Please post your reactions, questions and comments about CCSS here. We will continue the discussion in a Socratic seminar tomorrow. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say!
I think, overall, that the new core standards are reasonable, but the one that jumped out at me as unnecessary was "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences." I can understand this for younger grades, but as 11-12th graders, I can't see us ever needing to write narratives and "imagined experiences" in the real world and I don't believe it's important to our education. On top of that, we aren't being taught this in school right now, mainly because it's not important to the majority of us later in life. -Shelby
I agree for the most part, but honestly, how many topics in other subjects in our schooling are important to the majority of us later in life? Not very many. I believe that the point in adding creative writing to the CCSS of 11-12th graders is to make sure that we’re not robots. For example, we begin analyzing in kindergarten, starting “With prompting and support” to “compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in familiar stories” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.9). Thus starts our, now familiar, involuntary impulse to analyze. By the time we reach 11-12th grade, teachers know we can analyze like nobody’s business. What they don’t know is whether or not we can move backwards, and create the stories that need an analysis.
I think creating 'imagined experiences' in writing is a great idea we should continue into the higher grades. Analyzing is one thing using evidence and proving a point, but writing fiction uses creativity and is in some points harder. Creating an alternate world takes better planning and requires in some cases more detail and clarity. Since it isn't like people have read the story and already know the characters, students need to fully develop them clearly and learn how to bring them to life. Like Indigo said, writing analysis shows we can write in a cookie-cutter form, but we are forced to come out of it to write narratives. I do however think we should start learning how to write the standard for CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 because right now I think it's safe to say most of us would not pas this portion.
While I do not dispute that many of these points are important, I question whether the implementation of a series of extremely specific goals, followed by further standardized testing, is the right path. These standards will continue not only to base a student's worth on the state's criteria, but will also force teachers to "teach to the test"- a process generally hated by students and teachers alike. For example, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1d says that students must, “Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.” Certainly this is an important skill to learn, but it also stifles voice and teaches students how to think, how to write. English is becoming an increasingly formulaic field. Even the CCSS description of how to write a narrative is very step-by-step, leaving no room to develop voice and writing style. Overall, I think the intentions are good, but the execution will only stifle creativity and inhibit students’ ability to think for themselves. -Kaitlin Sandmann
Most of the common core standards consist of basic literary capabilities, but as Kaitlin points out, some of the standards will require students to inhibit their natural capabilities and talents, and therefore be detrimental to above average students such as those taking the AP english courses. If for most students the purpose of high school is to prepare them for higher education, then teaching formulaic writing is essentially a distraction from learning how to develop ideas in the manner expected by most colleges. I understand that nationally many of the CCSS skills are things many schools need to work on. But in VRHS, most students are already at or above goal in these areas, and making grades 11-12 take a test on things we were expected to have all but mastered in english 10 constricts the ability of educators to move beyond the general curriculum and come up with more specialized goals. By being taught so we can take a test for the masses, (or the common students), it becomes harder to learn the skills of the exceptional. In edition, much emphasis is placed on the use of internet technology for the purpose of taking the test. I am well aware of the fact that a majority of students in VRHS dislike the use of electronic devices for academics when avoidable, and pencil and paper is a skill that should be preserved in a world where, contrary to popular opinion, not every student has access to a computer at any given second.
After reading through all of the requirements of the CCSS I believe that it is merely a capt on steroids. The information, especially in the writing section, is very overwhelming. While previous standardized tests have been long, I can not see this even being remotely the same size. This test definitely places a larger weight on writing also. This test includes more literary devices, such as in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2d where it asks to include "language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic." This is an important aspect of writing, however I am unsure how well other schools will do teaching it. I have trouble believing that some of these can be tested. Such as in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.7 where it asks the student to "Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem." This test might have good intentions, however it is far to difficult. Student who had trouble passing capt are in great danger of failing the CCSS. This test seems like it will turn out to be a year-long assessment of our knowledge if they test everything they set out to. Also, I completely agree with Shelby. Most colleges will not be testing my ability to write about the Fairy World, rather than my analysis of non-fiction. While, as Kaitlin said, the creativity of children is increasingly important in today's society, there is a time and place for it. We should not be tested on our ability to create make-believe story's, seeing as it does not tie in to the work force or college.
I think that, in general, most of the standards are reasonable goals for students to be held to. While some of the standards are rather rigid and specific, they at least make it easier to see whether students are at the level they should be in a specific area. Students cannot be simply have a goal of ‘writing well’, assigning specific standards for them to meet does help ensure that they will leave school with a specific set of skills they need to write effectively. However, a few of the specific standards did stand out to me as unnecessarily limiting, as a ‘formal style and objective tone’ (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1 and 12.2) is not always necessary when writing persuasive or informative papers and ‘a smooth progression of experiences or events’ ( CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 ) is not always needed to create an engaging creative writing piece. Those specifics in particular, and others like them, do leave students less room to experiment independently with their own styles and personal voices in their writing. This is one of the reasons why I personally believe it is important to teach some creative writing in high school, allowing students to write about their ‘imagined experiences’ allows them to freely develop and experiment with their own writing style and tone, without being held to the rigid, five paragraph, ‘formal’ persuasive or informative essay. Even with the new standards, creative writing at the very least allows students some room to use their minds creatively and write about something they’re passionate about, allowing them a break from writing the usual highly structured, formulaic essay about a specific assigned topic. -Alexandra Dilger
Kaitlin brings up a great point that the Common Core Standards hold students, and teachers, back. We already can surpass almost every one of the standards. For instance, it is our second-nature to “use valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1). We should not need to be repeatedly taught to do this in 11th grade curriculum just for standardized testing, because it is something we have known since elementary school. Many of the common core standards do not have value within our school, and take time away from expanding our knowledge. Under the Speaking and Listening standards, peer work, discussions, and presentations are stressed. These three things are already done daily within our class between Socratic seminars, grammar presentations, and peer editing. I believe some schools may benefit from having structured curriculum because they need a base of what to teach. This does not apply to Valley, though, where we know the basics and now need to go even farther. The Common Core standards are too easy, and restrict our learning. All schools with different demographics must teach what is proper for each respective school based on the students there. No standards can suit every school in an entire country, and therefore there is no benefit to having them. -Abby Wolff
Despite the fact that the majority of the CCSS categories are clearly important standards, Kaitlin, supported by many others, bring up a fantastic point that they hold students and teachers back. Neve also points out the extreme quantity of standards. While it is wise to prepare students for standardized tests, it is ridiculous to teach the entire course for the CCSS, which would be necessary with the immense amount of material. This not only limits student's opportunity to expand their thinking, but limits the teacher as well. The CCSS simply gives teachers a formulaic style of teaching for a formulaic style of writing. The problem with standardized tests from the past was that they allowed students to simply develop a formula for writing and use for each response, substituting fitting information. This test appears more complex, and is, but still allows this formulaic thinking developed in elementary school. -Maggie Rodriguez
I think that the core standards are a good idea, but they are being executed in the wrong way. They are too specific in what the student needs to be able to do, and the standards may not be reachable to some students. Agreeing with Shelby, I think that the core standard, "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences" is unnecessary for our grade level. Once we are out of elementary school, we never write narrative papers. We are only taught how to write persuasive essays and how to answer a question in the form of an essay. Creative writing is not needed outside of elementary school, and especially not in college. The core standards are supposed to get us ready for college, but unless you sign up for a creative writing class, no one will ever need the skill of creative writing throughout their school experience. -Holly Riccitelli
Let me just start with this, I think standards are bogus, they tell us at what "level" we need to be at. I honestly do not feel that all of these rules and restrictions will help us write and read better, the standards listed about writing detail every single step to writing a paper, how can any freedom be taken when every sentence must,"Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing." (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2e ) Students cant all be expected to fit into standards, uniqueness and regularity are what make things great, that is the reason that the books we read in class are classical because they were different from the rest. They stood out, and did not follow any "standards" that were required to be met, they passed the standards not just by being the best, but by being original. On top of all this I would like to point out that students do not learn by taking tests. With standards that we all need to be assessed on, we are losing valuable time that could be spent exceeding those standards.
In my opinion, the common core standards do explain what we should be able to do by the time we leave high school. However, I think it's going to be very hard for teachers to teach students according to these standards. Each class is different, each student different in the way they learn, each teacher different in the way they teach. Is it really fair to hold them all to the same common standards? Writing, in my opinion, is an abstract art form, and so is the interpretation of writing. Therefore, it cannot be held to common standard because everyone reads and writes differently. Writers are remembered because they "broke the mold", so to speak, so are we willing to risk stifling the next Steinbeck or Kerouak or Thompson for the sake of "fairness"? The whole reason we go to school is to learn. it would be much better fitting if these standards were goals, to be met at everyone's own pace. -Garrett
I could not agree more! It’s like attempting to apply the concept of math to writing. In math, there is always one right answer, or a few at the most. Writing, however, allows the author to think “outside of the box”. The thoughts and emotions one splashes onto a crisp, white paper with the tip of his writing utensil are original. No one else could write the same exact essay or poem that I do. In math, if you get an answer wrong, it’s wrong. In writing, there are rarely wrong answers. The CCSS for writing is attempting to take that creativity away. If everyone is held at the same writing standards, it will become more difficult to distinguish one person’s paper to another’s. Albert Einstein said, “True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.” With the dull and monotonous standards of the CCSS, students are vulnerable to losing some of their creative air and their excitement to write. Thus halts their ability to go above and beyond what they are capable of, which is the opposite of the real purpose of writing.
