Common Core Standards are a set of high-quality academic standards with learning goals which highlight what a student should be able to do and know at the end of each grade of subjects (Constable et al., 2013). The standards are mainly used in Mathematics, ELA (English Language Arts) and Sciences. Specific states have implemented similar standards for these subjects. Commonly, these rules are referred to as the CCSS. In the United States (U.S), the CCSS were first adopted in the year 2010 (Applebee, 2013). These CCSS are adopted to ensure that students acquire quality education and the required skills necessary to for them to succeed anywhere. This is regardless of their home state or if they happen to change their current school to one located in a different state. Besides, the CCSS are rigorous, complex and aligned with increasing college and work prospects (Grant & McTIGHE, 2012). Further, the standards are coherent, clear, fluent, evident-based and understandable to the teachers, parents, and students (Schwols & Dempsey, 2012). This paper will evaluate the importance of CCSS, the varying opinions and negative feedback regarding the standards, and their benefits and effects on students, teachers and the nation at large. Overall, the paper supports the argument that despite various opposing arguments, common core standards are extremely beneficial to students, teachers, and the nation as a whole.
Arguments in support of CCSS
Most states in the U.S have implemented common core standards to ensure the success of their students. This success is pegged on some reasons. First, the standards are created to provide enough guidance and clarity so that they are teachable, measurable and learnable. In turn, this assists the students in meeting their college provisions and expectations, which are meant to ensure the students’ success in the workplace and the society as a whole. Secondly, the standards are implemented to measure the students’ performance against international benchmarks. In so doing, the standards provide a defined structure for comparing and contrasting the students’ performance and achievement over a specified period. Consequently, this ranking of U.S students with other top performing countries brings about a meaningful transformation of the education system for the ultimate benefit of students in the U.S.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
International benchmarking of students through CCSS helps the U.S to gain insights into the existing gaps. This is an opportunity for concerned stakeholders to improve the education system, and gain transparent access to global knowledge and other best practices (Murphy & Smith, 2015). Ultimately, students in the states would gain the necessary skills to compete effectively in the world economy. The common core standards are also implemented with the intentions of allowing for collaborations across states on best practices and professional development. In turn, this reduces costs to the state by sharing aggregative learning and knowledge. The standards have been implemented to develop border evaluation frameworks. The standards, therefore, benefit not only the students but also the teachers and nation as a whole.
Contrary opinions
Despite the acknowledged benefits of CCSS, various negative views and feedbacks about the new standards have emerged. The first argument is that the standards are attached to subjects as opposed to the specific skills that the subject is meant to give. The premise in this argument is that these subjects are mere tools, and teachers and other professionals should be held liable for making sure that the students acquire the intended skills. Secondly, the CCSS have received too much attention. As a result, the main reasons for poor performance of students are most often ignored as all the emphasis is placed on the standards. Thirdly, the standards are determined for national standardized tests, which cannot examine complex thought processes. The tests are also culturally biased and unable to measure non-verbal learning. Fourthly, preparation of students for these standardized tests requires professionals and various support materials. Thus, a lot of money is wasted in paying these professionals and buying the required materials and equipment. In this case, implementation of the CCSS is seen to be based on the principles of materialism and social inequality (Quay, 2010). Proponents of this argument also believe that the CCSS focus on subjects that have minimal assurances of future material prosperity, and which don’t carry much weight in the job market. Philosophy and literature are examples of such subjects.
The common core standards are also seen to minimize parental and local control over education (Porter, 2011). In the U.S, the standards are prepared, written and copyrighted by the National Governors Association, the Council of State Schools and appointed non-profit organizations. Federal or state agencies, parents’ rights group and other interested stakeholders are locked out in the process of providing oversight. Hence, parents have no obligation to change any unfavorable changes recommended, approved and passed by the bodies concerned. Only 15% of the standards are liable to modification by teachers and other education officials. Finally, the other argument is that the standards do not adequately prepare students in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. The reason for adopting CCSS was to prepare high school students for these demanding STEM fields, but instead, the standards do the opposite. For instance, the standards force states to adopt a math curriculum that prepares the students for these STEM fields partially.
Effects of common core standards on and benefits to students
The common core standards are exceedingly relevant to both younger and older students. While ly the standards are established to facilitate the success of students in their education, their specific benefits are numerous. First, the standards provide a consistent content for all students (Hill, 2011). Globally, the society has become more mobile. Subsequently, students move from one state or district to another, as their parents relocate. Therefore, a common set of standards ensures that students who happen to change their schools in the midst of the year can quickly catch up with colleagues in the new school. Thus, it becomes easy for both young and older students since they undertake the same curriculum in different states.
