Common Core Research Roll-out from NYSED

For the last four days, I have been at our NYS State capital as NYS Education Department rolled out their research model which addresses the lack of authentic research going on in our schools. KUDO's to Commissioner John King who stated in his opening address that he would love to see a model where "First grade writes a 1 page paper; Second grade writes a 2 page paper;Third grade writes a 3 page paper; etc....building capacity to the secondary level where they would be research ready."  

My heart skipped a beat when I heard that, and I almost clapped out loud as a lonely  librarian in a crowd of 1000 educators.  Instead, I tweeted to the world.   For once, change is coming top-down!   State Ed spent two days building our capacity for  "inquiry,"  modeling choice-filled, student-centered learning activities wherein students investigate, evaluate, synthesize, investigate some more, synthesize, and conclude until they are ready....to write or present knowledge (A cyclical cycle as long, as synthesis is necessary).

Although NYSED rolled out a different schematic, here is my interpretation of the NYS Inquiry model presented.  This in theory, aligns with the Stipling model which teaches lifelong learning skills. 

This model also aligns with our locally developed WISE model where students:  wonder, investigate, synthesize and express. 
  

Reach out to a teacher offering to brainstorm an Inquiry based learning activity. This can be an  extension to their lesson.  After all, they should be "researching to build and present knowledge."  Otherwise, how are they meeting the CCSS writing standards 6,7,8,9, and dare we say...10? 

12 Things I'm doing when you think all is Shhhhhh!

Are You Off Your Rocker? ...and other no-cost ways to improve your image

      While visiting a local library last week,  the librarian proudly told me, "By the way--I got rid of my rocker like you suggested last year..." 
      It is a known fact that non-librarians equate the rocking chair with their grandmother and not with instructional personnel.     Whether you agree with this or not, perception is hard to fight.  So we say ...Don't give them any material to support their misconception!  
      This comment was actually an encouragement to me, personally. Often administrators work feverishly to strengthen research and information roles for librarians and strive for recognition as instructional partners.  We craft messages for state education departments and cheer-lead the rich resources and teaching skills our librarians offer.  We deliver PD on technology used for higher level thought; embedding information and synthesis into curriculum; and we boast of our databases available for the hyper-connect to use--rather than Google.    But, when we walk in a library and see a librarian in a rocking chair...it undoes every image makeover that we work so hard to deliver.    

      Yes, we are aware that the CCSS encourages "read-alouds" but it stresses "they are a metacognitive tool to prepare kids for future informational reading of complex text."   See this quote from page 33 of the ELA standards:    It says to use read alouds to teach: 

• Main idea 

• Paraphrasing

• Summarizing important details

• Compare and Contrast

• K-2 says to: confirm understanding, ask and answer questions, and describe ideas and details 

Here's all the Common Core says about read-alouds: 

So, if you choose to continue with read-alouds (and they are an opportunity to model fluency), I would suggest using an evidence-based discussion,  graphic organizer, or other tool to have a collaborative learning experience from a "read-aloud."  You could have students use post-it notes on posters using "evidence from the text"  to answer essential questions hanging on papers.   You could have table collaboratively "take a position" based upon evidence from the read-aloud.  This could be as simple as asking an essential question such as, "Why do you think the mouse was so smart?"  after Mr. Maxwell's Mouse.   "What in the book text, made you think the mouse was smart?"   Or, "What made this meal disastrous?"  Or, "How did the mouse save his own life through questions?" .... You probably do this currently, but don't bother to formally collect evidence for this.   You could use graphic organizers, graffiti walls, graffiti place-mats or more to archive evidence.   

Here are  other no-cost ways to improve your image and show you are an instructional partner: 

• Create a "Spotlight on Non-Fiction" display front and center - Spotlight Non-fiction titles that have great difficult vocabulary:  Gross but Great; Diseases you don't want to catch!;  Places you should see when you make your million: etc.
• Ask, inquire of, teachers: Which ELA learning components would benefit their students?  Partner with the teachers to tackle, decoding vocabulary, evidence-based writing, writing from sources, or researching to build and present knowledge.  If you initiate the dialog, then the teacher will see you as an instructional partner. 
• Don't wait for them to come to you and ask to collaborate.  Go to them--the CCSS says,   "Research to build and present knowledge."  How can I help you do that? 

Will testing terminate the silo-hugger syndrome?

We all know teachers teach-to-the-test.  In case you haven't heard:  25% of the Smarter Balance assessments, and 30% of the PARCC assessments will be a simulated research task.  If you examine the PARCC frameworks, you will see that they recommend at least a 1-2 week research task, followed by other shorter research tasks.    Well, if their curriculum framework recommends research, it makes total sense to "assess" (i.e. test) this.  So, why are teachers surprised?    

