The Ladder of Reading Standards

I firmly believe in posting and referring to objectives throughout my lessons. It is so critical for students to understand clearly what it is I want them to be learning. But the Common Core State Standards make that a little more difficult because they are not as cut-and-dry as Tennessee's old standards. Most lessons will hit multiple standards. As a result, I've been wrapping my mind around how to post and utilize the standards in my classroom.

While reading Lucy Calkins' Pathways to the Common Core, I found this quote on page 33: "Some people who are close to the Common Core have likened the reading standards to a ladder, with standards 1 and 10 as the crucial struts that form the two sides of the ladder, and the other reading standards as the rungs of the ladder." That helped me visualize the following poster with "I can" statements based the standards:

I think I will remind students daily that we work on close reading of texts, working toward complex grade level texts. Then we will use a magnet to track our progress as we climb the ladder of reading standards with each text.

I created these posters for informational text and literature for grades 1-6. If you would like download them, click here.

The Ladder of Text Complexity

I've been reading Lucy Calkins et. al's Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating Achievement, and as a result have been pondering the image of a ladder to help me understand complex text.

First, let me underscore why the CCSS ELA standards emphasize complex text: Reading Between the Lines, a report released by ACT in 2006, suggested that students who struggle with the reading portion of the ACT test don't lack skills (identifying main idea, comparing/contrasting, etc.), rather the ability to comprehend complex text. As a teacher of English Learners, this makes complete sense to me. When I get the data reports from the practice standardized tests, my administrators encourage me to break down the test items into standards and reinforce skills based on the questions students do poorly on. Wanting to be an adequate steward of data, I comb through the graphs, looking for areas of weakness, but I often have trouble finding discernible patterns based on skills. What I do notice, though, are reading passages that the kids bomb. I'm pretty sure my students get the concepts. They just don't always understand the grade level text they are being asked to read independently, or maybe they don't always understand the language of the question.

Here's an example I will never forget: My first year teaching English Learners, I did a series of in depth lessons on pronouns with a group of 4th graders. We memorized pronouns, their cases, their numbers, and even used the word "antecedent"in speaking when referring to the relationships between pronouns and nouns. Students individually wrote explanations for proper pronoun use and applied their learning about pronouns to their writing. Then, when they took the practice standardized test, they tanked. When we reviewed the questions following the assessment, a student shyly raised his hand and asked "Mrs. McClain, what is the word wom?" The student pronounced the word as if it rhymes with mom. He did not know the word whom, and therefore had no clue how to answer the question "To whom does pronoun he refer?"

You can drill the skills until you and your kids are blue in the face. If they can't read complex text independently, they will not do well on reading standardized tests.

So now comes the tricky question-- the politicized and complicated question that I am still not so certain about. How do we get students who are reading below grade level to the point that they can INDEPENDENTLY read complex grade level texts? What is the magic bullet? Do we revisit gaps in foundational phonics and phonemic awareness skills? Do we rehearse repeated readings of texts so that students learn what it feels like to be fluent readers? Do we use leveled readers so that students can get practice at their "just right"level, encouraging them to make a goal to climb the levels as quickly as possible? Do we offer texts in multiple languages to support native language comprehension? Do we try to find texts that match student interests to increase their daily reading time? Do we invite parents for family literacy training? Do we work with community partners to host book give-aways and promote summer reading programs?

I'm thinking the answer is yes. I've tried all of these things, and many of them simultaneously, and most of them have worked a little bit. I've heard professors and trainers from both sides of the reading polemic explain the research that shows why their method of teaching reading is superior and their philosophy must be followed with fidelity. I've learned a lot from each of them, and tried a little of everything. I'm not sure who 100% correct, but I have a feeling it is both and neither.

So now I'm just a little nervous about the bold assertion from the PARCC draft of model content frameworks (2011) that "A significant body of research links close reading of complex test--regardless if the student is a struggling reader or advanced--to significant gains in reading proficiency..." Don't get me wrong, I'm really excited about introducing complex texts to my students who read below grade level, especially when paired with accountable talk. I do think these practices will help my students become more proficient readers. But I'm not buying that complex texts will be a magic bullet. I'm not quite ready to throw the Elkonin boxes and Rigby readers out with the bathwater. We want students to escalate the ladder of reading complexity as quickly as possible, but it is unrealistic to expect them to just jump a wall.

