Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky

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

Ratings: (0)|Views: 407|Likes:
Published by RestoreOKPublicEd
Based on the results of this comparison, this report concludes that the implementation of Common Core's ELA standards and the use of any state tests based on them are unlikely to lead to any academic advance for Oklahoma's students, especially its neediest students. Oklahoma's 2007 ELA standards were stronger than Common Core's and it is not at all clear why Oklahoma traded in a stronger set of ELA standards for a weaker set with many flaws and hidden strings.
Based on the results of this comparison, this report concludes that the implementation of Common Core's ELA standards and the use of any state tests based on them are unlikely to lead to any academic advance for Oklahoma's students, especially its neediest students. Oklahoma's 2007 ELA standards were stronger than Common Core's and it is not at all clear why Oklahoma traded in a stronger set of ELA standards for a weaker set with many flaws and hidden strings.

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: RestoreOKPublicEd on Apr 25, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Comparison of Oklahoma’s 2007 ELA Standards and Common Core’s ELA Standards
 
Comparison of Common Core’s English Language Arts Standards and Oklahoma’s 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills for English Language Arts
Sandra StotskyProfessor emerita, University of ArkansasApril 2014
 Executive Summary
This report responds to the request by State Representative Jason Nelson for a comparison of Oklahoma’s 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) in English Language Arts with Common Core’s standards in English language arts.
1
 Based on the results of this comparison, this report concludes that the implementation of Common Core’s ELA standards and the use of any state tests based on them are unlikely to lead to any academic advance for Oklahoma’s students, especially its neediest students. Oklahoma’s 2007 ELA standards were stronger than Common Core’s and it is not at all clear why Oklahoma traded in a stronger set of ELA standards for a weaker set with many flaws and hidden strings. The comparison provided in this report drew on criteria I used for reviews of state English language arts standards for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in 1997, 2000, and 2005. Most of the criteria are similar in wording to their counterparts in the 2005 review form.As Table 1 suggests, Oklahoma’s 2007 standards in English Language Arts are about equal in quality to, if not better than, Common Core’s English language arts standards in all four categories of criteria. Both sets of standards need strengthening, however.
Table 1: Average Points per Section and Total Average for Both Sets of ELA StandardsCC O
Reading Pedagogy and Independent Reading3.3 3Value of Literary Study1 2.3Organization and Disciplinary Coverage of the Standards1.7 2.7Quality of the Standards1.4 1.6
Total Average1.85 2.4
The reviewers’ comments in the Fordham Institute’s 2010 review of state standards corroborate the 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 Core’s English language arts standards. It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to base state assessments on standards that need even more revision than its own standards did. 3. State legislators should enlist humanities scholars at their own colleges and universities to work with well-trained high school English teachers to design a readiness test in reading for admission to their own institutions. Those who teach college freshmen in Oklahoma should decide on admission standards for their institutions, not federal education policy-makers or unqualified standards-writers chosen by Achieve, Inc., or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
1
 The author was a member of the Common Core Validation Committee, 2009-2010. Earlier, she served as Senior 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.
 
Comparison of Oklahoma’s 2007 ELA Standards and Common Core’s ELA Standards
Comparison of Common Core’s English Language Arts Standards and Oklahoma’s 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills for English Language Arts
This report responds to the request by State Representative Jason Nelson for a comparison of the Oklahoma’s 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) in English language arts
2
 with Common Core’s standards in English language arts (ELA). The purpose of this comparison is to help legislators, education policy makers, and the general public to understand whether Oklahoma improved or weakened public education in the state by adopting Common Core’s K-12 standards in ELA in 2010.For the comparison, I shortened and slightly revised the criteria I used in the 1997, 2000, and 2005 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 of standards. Most of the 20 criteria used for this report are similar in wording to their counterparts in the 2005 review 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 Core’s English language arts standards, and OK = Oklahoma’s 2007 Priority Academic Student Skills in English language arts. 
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
.
CCRating: 3
Research in reading is clearly used to inform the acquisition of decoding skills. There is good coverage of key comprehension skills across subject areas, as well as use of meaningful reading materials.
 
However, not one of the objectives on phonics and word analysis skills in grades K-3 expects students to apply these skills
both in context and independent of context 
 to ensure mastery of decoding skills. Only in grades 4 and 5 are students expected to read accurately unfamiliar words “in context and out of context.” The placement of this standard at only grades 4 and 5 badly misinforms primary grade teachers.
OKRating: 3
Even though elementary students after grade 1 are regularly expected for the phonemic and phonics standard to “apply sound-symbol relationships to decode unknown words,” for the vocabulary standard, they are regularly expected to use “context clues” first to determine the meaning of unfamiliar 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.
 
CCRating: 4
The standards indicate evidence is required for interpretations or claims for all texts.
OKRating: 4
Beginning in the elementary grades, students are expected to locate evidence for interpretations or claims. (E.g., in grade 3, they are to “show understanding by asking questions and supporting answers with literal information from the text” and “make inferences by connecting prior knowledge and experience with information from the text.”)
 
2
 
 
Comparison of Oklahoma’s 2007 ELA Standards and Common Core’s ELA Standards
3. The document expects students to read independently through the grades and provides guidance on quality and difficulty.
CCRating: 3
Students are expected to read independently, and Appendix B provides a list of exemplars of quality and difficulty through the grades. However, we do not know if the titles in grades K-8 were independently vetted by literary experts or who they may have been. Moreover, Common Core suggests that teachers use a cumbersome set of factors to determine “complexity.”
OKRating: 2
Although the document implies that students are to do wide reading (e.g., a vocabulary standard expects students to “expand vocabulary through wide reading, listening, and discussing”), there is no 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
.
CCRating: 1
 Nonfiction or informational reading has been weighted almost equally to imaginative literature in ELA at all grade levels—with 10 standards for the former and 9 for the latter at each grade level. This balance augurs a drastic decline in literary study in grades 6-12
.
English teachers are 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 develop analytical reading and thinking skills.
OKRating: 2
There are more standards for non-literary study than for literary study in the high school grades when 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, a change 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 literary quality, and/or cultural and historical significance.
CCRating: 1
Excellent advice is given in a sidebar on p. 35 and in Appendix B for selection on the basis of quality and significance. But most standards contain nothing to ensure that teachers or test-makers follow this advice. There are also no criteria for selecting informational or literary texts, nor recommended authors or titles (just exemplars of “complexity” and “quality” at each grade level).
OKRating: 3
 At every grade level from grade 6 on, the general standard for literature explicitly requires students to “read and respond to grade-level-appropriate historically or culturally significant works of literature that reflect and enhance a study of history and social science.” Students are also expected to “clarify ideas and connect them to other literary works.” No lists of recommended authors or works are provided, however, to indicate what some of these historically or culturally significant works are.
3. The standards promote study of American literature
.
CCRating: 1
They do so only in two standards in grades 11/12. It is not mentioned in earlier grades where it would be appropriate (e.g., for American folktales or tall tales), and there is no standard on studying authors who were born in or wrote about the state or region.
OKRating: 2
In grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, the general standard for literature explicitly requires students to “read and 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 of themes, styles, and trends of these works across historical periods.” However, no standard at any grade level focuses on American literature and no examples of literary works are given in these grades. Nor do any standards mention study of literary periods in American literature, major writers in the American Renaissance, or writers from or about Oklahoma.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->