Now, let me share that I am NOT a test proponent -- In fact, I abhor standardized tests and believe we should move to performance based assessment and student portfolios. However, if it is a test that points out to teachers why they should be coming to the library...then let it be a test that wakes those silo-huggers up.  Glory be.   

This week, I received this email:

       Hi Paige,

       A third grade teacher brought me the following question off of a practice  

       assessment out of a Common Core crosswalk book and asked me to verify the     

       answer.

            The author who wrote this passage found the

            information by typing Alexander Graham Bell

            into a search field.  This type of electronic

            text feature is

A.    a hyperlink.

B.     an icon.

C.     a group of keywords.

D.    an electronic menu.

       I thought this was interesting, another piece of why we need school librarians.

Karen  (Name redacted) 

Salem School Librarian K-12

Salem Central School 

Here is the FRAMEWORK language from the 7th grade PARCC for research: 

Research Project

Each module includes the opportunity for students to produce one extended project that uses research to address a significant topic, problem, or issue. This entails gathering and synthesizing relevant information from several additional literary or informational texts in various media or formats on a particular topic or question drawn from one or more texts from the module. Students are expected at this stage to have performed research that assesses the accuracy of sources and uses a standard citation format to acknowledge the conclusions of others. Students can present their findings in a variety of informal and more formal argumentative or explanatory contexts, either in writing or orally. (Research aligned with the standards could take one to two weeks of instruction.) Ongoing incorporation of research for shorter tasks should also be a regular component of instruction. 

 

Image from 7th grade Research Tasks search  - PARCC 

Lexiles & Readability

A LOOK AT LEXILES and Text Complexity

While delivering PD yesterday,  a teacher asked me, "What's a Lexile?"   I wanted to say, "where have you been?"  But the reality is--I commend her for not being afraid to ask what we think is such a basic question.  We forget that some people have been so busy working in the trenches that they haven't been able to keep up. (They've been too busy administering tests, Student Learning Objective assessments, state exams and more.) So, listed below are the basics of LEXILES 101. 

 

 

Essential understandings: 

• The Common Core has defined where "college and career ready" (CCR) students should be reading and it's a 1450  Lexile.  Therefore, they scaffolded in reverse levels to graduate students at the appropriate level.  These Lexile levels are more difficult than where typical students are reading.
• Lexile is an algorithm. It is a mathematical assessment of a linguistic product. 
• Lexiles (and other readability statistics) are fallible. (For instance, it is not valid for prose or drama and is less valid for fiction in 1000+ Lexile range.) 
• The parent organization to the CCSS, (CCSSO formally called the Governor’s convention) recently released a white paper verifying the validity of text complexity. Therefore, we have to pay attention to this essential shift to embrace "rigor" in reading.
• To read the recent white paper from the Council of Chief State School Officers click here. This article compares a number of algorithms and the summarizes text complexity for the CCSS. 
• Text complexity formulas were meant for instructional purposes.
• Pleasure reading should be allowed at any level and this is validated in the Common Core, Appendix A, page 9, paragraph 1:

 

 

 

 It is very interesting, to compare the variables used among the six different "approved" complexity measures. Metametrics (Lexile) uses the simplest measure of only word count and sentence length. (Lexile.com provides a search tool for books, but many are missing.)  Other companies including Accelerated Reader (ATOS) and Pearson, DRP, etc... add additional measures of review such as punctuation, a 30,000-word vocabulary match, and more. Therefore, we would conclude that the ratings of the latter companies would be more accurate picture of complexity and appropriateness. This quote from page 17 of the white paper puts it diplomatically:

 

"There is no clear "gold standard" measure of text difficulty against which to compare the various metrics. Instead, we compared each metric against various reference measures based on grade level and student comprehension data for five sets of passages gathered for the study. These are defined and discussed in the sections following. Although there are limitations in the validity of these indicators as measures of text difficulty, the variety in their construction allows us to observe the robustness of the metrics and consider how different reference measures might affect their performance."

 

 

 

 

Be sure to note that Microsoft Word's Flesch-Kincaid measure has also been proven valid. This picture shows how to "turn on" readability statistics within Word:   

 

Readability statistics, is only one characteristic to examine for instructional materials.  Please see the charts below to identify correct grade levels and Lexiles - or level of complexity.

