The Standards Of Education Standards

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.

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.

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

Teachers in Tennessee are given a set of standards to teach young children. The standards are a crucial aspect of curriculum because they drive what students must know. Therefore, it is important that all teacher candidates have a clear understanding of the standards before going out into the field. The standards were created in a particular fashion for each grade level and subject area.

This article is about how using standards and assessments do not fully measure the educational quality of the students. It also suggests that the standardized assessments promise something that is not possible with all students. It is important to keep the standardized assessments simple and not go to deep into each subject.

The Common Core State Standards are considered to be a high-quality group of academic standards. Before the standards were developed, it seemed as if the progress of the students in the United States was remaining stagnant and that America students were falling behind their international peers. The blame for this setback has fallen on the fact that standards are not consistent and from state-to-state students are required to know different things at different grade levels. As a result students are not graduating with the same set of skills (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014).

In 2009, many states adopted a new schooling standard called the Common Core State Standards. These are a set of popular K-12 standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics with future standards in other subjects like Social Studies. They were created for the “poor quality of content” (Polikoff) standards and to ensure that every student will learn the same things at the same pace. Researchers claim that the standards are better than the current state standards, raising the expectations of performance for students. Although Common Core is supposed to be higher quality, there are many challenges it would face such as technology upgrades, content coverage, computer scoring, etc. Before the Common Core State Standards, each state set its own standards similar to one another. With Common Core Standards, every state will have the same standards to base student performance off of. Another reason these new standards were put into place is to ensure that America will be able to

What is the purpose of the standards and how do they impact that educational community?

“Common Core State Standards Initiative” is a result of the “Standards and Accountability Movement” which began in the 1990s in the United States. This particular branch of education reforms was geared towards expectations of learning at each grade level. The Standards and Accountability Movement not only brought attention on what students were expected to learn, but on teachers as well – focusing on how teachers were to implement lessons and able to teach for student achievement which would be measured in

The Presidents, who signed into action all of these federally mandated acts, did so in an effort to bring America’s education systems up to par with the systems of other countries, in order to remain economically competitive on a national level in a global economy. Despite all of the benefits that may have come from these acts, some cannot overlook the fact that they came from the federal government. One opinion is state or local officials should have full governance over educational affairs. Although committees, not funded by the federal government, have attempted to make changes to the school system in the past, none have had quite the nationwide impact as the authors of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is the work of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association and the work of representatives from forty-eight states, two territories, and the

Even with this law, there is still a vast difference in the quality of the many different state standards. The educational standards were meant to set goals for teaching and learning. Standards include a set of competencies and the level of educational achievement that demonstrates when the child should gain appropriate knowledge. They include an extensive list of skills and sub-skills that coincides with the appropriate grade level.

“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

Education standards outline expectations for what students should know student at the close of a course, or grade level. States have been setting standards since the early 1980’s. By 2001, after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, all 50 states began adopting standards. The push to adopt standards-based education was the idea that student achievement could be increased by setting specific goals and that all students deserved the chance to learn skills to be successful citizens and viable employees. Each state was responsible for creating its own list of standards. This process would soon change with the implementation of the Common Core State Standard initiative.

To ensure that the academic standards are used in the design and implementation of instructional planning, schools have progressed through a series of curriculum and teaching initiatives in their search for the right mix of strategies that will lead to student achievement of the standards. Although districts may have selected different approaches to the standards in any given year, a pattern of responses has emerged. The first response focused on alignment: aligning the curriculum with the scope and sequence of the standards, adoption of standards aligned curriculum material, and development of teacher training programs in the content of the standards. However, when NCLB became law, the increased accountability for standards achievement stimulated districts to take actions centered on high-stakes tests rather than the content of the standards and frameworks. Administrators are looking at the results of standards-based tests and focus teachers on test preparation.