Common Core and Education

¶ … No Child Left Behind and Common Core, a set of required standards does not improve but rather limits education for ALL students in state schools (Kober, Rentner, 2011). The assumption inherent in the system of standardized education is that a one-size-fits-all method of education in which every student is expected to be at the same level. This type of assumption does not reflect the actuality of the situation (Haycock, 2012). Some learners are special education, some have learning disabilities that go undiagnosed, some are English language learners, and some are gifted. Standards can be implemented to improve the quality of education for all students in all levels and types of classrooms -- but they should be more accommodating and reflective of the diverse range of students represented in the classroom. In other words, standards should be available for every type of student and not just in a one-size-fits-all model.

The first recommendation to address this issue of how to present a standards-based platform for such a diverse range of students is to test each individual student and measure their academic level by using this test and studying the child's academic achievement to date. The academic histories of students can be helpful in assessing the type of student he or she is. They can also expose issues that might indicate whether the child is a special needs child. The point is that every student should be assessed and his or her academic level and potential measured. This measurement should also be performed in conjunction with families and parents and where they believe or want their child to be (which academic level do they think their child should be at). The point of including parents in this discussion is that it provides another input for teachers and administrators tasked with evaluating the students and deciding where to place them academically speaking.

This will help to place the students in the appropriate level and class. Standards can then be devised accordingly for each of these levels and classes. Input can be received from teachers of these levels/classes so as to find out special needs, potential, problem areas, and ways to maximize use of time and space. Input from parents can also be of use because they are likely to have some sense of what they want their children to be able to accomplish and their concerns and goals should be considered as well when devising standards.

In terms of applying standards to a system of general education, there should still be no one-size-fits-all because not all schools are the same and neither are all teachers and students. Teachers should be allowed to take the class in a direction that they sit fit so long as it stays within recommended parameters and specific general targets are met. For instance, in a subject like English, teachers should ensure that reading, writing and comprehension goals are met -- but methods can vary according to comfort, style and student type. Whether these general standards are left up to the district, are formulated by the state or come from national levels is another matter. The most effective strategy would be for most standards to be formed at the district level, as this cuts down on the burden of centralization and the inefficiency of centralized education. At a district level it is more likely to receive the desired inputs from stakeholders within the community, such as parents, students and teachers. At a national or state-wide level, these voices are less likely to be heard and therefore less likely to be impactful in the devising and setting of the standards.

The materials, supports and training that will be needed to implement the standards adopted for these levels and classes will depend upon the inputs received as well. Communities, parents, families, students, teachers, and business leaders should all have inputs. The latter can be very valuable because they can tell educators what they are looking for in student achievement -- what types of skills they would like applicants to have, what level of ability they require, and so on. This can present a real-world assessment that is invaluable in preparing curricula. The materials that will be used can come from the assessments derived from considering 21st century skills and the use of digital age technology: including interactive technology, audio/video files, and the Internet. Supports can be interactive and Internet-based as well, as there is a wide community of support systems available online for anyone to use. Training can come by way of using experienced teachers to help guide new teachers with a program established in each district that makes guides available for those who would like assistance.

Stakeholders will likely have different feelings about the standard adoption and implementation and it will be necessary to compromise because it is not possible to please everyone. Government leaders are likely to be lobbied by educational groups and activists on all sides of the standardized debate. This means they are likely to feel pressure from a certain segment and to vote to allocate funds to schools that follow specific agendas. This is not necessarily a fair practice and raises the question of school costs, school grants, money in politics and the distribution of wealth among schools that meet certain criteria even if it is not reflective of the will of a localized level of people and stakeholders.

Mitigating the risk of leaving some stakeholders on the side of the road, a policy of decentralization can be effective in overcoming these hurdles. Decentralization places the responsibility of devising and implementing standards on local level administrators and educators. It restores the issue of education to communities that are most in tune and directly in contact with the actual students who will be receiving the education. It takes the responsibility for devising standards out of the hands of politicians and special interest lobby groups and puts it back into the hands of every locality where education is provided. This means that there will be more community participation, more interaction between teachers, parents and administrators, and more emphasis placed on meeting individualized needs.