Summary
CAST has recommended a number of changes to the draft Common Core Standards for K-12 English language arts and mathematics (released March 10, 2010).
While generally positive about this latest draft, CAST expresses concern that some of the wording of the Standards may create barriers to learning by unintentionally restricting the means of representation, action and expression, and engagement. To this end, CAST asks that the Standards emphasize universal design for learning as a way of encouraging implementation that supports all learners—much in the way federal statute, the new National Educational Technology Plan, and drafts of pending education legislation already do.
Recommendations for the Common Core Standards
March 26, 2010
CAST applauds this latest draft of the Common Core Standards and the efforts of the States’ governors and chief school officers and their partners to raise academic prospects for all learners by establishing consistent and high standards. The latest draft is impressive for its attention to detail, consideration of research-based practices, and lucid writing.
As good as this draft is, however, it does not yet clearly or adequately address the ways in which the Standards themselves or their implementation may unintentionally create barriers to learning. For that reason, CAST urges the authors to consider the following points in making further revisions.
- The Introduction includes a reference to universal design for learning (UDL) which suggests that UDL is synonymous with "special education … instructional supports for learning." In fact, UDL is more foundational and comprehensive than that. UDL is a set of principles that applies to the general education curriculum—including instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments—and guides the development of flexible and supportive learning environments that meet the needs of all learners, whether or not they are identified as having special needs.
We refer the authors to the statutory definition of UDL in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (PL 110-135): "Universal design for learning is a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (a) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient." [emphasis ours]
We refer the authors to the US Department of Education’s blueprint language for the reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act. The blueprint identifies UDL as an important consideration for supporting all learners in literacy and math (STEM) in the general education curriculum.
We also refer the author the newly released draft of the National Education Technology Plan, which identifies UDL as a central means to support the learning of all students in the general education curriculum.
We recommend that early in the introductions of both the English Language Arts Standards and the Mathematics Standards, the authors include language that encourages those charged with implementing the Standards to do so in accordance with UDL principles. Neuroscience has long confirmed that the way in which individuals learn is as unique as their DNA: the Standards should better reflect contemporary scientific understanding on the diversity of learners. - While the Standards clearly state they will not prescribe specific teaching methods and materials, they may in fact impose unintended barriers to learning by prescribing certain means—and unnecessarily putting some learners at a disadvantage. Terms like "write" and "draw" may be taken literally when "compose" and "create" are meant. The Standards should be clear that "write" includes the possibility of using a variety of composition tools and methods to compose text and express content knowledge.
One general recommendation is to make a glossary for common terms such as "explain," "listen," "speak," "watch," and "inspect" that indicates clearly the range of options that students would have to accomplish those actions. That is, "speak" would be defined as including not only spoken speech (e.g., generated by oral musculature) but also would include speech produced through an augmentative communication device, computer with text-to-speech, etc. "Listen" would be construed as including the comprehension of aural language but also of sign language, lip reading, etc. The value of providing a general glossary that defines common terms—such as listen—appropriately for all students is that it doesn't have to have an asterisk on every term or be explained in multiple places throughout the document, but will still emphasize and ensure that the standards apply to ALL learners, not just those with particular abilities, skills, and backgrounds. - Although the English Language Arts introduction contains an important emphasis on results rather than means, this statement does not adequately address how easily ends and means are conflated, as noted above. The document should encourage the use of expansive and flexible means via the application of UDL principles to curriculum development and implementation. Doing so will strengthen the document considerably—and make it less likely that the Standards themselves will be "dead on arrival" if implemented with barrier-laden means.
In addition, the Mathematics introduction contains no statement emphasizing results rather than means. Without addressing this crucial point, those Standards are weakened.
Our specific recommendations on language in the Standards are attached as an appendix.
We look forward to the next draft of the Common Core Standards and to working together with the governors, the State chiefs, and all their partners on providing all learners with fair and equal opportunities to learn to the highest standards.
