Colorado Common Core Policy Brief

Policy Brief

            With the United States falling behind global educational standards, education reform in the United States has become a priority.  In 2010, President Obama called for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in an effort to replace No Child Left Behind (NCLB) with a more effective program that will better prepare American children for post high school education and careers (Office of the Press Secretary).  However, since it has been more than a decade since Congress has reauthorized this act—denying Federal level reform—the Obama administration has instead urged states to adopt what has become known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), which provides common standards for English and mathematics ("ESEA Reauthorization").  Currently, forty-two states have adopted the initiative, including Colorado ("Standards in Your State") .

            By adopting Common Core, states are attempting to address several perceived deficiencies in the national education system.  One such issue is the disparity between educational levels of children in the same grade—not only across the nation but in different areas of a state as well.  By adopting a standard curriculum, Common Core would ensure that a student in first grade in one school is learning the same skills as a student in any other school, regardless of income levels or other mitigating factors.  In addition, this would allow children who change schools to remain at the same place academically as they were in their old school, causing less confusion for transferring students ("Laws, Rules and Standards").

            Efficiency is another area that CCSS is meant to tackle.  In the past, with each state focusing on their own standards, there has been little cross collaboration across state lines.  Since states will now have the same goals for each grade, educators can draw from a bigger pool of resources and develop curricula together.  In addition, this would theoretically save states money because the state can shop for curricula developed by professional organizations that match the common standards more easily.  Moreover, since each grade’s standards are built upon the previous grade’s standards, it ensures that teachers do not have to waste time re-teaching items that should have been learned in the previous grade ("Laws, Rules and Standards").

            Perhaps the most important problem that CCSS is meant to address is students’ lack of critical thinking skills with NCLB’s emphasis on memorization and standardized test scores.  While the standards outline sets of skills that students in each grade should learn, they do not themselves dictate how those skills need to be taught.  Ideally, this would allow teachers to use more creativity in developing a curriculum.  Furthermore, the standards allow students to have a more narrow focus of subjects per grade, allowing them to explore them in greater depth and with greater comprehension.  This, in turn, allows students to learn greater ‘thinking’ skills than simple rote memorization in order to pass a standardized test (Long).

            Currently, since CCSS is so new, there is little data available to determine its effectiveness, though there is strong debate amongst its proponents and critics.  One major complaint is that little testing was done with the new standards prior to state adoption.  However, states were incentivized to adopt the standards because implementation was tied to federal funding, in essence coercing “voluntary” adoption (Strauss, “Seven Facts…”).  Subsequently, hasty adoption has led to lack of preparation in regards to school materials such as textbooks, lesson plans, and curricula.

Additionally, teachers are fearful of being held accountable for low test scores when they feel that new tests will not take into account the problems inherent in switching over to an entirely new set of teaching practices (Strauss, “Seven Facts…”).   The tests themselves are also not currently standardized, so some argue that the tests themselves are not equitable or fair, which negates many of the positives of adopting CCSS in the first place.  CCSS is further compounded by confusion over what the standards exactly entail.  There are many articles that hope to clear up the “myths” surrounding CCSS, but the fact that there is so much confusion on the subject demonstrates its lack of careful construction. 

Another issue with CCSS is that it does not address the fundamental problem of equity between schools, as it was meant to do (Strauss, “The Myth…”).  Stating that schools need to adopt these standards without giving them the resources to do so is meaningless.  It seems that the richer school districts will still have access to greater materials and supplies.  The rigorous standards could cause poorer schools to fall even more behind because their students and teachers simply do not have the means to teach the required skills for each grade.

            Since data on the effectiveness of CCSS is lacking, it is helpful to look at some examples of educational systems that the United States would like to emulate.  For example, Finland is held up as having drastically improved their educational system since the 1970s.  However, when examining what Finland did to achieve this, it appears to be very different from what CCSS is enacting.  Finland attributes most of their success in their investments into the teachers themselves.  Finland deemphasized standardized testing and focused on granting teachers further state-funded education.  Locally, these highly trained teachers are given more freedom to develop their own curricula.  Furthermore, schools are not ranked by external test scores, leading to a more cooperative rather than competitive environment (Darling-Hammond).

            While the adoption of a common set of standards is a noble goal and not inherently a bad one, there are too many problems with the current CCSS implementation to fully recommend it at this time.  First, the entire set of standards needs to be rigorously tested and vetted before rolling out the system on a broader scale.  As with any system, only with careful testing can flaws be found, fixed, and revised.  The system should not have been put in place without concrete guidelines and readily available materials.  Moreover, during the adoption process, external testing and ranking should be de-emphasized, so that educators and students have ample time to adjust to the new standards.

            In addition, the adoption of CCSS should not be tied to federal funding.  Voluntary should mean voluntary in the true sense of the word.  Because federal funding is contingent on adopting CCSS, many states adopted the standards before they were ready.  This defeats the purpose of the program in the first place and gives the federal government too much sway in the state’s decision-making process.

            States should also consider Colorado’s approach to adopting CCSS.  Since CCSS only sets standards for English and mathematics, Colorado has integrated it into its own educational reform policy known as Colorado’s Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K).  In addition to the CCSS standards, CAP4K adds standards for additional curricula, such as art, social studies and science ("Common Core State Standards as a Part of the Colorado Academic Standards").  Currently, CCSS has too much emphasis on only two subjects, which will be insufficient to prepare a child for college or a career.  Colorado’s approach provides for a much more well-rounded education.  For the most part, states’ current implementation of CCSS seems to provide little improvement over the policies put in place with NCLB.

Works Cited

"Common Core State Standards as a Part of the Colorado Academic Standards." Cde.state.co.us. Colorado Department of Education, n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://www.cde.state.co.us/contentareas/ccss_in_the_colorado_standards>.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "What We Can Learn from Finland's Successful School Reform." Nea.org. National Education Assessment, Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. <http://www.nea.org/home/40991.htm>.

"ESEA Reauthorization." Ed.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2015. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/esea-reauthorization/>.

"Laws, Rules and Standards." Cde.state.co.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2015. <https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolreadiness/rules>.

Long, Cindy. "Six Ways the Common Core Is Good For Students - NEA Today." Neatoday.org. N.p., 10 May 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://neatoday.org/2013/05/10/six-ways-the-common-core-is-good-for-students-2/>.

Office of the Press Secretary. "President Obama Calls for New Steps to Prepare America's Children for Success in College and Careers." The White House. N.p., 22 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-calls-new-steps-prepare-america-s-children-success-college-and-care>.

"Standards in Your State." Corestandards.org. Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. <http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/>.

Strauss, Valerie. "The Myth of Common Core Equity." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/10/the-myth-of-common-core-equity/>.

Strauss, Valerie. "Seven Facts You Should Know about New Common Core Tests." Washington Post. N.p., 4 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Sept. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/04/seven-facts-you-should-know-about-new-common-core-tests/>.

           

           

A Reflection of Social Contract Theory

            According to Nardin, a general definition of tradition is, “a long-established practice possessing something like the force of law, a practice that is authoritative precisely because of its status as a tradition” (6).   However, the definition of tradition is much deeper, since all long-held practices are not necessarily considered a tradition.  Martin Krygier believed that there were three characteristics that defined a practice as a tradition.  First, the tradition is at least believed to be rooted in the past—whether it actually is or not.  For example, a people might come to believe that a sacred ritual was practiced by their ancestors.  If historical evidence proves this to be false, it does not negate the fact that the people practicing the ritual believe it to be the same as the ritual their ancestors performed.  Krygier’s second criteria is that the practice is given some type of authority, and the third criteria is that the practice has been “passed down over intervening generations” (7).  However, Nardin rejects Krygier’s rigid characteristics, acknowledging that, “while some traditions rest on dogma or the authority of a body of shared beliefs, others rest on the authority of a common framework of laws and procedures” (8).

            Nardin views ethical traditions as practices that can and must change over time.  They are subject to debate and interpretation by their very nature and can never be distilled down to a “way that is authoritative in all contexts” (5).  Ethical traditions are practices that are ideological and historic in nature.  For instance, to understand ethical traditions, one must examine the tradition at different contextual points in history as well as observing how it has changed over time.  By this type of examination, one can perceive what is considered right and wrong with regards to both domestic and international relations.

