The Common Core State Standards’ Quantitative Text Complexity Trajectory
Figuring Out How Much Complexity Is Enough
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9734153 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gary L Williamson (MetaMetrics, Durham, NC, corresponding author), Jill Fitzgerald (0000-0001-9462-5017, MetaMetrics, Durham, NC), A Jackson Stenner (0000-0002-6648-9895, MetaMetrics, Durham, NC) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 59-69 |
| Publication date | 2013-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Educational Researcher (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X |
| Publisher | American Educational Research Association (AERA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3102/0013189x12466695 |
| OpenAlex | W2167551320 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 26 |
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) set a controversial aspirational, quantitative trajectory for text complexity exposure for readers throughout the grades, aiming for all high school graduates to be able to independently read complex college and workplace texts. However, the trajectory standard is presented without reference to how the grade-by-grade complexity ranges were determined or rationalized, and little guidance is provided for educators to know how to apply the flexible quantitative text exposure standard in their local contexts. We extend and elaborate the CCSS presentation and discussion, proposing that decisions about shifting quantitative text complexity levels in schools requires more than implementation of a single, static standard. A rigorous two-part analytical strategy for decision making surrounding the quantitative trajectory standard is proposed, a strategy that can be used by state policy makers, district officials, and educators in general. First, borrowing methods from student growth modeling, we illustrate an analytical method for creation of multiple trajectories that can lead to the CCSS end-of-high-school target for text complexity exposure, resulting in trajectories that place greater burden for shifting text complexity levels on students in different grades. Second, we submit that knowledge of the multiple possibilities, in conjunction with a set of guiding principles for decision making, can support educators and policy makers in critiquing and using the CCSS quantitative standard for text complexity exposure to establish particular expectations for quantitative text complexity exposure for particular students in situ
Algorithm · Core (optical fiber · Mathematics education · Presentation (obstetrics · Quantitative analysis (chemistry · Set (abstract data type · State (computer science · Trajectory · Computer Science · Educational Methods and Media Use · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Text Readability and Simplification
The Role of Metalanguage and Metatalk in Syntactic Instruction
Readability and Simplicity of Arabic Political Discourse
Do third grade students from low-income families have access to ‘just right’ books? Results from a home visit study
The Decline of Comprehension‐Based Silent Reading Efficiency in the United States
Challenging the Research Base of the Common Core State Standards
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
The Connections Between Language and Reading Disabilities
Young children's phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development.
Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities
Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development
Applying the Rasch Model
Methods in human growth research
What Are We Doing to Early Adolescents? The Impact of Educational Contexts on Early Adolescents
Beginning to Read
Toward a Theoretical Model of Text Complexity for the Early Grades
The Effect of Reading Library Books at Different Levels of Difficulty upon Gain in Reading Ability
Coh-Metrix
Issues in Analyzing Alignment of Language Arts Common Core Standards With State Standards
Reading Rescue
Schoolbook Simplification and Its Relation to the Decline in SAT-Verbal Scores
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2013 - 2026 (14) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |