Common Core Education Case Study

Not only do students lose opportunity in learning from these areas, but the law is also underfunded which the defeats the purpose as well as contradicting itself in the sense that students won’t be achieving the goals set by this law. By 2011, more than 50% of schools were labeled “failing”, and lawmakers saw the need for a change, but weren’t able to produce a bill. That year, the Obama administration offered states a reprieve from many of the law’s mandates through a series of

v. Chicago. In short, state entities ought to be held to the same legal standard in which they were when schools were

Adopted by forty-two out states in 2010, the Common Core State Standard Initiative strives to provide an educational structure which details what English language arts and mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through twelfth grade. The initiative is the federal government’s attempt to ensure all students who graduate from high school are adequately prepared to enter a two or four year college or the workforce. Despite their intentions, the Common Core has caused much controversy in the education community. The thought behind Common Core is very valid and has the potential to help students, however changes must be made to unrealistic standards and wordy statements. Common Core must first be rewritten so that the language is clear and can be easily understood by the general public. Next ask experts on childhood development and elementary school teachers to review the standards and rewrite standards they see as unneeded or irrelevant as well as unrealistic.

Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal policy. Both Clinton and Bush administrations regulated freedom of choice within their educational policies. Clinton’s Goals 2000 increased standards for student scores within core subjects. Legislation targeting Title I, required States and school districts to “turn-around” low-performing schools, and in 1993, public charter schools increased to over 2, 000 (www.clinton5.nara.gov). Bush’s No Child Left Behind’s structure demanded high-stakes testing and created provision for privatization of public education, as well as “school choice .” No Child Left Behind not only increased the Clinton’s strong accountability disposition, but it also superimposed a new set of accountability rules that would adversely affect public schools (Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005). One significant requirement of NCLB is that each state must adopt challenging academic content standards and challenging student achievement standards. Additionally, states must establish Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for each year from 2002 to 2014—that would culminate in the 2014 goal that all American students would be at or above the proficient student academic achievement standard (P.L. 107–110, 2001). When local educational agencies (LEA) failed to meet their state’s AYP goals, in addition to other criteria, they [LEA] faced the inevitability of losing their accredited status and eventually face school

Americans from funded high schools. According to the ruling this was enacted because the county was

Although Ohio’s governor, Ted Strickland, signed and agreed to adopt a set of national standards in June 2009 to obtain 400 million dollars in Race To The Top (RTTT) money, he had not read or reviewed these standards as the completed CCSS were not published until July 2009. The Standards simply passed through the Ohio Congress without knowing the dangers. According to the article “Myths versus Facts” written by an anti-CCSS group called Truth in American Education, most states implemented Common Core to “ be eligible to compete [in] the federal Race to Top Funding.” At the request of Achieve Inc., the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and the Chief Counsel of State School Officers (CCSSO) wrote national standards called CCSS. David Coleman, the new president of the State College Boards, admits that he had to sell these national standards to the governors. Although Coleman does not have any background in education, he received instruction to rewrite the SAT and ACT to align these national tests to the Common Core State Standards. The question remains as to whether CCSS began as a state-led initiative or were established unconstitutionally? Did the 200 million dollars that Ohio received upon signing and the promise of an additional 200 million dollar at the full implementation of Common Core influence the

The No Child Left Behind Act rewards schools when they have made the greatest progress in improving the achievement of disadvantaged students and if so they will be rewarded with the NCLB bonuses. This act also incorporates consequences for those who have failed to meet the regulations. The secretary of education will have permission to reduce federal funds available to states for administrative expenses if the state fails to meet their performance objectives and demonstrate results in academic achievement. Since the beginning of the school year of 2003-2004 at least twenty states and a number of school districts have officially protested the NCLB Act, voting to withdraw from participation, to withhold local

Starting in the 1960s as the turmoil surrounding Brown V. Board of education died down, parents and taxpayers began to bring lawsuits against state funding systems arguing that these systems violated either state or federal constitutions (Augenblick, Myers & Anderson, 1997). Thus far, federal claims have all failed. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the San Antonio independent School

The controversy over Common Core in Louisiana has had an impact on people in the government, BESE, and parents and teachers. Parents and teachers created a lawsuit filed against Bobby Jindal about Common Core because they feel that he is meddling with the education board's work (Samuels). This lawsuit was filed because they felt that Bobby Jindal was violating the state's constitution in actions he has taken against the standards (Deslatte). In response,

The court held that Title IX, which only applies to educational institutions receiving federal funds, could be applied to a private institution that refused direct federal funding but for which a large number of students had received federal funded scholarships. The court stated that there was no “substantive difference” between institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students. Title IX coverage, the Court found, was triggered by the BEOG’s.

