One of the many new wrinkles in the Common Core State
Standards is embedded in the speaking and listening standards across all grade
levels. This aspect of student learning
has seldom been formally assessed and the inclusion of speaking and listening
skills assessments in the CCSS has implications, aspirations and complications.
The initial rubric begins similarly across grade levels: “Engage effectively in a range of
collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups and teacher-led) with diverse
partners on {grade level topics, texts and issues} building on others’ ideas
and expressing their own clearly.” This is straightforward enough and
clear. However, as we delve more deeply
into the sub-sections, the complexity begins to emerge. For example, sixth grade students will be
expected to “review the key ideas
expressed and demonstrate understanding of multiple perspectives through
reflection and paraphrasing.” They
will be asked to “delineate a speaker’s
argument and claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and
evidence from claims that are not.” Furthermore, sixth grade students will
be expected present their own “claims
and findings”, often supported by “multimedia
components and visual displays in presentations to clarify information.” As
if this is not enough, they will also be required to “Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks”, in order to “demonstrate a command of formal English…” And, they will be asked to “use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume and clear pronunciation.”
It’s hard to find fault, at first glance, with these
standards. Indeed, they seem even more comprehensive and worthy as one travels
up the hierarchy of grades into high school.
College and career readiness is the goal and so it seems laudable that
we should ask high school seniors to “work
with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision-making, set
clear goals and deadlines” as well as asking them to “respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives” and to “resolve
contradictions when possible…” Those who meet these standards are the
congressional representatives of the future we all hope to elect! For many
years, many educators have bemoaned the poor quality of our achievement in the
realms of public speaking and of course most of us genuinely want to inculcate
listening skills, not least because they are most obvious in their absence
these days. However, there is uncertainty as to the right way to proceed in
encouraging these skills.
A deeper look at the standards raises questions, perhaps
even some doubts. How, for example, are
the PARCC assessments going to define “formal English” once the tests are in
place? What does that mean in the modern
context? Will there be room for cultural norms and cultural shifts? Whose pronunciation counts as “correct”? Will our local districts be able to train
student sufficiently to use “multiple media” to give presentations? Will our teachers of eighth grade students
see their youngsters reflected in the language of this standard: “Present claims and findings, emphasizing
salient points in a focused, coherent
manner with relevant evidence, sound valid reasoning, and well-chosen details;
use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume…” etc? What is appropriate eye
contact and how do we account for children from cultural background where eye
contact with adults is problematic? Even in cultures where we teacher “look me
in the eye” strategy, it seems more than a little unreasonable to include this
in the standards. Perhaps all this will
come out more clearly during the pilot period but the language of the standards
gives weight to those teachers who fear that the strategy of CCSS is to ratchet
up the standards in the hopes that somehow this will have an achievement
impact. There is, however, no natural
causal connection between high standards and high achievement. Indeed, all of
the research suggests that using standards to promote achievement will be a
fruitless strategy.
There are funding obstacles: we
all know it takes an enormous amount of instructional time to promote speaking
and listening skills and time costs money.
We are painfully aware, also, that districts with high poverty schools
and communities, which means inner cities and rural, isolated regions, will
struggle with these standards. The
language of the rubrics is stringently middle class and this does not mean we
are stereotyping struggling communities or labeling them with lowered
expectations. Expectations should imply
resources and where resources are minimal, this kind of achievement, this level
of expectation, is hamstrung at the outset.
The Common Core State Standards
have much to recommend them. They are
lofty; they are hard to challenge academically; they are concise in their
expectations, even if not yet in the actual language of the tests. However, we are right to ask questions about
the models that will support CCSS, models of budgets, models of teacher
training and models of in-service professional development. We want our children to be pushed and
raised. We just don’t want to have them
fall hard onto the other side.