Problems in the national curriculum for Pre-K-16 in the USA - Research Paper Example

Problems in the national curriculum for Pre-K-16 in the USA Introduction Over the period of time, education has remained a local as well as State issue in America however during recent times there has been a constant involvement of Federal Government in the issues related with education. Federal government has not only increased the funding for the State and local level education but is also increasing its oversight role into the overall affairs of education. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has actually resulted into widespread changes and has actually allowed taking advantage of the opportunity offered by high quality Pre-K education in the country. Due to the reauthorization of the act, there has been a widespread improvement not only in the overall level of enrollments but also in the way quality education is delivered across the schools in US. Research has increasingly suggested that quality education at the Pre-Kindergarten level can actually allow young children to have better future and prospects. The reauthorization of the law therefore has actually attempted to improve the education performance of children. It is however, critical to note that with the reauthorization, there have been some issues too such as national Pre-K 16 curriculum and other related issues regarding federal funding and intervention from Federal Government. This paper will discuss issues and pitfalls in national curriculum for Pre-K-16, legal role of federal government, federal funding and whether it should be tied with the achievement of objectives as well as the role of state departments in aligning the standards at district as well as at state level. National Pre-K 16 Curriculum One of the key reasons as to why a national Pre-K 16 curriculum would actually improve the quality of education as there is overall continuum of education between K-12 and other post-secondary education system being followed at colleges as well as universities. It has also been argued that lot of students actually entering into the country’s college and university system are significantly unprepared for reading, writing as well as mathematics. These deficiencies can create significant disadvantage for the students because of the gap between the high school competencies and readiness for college. There is therefore a critical misalignment between K-12 and post-secondary standards and it can create significant disadvantage for the youth. (Clements, 2007) One of the common pitfalls of having a national Pre-K-16 curriculum is the lack of information regarding the overall expectations of various stakeholders involved. The misalignment between the goals and expectations of teachers and institutions at both the post-secondary education institutions actually can make the case for development of national curriculum stronger. There is also a lack of shared knowledge as well as standards which can ensure uniform assessment of the students at various levels. (Cirillo, Drake, Herbel-Eisenmann , & Hirsch, 2009) The implementation of the national pre-k 16 curriculum can therefore actually allow the development of a cohesive body of assessment where less and less students will be required to enroll into remedial courses when they enter into post-secondary education. It has also been argued that the alignment between the High School exit and the college entrance criteria can actually improve the overall outcome for the students when they make transition from secondary to post-secondary and university careers. A national curriculum for Pre-K 16 would actually allow the institutions to actually track the educational trajectory of the students and better assess their strengths and weaknesses to ascertain better future options for the students. (Weast, 2004) It is however; also important to note that alignment between various stakeholders to actually implement Pre-K 16 standards and the new needs emerging may require funding. Constant support from the States and Federal government is considered as most important element. In the absence of any continuous support, the national curriculum may not be able to provide same level of results. Some universities have specifically focused on certain disciplines and focused on encouraging students to improve their skills in certain areas. A national curriculum therefore may not serve the cause of those institutions which are specifically focused upon finding students having particular skills in a particular subject. (Carney, 2005) The overall impact of national pre-K 16 curriculum on my institution may manifest into the form of misalignment between the overall goals. To fully implement and take benefit from this, it is important that my institution should also be taken into consideration in terms of the overall preparedness and resources available. Without actually having access to the resources, it may be relatively difficult for my institution to actually properly implement the same. Apart from this, there may also be challenges in terms of developing new set of skills in order to fully cope with new challenges of facing students taught under uniform standards. Role of the federal government in designing academic learning standards Historically, Education has remained a state level issue with individual states designing their own curriculums and funding the schools. These trends however, started to change when strong movement for implementing national standards in order to reduce the variations between the education standards (Swanson & Stevenson, 2002) The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) through No Child Left Behind has pushed forward a movement which is based upon creating standard based education in United States. This act has actually enhanced the role of federal government in setting the overall direction for the quality of education in the country. Legally, States are required to achieve certain level of standards before they can apply for Federal funding under this act. The overall necessity to actually implement national standards was based upon the fact that State standards varied and were of different qualities therefore presenting different results. The Race to the Top program necessitated the mandatory adaptation of these standards in order to actually allow States to seek funding. Federal Government therefore has directly designed the National Education Standards and implemented the same through its power to fund States under Race to the Top. Over the period of time, as the role of federal government increased in the setting up of standards, it was largely argued that Federal Government has done so without actually initiating much debate. Federal Government also rushed and pushed States to actually adapt to the standards in quick time thus forcing on States the adapting of the standards which might not have represented the particular conditions faced by any State. (Porter, 1994) The overall concept of implementing standards across the whole country was to actually bring in students at a particular level of standards. This was implemented in order to ensure that students read the same standards regardless of where they are residing. Federal government therefore attempted to create uniform standards for all schools to improve the quality of education at State and district wide level. By linking Federal Budget with the achievement of certain standards, Federal government actually attempted to influence the way States can design standards and implement them in order to achieve the funding. (Fuller, Wright, Gesicki , & Kang, 2007) It is however, critical to understand that this Act does not provide powers to Federal Government to directly intervene into the setting of standards within the country. Through its various schemes and funding, Federal government is directly intervening into making States adapt certain education standards. For example, Race to the Top program requires adapting of education standards by the States in order to achieve the funding from Federal government. It is important to understand that Federal government has no direct control over the setting of the standards however; Federal funding is tied to the compliance with the certain standards. Department of Education clearly outlines the compliance with certain standards. By linking funding with the compliance of certain standards therefore clearly provide federal government a direct role to influence the setting up of the standards and their compliance. Federal Funding and Education Standards “Federal control over K-12 education has risen dramatically in recent decades. Congress has increased funding for the schools while imposing layers of rules and regulations on local school districts.” (Downsizinggovernment.org) NCLB brought about responsibility and accountability of the schools in districts and at State level to actually improve the performance of the students. By linking the federal funding with the specific level of results to be expected, NLCB actually attempted to broaden the scope of the schools in imparting the required set of skills and knowledge required across the board. (Stansfield, 2011) Existing legal frameworks under which funding is provided clearly outline the linking of achievements of particular standards with the level of grant to any particular State or school. NLCB particularly requires achievement of annual yearly progress for each school and any school actually missing the targets for two consecutive years are labeled publically as Need Improvement. NLCB therefore is quite strict on the overall criteria of funding made available to the schools under very well defined criteria. Apart from this, school missing AYP for three straight years are required to provide free tutoring and other resources to the children in order to improve their overall education quality and standards. These criteria indicate that Federal funding is critically linked with certain important criteria which are required to be meeting before funding can be awarded to the schools. Further requirements include complete restructuring of the school in order to bring in more fundamental changes. (Caillier, 2007) It is however, important to understand that the overall criteria of linking the funding with specific achievements may not be a sustainable practice. Factors such as lack of skilled teachers in a particular location, higher poverty rates and other socio-economic factors may distort the overall perception about particular schools and localities. Though the funding is also related with the poverty rates and other social criteria however, its linking with specific achievement of certain education standards may be difficult to achieve. (Becker, 2011) It is also important to understand that due to these criteria, States may not be able to implement their own standards and overall expectations from their own schools. For a school which is situated in Slick Will Texas, it may not be entirely possible for the school to improve the standards due to different socio-economic status of the pupils. With a school having 60% Hispanic population, it may be relatively difficult to achieve the same level of standards to receive the funding. This may therefore hurt the overall purpose of motivating states to implement the new changes and make transition towards the overall improvement in the education standards. Federal government need to relax some of the criteria to tie federal funding with certain education objectives. Before deciding on funding, it is important that certain level of infrastructural changes and improvements may need to be done. Schools must be given opportunity to first evaluate their strengths and improve them before they come under the eligibility criteria for the federal funding. Some States have better education standards whereas some States are not therefore before linking the two criteria, it is important that level playing field must be provided to all schools and States. This would relatively motivate all stakeholders involved in the delivery of quality education at different levels within the country. (Vasil Jaiani & Whitford,, 2011) Role of state departments of education to align national standards with state and district bench marks? The overall movement towards standard based reforms in the education sector has long been one of the most debated topics. There have also been issues outlining the overall alignment of standards across the State as well as district levels is considered as necessary in order to actually allow students belonging to all races and socio-economic backgrounds to receive the same level of education in the country. Between the State and the formative assessment are the benchmark assessments which schools are required to administer throughout the year and at specified time during a curriculum sequence followed by the Schools. As the movement towards content based and uniform standards started to assume pace, most of the States actually involved different stakeholders including educators, public as well in order to increase the overall participation in the whole process of making this transition towards the new change. Over the period of time, States have been able to make a transition towards the alignment of national standards however one of the key challenges was to disseminate the same to the district level schools and teachers level. (McLaughlin & Shepard,1995) Some of the States have even allowed the districts to actually develop their own standards if there is generally a lack of State level standards. This flexibility provided to the districts suggests that the States are ready to allow districts to develop their own standards in certain cases. This however, may not serve the purpose as district may lack the required resources as well as technical expertise to develop their own standards which may be relevant and particular to that state. Each state has also included what is called Core content standards which have actually been mandatory for the districts to follow. Since most of the emphasis now is on the content based standards, States have been actually focused upon helping districts to actually bench-mark against the core standards developed at the national as well as State level. States have also implemented State level accountability plans in order to actually allow districts and teachers to become more responsive towards the alignment of standards and benchmark tests. States than have also developed specific standards which are related with the typical subjects with the expectations that the districts and schools will actually follow them and consider them as the basis for discussion for developing their own standards. (Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, Is There a de Facto National Intended Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards, 2009) Some States in order to properly disseminate the information and update the teachers have conducted different workshops and other events to continue to update the skills of the teachers to make an effective transition. States therefore are performing the role of facilitator also in order to upgrade the skills and ability of teachers to actually align with the State and national level standards. (Reynolds & Temple, J., 2005) Overall, the role of States has been limited to the facilitation of the schools and districts as well as increasing the capacity and leadership qualities of teachers to align the standards. Conclusion There has been a constant movement within US to improve the education standards and align different State level standards into one cohesive set of national standards. The reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act has actually allowed much larger role of Federal government into the overall affairs of setting up standards as well as funding. This act has allowed Federal Government a direct role in linking federal funding to the compliance with education standards. Some however, argue that the overall involvement of Federal government in providing funding is relatively on the higher level. Federal government has actually made it mandatory to obtain funding when States and schools actually comply with the standards which are either developed by Federal government or endorsed by it. As such Federal Government has actually broadened its role in education which previously remained a State level affair. (Murphy & Underwood, T., 2000) The role of States however is still active and most of them are actively ensuring that the schools and districts implement the State level standards. Though flexibility has been allowed to districts however, States still play an important role. Bibliography Becker, S. (2011). Ask, don't tell: can it work for K-12. On the Horizon, 19(3), 226-231. Caillier, J. G. (2007). The "No Child Left Behind Act": Are States on Target to Make Their Goals? Journal of Negro Education, 76(4), 582-596. Carney, P. (2005). Identifying and Supporting College-Ready Writing Skills Among High School Students. Fergus Falls.: Minnesota State Community and Technical College. Cirillo, M., Drake, C., Herbel-Eisenmann , B., & Hirsch, C. (2009). Curriculum Vision and Coherence: Adapting Curriculum to Focus on Authentic Mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 103(1), 70-75. Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum Research: Toward a Framework for "Research-Based Curricula. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35-70. Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki , K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278. McCluskey, N. (May 2009). K-12 Education Subsidies. Retrieved from http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/k-12-education-subsidies McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard,, L. (1995). Improving Education through Standards-Based Reform. A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education. Murphy, S., & Underwood, T. (2000). Portfolio Practices: Lessons from Schools, Districts, and States. Christopher Gordon: Norwood, MA. Porter, A. C. (1994). National Standards and School Improvement in the 1990s: Issues and Promise. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 421-449. Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M., & Smithson, J. (2009). Is There a de Facto National Intended Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238-258. Reynolds, A., & Temple, J. (2005). Priorities for a new century of early childhood programs. Infants and Young Children, 18(2), 104-118. Stansfield, W. D. (2011). Educational Curriculum Standards & Standardized Educational Tests: Comparing Apples & Oranges? The American Biology Teacher, 73(3), 389-393. Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. (2002). Standards-Based Reform in Practice: Evidence on State Policy and Classroom Instruction from the NAEP State Assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27. Vasil Jaiani, & Whitford,, A. (2011). Policy windows, public opinion, and policy ideas: the evolution of No Child Left Behind". Quality Assurance in Education,, 19(1), 8-27. Weast, J. D. (2004). Early Success - Closing the gap for our younger learners. Rockville. Read More