Rigorous Real-World
Teaching and
Learning
IRA
–SSENTIALS
BY
Diane Lapp
WITH
Julie B. Wise
Kelly Johnson
Navigating
the Common
Core State
Standards
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Recent conversations among educators include
wonderings about the definition and scope of the Common
Core State Standards (C C SS), as well as questions
about the specifics of implementation and assessment.
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com
I
n this column, we address some
of these wonderings, and provide
examples of how teachers are
using standards to support rigorous,
intentional classroom instruction.
What are the Common
Core State Standards?
The Common Core State Standards
are blueprints of expectations for K-12
students throughout the country in
math, English language arts, and literacy
in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects. Currently forty-ive
states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
District of Columbia have adopted
the Common Core State Standards.
Referred to as CCSS, they are designed
for national use as a replacement for
existing state standards that, because
of vagueness, are believed to be poorly
guiding instruction and subsequent
learning. Deining a broad vision of
“what it means to be a literate person
in the twenty-irst century” (p. 3),
the Common Core State Standards
(http://www.corestandards.org)
illuminate scaffolded knowledge and
understandings students should acquire
within their K-12 education careers so
that they will graduate from high school
able to succeed in entry-level, creditbearing academic college courses, and in
workforce training programs.
Why Were the Common
Core State Standards
Developed?
The development of the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) for English
Language Arts & Literacy was led by the
Council of Chief State School Oficers
(CCSSO), Student Achievement Partners,
and the National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices (NGA Center)
to deine a broad vision of what it means
to be career- and college-ready, and to
participate in a globally competitive
society. The need to ensure equitable
learning nationally for all students was
established through indings being
reported by many groups, including
the Alliance for Educational Excellence,
a Washington-based policy group; the
Editorial Projects in Education (EPE)
Research Center, a non-proit group
that publishes Education Week; and the
America Promise Alliance, founded
by Colin Powell to create partnerships
with America’s youth. These and other
groups echo educators concerned that
only 69 to 70 percent of students are
earning a high school diploma, and that
over one third of students entering
college need remedial coursework.
Such staggering indings have caused
a national alarm that hopefully will
be addressed and eliminated through
implementation of the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS).
How Were the Common
Core State Standards
Developed?
The CCSS were designed using
international and state standards,
current empirical research, and extensive
feedback from state departments of
education, educators from kindergarten
through college, professional
organizations, and community groups.
Drawing on decades of work by these
groups, the intent of the CCSS is to
provide teachers and parents with a
clear and common understanding of
what students are expected to learn
prior to entering college level courses or
workforce training programs. The goal of
the Common Core State Standards is to
ensure that all students meet or exceed
the knowledge and skills needed to be
successful in college and careers after
high school.
Cover photo: jayish/Shutterstock.com
2 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
What are the Anchor
Standards for Literacy?
The College and Career Readiness
(CCR) Anchor Standards for Reading,
Writing, Speaking and Listening, and
Language, released in 2009, are identiied
by category in Chart 1. These broadly
recognize what students should be
learning and understanding at the
conclusion of grades K-12. They were
used as the foundation (or anchors) for
developing the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) that address each
area more speciically by delineating the
fundamental learning and understanding
that a student should acquire throughout
the grades and across the disciplines.
The speciics of how to implement and
measure related teaching and learning
have been left to the discretion of
knowledgeable teachers, administrators,
and state governments.
Although educators are familiar with
using state standards to guide their
instructional decisions, the CCSS offer
a view of literacy promulgating rigor,
research, relationships, and responsibility
for both teaching and learning.
• Rigor is deined as comprehending
a variety of increasingly complex
literature and informational texts
independently and proiciently. This
raises the bar for increased use of
poetry, drama, myths, and diverse
digital media formats. There is a
strong focus on analyzing the role of
text structure and the author’s craft
in shaping the style and viewpoint of
a passage. Students are also expected
to critique and evaluate themes by
comparing classic with contemporary
texts. The CCSS offer guidance to
teachers by noting suggested titles
across grade levels.
• Research is infused throughout
all of the anchors by identifying
reading, writing, speaking, listening,
and language as inseparable and
interconnected. To meet the twenty-
Reading
Writing
Speaking/
Listening
Language
Key Ideas and
Details
Text Types and
Purposes
Comprehension
and
Collaboration
Conventions of
Standard English
Craft and
Structure
Production and
Distribution of
Writing
Presentation of
Knowledge and
Ideas
Knowledge of
Language
Integration of
Knowledge and
Ideas
Research
to Build
and Present
Knowledge
Range of
Reading and
Level of Text
Complexity
Range of
Writing
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
Note. From Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects, June 2010, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and
the Council of Chief State School Oficers.
Figure 1 • College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards
irst century demands, students need
to be able to write to support opinions
and communicate information by
reading, comparing multiple print
and digital sources, evaluating author
claims and synthesizing information
for a range of purposes. The standards
honor the complexity of content
writing by noting that students should
analyze the historical importance of
events and individuals, as well as write
precise descriptions of investigative
procedures so that technical work can
be replicated with the same results.
• Relationships among countries and
cultures provide educators with
opportunities to reach beyond their
classroom walls to communicate and
share knowledge. New technologies
enable dynamic conversations within
whole class, small group, and partner
structures. Collaborating to gather
information, build on each other’s
ideas, and present evidence requires
students to have control of the
English language. As a result, students
3 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
must continue to be enabled and
encouraged to expand their academic
and topical bases of language.
• Responsibility now falls to educators
to support literacy learning in all
disciplines. Science and social studies
teachers are invited to infuse literacy
instruction using content material,
while English teachers should
increase the use of informational
texts and digital media formats. As
a result, there is a greater need for
discussions across grade levels and
content courses to combine resources,
ideas, and expertise in order to
improve curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. The CCSS leave room for
professional judgment by not deining
materials or intervention methods
needed to support students. In other
words, teachers must have a deep
understanding of each standard so they
can respond with idelity to students
through the use of differentiated
instruction and interventions. Their
expertise will support their doing so.
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Flashon Studio/Shutterstock.com
Have CCSS Been Identified
for All Disciplines?
or moral and explain how it is conveyed
through key details in the text” (p. 12).
Divided into grade-level bands, the
existing CCSS deine expectations within
the context of English Language Arts
and Literacy and Math. Standards are
statements identifying essential skills to
be achieved. The complexity of both the
developing knowledge and performance
of the skill becomes more sophisticated
as students move through the grades.
College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor
standards provide focus for the grade
appropriate standards. For example, in
the anchor standards for reading, under
“Key Ideas and Details,” the CCSS call for
students to be able to “determine central
ideas or themes of a text and analyze
their development; summarize the key
supporting details and ideas” (p. 10).
Notice the increase of sophistication he
would have achieved by Grade 6:
While this anchor standard conveys the
focus of learning, notice how differently
it plays out across the grades. A child in
kindergarten would have mastered this
standard if he could, “with prompting and
support, retell familiar stories, including
key details” (p. 11). Addressing this same
standard, by Grade 3 he would be able
to “recount stories, including fables,
folktales, and myths from diverse cultures;
determine the central message, lesson,
Determine a theme or central idea of
a text and how it is conveyed through
particular details; provide a summary of
the text distinct from personal opinions or
judgments. (p. 36)
And by Grades 11 through 12 he would be
able to:
Determine two or more themes or
central ideas of a text and analyze their
development over the course of the text,
including how they interact and build on
one another to produce a complex account;
provide an objective summary of the text.
(p. 38)
How his scaffolded learning occurred
would have been left to the judgment
of his very accomplished teachers, who
would be planning instruction across the
grades and content subjects that support
knowledge identiied through the focus
skill addressed in the anchor standards.
To date no inal sets of standards have
been developed for social studies, science,
and technical subjects. However, English
4 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
Language Arts and Literacy Standards
address reading, writing, and oral
language in history/social science,
science, and technical subjects.
Additionally, a framework for K-12 science
standards has been released that identiies
the research supporting key scientiic
practices, concepts, and ideas that all
students should learn by the time they
complete high school. The framework
organizes science education around three
dimensions: scientiic and engineering
practices, crosscutting concepts (cause
and effect, patterns, comparisons),
and the disciplinary core ideas in the
life, physical, earth, and space sciences,
and engineering, technology, and the
applications of science.
Standards Go Into the
Classroom: Instruction
that Supports Reading,
Writing, Talking, and
Doing
Using pseudonyms, we offer examples to
illustrate how teachers across the grades
are addressing selected standards.
Instructional Scenario #1
1st grade teacher Nathaniel Washington
(science focus)
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Standard: RI.1.5. Know and use various text
features (e.g., headings, tables of contents,
glossaries, electronic menus, icons) to locate
key facts or information in a text. (p. 13)
Mr. Washington and his students are
beginning the second week of a science
unit on senses. This week he will focus his
instruction on teaching his irst graders
how animal senses are both similar to and
different from human senses. Speciically,
Mr. Washington will teach his students
how to use text features (i.e. headings,
bolded words, graphics, bulleted lists) to
read informational texts shared in multiple
formats.
Mr. Washington begins by using the
“Amazing Animal Senses” chart found at
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/
amaze.html. He wants his students to
understand how to read charts in similar
formats found in informational texts. In
order to do so, Mr. Washington displays
the article on the document camera and
thinks aloud about what he sees. While
doing so he reminds students that this is
how scientists read.
Mr. Washington: Hmm. Let’s see. Here is
a picture of ants. This bolded word here also
says “Ants” so I know this section of this
chart is about ants. Right next to this picture
and word is a bunch of black dots. Those
dots look like big periods but they are really
called bullets—not the bullets from a gun,
but bullets that authors use when writing.
The author used these bullets to tell details
about each bolded word that is the name of
an animal. As I scan down this page I can see
that some of the pictures and words have two
bullets and some have as many as ive. That
must mean there must be more information
on some of these animals than others.
As Mr. Washington thinks and reads
aloud the information in the chart about
animal senses, the students are engaged by
pointing to the same text in front of them
that includes graphics, bolded words, and
bulleted lists. Mr. Washington continues
to think out loud about this text comparing
the animals on the page to his own senses.
Mr. Washington: Let’s see. Right here there is
a picture of a bat. The bulleted list next to the
bat says that it can detect animals far away
using its nose leaf. Gosh, a nose leaf. That
sounds like a nose that looks like a leaf. My
nose doesn’t look like a leaf, but I can detect,
or notice, things that are far away with my
nose. I can smell my dad’s lasagna from the
driveway as soon as I get out of the car.
After modeling for students how to read this
type of informational text, Mr. Washington
next invites them to work as partners and
think/read together about the information.
As they do so, he will listen in to each
team while asking questions, offering
cues and prompts, and further explaining
to eliminate misunderstandings and to
strengthen understanding and growing
independence. Mr. Washington is using
their guided instructional time as a way to
assess what his students have learned about
text features, and also if his thinking aloud
and modeling is transferring to his students’
reading habits. Once he is secure that his
students have an initial understanding of
text features, he will continue to engage
them in collaborative group work. During
this time he will also be able to assess
their growing independence and provide
instructional supports as needed.
Instructional Scenario #2
4th grade teacher, Ms. Emelia King (social
studies focus)
Standard: RI.4.9. Integrate information from
two texts on the same topic in order to write or
speak about the subject knowledgeably. (p. 14)
In order to teach the social studies theme of
“making the best with what you have,” Ms.
King selected Tight Times by Barbara Shook
Hazen and The Gardener by Sarah Stewart
(Kissner, blog post, April 2, 2011). Tight
Times is about a boy whose family is facing
inancial problems so he can’t get the things
he wants. He wants a dog most of all.
Before reading Tight Times, the class discussed
the meaning of the term “tight times.” They
then looked at the illustrations to learn more
about the story and to infer connections
among the illustrations and the words.
5 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
Ms. King began the lesson by explaining
how to use a three-column chart to
identify the inference being made, the
story clues that supported making the
inference, and the background knowledge
that also supported making the inference.
She then modeled how to use illustrations
to make inferences. After sharing how
she uses word and picture clues to make
an inference, she asked the students to
look at the next section of the text as
partners and use the visual and verbal
clues presented by the author to make
an inference. Here’s the discussion that
occurred during their practice that allowed
Ms. King to offer more precise or guided
instruction to Maria and Kris, who seemed
to be confusing prediction making and
drawing an inference. Notice how Ms.
King’s questions encouraged them to
return to the text for a closer reading in
order to evaluate their initial thinking.
Ms. King: What do you think the dad is
looking for in the newspaper?
Maria: He’s probably reading the comics.
Ms. King: What makes you say that?
Maria: Well, I know when I’m sad, I read the
comics to laugh. They make me happy.
Ms. King: That’s a good prediction, but now
look carefully at the words and pictures to see
if the author has given you any clues that can
help you to infer what the dad is reading and
why he is reading that section.
Kris: Oh, probably he’s looking at the section
about jobs because right here it says he doesn’t
have one.
Maria: And people list jobs in the paper.
Ms. King: Good thinking and reading. Be
careful to always check your thinking with
the information shared by the author. Now,
put that information on your chart. Be
careful not to confuse making a prediction
and drawing an inference. The author
gives you picture and word clues to help
you infer or understand what is going on.
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Digital Vision/Thinkstock.com
Using this understanding and also your own
experiences, you can then make a prediction.
a long time.” So I think the theme will be
making the best with what you have.
Ms. King then invited them to look at the
next page. Maria and Kris noticed that the
parents looked happier and thus inferred
that the dad had gotten a job and that
the parents’ money situation was getting
better. They continued reading, charting,
and conversing.
Anthony: It also says, “We all cried, even
Papa,” and in Tight Times I remember the
picture of the family hugging and crying on
the loor. Even the dad was crying in that
book, too.
After offering guided instruction to
other partners, Ms. King, secure that they
understood the tight times of the Depression
and the difference between making a
prediction and drawing an inference, and
the importance of validating their thinking
with textual information, moved the class
into a discussion about how this theme—
“making the best of what we have”—could
be expressed differently by authors from
different time periods. She invited them to
read The Gardener. In this story, Lydia Grace
needs to leave her home in the country to
live in the city with her Uncle Jim because
her parents are out of work.
After reading the irst page of The Gardener,
many students started to naturally use
context clues to compare the two stories:
Erin: Oh, this is like Tight Times because
the text says, “Papa has been out of work for
Ms. King: Let’s take a picture walk and see
if we can ind any other similar illustrations
that will help us make inferences. You sure
are using the author clues to support your
thinking.
Lajuana: On page 10, Uncle Jim isn’t smiling.
Ms. King: Why do you think Uncle Jim
wouldn’t be happy about paying the taxi
driver?
Lajuana: Because he doesn’t want Lydia Grace
to come.
Malik: I think it’s ’cause, my grappa says
that, during the Depression, people didn’t
have lots of money to spend on other things,
like taxis.
Ms. King: You are all using all of your
author and life clues to support your
thinking. How is this reading similar to the
book, Tight Times?
6 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
Malik: Well, the boy wanted a dog but they
didn’t have extra money to spend on the dog,
just like the uncle didn’t have extra money to
spend on the taxi.
Ms. King was excited that her students
were drawing inferences from information
in the text that people from the past and
present had similar experiences. She was
also excited that her students were using
textual clues to also validate or revise their
thinking. Ms. King closed the lesson by
challenging her students to continue to
look for the theme in other books. Many
students throughout the next weeks
continued to point out the “making the
best with what you have” theme and to
identify the illustrations and word clues in
the authors’ messages that helped them
to make inferences supportive of their
predictions.
Instructional Scenario #3
9th grade teacher, Kiara Johns
(writing/language arts focus—a close
reading of the text)
Standard: College and Career Readiness
Anchor Standards for Writing #3: Write
narratives to develop real or imagined
experiences or events using effective
techniques, well-chosen details, and wellstructured event sequences. (p. 18)
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Standard: W.9-10.3. Use precise words and
phrases, telling details, and sensory language
to convey a vivid picture of the experiences,
events, setting, and/or characters. (p. 46)
In each of the preceding scenarios,
the teachers supported learning by
introducing the texts and tasks and
guiding the students’ understanding
as they modeled how they interpret
conceptual knowledge, language,
text structures, and reading/thinking
strategies. In the following example,
the teacher, Ms. Johns, using a lesson
sequence described by Fisher, Frey and
Lapp (2012), begins by inviting students
to interpret the meaning of The House on
Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros by irst
engaging them in a close independent
reading of the text as a way to support
inquiry. She encourages them to view the
text as a problem to be solved through
close reading, analysis, and discussion.
Notice that she introduces the lesson by
identifying the lesson purpose and then
invites students to read the Cisneros text.
Their irst reading is followed by partner
talk to share their initial interpretation
of the message of the text and also the
language Cisneros used to convey the
message. After students discuss their
thinking with partners and as a whole
class, Ms. Johns and the students share
a second reading of the text during
which she models her analysis of the
text message by closely scrutinizing the
language the author chose to convey
the message. Then, after an interactive
conversation with students, she invites
them to monitor their writing by precisely
selecting language that truly conveys their
thinking. Notice the instructional scaffolds
she provides throughout to ensure their
success when reading a complex text.
Use of this lesson sequence occurred
because Ms. Johns had assessed that when
writing narratives her students weren’t
including enough detail to create a vivid
picture in the minds of their audiences.
She decided that her students needed to
dig a little more deeply into the texts they
were reading in order to better understand
authors’ messages and also the many
styles and language(s) of writing. She
thought that by doing a closer reading
in order to more thoroughly analyze the
language and messages being read, they
would better understand how to vividly
convey meaning through the language they
used in their writing. She believed that by
using a problem-based inquiry scenario
that challenged students to analyze the
complexity of the author’s message and the
language chosen to convey it, she would
be able to monitor and then support their
developing literacy skills (Grant, Lapp,
Fisher, Johnson, & Frey, in press).
Establishing the purpose: The selected
text was three pages from Chapter 1
of Sandra Cisneros’ A House on Mango
Street. Ms. Johns began by telling the
students that the purpose of the lesson
was to notice the language Cisneros used
to create a “movie in their minds.” She
reminded them that good writers select
language to enable their readers to vividly
see what is being shared even when there
aren’t pictures. She was careful not to
engage in an extended discussion about
author’s language in advance of the
reading, since the point was to encourage
students to independently investigate the
text to familiarize themselves with the
narrator’s voice and the author’s choice of
language. After doing so she asked them
to write a short paragraph describing the
house the narrator described. These would
be shared during partner talk.
First reading: Students read
independently: As students read
independently, Ms. Johns closely observed
their reading behaviors to identify who
might be struggling with the text. Because
her intent was to give them a chance to
independently read and interpret the
text and language, she did not offer them
guided instruction at this point, although
she noted this information so she could
guide them later if needed. She did this
because she wanted them to learn how to
support their own comprehension when
she is not with them.
7 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
First discussion: Partner talk to check
meaning: After her students inished the
initial reading, they engaged in partner
talk about Chapter 1 using their written
descriptions. As pairs of students shared
their descriptions of the house, Ms. Johns
joined and listened for their attempts to
use or identify vivid descriptions of the
house. She heard students sharing the
following ideas:
Sophie: The narrator doesn’t like this house
’cuz it is dirty and she wants a real house.
Ernesto: The good thing is that they don’t
have to pay rent and that it’s theirs. They own
it. So I don’t think the narrator thinks it’s all
that bad of a house.
Ashlei: The author describes the house as not
bein’ a real one. This isn’t the house that the
mama dreamed of ’cuz there’s no stairs.
Second discussion: Continuous
assessment supports teaching and
learning: From their comments, Ms.
