College and Career Readiness: Fiction versus Non-fiction Texts

          Today's post will focus on the Common Core English Language Arts Standards' requirements for use of informational texts versus Literary Texts.  One of the new pieces within the standards is a recommended percentage of informational and literary texts.  There has been much discussion about the new standards requiring English teachers to throw out the classics and supplant them with boring (or worse, politically biased) EPA documents.  Many argue that a study of the classics teach moral and ethical values that have been otherwise abandoned by educators.  They furthermore worry that study of informational texts cannot possibly instill in children a love of reading - a joy that could be missing for the rest of their lives.  These are arguments I wish to visit and analyze, but my research today has led me to looking at whether increases in the amount of non-fiction texts will in reality better prepare students for college and careers.  Most specifically, I have spent some time looking at college degrees earned and the most common jobs and trying to determine what percent of college students and job holders need to be able to read and/or analyze fictional texts on a regular or even semi-regular basis.
          I have looked at two sources of data for my (very amateur) analysis.  The first is a report of college degrees earned in 2009-2010.  You can view the data here.  The second is a simple list of the 30 most common jobs in the US.  You can view this list here.  I used the data in these reports to calculate percentages.

The Facts:

• Of all Bachelor's degrees earned in 2009-2010, about 46% require occasional use or analysis of fictional texts within the major field of study.  This is based entirely on my own assumptions about each field of study.  For example, I assumed that architecture did not require use of fictional texts, communication and journalism might occasionally, and literature majors definitely use such texts.  Following this line of calculation, just under 20% of majors use fictional texts regularly.  These majors include: education, English language/literature, foreign language/literature/linguistics, library arts/humanities, library sciences, philosophy/religion, visual & performing arts.
• Of the top 30 most common jobs in the US, only 3 required any substantive use of fictional literature: elementary teacher, teacher assistant, and secondary teacher.  These three professions account for under 8% of the total jobs included in the top 30.
• Of the Bachelor's degrees earned, it seems very likely that all require regular use of informational texts in college classes.  Even a course of study such as Visual Arts will require a study of the artists and their work.  Likewise, a study of English Literature will require learning about influential historical events and authors.
• Of the top 30 most common jobs in the US, over 65% require regular use of informational texts.  The amount and types of informational texts vary greatly among these jobs.  A job like security guard I assumed no real reading requirement whereas healthcare professionals have much greater reading comprehension needs.  Jobs like stock clerks and order fillers fall somewhere in the middle.

My Opinion:

          It seems clear from this simple exercise that there is a much greater need for competency in use of informational texts in both college and careers.  If the goal of the Common Core Standards is (as they state) to produce more college and career ready students, then the increase in use of informational texts makes sense.  Use of literary texts in the workplace is very uncommon and in this regard, the decision to increase the use of informational text seems sound.  However, I am interested at looking at studies of how literary texts impact the lives of students and their importance to language development. 
          It is important to note that the Common Core Standards do no require or even suggest the classics be thrown out.  On the contrary, literary texts are an important part of the standards.  What they do is require a shift in the amount of informational texts in comparison to literary texts.  Much of that shift, however, is suggested to come from texts used to teach other subjects (especially science and history).  Their actual impact on the amount of classical literature studied by our students has yet to be seen.

Text Complexity & the Research behind the Common Core

          My goal today was to write about the fiction / nonfiction reading requirements within the Common Core.  However, as I began to look at the reasoning for the breakdown (as described in Appendix A of the English Language Arts Standards) and the research presented as backing up such a distribution (found at the end of Appendix A), I was sidetracked by one of the indicated studies.  My intention was to skim through a few of the studies to see if I could find where the 70/30 percentages had been derived and whether they were in any way representative of college and career expectations.  Instead, I ended up engrossed in a paper written by Marilyn Jager Adams entitled The Challenge of Advanced Texts: The Interdependence of Reading and Learning.

          I had previously read parts of Appendix A and was surprised by some of the information about reading comprehension.  I was particularly interested to learn that while text complexity of newsprint, college texts and scientific papers has remained stable or increased slightly since 1970, the text complexity of K-12 texts has decreased significantly over the same time period.  It makes sense, then, that a growing number of our students are not prepared for college and career reading demands when they have not previously been exposed to such complex texts in the K-12 setting.

          The study that so thoroughly captured my attention is one that drives home these points and talks extensively about the research procedures that led to these conclusions.  It furthermore offers suggestions of how to rectify the problem within our schools.  So while today's post does not deal directly with Common Core, it speaks to the motivation for inclusion of text complexity requirements.  If you have a couple hours to pour over the actual report, I would highly recommend it.  It is fairly lengthy, but my initial impression is that the research is well done and thorough and has great repercussions on the text complexity discussions that have been and will continue to take place.

 

The Facts (as determined or sited by the above-mentioned study):

• Scores for the verbal section of the SAT have been on the decline since the 1960s.  From 1963 to 1980, they fell 54 points or approximately half of a standard deviation.  Meanwhile text complexity of the exam was found to have declined slightly over the study period.  Shifts in the demographics of the average student taking the test can account for some of the discrepancy, but the study found that it is unlikely to account for more than about 30% of the change.
• In the early 1990s the SAT decided to re-center its average score to 500 points.  They had to add 80 points to the score in order to do so.
• International studies ranked US 4th graders' reading and literacy development as 9th out of the 35 countries participating.  High school students meanwhile ranked 17th out of 30 and they significantly outperformed only 5 of the other countries in the study.
• Adult literacy in the US ranked 12th of 20 countries in a 2002 study despite ranking first in the number of years of schooling and academic degree completion.
• Literacy levels of adults in the US over the age of 35 ranked 5th of 20 countries, while "adults younger than 35 ranked in the bottom half of the distribution by every measure."
• Over 40% of US adults are "unable to comprehend texts of moderate everyday difficulty."
• While 4th and 8th grade students have improved on tests such as NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), it has simultaneously fallen for 12th graders.
• The following quote I have decided to include verbatim:

"The College Board's 1977 panel examined a number of factors that might have contributed to the SAT score decline. One of these, proposed by Jeanne Chall, was that the reading selections on the tests had somehow become too hard for the students. To test this hypothesis, Chall and her colleagues (1977) sampled passages from SAT tests administered between 1947 and 1975, using readability analyses to compare their difficulty. Yet, the data indicated that the SAT passages had become easier, not harder. Between 1963 and 1975, during the years of the score decline, the average difficulty of the test passages lay at the 11th-grade level, which should have been solidly in range for 12th-grade college-bound students. However, Chall et al. also evaluated popular 11th-grade textbooks in history, literature, grammar, and composition. The average difficulty of the textbooks lay between the ninth- and tenth-grade levels. Could the SAT score decline have been due to this difference in the relative difficulty of the test and the school books? If students had neither practiced nor been instructed with reading materials as hard as the SAT passages, then one could hardly expect them to read the latter with competence and confidence.

Following on Chall et al.'s (1977) hypothesis, Hayes, Wolfer, and Wolfe (1996) undertook a complementary study in which they analyzed the difficulty of popular reading textbook series over time. Their results indicated that the difficulty of the text in these books, especially in grades 4 and up, had been reduced and, further, that this reduction was temporally aligned with the SAT score decline."

 

My Opinion:

          I find the above study fascinating for several reasons.   But again, I would urge readers who are interested to take the time to read the study itself.  The points I have touched on are only a small part of the study.  This study goes on to look at how people acquire vocabulary and subject-matter knowledge, what inspires individuals to read and attain new vocabulary, and what steps might be taken to rectify the current situation.  It also includes a fascinating study on teaching computers vocabulary through reading articles and the conclusion that when a computer reads articles it learns not only about things present in the article itself, but also about other related words and subjects not explicitly stated in the article.  This part of the paper starts on page 20 if you are interested.

