CCSS Direct Teachers to Teach Reading from Harder Texts

What is new in Common Core State Standards is that all children at any grade level are expected to read and comprehend difficult books. There's a new focus on "text complexity" at each grade level. One person highlighting this issue very pointedly is Dr. Tim Shanahan, a reading researcher who is Chair of the National Early Literacy Panel, Past President of the International Reading Association, Member of the National Reading Panel, and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Reading, Writing, and Literacy at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He says that "Reading educators going back to the 1930s . . . have championed the idea of there being an instructional level (for reading)." Dr. Shanahan goes on to list the basic premises of a model called "guided reading," which is currently widely practiced in American schools, but according to Dr. Shanahan, not well supported by research.

The Guided Reading Model

(Reading practitioners who read this post will recognize this model as practices promoted by renowned reading professors, Dr. Irene Fountas and Dr. Gay Su Pinnell.)

• Children learn to read by reading.
• The teacher matches kids with "just right" books at each child's instructional level.
• The teacher provides guidance and support.
• Complex texts at a child's "frustration level" are avoided.
• Use of lower-level reading resources is encouraged.

According to Dr. Shanahan, the CCSS call for complex texts runs counter to current practice. He argues that the following practices (but not guided reading) are supported by research.

Basic Common Core Principles

• No optimal instructional-level match that facilitates learning.
• Students do not learn to read by reading easy books.
• Real learning comes from engagement with very challenging text.
• Use of particularly high readability texts is encouraged.

Here's What CCSS-Recommended Harder Texts Look Like

To demonstrate what complex texts might look like at different grade levels, let's contrast two texts that CCSS might deem appropriate for fourth versus fifth graders, and suited for developing college- and career-ready readers: Beezus and Ramona for fourth grade and The Great Fire for fifth grade.

Beezus and Ramona is the enduring 1955 classic about Beatrice and the antics of her annoying younger sister, Ramona. In contrast, The Great Fire by Jim Murphy, a historically accurate compilation of eyewitness accounts of the great Chicago fire of 1871, is a harder and more complex text suitable for fifth grade.

Beezus and Ramona is executed in a clear-cut, step-by-step story plot sequence, along with information and experience familiar to any fourth grader. It's very concrete. The Great Fire requires more abstract thinking and reflection. The reader must shift back and forth surveying informational text from many complex perspectives. Deductive thinking is required in the last chapter, where fifth graders move from general to specific reasoning to determine whether it was the cow, the vagrants, or the drunk firemen who caused the great fire that burned Chicago and left over 100,000 people homeless. There is no simple right or wrong answer. In that last chapter, the reader must draw his or her own conclusion.

The CCSS notion of text complexity makes sense. It's clear that text complexity in these respective texts requires different levels of thinking. Beginning fourth graders who read Beezus and Ramona are likely comprehending based on thinking limited to concrete phenomena and their own past experiences. The story is full of referents to the fourth grader's real life: sibling rivalry, a pesky younger sibling, sibling love. In contrast, The Great Fire, a story of triumph of the human spirit, is much more complex–an intricately crafted story that requires abstract thinking.

The CCSS model suggests that even though these texts may not be on a child's "instructional level" for reading, they should still be taught at the respective grade levels. Dr. Shanahan and some other reading experts seem to be saying that teachers need to shift their focus–no more guided reading in "just-right books." Their solution is to have teachers shift gears and teach from complex text by offering more "scaffolding" and support. In our American schools, where 4 out of 10 eight-year-olds read below grade level, these texts would still be taught, even though many kids are not ready for success with them. It's the teacher's burden, according to some experts, to scaffold and support to make these texts work. It seems to me that the simple solution–placing the burden on the teacher to teach out of harder text–is unrealistic and not very congenial to teachers.

While some adjustments may need to be made in the guided reading model, based on research, I think there is a better solution than correcting guided reading and having teachers alone bear the burden of teaching struggling readers from harder texts.

A Better Solution–Two Big Ideas

Comprehending complex texts that lead to college- and career-level readiness at any grade level requires that most children enter that grade reading proficiently. Currently, about 40 percent of eight-year-olds in America don't meet this requirement. That's a huge problem for reading teachers. If you are a third grade, fourth grade, or fifth grade teacher and you have many students who lack the skills to be successful at your grade level, you have to spend a lot of time helping struggling readers catch up. It's difficult to scaffold and support these students in difficult text. So why don't we look for some answers that ensure more kids enter a grade level ready for success with complex text? If we consider how the brain works for reading, there are two big ideas that continually receive short shrift that can prepare more students for success: spelling instruction in elementary school and baby/toddler reading.

I have written about both of these challenges. The first Big Idea is to re-emphasize spelling. New groundbreaking technology is making it clear that spelling knowledge is foundational for how the brain circuitry functions for reading. It is also clear that spelling in American education has been given short shrift. We need a spelling book in each child's backpack. (For more, see No Spelling Book in Your Child's Book Bag Spells Trouble Ahead.)

The second Big Idea is to promote baby/toddler reading, with the parent or preschool caregiver being the child's first reading teacher. Birth to age four is a critical period of brain development, when the brain circuitry is developing at such a stunning rate that toddlers can pick up reading as easily as they can pick up language. A huge focus on baby/toddler reading and preschool education would ensure that all kids enter kindergarten on an equal footing ready for success with reading. (For more, see Can Babies Really Read? What Parents Should Know!.)