The Curriculum Of A Curriculum

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.

Curriculums are the roadmaps for schools which provide purpose and direction for administrators, educators, parents, and students. Curriculum typically refers to, “the knowledge and skills students are expected to learn, which includes the learning standards or learning objectives they are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers teach; the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials, videos, presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests, assessments, and other methods used to evaluate student learning.” (Curriculum, 2015, para. 1) Curriculums may come in many shapes and forms, whether they’re purchased as a package at the school or district level or they’re created or refined by educators and

The purpose of the Comprehensive Curriculum Project (CCP) is to analyze the myriad of issues that have arisen over the last few years revolving around curricula and its use in the classroom, school, and district. With the 2010 state adoption of the Common Core, educators experienced many different transitional issues and developmental issues revolving around the curricula. In order to develop a deeper understanding of these issues it is important to conduct interviews, look at the Teacher Working Conditions survey, and to analyze local organizational models that might affect the transition to the new standards.

The educational system in the United States was originally developed using concepts from around the world, created using ingenuitive ideas from countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. However, as the United States quickly moved into position as the leading country for state-directed educational standards, America looked less and less to the systems of other nations and more into how we could improve what was locally and currently being applied in education. Consequently, an improved type of education instruction was officially launched in 2010. These new state standards, practically titled Common Core, were declared to focus on developing a child’s skills in reasoning, problem solving, communication, and competition (Conrad, et al. 52). While the standards are professed to be an extremely practical and beneficial method of teaching today, there are issues which have recently surfaced and raised some concerns. The Common Core State Standards are emerging as the subjects of a provocative controversy in society today as they prompt discussion on global economic efficiency, nationwide academic standards, and the ultimate well-being of school-age children.

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.

Today, many states and schools systems are adopting a standards based education system. In fact, according to Common Core Standards Initiative (2014), forty-three states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) have adopted the Common Core State Standards. The premise is that if all critical subject areas follow a standard from state to state, that all students will receive the same and fair education. The Vermont State Board of Education saw a need and a value in implementing such a system. As such, the Board created a strategic plan to implement a framework of standards that would eventually adopt the common core standards. This paper will discuss the strategic plan created by the Vermont Board of Education and evaluate whether or not the goals of the plan were met through the Framework of Standards.

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.

Education in the United States is in an abysmal state. It continues to spiral downward as students and educators fail to meet standards. The standards are then altered on a patchwork basis throughout the states. The goal is no longer to have a high standard educational system. The goal now is to maintain the status quo, allowing students and educators to strive for the minimum. There is no common approach to achieve success. Incipit Tragoedia, in comes the Common Core, agreed upon by educators, politicians, and

Common Core’s supporters and non-supporters can both agree that a change in the United States school system is desperately needed. The United States has fallen behind its peers in the international communities, who participate in the Programme for International Student Assessment, in almost every measurable scholarly subject. Therefore, the United States needs to help its students to become better scholars so they can internationally compete in the business market place. Common Core is also trying to bring a standardization of learning and cohesiveness to all schools across the United States. An argument from non-supporters of the Common Core is that it is removing a teacher’s creative freedom, leaving out student engagement. However, Common Core is not a curriculum and is instead a welcome step in the right direction to help students become adults that are more intelligent.

Like an epidemic terrorizing the western hemisphere, the Common Core State Standards program has swept across our nation, and at each stop, threatened a new way of thinking and learning. These standards were created to ensure that more students graduated from high school with the skills to succeed in college, life, and career, no matter where they might live (“About the Standards”). In 2009, this fresh new take on education was launched to each state’s educational leaders in the U. S. The officials of each state decided whether the implementation of the program was beneficial for them, or if the current techniques were the best option.

In a time of educational reform, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was heralded as being the new path to academically successful students who would thrive in the 21st Century. The CCSS were drafted by experts and teachers in the industry with the goal of preparing students for today’s students entering the workforce, college, or training program. In addition, the CCSS focused on clear, consistent guidelines and standards that would foster critical thinking and problem solving skills for students to be successful (Common Core State Standards, n.d.). However, the CCSS have had many critics since its debut in 2010, but it has also attracted followers as well. One such proponent, Vartan Gregorian, President of Carnegie Corporation of New York hailed the CCSS as “a necessary step in the process of reform” and “create a competitive edge in the 21st century world that requires innovative educational strategies that will enable students to succeed in a global economy.” (Common Core State Standards, n.d.). As such, I do believe that the CCSS creates opportunities to encourage

The article, “From Common Core Standards to Curriculum: Five Big Ideas” seeks to address the misconception of Common Core State Standards and Curriculum through big ideas, some of which will be discussed in this review. The problem being addressed is whether or not the Common Core Standards and Curriculum are interchangeable.

The Common Core curriculum is intended to educate pupils for the increasingly demanding world that we exist in today. Common Core State Standards establish precise, uniform guidelines for what every school child should know and be able to do from kindergarten through 12th grade creating benchmarks for reading and math, replacing education goals that varied drastically from state to state. These new standards focus on preparing the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills that are essential to be successful after high school, and gives teachers a means to evaluate a student’s development throughout the academic

Curriculum is a term often highlighted during discourse about education and most commonly understood as a policy with overt leaning outcomes for teachers to apply and achieve. Ornstein and Hunkins (1998), as cited by Selvaraj (2010), defined curriculum based on two lenses; micro and macro, which identify the term as both policy towards certain goals and what students experience with consideration for relevant theories and principles central to its development and implementation. However, Wilson (n.d.) argued that curriculum is not restricted to certain individuals, subjects and environments, since teaching and learning can also occur beyond the scope of official curriculum (Ebert & Culyer, as cited in Marsh, Clarke & Pittaway, 2014). I believe this interpretation is the closest to the true nature of curriculum, or education, as there are more complex layers to curriculum than just a written guideline. For example, not one curriculum is similar to another because it is subjected to influences from continuum number of factors, such as politics and economy. Hence, it is wise to conclude that curriculum could not be defined based on a singular perspective due to its dependability on context.

The meaning of the term’ curriculum’ is difficult to define. For school, Pratt (in Brady and Kennedy, 2014, p. 3) argues that curriculum can be ‘an organized set of formal educational and training intentions’. For students, Marsh and Wills (in Brady and Kennedy, 2014, p. 3) maintain that curriculum is ‘an interrelated set of plans and experiences that a student undertakes under the guidance of the school’, while for teachers, the challenge is to develop curricula that will cater for the needs of all students (Ah Sam & Ackland, 2005). There are various meanings attached to the term’ curriculum’. My personal definition for school curriculum is that schools develop programs of different study areas basing on the content of the national curriculum document; teachers plan their teaching basing on the programs; eventually, students experience the curriculum by engaging in diverse teaching activities. In this essay, I will be discussing The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) in relation to the strategic plan and teaching philosophy of Hampton Park East Kindergarten.