I could not disagree more. I believe these standards are superb in that they form the same critical foundation to every student. It is not taking any creativity away, it is simply trying to make sure everyone is on the same page, or should I say "crisp, white paper" as Indigo said. With everyone at the same standard, there is an unimaginable amount of room to highlight special talents and creativity! There are absolutely no restrictions to these standards, the CCSS are not saying "this is all you can do and nothing more!" They simply want to make sure everyone has grasped the basic concepts of writing a great paper, but leave so much room for a student to explore individual talents. I think it is unfair to categorize these standards as "conforming" and "unfair", when all they are doing is creating a solid base to spring forward from. I can not believe Garrett tried to say that these standards stifle "the next Steinbeck" and etc... it is true there will never be another Steinbeck or Kerouak or Thompson, but with these standards set for a solid base, the next Boland, Carlson, or Atkinson will have the skill sets they need to create a piece that goes BEYOND the standards, and highlights individual skills and strengths that they have.
My initial reaction to reading the Common Core State Standards, is that the information within is not surprising to students since we do everything listed in the standards, daily. The standards call for properly interpreting text, reading classic literature, understanding themes and literary terms, ect. Throughout our high school english classes, these aspects of literature are reiterated . Yes, I do think that these standards are being learned, but they are pushed too much. Students need to be able to have a wider varitey of books to read and writing styles to expand language arts horizons. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.9 states,"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". Almost every single book I have read from freshman year to now has been from one of the centuries listed above, with the exception of Breathing Underwater, which related to modern day challenges some teens may face. There is a need for students to read more modern day stories and not just the classics, not only for relatability but also for the comparrison of old style liturature to new style literature and how it has changed.Students need to be able to step out of the comfort zone of these state standards since they are mastered, and into the exploration of new liturature. Along with this aspect, the brains of highschoolers are trained to think about writing a five paragraph essay every time a writing assignment oppourtunity opens. There is a need in the CCSS for a larger variety of writing styles instead of just the five paragraph persuasive essay, mentioned by others in previous comments. Overall, I believe that both 11th and 12th graders have almost mastered the CCSS standards and need a wider range of language arts opportunities, dealing with different reading and writing aspects to expand the knowledge of true language arts. I agree with Abby on her point about how students should not have to be taught the same lessons over again to master new online tests. Instead, we should be expanding from the knowlege that we have and put it towards new lessons and more creativity within our writing. ~Lily Anderson
I think that while having standards important, imposing them in the way that the CCSS are being imposed is a bit much. As many of my peers have said, it restricts students too much. It also says that "K–12 texts have actually declined in sophistication,and relatively little attention has been paid to students’ ability to read complex texts independently. These conditions have left a serious gap between many high school seniors’ reading ability and the reading requirements they will face after graduation." I believe that this may be true. At Valley, we are all proficient writers, but in other states, other schools, and other parts of the country, this might not be the case. I think that while it is good to try to improve the standards, it needs to be less formulaic, less oriented to the specifics it is now. It does not leave much room for the writer to develop voice or style, which some students may not have developed yet. While I understand that the formal tone is important, students must also understand how to manipulate the literary elements relating to style, tone and voice. On a different note, I also feel that all of the standardized tests are moving away from practicality and what we will actually be doing in life. I doubt that we will be spending months planning for tests and practice tests. After college, the tests stop. The fact that we spend half of our school careers preparing for CAT's, middle school tests, practice CAPT, CAPT, ACT's, PSAT's, and SAT's is a little it too much, if you ask me.
Hi Dan, I respectfully disagree with you dude. You say you believe setting all these standards restricts students too much, but these standards are simply guidelines on how students are to be evaluated. Personally, I prefer to have such rigorous barriers as these, not because they necessarily make my school life any easier, but rather they provide an equal grading standard nationwide. Think about it, wouldn’t it be totally unfair for us if Connecticut had super high, nearly unachievable, standards that caused many students to receive bad grades because they were unable to meet the requirements, then a state like Kentucky had super low standards, so low every student was getting A’s without breaking a sweat? Of course that’s not fair! The CCSS eliminates that, it puts every student, teacher, and school on an even playing field fairly regulated by a third, un-biased, party. I do, however, agree with you on the subject of standardized tests, you are totally right in that regard! Never are we going to devote hundreds of hours of our working lives to prepare for some written test our boss will give us. Tests will come, but in different forms than one taken with pen and paper. ~ Spencer Russo
After reading through the English Language Arts Common Core Standards for grades 11-12, I cannot help but feel that some of these standards are somewhat restricting, while others are unnecessary. For example, one standard, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.6 reads, "Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information." In an ideal world, yes, this is achievable. However, in reality, not all schools have adequate technology resources to fully execute this goal. Certain educational districts may not have enough computers for their students, if not any at all. Luckily, here at Valley we are fortunate enough to be provided with resources such as laptops, desktop computers, and iPads. This is why this particular standard can be considered unnecessary for us. Throughout our education, we have been subject to the use of online resources, including Edmodo, turn it in, noodletools, etc... These resources are all helpful, and we have been exposed to them on numerous occasions. Therefore it is pointless for our school to meet the standard of further online/internet use within our educations. From this, it is safe to say that Common Core generalizes for schools across the entire country. If it were possible, it would be a better alternative to accommodate each school individually due to its specific needs. Then, each school could move at its own pace, and schools such as Valley would not be restricted from teaching students valuable information that they otherwise would not learn due to wasted time meeting Common Core standards. Because of this, we can effectively prepare for our futures, and learn things that will actually be valuable in whatever we plan to do following high school. -Alicia Wichtowski
When it comes to the CCSS standards that are being imposed upon students across our nation, a word comes to mind: overcompensation. Having a strong set of guidelines has always been an important part of public school education, both for improving scores and creating opportunity for aspiring students in poorer schools in the U.S. However, when I see these new, very specific and high-reaching standards in the United States, I think of our insecurity. Previously the number one country in the world for education, the United States has seen a decline in its world rankings, falling to a disappointing 14th best in the world, being called average instead of superior. The Common Core Standards are a overreaction to our slacking educational system. The standards are trying to help further the education of our people, and in some ways, they are. However, they can also be restricting standards. The rules these Core Standards create allow for less unique teaching style by educators, as well as limiting the types of works they should be presenting. By limiting teaching, the system creates a greater standardization to the system. However, when the rules limit the teaching freedom, they also often limit learning. The Common Core Standards set for the English curriculum have good intentions, as well as good effects, but can also have limiting factors that hurt education.
I am the type of person who likes set rules and guidelines in activities. However, I do not believe such concise rules and regulations that are found in the Common Core Standards should be used to instruct writing. Writing is a form of art, and just like a watercolor painting, a rigid grading structure is doomed to cause lower scores and worse pieces. There are certain aspects of writing, fundamental pillars, which I agree should be a part of the grading. An example of one of these rules would be CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2d which calls for “precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic.” This standard makes sense because it is just enforcing the use of literary essentials. It is the rules like CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1a that are not good. It says, “Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.” Rules like this basically create a checklist for a writer to fill out as he writes. This can stifle his natural ability to create a flowing and effective essay by forcing the mechanical inclusion of things that just do not fit naturally. This is my biggest issue with the standard, as prefabricated molds of a paper do not allow students to fully utilize their creativity.
I think that when the standards talk about analyzing themes and analyzing author's choices how to develop and relate elements of a story it is very hard for a teacher to teach these subjects. Every book varies, and the teacher cannot help a student on their test. Therefore I believe that although the teacher can make certain lesson plans that do help students when they are stuck, the true analysis of a passage is up to the student themselves. Personally I feel that the ability to easily comprehend a passage is a natural gift. Even with plentiful practice I find it that I have trouble finding themes/ comprehending passages. On the contrary, I believe that the teacher can definitely teach how 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.” This is a uniform, straight forward skill or standard. I really like how Garrett referenced literature to art. I would definitely agree that literature is very intellectual art, and it is hard to teach “how to do it”. Furthermore Garrett also brings up the topic of goals v. standards. Although goals would be ideal in a class/ subject that really has no limits, standards are a constant measure in our society, and although we may not want to conform to society’s rules, the system always wins. Therefore logically, goals would make more sense, but logistically standards must be placed so that there is a baseline for everyone. -BPat
My initial thought to these common core standards were that they were reasonable rigorous standards except for a few which were unreasonable and unnecessary. However, like Indigo said earlier, the subject of language arts is nothing like a subject like math. Language arts can have many different answers that are all correct. It could be difficult to make these generalizations and expectations for normal 11th and 12th graders because it is difficult to tests students on a subject that they all come about differently. I agree with what Garrett said, everyone comes about language arts differently, there is not only one way to analyze text, there is not only one way to write a paper, and there is not only one way to go about answering questions. How do they expect teachers to teach all of these students all of these standards in a lesson plan? I would be very difficult because not every student learns the same way. Some will not understand different areas even after it has been taught to them. These standards are a bit too much for a lower level language arts class. I believe that maybe some of these core standards should only be for level one and AP classes. It is unreasonable to ask someone in a level two and three class to complete some of these tasks. Other than that, I think that overall the common core standards are reasonable.
I like many others have mixed feelings about the common core standards. I appreciate its clarity when it comes to outlining the standards but cannot help feeling like I am reading a test rubric. The standards seem practical and outline what, I believe, is appropriate to know at our grade level. What worries me is the application of these standards, like Neve said, there overwhelming. A teacher already has constraints when it comes to how and what they teach, these will only stifle them more. Teaching, especially when it comes to English and the arts, has to be something fluid and evolving. If a teacher finds that the students are getting more out of a certain subject or focus area they should spend more time on it. That freedom to learn is being taking away, the common core may force a teacher to re-teach , as Abby said, and skim over subjects the student might gain real worth from . This pressure to be up to the standards only encourages teaching to the test. I think that placing them as goals, as Brian and Garrett said, would be a much better idea. I believe most students across the nation could reach these as goals, I do not think that everyone could meet them as a standards on a test,which is the style they have been presented in. Britta McCarthy
I think, overall, that the new core standards are reasonable, but the one that jumped out at me as unnecessary was "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences." I can understand this for younger grades, but as 11-12th graders, I can't see us ever needing to write narratives and "imagined experiences" in the real world and I don't believe it's important to our education. On top of that, we aren't being taught this in school right now, mainly because it's not important to the majority of us later in life.