Politics and education have been intertwined since the establishment of public education in the United States. In other words, it is a well-known fact that public education is an extension of our political system. This has never been more apparent to the public than over the last three decades, beginning in 1983 with “A Nation at Risk” which is considered a significant event in modern American educational history. For the last few years, it has been the controversial topic of the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the headlines. One can hardly turn on the news or read a newspaper or web site without hearing something about Common Core State Standards (CCCS). People either seem to be adamantly for or against the standards. Educational reform and educational standards are not new and date back much further than many people realize. Furthermore, if the public understood what the standards actually encompass, there may be more support for Common Core State Standards. However, the public is being inundated with a multitude of reasons why states should not adopt Common Core by making it a political issue in order to gain votes. Regardless of what standards are adopted, common standards in education should be implemented in the United States to prepare students for college and career in order to compete and succeed in a global economy.

A political issue right now being argued over is if Common Core national education standards should be adopted by all states. The majority of Democrats support the adoption of Common Core standards while the vast majority of Republicans are against it. The Common Core State Standards states what K-12 students should know in Math and English at the end of the each grade, and to put in standardized tests. Whether or not these standards are put in place can determine if students succeed. Common Core will not allow teachers to individualize their lessons to help students learn the way they will understand best. These standards should not be adopted by all states.

The Common Core State Standards are a state attempt to create strong educational standards. The standard are created to ensure that students in the country are learning and grasping the information that are given in the classrooms for them to succeed academically. The Common Core plan included governors and education commissioners form forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. They wanted to make sure the standards are relevant, logical and sequential. For content all subjects must have critical-thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills. Some positive aspects of this policy is that it prepares our students for a competitive global jobs. It can provide national connections in education. Designed to shape the best standards so that all states will be taking a step ahead in education. These standards had been created after extensive research by professional educators for excellence in education. The CCS focus on what students expectations of learning, and achievements. Educators do not need to worry that the standards will make their jobs look redundant because they are in charge of creating lessons to teach their students the content and skills that the CCS demands. The teachers do not feel that the standards are one-size-fits-all. Some negative aspects of the policy are that is a program created by solely the government. The CCS is a program put together on idyllic situations in education by individuals who have subsidy and students ahead of the learning

The Common Core standards violate the well-established and internationally recognized process that sets standards in a transparent way for recognizing expertise of people who must implement them. The reason for so much controversy is because the Gate Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education was in a hurry to get the standards out there, so they ignored the national and international rules for setting standards (Ravitch). Diane Ravitch, educational historian said about the Common Core testing: “Students are not encouraged to construct knowledge and understanding; they must simply be adept at repeating it.” She also said: “Under Common Core, from the time they enter kindergarten to the time they graduate from high school, students will have few opportunities to ask their own questions or come up with their own ideas (Nicholas).” These Republicans feel that the Common Core standards are too high, causing students to be left

While Governor Jindal’s case is arguably the most publicized in the issue of adopting a set of common standards which may violate the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, it is not the only case. The first case challenging the use of Common Core State Standards, Adams v. Kentucky Education Officials (2008), was filed because the Kentucky Legislature is ultimately responsible for education but never voted as a body to approve Common Core and some of the related agreements with the US Department of Education, the adoption of Common Core was not legally performed (Kentucky parent sues to block Common Core State Standards, n.d.). The case was dismissed on grounds that Mr. Adams didn’t have a personal injury and thus could not file suit. In 2015, a group of Missouri residents and taxpayers filed a petition for relief against Missouri Governor Nixon in Sauer V. Nixon (2015). This case alleged that it was illegal for Missouri to be a member of a consortium to develop national standards and assessments based on the grounds that it violates federal law guaranteeing state and local control of curriculum, programs of instruction. While the case was eventually dismissed, it was clear by the rationale presented by Sauer that the 10th Amendment is valid and should be