The Common Core ELA standards for grades 9–12 call for a major investment in the time teachers spend instructing students to raise their ability to comprehend narrative, informational, and persuasive texts. This may require an assessment of where and when students use these types of texts across the school day. Additionally, there is a renewed expectation that students can also write in these genres. Much of the research on expository writing for students in grades 9–12 reinforces what many of us already knew: immersion in these texts, when coupled with explicit instruction, can lead to more sophisticated writing (Graham & Perin, 2007b).
Shift Two: Focus on Increased Text Complexity
Closely related to an emphasis on informational texts is “steadily increasing text complexity” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 2). This has received considerable attention as educators figure out how to apply a three-part model for determining how complex a reading really is. In addition, school teams in the United States are working to design methods for accessing complex texts among students who struggle to read, English learners, and students with special needs. The CCSS ELA define text complexity as “the inherent difficulty of reading and comprehending a text combined with consideration of reader and task variables; in the Standards, a three-part assessment of text difficulty that pairs qualitative [factors] and quantitative measures with reader-task considerations” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 43). In other words, it is multidimensional, with attention given to (1) quantitative measures, such as readability formulae; (2) qualitative factors, such as complexity of ideas, organization, and cohesion; and (3) reader and task considerations, such as motivation and task difficulty.
The issue of text complexity raises the case for backward planning, with the outcome being that graduating high school students are sufficiently prepared to tackle the kinds of texts they will encounter as they enter college and careers. The need for a sense of urgency cannot be understated, as our students have only a precious few years to dramatically increase their capacity to understand complex texts.
In an effort to assist high school educators, appendix B of the CCSS ELA includes an extensive list of text exemplars to illustrate this concept (NGA & CCSSO, 2010c). In high school, these are ordered as grade bands: 9–10 and 11–12. Importantly, these include informational texts for the English classroom, as well as the more familiar poetry, narrative, and dramatic exemplars. These should not be misconstrued as a required reading list. To do so would be to ignore the third dimension of identifying complex texts: reader and task considerations.
Referenced within the standards document is a staircase effect to systematically develop students’ capacity for understanding more complex texts (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a). This should be considered at several levels of analysis: within a unit of instruction, throughout a school year, and across multiple grades. That is, the texts a student uses at the beginning of a unit to build background knowledge are more explicit, while those that occur later in a unit to deepen student knowledge are less so. Similarly, the texts students utilize early in a given school year are less complex than those that occur near the end. Additionally, students’ capacity and stamina for reading complex texts should build across grade-level bands. For this reason, work concerning text complexity should involve at least two collaborative planning team configurations—as English teachers work (1) within grade levels and (2) across high school grades—to articulate a cohesive plan. These horizontal and vertical team collaborations ensure that students experience a cohesive curriculum without gaps or redundancy.
Text complexity poses a major challenge for educators in grades 9–12 as students transition to classroom environments that increasingly rely on texts as a major source of learning. Defining what makes a text complex requires analyzing qualitative factors and quantitative measures, while also considering the characteristics of the reader and the demands of the related task. In addition, the CCSS encourage teachers to look across units, the school year, and grade bands to build a purposeful plan to scaffold student capacity for complex texts.
Shift Three: Focus on Speaking and Listening
While oral language development is widely regarded as a key feature of early elementary education, in practice it is often less important in high school, except for students with identified language learning needs. Perhaps this is due to more text-based instruction or to larger class sizes. Whatever the specific reason, there is a noticeable decline in the amount of meaningful discussion that occurs in classrooms after the primary grades. How can students develop critical speaking and listening skills when a large part of their school day involves listening to low-level directions? Importantly, the lack of oral language development has implications for high school educators, who need well-prepared students ready to engage in high levels of academic discourse.
The Common Core ELA standards for grades 9–12 call for teachers to nest speaking and listening within the context of literacy instruction. These performance-based standards include delivering and listening to peer presentations and exchanging information and ideas featured in these performance events. Speaking and listening also extend to a variety of instructional arrangements, especially small-group interactions across content areas. Students are encouraged to collaborate with one another and communicate in formal and informal settings; like in shifts one and two, they should not be bound exclusively to the reading and language arts block and should be integrated across the school day.
Shift Four: Focus on Text-Based Evidence for Argumentation
A fourth shift concerns the development of argumentation skills, which are a predominant feature in the grades 6–12 standards. This is unfamiliar to many English teachers who may have only experienced rhetorical reading and writing as college students themselves. Perhaps they recall formal argumentation in writing, such as Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) model of argumentation.
• Claim: The position being argued; for example, “Our family should get a dog.”
• Grounds: The reasons given for the claim or answers to the question, “What’s the proof?” For instance, “Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be good companions and to provide security to their owners.”
• Warrant: The more formal reasoning or principle that serves as the underpinning for the claim; this links the claim to the grounds, such as, “Many families choose a dog for a pet for these reasons.”
• Backing: The justification for the warrant; for example, “The Humane Society of the United States says that there are seventy-eight million pet dogs, and 39 percent of all households have at least one dog.”
• Rebuttal: The counterclaim an opponent might assert; for example, “My parents might worry that they will need to handle all the care, but I promise to walk the dog every day.”
• Qualification: The limits to the claim; for example, “I know I will need help in the beginning, because I don’t have a lot of experience with dogs. I know I will need to read more about pet care to get really good at it.”
Toulmin’s (1958) model of argumentation is meant to illustrate that even young children are developmentally capable of laying out a simple argument and supporting it with evidence. The bones of rational thought are completely within the scope of what students in middle childhood can do. Scott Beers and William Nagy (2011) call this discursive literacy and consider this the second step for young adolescent writers after they have mastered the linguistic literacy taught in the elementary grades. Indeed, we regularly teach some aspects already: detecting the differences between fact and opinion, recognizing advertising techniques, and even examining propaganda, editorial cartoons, and letters to the editor. But the discursive literacy needed for more sophisticated writing can be slowed by ineffective instruction. Two elements are missing, however: students are not taught the use of formal argumentation