Ramping up the Common Core Transition

The goal of the CCSS is to ensure no student is “crippled by their zip code” (Tony Dunn, Future Shock, p. 13).

For most educators, vacation begins after sometime after Memorial Day and lasts somewhere between one and three months. But I am on a vacation this week, getting a few days off before a series of summer Common Core Workshops begin. And though I say I’m on vacation, my husband begs to differ. He doesn’t see writing and researching a blog as vacation time well-spent…though spent nevertheless!

Most of my summer will be spent working with educators who have chosen to invest four and five days honing knowledge and skills in the implementation of the Common Core Standards. Our educators need support as they transition from their state’s corpus of standards to the streamlined CCSS and that support can only come from those who have had the opportunity throughout the year to understand the standard’s content and rigor. Ohio’s newly published Future Shock: Early Common Core Implementation Lessons from Ohio (Belcher, 2012 May) clearly addresses this need. Supported by funding from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, this report acts as anecdotal history and cautionary tale for those states and/or districts that have yet to provide direction and opportunity for the adoption of and adaptations to what is our nation’s single most concerted effort to guarantee quality curriculum to all learners.

“The Common Core is about more than standards ‘it is really designed to significantly change the way teachers teach. …The instruction should look different.’” (Mitchell in Future Shock, p. 18)

If we want our instruction to look “different,” then professional development must look equally different! To prepare for the workshop sessions, I am building a wiki resource on Wikispaces for teachers to use during sessions and after our sessions. Grounded in constructivist theory and respectful of purpose, the week-long sessions offer differentiated goals for participants: they may design units; they may write a series of lesson plans; they may develop collaborated or individualized student projects or assessments.  Each of participant goal will constitute a capstone project and become featured on the CCSS implementation wiki. The end result will be purposeful learning that will really provide teachers and administrators with tools to begin the 2012-2013 school year. As facilitator, my goals is to provide a framework for productivity and a repository for the resultant products! That will be the wiki!

What makes these standards so different? Like other standards, they explicitly delineate key ideas and details, they note long-held cognitive distinctions like compare and contrast, they address the need of asking and answering questions. But what many readers of the standards ignore is the font matter of the document that also delineates what constitutes a college and career ready student:

• They demonstrate independence.
• They build strong content knowledge.
• They respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose,
  and discipline.
• They comprehend as well as critique.
• They value evidence.
• They use technology and digital media strategically and capably.
• They come to understand other perspectives and cultures. (CCSS for English Langauge Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, p. 7).

It is in the interpolation of these descriptors and the delineated standards that life changing learning takes place. These descriptors imply activity, controversy, adaptations, and disagreement in the learning process that is change. Moreover, these descriptors delve far deeper than the ability to make sense of print text: these descriptors go to the core of what makes thinking people thoughtful.

“…administrators and principals will have to change their expectation of what a classroom should look like. ‘If you go into a classroom and kids are working quietly, you better question what’s going on.’” (K. Hoffman in Future Shock, p. 18)

Our work over the summer will be to remember that the power of literacy is the enablement of individuals to become independent workers and thinkers, family members and friends, citizens of a world community that is quickly shrinking and paradoxically growing. The vastness of our knowledge is far beyond the measurements of multiple choice tests, yet the proximity of our being, virtual and physical, closes in on our privacy by the moment. It is through powerful teaching and learning that we can expand one’s sense of self: teacher and student.

ASCD Webinar: Meeting Standards Through UbD Framework

ASCD Webinar: Meeting Standards Through UbD Framework.

Common Core Standards Demand Written Response!

This week, discussion and evidence far more authoritative than my assurances to teachers about the future of writing in Common Core assessment abounded. Had I read PARCC’s March Progress Update before April, I would have had the same information published in Erik Robelen’s Curriculum Matters blog in the April 12th EdWeek, “Man vs. Computer: Who Wins the Essay Scoring Challenge?”  I am from Illinois where statewide writing assessment is not based on academic excellence but on budgetary consideration. Currently, writing assessment is not a state priority because the state cannot afford to have writing assessments scored. However, the CCSS is an integrated “model of literacy” and as such, “requires that students be able to write about what they read” (CCSS, p. 4). This focus on writing as an extension of reading demands that writing be among the aspects of literacy assessment in 2015. Not only does there exist a theoretical  reason for including writing, but both PARCC and SMARTER Balanced Consortia promised to provide performance based assessments in the original proposals that won their constituencies the $187 million dollars (give or take depending on which consortia we are speaking of) to play with.

