Common Core 3

Comparing Old to New - Vocabulary

 

          Now I will begin to look at the Common Core Standard themselves and compare them to the standards we have used in previous years.  Because I am in Arizona, I will be comparing them to Arizona standards.  My goal in doing so is to take a good look at whether or not these standards are a step forward for Arizona students.  Each state needs to do the same with their own state standards.  What is true in Arizona is not going to be consistent with each other state.  Some pieces of Common Core that are a step forward for Arizona may be a step backward for other states and vice versa.  In the end, my concern is whether or not these standards are the right standards for Arizona.  Whether other states choose to adopt them is, and should be, up to each individual state.  That does not mean that people from other states will not benefit from this discussion.  Those who continue to read these posts, and especially those who join in the conversation, will gain a level of familiarity with the standards that few who consider themselves "experts" on Common Core can boast.  I am not saying that I am an expert on Common Core, simply that by delving into each topic they address and comparing them to past standards, we will know of what we speak and no longer need to rely on others' opinions.

          In deciding how to begin, I chose to start with 12th grade.  Because the standards aim to prepare students for college and career readiness, I felt it was preferable to start at the top.  If the standards for 12th graders are not the standards necessary for students to be prepared for college and careers, then they are not as they profess and of little value.  If they do not represent a significant raising of the bar for Arizona students, then they are not worth the time, effort, and money they will require.  Since some standards are for 11th and 12th grade combined, my comparison will actually be between both grades.

          My choice of Vocabulary was not nearly as strategic as my choice of 12th grade.  I chose English Language Arts over Math because my own background is in math and I have a better grasp of those standards already.  I chose Vocabulary because it was the first topic in the old Arizona English Language Arts standards.  I am including links to both the old Arizona English Language Arts standards and the new Arizona Common Core English Language Arts standards.  If you are not in Arizona, I would encourage you to find your own state's English Language Arts standards and see how they compare.  Feel free to include links to your own state's standards and similarities/differences in the comment section.

The Facts:

• In the old standards, students were expected to draw inferences about meaning based on linguistic roots and affixes (i.e., Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon).  I find no reference to this skill in the new 11-12th grade standards.
• In the new standards, students are expected to choose between various methods to determine word meaning: 1) context, 2) patterns of word changes (i.e., conceive, conception, conceivable), 3) appropriate reference materials (i.e., dictionary, thesaurus, glossary), and they should 4) verify their preliminary determination of meaning with another of the above options.
• In the old standards, students had to identify the meaning of metaphors, use literal and figurative language "intentionally" when appropriate, and use clichés only when appropriate to their purpose.
• In the new standards, students must demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meaning.  They must also exhibit proper use of techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy.
• The old standards required students to use vocabulary that is original, varied, and natural; use accurate, specific, powerful words and phrases that effectively convey the intended message; and use words that evoke clear images.
• The new standards require students to vary syntax for effect; use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary and techniques to manage the complexity of the topic; and use accurately general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing, speaking and listening at the college and career readiness level.
• Parts of the new standards that have no direct correlation to the old standards (as related to vocabulary) include: demonstrating independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression; analyzing how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text; and using precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic.
• There is also this note in the new standards (pg 24):

NOTE ON RANGE AND CONTENT OF STUDENT LANGUAGE USE
To build a foundation for college and career readiness in language, students must gain control over many conventions of Standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics as well as learn other ways to use language to convey meaning effectively. They must also be able to determine or clarify the meaning of grade-appropriate words encountered through listening, reading, and media use; come to appreciate that words have nonliteral meanings, shadings of meaning, and relationships to other words; and expand their vocabulary in the course of studying content. The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to conventions, effective language use, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.

My Opinion:

           In general, the Common Core standards are much more thorough in their requirements for aspects of both obtaining and using vocabulary.  I really like the requirement that students show independence in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words.  I don't think that is something that can be tested, but I think it is a vital skill for students in both college and careers.  In either case, students are going to come across many words with which they are unfamiliar.  They can either choose to ignore the unfamiliar words and miss out on understanding of entire concepts, discussions, or responsibilities associated with the use of those words, or they can take the initiative to learn what those unfamiliar words mean.  Those who take the effort to learn new words when they come across them will unquestionably benefit whether in the workforce, a college setting, or simply participating in an informal debate on public policy.
          I find it interesting that the prior standards required that students understand the use of metaphors but disregarded understanding of all other figures of speech in reading comprehension.  These are probably presented in earlier grades, but I think that the final years of English training before college should contain (at least) a review of various figures of speech.  Both standards do, however, require students to use various figures of speech effectively in their own writing.
          The one requirement from the old standard that I feel is missing from the new is the use of linguistic roots and affixes in determining word meaning.  I think this is an essential skill that aides students no only in vocabulary, but also in spelling and in learning foreign languages.  It is something I would advocate for adding to the Arizona implementation of the Common Core.  States are permitted to add up to 15% and I think this would be a great place to use part of that allowance.
          (I don't think the old standard about using clichés only when appropriate is significant enough to be its own standard.  I think it is included in the new standards about using correct word choice and syntax and is only important enough to deserve this parenthetical mention.)
         The new standards for determining unfamiliar word meaning seem much more powerful and comprehensive than the old.   While they lack the use of linguistic roots, I think the use of multiple methods for determining meaning is essential.  Linguistic roots are often helpful, but students need many more tools in their toolbox for determining meanings.  They also need tools for determining which meaning is appropriate to a given context and I think that is also covered in the new standards by requiring students to verify their preliminary definition with additional methods.  This accumulation of multiple skills for determining unfamiliar word meaning is certainly a better preparation for college and careers.  (But, in case it's not clear above, I think we need to add the use of linguistic roots to the list of tools.)
          My final evaluation of the vocabulary aspects of the Common Core is that they are in fact a significant step forward when compared to Arizona's previous standards.  I think they do indeed fulfill their promise of requiring better preparation for college and careers.  They are not perfect, but I think that with the simple addition suggested above they will be in all cases better than or equal to the Arizona standards.  I find nothing in this section of the standards that shows any political agenda and certainly no "dumbing down" of the standards.