The Common Core has asked teachers to evaluate classroom materials for quality as well as quantity.  Complexity is only one piece of the puzzle. In addition, a teacher, librarian, or educator, has to pay attention to:

 

• Complexity - Lexile, vocabulary

• Qualitative measures -value
• Reader and the task -is there enough in the text to foster good discussion, value -added assignments, and begin a knowledge exploration. How can I use this novel or passage to foster critical thinking skills?

 

Every reading program (F and P, AR, Reading Counts, etc.) uses as its baseline, some metric to measure difficulty or "readability".

 

Here is a chart by Perma-bound, which correlates the different reading measures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Reasons to Read in the Common Core

Read, read, read.   

It's all about reading:
The more you read, the better you read. 
The better you read, they more you comprehend. 
The more you comprehend, the greater you achieve.
 
Therefore, our country's future is all linked to reading.  That, my friend, is why the Common Core say "literacy is everyone's business."
So why should kids read? Common Core states at least 8 reasons:

1. build and present knowledge
2. participate effectively in an evidence-based discussion
3. build background knowledge
4. gather facts to support a position
5. to enrich their lives, knowledge, and build fluency (see Appendix A p.9)
6. solve a problem
7. prepare for a discussion
8. increase knowledge

So, if you are planning a CCSS aligned lesson, you should consider reading.  However, close reading activities do not have to be "historical primary sources." They can be  sources that are vetted to be "quality" -- Remember the 3 legs of the stool:
          Quantity (Lexile, or readability measure)
          Quality (see diagram below or see a rubric)           Task (What do I want the students to DO with this passage that is worth the time).

 

So, a teacher or librarian can find captivating articles which bring subject matter to life. If your fourth graders are studying Biomes.... then find  captivating pollution articles about biomes (one pollution for each biome?) and then the task could be further research for a  "NIMBY* Campaign" for each biome, for example.
This approach: 

1. puts kids in the center of learning
2. makes the subject matter relevant to their lives
3. extends the learning experience outside of the classroom to the library for additional information, READING, and synthesis beyond the teachers' chosen 2 articles
4. requires "knowledge" evidence, synthesis or other manipulation of the facts and necessitates the NEED for the kids to read, synthesize, and apply their knowledge to the real world.  

 Now that, is aligning your instruction with the CCSS as they are... closely reading, debating, researching, writing from sources, discussing with evidence, and more.

* = Not In MY Backyard

Cook up a Common Core lesson with this easy recipe!

Recently during PD a teacher shared she was "doing"  the Common Core.  She was just treating it as a new checklist where she:  must "do" a close reading; must "do" an evidence based writing task; etc.  Teachers often think, "If we increase rigor in our current ELA novels, we'll be aligned."  

We wish the instructional paradigm shift in the CCS was so easy.  This Millennial generation needs relevance to care and to foster motivation. The rigor is to foster intelligence.  We like to tell students that these lessons will make them....smarter, richer, and more successful in life.   

The schematic below is one good little recipe to try, if you don't know where to start.  Please note the inclusion of a research task.  This is to embrace the Writing Standards 6,7,8,9, which say students should "research to build and present knowledge."  All too often, teachers stop at the close reading task, and do not follow the "read" up with a task to make it "relevant."   Why just read a primary source or "rich text," when this could be coupled with a "short or long term research" task which gives the students an opportunity to dig deeper, conclude, synthesize, form opinions linked to evidence, and other higher-level-thought tasks.  Why not try one of these Common Core pedagogy verbs, listed below, which were taken directly from the CCS...?

• Evaluate
• Comprehend
• Critique
• Analyze - think analytically
• Address a Question
• Solve a problem
• Conduct a short research projects
• Conduct sustained research projects
• Students generate questions
• Explore a topic
• Draw evidence from texts
• Support analysis
• Research and reflection
• Gather information from print and digital sources
• Assess the credibility and accuracy of sources 
• Integrate information avoiding plagiarism
• Produce and publish writing
• Interact and collaborate
• Debate
• Write arguments to support claims
• Formulate an argument
• Comprehend
• Prepare and participate effectively in conversations. 
• Build and express persuasively
• Express information and enhance understanding 

Couple a close read together with a research task to embrace information literacy for the Information Age.   After all...30% of the PARCC assessments will be a "simulated research task."  (Or, 25% of the Smarter Balance assessments....) 

The Common Core Does Not Say "Fetch"

This week I heard from librarians across America that they are weary of students showing up at their door with low-budget-lame-excuse-for-research "packets."  We don't send kids down to the Home and Careers classroom and say, "I want to send my kids down to bake a cake, and here is the recipe I want them to use."  Or, we don't send our students to gym class and say, "I would like my kids to get physically fit and here are the exercises they should do."   So, why is it that teachers believe they should send students to the library with their definition of research--which is merely Hide 'n Seek for information with no higher level thought?  

