there are writing standards that do just that. In the Common Core, the Writing anchor standards in the Research to Build and Present Knowledge domain focus equally on building and presenting knowledge—in other words, understanding and responding to sources. Reading and writing here are deeply intertwined; in fact, the Reading and Writing standards largely demand the same kinds of reading, reflecting, and responding from students. Note the following connections.
о CCRA.R.7, CCRA.W.7: Engage texts and research to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem.
о CCRA.R.7, CCRA.R.9, CCRA.W.7, CCRA.W.8: Synthesize multiple sources on the subject to demonstrate understanding.
о CCRA.R.8, CCRA.W.8: Evaluate the evidence and reasoning of texts and sources.
о All Reading and Writing anchor standards, but especially CCRA.W.9: Draw on and integrate evidence from texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
Notice the pattern? Students engage with and incorporate multiple sources. They gather, draw, synthesize, and integrate evidence—whether from a Google search or texts supplied to them—to solve content-area problems. This is precisely what the performance tasks on both the SBAC and PARCC assessments demand of students, and it’s exactly the kind of work students should be doing all of the time in class. In fact, chapter 6 (page 77) makes the case that your curriculum should be built around offering students as many opportunities as possible to respond to rich content-area readings and problems—this will maximize your opportunities to teach, practice, and assess the argumentative and expository skills your students need.
Key Idea 5: Integrating Language Standards Into Reading and Writing
In the CCSS ELA, the Language standards are the last strand listed, and it’s all too easy to cast them aside—especially if you’re a social studies or science teacher—or address them in isolation, seeing them as merely grammar or vocabulary. Don’t dismiss them. They need to be integrated into your reading and writing instruction; in fact, several of these standards are critical to reading and writing well. Indeed, the standards must be applied during reading and writing if students are to, say, “apply knowledge of language … to make effective choices for meaning or style” (CCRA.L.3), “use context … as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase” (L.4.4.A), and “demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances” (CCRA.L.5; NGA & CCSSO, 2010).
What the Language standards demand, then, is to be taught in tandem with the Reading or Writing standards they best support. For example:
о Making effective choices for meaning or style in their writing (CCRA.L.3) should be supported as students are developing and organizing their ideas in response to the specific demands—content, audience, format, and so on—of a written task (CCRA.W.4).
о Demonstrating command of written conventions of grammar (CCRA.L.1) and spelling (CCRA.L.2) should be supported as students are preparing to complete or publish their writing (CCRA.W.5).
о Applying an understanding of syntax to the study of complex texts when reading (L.11–12.3) should be supported as students analyze and assess the role of structure and syntax in both literary and informational texts (CCRA.R.5).
о Determining the meaning of academic vocabulary in context (CCRA.L.4, CCRA.L.6) should be supported as students identify and analyze the figurative, connotative, and technical meanings of key words (CCRA.R.4); in fact, CCRA.L.4 and CCRA.L.6 essentially provide the how to Reading anchor standard four’s what.
о Analyzing figurative language (CCRA.L.5) should be supported as students read for craft and structure (CCRA.R.4–6); it is the “missing” literary analysis standard, in that it does not appear in the Reading standards proper but is as vital to understanding the language and ideas of a text as organization (CCRA.R.5) and point of view (CCRA.R.6).
One thing that becomes abundantly clear in this key idea is that Reading standards, and especially any act of reading closely, are incomplete without language benchmarks, which are critical to analyzing the nonliteral and rhetorical components of texts. The Language standards in the Common Core, for instance, fill in missing components of literary analysis (for example, figurative language and syntax), and provide further clarity on how to engage in word study. Indeed, when analyzing and preparing texts for instruction, keep your Language standards side by side with your Reading standards as you determine what is complex in a text and your standards-aligned teaching points, those complexities on which you’ll focus your instruction.
Prioritizing Standards
Throughout this book, you’ll read that the task—what students are asked to do—is the most important element. Such an emphasis is not at the expense of the standards; it is because of them. You might have noticed, in fact, that, save for some of the Speaking and Listening standards (see chapter 8, page 111), almost all of the Common Core literacy standards were addressed in the previous section. This was possible because each standard or standard cluster was given a purpose; they were not seen as obligations. Certain standards were not prioritized over others; they were not apportioned out across a year. As shown in the previous section, standards are dependent on one another; they are not sequenced, but symbiotic. They need to be organized accordingly.
To see this in action, read across the strands of your standards, looking for patterns that cut across the Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language standards. Do you notice the repetition in language and concept? The standards are linked. No individual standard is emphasized over others; what is emphasized are certain kinds of skills. For example, consider the following skills that appear in various standards.
о Constructing evidence-based arguments: CCRA.W. 1, CCRA.R.1, CCRA.W.9, CCRA.R.7, CCRA.SL.2, and portions of CCRA.W.7 and CCRA.W.8
о Synthesizing multiple sources: CCRA.R.7, CCRA.R.9, CCRA.W.7, CCRA.SL.2
о Evaluating arguments: CCRA.R.8, CCRA.W.8, CCRA.SL.3
о Accessing information: CCRA.W.7, CCRA.W.8, CCRA.L.6
о Analyzing and applying academic vocabulary: CCRA.RL.4, CCRA.RI.4, CCRA.L.4, CCRA.L.5, CCRA.L.6
This list represents the core of the intellectual work prioritized by the CCSS ELA: that students ought to be analyzing and arguing about texts, in writing and in discussion, from the very first day of every class. If that’s the non-negotiable the standards present, students can’t learn Reading anchor standard one or Writing anchor standard one only in August and January. Nor can they experience these standards singularly or in isolation from one another. The priority, in other words, is not so much addressing the standards on any given day, but rather ensuring that students have learning experiences (reading across multiple texts, analyzing and inquiring into content-area issues, and responding formally and informally in writing and speaking) that address the multiple standards. This is the core knowledge in the standards and is precisely what the next-generation assessments such as the PARCC and SBAC do—address more than ten standards in a single task. This is also what you must attend to in the design of your instruction.
It is, then, progression and not prioritization that truly matters. Prioritization emphasizes individual standards; progression, however, focuses on addressing all or many of the standards and varying the supports—the kinds and complexity of the texts, tasks, and depth of performances—used to assist students. Progression is a necessary mindset when applying the standards because, as an end-of-the-year benchmark, the Common Core can only articulate
