Major Implications For Providing Meaningful Access For The Broad Curriculum

As schools were faced with these daunting expectations to meet standards, state agencies, school boards, and administration all had to re-evaluate current practices, not only in the form of what should be taught, but how it should be taught (Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, n.d.). In more appropriate terms,

One of the biggest problems in the American public education system is the lack of a common standard for what students should be learning, and when they should learn it. In other words, the inequality of curriculums across the nation is affecting the preparedness of students when they venture out beyond the public school system, for the worst. The way to fix this problem, according to many teachers, administrators, and politicians, is by implementing a common curriculum across the nation that will ensure that the quality of a student’s education is not determined by where they happen to live.

The year is 2012. In the movie Back to the Future II, two years from now, in 2016, Marty McFly travels from the past to save his family’s future. The future is almost upon us, and yet it would seem that our education system has changed little since Back to the Future hit theaters in 1985. “We still have same teachers, in the same parts, in the same schools, with the same level of knowledge, with the same equipment’s, and much the same standard of parental support” (David). Ironically, we have been steadily implementing policy after policy, increasing standards and accountability, promoting oversight and rule… the list goes on, and yet our progress seems minimal, our educators complain of underfunded classrooms, and our legislators complain of underperforming schools. The question of “how to improve our education system” is not getting satisfactorily answered because our system is not broken, merely underdeveloped. The truth is that America has made paces in improving its education technique or system; the problem that remains is for us to entrust our educators with the greater pliability and autonomy that they need to excel.

Michigan’s students perform near the bottom in national rankings and are on a downward trajectory (Higgins). This is partially a result of curricula throughout the state of Michigan failing to put students in a position to succeed. Many school districts and teachers struggle with developing curricula and lesson plans given time and budget constraints; this is especially prevalent in low-income and minority school districts where teachers are younger and less experienced (French). A prime example of curricula hurting student achievement is a story told at a Michigan ISD assessment and improvement representative meeting of schools “teaching” by having students copy words out of the dictionary as the teacher did not have the skills/capacity/time to create a better lesson. Alarmingly, this type of experience is common as “there’s no support, you’re woefully unprepared, and you’re totally isolated. You’re trying to put these lesson plans together at 10 o’clock at night, and you have to be up at 5 getting prepped. You’re making this curriculum up as you’re going it alone.” (French). All of this in the face of ever changing state standards forcing teachers to constantly change their curricula.

There are many approaches that can be taken in order to develop a school’s curriculum, or the material that the students will learn. If there were no federal regulation of curriculum, then it would not be possible to compare student achievement across districts or even states. The federal program, Common Core State Standards, assists in equaling education across the nation. The Common Core has reinvented the perception of student learning which, in turn, has caused American education to become a corporate institution. As a result, there has been a threat to states’ rights for education as more rigorous content has been implemented into classrooms by the government, which ultimately changes the role of the teacher.

Developed By: Edwin C. Darden (director of education law and policy for Appleseed, a law instructor, and managing partner for The Education Advocacy Firm)

Over the past few months, a new set of books has emerged from the nation's publishers, the first since the State Board of Education in Texas, driven by political conservatives and Christian evangelicals, adopted standards in 2010 for what should be included in them”( Eichenwald). The curriculum and textbooks a student learns from are essential to a solid foundation in the quality of their education. Education is the crucial building block for a student to have a fruitful future and in today's society a percentage of the best careers oblige to an absolute minimum of a higher education. It is then the obligation of parents and the educators to give the best conceivable instruction to students to set them up for school and for their future occupations. The Texas States Board of Education is currently the fool of the country because of the activities of the Texas State Board of Education whom has fizzled students by not giving the best information possible and permitting government officials with individual agendas to write the curriculum and rebuff textbooks that present a compelling bias far from the truth. “When it comes to meddling with school textbooks, Texas is both similar to other states and totally different. It’s hardly the only one that likes to fiddle around with the material its kids study in class” (Collins).And also, According to Landau

Among the few nationally discussed topics today almost everyone can agree on is that our educational system needs serious repair. School buildings are in a physical state of neglect. Teachers are struggling. US school rankings are below average internationally, and graduation rates are at an all time low. The primary contributing factors for this are economic. Sadly, our society has allowed government administrations to place education at the low end of the federal budget with indisputable results. Our current policies on education do not support the needs of all students through inadequate prioritization, inequitable funding, and the devaluation of educators.