Johns knew that her students needed to
take a closer look at the text to uncover
some of the descriptive language the
author used. She also needed to dig more
deeply with them to understand how the
narrator felt about her new house. She
invited them to share their thoughts as
a whole class and to provide evidence of
their thinking using the author’s words
and phrases. She also asked them to share
language that was confusing them. As they
shared, Ms. Johns noted their responses
so she could plan what she needed to
model to help them to understand the text
and make the author’s use of language
transparent. She also wanted them to
understand how to analyze their reading
stumbling blocks.
Second reading: Thinking aloud
about descriptive language: Next,
using information she had gained from
listening to her students analyze the text
through the author’s descriptive language,
Ms. Johns conducted a shared reading
and think aloud of the chapter as students
read along noticing how she interpreted
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com
the author’s use of vivid images to create a
movie in the reader’s mind.
wonder if this caused the narrator’s family to
always be worried?
Ms. Johns (reading p. 3, ¶2): “The house
on Mango Street is ours, and we don’t have
to pay rent to anybody, or share the yard
with the people downstairs, or be careful
not to make too much noise, and there isn’t
a landlord banging on the ceiling with a
broom.”
Ms. Johns (reading p. 5, ¶10 ): “There. I had
to look to where she pointed—the third loor,
the paint peeling, wooden bars Papa had nailed
on the windows so we wouldn’t fall out. You
live there? The way she said it made me feel like
nothing. There. I lived there. I nodded.”
Gosh, this sounds like a much more pleasant
place to live than the last place. The narrator’s
last home must have been very crowded. At
the very least, I think the family must have
had to move around in a small space that
caused too much noise for the people below.
I am imagining a crowded living room, and
then the bang! bang! bang! coming from
under the loor. This situation must have
been very annoying for both families—the
narrators living above and the landlords
living below. Even though the author doesn’t
directly say it, I’m assuming the people
below were the landlord’s family since he
was banging on the ceiling of the narrator.
Cisneros, through the voice of the narrator,
writes that she had to share a yard with the
people downstairs. This statement also gives
me a feeling that she is telling us they lived
in crowded and uncomfortable spaces. I bet
you’d feel like you always had to be on your
best behavior with the landlord living below. I
I know now that the person talking about
this house, the narrator, feels ‘like nothing’
because she is being insulted. It says so right
here. [She points to the text.] The narrator
looks back up at the house, and what does she
see? It says right here that she sees the paint
peeling and wooden bars. It also says she feels
like nothing. I bet she is embarrassed to live
there. It sounds like the nun is shocked that
someone could live in a place like that. Now I
know how the narrator feels about this house.
Third discussion: Text-dependent
questions: After Ms. Johns inished
thinking aloud about the chapter, she
transitioned students to a discussion using
a series of questions. The questions she
prepared were based on the student’s
understanding of the text that had been
shared during the previous discussions.
They were designed to cause students to go
back to the text for information that would
help them to answer. Ms. Johns often used
8 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
the phrases “close reading” and “evidence
from the text” so students knew that they
must look closely at what the author was
saying to support their answers.
A sample of the questions they were to use
to scrutinize the text were:
Question #1: How does the house on
Mango Street differ from the house that the
narrator has dreamed of? What does she
mean by a “real house?” How do you know?
Question #2: The narrator describes the
house’s windows as “so small you’d think
they were holding their breath.” What is
the signiicance of her personiication of
the house?
Question #3: What is the signiicance of
the last line of the story, “But I know how
those things go.” How do “things go” for
the narrator and her family?
Question #4: Why is it important for the
narrator to mention in the irst paragraph
that there are six people living in the
house? Where in the ifth paragraph do
we learn more about the signiicance of six
people in the house?
While answering the questions she asked
students to take notes about the speciic
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
language the author used and what this
language tells the reader. She invited them
to make a two-column chart like the one
below:
and laughing and playing games together. It
kind of makes me sad. I just moved into my
apartment so I don’t have any pictures on the
wall. This makes it also feel lonely.
Ms. Johns then directed the student who
didn’t know where to begin to use the
list of visuals his partner had written. She
said, “These are excellent images! Now
What the Author Writes
(evidence from the text)
What This Tells Me
“The way she said it made me feel like nothing.” (p. 5)
The narrator is so embarrassed; she feels worthless.
“Paint peeling and wooden bars” (p. 5)
Feels like a prisoner in an ugly place.
This segment of discussion occurred after
the students had reread, answered the
questions, and completed their charts. It
was focused on uncovering more textbased details about the author’s language
and the vivid images being created in
the reader’s minds. When she felt that
her students understood the power of
language to create visual images, she asked
them to write about their homes using
vivid language:
Looking at the chart, she continued: I
think I will do as Cisneros did and start my
paragraph by using language that describes
those bare walls and how they make the whole
place feel lonely. Let’s see, the walls are ghostwhite and bare, but a few cracks surround the
windowsill. That paints a pretty vivid picture
in my mind. I should also add that the blinds
on the windows close out the daylight, making
the room feel darker. This will add to the fact
that my house is a very isolating place to be.
Explain what it looks, sounds and feels like.
Write so vividly, like Cisneros does, and with
such rich language that we could all draw
a picture of your home after reading your
writing.
Ms. Johns continued thinking and writing
aloud using “I” statements as she modeled
how to think about her home while
visualizing what she saw. After modeling a
paragraph, she asked them to work in pairs,
helping each other to write vivid descriptions
about their homes. As students worked,
questioning each other, she heard several
students say to their partners “But I can’t
see that! What words will help me see your
house?” Hearing this, Ms. Johns knew these
students were right on track as they worked
together to write using vivid language that
they knew the author must share and the
reader must use to infer. To another partner
team who seemed unsure where to begin,
she said, “Close your eyes. Picture your
kitchen. What do you see?” As one student
closed his eyes the other student noted what
his partner was saying. This list emerged:
Descriptive writing modeled: Moving
the students to independence: Modeling
descriptive writing for her students, Ms.
Johns wrote while thinking aloud, again
referring to Chapter 1 of The House on Mango
Street. On the document camera she began
writing and thinking out loud so she could
make the experience of thinking like a
reporting writer transparent for her students.
She relected on the two-column chart to
remind students that the language an author
selects leads the reader to make certain
inferences that lead to their conclusions.
Ms. Johns: Let’s see. My house. Well, I live
in an apartment and at times it is kind of
lonely. My husband works long hours and
my cat hides in the closet for most of the day.
I can hear the families in the apartments
nearby and I get the feeling that they are eating
• Dirty dishes
• Dog drinking his water—water on the
loor
• Trash overlowing
• Clock stuck at 12:00
9 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
you just need to turn them into sentences
describing your kitchen.”
Although Ms. Johns used a text that was
complex for some, her instruction with
continuous assessment and scaffolded
supports enabled these students to
accomplish the identiied lesson purpose
and related standard. It also illustrated for
them how to independently dig deeply
in texts that when irst read may seem
dificult.
Addressing CCSS through
Intentional Instruction
These scenarios demonstrate that the
Common Core State Standards, which
identify literacy skills supportive of
purposeful communication and learning,
are very compatible with rigorous,
intentional instruction and multimodal
learning. They also illustrate that there
are multiple ways reading, writing,
speaking and listening can be taught
within the disciplines. As shown by these
teachers, the CCSS are not designed to
detail the sequence or composition of
classroom instruction that should occur,
but rather to highlight the scaffolding
of skills that should be developed by
students in order to have the literacy
and knowledge foundations to perform
well in school, as well as in any out-ofschool-life situations. Each teacher chose
to support learning differently, but each
designed a multi-step instructional
scenario that engaged students in actively
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
participating in their own learning while
also providing the needed scaffolds for
them to succeed. The GE Foundation
recently gave an $18 million, four-year
grant to Student Achievement Partners,
a nonproit organization, to support
teacher throughout the country in
designing, implementing, and evaluating
purposeful, standards-based instruction.
While we have deined the CCSS,
identiied how they were developed,
and how they can be implemented
to support very intentional, rigorous
instruction across the grades, we caution
that there still exist questions and
concerns regarding how the bases of
knowledge identiied by the standards
will support students developing literacy
functions. These functions include
the ability to relect; to understand
their roles as citizens who can support
social change; to act to promote social
equity; to be creative, independent
thinkers; to responsibly use all of the
new literacies available to them; and to
continually produce new knowledge.
As schools begin implementation of
CCSS, we caution not to believe that
these standards are the end to studying
“what it means to be a literate person in
the twenty-irst century” (p. 3). Rather,
we encourage teachers to see the CCSS
as they were intended: as a framework
of benchmarks that can be used in
conjunction with all that is known about
learning, assessment, and teaching in
order to support social, emotional, and
cognitive growth for every student.
With the alarming dropout rate of
about 7,000 students per day (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2010), teachers
need to investigate if and how the CCSS
can complement their teaching and
their students’ learning. Hopefully, using
the CCSS as a touchstone for relection
regarding student growth will enable
professional decision-making that
realistically promotes learning for every
student while turning around the decline
of learning for so many.
Creatas Images/Thinkstock.com
Re ferences:
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010, September). High School Dropouts in America [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/iles/HighSchoolDropouts.pdf
Chudler, E.H. (n.d.). Neuroscience for kids: Animal senses. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/amaze.html
Cisneros, S. (1984). The house on Mango Street. Houston, TX: Arte Público Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Fisher, D., Frey, N. & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. In press. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Grant, M., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Johnson, K., & Frey, N. (In press). Purposeful instruction: Mixing up “I,” “we,” and “you.” Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy.
Hazen, B. (1983). Tight times. New York, NY: Pufin Books.
Kissner, E. (2001, April 2). Text set for making inferences [blog post]. Retrieved from http://emilykissner.blogspot.com/2011/04/
text-set-for-making-inferences.html
Stewart, S. (1997). The gardener. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
10 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association
Andresr/Shutterstock.com
Diane Lapp, EdD, is a Distinguished Professor of Education in the Department of Teacher
Education at San Diego State University. She has taught elementary and middle school and currently
teaches English at an urban high school where she is also an instructional coach. Her research and
instruction focus on issues related to struggling readers and writers who live in economically deprived
urban settings, and their families and teachers. Dr. Lapp has published numerous journal articles,
columns, chapters, books, handbooks, and instructional materials. She has received the International
Reading Association’s Outstanding Teacher Educator of the Year award and the Manning Award for her
continued work in public schools. She is also a member of both the California and the International
Reading Halls of Fame.
Julie B. Wise is an adjunct instructor of
reading at Penn State York in both the
graduate and undergraduate programs.
Prior to working at the college level, Wise
was a third-grade teacher, elementary
reading specialist, and secondary literacy
coach. She has presented at literacy
conferences throughout the United
States and is a literacy consultant for
many schools in Pennsylvania. Wise
also coordinates My Reading Secrets, an
online community in which she shares
the reading secrets learned by successful
students and professionals.
Kelly Johnson, PhD, is a faculty member in
teacher education at San Diego State University
and a classroom teacher at Health Sciences
High and Middle College. She is the recipient of
the California Reading Association’s Constance
McCullough Research Award for her study
on assessment and diagnostic instruction.
She also received the International Reading
Association’s Celebrate Literacy Award. Kelly
has published in The Reading Teacher, The
California Reader, The Reading Professor, and
Literacy. She has coauthored several books
about English learners, designing curriculum,
and literacy strategies.
IRA E-ssentials © 2013 International Reading Association
ISSN 2326-7216 (online) | No. 8017
All rights reserved. This downloadable PDF is intended for use by the
purchaser only. Your download allows one person to retain an electronic
copy of the file for personal and classroom use. Display of any portion of
this PDF on an intranet or website is prohibited. It is illegal to reproduce, store in or introduce into a retrieval system
or database, or transmit any portion of this PDF in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) without the prior permission of the International Reading Association. By using only authorized
electronic or print editions and not participating in or encouraging piracy of copyrighted materials, you support the
rights of authors and publishers.
For more information about IRA E-ssentials and for submission guidelines, e-mail books@reading.org.
11 • Navigating the Common Core State Standards
doi:10.1598/e-ssentials.8017 • © 2013 International Reading Association