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.
         

 

 

Common Core Part 6

Intrusive Monitoring Devices and Common Core

          I have decided to take a short tangent from my traversal of the old Arizona standards versus the new Common Core standards for English Language Arts to address a particularly troubling concept that I have seen addressed in every speech against Common Core that I have heard.  This has to do with the a large assortment of intrusive monitoring devices that are supposedly related to Common Core.  Claims I have heard range from iris scans on buses to brain wave readers on students to assess engagement to a pressure-sensitive computer mouse to gauge a student's pulse.  So I have decided to address these concerns at this time.
          Before I even get to the facts and my own opinions, I would like to lay some groundwork for this particular post.  I have heard vitriolic accusations from both sides of the aisle on this topic.  I have heard (and more often seen posted) name calling, aspersions about individuals' intelligence (or lack thereof) and a wide variety of other unproductive word vomit.  This post will contain none of those things.  This is about finding the facts and coming to personal conclusions based on those facts.  People who are passionate about educating the children of this country need to stop beating each other up, start listening to one another, and work together to improve public education.  Okay, enough with the soap box.  On to the facts ...

The Facts:

• Common Core is a set of academic standards for English Language Arts and Math.  This means it is a list of things students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.  It is NOT a list of text books that should be used, instructions on how teachers should teach, or even a list of data that should be collected.
• Race to the Top and NCLB/ESEA Waivers (see posts 1 and 2) both included longitudinal data systems in their requirements.  However, this is a separate requirement from Common Core.
• Wikipedia defines a longitudinal data system as a "data system capable of tracking student information over multiple years in multiple schools." 
• Arizona received two grants from the federal government to develop a longitudinal data system.  These grants were received in 2007 and 2012.  The first grant was received long before the adoption of Common Core.
• According to ADE's (Arizona Department of Education) website the system is designed to provide "longitudinal student achievement, absences, enrollment, and withdrawal data at both the district and school levels compared to the state results. Teacher dashboards help teachers know more about their students to support classroom decisions and provides student-level details on AIMS, AZELLA, and ACT results." 
• In a draft form of a report written by the US Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology, entitled Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century, the authors discuss a method that has been used in an online tutoring system entitled Wayang Outpost.  This system uses a facial expression camera, a posture analysis seat, a pressure mouse, and a wireless skin conductance sensor to measure physiological responses during learning session.
• The methods used by Wayang Outpost are referred to in the report as being both impractical for classroom use and overly intrusive.  Other methods listed in the report, such as programs that monitor (based on time on task, use of hints and helps, and other such methods that help computer programs personalize instructions) are recommended for additional research and potential use.
• Common Core is listed twice in the document.  In both cases, it mentions the math standards which state that students must "Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them."  The authors purport that the inclusion of perseverance in the mathematics standards are an indication that professionals in the education sector recognize the need for one of the title attributes (perseverance) if students are to be successful. 
• The document lists high standards as a necessity for teaching grit, tenacity and perseverance, but also includes excess content standards as a barrier to teachers having time to teach these qualities.  It is unclear whether the report is more complementary or negative toward high standards (and by inference Common Core).
• A school district in Florida recently installed iris scanners on buses in an effort to enhance security.  Parents were not properly notified or given the opportunity to opt out before the pilot program began.  The local school board has since admitted and apologized for their mistake and put the program on hold.  This program was locally instituted by a local school board in an effort to enhance security.  The program had no relation to Common Core.

My Opinion:

          Data collection is a very touchy topic, especially with the recent federal abuses of some of that data.  Parents want to know their children's data is secure and not being used with nefarious intentions.  When children make mistakes (either academically or behaviorally), we want a system that can forgive and allow our children to move forward without those mistakes being an eternal weight to their progress.  But at the same time, we want individualized education.  We want our children challenged enough to reach their potential without overburdening them with problems that are beyond their present abilities.  We want problems (academic and behavior) detected early and appropriate interventions applied when necessary.  We certainly don't want them slipping through the cracks.  But all of these things require the use of data.
          Teachers cannot, through their own observations, provide all of these things for all of the students they teach.  And with all of the additional responsibilities that have been foisted onto them in recent years, they need systems that can analyze student data and help them respond in a timely manner.  I watched with amazement a few years ago as I observed a teacher utilizing a Smart Board.  The teacher had just finished teaching a concept and put a question on the board.  Students had "clickers" in their hands.  They selected the answers they thought were correct.  The teacher looked at the results as they came in and modified her teaching speed based on those answers.  She knew immediately which students were struggling and was able to give them extra help later in the class when students were working on assignments.  This kind of data use is incredibly powerful.
          Likewise, tracking students from school to school is vital to student success.  If a student is struggling with reading and transfers schools, the receiving school needs to begin supports or interventions immediately.  If they wait for a quarter to pass so that grades are available at the new school, they have lost valuable time to help that student.  Or if a student has had behavior problems, a receiving school may be able to put a behavior plan in place or establish clear boundaries, expectations, and supports to prevent similar problems.  If a student is changing schools because he has been bullied, the receiving school can use that information to alert teachers and playground aides or hall monitors to be on the lookout if they need to step in and prevent problems.  This information can also be provided by parents, but sometimes that doesn't happen.
          Aggregate data is also important to improving teaching and learning.  Aggregate data is data that lists information for groups of students but lacks individually identifying data.  What percent of students in a district or a school receive free or reduced lunch?  What percent of fourth grades meet or exceed the state's math standards?  What percent of English Language Learners (non-native English speakers) gain English proficiency in a given time span.  This kind of data can help educators determine which policies and procedures are working and which need to be reconsidered.  Aggregate data should not be the only determining factor in such decisions, but it is one valuable piece to the puzzle.
          Aggregate data is the only kind of data transferred to the federal government.  I know of no proposals to change this policy.  The federal government asks for averages and percentages.  They do not ask for individual student data.  (FERPA laws have recently been altered and I plan to research the changes for my next post.)
          The intrusive data monitoring devices referred to in the report Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century have nothing to do with Common Core, are not endorsed nor recommended by the US Department of Education, and would have to be selected by local school boards in order to be used in classrooms.  Maybe there is some wayward district out there considering the use of such devices.  The iris scan fiasco in Florida certainly proves that some school boards make unfortunate decisions without thoroughly considering the consequences of their actions.  If this is the case with your school board, stand up, complain, get involved, and get the instigators voted out of office.  This is a local decision (as it should be).
          In conclusion, I am not sure how data collection became such an integral part of the anti-Common Core movement.  The strings that tie their mention to Common Core are tenuous at best (or worst).  Appropriate data collection is, and has always been, an integral part of educating children.  In the past, data has been collected in students' files, teachers' grade books, and colleges' admissions offices.  Computerization of this data makes is both more accessible and more powerful (for good and bad).  Safety and privacy concerns must be addressed.  Data systems must be designed with the sensitivity of the data in mind.  Concerned individuals need to make sure their schools, districts, and states are meeting their expectations for the collection, use, security, and propagation of data.  However, liking or disliking data collection is no reason to pass judgment on Common Core.  Common Core is a statement of what a student should know and be able to do by the end of each grade, not a dictate on how or what data should be collected.

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.

Common Core Part 4

Old Versus New - Reading Fluency

          This section will focus on comparisons and contrasts between the old Arizona standards for Reading Fluency and the requirements in the new Common Core standards.  In the previous post, I analyzed the similarities and differences only for the 11th and 12th grade.  I plan to continue in that vein in future posts.  However, reading fluency is sufficiently narrow that it lends itself well to considering all grades at once.  As always, I encourage readers to follow the above links to the actual standards and, if you live outside of Arizona, feel free to compare my comments to your own state's standards (old and new).

The Facts:

• The old standards have no fluency standard for kindergarten.  The Common Core requires kindergartners to "read emergent texts with purpose and understanding."
• The old standards required 1st through 3rd graders to "consistently read grade-level text with at least 90 percent accuracy."  The new standard requires 1st through 3rd graders to read with "sufficient accuracy to support comprehension."
• In the old standards, 1st grade students should "read aloud with fluency in a manner that sounds like natural speech."  In 2nd grade, the same standard includes "demonstrating automaticity."  The correlating new standards for both 1st and 2nd grades are that students "read on-level texts orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings."
• The old standards add that 2nd graders should use punctuation to guide fluency.  This is not explicitly stated in the new standard.
• The new standards add that 1st through 5th graders read on-level texts with "purpose and understanding."
• In 1st through 3rd grade, students are expected under the new standard to "use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding..."
• The old standards required 3rd through 5th grade students to read "familiar" prose and poetry fluently while the new standard substitutes "on-level" prose and poetry.
• The old standards required 6th through 12th graders to "read from a variety of genres with accuracy, automaticity (immediate recognition), and prosody (expression)."  The new standards have no correlating standard in grades 6 through 12.  This is covered in earlier grades only.
• Neither set of standards include a required or even a recommended reading list.
• The new standards include a list of reading materials to help curriculum providers and selectors determine what texts are "on-level" for each grade.

My Opinion:

          There are quite a few similarities in the expectations stated in both sets of standards.  Not being a specialist on early reading, I cannot definitively state which option is better, but I will share my thoughts anyway.  On face value, the requirement that kindergartners be able to read emergent text seems like a step up.  We will require children to read earlier and this should present a domino effect of higher reading levels at higher grades.  However, I am not certain the expected outcome will occur.  I know there are some countries (Norway for example) that begin teaching reading much later (at about the age of 7 or 8) and have very high literacy rates.  Granted, Norway's education system is very different from our own; but the point is that reading earlier may not be any guarantee of reading better in subsequent grades. 
          Another example that comes to mind is music.  There are some children who are savants at the piano or other instruments.  Mozart was composing by the time he was 4.  But most music teachers still recommend waiting until a child is 7 or 8 to begin lessons.  And, in general, those who start much younger (and are not savants) gain little, if any, ground over their counterparts who start later.  Furthermore, the extra years of lessons and practice with little progress due to immaturity or lack of readiness, often mean that the child has lost the excitement and interest in playing the instrument by the time they are 7 or 8.  Whether this is true of early reading or not, I do not know.  Certainly, a child who is ready to read by the age of 4 or 5 and wants to should be taught.  I am just not certain it is in the best interest of every child to insist they read by the end of kindergarten.
          The next difference is the change from reading with ninety percent accuracy to reading with sufficient accuracy to aid comprehension.  Again, I am not sure which is preferable.  The first sentence in this paragraph has 20 words.  If a reader understood all but two of them, that would be 90 percent.  Perhaps that would be sufficient to understand the sentence.  Surely, if they misread two small words like is, the, or with, they would understand the meaning.  But the simple words are the least likely to be misunderstood.  Try reading the first sentence without two of the more complex words.  Does it still make sense?  Probably not without the word "comprehension" or "accuracy."  Having looked at this ad hoc example, I lean tentatively toward the new standard on this aspect.
          The new requirement that students use context to confirm or self-correct when reading aloud seems like a beneficial improvement.  Likewise, the change from reading "familiar" prose and poetry to "on-level" prose and poetry seems like a small step up.  Explicitly stating that punctuation should guide fluency seems like an unnecessary addition.  If a student reads fluently, accurately, with expression, and at an appropriate pace as stated in the new standards, proper use of punctuation is implied.  A student who ignored periods or commas, for example, would not be reading accurately or at an appropriate pace.
          I find it interesting that the new standards cease to address reading fluency beyond 5th grade.  They address many other aspects of reading and especially reading comprehension as will be covered in subsequent posts, but, as far as I could tell, reading aloud is no longer emphasized in grades 6 through 12.  However, the old fluency standard is incredibly unspecific.  It says that students should read increasingly difficult texts fluently, but it never states that this reading should be at grade level or any other such requirement.  As such, it is a fairly meaningless repetition of a standard that is to be mastered by the 6th grade and then just repeated with "increasingly complex" text.  Standards as unspecific as these are what allows the watering down of reading requirements.  It makes it impossible to judge whether or not the requirement has been met when there is no reading complexity guide by which to judge reading selections.  In the new standards, students must master reading aloud with fluency by the end of the 5th grade and then reading complexity is increased in subsequent years according to a reading complexity rubric (which will be further discussed in a later post).
          In light of all the above considerations, I find that the standards for reading fluency are very comparable.  While there are minute differences, there does not seem to be a major shift aside from requiring students to read emergent texts earlier and I am entirely ambivalent on this alteration.  I find that the new standard is slightly more specific because of the expectation that students read at a certain well-defined level.  As with the previous sub-topic (vocabulary), I find no indication of political bias or hidden agenda.  I think that the new Common Core standards for reading fluency are very slightly better than the previous Arizona standards.

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.