At the same time, by constantly keeping low performing kids at their "just right" level, we limit their exposure to advanced vocabulary and text structures, putting them even further behind their peers who read proficiently or above grade level.

So now I'm struggling with the specifics of balancing independent level text with grade level complex text, and I am pretty certain it will be about as easy as nailing jello to a wall. But here are the things I want to keep in mind as I trial and error my way through it:

-Kids need to be engaged in productive struggle... pushing them enough that they aren't bored, but supporting them enough that they aren't completely discouraged.

-Work that is done at grade level needs to be scaffolded so that struggling readers can access it. Reading aloud, reading the same texts multiple times, sequencing texts on the same topic according to complexity, and engaging in accountable talk are all strategies to help students access material that is beyond their grasp.

-Work that is done at students' independent reading level needs to be done INDEPENDENTLY.  Scaffold these texts, and you make yourself a crutch. Students can use individually leveled texts to practice common core skills independently: identifying main ideas/themes, summarizing, making inferences, isolating key details, using context to infer vocabulary meanings, and integrating knowledge  from multiple texts.

-Students need ample time to practice. The key to becoming a proficient reader is to practice reading often. Do less talking so kids can read more. Encouraging reading outside of class time by tapping into student interests and promoting extracurricular reading through summer programs or book clubs go a long way.

-Writing and reading are inextricable. Do less talking so kids can write more.

What do you think, world wide web? What has your experience and/or research taught you about teaching struggling readers to become proficient readers?

Malala Yousafzai Speech as Complex Text

A friend of mine posted this full video of Malala Yousafzai's speech to the UN, and immediately I thought it would be appropriate fodder for accountable talk surrounding complex text. I analyzed it with the Lexile Analyzer, and the first 1,000 words came out to a Lexile level of 870, which is approximately 5th grade level.

Here is a link to the full text of her speech in .txt format if you would like it.

Spoon Feeding

For the past three days, I have attended the State Sponsored training on the Common Core ELA Standards.  Now my brain hurts from all the information I am processing.

One of the presenters kept telling us, "We've got to quit spoon feeding these kids, y'all." (I do live in Tennessee... y'all).

Though my day job is teaching, I moonlight (literally) as a wanna-be crunchy mama of two kids under 3, so I know a little bit about spoonfeeding. With my first child I pureed my own weird fruit and veggie combinations so that I could essentially watch him smear them all over his face. For my littlest one, I've been trying a method deemed "Baby Led Weaning," which basically means letting your infant feed herself.

The parallels between feeding children and teaching reading are a little uncanny.  So I'm going to draw out the metaphor a bit by describing my daughter's meal time.

I start by selecting a fruit or vegetable. I want her food to be nutrient rich, avoiding fillers like salt, sugar, or processed grains. But I also want it to be palatable--peaches are a better option than spinach. I make sure it is adequately soft, steaming it if necessary. I cut it into large chunks--too small and she can't pick it up, too large and she can't hold on to it. And then I simply put it in front of her. She is naturally curious, so she slides her little fingers across the sticky flesh, smacking it a bit to get a better sense of its texture. She sucks on her fingers, testing the waters. Her wobbly hands flutter as she unsteadily grasps the fruit. Once she has a sure hold, she rears back her head, a vampire bearing her gums (for want of fangs), then launches into her victim and gnaws to her heart's desire. At this point my role is to step back and watch her like a hawk, praying that she doesn't choke. Occasionally, I have to help reposition her grasp, or in more scary scenarios fish a wayward chunk out of her mouth. To begin with, she only ingested about 10% of what I put in front of her. The rest of it splattered on the floor, in her seat, in her hair... Now she's worked her way up to more like 50%. Oh, and did I mention, she revels in the visceral experience. Just check out this satisfied monster with strawberry carnage on her face:

Teaching reading under the Common Core is a similar procedure. I begin by selecting a complex text that is in the appropriate grade level band, pursuant to student interests, and content rich. I break it into manageable chunks and "steam" it a bit by reading it aloud as kids follow along. Then I simply put the text in front of students and let them attack. If they get off track, I redirect them with open ended guiding questions. At first they might not get it, but over time their comprehension improves. Oh, and of course, they are actively participating and enjoying the challenge.

