Should the Curriculum Be Standardized All - Assignment Example

Should the Curriculum Be Standardized All? Introduction A standardized curriculum for all means a prescribed curriculum expected to achieve a specific level of quality, or skills. A standard is something used to estimate or measure the degree or quality of something. In education, there are specific qualities that the society wants the children to develop, and there are certain skills that are important for survival in the world. Standardization of the curriculum, therefore, is setting levels of achievement and expectations required of schools. Standardization specifies what the children need to know under specific stages of education, and what they should be capable of doing, irrespective of socio-economic status, and other factors that contribute to inequality. It ensures equality and quality in education. Considering this description and the purpose of standardization to achieve appropriate outcomes, standardization of the curriculum is good. Standardization of the curriculum can happen at different levels, that is, at national, state, district and school levels. There is however standardization of the curriculum to fit all, which is not appropriate considering the current U.S education system. Standardization of the curriculum to fit all in this case refers to the current proposed national standards that are getting renewed as a way to reform the education system. This discussion provides reasons why the K-12 curriculum should not be standardized at the national levels. It explains the importance of standardization of the curriculum which supports standardization at state, district, and school levels, but argues against standardization to fit all. Advantages of Standardization Standardization of the curriculum is good because it is a working framework for the teachers. There are different layers of standardization of the curriculum, for example, there are curriculum standards at the state level which specify the skills and content that the children are supposed to acquire at specific grades. There are standardized curricula at the local levels which are more specific, for example, that students in grade six should be taught about a specific disease’ management because of its prevalence in the district (Kendall, 2011). Standardization is important because it provides an effective way of learning; there are goals which guide the teachers, the students and the students in nurturing the society into what they want it to be. It is also beneficial to different populations; as described above, there are standardizations at different levels. It can, therefore, benefit the state, the districts, the schools, the teachers and the children, and even the parents (Kendall, 2011). Standardization provides a framework for national testing and a common reference tool. In the U.S, State performance is sometimes used to measure its effort in achieving national goals. Standardization provides an easy way of measuring performance at state levels. The same applies at the district levels. Standardization of the curriculum also provides the districts and the schools with new ways of developing curriculum content assessment plans, and instructional content. Curriculum standards also guide teachers on instruction and assessment designs and expectations. They communicate shared expectations for learning for both the parents and the children (Kendall, 2011). Standardization makes learning easy since students can transfer from school-to-school without having to change the contents of what he is required to learn. There is an agreement on broad common principles. Standardization ensures equality in the provision of educational opportunities for all, and is also less expensive. Expenses are reduced especially because of the uniformity in the curriculum that does not want one to change any contents in case he or she transfers. Disadvantages of Standardized Curriculum Standardized curriculum limits learning to the prescribed standards. A standardized curriculum is scripted and dogmatic, therefore, marginalizes teacher’s professional judgement. It also argued that standardization of curriculum shifts professional practice from deep understanding towards content coverage; this way, it does not encourage learning, but covering what is required by various standards (Kendall, 2011). Importance of Standardization of the Curriculum Teachers have different beliefs and ideas on education, and this can influence education. This is why it is important to have a guiding framework for the provision of education. It should be uniform for development purposes. Teacher expectations for students and curriculum content sometimes vary for the same grade levels across states, districts, schools and even within the same school. Although teachers should have the freedom to teach using different methods that they deem fit for achieving their objectives, it is not easy to justify various teacher actions. An example is, a grade one teacher defining reading by letting students read books of all genres throughout the week, while another lets children memorize five words per week. It is not easy to justify which method is appropriate. For the sake of accountability, there should be a standardized curriculum. This will also help in assessing development in schools (Martin & Loomis, 2013). Teaches also have different grading practices. This variability affects a lot of issues within education. With such variability, the educational policy developers will not know what is appropriate for improved education. A standard grading framework should be available to guide progress in schools. This can be used to measure performance, assess the accountability, and assess the students’ performance accurately (Martin & Loomis, 2013). There are different factors affecting development of the curriculum. The society can have a shortage of skills due to the existing curriculum. Politicians, business leaders, and community advocates can then decide to make a change on the curriculum to ensure what they need the children to learn is implemented. This explains why it is important to have a standardized curriculum. The community advocates, the business leaders, the politicians and other community members would have determined what is appropriate for the children, and through professional analysis and advice, include specific requirements for specific grades. It is necessary for the curriculum to be standardized to achieve such goals. The difference in the curricula makes it difficult for universities and high schools to determine which students should be accepted or not. A standardised curriculum gives every student an opportunity to go further with his education irrespective of the school he came from. Children will have less opportunity based on where they live. Currently in the U.S every State is allowed to choose what it includes in the curriculum. If a State omits some of the important subjects necessary for a student to take up a career, such ambition and future is destroyed. Standardization is developed to create high quality graduates; graduates with the right skills to maintain a moral and well developed society all round. Standardization of the curriculum is an important step in improving education and achieving the goals of the curriculum. The Reasons Why The Curriculum Should