The document summarizes and debunks 10 common myths or misconceptions about the Common Core State Standards. Each myth is presented along with a direct quote or link from the official Common Core website to clarify the actual intent or language of the standards. The overall purpose is to correct inaccuracies that have been widely circulated and address concerns about the standards based on factual information from the source.

1. Des Floyd

2. Gross Misinterpretations: Ten of the Tallest
Common Core
Tales Ever Told
mis -
a prefix applied to various parts of speech, meaning
ill, mistaken, wrong, incorrectly, or
simply negating.

3. The 70-30 Rule
Seventy percent of all texts students read in Language
Arts classrooms must be informational while the
remaining thirty percent must be literary in nature.
1

4. The 70-30 Rule
The percentages reflect the sum of student reading, not
just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English
classes, for example, are not required to devote 70
percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70
percent of student reading across the grade should be
informational.
Click “True” or “False” to examine the
original source of information. You
will be redirected to the official
Common Core website.
1

5. The FEDS
The standards originated out of a desire by the federal
government to align the efforts of all US educational
institutions.
2

6. The FEDS
The federal government had no role in the development
of the Common Core State Standards and will not have
a role in their implementation. The Common Core State
Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that is not part
of No Child Left Behind and adoption of the standards is
in no way mandatory.
2

7. “Dead White Men”
Readings must be pulled solely from an exemplar
collection of classic works (mythology, foundational US
documents, Shakespeare) and such works have been
pre-identified in the CCSS appendices.
3

8. “Dead White Men”
…while the standards make references to some
particular forms of content, including mythology,
foundational U.S. documents, and Shakespeare, they do
not—indeed, cannot—enumerate all or even most of
the content that students should learn.
3

9. Text Complexity
Lexile bands have dramatically increased. For example,
The Grapes of Wrath is now considered a 2nd grade-
level text.
4

10. Text Complexity
The ELA Standards suggest “Grapes of Wrath” as a text
that would be appropriate for 9th or 10th grade
readers...Common Core supports an approach that
considers 3 aspects of text complexity: quantitative (e.g.,
Lexiles), qualitative (e.g., levels of meaning, structure,
knowledge demands/requisites), and reader/task
considerations (motivation, knowledge, experience).
4

11. Digital Learning
Altogether absent from the standards is an emphasis
on digital literacy or technology as a tool for learning.
5

12. Digital Learning
To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a
technological society, students need the ability to gather,
comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and report on
information and ideas, to conduct original research in
order to answer questions or solve problems, and to
analyze and create a high volume and extensive range of
print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new.
5

13. PAUSE AND REFLECT
Exercise #1, next page 

14. Did you hold any of the beliefs previously-mentioned?
What new information did you acquire?
Will this change a current practice/approach in any way?
Does your curriculum incorporate multiple forms of
digital/media literacy? What examples can you share?

15. Goodbye,Reading Strategies
Common Core Standards call for an abandonment of
literacy strategies as they have been proven to be
ineffective.
6

16. Goodbye,Reading Strategies
The standards are grade-specific standards but do not
define the intervention methods or materials necessary
to support students who are well below or well above
grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific
standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities,
needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of
students in any given classroom.
6

17. Teach Like This
Common Core Standards dictate that literacy
instructors change the way they currently teach in
order to ensure that students will master the standards.
7

18. Teach Like This
The Standards define what all students are expected to
know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach.
For instance, the use of play with young children is not
specified by the Standards, but it is welcome as a
valuable activity in its own right and as a way to help
students meet the expectations in this document.
7

19. PAUSE AND REFLECT
Exercise #2, next page 

20. While the Common Core State Standards DO NOT
mandate how teachers will teach, the shift to college and
career readiness for all may call for dramatic changes in
how we teach.
What changes in your current attitude/belief system will
be necessary for successful implementation?
What specific changes will you need to make in order to
better prepare your students for college/career readiness?
What support will you need to make such changes?

21. Write Like This
The Common Core Standards clearly mandate three
forms of writing: argumentative/persuasive,
expository/informative, and narrative writing.
8

22. Write Like This
While there is a focus on those 3 forms…by emphasizing
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 the
full range of metacognitive strategies that students may
need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning.
8

23. Text-based Answers
Reading, writing, and speaking/listening must be
grounded in answers that can be found in texts.
9

24. Text-based Answers
“Finding answers” and “supporting answers with evidence”
are not the same…Whatever they are reading, students must
also show a steadily growing ability to discern more from
and make fuller use of text, including making an increasing
number of connections among ideas and between texts,
considering a wider range of textual evidence, and becoming
more sensitive to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and poor
reasoning in texts.
9

25. In the Name of College Prep
The intention of standards developers was to equip
educators with the tools necessary to prepare students
for college.
10

26. In the Name of College Prep
The Standards are designed to build upon the most
advanced current thinking about preparing all students
for success in college AND their careers.
10

27. The End
o http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
o http://www.achievethecore.org/steal-these-tools
o http://www.corestandards.org/resources/myths-vs-
facts
o http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration
o http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/introduction/how-to-read-the-standards
o http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/introduction/students-who-are-college-
and-career-ready-in-reading-writing-speaking-
listening-language
 Authors: National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers
Common Core State Standards (ELA)
National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, Washington D.C. Dessalines.Floyd@FLDOE.org
04/13/2013
Copyright Date: 2010
Please note: The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the Florida Department of Education.