Keywords or Terms: Gov. Jeb Bush; Gov. Bobby
Jindal; Common Core State Standards (CCSS); US Department of Education; K-12 Education; OBAMA’s
Administration; Education as a Civil Right; Foundation for Education
Excellence; Heritage Foundation; Home
School Legal Defense Association; The Pioneer Institute; CATO Institute; The
Eagle Forum; Reclaiming America for Christ; Neutralism; Pacifism; Religiosity;
Indifference; and Profiteering
The best definition of a term is one that is simple,
clear, and unambiguous. But it is hard to have a conversation with politicians
when it comes to series of conflicting status on national education policy. It
is even harder to get their personal opinion on the subject of standards and measurable
indicators of learning; and or, the place of K-12 curriculum in preparing our
children for life after high school. Whether you want a common core states curriculum
or an alternative that is as whimsical as a magicians scarf because it
recognizes or grants local autonomy at the expenses of quality and efficiency,
it is good to know where you stand as a Presidential aspirant.
For those of us, who have no iron to grind; or,
always given to the truth, we will define Common Core State Standard (CCSS) as
a set of standards that a curriculum is built on; or built around, which are
measurable and objective enough for progressive education reform. It abdicates unbridled
regional or local autonomy because of associated inefficiency for delivery of
education services. The current fragmented curriculum(s) across the nation
continues to fail our high school graduates because there is no one uniform set
of standards for measuring the quality of instruction and learning going on in
our K-12 classrooms.
Now the politics of 2016
Presidential campaign: Imagine, for a while, Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal, both
2016 Presidential aspirants, were for the Common Core State Standards;
suddenly, Bobby Jindal is no longer sure; or is not for it. Jeb Bush remains constant in his support for
Common Core State Standards and once established a foundation, Foundation for
Education Excellence, to peddle the brilliance or advantage of Common Core
State Standards (CCSS). A little while ago, the Foundation actively broadcasted
fliers and emails to several state legislators, titled: “Debunking Common Core
State Standards Myths,” to advance the objective of national education reform.
Whether this actually achieved anything is yet to be determined; however, the
raging debate of the flip-flop from Governor of Louisiana, is making this
subject palatable for attention all over again. For appetizers, it is good to
know that the following far right conservative organizations are vehemently
against the common core state standards: The Heritage Foundation, Home School Legal
Defense Association, The Pioneer Institute, CATO Institute, The Eagle Forum, and
Reclaiming America for Christ.
We also know from experience
that the far right conservative groups have problems with setting and
maintaining clear standard or a recipe of standards that make everyone
accountable for their actions in the education of our children. A National
consensus and acceptance of core standards or curriculum by various groups
often depends on a number of factors many of which raise the question, how much
learning is going on in America’s K-12 classrooms. Basic national standards
that make students, teachers, and administrators accountable will seem logical,
especially considering the number of our high school graduates who can hardly
read or write in an information age.
Neutralism, pacifism, religiosity,
indifference, profiteering and recalcitrance can occur simultaneously in
several of our states’ educational systems. The finger-pointing syndrome and
the usual blaming others for our local or regional education’s system failures
can easily become a national sport. Judging from Obama Administration’s
experience, unless there is firmness at the federal level, some States’ and
Counties Department of Education will like to retain the old status-quo, which
makes splintered curriculum the norm. The problems of sprawled and unequal
curriculum contents that drive teaching and learning in all our classrooms have
made measurement of learning indicators difficult; thus, the recommendation of
a Common Core State Standards (CCSS); call it, the minimum learning experience
at the K-12 level to be literate in an information age. If the incoming
administration is not as firm, if not even firmer than the Obama’s
Administration, we will probably go back to the rot that we are attempting to
leave behind. This is why in 2016 Presidential Elections the nation cannot
afford to default to a 'flip-flopper' on our education reforms
.
In our past experience, prior
to advent of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), what is good for parents,
teachers and students, were often thrown aboard for reason of regional autonomy,
divided loyalty of key players, and probably profit in the private K-12 education
services. The totality of this experience is graduating students who are hardly
prepared for college or life after twelfth year education. Both Republican and
Democratic White Houses have sought to reform the education system, with the
Common Core State Standards of President Obama and the No child Left Behind
initiative of President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, both initiatives have
met resistance from those who love to claim local autonomy in education over
universal (non-fragmented) measurable standards of learning and teaching in the
classrooms. Notwithstanding, criticisms
abound. An example of criticisms of the initiative is found in the words of a
South-Central State Christian Conservative, Jenni White, on the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS):
The CCSS have never been state-led. The initiative was
designed from the outset to be a set of national standards that would not be directly
labeled as such to avoid violating federal law. Individual private groups
(the NGA and the CCSSO) facilitated the writing of the standards, and the Obama
Administration pushed them to cash-strapped states by offering buckets of
stimulus funds (RTT). The NGA and CCSSO developed alliances with gigantic
book publishers (Pearson), suppliers of CCSS materials (Achieve) to cover the
needs of states for CCSS materials and the Gates Foundation to provide software
and bribe money to
organizations (ALEC) to
help facilitate their use and moved one of the architects of the standards into
position to become president of the
college board where
he could align the most widely-used college admissions test (ACT) to the CCSS.
To Ms. White and other far
right Christian Conservatives, since the Common Core State Standard was not
state led, there is no need to give it a chance to succeed. We can learn from
experience: the localization of initiatives sometimes bring forth ambiguities
because of the multiple opinions and perspectives of different inputs. Further,
we also know that successful partnership of private and public initiatives on
education does not necessarily lead to success regarding such initiatives; a
case in point is the Charter School Experience in some of our states. It is
true that sensitivity to democratic opinion-forming process on an initiative in
a Republic like ours, is worthy of consideration; however, this hardly says
having a set of objective parameters from where all curriculum are drawn, is out of place in a
democracy; or, would necessarily side track local or regional autonomy. There
are those who will like us to believe that the Common Core State Standards is a
take all or none process for many local or State school Boards; however, recent
changes or waivers, NCLB Waivers by Obama’s Administration, shows the
flexibility in the policy, associated programs and funding.
The present implementation process
of the Common Core State Standards seems to be promising, provided two
conditions continue to be met: the first is basic agreement as regards what
constitutes learning, understanding and proficiency at a specific grade level. The
acceptance of waivers for waiver’s sake hardly shows a common concern for
equality of learning and only gives room for inferiority in knowledge
dispensation in the classrooms. The fact that some states and school districts
have shown an unwillingness to cooperate with US Department of Education and
asked for suspected waivers is very troubling. The second is that US Department
of Education must give a convincing signal of its determination not to
accommodate shifting demands of excessive waivers from the Common Core State
Standards’ non-conformists.
We have no doubts that the
Common Core State Standards is working and would work, if we can only set aside
our political and religious agenda and think about our children. We also see no
reason to abandon the Common Cores State Standards (CCCS) as probably, the
preference of some Christian Conservatives; and, the new choice of Presidential
aspirant Bobby Jindal, in a bid to play to
the wishes of Conservative Christian groups in the Republican Party. We
recognize that there are no simple solutions to reforming the education system;
however, our Strategies must remain apolitical and our efforts must be geared
towards accountability and sanctity of the implementation process.
The most important factors contributing to inequality in learning and teaching experience at K-12 level has often been the funding of schools; schools in affluent neighborhoods are better able to fund and implement rigorous curriculum, while those in poorer neighborhoods suffer the consequence of poor or non-existing funding. Our basic throes to eradicate this inequality by having a common core standard are hardly designed to encroach on people’s freedom or local autonomy on education; rather, it is to afford for equality of standards that are measurable for both the learner and the teacher. Our supports for a Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are non-Negotiable. Our teachers and students can depend on it, so also can the parents, communities and our democracy. In addition, neither the current Administration nor the past Republicans have left any doubt about the need for education reforms; neither also, should an incoming administration. Politicians who are bending to pressure groups to satisfy their ambition must be held accountable.
In the
final analysis, a better end product, a well informed and literate society,
where everyone is able to exercise their civic duties with freedom and liberty,
is what is desired. Even if US Department of Education accepts waivers for say
a grading system, it still behooves the bureaucrats to insist on uniformity in
measurable learning indicators in curriculum. It is unlikely that complete
local autonomy on K-12 curriculum will bring substantial change in the quality
of learning and teachings in American Classrooms. The concept of localized
curriculum and home schooling – where local authorities, cities, persons, boroughs
and counties have substantial control over their educational affairs – is firmly
rooted in American political institutions. Nonetheless, the time has come for a
change with the growing inequality in education received by all American
Children.
No comments:
Post a Comment