Compare this with the way I used to teach reading: beginning with leveled, inauthentic text (your basic processed rice cereal), watering it down further with extended pre-reading activities, shoving it into their brains with direct comprehension questions that essentially tell the students the "right answer," watching them spit it back out at me and essentially scraping it off their faces and putting it back in their mouths if their answer wasn't what I deemed correct. Then I wondered why they were bored and struggled to pay attention. I consoled myself with the fact that they swallowed. They'll be able to regurgitate it on the state standardized test, right?

As with the Common Core, proponents of baby led weaning assert that the method is an improvement over spoon feeding because it prioritizes learning to chew over learning to swallow.

We have got to quit spoon feeding these kids, y'all.

Heuristics: A Love Story

(Throughout this post, I reference the book Get It Done! Writing and Analyzing Informational Texts to Make Things Happen by Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Michael W. Smith, and James E. Fredericksen. The book is well worth the read)

I learned a new word this summer: heuristic. I first encountered it while listening to Dr. Zalman Usiskin, professor of math education at the University of Chicago, as he spoke at MTSU on Critical Thinking With the Common Core.

Zal spoke about the different types of understanding present in math, using the acronym SPUR—Skill/algorithm, Property/proof, Use/application, and Metaphor/analogy. He commented that working on skill/algorithm in isolation from the other types of understanding is harmful to students’ mathematical development. For a practical example, if students know the steps for borrowing when doing multi-digit subtraction, that is an algorithm, a formula, a skill they can practice. However, just because they can follow the steps does not mean they have full understanding of base ten operations. Do they understand that the tens digit is ten ones? Can they create a model using manipulatives? Do they connect that these activities required the same math concept? If you have only taught them the skill, you have not given them true understanding, nor have you equipped to tackle the future problems they will encounter.

Now I’m not a math teacher, which is why I chose a second grade math skill in my practical example. I am a language teacher. But this concept of different types of understanding struck a chord with me. In the past, writing instruction has been algorithm based, particularly for students who are labeled “at risk”. Writing lessons go something like this:  “This is the structure of the 5^th (or 8^th or 11^th) grade writing prompt, and here is the algorithm you will follow to get a good score.” Critics call it “formulaic” writing. It is how I was taught to write in my English classes, with the 5-paragraph essay: introduction, 3 supporting paragraphs, and conclusion. But this kind of writing is largely artificial and doesn’t have many real world applications. It prepares students for “the test” but not the day after graduation.

The point in Zal’s presentation that ignited my thinking was when he began discussing the difference between problem and exercise. “A problem,” he said, “is an exercise for which you have no algorithm.” He went on to say that rather than giving students repeated algorithms to practice, we want to give them problems and support them with heuristics that empower them to discover the algorithms themselves.

I fell head over heels in love with the new word heuristic. I didn’t know what it was, but I sure wanted to find out. Even though I don’t teach math, I wanted to make certain that my students knew how to solve real world problems, not just prepare for a test.

The next week I came to MTWP Advanced Institute on Common Core, and lo and behold, again I encounter my new crush, heuristic, in Wilhem, Smith, and Fredericksen’s Get It Done! Writing and Analyzing Informational Texts to Make Things Happen. Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 3:

The word heuristic comes from the Greek word eureka, which means I discover (remember Archimedes in his bathtub?). It is defined as “experienced-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery” (Wikipedia, retrieved 8/18/2011) or “a generative process that enables a person to discover or learn something for herself” (Merriam-Webster online dictionary, retrieved 8/18/2011). Heuristics, in short, are flexible problem-solving tools based on generative underlying principles. Because they are based on generative principles, they can be developed, tweaked, and transformed, and then transferred to new situations. (In a sense, (CCSS) reading anchor standards 1-9 and writing anchor standards 1-9 are a heuristic for accomplishing anchor standard 10 in each area.)

At this point my crush on heuristics became complete and total infatuation. You see, I am a constructivist at heart. My philosophy has always been that the responsibility of a teacher is to set up an environment that enables discovery. But the reality of making this work has been less than ideal, particularly because my responsibility is to students who are “at-risk.” My job is to get them on grade level as quickly as possible, which means I felt pressure to give it to them as directly as possible. In math terms, teaching them the algorithm of writing was a lot easier than fleshing out all possible understandings of the concepts. Attempts at workshop style teaching felt too chaotic. I needed more structure. Now, this new love in my life, heuristics, is providing a structure. But that structure is flexible and generative and adaptable, (in contrast to algorithm’s rigid and narrow focus) which means it is meaningful to real life,

This love has walked into my life at just the right season of change. I am moving to a new classroom, have a new schedule with 60 minutes (!) of instructional time for each group, and am working under the Common Core State Standards, which by definition are designed to prepare students for college and career, not just the standardized test. The CCSS give equal attention to reading and writing, emphasize critical thinking skills and problem solving, and are broad enough to ensure deep understanding. Teachers will no longer be able to simply “cover” standards with a simple pacing guide. They will have to address multiple standards in each unit, cycling back through them to deepen student understanding. The PARCC assessment my students will be taking in the future is a complex assessment that (hopefully) eludes formulaic response. I now have an excuse to teach the way I have wanted to since the beginning of my career!

I am going to begin with a focus on one group, as to not overwhelm myself. My 6^th grade students are the group for which I have no curriculum to follow, so I am creating a curriculum based on the heuristic model presented by Wilhelm et al. Using the topic of poverty as an umbrella, we will go through 8 units, each one focused on an essential question surrounding poverty, a type of thinking, and an end product that has real world applications. For each unit, we will work through the declarative and procedural knowledge of the substance (poverty and product) and the form (type of thinking), as well as the transferal of knowledge to other real world scenarios.  

I am going to structure my class around inquiry, as defined by Wilhelm “the rigorous apprenticeship of learners into the processes of expert reading, composing, and working in specific disciplines.” (pg. 119 of Get It Done)

On a daily basis, we will begin with 10-15 minutes word study and language practice, follow with a 20-25 minute reading workshop, and then connect that reading with 20-30 minutes of “composing” workshop in response to reading. (I say composing rather than writing because our work will be multi-modal—it may require visual, dramatic, oral, written, or media oriented response. For more information on writing vs. composing check out pg. 37-38 of Get It Done).

Within each 4-week unit, I will scaffold instruction so that students experience gradual release of responsibility for the knowledge substance and form I am focusing on. In order to do that, we will move in the directions recommended by Wilhelm et al (pg. 41).

-From familiar to less familiar

-From short to long

-From oral to written

-From multimodal to print

-From concrete to abstract

-From social to individual

-From scaffolded to independent

For example, in Unit 1 we are focusing on the heuristic of naming and listing, which is foundational for all the other thinking skills in future units. We will begin in whole group (social) by looking for familiar, real world examples of lists: grocery lists, menus, wills, contacts in your cell phone, etc. Then we will move to the less familiar academic forms of lists: table of contents, index, items in a series, use of colons, etc. In writing, they will begin by generating lists about themselves and their preferences, and then will move to lists that support our end product, which is a web-based guide for parents of future Hobgood students about what children need to survive and thrive before age 5. Because this product is the first one of the year, it will be a group project (with individual responsibilities), and it will be multimodal rather than print. By the end of the year, students will be writing individual formal multi-paragraph essays.

I invite you to join me as I continue my courtship with heuristics throughout the year. Here is the link to the folder on my Google drive so that you can view my work in progress. Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome! I’ll also be posting reflections as I implement this curriculum, so come back to learn more about the good, the bad, and the ugly as I attempt to make my philosophical ideal a reality.