Where’s the literature?

Secondary teachers should stress classic works of literature, argue Sandra Stotsky and Mark Bauerlein in a paper critical of Common Core Standards. The new standards name only a few required texts, such as foundational American documents (for example, the Declaration of Independence) and a Shakespeare play, notes Ed Week.

(The standards) say that half of what students read in elementary school—and 70 percent in high school—should be informational, arguing that mastery of such texts mirrors the demands likely to be made on them in college and job training. is.

. . .  some English/language arts educators . . .  fear that literature will lose its important place in students’ studies. The standards’ architects have argued that the opposite is true: Teachers of social studies, science and other subjects will inherit new responsibilities for teaching writing and reading in their areas, freeing English/language arts teachers to dive deeply into literary works with their students.

Stotsky, a University of Arkansas professor nd a chief architect of Massachusetts’ highly regarded academic standards, and Bauerlein, an Emory English professor, believe “the analytical and critical-thinking skills developed by a deep study of literature” will prepare students for college more effectively than reading informational texts.

Private schools and public schools in affluent suburbs will teach a literature-rich curriculum, while most public school students will suffer from a “literature deficit,”  Stotsky and Bauerlein predict. That will widen the achievement gap, they write.

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn isn’t included in Massachusetts’ new Common Cored curriculum, write Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass of the Pioneer Institute. (It’s not banned either. It’s just not mentioned.) “These new English standards include less than half as much classic literature and poetry than the Massachusetts standards they will replace.”

 

How much will Common Core cost?

States that take a “business as usual” approach will spend an extra $8.3 billion to implement Common Core Standards, concludes a new Fordham study. However, “bare bones” implementation would cost $927 million less than current spending. A ”balanced approach” would cut added costs to $1.2 billion.

Going to online learning materials and teacher training would provide most of the savings, notes Ed Week.

A Pioneer Institute study estimates states would spend $16 billion over seven years to move to Common Core Standards.

“Enemies and critics of the common core want you to believe the worst: that besides being hard, it will be very pricey and likely ineffective,” Chester E, Finn Jr., Fordham’s president, wrote in a foreward to the new report. “But this report says otherwise. Implementation can be modestly priced and likely more effective if states are astute enough to (a) implement differently, (b) deploy resources that they’re already spending, and (c) take advantage of this rare opportunity to revamp their education delivery systems, too.”

Fordham’s estimate doesn’t include the cost of computers and servers needed for online assessments, counters Theodor Rebarber, author of the Pioneer Institute study.

 

Pioneer: $16 billion to adopt new standards

States will need to spend $16 billion to implement Common Core Standards, estimates a report. by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project and the Pacific Research Institute of California. That includes the cost of textbooks and instructional materials, testing, professional development, and technology infrastructure. California alone will incur additional costs of $2 billion.

Pioneer’s earlier report, The Road to a National Curriculum, questions the legality of the Obama Administration’s push for national education standards and assessments.

Update: WashPost columnist Jay Mathews has hopped off the common standards bandwagon, persuaded they won’t make much of a difference.