Making Sense of ELA Anchor Standards

Rachel Simmons

Hey everyone, welcome back to HQIM Module 2. I'm Rachel Simmons, and I'm here with James Whitaker. Today we're gonna dig into the so-called ELA “anchor standards” and the big shifts teachers need to know about. James, do you mind giving us a quick rundown of what these standards actually look like?

James Whitaker

Of course, Rachel. Hello, everyone, it’s good to be back! So, when we talk about ELA standards in the US, we're talking about four strands—Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language. Each of those has these “anchor standards,” which are like overarching goals for what students should achieve throughout school, right? They get broken down further for each grade, but those anchor standards are the through line from elementary all the way up.

Rachel Simmons

Exactly, James. And at the heart of most states' standards are these three big instructional “shifts.” The first is regular practice with complex text and academic language. The second is making sure students ground their responses, like in reading or writing or even speaking, in actual evidence from the text. And then the third—and this one sometimes gets left behind—is building student knowledge intentionally through more content-rich nonfiction. So, it's not just about enjoying stories, it's also about learning from them and from real-world texts.

James Whitaker

Right, it’s about more than just, “How did this book make you feel?” Not that there’s anything wrong with connecting to a story, but the standards are pushing us to prompt students with questions that require real analysis and thought, grounded in what they’ve actually read. And, honestly, that's a real shift from how English was taught, say, before 2009. The focus back then was often more on personal connections.

Rachel Simmons

I totally saw that in my own teaching. I remember early on, I’d review lesson plans with other teachers and realize that most of our activities—like, the majority—were centered around, “What does this passage remind you of?” or “How would you feel in this character’s shoes?” It wasn’t until I started working with more high-quality instructional materials that I realized how much we were missing by not focusing on the actual text. That’s really what sparked my interest in all of this—wanting students to dig deeper into texts, and not just relate everything back to their own experiences.

James Whitaker

That’s a really common story—not just in the States, either. These anchor standards and shifts are about raising the bar and supporting all students, no matter where they start. And we’re going to dig into each of those shifts a bit more because they really do change what happens in the classroom. Let's start with the one everyone seems to stumble over: text complexity.

James Whitaker

So text complexity, right? That’s something educators hear about all the time, but it can sound a bit intimidating. Basically, it’s about making sure students are reading material that’s challenging enough—things like vocab, sentence structure, and just how much cognitive effort a text requires. And, not to alarm anyone, but, research shows that what students read in high school is considerably simpler than what they’ll face in college or in their working lives. We’re talking about college texts being, on average, four grade levels more difficult than high school ones.

Rachel Simmons

Which is wild when you think about it. I mean, if students don’t have that practice, it’s kind of setting them up for struggle later on. And that’s why the standards really zero in on getting students to engage with complex texts early and often, instead of saving the hard stuff for “someday.” The goal isn’t to scare kids, right, but to scaffold them up so that, eventually, every student can handle seriously challenging material—on their own, without a teacher holding their hand.

James Whitaker

Absolutely. And here’s where the second shift comes in—grounding everything in evidence from the text. Instead of students just saying what springs to mind, they're pushed to go back to the actual words and details, making claims and supporting them. There’s actually research on this—students who get routines for working with evidence improve quite a bit. At my previous school, we introduced pretty simple evidence-based questioning, like, “What made you say that?” followed by, “Can you show me where in the text you found it?” Over just a few months, we saw a dramatic boost—not just in the quality of student answers, but in how deeply they discussed the texts. It was kind of amazing.

Rachel Simmons

Yeah, it really changes the whole classroom dynamic. When you shift to text-based questions, the discussion isn’t just, “Who liked the story?” but, “How do you know the character changed? Which paragraph shows that?” And when students learn to cite evidence, their recall gets better, their answers get longer, and they’re actually closer to what will be required in college. There’s also this idea of “close reading”—like, carefully working through small chunks, asking questions, looking back over tricky words—all those habits build up over time.

James Whitaker

It's a big leap for some students, but, the thing is, nearly all the reading standards—like, up to eighty percent—require students to engage with the text this way. The problem is, lots of classroom questions still ask kids for their opinions or connections, rather than requiring them to dig into details or make text-based arguments. So the standards really are pushing us to rethink, “What are we asking our students to do, and why?”

Rachel Simmons

And that brings us right to the last major shift: building knowledge with content-rich nonfiction. This one sometimes gets the least airtime, but it’s honestly crucial. Basically, before these newer standards came in, the average elementary class only spent about 7 to 15 percent of time on informational text—the rest was mostly fiction. But when you look ahead, about 80 percent of college and workplace reading is actually nonfiction or informational.

James Whitaker

Which, honestly, is a massive disconnect. If kids spend most of their time in school reading stories or reflecting on their feelings, but then they hit college or the workplace and suddenly it’s, “Here’s a technical manual” or “Analyze this data from a scientific article,” they’re at a real disadvantage. It’s not just about reading, but about building the background knowledge and vocabulary that help make sense of all sorts of real-world texts.

Rachel Simmons

That background knowledge piece is so important. There was this National Geographic article I used with my class—it was about tsunami shelters and how a town on the coast built a new school that could double as a tsunami refuge. Now, yeah, the text was a little dense for some kids at first, but having all those real facts and visuals opened up so many doors, not just for understanding science concepts, but also for practicing new vocabulary and developing their analytical skills. The big thing is, we can’t just assume students have the background knowledge they need, especially with nonfiction. So, it’s our job to help all students build up that foundation through exposure to a wide range of informational texts.

James Whitaker

Exactly, and as teachers, that means we need to find ways to bring in those knowledge-rich texts and, I suppose, scaffold them for students who might be unfamiliar with the content. The more students know about the world, the more they can get out of what they’re reading. Otherwise, it’s like giving them a puzzle and leaving out half the pieces. We’re trying to level the playing field—make sure everyone gets those pieces, so reading comprehension isn’t just a matter of who already knows the most.

Rachel Simmons

Totally, and I think it ties right back to equity—if we want all kids to have a shot at success, we have to be really intentional about the materials we choose and the opportunities we provide. That means pushing beyond comfort zones, supporting students as they tackle rigorous texts, and making nonfiction a regular part of the literacy diet, not just an occasional side dish.

James Whitaker

Well put, Rachel. Honestly, we could keep unpacking this all day, but I think that's a good place to pause. Next time, we'll dig even deeper into what high-quality instructional materials look like in practice. Thanks for joining us today, Rachel—it’s always a pleasure.

Rachel Simmons

Thanks, James, always love these conversations. And thanks, everyone, for tuning in to HQIM Module 2. We’ll be back with more soon. Until then, take care!