"Common Core" explained

As noted last week, the backlash against Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has begun. A look back to two years ago may provide some insight into the current groundswell against the CCSS.

In 2010-2011, Marianne Iksic and I examined the English portion of the national standards. We shared the same understanding – the state standards were as good as, if not better than, the CCSS. The only major differences in the national curriculum were the use of traditional grammar (labeling by parts of speech), an emphasis on argumentative writing, the incorporation of art with literature, a heavy stress on non-fiction reading by grades 11-12. Otherwise, what we were doing in Odessa for grades 5-12 matched or exceeded the national expectations for English goals.

We were surprised at the emphasis on traditional grammar. Over a hundred years of research has shown time and again that the teaching of parsing, labeling, and diagramming does not help students write or speak better.

We had been teaching persuasive writing, as it was required on both the WASL and HSPE writing assessments. Now we had to add argumentative writing with its emphasis on the counter argument to one’s own position. Including that was easy.

We touched on the use of art with literature but did not stress art to the degree asked for in the CCSS.

Students in English 8-12 had been asked since 2009-2010 to increase their reading of non-fiction from one year to the next. The projects between history and English required them to engage in reading more non-fiction.

Our overall finding was that the state standards were superior to the CCSS. However, national policy makers, not teachers of English, made the decisions about English goals in Common Core. We accommodated these decisions by others.

Dr. Duane Pitts is a former English teacher at Odessa High School.