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/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment