1. The Common Core State Standards: Supporting Districts and Teachers with Text Complexity
The presentation will begin at 2:00 p.m. EST
All participants are muted upon entry into the meeting. To ask a question, please type it into the Q&A box.
To troubleshoot technical issues with the webinar, please contact the WebEx provider directly at

2. Whitney Whealdon, Louisiana Department of Education
The Common Core State Standards: Supporting Districts and Teachers with Text Complexity
Susan Pimentel, Co-Lead Author of Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
Matt Copeland, Kris Shaw, and Jackie Lakin, Kansas Department of Education
Whitney Whealdon, Louisiana Department of Education

3. The Crisis of Text Complexity
Complexity of texts students are expected to read is way below what is required to achieve college and career readiness:
High school textbooks have declined in all subject areas over several decades
Average length of sentences in K-8 textbooks has declined from 20 to 14 words
Vocabulary demands have declined, e.g., 8th grade textbooks = former 5th grade texts; 12th grade anthologies = former 7th grade texts
Complexity of college and careers texts has remained steady or increased, resulting in a huge gap (350L)

4. Should we worry about this gap?
Too many students are reading at too low a level (<50% of graduates can read sufficiently complex texts)
The complexity of what students can read is greatest predictor of success in college (ACT study)
Question type (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator
Question level (higher order vs. lower order; literal vs. inferential) is NOT the chief differentiator either

5. Recent Research Study
Confirm and extend the preliminary research in Appendix A.
Test and validate quantitative measures of text complexity and difficulty (led by Chuck Perfetti, U of Pitt)
In particular, assessed the capabilities of six quantitative metrics to predict text difficulty for students on standardized tests:
ATOS - ATOS® (Renaissance Learning)
DRP - Degrees of Reading Power ®(Questar)
FK - Flesch Kincaid ®
Lexile - Lexile Framework® (MetaMetrics)
SR - Source Rater ©(Educational Testing Service)
RM- Pearson Reading Maturity Metric© (Pearson Education)

6. Results of Research Study
All the metrics were reliably, and often highly, correlated with how students perform with texts on tests (No measure was better than any other in predicting text difficulty for students)
All measures were equally good when situating informational texts on the scale (less so with respect to narrative fiction)
No measure can yet rate drama and poetry.
Six measures now share a common scale of text complexity that aligns to college and career readiness
A number of tools are now valid, transparent, user-friendly and reliable to use

7. Common Scale

8. Stretch Continuum

9. Measures of Text Complexity
Quantitative measures stand as proxies for semantic and syntactic complexity:
Word difficulty (frequency, length)
Sentence length and syntax
Some newer measures also measure text cohesion and other features of vocabulary
Qualitative measures complement quantitative measures:
Purpose
Language conventionality and clarity
Text structures
Knowledge demands

10. Measures of Text Complexity, cont’d.
Quantitative and qualitative measures are at once useful and imperfect.
Quantitative measures are less valid for certain kinds of texts (poetry, drama, K-1 texts) but for all others can place most texts in a complexity band reliably.
Qualitative measures are on a continuum (not grade/band specific) and most useful working in conjunction with quantitative measures.

11. Implications for Educators
General Rule:
Use any one of the quantitative analyzer tools to place text into a complexity band level.
For decisions about whether to place a text at the upper, lower, or middle of a band, use qualitative analysis.
For drama and poetry, use qualitative measures.

12. ELA/Literacy SCASS Work
Develop a pool of annotated texts that exemplify and help benchmark the process of evaluating text complexity, using both quantitative and qualitative measures and the professional judgment of teachers (complex text playlists!).
The texts and the annotations accompanying them will provide educators with a deeper, more multidimensional picture of text complexity that they can use to help them select materials.

13. Text Complexity Model Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative
Quantitative
Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software.
Qualitative
Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader.
Reader and Task
Reader and Task considerations – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned often best made by educators employing their professional judgment.

14. Quantitative Measures Resources
Grade Band Ranges Chart
Internet databases for quantitative measures (Lexile and ATOS book level)

15. Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands
Kansas Common Core Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
K-1
100L – 500L*
1.0 – 2.5
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 12.0
What is a text complexity band?
* The K-1 suggested Lexile range was not identified by the Common Core State Standards and was added by Kansas.
** Taken from Accelerated Reader and the Common Core State Standards, available at the following URL:

16. Quantitative Measures Resources
Lexile Analyzer:
AR BookFinder:

17. Qualitative Measures Resources
Rubric for Literary Text
Rubric for Informational Text

18. Qualitative Measures Resources The Qualitative Measures Rubrics
for Literary and Informational Text:
The rubric for literary text and the rubric for informational text allow educators to evaluate the important elements of text that are often missed by computer software that tends to focus on more easily measured factors.

19. Qualitative Measures Resources
Because the factors for literary texts are different from information texts, these two rubrics contain different content. However, the formatting of each document is exactly the same.
And because these factors represent continua rather than discrete stages or levels, numeric values are not associated with these rubrics. Instead, four points along each continuum are identified: high, middle high, middle low, and low.

20. Reader and Task Considerations Resources
Questions for Professional Reflection

21. Reader and Task Considerations Resources
Questions for Professional Reflection on Reader and Task Considerations:
The questions provided in this resource are meant to spur teacher thought and reflection upon the text, students, and any tasks associated with the text.

22. Reader and Task Considerations Resources
The questions included here are largely open-ended questions without single, correct answers, but help educators to think through the implications of using a particular text in the classroom.

23. Additional Resources Recommended Placement Form, the “placemat”
Text Complexity Analysis Bookmarks

24. Recommended Placement Form
Template for Text Complexity Analysis and Recommended Placement Form:
The one-page template provides an opportunity to record the thinking involved in recommending the placement of a specific text into a text complexity band.
Keeping a record of such analysis and thinking might be useful documentation in the case that any questions arise in the future.
Once the recommended placement has been decided upon, educators might also find it useful to document some the thinking that led them to their conclusion.

25. Text Complexity Analysis Bookmarks

26. Determining Text Complexity: The Model in Action
For illustrative purposes, let’s choose Harper Lee’s 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird.

27. Determining Text Complexity
A Four-step Process:
Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.
Reflect upon the reader and task considerations.
Analyze the qualitative measures of the text.
Determine the quantitative measures of the text.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Reader and Task
Overview of the protocol

28. Step 1: Quantitative Measures
Measures such as:
Word length
Word frequency
Word difficulty
Sentence length
Text length
Text cohesion

29. Step 1: Quantitative Measures
870L
Lexile Text Measure:
5.6
ATOS Book Level:
In which of the text complexity bands would this novel fall?

30. Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands
Kansas Common Core Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
K-1
100L – 500L*
1.0 – 2.5
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 12.0
What is a text complexity band?
* The K-1 suggested Lexile range was not identified by the Common Core State Standards and was added by Kansas.
** Taken from Accelerated Reader and the Common Core State Standards, available at the following URL:

31. Step 2: Qualitative Measures
Measures such as:
Levels of meaning
Levels of purpose
Structure
Organization
Language conventionality
Language clarity
Prior knowledge demands

32. Step 2: Qualitative Measures
Users read across the four columns for each row of checkboxes on the rubric, identifying which descriptors best match the text by marking a particular checkbox.
As Appendix A states, “Few, if any, authentic texts will be low or high on all of these measures.” The goal is not for all of the checkmarks to be in a single column; the goal is to accurately reflect these factors of the text.
The marked rubric can then serve as a guide as educators re-evaluate the initial placement of the work into a text complexity band. Such reflection may validate the text’s placement or may suggest that the placement needs to be changed.
In fact, this marked rubric represents the evaluation of To Kill a Mockingbird completed by a committee of teachers.

33. Step 2: Qualitative Measures
From examining the quantitative measures, we knew:
870L
Lexile Text Measure:
5.6
ATOS Book Level:
But after reflecting upon the qualitative measures, we believed:

34. Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations such as: Motivation
Knowledge and experience
Purpose for reading
Complexity of task assigned regarding text
Complexity of questions asked regarding text

35. Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations

36. Step 4: Recommended Placement
After reflecting upon all three legs of the text complexity model we can make a final recommendation of placement within a text and begin to document our thinking for future reference.

37. Step 4: Recommended Placement
Based upon all the information—all three legs of the model—the final recommendation for To Kill a Mockingbird is….
Based upon all three legs of the model, we felt the most appropriate placement for the novel was grades 9-10.

38. An example of a completed template for To Kill a Mockingbird.

39. For More Information For more information:
Matt Copeland Language Arts and Literacy Consultant Career, Standards, and Assessment Services Kansas State Department of Education (785)
Jackie Lakin Information Management Program Consultant Career, Standards, and Assessment Services Kansas State Department of Education (785)
Kris Shaw Language Arts and Literacy Consultant Career, Standards, and Assessment Services Kansas State Department of Education (785)

40. Collaboration Between States
Louisiana used Kansas’ text complexity resources
To create Louisiana-specific text complexity tools
To analyze additional texts
As the basis for professional development on text complexity in Louisiana

41. Louisiana’s Text Complexity Tools
Adapted resources developed by Kansas
Used same general format, but changed wording, headers, etc., and refocused Reader and Task Considerations to think about the grade level rather than the individual reader
Also added a piece about considering appropriateness to standards when analyzing text complexity

46. Louisiana Professional Development on Text Complexity
Conducted six regional trainings in October and November 2011 to
Provide rationale and research for increasing text complexity (Appendix A)
Highlight the importance of text complexity in the CCSS for English Language Arts and Literacy
Referenced in Reading Standard 10, Writing Standard 9, Speaking and Listening Standard 1, and Language Standards 4 and 6
Discussed the assertion that “what changes as students grow as readers is not that they can suddenly find the main idea, they can find the main idea with increasingly complex text.”
Guide teachers through the four-step text complexity analysis process established by Kansas

47. Louisiana Professional Development on Text Complexity
“Next steps” suggestions for participants
Redeliver training in district or school
Conduct the text complexity analysis process
With one extended text before the end of this school year
When choosing between two texts to teach
Compile text complexity inventory results
Identify texts that need to be analyzed
Devote PD time to analyzing texts (“divide and conquer”)
Use results to redistribute resources to appropriate grades and to determine where “gaps” exist and additional texts are necessary

48. Important Discoveries
The text complexity analysis process gives teachers a method for becoming more purposeful in their text selection.
The process expects teachers at all grade levels to be confident in their content knowledge and to read and analyze a text before they teach it.
The process encourages teachers to engage in meaningful discussions about text with colleagues.

49. Thank you for attending this webinar
Thank you for attending this webinar. This presentation and resource materials will be posted online with the recording after the event. For follow-up questions, please contact Katey McGettrick,