PARCC's March Progress Report clearly indicates that Performance Based Assessment is a continuing piece of the overall 2015 assessment package.

However, the distance between promising performance based assessment and delivering the goods is like running a marathon race…and the gun has been shot. Stepping up to sweeten the Race to the Top pot,  Willet and Hewlett Foundation is has offered $100K in prize money for a competition among leading “data scientists” to create the most effective system for automated grading of performance based assessments. This effort is a means to ensure the expectations and goals of the  CCSS integrated model of literacy can be achieved. Anyone in education knows the adage, “what is tested is taught.” And though my research in opportunities to learn (OTL) does not bear the adage out as fact, the inclination to teach was is tested is far greater than to do the opposite.  In those years that Illinois did not test writing, many schools de-emphasized its importance, some going so far as to remove writing instruction from the curriculum.

But the coming CCSS cannot allow that to happen because the theoretical foundation of the standards rightly aligns reading and writing as means of co-processing information into  knowledge, understandings, and skills. Efficient automated scoring will reduce the likelihood of either teachers or states to dismiss their responsibilities to address literacy learning that reaches beyond reading, speaking, and listening.

…the constructed-response items and extended essays that will make up the performance-based component of the tests – can be scored quickly, efficiently, affordably, and, perhaps most important, validly and reliably. Automated scoring technologies would allow PARCC to rely less on more time-consuming and expensive hand-scoring methods, helping to ensure the tests maintain their strong focus on asking students to demonstrate what they know and can do in engaging and authentic ways that are affordable and sustainable over time. (PARCC Progress Report, March, p. 9)

Not only does the theoretical stance of the CCSS demand writing assessment, but PARCC’s Model Content Frameworks released last fall clearly illustrates the relationship between reading and writing. At every grade, the Frameworks emphasizes that students integrate reading, writing, and research in order to “better understand content matter” (Cebelak, 2011, p. 45). Once again, the importance of disciplinary literacy is apparent: learners cannot acquire deep conceptual constructs within a discipline if they do not have the opportunities to read broadly and deeply in an content area  and reflect on their reading through various forms of writing: summarizing significant passages or concepts, pondering connections between opposing views, comparing perspectives of like-minded thinkers/scientists/practitioners, etc. Many of the  teachers I work with find this chart helpful in understanding not only the relationship between reading and writing and research, but also in understanding the shared responsibility of literacy among the academic and technical disciplines. Keep in mind that there is a model for each grade 3-11 and though the content may change from grade to grade the modular concept does not.

ELA/Literacy Model Content Framework for Grade 3. The framework format remains the same at all grades; the suggested content and number of readings and /or writing assignments vary.

Although there have been changes to the initially proposed assessments on both the part of PARCC and SBAC, I remain confident that writing will play a significant role in the final assessment format based on PARCC’s March Update. Therein is a promise for a performance based assessment that will be required by all. The standards in theory and because of rigor demand students write to show their own thinking ability in addition to (or I would go so far as to say “in place of…”) multiple choice tests which requires more skills of inference than skill at higher level thinking. In sum, I agree with the words of Barbara Chow, education program director at Hewlett: “The more we can use essays to assess what students have learned, the greater likelihood they’ll master important academic content, critical thinking, and effective communication” (EdWeek, April 12, 2012, para. 12)

The CCSS and KWL: Reading to Learn and Confirm

“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants” (Isaac Newton, 1676).

A close reading of the College and Career Readiness anchor standards and the grade level CCSS reveal the integrated nature of real reading comprehension among the domains: key ideas, text structure, integration of knowledge & ideas, and text complexity. Many are asking how are we to achieve these new standards? I reply that we must stand on the shoulders of giants to see beyond where we have been and chart the path to where we are going.

The standards are deeper and richer than most state standards of the past. In reality, they expect readers to be critical thinkers, asking and answering unwritten questions of the text in order to analyze what the text says explicitly and implicitly. Even more than that, the standards expect readers to automatically and consistently cite textual evidence to support their analysis. And even more dramatic, the standards expect readers to analyze the relationship of text structure to the author’s message or purpose and maybe…even connect that structure in an analysis or comparison between texts and to accomplish this kind of thinking with (developmentally) complex text.

On whose shoulders can we stand to achieve such lofty goals?

If you are an educator at any grade level, you are probably familiar with the K-W-L chart (Ogle, 1986). This instructional model addresses before, during, and after reading strategies that build reading persistence and result in a higher rate of reading retention. The idea is that before reading, good readers question themselves to access prior knowledge and establish a foundation on which they can build knowledge about the subject or topic at hand. The “K” stands for “what we know” and metacognitvely allows for access of background knowledge. The “W” stands for “what we want to find out” to establish reading purpose for the “during” reading process. Finally, the “L” or “what I learned” is the “after” reading step that promotes reading reflection. Good readers, the theory goes, consider what they knew before reading, recognize gaps in knowledge and finally, consider what was read or learned in relation to what they already knew or hoped to learn.

Ogle’s work with KWL is widely cited as a by researchers and practitioners alike (Gallagher, 2004; Harvey, 1998; Johnson & Freedman, 2005; Misulis, 2009; Pressley, 2006). Not only has KWL stood the test of time and proven to be effective far beyond the elementary grade levels but it has also proven to ladder-up thinking about reading and its relationship to research and writing. Carr and Ogle (1987) built on the original K-W-L process just one year after its first publication. The resultant K-W-L+ “extends the learning process…by making a semantic map or graphic organizer of the key information” (Blachowicz & Ogle, 2001, p.111). Ogle (2009) continues to extend the use of KWL by exploring and providing examples of how KWL and the development of an I-chart (Hoffman, 1992) can move the reading experience beyond a single text and into fields of research and exploration.

As we move into the era of Common Core Literacy Standards, the development of content literacy strategies have become even more important than in the past. Before CCSS, ELA teachers were primarily responsible for knowing and teaching reading strategies; however, in the era of shared responsibility for literacy and learning, content teachers will need to adopt and adapt methods for scaffolding readers’ engagement and learning with content text. No longer can lecture in the social sciences and labs in the physical sciences be the primary means of teaching and learning. In a recorded speech, David Coleman (2010) himself chastised science teachers who claim science is a hands on study supporting his criticism by stating that practicing scientists read 80% of the time (EdSector YouTube Video). His point is clear: students must become independent readers who pose multiple types of questions or hypotheses and conduct secondary as well as primary research to explore and explain using multiple means of inquiry based in primary, secondary and even tertiary sources.

So, what does this mean for K-W-L?

Building on the work of literacy giants like Donna Ogle, Egan (1999) published a graphic organizer that emphasized the difference between “knowing” and “thinking I know,” a distinction that has proved important in vocabulary building. Students are more inclined to learn new information when they recognize a knowledge base is questionable and in today’s world, subject to change. Her organizer features columns for “definitely know” and “think I know” as well as a code for verifying accuracy. Two additional columns store questions and resources.

Australian literacy specialist Tony Stead, too, has stood on the shoulders of giants in developing the RAN Chart: Reading and Analyzing Nonfiction. Different than Ogle’s simple KWL chart, Stead’s chart has five columns: What I Think I Know; Confirmed; Misconceptions; New Information; Wonderings. Although Stead’s structure moves readers (teachers and students) closer to the demands of the Common Core Literacy Standards, it falls short–probably because the template was built before the standards were published.

Reading to Learn and Confirm

The expectations of the CCSS demand that readers, unprompted by teachers, be able to identify what they learned and support that learning with clear citations from the text. This implies that learners as readers may find that some of their assumptions were wrong or that some of their positions have been swayed by the arguments of the text. Moreover, the CCSS demand that readers look beyond the superficial or literal implications of a text and explore what questions or implications are nuanced by the text. With this in mind, let me share with you a thinking organizer that emphasizes the recursive nature of analytic reading: juxtaposing background knowledge and new information by means of individual reflection that motivates additional reading as research.

This organizer is different from the K-W-L in that questions are not the purpose purpose for reading but the result of reading. If I am reading on topic about which I know little, how can I presume to know what questions I have? Rather, the text information itself in relationship to growing background knowledge is the source of questions. Using this organizer, the reader poses statements about what they “think” they know. While they read, they may add to that column as connections are made, but what is equally or more important is the recursive movement across the chart as the reader learner notes details that confirm thinking or corrects what at the outset was thought to be “true.” The documentation of these details and inferences are an essential part of College and Career Readiness Standards as well as the corresponding grade level CCSS as reader learners move through the grades.

As a good reader learner takes note of new information, explicitly stated or implied by the text, the reader reflects on the learning and poses questions that have been evoked by the information presented in the text. In the final column, the reader learner considers what resources may be used to search for answers. And the process starts again. Because “Reading to Learn and Confirm” moves beyond the literal and nudges the reader for deeper thought, this organizer can become a scaffold for writing.

References

Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading Comprehension: Strategies for Independent Learners. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Coleman, D. (2010, Mar 12). EdSectorVideo 2:57. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1cCo6dOcec.

Egan, M. (1999). Reflections on effective use of graphic organizers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. p. 641-645.

Gallagher, K. (2004). Deeper Reading: Comprehending Challenging Texts, 4-12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Harvey, S. (1998). Nonfiction Matters: Reading, Writing, and Research in Grades 3-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Johnson, H., & Freedman, L. (2005). Content Area Literature Circles. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Ogle, D.M. (2009). Creating contexts for inquiry: From KWL to PRC2. Knowledge Quest,38(1). p. 56-61.

Ogle, D.M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39. p. 564-570.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading Instruction that Works. New York, NY: Guildord Press.

Common Core Literacy Standards: Reading and Writing Intersections

Over the last eighteen months, I’ve built scaffolds for hundreds of educators in various roles to better understand the Common Core Literacy Standards. I have explained and modeled instructional methods for implementation to teachers at all grade levels and in all content areas. Over that time, I have come to see new ways of juxtaposing the standards in meaningful ways. The reading standards use verbs such as “refer,” “determine,” “explain,” “describe,” and “quote.” The use of these verbs implies an audience that can assess the quality of the reference, the description, the explanation and the like. Although classroom discussions provide meaningful practice and informal assessment of student’s reading ability, writing about what and how one reads provides powerful opportunities for reflection on the part of both authors and their readers, i.e., students and their teachers.

“Okay, so this is nothing new” you say. “I’ve using writing to assess my students since I started teaching. I always have a short answer on my unit tests.” I’m sure you do. But the literacy standards  are asking for more than simply a short answer: they ask for explanations and summarizations, quotations and citations, analysis and evaluations. Now I don’t mean to make the standards overwhelming, because frankly, I believe they simpler in structure (though deep in essence) than most state standards. But…here is where I am going…the standards as they sit do not give educators a quick reference to what the intersection of reading and writing looks like, but I can. Using the standards themselves in their own format, you can customize a reading writing matrix at grade level or differentiate a matrix to meet your students’ diverse needs.

What I am suggesting is that once you have come to KNOW the standards, rather than look at the strands (reading, writing, language, speaking and listening) as separate entities, begin to think about how they combine to build critical thinkers: readers, speakers, and writers. I have been thinking about means by which to visualize the interconnectedness of the standards, but today, I moved beyond thinking to doing something.Take a look at my first example:

Click on the image to enlarge and see what I am suggesting. Across the top are the grade level writing standards and down the sides are the reading standards. Students are to read and analyze a text  using the criteria listed along the side of the matrix, then plan for writing an explanatory essay that meets the criteria listed across the top. Within each cell, they can put notes about their reading that will lend itself to later writing. Additionally, I would add a language cell–something that requires a demonstration of a Language Standard. That standard could be placed either across the top or down the side. If the standard were across the writing row, the author would generate an example wheras, if the standard were found in the reading column, the author would explain the function of that language element within the essay.

For instance, if I placed Language Standard 4a. Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 6 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.
Use context (e.g., the overall meaning of a sentence or paragraph; a word’s position or function in a sentence) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase.6.5a. in a writing cell, I would expect my writers to explain an unknown word found in their reading by using context clues. On the other hand, if I place the standard across the writing row, I would expect the author to provide context clues for a domain specific or novel academic word within their own writing. Just as a tip, when I make expectations for specific conventions to be part of essay writing (which I always do!), I have students highlight those conventions IN CLASS the day the writing is submitted for assessment. I want to know that they know where the convention appears.

