Common Core Standard For English Language Arts (Page 8 of 43) in pdf

Common Core State StandardS for engliSh language artS & literaCy in hiStory/SoCial StudieS, SCienCe, and teChniCal SubjeCtS

comprehension strategies); and experiences.

As part of describing the activity of reading, the RAND group also named important task-related variables, includ-

ing the reader’s purpose (which might shift over the course of reading), “the type of reading being done, such as

skimming (getting the gist of the text) or studying (reading the text with the intent of retaining the information for a

period of time),” and the intended outcome, which could include “an increase in knowledge, a solution to some real-

world problem, and/or engagement with the text.”

Key considerations in Implementing text complexity

Texts and Measurement Tools

The tools for measuring text complexity are at once useful and imperfect. Each of the qualitative and quantitative

tools described above has its limitations, and none is completely accurate. The development of new and improved

text complexity tools should follow the release of the Standards as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Stan-

dards recommend that multiple quantitative measures be used whenever possible and that their results be confirmed

or overruled by a qualitative analysis of the text in question.

Certain measures are less valid or inappropriate for certain kinds of texts. Current quantitative measures are suitable

for prose and dramatic texts. Until such time as quantitative tools for capturing poetry’s difficulty are developed, de-

termining whether a poem is appropriately complex for a given grade or grade band will necessarily be a matter of a

qualitative assessment meshed with reader-task considerations. Furthermore, texts for kindergarten and grade 1 may

not be appropriate for quantitative analysis, as they often contain difficult-to-assess features designed to aid early

readers in acquiring written language. The Standards’ poetry and K–1 text exemplars were placed into grade bands by

expert teachers drawing on classroom experience.

Many current quantitative measures underestimate the challenge posed by complex narrative fiction. Quantitative

measures of text complexity, particularly those that rely exclusively or in large part on word- and sentence-level fac-

tors, tend to assign sophisticated works of literature excessively low scores. For example, as illustrated in example 2

below, some widely used quantitative measures, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test and the Lexile Frame-

work for Reading, rate the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel Grapes of Wrath as appropriate for grades 2–3. This coun-

terintuitive result emerges because works such as Grapes often express complex ideas in relatively commonplace

language (familiar words and simple syntax), especially in the form of dialogue that mimics everyday speech. Until

widely available quantitative tools can better account for factors recognized as making such texts challenging, includ-

ing multiple levels of meaning and mature themes, preference should likely be given to qualitative measures of text

complexity when evaluating narrative fiction intended for students in grade 6 and above.

Measures of text complexity must be aligned with college and career readiness expectations for all students. Qualita-

tive scales of text complexity should be anchored at one end by descriptions of texts representative of those re-

quired in typical first-year credit-bearing college courses and in workforce training programs. Similarly, quantitative

measures should identify the college- and career-ready reading level as one endpoint of the scale. MetaMetrics, for

example, has realigned its Lexile ranges to match the Standards’ text complexity grade bands and has adjusted up-

ward its trajectory of reading comprehension development through the grades to indicate that all students should be

reading at the college and career readiness level by no later than the end of high school.

Figure 3: Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges (in Lexiles)

Lexile Ranges Aligned

Text Complexity Grade

Old Lexile Ranges

Band in the Standards

CCR expectations

K–1

N/A

2–3

450–725

450–790

4–5

645–845

770–980

6–8

860–1010

955–1155

9–10

960–1115

1080–1305

11–CCR

1070–1220

1215–1355

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND. The quoted text appears in pages xiii–xvi.

Common Core Standard For English Language Arts Page 8

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories