language at the secondary level. In grade 5, we find a highly inappropriate standard:Compare and contrast the varieties of English (e.g., dialects, registers) used in stories, dramas, orpoems. This is graduate-level work.

OK Rating: 3

The vocabulary standards regularly ask about word origins. But there is nothing on the historyof the English language, why it became the international language of the worldin economics,technology, science, banking, aeronautics, maritime law, and moreand what the implications ofthis are. Nor is there anything on why they should use Standard English in speaking and writing,and how it differs from the oral dialects they may use.

9. The standards clearly address research processes, including developing questions and locating,understanding, evaluating, synthesizing, and using various sources of information for reading, writing,

and speaking assignments. These sources include dictionaries, thesauruses, other reference materials,

observations of empirical phenomena, interviews with informants, and computer data bases.

CC Rating: 3

All of the above areas seem to be adequately covered including the research processes. Butstudents are to apply the same reading standards (Apply grades910 Reading standards) toliterature or informational texts at each grade level to support analysis, reflection, and research.

OK Rating: 3

All of the above areas are mentioned over the course of K-12, but the indicators lack sufficientdetails to differentiate teaching objectives from one grade. Nor are there standards fromelementary to high school on the importance of formulating open-ended questions and how.

D. Quality of the standards1. They are clear, specific, and measurable (i.e., they can lead to observable, comparable results across

students and schools).

CC Rating: 1

There are many vague standards with unclear meanings andinconsistently interpretable meanings.E.g., Compare and contrast the structure of two or more texts and analyze how the differingstructure of each text contributes to its meaning and style. What kind of texts does the writer havein mind? What will be learned if the texts address different topics?E.g., Analyze a particular point of view or cultural experience reflected in a work of literaturefrom outside the United States, drawing on a wide reading of world literature. How much andwhat kind of reading of world literature must precede the reading of a specific work that is to beanalyzed for the authors point of view? Thus, only some standards are measurable as is. And,


7/16


in the primary grades, many standards require teachers to prompt or give guidance and support.There is no specification of what would constitute meeting the standard independently.

OK Rating: 3

There are many clear, specific, and measurable standards. But there are also many statements ofstrategies or processes (or study skills) that could easily be removed from this document. Mostare described in the introductory section (e.g., writing processes) and do not have to be repeatedthrough the grades.

2. They are of increasing intellectual difficulty at each higher educational level and cover all importantaspects of learning in the area they address.

CC Rating: 1

Most standards do not show meaningful increases in intellectual difficulty over the gradesbecause they are generic skills. In addition, many grade-level standards are simply paraphrasesor repetitions of the governing CCRS, especially in grades 6-8. Primary grade standards are weakbecause of overuse of prompting; prompted learning leaves unclear the level of independencerequired for student performance. In the secondary grades, the standards show no meaningfulincreases in difficulty and/or complexity through the grades related to skill development.

OK Rating: 2

Many of the grade-focused standards show meaningful increases in difficulty over the grades

and address important aspects of learning in the area. But the absence of standards with clearcultural content (and useful examples) prevents the document from showing increasing intellectualdifficulty through the grades (whether students are engaged in literary or non-literary study).

3. They index or illustrate growth through the grades for reading by referring to specific reading levels, to

titles of specific literary or academic works as examples of a reading level, or to advanced content..

CC Rating: 3

While the reading and literature standards only occasionally provide examples of specific texts orauthors, Appendix B contains a long list of illustrative titles for each grade for the main genres.However, each grade contains too wide a range of reading levels to establish a meaningful readinglevel for assessment purposes, especially in grades 9, 10, 11, and 12.

OK Rating: 2The kinds of literary techniques and elements taught often suggest the complexity of the texts tobe taught, but without a recommended reading list pegged to educational levels or grade levels, orexemplar titles in the reading standards (literary and non-literary), it is not possible to determinewhether and how intellectual growth will take place. Statements of processes or skills do notillustrate growth and provide no guidance to curriculum developers: e.g., Use the text's structureor progression of ideas, such as cause and effect or chronology to locate or recall information. Or,Draw inferences and conclusions about text and support them with textual evidence and priorknowledge. The fact that they are repeated from grade to grade, almost without change, is theclue that they are not standards.

4. They illustrate growth expected through the grades for writing with reference to examples and rating

criteria, in the standards document or in other documents.

CC Rating: 1

Appendix C is a collection of annotated student writing samples at all grade levels. However,no rating criteria, say, on a 1 to 6 scale, are offered by grade levela serious and puzzlingomission. Based on the annotations and the compositions themselves, it is clear what the best andleast developed compositions are. But it is not at all clear how teachers are to develop commonexpectations for where most students will be: at above grade-level, about grade-level, or belowgrade-level performance at a particular grade level.

OK Rating: 0

No specific criteria or examples of student essays are provided in this document or pointed to asbeing elsewhere.


8/16


5. Their overall contents are sufficiently specific, comprehensive, and demanding to lead to a common

core of high academic expectations for all students in the state.

CC Rating: 1

Common Cores relatively content-empty reading standards cannot by themselves lead to acommon core of high academic expectations because they cannot frame an academic curriculum.The basic work will have to be done at the local level unless the testing consortia pre-emptcurriculum decision-making at the local level in order to develop test items with a knowledge baseto which skills can be applied.

OK Rating: 1

Although the reading standards imply more difficult reading material will be studied in highergrades, the lack standards with substantive literary and non-literary content at any grade means afree-for-all in their interpretation for a classroom curriculum. The standards thus fail to lead to acommon core of high academic expectations for all students.

SummaryTable 1: Average Points per Section and Total Average for Both ELA Documents

CC SC

Reading Pedagogy and Independent Reading 3.3 3

Value of Literary Study 1 2.3Organization and Disciplinary Coverage of the Standards 1.7 2.7

Quality of the Standards 1.4 1.6

Total Average 1.85 2.4

As Table 1 suggests, the 2007 Oklahoma Priority Academic Student Skills in English LanguageArts are about equal or even superior in quality to Common Cores English language artsstandards in all four categories of criteria. Both sets of standards need strengthening, however,and a few suggestions are provided in the comments above.

Independent ConfirmationThe question that may be raised at this point is how valid are ratings showing Oklahomas PASS

in ELA equal to or better than Common Cores ELA standards. Independent points of referencethat support the thrust of the analysis above can be found in a 2010 review of state standards byFordham Institute reviewers.3

The Fordham reviewers comments excerpted directly below address Common Cores ELAstandards. They point out the standards many deficiencies and limitations, raising the questionwhy they received a grade of B+ from Fordham.

Overview: They would be more helpful to teachers if they attended as systematically to contentas they do to skills, especially in the area of reading

Clarity and Specificity: The organization of the reading standards is hard to followThey

are organized into four categories Since many kinds of texts, genres, sub-genres, and theircharacteristics are discussed in each category, it is also difficult to determine whether a logicalsequence covering all of this important content has been achieved. ... the organization of thereading strand, as well as the instances of vague and unmeasurable language, mean that thestandards do not ultimately provide sufficient clarity and detail to guide teachers and curriculumand assessment developers effectively.

3Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standardsand the Common Corein 2010. http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.html
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.html


9/16


Content and Rigor: The reading standards for both literature and informational text fail toaddress the specific text types, genres, and sub-genres in a systematic intersection with the skillsthey target. As written, the standards often address skills as they might apply to a number ofgenres and sub-genres. As a result, some essential content goes missing.

Thestandards for grades 6-12 exhibit only minor distinctions across the grades, such as citingevidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences from the text.Several problems surface here. First, these standards dont properly scaffold skills from gradeto grade. For example, quoting from text is arguably easier than paraphrasing, but the standardsrequire mastery of paraphrasing first. Second, these standards are also repeated verbatim in theinformational text strand, thus making no distinction between applying this skill to literary andinformational text.

Whats more, while some genres are mentioned occasionally in the standards, others, such asspeeches, essays, and many forms of poetry, are rarely if ever mentioned by name. Similarly,many sub-genres, such as satires or epic poems, are never addressed.

Many defining characteristics of the various genres are also rarely, if ever, mentionedWhereliterary elements are mentioned, their treatment is spotty.

The Writing standards include too many expectations that begin with the phrase, With guidanceand support from adults. Such standards are problematic because they fail to adequatelyscaffold or clearly delineate whatstudents should be able to do.

One troublesome aspect of the writing standards is the persistently blurry line between anargument and an informative/explanatory essay.

Bottom Line: overwhelming focus on skills over content in reading combined with confusionabout the writing standards, lack of detail about oral presentations, and the sporadic rigor of themedia standards.

The Fordham reviewers comments excerpted directly below note the strengths in Oklahomas2007 ELA standards, raising the question why they were not rated well above the grade given to

Common Cores ELA standards. Both were given the same grade of B+.

OverviewThe Oklahoma ELA standards are well written and thorough, clearly outlin-ing expectations formost of the essential K-12 content needed to drive rigor-ous curriculum development, instruction,and assessment.

General Organization

Oklahomas standards are divided into four strands: Reading/Literature, Writing/Grammar/Usageand Mechanics, Oral Language/Listening/Speaking, and Visual Literacy.

Each strand is divided into two to eight standards, then into grade-level objectives for grades 1-12.(Kindergarten stan-dards are not provided.) The state also frequently provides standard-specificexamples designed to clarify expectations.

Clarity and Specificity

Oklahomas standards are well organized and clearly presented. The objectives are

generally free of jargon, describe measurable expectations, and clearly illustrate the

growth and progression of rigor expected through the grades.

The use of examples to help clarify expectations adds significant value by specifying

precisely what students should know and be able to do.


10/16


Content and Rigor

Content Strengths

The strengths of Oklahomas ELA standards are considerable. While they should

be improved by providing standards for Kindergarten, the early reading standards

are excellent. The objectives clearly outline expectations for phonics and phonemic

awareness, and sequence the essential content well for grades 1-4.

The development of vocabulary through the grades is equally strong and includes

objectives that appropriately emphasize using both context and outside resources

(including dictionaries and thesauruses) to confirm the meaning of unfamiliar words.

In addition, they require mastery of Greek and Latin roots, etymology, and shades of

meaning.

In reading, while they could include more genre-specific objectives (discussed in greater

detail below), the standards admirably avoid the common pitfall of prioritizing reading

comprehension strategies over analysis and understanding of genre, text structure, and

literary techniques. In addition, the treatment of stylistic devices and literary elements is

strong.

The standards also delineate very clear and rigorous expectations for the mastery of Englishlanguage conventions and spelling.

Oklahoma provides equally specific expectations that address the quality of writing products,including clear, grade-spe-cific objectives that delineate expectations for the organization andfocus of writing and for the development of ideas.

In addition, the state effectively prioritizes important genres from grade to grade. In the

elementary grades, writing is appropriately focused on narrative and basic informational

writing. In fifth grade, persuasive and research writing is introduced and narrative and

letter writing is given less attention. By high school, students are expected to write significant persuasive, argument, and response to literature papers. These standards could

certainly be enhanced by the inclusion of rubrics and examples of student work to clarify

expectations further, but the standards do outline expectations that demonstrate a clear

progression of rigor through the grades.

Finally, the state includes clear expectations for listening and speaking, as well as for

delivering formal oral presentations and media.

Content Weaknesses

While the reading standards are strong in the ways noted above, they fall short in four

areas. First, few objectives are devoted to informational texts. Instead, such texts are

listed as one of many genres to be studied, and so standards fail to delineate genre-specific expectations for the study of informational text.

Second, while much content is included for the study of literary texts (as mentioned above), thestate provides little guidance regarding the genre-specific content that students must master tobecome proficient readers. Merely asking students to analyze the characteristics of a long listof genres without providing substantive details about what characteristics students should masterfrom grade to grade provides scant little guidance.


11/16


Third, the reading and literature standards fail to provide guidance about the quality and

complexity of reading that students should be doing from grade to grade. And, while the

high school standards give a perfunctory nod to reading important works of American

literature, the standards for grades 1-8 fail to do even that.

Fourth, while some standards delineate expectations for formal oral presentations and

for the quality of writing products expected, the state fails to include specific criteria thatwould further clarify these expectations.

In sum, while the Oklahoma standards include much of the essential K-12 content, the

shortcomings described above omit more than 5 percent of that content, thus earning the

standards five points out of seven for Content and Rigor.

The Bottom Line

Oklahomas standards are better organized and more clearly presented than Common

Core. The objectives are generally free of jargon, describe measurable expectations,

and clearly illustrate the growth and progression of rigor expected through the grades.

Oklahoma uses more standard-specific examples to help clarify expectations and treats

literary genres and their characteristics in more detail. The Oklahoma standards alsoprioritize essential writing genres by grade spans, which Common Core does not.

On the other hand, Oklahoma fails to include any expectations for Kindergarten, while

those presented in the Common Core are generally strong. In addition, the Common

Core addresses the analysis of informational text in more detail than the Oklahoma

standards. Common Core also includes a list specifying the quality and complexity

of student reading as well as sample student writing. Such enhancements would

significantly improve Oklahomas standards.

Given that Oklahomas 2007 ELA standards were at least as good if not better than CommonCores ELA, why did Oklahomas commissioner of education and his staff recommend adoptionof Common Core? Perhaps they believed, as did their peers in other states, the unfounded claimsmade by Common Corethat its standards were high, rigorous, and internationally benchmarked.

In many states, there was another motive. In Massachusetts, the expectation of a Race to the Topgrant (and it did receive the promised $250,000,000) seems to have been the overriding motivefor adopting Common Cores standards. Another justification in Massachusetts was the claim thatspecialists in the Bay State contributed heavily to the content of Common Cores ELA standards,4implying that there were few differences between Common Cores ELA standards and the BayStates. But given the many deficiencies in Common Cores ELA standards as well as the manyacademically strong features of the Massachusetts standards, all pointed out by Fordhamsown reviewers, it seems more likely that Fordhams grades andBottom Lineswere intended togoad states into adopting Common Core without further questions, especially when Fordhamconcluded, as it often did, that the differences were too close to call.

Recommendations

This report serves as the basis for the following recommendations:

4http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/20/with_help_from_mass_feds_devise_sound_school_standards/?comments=all#readerComm.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/20/with_help_from_mass_feds_devise_sound_school_standards/?comments=all#readerCommhttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/20/with_help_from_mass_feds_devise_sound_school_standards/?comments=all#readerCommhttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/20/with_help_from_mass_feds_devise_sound_school_standards/?comments=all#readerCommhttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/20/with_help_from_mass_feds_devise_sound_school_standards/?comments=all#readerComm


12/16


1. Oklahoma should return to, revise, and strengthen its own ELA standards. The adoptionand implementation of Common Cores ELA standards does not improve the academiceducation of Oklahomas children, especially its neediest students.

2. Oklahoma should not base state assessments in reading on Common Cores Englishlanguage arts standards. It would be a waste of taxpayers money to base assessments onstandards that need even more revision than its own standards did.

3. State legislators should enlist humanities scholars at their own colleges anduniversities to work with well-trained high school English teachers to design areadiness test in reading for admission to their own institutions. Those who teachcollege freshmen in Oklahoma should decide on admission standards for theirown institutions, not federal education policy-makers.

Appendix A: The Review Form for English Language Arts Standards

A. Reading Pedagogy and Independent Reading

1. The document expects explicit and systematic instruction in decoding skills in the primary grades as well

as use of meaningful reading materials and an emphasis on comprehension.

0 Phonics or decoding skills are not mentioned at all.

1 Phonics or decoding skills are mentioned only in the context of other strategies so that it is unlikely they

are addressed independently or systematically.

3 Phonics or decoding skills are given a separate bullet or statement but there is nothing to suggest explicit

and systematic teaching and independence from contextual approaches.

4 Explicit and systematic instruction in decoding skills, both independent of context and in context, is

clearly suggested or spelled out.

2. The standards make clear that interpretations of written texts should be supported by logical reasoning,

accurate facts, and adequate evidence.0 The standards imply that all points of view or interpretations are equally valid regardless of the logic,

accuracy, and adequacy of supporting evidence.

1 The standards imply that all literary texts are susceptible of many equally valid interpretations.

3 The standards indicate that interpretations of texts must be in part on what is in the texts.

4 The standards indicate that interpretations of any text must accord with what the author wrote.

3. The document expects students to read independently through the grades and provides guidance about

quality and difficulty.

0 Independent reading isnt mentioned at all.1 Regular independent reading is recommended but not quality, quantity, or difficulty.

3 Quality, quantity, or difficulty of independent reading is indicated in some way (e.g., by a list of

recommended books or by a recommended number of words or books per grade).

4 Quality, quantity, and difficulty are indicated in some way.

B. Value Accorded Literary Study


13/16


1. The document expects and enables teachers to stress literary study at the secondary level.

0 Literary standards are not distinguishable from non-literary standards.

1. Literary reading is stressed about equally with non-literary reading throughout the grades.

3 Literary reading is stressed more than non-literary reading in the ELA class only at lower grade levels.

4 Literary reading is emphasized throughout the grades.

2. The document and the standards indicate that assigned texts should be chosen on the basis of literary

quality, cultural and historical significance.

0 The document says little or nothing about literary quality and historical significance.

1 The document expects assigned texts to be chosen on the basis of literary quality and historical

significance but offers no criteria for selection, no recommended lists of authors or works, and few or no

standards to guide selection based on quality and significance.

3 The document expects assigned texts to be chosen on the basis of literary quality and historical

significance and provides some standards and examples to guide selection.

4 The standards clearly require assigned texts to be selected on the basis of literary quality and/or historical

significance.

3. The standards promote study of American literature.

0 American literature is not mentioned as such in any way.

1 American literature is mentioned, but no more than that.

3 American literature is mentioned in an inclusive way.

4 American literature is described in an inclusive way and is to be studied in depth from a historical

perspective.

C. Organization and Disciplinary Coverage of the Standards

1. They are grouped in categories and subcategories reflecting coherent bodies of scholarship or research

in reading and the English language arts.

0 They are mostly grouped in unique or incoherent categories or subcategories (e.g., categories reflect

pedagogical strategies).

1 Some categories or subcategories reflect coherent bodies of scholarship or research.

3 Most but not all categories and subcategories reflect coherent bodies of scholarship or research.

4 All categories and subcategories reflect coherent bodies of scholarship or research.

2. The standards clearly address listening and speaking. They include use of various discussion purposes

and roles, how to participate in discussion, desirable qualities in formal speaking, and use of established

and peer-generated criteria for evaluating formal and informal speech.

0 Standards for listening and speaking are not included.

1 Some of the above areas for coverage are addressed adequately.


14/16


3 Most but not all of the above areas are addressed adequately.

4 All of the above areas are adequately covered.

3. The standards clearly address reading to understand and use information through the grades. They

include progressive development of reading skills, knowledge and use of a variety of textual features,

genres, and reading strategies for academic, occupational, and civic purposes.

0 Standards for informational reading are not distinguished as such.


3 Most of the above areas for coverage are addressed adequately.


4. The standards clearly seek to develop strong vocabulary knowledge and dictionary skills.

0 Vocabulary standards are not in a distinct strand or category for instruction.

1 Vocabulary standards emphasize use of context throughout the grades.

3 Vocabulary standards highlight specific figures of speech and rhetorical devices but are limited in the

categories of words they highlight and stress contextual approaches.

