More than 200 distinguished educators have issued a critical response to the U.S. Department of Education's plan to develop and impose a national curriculum and assessments based on national standards. Here are some direct quotes from their public statement:
"We ... oppose the call for a nationalized curriculum. ... We also oppose the ongoing effort by the U.S. Department of Education to have ... national curriculum guidelines, national curriculum models, national instructional materials, and national assessments. ...
... We do not agree that a one-size-fits-all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject makes sense for this country or for any other sizable country. Such an approach threatens to close the door on educational innovation, freezing in place an unacceptable status quo and hindering efforts to develop academically rigorous curricula. ...
Moreover, transferring power to Washington, D.C., will only further subordinate educational decisions to political imperatives. ... Our decentralized fifty-state system provides some limitations on special-interest power, ensuring that other voices can be heard, that wrongheaded reforms don't harm children in every state, and that reforms that effectively serve children's needs can find space to grow and succeed. ...
First, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula. ...
Second, there is no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement. ...
Third, the Common Core definition of "college readiness" is below what is currently required to enter most four-year state colleges. ...
Second, there is no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement. ...
Fourth, there is no body of evidence for a "best" design for curriculum sequences in any subject. ...
Fifth, there is no evidence to justify a single high school curriculum for all students. ..."
|
| |||||||
|
Blog Search
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Schlafly at CPAC 2011
Click on image to view CPAC 2011 videos.
Recent Updates
Flipside of Feminism book reviews and radio interviews
Video Bar
U.S. National Debt
Amazon Store
Archives
1 comments:
First of all, the Common Core State Standards was and is a product of state and private-based interests, not federal interests. True, that the U.S. Department of Education has endorsed and encouraged states to adopt with various carrot and stick approaches, such as the Race to the Top funding. However, states have and will continue to adjust the standards according to their own interests. The standards are completely subject to state legislative control. As of this date 43 of 50 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards.
Secondly, the lack of rigor is an uninformed argument. Only two of the states (Massachusetts and California) had more rigorous or exacting standards. So, in terms of college readiness, the levels of expectation have been notched up considerably.
Thirdly, the lack of research issue is really a straw-man argument. Of course we have no empirical data regarding the impact of national standards on student achievement; simply adopting standards does not and cannot affect student achievement. Implementation of the standards is what drives learning, not the standards themselves. Ms. Schlafly, take a brief look at any set of the Common Core State Standards and you will see what curricular standards actually entail, i.e. a general framework for developing curriculum and a basic scope and sequence of instruction. No political or social agenda. Teachers may quibble over whether serial commas should be introduced prior to introductory commas, but these are in-house matters. Yes, teachers will have real concerns regarding how the Common Core State Standards will be applied, e.g. national high stakes testing, but not with the standards themselves.
Fourthly, your concerns about centralism and constitutional/statutory authority are understandable, given your consistent states-rights conservatism. However, pragmatically there really are advantages to some semblance of a national educational framework. Two examples should suffice: Currently, publishers have to design curriculum according to the whims and special interests (note California's recent legislative inclusion of gay rights mandates) of 50 different states. This, of course, inflates the price per textbook to absurd levels. Additionally, this decentralization actually induces special interest meddling via political, private educationpreneurial, and publisher lobbying. Another advantage to a basic national framework, such as the Common Core State Standards, is from the perspective of the college admission process. Currently, the job of evaluating transcripts for college applicants is difficult at best and discriminatory at worst. An "A" in a Boston college prep high school is not the same as an "A" in some Atlanta schools (cheating scandal aside). Thus, colleges have to lean more on nationally normed tests, such as the SAT and ACT, to compare "apples to apples." So, the lack of nationally accepted standards actually forces colleges to lean more heavily on nationally standardized tests and less on what conservatives favor in terms of local and state control of the curriculum.
Post a Comment