An Increasingly Complex Text

            I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been selected to sit on the committee that is writing California’s next instructional framework for English Language Arts and English Language Development. Not only has the state updated its ELD standards to run parallel to the new Common Core, but the very title of the framework tells you that the state is moving in a very bold direction.
            The Common Core itself does stress literacy instruction in multiple subject areas, with twenty of its reading and writing standards specifically designated for middle school and high school courses in science, social science, the arts, and elsewhere. California hopes to grab the notion of widespread literacy instruction and apply it to language development as well. In sum, all teachers will be encouraged to teach reading and writing (whether their course has “English” in its title or not), and they will also be shown how to bring English Language Learners – those students who arrive to school speaking a different tongue – closer to fluency.   Are you one of those people who tries to pour syrup into every single square of your waffle? The new framework will pour the teaching of English literacy and language development into every classroom in California in much the same way. At least, that’s our goal.

            It’s certainly an enormous task; some may even call it revolutionary, though I prefer to think that our ELD approach is really catching up to the Inclusion model that has been proven effective for students with disabilities. Nonetheless, our committee has held two meetings, about a month apart, lasting two days apiece. These are public meetings which citizens are invited to attend up in Sacramento, and I encourage those who can to visit the State Department of Education’s website to find a date when you can observe the process and provide your comments. Last month, we wrestled with many grand principles, really engaging in a heartfelt discussion about the broader themes that should be emphasized in the framework. The committee brings such diversity to it; I truly believe we have wonderful advocates and experts on our team who unabashedly speak up for several student and teacher populations that are often neglected. It really sounds like we hear from every kind of student in our state, but of course, this makes the conversation all the more challenging as we seek to address so many needs in such a short amount of time. (I never thought I would say that about a two-day, fifteen-hour long meeting.)

            For my part, I’ve tried to lend a hand with the synthesis and the editing. I mentioned a couple of times that, in some sections, it seemed the framework drafts called on teachers to focus on sixteen different educational goals at once. I felt much better after our second meeting adjourned last Thursday, for I definitely saw some larger patterns emerging. It appears that the framework will revolve around four principles:

            Integration: This has been paramount from the start. California is taking a cross-curricular approach to English language instruction and study. Moreover, teachers will also build a consciousness of how the language domains – reading, writing, listening, speaking, and language conventions like grammar and spelling – can actually serve each other. Collaborative discussion is explicitly called out in the new standards; it may be the most significant innovation, yet if students have a dialogue about a story, we build reading comprehension as well. Writing certainly builds skills in conventions, and peer edits and proofreading exercises can weave in reading as well. The framework will likely emphasize this kind of “cross-over” pedagogy, especially as we continue to show teachers how to address, from within these same lessons, students who are still developing their English fluency. 

            Argument: I’m not sure if all the debate coaches I know will love or lament this idea, but the new standards place a large emphasis on the students’ ability to present a sound argument that is supported with evidence. Teachers will be expected to show students how to find the structure within non-fiction reading: they need to find the supporting details under the main idea of the piece, but also the specific data or proof that gives the detail its credibility. The theme is repeated even when students study literature. (Yes, contrary to what you may hear from some panicked circles, the Common Core does not kick storybooks out of the classroom.) What’s different, perhaps, is that when discussing what they read (see that combination of domains, again?), students are pushed to cite examples from the text to justify their answers. The debate community should love this; it should provide plenty of recruits over the next decade.

Scaffolded Instruction: For the non-educators, the term “scaffolding” refers to a gradual increase in the difficulty of successive lessons so that students start at a lower level of proficiency but gradually increase their abilities. Think of it like a video game, with each level getting harder and harder. Teachers must be very mindful of how to bring the high expectations of the standards into a classroom where students may be struggling with basic skills at the start of the year. Scaffolding becomes critical to the new English standards as they stress the students’ reading of increasingly complex texts. One of the Common Core’s greatest strengths – it’s year-by-year raising of expectations – becomes our teachers’ greatest challenge: how to ensure that the lessons meet students at their current levels and then guide them up that staircase of skills. California’s framework will be very aware of this challenge and, hopefully, provide some guidance into how it can be overcome.

            Academic Language that Makes Meaning: Here is where the ELD philosophy really takes hold. At the higher ends of the K-12 continuum, students need a wide vocabulary that includes several academic terms – not just words that apply to academic subjects, such as science or mathematical terms, but also terms that refer to intellectual practices such as “analyze”, “evidence”, “composition”, “thesis”, “narrative”, and “persuasive”. Young people who do not understand these terms will have a very difficult time navigating through school, especially the upper grades. Thus, at one level, teachers will need to actively ensure that students leave their class with a handful of these words in their lexicon.

            Now imagine the less-than-fluent English Language Learner. Their vocabulary, at least in English, may have several gaps both academic and otherwise. However, they also lack a sense of how English is structured. They don’t know the word “conjunction”, nor do they know how to combine sentences. Obviously, as these students get older without attaining English fluency, the pressure increases for teachers to find ways to build up their language more quickly. One strategy for this – the strategy that California’s framework will emphasize – is to teach more than just the words, or even more than just syntax. You teach language as having many diverse purposes, and each phrase or clause or part of speech has a function. It takes Schoolhouse Rock a step further: instead of the squat little conductor saying “I got ‘and’, ‘but’, and ‘or’ / They’ll get you pretty far,” he actually explains their function:

            “And” puts two things or ideas on the same team

            Like your birthday party, serving cake and ice cream

            “Or” means you only get one, so get ready to choose

            The cake or the ice cream – which one’s gonna lose?

            “But” can be used when ideas just can’t agree:

            “I want to eat both things, but my mom won’t let me!”

            Yes, those lyrics are mine, but don’t bother searching YouTube for a viral parody just yet. The key here is to teach students how to use language in order to express different ideas and link those ideas together in specific ways. Once they’ve absorbed some of that grammatical infrastructure, academic vocabulary has an easy on-ramp into the student’s vocabulary. If s/he knows how to use the conjunction “but”, the transition to “however” becomes much smoother. This build reading comprehension as well as the knowledge of language structure expands to include the learning of how paragraphs and entire articles, stories, or essays are structured. What’s more, as the complexity of the text increases, this structural knowledge of English increases students’ ability to follow the argument’s development. If s/he sees the word “however” at the start of a paragraph, then s/he knows this will be a section that contradicts the last paragraph in some way (e.g. a counter-argument or a rebuttal).

            That’s where I see the framework heading: a scaffolded synergy that encourages all teachers – not just English, not just ELD – to draw upon several linguistic domains in their instruction consciously, explicitly, and simultaneously. It’s a Herculean task, to be sure. Slightly less difficult is writing the manual that can help educators understand and execute that task. No wonder fifteen hours never seems like enough time. Please help me out by commenting here. Given this new approach of widespread, cross-curricular literacy and language instruction, what would you like to see in this new framework? Are you excited or terrified by this paradigm? What are your concerns, your hopes? If you’re from a different state, do you think California is nuts for trying this? Has something worked better in your state in terms of assimilating the Common Core? Is there a different model that you’ve seen or heard about that has brought effective literacy instruction into every classroom?

            P.S. I know there are many concerns (enough for a few national movements, actually) about the way assessments will be implemented with the Common Core. I have plenty of thoughts on that, and actually, we’ve only just begun to wrestle with how that issue will be addressed in California’s framework. I’ll save my thoughts for another time, though.