Notes and demo lessons from Friday, June 22nd, 2012.

Rosanne Mello's Presentation: Rosanne Mello Where I'm From Presentation (1) Do the Common Core Standards devalue the role of personal and narrative writing (and reading) in the secondary classroom? Will the high school English classroom change drastically with the implementation of the new standards? Research Inquiry by Rosanne Mello Upon examination, the Common Core Standards (CCSS) do appear to diminish the role of personal and narrative writing and also the reading of fiction and nonfiction narrative texts in the high school English curriculum. According to the standards themselves and other resources available on the Common Core State Standards Initiative website there is a big shift that favors argument and informative/explanatory writing, over narrative structures. In a resource available on the website, designed to assist publishers and curriculum writers, entitled Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12, authored by David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, the emphasis shift is made clear in both reading and writing: The standards emphasize arguments (such as those in the U.S. foundational documents) and other literary nonfiction that is built on informational text structures rather than literary nonfiction that is structured as stories (such as memoirs or biographies) (5). While narrative writing is given prominence in early grades, as students progress through the grades the Common Core State Standards increasingly ask students to write arguments or informational reports from sources. As a consequence, less classroom time should be spent in later grades on personal writing in response to decontextualized prompts that ask students to detail personal experiences or opinions (11). The resource includes some explicit percentages that further underscore the shift in emphasis. “In high school, 40 percent of student writing should be to write arguments, 40 percent should be to explain/inform, and 20 percent should be narrative” (12). On the same website, in addition to the Standards are several appendixes listing exemplar texts and student samples of writing. Appendix C provides student writing samples “to illustrate the criteria required to meet the Common Core State Standards for particular types of writing—argument, informative/explanatory text, and narrative—in a given grade”(2). Conspicuously, the narrative samples end in the 8th grade. The high school samples are all classified as “Argument” or “Informative/Explanatory” with a complete omission of a “Narrative” sample (4). The main author of the Common Core standards, David Coleman, made the following comments regarding writing and the standards at a NY State Department of Education presentation in April 2011: The fifth point is about writing. Do people know the two most popular forms of writing in the American high school today? Texting someone said: I don’t think that’s for credit though yet. But I would say that as someone said it is personal writing. It is either the exposition of a personal opinion or it is the presentation of a personal matter. The only problem, forgive me for saying this so bluntly, the only problem with those two forms of writing is as you grow up in this world you realize people don’t give a shit about what you feel or what you think. What they instead care about is can you make an argument with evidence, is there something verifiable behind what you’re saying or what you think or feel that you can demonstrate to me. It is rare in a working environment that someone says, “Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.” That is rare. A recent article in Educational Leadership by Robert Rothman, summed up what’s new in the CCSS regarding writing as follows: Writing. In writing, the common core state standards reflect college and career readiness by reducing the traditional emphasis on narrative writing and placing a greater emphasis on informational and explanatory writing. Personal narratives are a staple of schooling (“How I Spent My Summer Vacation”), but except for college application essays, students will seldom be required to write personal narratives in college or the workplace. Informational writing, in which the author attempts to explain something or to inform others about a topic, is a much more important skill in these settings. There is ample evidence that the Common Core standards denigrate the value of narrative and personal writing in the high school English classroom. Much of the evidence comes from the wording of the Common Core Standards and from the words of their main architect, David Coleman. High school English teachers will have ample reasons to become somewhat alarmed and apprehensive. Are these new standards unimaginative and unnecessarily rigid? What will implementation look like once they are in place and curriculum aligned with the Common Core is developed? Will literature and narrative structures for writing be drastically decreased from the high school English curriculum? As states scramble to transition to CCSS, many educators, scholars and researchers are asking these same questions and many are writing and publishing articles in reputable education journals and periodical including Education Week and Educational Leadership to defend the role of literature, narrative texts and personal and narrative writing in the writing in the secondary English classroom. In an impassioned article published in Education Week (2010) , Edgar H. Schuster, a high school English teacher, educator researcher, and author, called the proposed writing standards “singularly unimaginative” and “also woefully out of balance, in the direction of relatively noncreative forms of writing”. He argues convincingly that the standards are too narrowly and rigidly compartmentalized and out of step with real-world writing. Drawing our attention to some of the selections from an anthology edited by Joyce Carol Oates and Robert Atwan, The Best American Essays of the Century, he maintains that it is nearly impossible to find an essay that is “purely explanatory or argumentative” and that real writing is layered with multiple structures, so why should we present such rigid unrealistic writing standards for students? Rather firmly he attests that the standards are “excessively narrow and unrealistic” and that implementation of them will “kill the spirit and diminish the role of the imagination”. Eerily, he makes the following prediction: “And I am convinced that, were they to be adopted, the dropout rates among students bound for the working world would make our current rates tidings of comfort and joy”. Steve Zemelman, the director of the Illinois Writing Project concurs in a recent article published online, “in areas like writing, the focus is pretty narrow”. He also emphasizes the idea that different types of writing overlap, for example, stories are used to build arguments. He defends the importance of reading and writing narrative texts arguing that “stories are about deepening comprehension and dealing with complexity” and this happens not just by reading stories, but also by writing them”. He provides an example of a Carnegie Corporation study that confirms “that students’ increased engagement in writing leads to increased scores in reading”. Zemelman is wary of the way in which the drafters of the CCSS, “denigrate narrative” and refer to it as a “frill, a concession to young people’s immature preoccupation with their own lives”. According to Zemelman , the standards author David Coleman and Achieve President Michael Cohen have said about kids’ writing , “No one cares what you think!” In an article, entitled, “Where’s Literature in the Common Core?” published in Educational Leadership in April 2012, Barbara Bartholomew, an associate professor of reading, literacy, and English at California state University, warns that without careful planning and attention, “English education as we know it could easily pass into oblivion as quietly as the corner bookstore”. She also finds the new standards to be a troubling shift and is afraid about what may be lost in the shift, mainly the important role of literature that provides a lens through which “we come to understand the patterns and truths within ourselves and about our world”. She admits that in the standards themselves the study of literature is included, but she is afraid they will be overshadowed by the emphasis on informational and procedural texts. In the end, the assessments and accountability sewn into the covenant of Race to the Top- and likely into other initiatives that will follow-will drive what is taught unless we take care to protect the teaching of more traditional and creative expressions of English. As Race to the Top is currently written (Race to the Top Fund, 2009) there is little doubt that the place of poetry, literature, drama, and the arts can only be vastly reduced as teachers and principals prepare for greater professional scrutiny, more test-based evaluations of their judgment and efficacy, and continued talk of tying job security and merit pay to summative test performance. She closes her article with a strong plea to implore educators who want “to preserve English instruction that does not merely serve the gods of industry”, to speak up and get involved with curriculum development and to be active participants in the text adoption period that will coincide with the Common Core standards implementation across the country. References Bartholomew, B. (2012). Where’s literature in the Common Core? Educational Leadership 69(7),82-85. Coleman, D. (2011). Bringing the Common Core to Life.Speech at Chancellors Hall, State Education Building Albany, NY April 28, 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2012 from http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/bringingthecommoncoretolife/fulltranscript.pdf Coleman, D.,& Pimental, S. (2011) Publishers criteria for the Common Core Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3-12. Retrieved from Common Core State Standards Initiative at http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf Rothman, R. (2012). A Common Core of readiness. Educational Leadership, 69(7), 10-15. Schuster, E. (2010). The Core standards for writing: Another failure of imagination? Education Week, 29 (20), 23-26. Zemelman,S. (2011).Common Core : Caution on narrative writing. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/2011/11/07/common-core-wrongly-neglects- narrative-writing.