Not Be Standardized To Fit All Standardization is done at different levels, national, state, district and school levels. The U.S K-12 education system is currently under scrutiny for reforms. There is a proposal for national standards. With proposed national standards, it is expected that there will be fewer, higher, and clearer benchmarks and assessments which will ensure schools are held accountable for the results and parents empowered by what their children should know and gain (Burke & Marshall, 2010). This is a way of saying that the curriculum should be standardized for all. A standardized curriculum fails to recognize the importance of diversity in education. There are several states with different quality standards from the rest. One of the arguments for development of national standards is that the state standards vary in quality. There are some states with high regarded standards such as California, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Virginia. There are uneven quality standards among several states and across subjects. Different states are also affected by different factors influencing quality achievement. There are pervasive political correctness, teachers’ union pressure, content disputes, and pedagogical disputes. These could be valid reasons for developing national standards guiding the curriculum, but the same factors will affects quality achievement among states at the national level. Implementing national standards will also affect already established high quality standards just to achieve a uniform standard of education. By providing national standards, the federal government will be more focused on uniformity other than excellence which is supposed to be its target. The national standards take the ‘one-fits-all’ approach which may decrease emphasis on advance work, and a dump-down curriculum. The standards have to ensure uniform minimum-competency standards; this will only reduce the high quality standards already set by different states. It is also argued that standardization of the curriculum at the national level will provide the parents with information about their children’s performance compared to other countries. According to Burke and Marshall (2010), the education system already has tools that provide parents with such information. Examples are such as; the state criterion-referenced tests which compare the student’s content mastery levels, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which provides a common gauge and audit on the quality of standards and tests of the state. The problem is not lack of information that shows the parents how their children perform compared to other countries, but lack of efficiency in informing the parents about their children’s performances. The system already has tools that provide information about teacher, student and school performance. Every state is currently required to create report cards on the school system; his bears all required information about performance. This requirement is per the provisions on the ‘No Child Left Behind Act.’ Some states, Florida and Massachusetts, already provide more detailed information than others. The problem is not lack of information, that a national standards on the curriculum and assessments would provide, but lack of transparency on school performance. Standardization of the curriculum at national levels will not solve this problem. There should be a change in reporting so that the parents and taxpayers are given the correct information. There is also a misalignment of incentives and power in public education. Parents are given information about their children’s performances; the current proposal also seeks to provide information about performance compared to other countries, but do not provide the parents with the power to take action about it. This should be the focus of reforming K-12 education system, other than standardizing the curriculum (Burke & Marshall, 2010). According to Carlsson-Paige and Levin (2010), the proposed standards separate emotional, social and physical growth from academic learning by focusing exclusively on teaching isolated reading and math skills from kindergarten level. This shows that the standardized curriculum will provide rote skills which do not provide meaningful learning. Evidence from research, theory and experience show that meaningful learning comes from hands-on experience with peers, materials, and teachers, and meaningful ways that relate to what the children’s development levels, what they already know, and their interests (Carlsson-Paige & Levin, 2010). Standardization of the curriculum to fit all may not achieve what it was intended for especially among the poorest young learners. Another reason for the development of national curriculum standards that fits all is that it will eliminate the inequality in education among young children. This approach cannot eliminate the inequalities created by socio-economic status of the children attending various schools. There are children in wealthy school districts that receive more funds compared to poor community schools (Carlsson-Paige & Levin, 2010). Standardizing the curriculum to fit all is not a way of helping students achieve meaningful outcomes. It imposes one correct way for students to achieve outcomes, thus kills innovation and creativity. Students face with alternative approaches may fail due to the state of helplessness that ‘one fits-all’ approach creates. A standardized national curriculum only focuses on covering the curriculum. Any curriculum is affected by changes in the society. The current society, for example, is characterised by tremendous changes technology, business operations and social characteristics. This only indicates that the curriculum is a poor area for standardization (Butcher, McGroarty & Finne, 2012). Conclusion Standardization of the curriculum is not a bad idea, but development of a curriculum to fit all is not appropriate. One fits all does not consider diversity among states, schools, and districts. A district may have a mining industry, and may need skills from its citizens forcing the community and other stakeholders to consider mining related skills when developing the curriculum. The ‘one-fits-all standards as proposed by the federal government. The national standards should not be encouraged because of the differences in States, the differences in cultures, and the differences in quality standards. References Burke, L. and Marshall, J. A. (2010). Why National Standards Won’t Fix American Education: Misalignment of Power and Incentives. Retrieved from: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/why-national-standards-won-t-fix-american-education-misalignment-of-power-and-incentives Butcher, J., McGroarty, E. and Finne, L. (2012). Why the Common Core is Bad for America. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/notes/why-common-core-bad-america Carlsson-Paige, N. and Levin, D. E. (18 April 2010). One Size Doesn’t Fit All. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from: http://www.nancycarlssonpaige.org/OneSizeDoesntFitAll.pdf Kendall, J. S. (2011). Understanding Common Core State Standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Martin, D. and Loomis, K. (2013). Building Teachers: A Constructivist Approach to Introducing Education. (2nd Ed.). Massachusetts: Cengage Learning. Read More