If you are an administrator reading this blog, I would encourage you to implement a litmus test for "research" endeavors in your building.  If research is merely fact-finding, the project should be "repackaged" with the librarian using an Inquiry framework.  
The Common Core calls for students to move beyond the compilation of factoids to building knowledge: 

Here's a Crazy Talk video clip created by a secondary student who did his homework for a research project that was filled with "transfer." This exemplifies how you can turn information fact finding into knowledge-analysis and synthesis. The compelling curriculum content for this could be....Imperialism? Movers and Shakers? Biographies? Colonists?  

EQ:  Where would you Imperialist fall today, if he were living among us now? 

This knowledge product displays an understanding of TR, who he was, his impact, and a compare and contrast analysis. It wasn't just a venture for facts. 

This is one example of using technology to embrace higher level thought and analysis.  We have seen this used for animals at the elementary level talking to America about their habitat, difficulties, and challenges in life; for Explorers discussing how their adventures impacted the world; for Signers of the Declaration talking about why they chose to stand with independence; and at the HS level this has been used for Chemical discoveries and properties, animating inanimate elements advocating for reactions, fusions and transformation.  Biography units have also been transformed into advice for teenagers: What would your person say to teens today?  

The important Bloom's component is to move beyond fact-finding to synthesis.  Make your students "interpret" the facts. -- please.    Here are some important things to consider for synthesis:

• How can your students use these facts to "understand" the "moral of the story" -- the main point?
• How did these facts change [society]
• Do I see any patterns? 
• Do I see any similarities - can I group these facts somehow?
• Is there a cause and effect? 
• Which facts are the most important?  Group your facts from important to least important, and ask why.
• Which facts support the answer to our Essential [research] Question? 

This Teddy clip was originally posted in 2009, but is more relevant now that every educator is being challenged by the Common Core Standards to create engaging research units that require kids to think, analyze, quote, draw upon evidence, argue, synthesize, and create knowledge products that are proof that they have embraced the vocabulary of the discipline and seen the relevance of the content to their lives.

The applications are endless!                http://www.reallusion.com/crazytalk/ 

(It was in my AASL  eCollaborate course that librarians from the Virgin Islands to Virginia were lamenting low level research, despite the demands of the CCSS.  Instructional time is too valuable to waste on tasks that will not teach the students anything.) 

6 Reading Rules for the Common Core

Once again, yesterday, I defended a librarian espousing that their student should be able to checkout whatever they wanted to read for independent reading.    Where do teachers get the idea that kids should read, an "M" or a 6.5?   Have you ever heard a student say, "I really want to read a "P" book at home."  No.  They say, "I really want to read a muscle-car book."   Or, they may say..."I really want to read that book about ..."  and most of the time the librarian can read their mind and share the title. 

As people wrap their heads around the Common Core and get more familiar with content and process, it's important to understand the key precepts of independent reading.  We have Stephen Krashen and Marilyn Adams to thank for a great deal of the reading research which lends a playbook for your everyday librarian:  

1. The more students read, the better they'll read   So, why limit their reading to a pre-set reading level with limited titles available? 
2. Students need opportunities to read easy books to build fluency  - This is ratified in Appendix A, Page 9,  of the CCSS standards.  We shouldn't have to define what level they should read at -- whether easy or hard -- for independent reading. 
3. Students need experience reading complex text to improve their ability to decode meaning when they encounter difficult material - This is based on the research of Marilyn Jager Rand, PhD. Brown University
4. Students will  shift from easy -->  hard  material if it's on a subject of their interest.  - So let them choose what they want and their innate curiosity will compel them to read and achieve understanding, thus raising their reading ability. 
5. Students need curiosity to inspire reading.  They will either have natural curiosity or stirred up curiosity (stirred up by the educator) 
6. Students need a reason to read that is not about 'assignment' - a quest for knowledge or an answer to find.    

Librarians, Football Fields & Unemployment Costs

I love apple pie.  I love football.  I love to read and I love kids.  What I don't like is when districts, who are in the education business, turn their "likes" into priorities.  We have more than one district in our area who invested in multi-million dollar football fields and have cut educational programs.    If my educational priorities were based upon what I like, my school would have reading, library, music and old-fashioned Home Economics to learn to bake old-fashioned apple pie!   Forget  3.14   I want a pie slice with an arch-length measure of 3.14. 

Apple Pie will not deliver the Common Core priorities, but reading and research will.  So, why are so many educators cutting elementary librarians when CCSS writing standards 6,7,8,9, and 10 say to Research to Build and Present Knowledge?