I’ll share another example from sixth grade, this for argument writing. Note that I haven’t changed the language to a great degree on these slides. I would urge teachers to make the language student friendly without great change to the language. I would also urge teachers to limit the standard to what you really want to see in the essay. Just because the standard is fully inclusive doesn’t mean your writing matrix needs to be. There will be other days to write and more papers to grade!

As I work with the standards, I continue to appreciate the opportunities they offer for educators to be both organized and creative. I know many people want to fight Common Core Implementation. But negativity will not move the work of teaching to the next level for students or for the field of education as a whole. Unlike many who have time to wage a war of words on political decisions, I am tired of bucking a system, especially when the needs of our kids are so great and the means by which we have been addressing their needs seem to have fallen short. My commitment to educators everywhere is a continued resolve to research, practice, and share best methods, scientifically proven and evidence based, in this challenge have chosen: the education of all children regardless of disability, race, income, or locale. I’m in this with yo

Source: Common Core Standards. (2010).  National Governors Association  Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.

Note: The materials provided in this post are used according to explicit provisions of  the National Governors Association  Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers: “This document is provided to schools under the presumption of the Fair Use clause §107-118  of Copyright Law, Title 17, U.S. Code. The purpose and character of the CCSS document is intended only for educational purposes and not as a means to limit or redefine the purpose or intent of the original document.”

American Classrooms: Grounded in the Past

Right now, I’m in the air writing and publishing this blog. Isn’t modern technology remarkable?! To be able to compose on a computer and publish to a website while 30,000 feet in the air is true innovation. The inspiring and liberating capabilities of modern technology make me even more reflective and critical about the state of modern education.

I’m flying home from a Bureau of Indian Education meeting in Albuquerque. As the keynote speaker, I was to prepare an engaging research based presentation on the topic of “Best Practices in Schoolwide Comprehensive Literacy.” Drafting a speech supported with a respected research base was the easiest part of the task. However, taking the message of that speech and transforming it into an hour of full engagement was the challenge.

I opened the presentation with these three images: a classroom from the 1920s, one from the 1950s and one from the mid 2000s. Before you look at them, let me pose to you a question similar to that I asked of my audience. If these were to be the only three images of education found in a time capsule fifty or one-hundred years from now, what story would they tell about the 90 years of education seemingly captured?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I can’t know what you came up with, but I came up with limited fodder to build a story of much interest, at least about education. Of course I could write imaginative fictions about the people in the photos, but in relationship to education, the images fail to show any narrative progression. The primary change from era to era is superficial. Although the uniform or dress may change through time, within each era students dress quite similarly—perhaps because of a formalized dress code or perhaps out of the human sense of conformity. As the three images represent American classrooms, they tell a repetitious teacher-centered story of passive participation, of ordered learners neatly rowed to support independent working and thinking.

Don’t be defensive. I’m only making an observation. I know there are other pictures in other places, but Google classroom images yourself and see what you find. Walk through school today and see what you see. Prove me wrong. Prove that most classes in most schools are student centered places of collaborative learning. Prove that the dream Samuel Taylor Coleridge held for his own son has finally come to fruition for our sons and daughters: “that thou shalt learn far other lore, And in far other scenes…:

My speech is over. The conference continues. School in classrooms around the country and around the globe are in session. I am 30,000 feet in the air publishing this blog. What’s wrong with this picture?

Achieving CCSS Success Relies on Aligned Objectives

Teachers need time and support to read and analyze the standards, not just talk about them.

The adoption of national standards is old news. During the summer of 2010, nearly all fifty states adopted the CCSS, however they did little to promote implementation. For most states, the 2014-2015 assessment of implementation was a long way off. But the clock is ticking. Whether you are in a PARCC state or a SBAC state the New Year marks the time for administrators and teachers to go beyond familiarizing themselves and merely talking about Common Core. Now is the time to actually integrate necessary teaching methodologies. As I share with middle and high school teachers the expectations of the CCSS at the primary grades, they are in awe. On the whole, educators agree that  adolescents do not possess many of the learning skills described as indicators of elementary school proficiencies. Digging into the CCSS and identifying targeted skills is the only way that student achievement on the eventual assessments will be fairly measured and student performance will continue to step up on the CCSS learning ladder.

