I certainly understand the reasoning behind releasing such a statement. Common Core opponents have argued ceaselessly that the federal government is taking over school curriculum, that certain reading materials are mandatory, and that local parents and school boards have lost all say in the matter. Superintendent Huppenthal has spent the last several months speaking to groups and attempting to inform them of the reality of the situation much as I have on my blog, through speaking engagements, and by emailing and speaking to individuals as concerns have arisen. Many others have embarked on the same journey after having studied the new standards and found them desirable for our students' success. But these voices of reason have largely been drowned out by untrue or exaggerated claims and indictments of the standards themselves and those who developed them. It has been a difficult and often thankless battle fighting for standards that are designed with the goal of better preparing our students for the future.
Despite the bad publicity the standards have received from some groups and factions, I think the name change is counterproductive. I believe two main goals of public policy should be clarity and consistency - and this name change runs contrary to both. While architects of the name change argue that it makes it more clear that these are Arizona's standards and includes the goal (college and career readiness) in the name of the standards, I think it is obvious that it is also an effort to confuse opponents. All of the websites and pamphlets and other materials railing on Common Core are now one step removed from the argument in Arizona. Likewise, proponents can now talk about the standards themselves and people might actually hear what is in them before they realize that it is Common Core and inherently evil (yes, I am exaggerating a little). But I vastly prefer clarity and dispelling myths through proof and reason to the tactic being employed here of obfuscation and redirection.
Furthermore, business leaders have lined up to speak for and support the new standards as many believe they will prepare students to be better future employees. These business leaders have bought in to the Common Core label and money and effort (both public and private) have been spent promoting Common Core, describing the new standards to parents and the public, and preparing teachers to teach them. While changing the name does not render these efforts entirely useless, it does lessen their impact in various ways.
One of my favorite articles about the name change (which can be seen here) compared the reluctancy to call the standards by their rightful name to the fear of Voldemort's name in Harry Potter. As a huge fan of Harry Potter, it is incredibly tempting for me to refer to the new standards from this time forward as the "standards-that-must-not-be-named," but since my goal is clarity, I will refrain. Instead, I will refer to them as the "new Arizona College and Career Readiness Standards (Common Core)" the first time in my posts and simply the "new standards" thereafter. I hope this will avoid any confusion on the topic.
This post will contain an overview of the types of writing required of 12th graders by both the old standards and the new. Later posts will go into detail about what is required within each writing genre. Today's will simply evaluate whether or not both sets of standards require the same types of writing; whether or not those types of writing are sufficient preparation for college, career, and civic involvement; and whether the types of writing required by each show any type of political bias or slant.
The Facts:
- Both the old and the new writing standards require students to show an ability to produce specific types of writing.
- The old standards contain a section for each type of writing: expressive (personal narrative, poetry, stories. etc.), expository (non-fiction; describes, explains, or summarizes), functional (specific directions), persuasive, literary response, and research.
- The new standards are arranged differently but specifically require the following types of writing: informative/explanatory, narratives, functional, and research projects. Students are also required to demonstrate through writing an understanding of foundational works of American literature and constitutional principles. They also must be able to write arguments to support claims in various forms of texts.
My Opinion:
Both sets of standards require functional texts, some form of expressive writing, literary responses, expository texts, and research projects. The new standards fail to specifically mention poetry or persuasive texts. However, the standard that deals with writing arguments to support claims (with its additional criteria) clearly speaks to writing persuasive texts. Also, writing persuasive texts is required to begin in 3rd grade with the new standards, so it is certainly not a topic that has been in any way neglected in the new standards. It is simply not entitled "persuasive" writing in this section of the standards. Perhaps this is something that ought to be added.
Is the exclusion of poetry writing something to be concerned about? Perhaps. It also is required in earlier grades but neglected as a requirement for 12th graders. Poetry can be a very powerful art form and a great opportunity for self-expression. However, I would argue that it is less important to preparation for college and careers than the forms of writing emphasized in the new standards. I hesitate to say whether it is more or less useful than other forms of writing for civic involvement. Certainly, there have been pieces of poetry and song lyrics written that have had a great impact on this country (The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the Star Spangled Banner, etc.). And the new standards do not require that writing poetry be banished from the 12th grade English class, they simply do not require it. Actually, the old standards require that some forms of expressive writing be done and list several examples of types of writing including poetry, but they do not absolutely require it, nor do I believe writing poetry has been included (or should be) on the AIMS test (Arizona's test to measure students' grasp of the old standards). So I doubt the new standards will have much impact on the amount of poetry writing (or complete lack thereof) that takes place in our 12th grade English classes.
Finally, in looking at the types of writing required, it is very difficult to see any political bias one way or the other. The types of writing required are fairly broad. It would, however, be possible to comply with these standards without doing any creative writing at all. I think this is inadvisable. A good teacher/curriculum will include creative writing in the narrative portion of the requirement. Also, neither set of standards is meant to be an exhaustive list of everything covered in a class. Standards are a set of minimal requirements. That being said, teachers will emphasize the areas that are to be tested (and upon which their own evaluations are judged) to the possible detriment of other topics. So if Arizona were to add anything to the list of types of writing, I would explicitly require some form of creative writing.
