Report: ELA teachers not implementing Common Core

By Meris Stansbury, Associate Editor, @eSN_Meris
October 23rd, 2013

ELA teachers aren’t making the instructional shifts necessary for the Common Core

ELA-teachers-common-core According to a stunning report released today, “a huge percentage of ELA teachers” aren’t making the instructional shifts necessary for the Common Core, instead relying on old teaching materials and classroom practices. The report suggests that this lack of proper implementation could be setting students back in reading skills.

The report, released today by The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “Common Core in the Schools: A First Look at Reading Assignments,” makes the argument that since the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), though national math scores have improved, reading (ELA) scores have barely budged. [Click here for the publication homepage.]

“How can it be that a nationwide push to improve reading has had only a negligible impact on overall reading achievement, even among out nation’s highest-performing districts and schools?” asks Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Fordham Institute and former United States Assistant Secretary of Education; and Kathleen Porter-Magee, senior advisor for Policy and Instruction at The College Board and a Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

According to Finn and Magee, there are four main reasons, based on meticulous research, that national reading scores have not seen significant change:

(Next page: Low reading scores and not implementing the right texts)

1 2 3 Read More »

5 Responses to “Report: ELA teachers not implementing Common Core”

October 23, 2013

Your headline is misleading. Here is the sentence straight out of the report:
“This year’s data are meant to serve
as a “baseline” that shows where we were in the very early stages of CCSS implementation.”

October 23, 2013

What do you mean by “CCSS texts”? The common core standards just list the examples of the TYPES of texts that teachers should be using; it’s not a prescribed list of texts.

October 23, 2013

Finn and Magee claim their conclusions about the reasons for the alleged failure in teaching reading are “based on meticulous research,” then offer such comments as the one that the alleged abandonment of history and science “could” have affected reading, and that “too many people” believe in less complex reading assignments, etc. The phrasing here certainly does *not* suggest “meticulous research” as much as it does pure speculation. Was the research done by looking at actual schools, or only by reviewing reports from various think tanks, etc.?

I have the same question as slshaffe. What do they mean by “CCSS texts”? The exemplars in the appendix are just that, examples, not required readings. This huge error in understanding on the part of Finn and Magee calls their entire report into question, as far as I’m concerned. I think they need to go back and do some real research based on some accurate understandings.