Signature : Common Core Standards in Education - Assignment Example

Introduction When education first became a staple of American society, the population was quite small and manageable. In addition, many segments of the population held the same ideals, values, and beliefs about what was important in terms of educating young people. Over the years, however, the country has mushroomed to 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the population has exploded to approaching 400 million people. As a consequence, the diversity of the people has necessitated that they traditional views of education be reshaped and rethought. No longer is a consensus about core curriculum matters, for example, so easy to attain. State by state, and often district by district, communities hold differing beliefs about how the educational system should be managed and driven. Out of this has come an often fragmented system where children in one area of the country receives an excellent education that prepares them well for post-secondary school life, while other children receive an inferior quality of education drought with turmoil and strife. In the end, educators and politicians has felt that there should be a set of common core standards that, no matter what locality a child attends school in, they will still be expected to meet. This concept has taken hold and is sweeping the nation, but is still in process of being shaped and defined. This paper will look at the implications of the common core standards throughout America and provide a plan by which the initiative can truly can take hold and provide that level playing field for all children that Americans have long sought after. Political Implications of Common Core Standards Politicians today, both at the state and federal levels, are under increasing pressure to standardize the standards in education so as to increase the academic achievement across the country. Undoubtedly, this is no easy task and is certainly wrought with various opinions and ideas about how to best go about accomplishing the task. At the national level, individuals charged with reforming the educational system in America are desperately trying to propose initiatives that build upon what individual states are doing. They do not want to usurp state authority, yet they do feel the need to nationalize a certain set of core standards. Bridging these two philosophies together has proven difficult, but progress is being made. The overarching aim of this initiative is to build upon the standards that have been laid out by each state in America, and combining that with federal standards to ensure that every student in the student is asked to grasp comprehend certain fundamental concepts. This will, the hope is, lead to a national education system that more effectively provides students with the high quality of academic learning that has been the cornerstone of American schools for nearly three centuries. In the end, the Common Core Standards will make it clear to every student, parent, and teacher just exactly what is expected of them, and there will be certain benchmarks introduced that will measure success. Politicians, then, are often judged by the results of the schools in their constituency. They must learn to balance the desires of the federal government with the unique needs of their local population. By combining the two and forming a set of nationalized core standards, some of the pressure can be lifted and be seen more as a joint effort in the end. National core standards in education is not actually a new concept to Western based academic systems. The United Kingdom, for example, has long had a national system of standards that all pupils region wide are expected master. Such mastery is determined by a series of national exams administered upon finish the core years of high school, prior to embarking on a college or university path. To be sure, the standards have been wrought with political in-fighting over the years, but that is largely out of concern that certain standards be implemented to reflect more modern instructional measures. American politicians are now under pressure to adopt a similar system, even though a national exam system is not on the horizon. The implementation of the core standards in education has been a long time in the making. As Wadham (2013) notes, “Greatly influenced by the standards movement that began in the 1980s, as well as the historical and current political climate, the Common Core’s past, present and future are part of what make it significant” (p. 66). Not all politicians support the core standards, as some of them believe it to be a negative influence on current reform movements that are taking place nationwide. In fact, the way the educator’s themselves view standards has changed dramatically in the past few decades, which serves to muddle the political and economic landscape of implementing actual core standards nationwide (Wadham, 2013, p. 67). Analysis of the Importance to Students America is an increasingly mobile country. While elementary and secondary school students rarely have much input as to where they live and what school they attend, those decisions do impact them for a lifetime. As students graduate high school and ponder attending university, core standards are very much a part of the equation. Universities want to know that the students they accept into their mix do possess a certain core and basic academic knowledge, no matter what school they attended or locality they grew up in. Prior to the development of a national system of common core standards, this was nearly impossible to do. In addition, students from various schools around the country that have failed to adequately prepare their students is certain core disciplines often find themselves at a comparative disadvantage when mixing with students from better prepared areas. The mission of the common core standards is to provide students with a consistent and clear understand of what they are expected to learn. This is done in an effort to also guide teachers and parents in terms of how they can best assist their students and children in mastering those same core standards (Johnsen, 2012). The standards that have been developed over the years have been those that have been determined to be most relevant to the real world. This serves to ensure that students who truly master each of the core standards set out in the educational curriculum will be well prepared to live a productive and full life in society. In the end, the Common Core Standards are largely about adults deciding what students need to master. In order to make this work, educators need to create standards that are relevant to students and one that truly reflect the knowledge and skills each student needs to possess in order to be successful in a post-secondary school, and in life as a whole. Students want to know that their time spent in school is valuable and will serve a future purpose. The common core standards are designed to fulfill just such a purpose. If the system can be properly developed and implemented on a national level, American students can truly be prepared for their future, and they will be well positioned to compete well in an increasingly global and competitive world (Krashen, 2014). The Implications of Common Core Standards to the Education System There are numerous implications of mandating common core standards at the state level. States have long considered the educational system to fall under their individual and respective purviews. Quite a few individual states have vehemently opposed much federal interference over the years, but are now beginning to come more into line with the common core standards as a result of the continual academic decline of American students seen in many pockets of society around the nation (Wadham, 2013). In fact, states have already laid the foundation for the common core standards, reflective by the reality that each locality already had an established set of core curricular concepts that was mandated in a given area. In essence, the standards movement streamlines the educational process by providing a clear rationale for certain items that are to be taught at each and every grade level, no matter where an individual school is located. This only serves to benefit the general populace, while still allowing states to maintain autonomy over the general education process by being afforded the opportunity to fill in the gaps of the curriculum with material is reflective of their given culture and community influence (Wadham, 2013). It has been stated that, “The Common Core Standards focus on core conceptual understanding and procedures starting in the early grades, thus enabling teacher to take the time needed to teach core concepts and procedures well - and to give students the opportunity to master them” (Jones & King, 2012, p. 39). This is apparent, as teachers are no longer left to their own devices to determine what should be taught in the classroom. Instead, state boards, national committees, and curriculum advisory councils have been charged with the task of determining core principles that are reflective of American values in education and, as a result, should be taught. Teachers, then, are now afforded the luxury of being able to focus their attention on designing an instructional methodology that fits the unique learning styles of the students in their class, yet still covers the material dictated by the common core standards. In essence, it frees the time of the teacher to be able to focus more on lesson delivery, as opposed to instructional content. In the long run, this should actually improve the quality of the teaching in the classroom, as the standards will be reflective nationwide, as opposed to being fragmented district by district. The core standards must certainly be exhaustive at each grade level to encompass the relevant and appropriate material that is determined a necessity to cover at that particular age group, yet it should not be so involved that some classes would be hard pressed to accomplish. Teachers still must be able to adapt instructional techniques to fit the learning styles of their students. Some classes, for example, may get through a certain math core standard in a matter of days, while others might take several weeks. As a consequence, in order to keep all students on an equal footing as they are promoted from one grade level to the next, the number of core standards expected to be met in a given academic calendar year must be proportionate to the time that the instructor has to equip their students with the tools that thy need to master the skills (Jones & King, 2012). Involvement of Educators and the Community From the early days of working on a system of common core standards, educators have been involved in the process. From the district, to the state, and to the national level, educators have been consulted about what core concepts should be mandated at each respective grade level, particularly in the disciplines of mathematics and language arts. In fact, teachers, parents, and community leaders have generally all be considered a valuable part of the core standards process (Wurman & Wilson, 2012). Part of this rests from the reality that these are the three groups of individuals that must buy into the core standards movement in order for it to not only prove effective, but to take hold as well. Members of the community want to be involved in decisions regarding curriculum and core standards because they want to ensure that what is being taught in their neighborhood schools is truly reflective of the values and ideals of society. Naturally, the issue becomes that America has become an increasingly polarized nation, so it has historically proven difficult to get everyone to agree on matters of curriculum. This very idea is where the key distinction about the common core standards comes into play. It must ben noted that the standards is not an effort to dictate matters of curriculum. Individual states and localities are still largely free to decide on their own course of study and the concepts that will be taught at each grade level. The standards movement simply takes certain necessary components, of which are supposed to be accepted my mainstream America society, and insisting that they be taught. As a result, the input of community members and parents becomes invaluable to ensure that the standards are truly reflective of what is important in terms of a well rounded and balanced education (Wurman & Wilson, 2012). By involving a cross-section of individuals that have a stake in the educational system, the standards initiative will have a more enhanced ability to be successful. When bringing together educators, parents, and event students, standards that irrelevant can be rooted out before frustration sets in. In addition, educational professionals can answer questions of relevance in an effort to better explain why certain standards are considered to be core and will remain as a part of the curriculum. While it is not rational to believe that everyone will agree with each and every core standard that is set forth, it is prudent to believe that many misunderstandings can be alleviated by allowing individuals to have a voice throughout the process. Conclusion The common core standards initiative is a movement that is not likely to disappear anytime soon. While states still continue to desire, and do maintain, control of their own system of education, America will continue to ensure that all students are afforded at least the same basic level of education. One way to push this reality forward is to mandate a certain set of core standards and concepts that each and every student throughout the country is expected to teach. Once these standards can be agreed upon, teachers can more effectively incorporate their own instructional techniques and strategies that will enable their respective students to master these skills. In reality, if this initiative serves its intended purpose, a student living in a rural area of Alaska will have the same core educational skills as a student who grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles. As each of these students enters society as an adult, it can only benefit to society to know that they each possess the same basic skills. It puts them each on an equal playing field, while still providing each with the ability to pursue their own unique desires and ambitions in life. It is important to note that this initiative is not designed to dictate entire school based curriculums. American is a diverse country with increasingly varied interests and cultures. Educators are the ones who can navigate this field the best and determine what skills their own student body should be expected to master. At the same time, however, the country as a whole has an obligation to ensure that future generations enter the adult workforce knowing certain basic skills that will equip them with the tools that they need to be successful. This will help equalize the workforce and standardize the educational system, which in the end will hopefully lead to an increased level of academic achievement nationwide. References Jones, A., and King, J. (2012). The common core standards: A vital tool for higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 37-43. Johnsen, S. (2012). Gifted education and the common core state standards. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 229-230. Krashen, S. (2014). The common core. Knowledge Quest, 42(3), 36. Wadham, R. (2013). Something in common: The common core standards and the next chapter in American education. New England Reading Association, 48(2), 65. Wurman, Z., and Wilson, S. (2012). The common core math standards. Education Next, 12(3), 44-50. Read More