Presently, the availability of educational opportunities at the college and university level is a critical state and personal interest given the needs of the state for a well-educated workforce which has never been greater. Too many, the focal point of attending college is receiving a high paying job in the future. Unfortunately, in most states, tuition is on the rise and students who come from low-income families find themselves struggling to fund their education. According to legislatures, “The cost of college in New Jersey, as in the nation, continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation.” (State of New Jersey 1). In the national financial aid policy resources that are typically given to the neediest families are shifting towards

“Meaningful,” however, may have multiple meanings within context. Many people, parents, teachers, and students alike, disagree with the rules and regulations brought forward by the Arizona College and Career Ready State Standards. They believe that the new standards lack specificity and that the training necessary for teachers to understand how to teach the new standards may not be worth the time or money. Budgeting is a primary source of conflict and controversy. By funding the production of the new tests and teacher training, schools and districts are forced to be cut back in other important areas, such as learning and testing tools for special needs children (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Another major argument is that the new standards focus more on obtaining better test scores and increased school rankings than actual knowledge. In complete contrast, many people strongly agree with the new standards brought forth by the Arizona College and Career Ready State Standards. It is believed by these people that the new approach will increase academic rigor and improve students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. Consistency between different schools and even different states’ curriculum promotes easier transitions and both parents and students will always know what to expect. Those who support the standards

On one end of the spectrum it is the cost of tuition. Then, on the other end it is the socioeconomic pressures that get in the way of poverty stricken individual that triggers them to not apply (Radford). Despite their ability, they never give themselves the chance to excel due to a separation in social status and class. Moreover, when high school students in low-income cities are not provided with information and resources to apply to college due to impersonal guidance and overstrained advisors, they do not receive the same assistance of those in higher-income municipalities (Radford). For this reason, mandated curriculum should be available to all levels of education in order to promote self-sufficiency and a promising path to get there. Educators and advisors shall have the resources they need to help all school age children to learn about the financial aspects of life.

The way higher education is being financed is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. State appropriations are declining; educational cost is rising; and cost per student is increasing faster than inflation or family income. Affordability is directly affected by a financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and universities to take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and productivity. Public worry about increasing expenses might eventually add to the disintegration of open trust in higher education. Only through reform can confidence in higher education in America be renewed. The Secretary of Education’s report states that America must ensure that our citizens have access to high quality and affordable educational, learning, and training opportunities throughout

Many students entering college may discover that they are not prepared for college curriculum courses. These students enter college courses facing a major issue. They find that high school has not adequately prepared them for the difficulty of college level courses. These students lacked the sufficient basis in being well equipped for advanced careers and college entry. These students have suffered a great inequality prevalent throughout high schools since several high schools do not receive equivalent aid. The unequal funding in high schools prevents students from attaining the same education that other students in different areas may receive. Unequal school funding in secondary schools

Public education in the United States is perhaps one of the most critical issues we face as a nation. Once pronouncing the United States as a “nation at risk”, the educational institution began to implement one reform strategy after another. In efforts to improve schooling for K-12 students, education reform has fiddled with class size, revised graduation requirements, and created standardized testing just to name a few. Unfortunately, traditional public schools are still failing to provide students with a quality education. This is disheartening as we learn that the United States lags behind in math and science compared to our international counterparts. It is safe to say that educational reform has spent billions of dollars over the

Current reforms and initiatives based on the national education standards focus on student’s achievement and teacher’s preparation. Educational researchers and curriculum designers continuously find problems with standards and requirements on a state level and how the state and local boards of education focus highly on advanced placement and cultural literacy. A key focus is also accountability for students, schools, and school-districts in regards to academic performance. A new factor that has surfaced is school choice (charter schools and home schooling) and character development. Progressive teachers are able to guide learners to new experiences in every lesson. However; they are sensitive to unique and different learning styles which