Appendix
CAST's Suggested Changes to Common Core Standards Draft — March, 2010
Introduction | Key Design Considerations | The Student Who is College and Career Ready | ELA/History Standards | Math Standards
Introduction
| Current Draft Reads as Follows: | CAST's Suggested Changes |
|---|---|
Introduction [paragraph 6] As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career readiness, the Standards also lay out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century. Indeed, the skills and understandings students must demonstrate have broad applicability outside of the classroom or workplace. |
Introduction [paragraph 6] As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career readiness, the Standards also lay out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in a world where new and emerging technologies are redefining the very meaning of literacy. Indeed, the skills and understandings students must demonstrate have broad applicability outside of the classroom or workplace. |
Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex works of literature. They habitually perform the sort of critical reading (and listening and viewing) necessary to pick carefully through the staggering amount of information available today, both online and, with less frequency, in print. In a world with highly integrated media, these faculties for understanding extend to video and images, which are now as much a part of the “reading” experience, especially online, as narrative text. |
Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex works of literature. They habitually perform the sort of critical reading necessary to pick carefully through the staggering amount of information available today in print and online. |
They actively seek the wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with high-quality literary and informational text that builds knowledge, enlarges experience, and broadens worldviews. They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning and use of evidence that is essential to both private deliberation and responsible citizenship in a democratic republic. In short, students who master the Standards develop the skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening that are the foundation for any creative and purposeful expression in language. |
They actively seek the wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with high-quality literary and informational text and associated media that build knowledge, enlarges experience, and broadens worldviews. They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning and use of evidence that is essential to both private deliberation and responsible citizenship in a democratic republic. In short, students who master the Standards develop the skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening that are the foundation for any creative and purposeful expression in language. |
Key Design Considerations
| Current Draft Reads as Follows: | CAST's Suggested Changes |
|---|---|
Key Design Considerations A focus on results rather than means By focusing on required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or specify the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to use to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. |
Key Design Considerations A focus on results rather than means By focusing on expected achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or specify the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to use to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. However, care should be taken in implementing the Standards not to conflate goals and means, thereby erecting unintended barriers to learning for some students. For example, if comprehension of a specific passage is the goal, then the means of achieving that goal (reading x, listening to x, etc.) is not prescribed by the standard. (If, on the other hand, reading or listening is the goal, then the particular means is rightly prescribed in the goal itself.) |
That said, teachers are free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards. |
Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards. |
[NEW ITEM-Key Design Considerations] High expectations and appropriate supports for all learners Given the nature of standards themselves, reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language-use standards often require accommodations for students with disabilities. For example, a standard that calls for “listening” should be interpreted broadly to include reading sign language. “Speaking” should be read to include “communication” or “self-expression.” “Reading” should allow for students’ use of Braille, screen reader technology, or other assistive devices to demonstrate comprehension skills. In a similar vein, “writing” should not preclude the use of a scribe, computer, or speech-to-text technology. In the case of students with intellectual disabilities—less than 2 percent of the total population of all students and less than 20 percent of students with disabilities—accommodations should allow them to demonstrate their knowledge and skills through alternative modes like text to speech software or reading aloud. For these students, writing may involve the use of pictures to assist in illustrating plot or argument, or offering them the opportunity to “choose words and phrases” by selecting from options rather than generating direct answers. With a flexible curriculum and, where necessary, appropriate accommodations and support, students with disabilities, English language learners, and other diverse learners can participate in the general education curriculum. |
|
Research and media skills integrated into the Standards as a whole To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society, students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, report on, and create a high volume and extensive range of print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new. The need to research and to consume and produce media is embedded into every element of today’s curriculum; in like fashion, the associated skills and understandings are embedded throughout the Standards rather than treated in a separate section. |
Research and media skills integrated into the Standards as a whole To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society, students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, report on, and create a high volume and extensive range of print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new. The need to research and to consume and produce media is embedded into every element of today’s curriculum; in like fashion, the associated skills and understandings are embedded throughout the Standards rather than treated in a separate section. Furthermore, digital instructional materials, when well designed and used, can enable educators and learners alike to more easily and efficiently find the format or medium that appeals to and works best for them, which in turn may lead to better outcomes. |
What is not covered by the Standards The Standards should be recognized for what they are not as well as what they are. Three of the most important intentional design limitations are as follows: 1) The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do but not how teachers should teach. The Standards must be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum consistent with the expectations laid out in this document. |
What is not covered by the Standards The Standards should be recognized for what they are not as well as what they are. Three of the most important intentional design limitations are as follows: 1) The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do but not how teachers should teach. The Standards must be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum consistent with the expectations laid out in this document. Educators should employ the Standards in ways that are consistent with the principles of universal design for learning (UDL)—meaning curriculum will be developed in ways that provide all students with a full and fair opportunity to meet the standards. UDL is a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that provides flexibility in the way information is presented, in the way students respond or demonstrate their knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged. A curriculum consistent with universal design for learning principles reduces barriers in instruction and provides all learners with appropriate support and scaffolds while also maintaining high expectations and challenge. Students who are often marginalized in the general curriculum—including those with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are “gifted and talented”—benefit especially from UDL. |
2) While the Standards... |
2) While the Standards... |
The Student Who is College and Career Ready
| Current Draft Reads as Follows: | CAST's Suggested Changes |
|---|---|
The Student Who is College and Career Ready...