Before the adoption of the standards, different states would develop independent tests by giving contracts to large publishers. This approach was limiting to the students in that it lowered their global competitiveness. With the implementation of these standards, students in all states are better placed to compete with their counterparts globally. Additionally, CCSS prepare both young and older students for entry into college and career success giving the students a better chance of getting high paying jobs hence facilitating societal development. Besides, the standards are essential for acquisition of the knowledge and skills required for college and career success. Some of the skills promoted by the standards include problem solving and critical thinking. The standards likewise provide, publish and recommend the required syllabus and curriculum to the teachers, for the best academic development of both younger and older students.
Common core state standards are essential in promoting students’ independence in learning. Through the CCSS platform, students get an opportunity to learn and construct compelling arguments, ask relevant questions for clarity and seek help from external sources. The CCSS also build a greater sense of purpose for students in their learning process. This is by promoting understanding of the reason for learning, what is expected of them. Finally, the standards assist the students to become global leaders in the various fields by preparing them to evaluate, reflect, analyze, influence, communicate and think critically (Boulard, 2010).
The CCSS have some notable adverse effects on students, whether young or old. First, the standards are very broad and not specific. Thus, this makes the achievement of specificity in learning objectives a challenge. Secondly, since the standards place emphasis on online learning, young students with little or no computer skills are likely to encounter difficulties during the transition period. In this case, the standards favor students with some computer skills (Hill, 2011).
Effects of common core standards on and benefits to the teachers and the nation
The CCSS impact on the teachers in numerous ways. First, since the standards are used in carrying out assessments across all the states, it becomes easy for teachers to compare their performance with that of schools in other states. The teachers can also seek advice and technical support from better forming schools. Secondly, using standards as a baseline, the teachers are in a better position to consistently improve on both the delivery of the curriculum as well as the students’ understanding (Kramer, 2011). By favoring online teaching approaches, the standards make all teaching materials readily available and accessible from anywhere. This tremendously reduces the teachers’ workload and simplifies the teaching process. Likewise, the standards allow teachers to establish a follow-up plan and easily monitor the student’s progress throughout the year. These evaluations help teachers to establish what their students already know and to develop plans for lifting those lagging behind. Additionally, teachers can compare the performance of their students over time. Besides the positive aspects, the CCSS may adversely affect the teachers. One such challenge is the adoption of the standards by new teachers. This is because the teachers require a significant amount of time to adjust to the philosophy behind the standards, as well as efficiently implement them.
The benefits of the CCSS to the nation include the reduction of expenses incurred in scoring, test development, and marking since these are centralized under the CCSS scheme. Likewise, standardization ensures that the quality of education is uniformly enhanced in the entire nation. In this case, states which previously had lower learning standards would greatly benefit from the state standards. However, the nation is responsible for the costs incurred in the implementation of the common core state standards. These costs may include advancement of technology to meet the requirements of the standards. For instance, the responsibility of purchasing and distributing computers and other audio-visual equipment to state schools lies on the government.
Conclusion
The academic progress of most States has been stagnant for a long time. Adoption of Common Core Standards is, therefore, a strategic move towards reversing the trend. These standards not only ensure that students acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, but also ensure that the students are well-prepared for the job market. Despite the benefits and the positive effect that these standards have on students, teachers, and the nation, arguments against them still exist. While the standards harbor some negative aspects, the benefits of the standards outweigh the shortfalls. Therefore, adoption of the common core standards should be encouraged due to their short and long-term benefits to the students, teachers, and the nation as a whole.
References
Applebee, A. (2013). Common core state standards: The promise and the peril in a National palimpsest. English Journal, 103(1), 25–33.
Boulard, G. (2010). The common good? State Legislatures , 36(8), 10-16.
Constable, S., Grossi, B., Moniz, A., & Ryan, L. (2013). Meeting the common core state standards for students with autism: The challenge for educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45I(3), 6-13.
Grant, G., & McTIGHE, J. (2012). From common core standards to curriculum: The five big ideas. The New Hampshire Journal of Education
Hill, R. (2011). Common core curriculum and complex texts. Teacher Librarian , 38 ( 3), 42-6.
Kramer, P. (2011). Common core and school librarians - An interview with Joyce Karon. School Library Monthly , 28(1), 8-10.
Murphy, S., & Smith, M. (2015). Uncommonly good ideas-teaching: Writing in the common core era.
Porter, A. (2011). In common core, little to cheer about. Education Week , 30(37), 24-25.
Quay, L. (2010). Higher standards for all - Implications of the common core for equity in education. Research Brief, University of California, Berkeley Law School.
Schwols, A., & Dempsey, K. (2012). Common core standards for high school mathematics - A quick-start-guide.