          But the part of the article I find most relevant to the current discussion of text complexity is the stated discrepancies between the decreasing text complexity found in K-12 schools and the stable or increasing text complexity found outside of K-12 education.  It seems very clear that in order to improve the reading ability of our students we must increase the text complexity levels and expectations within our schools.  If we are to do this, it makes sense to use a somewhat top-down approach, meaning, that we should start by looking at the literacy abilities that are expected of a recent high school graduate when a) entering college, b) starting an entry-level career (that requires only a high school diploma), and c) participating as a United States citizen.  Once we determine the level of reading comprehension required to be successful in each of these three scenarios, we should set that level as the expectation for a 12th grader and then work backwards from there, determining what level of literacy must be attained each year in order to reach the new literacy goal.

          Next comes the most important piece of the puzzle.  We must make sure our texts for each grade match the level of text complexity required in order to attain the desired level of literacy.  Without this piece, desired improvements are not likely to occur. 

          With all of this background information in place, the design of the Common Core's text complexity bands make a whole lot of sense.  While some of the exemplary texts are unarguably boring and strange selections for students of any age (think Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management or Recommended Levels of Insulation), the point is not to use those exact texts, but to use texts that match the designated level of text complexity.  If a district or school or teacher is to appropriately implement the reading standards, they should look at each of their science, math, history, and every other text that has or is to be used by a specific grade level.  They should then, along with checking to ensure texts contain the appropriate content, are unbiased, and are age-level appropriate, should check the text complexity to ensure it meets a minimum level of complexity.  And this should be true not just of text books, but primary documents studied at each grade, fictional literature, directions on assignments, and, ideally, every form of the written word used in our classrooms.

          One of my greatest concerns with the exemplary texts is that teachers will go through the list and use those exact texts instead of going through the effort to find texts of similar text complexity that better fit their own interests and the interests of their students.  I would hate for a science teacher to feel he/she had to read Recommended Levels of Insulation with students rather than another, much more interesting and engaging text with greater scientific significance.  However, I am not sure how the Common Core could ensure that teachers and curriculum developers across the states understood the appropriate levels of text complexity without giving explicit examples of the types of readings expected.  I believe it is incumbent upon each state and, more importantly, each district, to edit the list of exemplary texts to remove some of the more absurd titles and include a greater range of exemplars from which teachers can select with little research and comparison of text complexity on their part.  After doing my research today, it is something about which I plan to speak with our curriculum department; and I would encourage others, especially fellow school board members or those who are involved with their state's Department of Education to do the same.

          If we can increase the literacy level of our high school students, I believe there will be associated gains in every subject.  So much has been said about the decline of other subjects(humanities in particular) because of the emphasis on reading and math.  But improving reading skills opens the door for students to learn subject matter in all fields.  And while students are working on improving reading skills, there is no reason they cannot simultaneously be learning about other subjects through their reading.  Through improving the complexity of our texts in an intentional, step-by-step method, we can better prepare our students, not only to go to college or begin a career, but to be knowledgeable citizens capable of understanding ballot proposition, current events, and our nation's history, as well as enjoying great literature of the past and present.

Is My Student's Data Safe?

Changes to FERPA and its Implementation



          In the past several years there have been multiple changes to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  A really good explanations of the various changes can be found here.  To list all of the changes that have been made would take much more time than I care to devote to this topic.  My focus will be on the changes I have heard most about as I have studied the arguments for and against Common Core.  Before I get into the details, I would like to give a brief summary of what FERPA is and why it is important.
          FERPA is the policy that dictates what data educational agencies may share with whom.  It also gives students (or parents of minor students) the right to review educational records and request amendments to those records.  In general, FERPA states that educational entities may not share educational records without prior written consent from the student or parent of a minor student.  It includes a list of scenarios in which said records may be disclosed without prior written consent.  These exceptions include things like sharing pertinent data among appropriate teachers and administrators, participating in studies, and sharing with third party educational service providers.  It also allows schools to share information with state and federal education officials. 
          The concerns I have heard recently deal with three similar issues: data sharing with third party providers, data sharing with state and federal education officials, and participation in studies.  Parents are concerned that their students' private data will be used for marketing purposes, liberal policy makers' research, and perhaps even more nefarious reasons.  These parents are rightfully concerned with safeguarding their children's privacy.
          In order to determine whether or not our children's privacy is threatened by recent changes to FERPA, I have looked at the regulations in the law itself, the data sharing policies of the Mesa Unified School District, and the data collection and sharing incentivized by Race to the Top.  The remainder of this post will cover the facts I have found and my opinion on whether or not FERPA has been too greatly diminished to protect our children.

The Facts:

• FERPA allows educational records to be released to a third party without prior written consent only if they have a "legitimate educational interest," are contracted by the school to perform some educational service(s), and have contracted not to share the data with any other entities or use the data for anything other than the service(s) they were contracted to perform.  If a private entity is found to have violated this regulation, they will be barred from receiving any student data for a minimum of five years.
• The Department of Education clarifies a "legitimate educational interest" as such: "A school official generally has a legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibility."
• FERPA allows educational records to be shared with those conducting research "if such studies are conducted in such a manner as will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by persons other than representatives of such organizations and such information will be destroyed when no longer needed for the purpose for which it is conducted."
• While FERPA allows disclosure of student data under the above exceptions, the only place FERPA requires release of educational records is to the student or parent of a minor student to whom the records refer.
• Mesa Public Schools (MPS) submits student identifying information (name, birthdate, etc), attendance information (required to determine state funding), student characteristics (ethnicity, special needs, etc.) to the state Department of Education on a regular basis.  The state also has access to AIMS (state test) data as they are the ones who grade and record that information.
• MPS submits aggregate data to the Federal Department of Education about once a year.  This data includes things like the percent students who graduate from high school in four years.  Breakdowns are often requested along ethnicities, incomes, or special needs.  If students are broken into these types of groups, any group smaller than a certain number is not reported in order to maintain anonymity.
• MPS participates in many studies on teacher effectiveness, curriculum effectiveness, software effectiveness, etc.  When data is released for studies, it is always anonymized.  (The spell checker doesn't think 'anonymized' is a word, but I'm sticking with it.)  This is done by removing things like names, student ids, etc. and replacing them with study ids.
• MPS seldom releases student data to third party contractors.  A few noted exceptions are our data warehouse provider (they store our data on their servers), contracted speech or occupational therapists, etc.  In every case, these individuals and companies are required to sign agreements placing them under the same FERPA restrictions which govern our schools.
• MPS restricts access to records to only those personnel with a legitimate educational need for the data.  So a principal can see the data for the entire school, but a teacher can only view the records of students in his/her class.  Specific data is available only to those that need that data.
• Some data, like Free and Reduced Lunch Status, is not even shared with the school.  Only Food and Nutrition has access to that data.
• The National Student Clearinghouse keeps track of post-secondary (college) students.  We receive information from them on where our former students are enrolled, whether or not they complete post-secondary degrees or certificates, etc.
• Student and parents of minor students can opt out of participation in research studies, the National Student Clearinghouse, directories, college and military disclosure, and other third party vendors (such as those who sell yearbooks, caps and gowns, senior pictures, etc.)

My Opinion:

          One of the things that struck me most as I studied FERPA is that it never tells school officials that they must share data, only that they may.  This, to me, is an important distinction.  It says to me that the regulation is being weakened so that states and local boards can make their own decisions on when data should be shared and with whom.  It allows data to move more freely to those with a "legitimate educational interest" if the states and communities wish to allow said data sharing.  It strikes me as ironic that the same individuals who argue ardently against federal incentives to adopt Common Core also argue for stronger federal regulations on data sharing.  If local school boards and state educational leaders should be making the decisions on which standards are best for our children, why shouldn't they also make decisions about when it is appropriate to share student data?  Isn't it easier and more constitutional to strengthen this decision at the local or state level than to do so at the federal?  Also, FERPA is tied only to those educational institutions receiving some type of federal funding.  If all federal funding for education were to disappear, FERPA regulations would go the way of the dinosaurs.  As such, I find no issue with weakening a federal regulation that is causing extra paperwork and problems for our schools.  That is not to say that I favor haphazard, unregulated sharing of our students' private details - only that I favor regulations made in the communities which they serve.
           As far as my own school district is concerned, I feel like we do an exemplary job of protecting student privacy.  I was impressed with the safeguards that had been put in place and the policies that are followed to ensure that those with access to student data treat that information appropriately.  I do not know that all districts do the same.  I would encourage all those with concerns about data sharing to contact personnel in their own district to learn how their students' data is safeguarded, when it is shared, and with whom. 
          I have two outstanding data-related questions that I hope to have answered this week.  The first deals with disciplinary data.  I know expulsion and suspension information is shared with schools in which a student subsequently enrolled.  I could not find out for sure whether or not that data is included in what goes to the state.  I have someone checking on that for me.  Also, under Race to the Top, state longitudinal databases are supposed to be "interoperable" with post-secondary institutions' systems.  I am not sure exactly how that has been interpreted in Arizona or elsewhere.  Does that mean that transcripts can be sent electronically when a student applies or is admitted to a college program?  Or does it mean colleges would have much wider access to student data?  I am planning to attend a meeting tonight with Superintendent Huppenthal where I hope to get these questions answered.
          Thus far, the information I have found on data sharing is not likely to keep me up at night (especially after dealing with an 11-month-old with an ear infection for a week and a half).  It seems that the data being shared is being done so responsibly and with our students' best interests in mind.  Data is shared only when it will help that student or can be used in research to help future students.  It is not shared with individuals who can then market their goods to students or their parents (aside from things like designated suppliers of caps and gowns, yearbooks, etc.), and it is never released unless local district personnel deem it appropriate and can back up their decision in writing.  If individuals know of specific instances where data has been shared inappropriately and recent changes to FERPA have been given as the excuse for such disclosure, they should contact their local school board members or state representatives to look at ways to regulate such disclosures at the local or state level rather than deferring to the federal law.
         
         

Comprehending Informational Texts

Old Vs. New - Comprehending Informational Texts

 

          The next section in the old Arizona English Language Arts Standards deals with Informational Texts.  As always, the actual standards can be found here: old and new.  As I stated in my previous post, I continue to research data collection and sharing, changes to FERPA, and how those changes have affected and translated into policy in my district and state.  Friday I will meet with our district's head data guru to verify exactly what data we share with whom and when.  If I need additional information about what data the state currently shares and what they plan to share once the state's longitudinal database is complete, I have a contact I will speak to after Friday.  In the mean time, I have decided to move forward with my analysis of old versus new.

 

The Facts:

• The old standards break information texts into three categories: expository, functional, and persuasive.  The new standards are not divided in this manner.
• In the old standards, organizational patterns were required to be critiqued or analyzed in expository texts with a focus on effectiveness and in functional texts with a focus on clarity and understanding.
• The new standards likewise require analysis and evaluation of structure with an emphasis on whether the structure helps make the text "clear, convincing, and engaging."
• Both sets of standards emphasize citing evidence for the student's analysis of an informational text.
• In the old standards, students were required to: determine the accuracy and truthfulness of an argument or statement by citing evidence from the text itself as well as referencing evidence from other sources; evaluate evidence from primary and secondary sources; examine differences in evidence in texts with same or competing views on the same topic; and give evidence to show an author's assumptions.
• In the new standards, students will be required to: "cite strong and thorough evidence" to support their analysis of what a text says both explicitly and implicitly; and integrate and evaluate multiple sources to address a question or solve a problem.
• Both sets of standards require students to evaluate the use of rhetoric in informational texts.
• The old standards require students to identify unsupported inferences and fallacious reasoning.  The new standards do not explicitly state this requirement for 11th/12th grade, but it is required in earlier grades.
• The old standards ask students to evaluate persuasive texts for "adherence to ethics."  They also required that students evaluate the logic of functional texts.
• The new standards require students to analyze the development of central ideas throughout informational texts and provide an "objective summary."
• The new standards ask students to state the author's point of view or purpose, looking at how style and content contribute to the text's "power, persuasiveness, or beauty."
• The new standards require students to analyze seminal US texts with an emphasis on "application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses)."
• Students will also be required to analyze foundational US documents for their themes, purposes and rhetorical features.  These documents must include The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

My Opinion:

          Although the old and new standards for informational texts are organized very differently, most of the requirements are nearly the same.  The emphasis on structure, evidence, and multiple sources appear in both sets of standards.  There are a few items that appear in the old standards that are absent from the new.  Evaluating logic, ethics, and fallacious reasoning are the three main exclusions.  As stated in the fact section, identifying unsupported inferences and fallacious reasoning is present in the new standards for earlier grades (9th and 10th).  I think evaluating an author's reasoning or logic is an important standard, but more so in persuasive and expository texts than in functional texts (i.e., How-to manuals) where it is required in the old standards.  I think this requirement is covered in the new standards with the various analyses of the author's point of view, evidence, central ideas, and conclusions. 

          The only standard completely missing from the old to the new is an evaluation of persuasive texts for "adherence to ethics."  I must admit that I'm not sure what this standard means.  Does it mean properly citing references?  Not plagiarizing?  Or does it refer to whether or not the author's point of view is ethical?  Are students to determine whether or not authors are using evidence and citations honestly (i.e., not taking things out of context)?  Because I'm not sure what this standard means, I have no idea whether or not it should be included in the new standards.

          The biggest difference from the old standards to the new is the requirement to study seminal US texts and foundational documents of historical and literary significance.  This is the one place where specific texts are required to be studied and they are texts I think every American should know and understand.  Studying these documents and constitutional principles will require students to understand complex traditional language and will better prepare them to be active citizens aware of their rights, privileges and responsibilities.  It will reinforce the lessons learned in American History and encourage cross-subject integration of teaching and learning.  I can think of few things conservatives have been more adamant about lately than the need to understand constitutional principles and the events and documents central to the founding of this nation.  I feel like this is a huge win for conservatives and for the future of this country.

          This concludes the reading portion of the standards.  Overall, I am sure it is clear that I find the new standards superior to the old, however, there are still two topics I wish to address before going on to the writing standards.  One is the recommendation for the distribution of literary versus informational texts.  On this topic I hope to look at the breakdown of literary versus informational texts used in college and careers as well as any research I can find to determine whether or not the recommendation is evidentially based.  The second topic I would like to look at is what reading deficiencies most often require students to take remedial college courses and whether or not these standards address those problems.  Also, I will look for research on what reading abilities are most important to entry level employers.  My goal here is to determine whether or not students who master these reading standards are "college and career ready" as promised.  If other concerns with the reading standards come up (either in the comments section, in my own research, or in person), I will research them as I have the time and opportunity.

Old Vs New - Comprehending Literary Text

Common Core Part 7

Old Versus New - Comprehending Literary Text

 

          I had planned for this post to contain information about FERPA changes and data sharing, but I am continuing to research this topic to make sure I have accurate information.  I have studied the recent changes to the federal law but am still trying to find out how those changes have affected state and local policies regarding data sharing.  I hope to complete my research on this topic in the next couple days and will be able to post that information this week.  In the mean time, I have decided to continue my comparison of the old standards to the new while I wait to gather the rest of my data.