How are educators to do this? By first analyzing each standard across grade levels, beginning in kindergarten, determining or deconstructing the standards they ladder up learning from primary school to intermediate grades and high school. Once they understand what the foundations of the standards, then teachers can begin to build aligned units and daily lesson plans. I’ve said this in previous blogs, but I will say it again. Even high school teachers must look at primary and intermediate standards to understand their grade level standards. This is imperative because the standards spiral and do not repeat what might be an underlying feature of the College and Career Level Standard itself! The student responsibility for questioning does not appear in the standards after grade 3; however, self-questioning and teacher questioning (we all know) is imperative to reading comprehension and high level reading, i.e., critical literacy.

Let me provide an example:

CCSS RI.1.K.1 (Reading for Information.GradeK.Standard1)

1. With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Knowledge to be taught:

KNOWLEDGE LEARNING TARGETS	BIG IDEA
Learner can identify a question in print text	What does a question look like?
Learner can distinguish a question from a statement when heard aurally. Learner can inflect his/her voice in asking a question.	What does a question sound like?
Learner can identify words that describe and name.	What is a key detail?
Learner can draw or point to three types of text. For example: a book, a magazine, a newspaper.	What is a text?
REASONING LEARNING TARGETS	BIG IDEA
Learner can determine words that are not details: conjunctions, articles, some adverbs (such as very, really, etc.)	What is not a key detail?
Learner can identify elements of a picture that are irrelevant to message being conveyed.	What is not a key detail?
Learner can identify questions that are off topic, related to insignificant details, etc.	What is not a question about the key details in a text?
PERFORMANCE/APPLICATION LEARNING TARGET	BIG IDEA
Learner waits for an appropriate time to answer a teacher generated question.	When do I answer a question? (While it is being asked or after the speaker has finished?)
Learner waits for an appropriate time to answer a self-generated question	When should I ask a question about the text? (While the reader is reading or after the reader is finished?)

Some of my readers will post and say I haven’t done a thorough job of targeting this standard. Good—I look forward to that. But many more will read and think this is just too much work. Please, feel free to comment on my targeting—add to what you see that would also need to be taught in grade K to meet the expectations of this standard by the year’s end!! I’ll update as you post!

Unfortunately, the most frequent question I’m asked by teachers is whether they really need to do the deconstructing themselves or whether they can count on a textbook to target standards for them. My response: a textbook is not your curriculum but a tool that provides a vehicle for instruction of essential content knowledge and practice of the essential skills related to specific fields of study. Textbooks index skills and even provide pacing charts based on the text’s progression through listed skill study. Additionally, textbooks index content and resources to use in lesson design, including guided practice. However, textbooks do not deconstruct or target standards (although they indicate sometimes with accuracy what standard a lesson may fulfill). In order to deconstruct standards, educators must work together in determining what specific and essential skills underlie the generalized statement of what students should know and be able to do by the end of a specified instructional period.

By deconstructing or targeting standards within a group of school educators–teachers, paraprofessionals, and administrators—schools can ensure that the needs of learners in their community with their specific issues under the tutelage of their professional staff are engaged in sequential learning. Yes, this is work—the work of professionals with university degrees who have been educated to know and understand the essential components of content disciplines (knowing and doing) and the pedagogies of instruction that appropriately challenge the intellectual, social, and emotional growth of learners.

How can this be achieved? The implementation of the CCSS requires efforts on the part of a community of stakeholders. The responsibility for moving CCS into the classroom is not only the work of the classroom teacher, but also of the school’s instructional leader and the state’s leadership. Working time for cadres of teachers to target or deconstruct standards needs to be allocated beyond the school day.

Teachers, need to be professional and make accommodations to their own schedules and be available to support colleagues in this endeavor. If each teacher is left to individually target standards, replication and omission within and between grades will be the result. Curriculum will be a hodgepodge. How to get started? Visit Turn on Your Brain for more ideas and resources.  Or call / email me! I’d love to visit your school! But know this, student success or failure to meet the expectations of the Common Core literacy standards will be the result of the learning objectives teachers eventually design. That is why it is imperative that teaching objectives correlate with the newly adopted expectations.