National Curriculum Essay

The Common Core education standards were developed by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009, with intentions of creating a more rigorous, concerted program to improve student’s math and literacy skills. Due to poor execution, teachers were left unprepared and lacking resources to teach the new curriculum to their unique students. Emphasis on standardized tests rather than learning necessary tools for the adult world leaves students unprepared for college. By interfering with developmentally appropriate curriculums set by classroom professionals, national education standards fail to reflect every students’ needs and, therefore, should not be determined by the federal government.

High schools do not focus enough on college readiness. “Our findings suggest that high schools have prioritized credit accrual necessary for graduation over knowledge and skill development that would prepare students for

The American College Testing (ACT), 2010 concluded that a large number of high school students and high school graduates do not possess the knowledge and skills for college level work or career training. With the creation and implementation of common core standards, states and school districts have a clear set of student expectations to target

Three out of four graduates are not fully prepared for college, because of this they are almost certain to take remedial classes in which they can prepare to be “freshman,” in their second semester of college. ACT’s have tested 50% of these graduates, and it was measured that only 25% of that was actually prepared in all three areas of testing. So what is wrong with this picture? The problem is American high schools are not preparing their students for a college environment, and college work. Students aren’t receiving the key work and lessons needed for college. With all the method that teachers have, which aren’t working to the extent they should be, they are honestly forced to help these students out when they should have been prepared to begin with. With that said, High School teachers are not preparing their students academically for college. Colleges are forced to do studies in consideration of improving the United States Academic reputation, and the overall education for America.

Preparing high school students for college is every parent and teachers goal but sometimes that goal is hard to achieve. Students are not getting a proper education now-a-days and they do not realize that it is going to hurt them after they graduate. A study says, “That composite score dropped to 20.9 among high school students in 2013, the lowest in eight years” (Adams, 2013). That is a very low average and it is because what students are learning in high school just isn’t sticking with them through college. After students graduate they start taking harder classes, some have to start paying their own bills, and so many other changes they are not ready for. It is a big jump to go from high school to college and I think schools can do a better job of preparing students. It is their experience and education in high school that is going to help them in college. If they are not ready they are going to struggle which will result in some not so good outcomes such as having low grades or even worse dropping out. I do not believe that high school education has prepared students for college because there are many useless classes, it is more about memorizing than learning, and students drop out in a year or less because of the workload.

Schools must decide how to teach the standardized curriculum. Schools must figure out how to mesh a standardized and non-standardized curriculum. Can students guide their own curriculum and perform well on tests?

Today, a school education is no longer an option or privilege, but rather a need in the United States of America. The author of “Against School,” John Taylor Gatto says, “Do we really need school?” (143). What if children will not go to school, then how will they learn to read and write? Education is the demonstration of learning things around us and helps us to comprehend an objective in life. Most people who believe that children need higher education in order to succeed in life. We often don’t understand why we have to go to school every day, but when we grow up we realize that children need to attend the school for a wide range of reasons, for instance; for new experiences, increased knowledge or career preparation. School

In the United States education has always been a contested issue. In 2009, state leaders in forty-eight states launched the Common Core standard and currently forty-three states are working to implement the system. The Common Core’s main purpose was to prepare American students for success and to create an even playing field for all students. But is the Common Core really helping students reach their potential?

The Common Core Standards were created in 2010 as an ideal system to help the students of the United States compete with top competitors worldwide. Teachers, standard experts, and other countries studied learning styles internationally to create a system that is supposed to fill the gap in curriculum and the “hole that is a mile wide and only an inch deep” the old system has created (“Myths”). On this new system, state standards will be raised to the highest in 20 years; therefore, no state will have a mediocre curriculum. This means all states will be synchronized to one another, and as Dwyer says, “Parents should know where their child will be from womb to tomb (Nelson).”

Remember when you were in 5th grade? Your teacher went over the material in class, you went home and had some sort of homework paper to do, you took a test in class later that week, and you either passed or you didn 't. Do you remember comprehending any of that material? Or did you simply just memorize the material and move on with your life? The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) not only standardizes education, but it makes comprehension and intricate tool of the learning process. When it comes to American public education, the diagnosis has been offered that our schools suffer from a lack of consistent standards from coast to coast about what our kids should leave school knowing. The fix that has been adopted in a number of states in the last few years is a set of standards called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which have become the most contentious issue in American education in the last generation with disputes about who drew up the standards, whether they result in kids being over-tested, and even whether standards make sense that they have to be common. Are we fixing the right problem (Donvan, 2015)? Throughout the U.S., more and more states have been enacting the Common Core State Standards. Despite opposition from politicians and educators alike warning of dismal results, these standards appear to persist as a result of mostly positive outcomes.

The education system in the United States could definitely use some serious changes. As of now, what we are doing is not producing the results it should and it would seem that it is time for a change. But the last thing this change should be is a federal regulation over national curriculum and testing, if anything, that would increase the current problem. There are numerous issues with the current education system to be addressed. One of the main focuses will be on its lack of concerns for students’ lives and how much they are truly affected by the education they receive. As well, some possible solutions to be considered for the future of this country’s education because staying on this path won’t lead to any improvements.

The United States educational system has realized moments in its history when educational reform was the answer to the perceived social and economic issues plaguing the country (Strickland, 1985). In 1892, the National Education Association created a committee to determine what should be taught in American schools. Specific courses of study were identified that addressed two basic components. Specific courses of study were deemed necessary for students to find success when attending college. It was also determined that students should have a well-rounded education that provided relevance for the academic topics that would be studied (Tenam-Zemach & Flynn, 2011). The quality of instruction seemed not to be the issue. One-room schoolhouses

The representation that the “now” common standards is supposed to reassure not only the teachers, but that each and every student can prosper in an economy and population that is developing at a rapid pace, and that will sustain throughout their lives. Several statistics show that this need to better prepare students for college is an urgent one.

A stakeholder is someone or a group of people that have competing interests, different views and a particular interest in the Australian Curriculum. Hudson’s definition of a stakeholder is “a person or persons, a group, an organisation or a government body that has an interest in the content and/or the philosophical direction of the curriculum” (Hudson, 2013, p. 39). The greatest influence on the design and content of the school curriculum is not from parents or teachers but by businesses and governments. This is because businesses and governments are of a higher role which allows them to have the bigger and final say. Parents and teachers are also stakeholders of the design and content of the school curriculum, however they do not hold the power to have the greatest influence of the final outcome but their views and

A highly significant change to the national curriculum made at the 2014 update for KS3 is the introduction of assessment without levels (Department for Education, 2014). The system by which children were assigned a numerical level based on their attainment was ceased on the commencement of the new curriculum in September 2014 for all subjects, including science (Department for Education, 2013). This action was implemented based on a report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review, which suggested that due to changes made to the curriculum over various reassessments, the concept of attainment targets, on which level descriptors were based, had been clouded, making levels difficult to understand and apply (Department for Education, 2015). This meant that level descriptors were no longer clear and should be removed to allow assessment to focus more closely on an individuals’ specific strengths and weaknesses on the content within the curriculum, rather than simply focus on ensuring that a child achieved a certain arbitrary level (Expert Panel for the National Curriculum Review, 2011). The abolition of levels has given schools more freedom to design their own assessment framework and address the perceived issue that emphasis of levels as a tool for measuring school performance had led to negative influence on the way individual pupils were assessed (Department for Education, 2015). Bell (2014) suggests that the introduction of assessment without levels is a