            The social contract tradition has evolved over time from its initial definition by Thomas Hobbes and serves to explain how “legitimate political institutions might arise” (181).  The basic premise is that individuals agree via a contract to give up rights and cede control to a central governing authority, which “set up a framework for deliberation and choice” (182).  Mapel explains that the situation that exists prior to creating the social contract—or the initial choice situation—is “the most important part of any contractarian argument and the principal source of diversity within the tradition” (182).  While the exact manner in which the social contract is created has changed throughout history, the basic tenants of social contract tradition remain central in many aspects of modern society.

            Hobbes initial theory was based on both his pessimistic view of human nature as well as his belief that humans are ruled by a purely mechanistic model of interactions—similar to how inanimate objects obey the laws of physics.  Hobbes created what he called the State of Nature to describe a theoretical existence absent any form of government, where man would be at perpetual war with each other due to man’s inherent self-interest.  In order for man to escape this brutal existence, where notions of justice simply do not exist, he agrees to give up certain rights and enter into a social contract whereby he cedes control to a central authority—what Hobbes called the Leviathan.  A primary concern in this type of social contract is that every man is equal and gives up rights equally.  For instance, if one man agrees that he cannot kill his neighbor, his neighbor must also agree not to kill him in turn.  Only by entering into this social contract can man feel secure within the state.  In Hobbes’ vision of the social contract theory, once the contract is in place, the sovereign has full authority that the people have no right to challenge. 

For Hobbes, security within the state was of central importance.  International relations between states only mattered insofar as the state should be able to protect itself from others.  Hobbes’ more pessimistic view of the international system is understandable, as he was writing during a turbulent time in both English and world history.  Hobbes desire for a legitimate and protective central authority amidst the chaos of the English Civil War in 1642 prompted him to write Leviathan.  In this case, no matter how repressive the government might be, Hobbes asserted that it was preferable to the “brutish” absence of state.

Locke’s more optimistic notion of the State of Nature (or life without a state) evolves his overall conception of the social contract from that of Hobbes.  In Locke’s State of Nature, men generally remain peaceful within a natural moral context.  Locke asserted that the primary conflict within this state was the need to protect one’s private property and this was the driving force between man creating the social contract and submitting to a government.  Locke’s vision of government, however, was quite different from Hobbes.  Not only was the government obliged to protect its citizens’ rights, but it was also the duty of the citizens to overthrow a corrupt government.  Locke’s notions of the social contract and resulting government influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States, and many aspects of his theories still remain central tenants of our Constitution. 

Both Hobbes and Locke, as well other classical social contract theorists, such as Kant and Rousseau, felt that the social contract tradition had little use in regards to international relationships between states.  As Mapel explains, “the state is much more capable of surviving in the international arena than are individuals before the domestic social contract” (188).  In other words, once individuals are protected by social contract on a state level, there is no need to do so on the international level.  In these circumstances, preservation of the state is of primary importance, falling under a realist view that states must gain power over neighboring states.  Rousseau argued that large governing bodies could not form social contracts and a world of small democratic republics actually removed the need for an international authoritative organization.

The modern social contract theorists have rejected this notion as they have addressed the possibility of “employing a social contract to create a world federation or government” (191).  Of primary importance to this notion is that reciprocity does exist on an international level.  One reason for this, they argue, is the emergence of non-state actors within the international system.  With organizations such as the United Nations, there is some degree of authority at the international level as states agree to abide by international rules, although adherence to these rules is questionable. 

The main evolution of the social contract theory by the modern contractarians is the attempt to extend the notion of individual rights in the state to individual rights within the international system.  For social contract theory to work within the international system, Mapel explains that, “each person in international society is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (193).  In our current political climate, this does not seem like a realistic goal.  As Krauthammer explained, “unlike the domestic social contract, international law lacks an enforcer …  If one country breaks the rules at will … [what] can possibly oblige other countries to honor that claim?” (196). 

In conclusion, the social contract theory on a national level has endured quite well.  Most aspects of national law can be attributed to the social contract theory, as citizens implicitly agree to be bound by state and federal laws.  In addition, social contracts also govern many aspects of our personal lives as binding agreements between individuals.  However, on the international level, social contract theory currently falls short, as there is no true way to enforce a social contract between states at this time.  While the United Nations is a noble endeavor, lack of oversight and corruption has led to loss of integrity within the institution, diminishing both its legitimacy and authority.          

 Work Cited

Nardin, Terry, and David Mapel. Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.