How ironic that the more fluid the study of math and science becomes, the more rigid becomes the study of language and literature…
…in which math becomes form and reading becomes function.
Thoughts on the CCSS
Pursuing excellence for library service to children
Rita
I appreciate the spirit of this graphic, but it’s a misrepresentation of CCSS. Lexile (and DRA, etc.) was around and used long before CCSS. What’s new–and it comes from CCSS–is explicitly connecting to standards the idea that text appropriateness is determined not only by quantitative measures but also from qualitative measures and reader-task considerations. As Appendix A of the CCSS Language Arts standards makes clear, assessments of “variables specific to particular readers” are “best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject.” Which sounds a lot like what librarians and teachers of literature have always believed. Objecting to CCSS on grounds that aren’t accurate is a good way to further erode support for school libraries and librarians.
Lisa
I appreciate your comment and understand your feelings, with which I do not disagree. My point was, of course, not to erode support for school libraries and librarians, but rather to spark conversation on the rigidity with which many school reading assignments are now encumbered in a misguided attempt to adhere to the letter of the standards rather than the spirit. As I alluded, I find it ironic that in math, the focus is now more firmly on the process rather than the product, but in reading, the opposite seems to be the case. Sadly, I think that the number of certified school librarians/media specialists is waning at a time when their expertise is needed most. It is difficult to make such a complicated point in a photograph which I intended to be more ironically humorous than factual; however, I’m pleased that it garnered a thoughtful response from you.