Common Core Part 5

Old Versus New - Reading Comprehension

          So far, I have looked at whether or not states were coerced into adopting Common Core and whether or not they had other feasible options both in regard to Race to the Top (Post 2) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) / Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waivers (Post 1).  Then I began a comparison between Arizona's previous standards and our new Common Core standards.  Starting with 11th and 12th grade English Language Arts, I have compared and contrasted the old and new standards for Vocabulary and Reading Fluency.  The next standard on the list is Reading Comprehension.  It ties closely to Vocabulary and there is quite a bit of crossover between the two.  As always, anyone who is interested can view the old Arizona standards here and the new Common Core standards here.

The Facts:

• In the old Arizona standards, Reading Comprehension is covered in three different areas: Comprehension Strategies is its own concept in the Reading Strategies Strand (Vocabulary and Reading Fluency were also concepts in this strand); Comprehending Literary Text is Strand 2; and Comprehending Informational Text is Strand 3.  Despite these titles, most of the concepts within these strands have little to do with comprehension and I will focus this post on those that deal directly with reading comprehension.  Remaining topics within these strands will be considered in subsequent posts.
• The new Common Core standards also cover Reading Comprehension in multiple sections (for 11th and 12th graders): in the section on Informational Texts and the section on Literary Texts, and in the section on Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies.
• According to the new standards, students should be able to "Read and comprehend informational and functional text, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently."  The Literature strand contains almost an identical standard with the exception of the type of text being changed to "literature, including stories, dramas, and poems."
• The text complexity band if the new standards will be discussed in a subsequent post.  In brief, it is an exemplary list of texts which should be used to compare works of fiction and nonfiction in order to determine the correct  "Complexity, Quality, and Range" for students of various grade levels.  CCR (meaning College and Career Ready) is the expected 12th grade range.
• The old standards have no direct statement about reading and comprehending texts of any specific level.  It is implied throughout the strands mentioned above, but not explicitly stated.  However, in order to accomplish the tasks required in the strands, a student must certainly first comprehend what he has read.  For example, a student who does not understand the text will find it impossible to "Compare (and contrast) literary texts that express a universal theme ..."
• The old standards' requirements directly related to comprehension include: predicting text topics by looking at things like illustrations, titles, and key words; asking questions; using graphic organizers; connecting text with personal experience and other texts; and using an understanding of various organizational structures (e.g., chronological) to aid in comprehension.
• Most of the new standards' requirements directly related to comprehension were discussed in the earlier post on vocabulary.  One additional requirement is understanding how language functions in different contexts, how syntax is varied for effect and how that changes the meaning.

My Opinion:

          Where the old Arizona Standards mix many concepts into reading comprehension, the new standards are simple and concise: students must be able to read and understand texts at the appropriate level.  Some of the concepts pointed out in the old standards and missing from the new are helpful.  For example, as I research this and other topics, I certainly look at things like headings, key words, and related graphs to determine whether or not a source is going to be helpful.  Likewise, I know many people find graphic organizers to be very useful.  I am not sure, however, that these things really equate to reading comprehension.  Nor am I certain that they deserve to be their own headings.  In my view, the standards that build on textual comprehension are much more important than indicating precisely how a student is to gain such comprehension.  That is not to say that various strategies should not be taught in the classroom.  But which strategies are taught and learned may be better left to the teacher and student once the specific texts and students' strengths and weaknesses are considered.  In other words, if students can read and understand texts at the appropriate level, I don't care how they gain that comprehension - so long as they can do it independently and consistently.
          So, in the continuing conundrum between the old and new standards, I think the new standards win this one.  They clearly and concisely state that students must be able to read and comprehend at the appropriate level.  They give examples of what that level is and do not micromanage the teaching process.  There is both greater flexibility and greater responsibility.