Maryellen Johnston's Presentation Here is the link for Maryellen's web page. The lesson demo materials are under the biography tab of the web page. http://missjohnstonreadingrevelations.weebly.com/

Maryellen's Research Question Research Question: How can writing be integrated into content area instruction? As students progress from the primary grades to upper elementary school, the focus of instruction becomes increasingly more focused on content area subjects. Instruction shifts from teaching foundational reading skills to the more complex literacy skills specific to content area reading. During this time, it is critical to provide students explicit instruction and modeling of strategies that aid in the comprehension of content area text. Writing in the content areas can be a valuable tool in developing comprehension. Writing in the content areas is a way for students to demonstrate their understanding and thinking about content area concepts. It is not always an essay or research report that requires students to engage in the writing process to complete a final draft. The students engage in a variety of informal writing activities to scaffold instruction and increase student comprehension. Students are writing to learn, rather than learning to write. “Writing to learn engages students, extends thinking, deepens understanding, and energizes the meaning making process (Knipper, 2006).” Writing activities are incorporated before, during and after reading to scaffold instruction and increase student understanding. “Just as we must encourage active thinking while reading, we must help students actively process what they are learning through their writing (Teach for America, 2010)” There are many ways to include writing opportunities into daily instruction. The use of daily journals, structured note taking, admit/ exit slips, and summarizing are examples of strategies that can be used to provide informal writing opportunities. Using these strategies allows students to demonstrate their thinking and synthesize information from content area texts. Writing to learn engages students and actively involves them in their learning. It requires them to put their thinking and learning onto paper. It invites them to interact with text and become more thoughtful readers (Knipper, 2006). Writing in the content areas can be a valuable assessment tool. It allows teachers the opportunity to evaluate the depth of understanding a student possesses. It can be used to demonstrate mastery as well as provide insight into concepts the students are struggling with. Using rubrics or checklists can aid in this process by giving students clear guidelines about what their writing must include. Unfortunately, many content area teachers are reluctant to include writing because they see it as a skill taught in the Language Arts class. They are not comfortable with the idea of teaching writing and don’t feel like they have the training or background to accomplish such a task. It is critical that we change that perception and help content area teachers see that writing in the content areas can be a valuable tool in developing comprehension. Bibliography Jacobs, V. A. (2002). Reading Writing, and Understanding. Educational Leadership , 58-61. Knipper, K. J. (2006). Writing to Learn Across the curriculum: Tools for Comprehension in the Content area classes. International Reading Association , 462-470. Teach for America. (2010). Secondary Literacy.