Review of Oklahoma’s Academic Standards for the English Language ArtsSandra StotskyMarch 9, !"#
In the introduction to its 2010 evaluation of state standards, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute commented as follows:
As we’ve argued for a doen!"lus #ears now, standards are the foundation u"on which almost ever#thing else rests$or should rest. The# should guide state assessments and accounta%ilit# s#stems& inform teacher "re"aration, licensure, and "rofessional develo"ment& and give sha"e to curricula, te't%oo(s, software "rograms, and more. )hoose #our meta"hor: *tandards are targets, or %lue"rints, or roadma"s. The# set the destination: what we want our students to (now and %e a%le to do %# the end of their +!12 e'"erience, and the %enchmar(s the# should reach along the wa#. If the standards are vague, watered!down, or misguided, the# can "oint our schools down "erilous "aths.
$f there are no standards worth following, there is no education destination worth reaching%
In this review of revised nglish -anguage Arts standards "ro"osed %# the (lahoma *tate /e"artment of ducation in 201 for a""roval %# the (lahoma *tate -egislature,
$ will show why these standards cannot lead to strong academic outcomes for the state’s &'" students, no matter what other educational goals Oklahoma is seeking% (hey are not worth following%
It is clear that the revision committee s"ent a great deal of time on the standards in the eight strands it chose as the framewor( for this document. These strands are: *tandard 1: *"ea(ing and -istening& *tandard 2: eading Foundations with eading and riting 3rocess& *tandard 4: )ritical eading and riting& *tandard 5: 6oca%ular#& *tandard 7: -anguage& *tandard : esearch& *tandard 8: 9ultimodal -iteracies& and *tandard : Inde"endent eading and riting.*everal strands reflect the wor( of e'"erienced teachers ;e.g., eading Foundations and -anguage<. hile there are some as"ects of the standards framewor( that are useful it is im"ortant to note that
the kind of strands that serve to hel) teachers to sha)e a coherent and rigorous curriculum through the grades are not there
*e%g%, strands for the ma+or genres of iction, -onfiction, .oetry, /rama, and (raditional Literature0%
*trands for these ma=or genres t#"icall# contain "rogressions of content!rich standards through the grades that ena%le teachers toconstruct coherent classroom curricula$a reading>literature curriculum with literar# and non!literar# te'ts se?uenced in wa#s that result in cumulative learning. *ometimes these se?uences a""ear in other strands in other documents, %ut the default strands in the "ro"osed standards that could contain these "rogressions of content!rich standards
do not have the content necessary for develo)ing the knowledge 1ase for critical reading, thinking, and writing
;e.g., 6oca%ular#, )ritical eading and riting, and 9ultimodal -iteracies<. These three strands in "articular turn out to %e em"t# "lace!holders, as I will show. I organie m# comments around seven ?uestions, using e'am"les from these "ro"osed strands.
1. Do the proposed ELA standards enable teachers to construct a coherent and academically strong reading and writing curriculum in K-12?
(here are few )rogressions *grade 1y grade develo)ment0 that would hel) teachers to construct sound and rigorous reading curricula%
For e'am"le, in strand 4$on critical reading and writing, we findin grade 7:
2%3%R%4
*tudents will com"are and contrast te'ts and ideas within and %etween te'ts. In grade ,
#%3%R%4
*tudents will anal#e te'ts and ideas within and %etween te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. In grade 8,
4%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links)
%etween
1
and across multi"le te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. In grade ,
5%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links, literary analysis)
%etween and across multi"le te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. In grade @,
9%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links, literary analysis)
%etween and across multi"le te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. In grade 10,
"!%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links, literary analysis)
%etween and across multi"le te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. In grade 11,
""%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links, literary analysis, authors’ style)
%etween and across multi"le
te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences. And in grade 12,
"%3%R%4
*tudents will ma(e connections
(e.g., thematic links, literary analysis, authors’ style)
%etween and across multi"le
te'ts and "rovide te'tual evidence to su""ort their inferences.
As illustrated, from grade 2 to grade ", this ma+or 6standard7 has not 1asically changed and there isnothing to suggest an increasing level of reading difficulty or intellectual challenge through the grades, or what kinds of te8ts and genres *not s)ecific te8ts0 might 1e in a reading curriculum%
Although the strand "ur"ortedl# develo"s critical reading and writing, students could in theor# read different versions of The Three -ittle 3igs and other fol( tales for grades to satisf# this standard. ;This s(ill>standard can %e found, in almost the same words, in )ommon )ore.<
2.
Do the proposed ELA standards enable Olahoma parents to understand what is e!pected o" their children at each grade le#el?
.rogressions of )ro)osed standards in the oca1ulary strand leave 1oth )arents and teachers in the dark%
For e'am"le, in grade 7, we find
2%:%R%3
*tudents will use conte't clues to determine or clarif# the meaning of words or distinguish among multi"le!meaning words. In grades , 8, , @, 10, 11, and 12, we find the e'act same standard, without one e'am"le of "ossi%le words students might encounter in their reading in an# su%=ect at their grade!level.
-ot only does this ;ommon ;ore'1ased standard )rovide no insight to )arents or guidance to teachers on the nature of voca1ulary growth through eight grades of schooling, it also gives teachers com)letely wrong )edagogical advice%
In authentic, well!written readingmaterials, one t#"icall# cannot use conte't to determine meanings of un(nown words. 9oreover, there is no research evidence to su""ort this notion, which has run ram"ant through most of our teacher training "rograms des"ite the lac( of research evidence. As im"ortant as it is to develo" students’ voca%ular#, this strand is the wea(est strand in the entire document, and most of it is "edagogicall# wrong.
$
. Do the proposed ELA standards enable teachers to prepare students "or authentic "reshman wor at a post-secondary institution in Olahoma without the need "or remedial coursewor?
$t is unlikely that Oklahoma teachers will 1e a1le to make their students more ready for authentic college freshman coursework using the )ro)osed 6Academic Standards7 than they now do%
Addressing these "ro"osed standards,
they may even decelerate their students’ growth as readers
;unintentionall#<. The following "ro"osed standard, %asicall# unchanged through the grades, is a form of gi%%erish fre?uentl# found in )ommon )ore as well as in the (lahoma Academic *tandards for -A.
One finds this )ro)osed 6standard7 ver1atim in seven grades 1eginning in grade #< 6#%4%R% Studentswill analy=e the im)act of selected media and formats on meaning%7
It is in a strand called 9ultimodal-iteracies$another e'am"le of gi%%erish. hat does the strand title or the standard itself meanC heredoes this =argon come fromC Although the (lahoma /e"artment of ducation "romises to "rovide su""ortmaterials for teachers, one ma# wonder how useful these materials can %e. It is dou%tful that the state’s students will %e ca"a%le of res"onsi%le citienshi", never mind non!remedial coursewor( in college, %ased on standards with little or no meaning.
%. Are the proposed ELA standards teachable and testable?
A testing com)any can use whatever reading )assages it chooses to use and claim to address these )ro)osed standards%
ho could argue with the testing com"an#C There is little in most standards in most strands to guide test develo"ers or classroom teachers.
2
&. 'an the proposed ELA standards be use"ul in training prospecti#e and practicing elementary( middle( high school teachers?
There is not enough su%stance in most of them to guide teacher "re"aration or ensure sound "rofessional develo"ment.
). Do the proposed standards re*uire students to become "amiliar with signi"icant te!ts( people( mo#ements( and e#ents in Olahoma+s political( intellectual( and literary history?
(he )ro)osed standards are )ur)orted to 1e written 1y Oklahomans for Oklahomans% >et, onelooks in vain for standards that e8)ect future ta8)ayers in Oklahoma to 1ecome familiar with someof the significant te8ts, )eo)le, movements, or events in the state’s )olitical, literary, and intellectualhistory
;e.g., ill
ogers, *"ea(er )arl Al%ert, )olonel Tom *tafford, Deneral Tomm# Fran(s, com"oser and "oet Eimm# e%%, literar# contri%utions of the state’s ative Americans,
The Grapes of Wrath,
the )hisholm Trail, the
first railroads across (lahoma, the Trail of Tears<. Their heritage as (lahomansis nowhere addressed in
these standards. o set of -A standards can mandate s"ecific te'ts unless a statelegislature re?uires
them, %ut general standards li(e those %elow will "rovide some of the essentialcontent of the nglish language arts and reading curriculum that is now missing:1. In grades @!12, at each grade level, students are to read literar# te'ts %# recognied authors who were %orn in or wrote a%out (lahoma.2. In grades @!12, at each grade level, students are to read %iogra"hies or auto%iogra"hies of recognied "olitical, social, and intellectual leaders in (lahomaGs histor#, %efore and after statehood.4. In grades @!12, at each grade level, students are to read recognied historical nonfiction a%out significantevents and movements in (lahomaGs histor#.
(hese are the kind of standards to 1e added to a document for Oklahoman students
. In all cases, teachers would construct their own classroom reading curriculum according to "olicies esta%lished %# their local %oard of education.
,. Do the proposed standards re*uire students to become "amiliar with this country+s intellectual history and seminal political documents?
-owhere does one find the only clear content that was in ;ommon ;ore’s ?igh School ELA Standards% $ts standards re@uired study of this country’s founding and seminal documents%
The#should %e s"elled out in this document, and,
with the state legislature’s a""roval, re?uired as interdisc"linar# readings: 3ream%le to the )onstitution,
/eclaration of Inde"endence, Federalist 3a"ers H10and H72, 9a#flower )om"act, the Brown v. Board of ducation *u"reme )ourt decision, Dett#s%urg Address, ashington’s Farewell Address, and -incoln’s
*econd Inaugural Address.
A standard can also re@uire study of i1le stories as literature *&ing Bames ersion0,
as it is a well!(nown fact that the two most significant influences on the nglish language in the "ast 700 #ears have %een*ha(es"eare and the +E6. Eudges have ruled on the matter in court cases: there is no legal "rohi%ition against the stud# of the Bi%le as literature.
;oncluding Remarks
It is not clear to me wh# there is no literar# or non!literar# content in the "ro"osed reading and literature strands and standards. This situation "resents a dou%le!edged sword. The a%sence of an (lahoma touch to these standards ma(es it easier for the state to use off!the!shelf reading tests that can %e given to more than one state. And an off!the!shelf test ma# %e much chea"er than a test tailored to one "articular state.
ut off'the'shelf tests clearly fail with res)ect to e@uity% /ifferent communities can a))rove very different kind of readingCliterature curricula, allowing some students to 1e challenged in ways others aren’t *and to 1e 1etter )re)ared for)ost'secondary education0 and allowing those students to learn or learn a1out what many
4
Premia la tua curiosità
Tutto ciò che desideri leggere.
Sempre. Ovunque. Su qualsiasi dispositivo.
Nessun impegno. Annulla in qualsiasi momento.