ReplyDelete-Shelby
I agree for the most part, but honestly, how many topics in other subjects in our schooling are important to the majority of us later in life? Not very many. I believe that the point in adding creative writing to the CCSS of 11-12th graders is to make sure that we’re not robots. For example, we begin analyzing in kindergarten, starting “With prompting and support” to “compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in familiar stories” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.9). Thus starts our, now familiar, involuntary impulse to analyze. By the time we reach 11-12th grade, teachers know we can analyze like nobody’s business. What they don’t know is whether or not we can move backwards, and create the stories that need an analysis.
DeleteI think creating 'imagined experiences' in writing is a great idea we should continue into the higher grades. Analyzing is one thing using evidence and proving a point, but writing fiction uses creativity and is in some points harder. Creating an alternate world takes better planning and requires in some cases more detail and clarity. Since it isn't like people have read the story and already know the characters, students need to fully develop them clearly and learn how to bring them to life. Like Indigo said, writing analysis shows we can write in a cookie-cutter form, but we are forced to come out of it to write narratives. I do however think we should start learning how to write the standard for CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 because right now I think it's safe to say most of us would not pas this portion.
DeleteWhile I do not dispute that many of these points are important, I question whether the implementation of a series of extremely specific goals, followed by further standardized testing, is the right path. These standards will continue not only to base a student's worth on the state's criteria, but will also force teachers to "teach to the test"- a process generally hated by students and teachers alike. For example, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1d says that students must, “Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.” Certainly this is an important skill to learn, but it also stifles voice and teaches students how to think, how to write. English is becoming an increasingly formulaic field. Even the CCSS description of how to write a narrative is very step-by-step, leaving no room to develop voice and writing style. Overall, I think the intentions are good, but the execution will only stifle creativity and inhibit students’ ability to think for themselves.
ReplyDelete-Kaitlin Sandmann
Most of the common core standards consist of basic literary capabilities, but as Kaitlin points out, some of the standards will require students to inhibit their natural capabilities and talents, and therefore be detrimental to above average students such as those taking the AP english courses. If for most students the purpose of high school is to prepare them for higher education, then teaching formulaic writing is essentially a distraction from learning how to develop ideas in the manner expected by most colleges. I understand that nationally many of the CCSS skills are things many schools need to work on. But in VRHS, most students are already at or above goal in these areas, and making grades 11-12 take a test on things we were expected to have all but mastered in english 10 constricts the ability of educators to move beyond the general curriculum and come up with more specialized goals. By being taught so we can take a test for the masses, (or the common students), it becomes harder to learn the skills of the exceptional. In edition, much emphasis is placed on the use of internet technology for the purpose of taking the test. I am well aware of the fact that a majority of students in VRHS dislike the use of electronic devices for academics when avoidable, and pencil and paper is a skill that should be preserved in a world where, contrary to popular opinion, not every student has access to a computer at any given second.
DeleteAfter reading through all of the requirements of the CCSS I believe that it is merely a capt on steroids. The information, especially in the writing section, is very overwhelming. While previous standardized tests have been long, I can not see this even being remotely the same size. This test definitely places a larger weight on writing also. This test includes more literary devices, such as in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2d where it asks to include "language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic." This is an important aspect of writing, however I am unsure how well other schools will do teaching it. I have trouble believing that some of these can be tested. Such as in CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.7 where it asks the student to "Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem." This test might have good intentions, however it is far to difficult. Student who had trouble passing capt are in great danger of failing the CCSS. This test seems like it will turn out to be a year-long assessment of our knowledge if they test everything they set out to. Also, I completely agree with Shelby. Most colleges will not be testing my ability to write about the Fairy World, rather than my analysis of non-fiction. While, as Kaitlin said, the creativity of children is increasingly important in today's society, there is a time and place for it. We should not be tested on our ability to create make-believe story's, seeing as it does not tie in to the work force or college.