|
The Student Who is College and Career Ready...
|
|
|
|
|
ELA/History Standards
CAST's Suggested Changes
Consider introducing each grade level standard with language that emphasizes the importance of implementation that is universally designed for learning via use of multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement. Although the Standards are not intended to prescribe specific means of implementation, a general reminder that they are meant to serve all learners, including those with disabilities, English language learners, and others who are typically overlooked in the design of the general education curriculum is certainly appropriate. The principles of universal design for learning (UDL) endorsed by the US Department of Education, the latest National Educational Technology Plan draft, and federal education statute (Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008). Language might read as follows:
"Although these Standards are designed to ensure that all students reach their potential, it is essential to recognize that there may be barriers for some students that will prevent success. Thus, it is important to apply universal design for learning (UDL) principles in implementing the Standards by providing multiple means for achieving the standards, multiple actions for students to demonstrate their understandings and share with others, and varied and appropriate levels of scaffolds and challenge."
- In several places, the text reads "Scaffolding likely required for texts at the high end of the range" or some variation thereof. This implies that scaffolding is not needed for grade level texts. However, many students—especially those with print disabilities—may require scaffolding to access grade level texts as well. (pp. 14, 36)
- Re. text that references "sustaining concentration" (pp. 7, 31, 54), sustaining concentration may be very difficult for some students with learning disabilities. Perhaps it could be rephrased to say "Develop strategies for sustaining concentration on information presented orallly.."
- In sections on standards for writing, it would be helpful to clarify writing as "composition using a variety of tools and media." Or consider the word "compose" instead of "write" in this section. (pp. 15, 37, 58).
Math Standards
CAST's Suggested Changes: Math Introduction
Add a penultimate paragraph to introduction as follows:
By focusing on expected achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached. However, the Standards have been written with the expectation that all students will be given full and fair opportunities to learn. Implementing the Standards in ways that are consistent with the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) can help. UDL is a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that provides flexibility in the way information is presented, in the way students respond or demonstrate their knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged. A curriculum consistent with UDL principles reduces barriers in instruction and provides all learners with appropriate support and scaffolds while also maintaining high expectations and challenge. Students who are often marginalized in the general curriculum—including those with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are “gifted and talented”—benefit especially from UDL.2
CAST's Suggested Changes: Math Standards Main Text
References to "draw," "sketch," "write," and "read" should make clear that the use of digital tools or other means must be provided to support those for whom the physical acts of drawing, sketching, writing, and reading are difficult or impossible. There is one place in the document where a parenthetical clarification is provided: "...draw (freehand, with ruler and protractor, and with technology) ..." (p. 40). This qualifier should read "and/or with technology" but is otherwise helpful. Adding such qualifiers throughout the document—or making a clear blanket statement in a prominent place in the document—would be helpful to implementers of the Standards. The authors might also consider using terms that are more flexible in definition, such as “produce” or "develop" (rather than draw, sketch, etc.).
- References to "draw": pp. 4, 17, 21, 24
- References to "sketch": pp. 24, 40, 50
- References to "write": pp. 10, 13, 16, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 47
- References to "read": pp. 13, 16, 20, 23, 27, 50
1This is an important distinction. Some students will only be able to demonstrate independence in comprehension if they have decoding supports available. If comprehension is the measured goal, then other scaffolds and supports should not be ruled out.
2The description of universal design for learning is drawn from the statutory definition in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-135). For more information on implementation, see Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
APA Citation:
CAST (2011). Response to the Massachusetts ESEA Flexibility Proposal. Retrieved [Date] from http:// www.cast.org/ publications/statements/ma_proposal/index.html.
Usage:
Document may be downloaded and reproduced in any format at no charge. Permission is granted for educational purposes only. It may not be sold in any form, except postsecondary course packets, with CAST's expressed permission. For more information, contact David Gordon, CAST, at dgordon[at]cast[dot]org