          And so we return to the old Arizona standards for 12th grade English Language Arts and the new Arizona Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts.  The topic of this post is the comparison and contrast between the old 12th grade standards for Comprehending Literary Text and the new standards for the same topic.

 

The Facts:

• The old standards required students to "Evaluate the author's use of literary elements."  These elements are explicitly listed in the standards along with examples.  The elements listed are: theme, point of view, characterization, setting, and plot.
• In addition to dealing with theme as a literary element, the old standards required students to compare and contrast literary texts that express a universal theme, providing textual evidence as support.
• The new standards require students to "Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain."
• The new standards also require students to "Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on one another to produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text."
• Both sets of standards require analysis of how the author's choices impacts the piece of literature and the reader. 
• Specifically, in the old standards, students were required to analyze the author's use of: figurative language; word choice and imagery; dialogue, scene design, soliloquies, asides, and character foils in dramatic literature; and sound, structure and graphic elements of poetry.
• Comparatively, the new standards specify that students analyze: how the author develops and relates elements of a story or drama; specific word choices; figurative and connotative meanings; use of satire, sarcasm, irony and understatement; and how structure of specific parts contribute to overall structure, meaning, and aesthetic impact.
• The old standards required to students to analyze characteristics of sub-genres that overlap or cut across lines of genre classification.  There is no parallel requirement in the new standards.
• The new standards add that students should be able to analyze multiple interpretations of the same story, drama, or poem.
• There are no specific literary works required by either set of standards.  However, the new standards require students to study at least one play by Shakespeare and at least one American dramatist.  They also require students to "Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics. "

My Opinion:

          As with most of the topics studied thus far, there are many similarities between the old standards for literary text comprehension and the new.  Rather than rehash the similarities, I would like to bring attention to the discrepancies.  The new standards continue to require students to "cite strong and thorough textual evidence" for their claims.  Regardless of whether they are talking about elements of literature, comparing or contrasting themes, studying non-fictional texts, or writing persuasive essays, there is a great emphasis on evidence.  I feel this emphasis is essential to the success of our students, particularly if they intend to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields.  Providing evidence (and not just any evidence, but good sound evidence) is immeasurably valuable.  That is not to say that the old statements never required students to show evidence for their conclusions, but the overarching emphasis on strong evidence throughout the Common Core standards is, I believe, one of its strongest selling points.
          The one omission from the old to the new is the analysis of overlapping subgenres.  This may be important to an English or Literature major, but I'm not sure how it is pertinent to any other major or field of study.  I wondered why it was included in the first place. 
          Finally, the greatest addition from the old to the new was the requirement that students study at least one work of Shakespeare, one American drama, and foundational works of American literature.  I appreciate that the requirement is no more specific than it is.  It leaves districts and teachers to determine which literary works best fit the theme(s) they intend to cover or best correlate to simultaneous history lessons.  At the same time, no student should enter college without an introduction to the works of Shakespeare.  Likewise, studying foundational works of American literature are likely to give students a much richer understanding of our nation's history and cultures.
          As with previous subjects, I find no evidence of a liberal agenda.  In fact, I found works of literature that would fit the criteria on conservative Christian reading lists.  On a similar note, conservatives have long decried the deficits in the teaching of American History in public schools.  This standard seems to be a step in the right direction towards remedying some of those deficits.  In addition to American History standards set by each state, students in Common Core states will be required to read American dramas and seminal works of literature.  They will have to look at multiple texts from the same time period and analyze the different points of view that were present at the time of their writing.  If anything, this piece of standards slants toward conservatism.
          While some of the standards have been too similar for me to say definitively which I prefer, this one is easy.  The new Common Core standards for Literary Comprehension are in every way superior to the old.  They better prepare students for college and careers by continually emphasizing strong evidence for claims and they require students to study both Shakespeare and important American historical literature.  They do so without being unnecessarily prescriptive or vague.  At this time, I do not see how they could be improved upon.