ReplyDeleteI think that, in general, most of the standards are reasonable goals for students to be held to. While some of the standards are rather rigid and specific, they at least make it easier to see whether students are at the level they should be in a specific area. Students cannot be simply have a goal of ‘writing well’, assigning specific standards for them to meet does help ensure that they will leave school with a specific set of skills they need to write effectively. However, a few of the specific standards did stand out to me as unnecessarily limiting, as a ‘formal style and objective tone’ (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1 and 12.2) is not always necessary when writing persuasive or informative papers and ‘a smooth progression of experiences or events’ ( CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 ) is not always needed to create an engaging creative writing piece. Those specifics in particular, and others like them, do leave students less room to experiment independently with their own styles and personal voices in their writing. This is one of the reasons why I personally believe it is important to teach some creative writing in high school, allowing students to write about their ‘imagined experiences’ allows them to freely develop and experiment with their own writing style and tone, without being held to the rigid, five paragraph, ‘formal’ persuasive or informative essay. Even with the new standards, creative writing at the very least allows students some room to use their minds creatively and write about something they’re passionate about, allowing them a break from writing the usual highly structured, formulaic essay about a specific assigned topic. -Alexandra Dilger
ReplyDeleteKaitlin brings up a great point that the Common Core Standards hold students, and teachers, back. We already can surpass almost every one of the standards. For instance, it is our second-nature to “use valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1). We should not need to be repeatedly taught to do this in 11th grade curriculum just for standardized testing, because it is something we have known since elementary school. Many of the common core standards do not have value within our school, and take time away from expanding our knowledge. Under the Speaking and Listening standards, peer work, discussions, and presentations are stressed. These three things are already done daily within our class between Socratic seminars, grammar presentations, and peer editing. I believe some schools may benefit from having structured curriculum because they need a base of what to teach. This does not apply to Valley, though, where we know the basics and now need to go even farther. The Common Core standards are too easy, and restrict our learning. All schools with different demographics must teach what is proper for each respective school based on the students there. No standards can suit every school in an entire country, and therefore there is no benefit to having them.
ReplyDelete-Abby Wolff
Despite the fact that the majority of the CCSS categories are clearly important standards, Kaitlin, supported by many others, bring up a fantastic point that they hold students and teachers back. Neve also points out the extreme quantity of standards. While it is wise to prepare students for standardized tests, it is ridiculous to teach the entire course for the CCSS, which would be necessary with the immense amount of material. This not only limits student's opportunity to expand their thinking, but limits the teacher as well. The CCSS simply gives teachers a formulaic style of teaching for a formulaic style of writing. The problem with standardized tests from the past was that they allowed students to simply develop a formula for writing and use for each response, substituting fitting information. This test appears more complex, and is, but still allows this formulaic thinking developed in elementary school.
ReplyDelete-Maggie Rodriguez
I think that the core standards are a good idea, but they are being executed in the wrong way. They are too specific in what the student needs to be able to do, and the standards may not be reachable to some students. Agreeing with Shelby, I think that the core standard, "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3 write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences" is unnecessary for our grade level. Once we are out of elementary school, we never write narrative papers. We are only taught how to write persuasive essays and how to answer a question in the form of an essay. Creative writing is not needed outside of elementary school, and especially not in college. The core standards are supposed to get us ready for college, but unless you sign up for a creative writing class, no one will ever need the skill of creative writing throughout their school experience.
ReplyDelete-Holly Riccitelli
Let me just start with this, I think standards are bogus, they tell us at what "level" we need to be at. I honestly do not feel that all of these rules and restrictions will help us write and read better, the standards listed about writing detail every single step to writing a paper, how can any freedom be taken when every sentence must,"Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing." (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2e ) Students cant all be expected to fit into standards, uniqueness and regularity are what make things great, that is the reason that the books we read in class are classical because they were different from the rest. They stood out, and did not follow any "standards" that were required to be met, they passed the standards not just by being the best, but by being original. On top of all this I would like to point out that students do not learn by taking tests. With standards that we all need to be assessed on, we are losing valuable time that could be spent exceeding those standards.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the common core standards do explain what we should be able to do by the time we leave high school. However, I think it's going to be very hard for teachers to teach students according to these standards. Each class is different, each student different in the way they learn, each teacher different in the way they teach. Is it really fair to hold them all to the same common standards? Writing, in my opinion, is an abstract art form, and so is the interpretation of writing. Therefore, it cannot be held to common standard because everyone reads and writes differently. Writers are remembered because they "broke the mold", so to speak, so are we willing to risk stifling the next Steinbeck or Kerouak or Thompson for the sake of "fairness"? The whole reason we go to school is to learn. it would be much better fitting if these standards were goals, to be met at everyone's own pace.
ReplyDelete-Garrett
I could not agree more! It’s like attempting to apply the concept of math to writing. In math, there is always one right answer, or a few at the most. Writing, however, allows the author to think “outside of the box”. The thoughts and emotions one splashes onto a crisp, white paper with the tip of his writing utensil are original. No one else could write the same exact essay or poem that I do. In math, if you get an answer wrong, it’s wrong. In writing, there are rarely wrong answers. The CCSS for writing is attempting to take that creativity away. If everyone is held at the same writing standards, it will become more difficult to distinguish one person’s paper to another’s. Albert Einstein said, “True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.” With the dull and monotonous standards of the CCSS, students are vulnerable to losing some of their creative air and their excitement to write. Thus halts their ability to go above and beyond what they are capable of, which is the opposite of the real purpose of writing.
DeleteI could not disagree more. I believe these standards are superb in that they form the same critical foundation to every student. It is not taking any creativity away, it is simply trying to make sure everyone is on the same page, or should I say "crisp, white paper" as Indigo said. With everyone at the same standard, there is an unimaginable amount of room to highlight special talents and creativity! There are absolutely no restrictions to these standards, the CCSS are not saying "this is all you can do and nothing more!" They simply want to make sure everyone has grasped the basic concepts of writing a great paper, but leave so much room for a student to explore individual talents. I think it is unfair to categorize these standards as "conforming" and "unfair", when all they are doing is creating a solid base to spring forward from. I can not believe Garrett tried to say that these standards stifle "the next Steinbeck" and etc... it is true there will never be another Steinbeck or Kerouak or Thompson, but with these standards set for a solid base, the next Boland, Carlson, or Atkinson will have the skill sets they need to create a piece that goes BEYOND the standards, and highlights individual skills and strengths that they have.
DeleteMy initial reaction to reading the Common Core State Standards, is that the information within is not surprising to students since we do everything listed in the standards, daily. The standards call for properly interpreting text, reading classic literature, understanding themes and literary terms, ect. Throughout our high school english classes, these aspects of literature are reiterated . Yes, I do think that these standards are being learned, but they are pushed too much. Students need to be able to have a wider varitey of books to read and writing styles to expand language arts horizons. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.9 states,"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". Almost every single book I have read from freshman year to now has been from one of the centuries listed above, with the exception of Breathing Underwater, which related to modern day challenges some teens may face. There is a need for students to read more modern day stories and not just the classics, not only for relatability but also for the comparrison of old style liturature to new style literature and how it has changed.Students need to be able to step out of the comfort zone of these state standards since they are mastered, and into the exploration of new liturature. Along with this aspect, the brains of highschoolers are trained to think about writing a five paragraph essay every time a writing assignment oppourtunity opens. There is a need in the CCSS for a larger variety of writing styles instead of just the five paragraph persuasive essay, mentioned by others in previous comments. Overall, I believe that both 11th and 12th graders have almost mastered the CCSS standards and need a wider range of language arts opportunities, dealing with different reading and writing aspects to expand the knowledge of true language arts. I agree with Abby on her point about how students should not have to be taught the same lessons over again to master new online tests. Instead, we should be expanding from the knowlege that we have and put it towards new lessons and more creativity within our writing.
ReplyDelete~Lily Anderson
I think that while having standards important, imposing them in the way that the CCSS are being imposed is a bit much. As many of my peers have said, it restricts students too much. It also says that "K–12 texts have actually declined in sophistication,and relatively little attention has been paid to students’ ability to read complex texts independently. These conditions have left a serious gap between many high school seniors’ reading ability and the reading requirements they will face
ReplyDeleteafter graduation." I believe that this may be true. At Valley, we are all proficient writers, but in other states, other schools, and other parts of the country, this might not be the case. I think that while it is good to try to improve the standards, it needs to be less formulaic, less oriented to the specifics it is now. It does not leave much room for the writer to develop voice or style, which some students may not have developed yet. While I understand that the formal tone is important, students must also understand how to manipulate the literary elements relating to style, tone and voice.
On a different note, I also feel that all of the standardized tests are moving away from practicality and what we will actually be doing in life. I doubt that we will be spending months planning for tests and practice tests. After college, the tests stop. The fact that we spend half of our school careers preparing for CAT's, middle school tests, practice CAPT, CAPT, ACT's, PSAT's, and SAT's is a little it too much, if you ask me.
Hi Dan,
DeleteI respectfully disagree with you dude. You say you believe setting all these standards restricts students too much, but these standards are simply guidelines on how students are to be evaluated. Personally, I prefer to have such rigorous barriers as these, not because they necessarily make my school life any easier, but rather they provide an equal grading standard nationwide. Think about it, wouldn’t it be totally unfair for us if Connecticut had super high, nearly unachievable, standards that caused many students to receive bad grades because they were unable to meet the requirements, then a state like Kentucky had super low standards, so low every student was getting A’s without breaking a sweat? Of course that’s not fair! The CCSS eliminates that, it puts every student, teacher, and school on an even playing field fairly regulated by a third, un-biased, party.
I do, however, agree with you on the subject of standardized tests, you are totally right in that regard! Never are we going to devote hundreds of hours of our working lives to prepare for some written test our boss will give us. Tests will come, but in different forms than one taken with pen and paper.
~ Spencer Russo
After reading through the English Language Arts Common Core Standards for grades 11-12, I cannot help but feel that some of these standards are somewhat restricting, while others are unnecessary. For example, one standard, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.6 reads, "Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information." In an ideal world, yes, this is achievable. However, in reality, not all schools have adequate technology resources to fully execute this goal. Certain educational districts may not have enough computers for their students, if not any at all. Luckily, here at Valley we are fortunate enough to be provided with resources such as laptops, desktop computers, and iPads. This is why this particular standard can be considered unnecessary for us. Throughout our education, we have been subject to the use of online resources, including Edmodo, turn it in, noodletools, etc... These resources are all helpful, and we have been exposed to them on numerous occasions. Therefore it is pointless for our school to meet the standard of further online/internet use within our educations. From this, it is safe to say that Common Core generalizes for schools across the entire country. If it were possible, it would be a better alternative to accommodate each school individually due to its specific needs. Then, each school could move at its own pace, and schools such as Valley would not be restricted from teaching students valuable information that they otherwise would not learn due to wasted time meeting Common Core standards. Because of this, we can effectively prepare for our futures, and learn things that will actually be valuable in whatever we plan to do following high school.
ReplyDelete-Alicia Wichtowski
When it comes to the CCSS standards that are being imposed upon students across our nation, a word comes to mind: overcompensation. Having a strong set of guidelines has always been an important part of public school education, both for improving scores and creating opportunity for aspiring students in poorer schools in the U.S. However, when I see these new, very specific and high-reaching standards in the United States, I think of our insecurity. Previously the number one country in the world for education, the United States has seen a decline in its world rankings, falling to a disappointing 14th best in the world, being called average instead of superior. The Common Core Standards are a overreaction to our slacking educational system. The standards are trying to help further the education of our people, and in some ways, they are. However, they can also be restricting standards. The rules these Core Standards create allow for less unique teaching style by educators, as well as limiting the types of works they should be presenting. By limiting teaching, the system creates a greater standardization to the system. However, when the rules limit the teaching freedom, they also often limit learning. The Common Core Standards set for the English curriculum have good intentions, as well as good effects, but can also have limiting factors that hurt education.
ReplyDeleteI am the type of person who likes set rules and guidelines in activities. However, I do not believe such concise rules and regulations that are found in the Common Core Standards should be used to instruct writing. Writing is a form of art, and just like a watercolor painting, a rigid grading structure is doomed to cause lower scores and worse pieces. There are certain aspects of writing, fundamental pillars, which I agree should be a part of the grading. An example of one of these rules would be CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2d which calls for “precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic.” This standard makes sense because it is just enforcing the use of literary essentials. It is the rules like CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1a that are not good. It says, “Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.” Rules like this basically create a checklist for a writer to fill out as he writes. This can stifle his natural ability to create a flowing and effective essay by forcing the mechanical inclusion of things that just do not fit naturally. This is my biggest issue with the standard, as prefabricated molds of a paper do not allow students to fully utilize their creativity.
ReplyDeleteI think that when the standards talk about analyzing themes and analyzing author's choices how to develop and relate elements of a story it is very hard for a teacher to teach these subjects. Every book varies, and the teacher cannot help a student on their test. Therefore I believe that although the teacher can make certain lesson plans that do help students when they are stuck, the true analysis of a passage is up to the student themselves. Personally I feel that the ability to easily comprehend a passage is a natural gift. Even with plentiful practice I find it that I have trouble finding themes/ comprehending passages. On the contrary, I believe that the teacher can definitely teach how 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.” This is a uniform, straight forward skill or standard. I really like how Garrett referenced literature to art. I would definitely agree that literature is very intellectual art, and it is hard to teach “how to do it”. Furthermore Garrett also brings up the topic of goals v. standards. Although goals would be ideal in a class/ subject that really has no limits, standards are a constant measure in our society, and although we may not want to conform to society’s rules, the system always wins. Therefore logically, goals would make more sense, but logistically standards must be placed so that there is a baseline for everyone.
ReplyDelete-BPat
My initial thought to these common core standards were that they were reasonable rigorous standards except for a few which were unreasonable and unnecessary. However, like Indigo said earlier, the subject of language arts is nothing like a subject like math. Language arts can have many different answers that are all correct. It could be difficult to make these generalizations and expectations for normal 11th and 12th graders because it is difficult to tests students on a subject that they all come about differently. I agree with what Garrett said, everyone comes about language arts differently, there is not only one way to analyze text, there is not only one way to write a paper, and there is not only one way to go about answering questions. How do they expect teachers to teach all of these students all of these standards in a lesson plan? I would be very difficult because not every student learns the same way. Some will not understand different areas even after it has been taught to them. These standards are a bit too much for a lower level language arts class. I believe that maybe some of these core standards should only be for level one and AP classes. It is unreasonable to ask someone in a level two and three class to complete some of these tasks. Other than that, I think that overall the common core standards are reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI like many others have mixed feelings about the common core standards. I appreciate its clarity when it comes to outlining the standards but cannot help feeling like I am reading a test rubric. The standards seem practical and outline what, I believe, is appropriate to know at our grade level. What worries me is the application of these standards, like Neve said, there overwhelming. A teacher already has constraints when it comes to how and what they teach, these will only stifle them more. Teaching, especially when it comes to English and the arts, has to be something fluid and evolving. If a teacher finds that the students are getting more out of a certain subject or focus area they should spend more time on it. That freedom to learn is being taking away, the common core may force a teacher to re-teach , as Abby said, and skim over subjects the student might gain real worth from . This pressure to be up to the standards only encourages teaching to the test. I think that placing them as goals, as Brian and Garrett said, would be a much better idea. I believe most students across the nation could reach these as goals, I do not think that everyone could meet them as a standards on a test,which is the style they have been presented in.
ReplyDeleteBritta McCarthy