4 Vocabulary standards teach dictionary skills, use of glossaries for discipline- specific terms, ways to use

context, and all useful categories of phrases, words, or word parts (e.g., foreign words, idioms, proverbs).

5. The standards clearly address the reading, interpretation, and critical evaluation of literature. They

include knowledge of diverse literary elements and genres, different kindsof literary responses, and use

of a variety of interpretive lenses. They also specify the key authors, works, and literary traditions in

American literature and in the literary and civic heritage of English-speaking people that should be studied

for their literary quality and cultural significance.

0 Standards for literary study are not distinguished as such.




6. The standards clearly address writing for communication and expression. They include use of writing

processed, established as well as peer- generated or personal evaluation criteria, and various rhetorical

elements, strategies, genres, and modes of organization.

0 Standards for writing for communication and expression are not distinguished as such.





15/16


7. The standards clearly address oral and written language conventions. They include standard English

conventions for sentence structure, spelling, usage, penmanship, capitalization, and punctuation.

0 Standards for oral and written language conventions are not distinguished as such.




8. The standards clearly address the nature, dynamics, and history of the English language. They include

the origin of its vocabulary, its structure (grammar), the evolution of its oral and written forms, and the

distinction between its oral and written forms today.

0 Standards for this area are not distinguished as such.




9. The standards clearly address research processes, including developing questions and locating,

understanding, evaluating, synthesizing, and using various sources of information for reading, writing,

and speaking assignments. These sources include dictionaries, thesauruses, other reference materials,

observations of empirical phenomena, interviews with informants, and computer databases.

0 Standards for the research processes are not distinguished as such.




D. Quality of the Standards

1. They are clear, specific, and measurable

0 They are vague, filled with jargon, and/or expressed in ways that are not measurable (e.g., use

unmeasurable verbs like explore, investigate, inquire, or ask for personal experience).

1 To some extent, clear, specific, teachable, measurable, and reliably rated.

3 For the most part, clear, jargon-free, teachable, and measurable, and reliably rated.

4 Overall, they are clear, jargon-free, teachable, measurable, and reliably rated.

2. They are of increasing intellectual difficulty at each higher educational level and cover all important

aspects of learning in the area they address.

0 For the most part, they show little change in difficulty over the grades, or are frequently repeated for

many grades at a time.

1 Increases in difficulty may sometimes be reflected in the wording of a standard.


16/16


3 Most of the standards show meaningful increases in difficulty over the grades and address the important

aspects of learning in the area.

4 Overall, the standards show educationally appropriate and meaningful increases in difficulty over the

grades and cover all important aspects of learning in the area.

3.They index or illustrate growth through the grades for reading by referring to specific reading levels or

titles/authors of specific literary or academic works as examples of a reading level, or by spelling out the

nature of the intellectual task required by the standard.

0 The reading standards contain no clue as to reading level other than something like using texts at the

appropriate grade level.

1 The reading standards are sometimes accompanied by examples of specific texts or authors.

3 The reading standards are frequently accompanied by examples of specific texts or authors or spell out

more advanced content.

4 The reading standards are almost always accompanied by examples of specific texts and/or authors, or

spell out the advanced content required by the standard.

4. They illustrate growth expected through the grades for writing with reference to examples and rating

criteria, in the standards document or in other documents.

0 The document provides no criteria or samples for the quality of writing at assessed grades.

1 The document provides criteria or examples for the quality of writing at some but not all assessed grades

through high school.

3 The document provides criteria or examples for the quality of writing at all assessed grades through high

school.

4 The document provides examples and criteria for the quality of writing at all assessed grades, including

high school.

5. Their overall contents are sufficiently specific, comprehensive, and demanding to lead to a common core

of high academic expectations for all students.

0 No. They cannot lead to a common core of high academic expectations.

1 To some extent only.

3 For the most part.

4 Yes.

Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky

Documents

Transcript of Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky