Should Schools Adopt a Common Core Curriculum - Literature review Example

Should Schools Adopt a Common Core Curriculum? Introduction Adoption of common school curriculum has attracted a lot of debate from different social platforms that includes all the stakeholders in the education system. Their views have to be critically analyzed based on their interests and for the general good of the education system in the country. During the process of developing curriculum materials for schools, decisions are made after all consultations have been made and carefully analyzed in order to accommodate their interest to a certain desired level. However, it cannot be ruled out that there will be varied opinions regarding their ideology. These opinions will be reflected from all organs and stake holding units of the system. These begin from the central governments, the state levels, school boards down to the classroom level. Hirsch (2010 -2011) in his article pointed that society at large is being naïve on how the learning process should be guided, that is against the idea of the general approach and prefers the previous model of focusing more on the basic principles. The author views that the approach is not modern and that this has led to poor reading habits, leading to most people prefer other sources of information such as televisions. Furthermore, these preferred sources are not comprehensive enough to guarantee best quality knowledge. Little attempt is made to expand children’s background knowledge. Being one of the stakeholders, their views look into broadening the knowledge base to enhance better background basic skills from one level of learning to another. The global nature and culture should form the basic platform for knowledge. The curriculum must address globalization, word’s cultures to increase knowledge base (Hirsch 2010 -2011). Loveless (2012) emphasizes that if schools can adopt a common syllabus and setting up performance rules, teachers must be left to draft their teaching methodologies and lessons based on the needs of each learner. There would be more effectiveness in the sense that the quality of learning, performance and competition among learners and institutions will not be compromised. These views are based on facts because each learner has to be evaluated at classroom level. Teachers have a duty to come up with the best forms and methods of ensuring that each of their learner’s abilities is exploited. Weak students would, therefore, be given more attention and guidance in order to help them raise the performance of the class and the schools as well. In examining whether schools should implement a common core syllabus the following section will look at some of the recommendations made to and by some stakeholders after research in different areas of improving the education system in the country. Part II: Common Core Curriculum in Schools Implementing common core syllabus in schools stakeholders always make decisions on how the education system must address issues that affect directly the learning process. In adopting common core syllabus, those involved include the government, educationists publishing firms, sponsors, school boards, examining boards and others. These units will come up with proposed policies that are well discussed, researched and agreed upon with recommendations for implementation. According to Troutner (2012), there should be increased investment and funding into information technology in schools. All learners must be able to access components of information technology anywhere within the learning environments. Internet services should be made easily available for the learners to access conveniently. Learners with poor comprehension skills to be given iPads uploaded with application to make reading easier and enjoyable (Troutner, 2012). Incorporation of e-learning methods and tools such as videos, portable digital files and video conferencing among others are ideal (Troutner 2012). The above recommendation is acceptable to a certain level, but if implemented fully will tend to make learners over dependent on technology and make some learners lazy. However, for those who responsibly exploit their opportunity, it would greatly enhance their knowledge base as they would be able to relate to a wide span of academic resources across the world. Brigman & Mastopieri (2013) pointed out that, there should be increased focus on English and science arts syllabuses as these are the core areas of the learning process. These are subjects that create a link to other technical ones and, therefore, more focus is needed to enhance better understanding of the others. This view is important in the sense that the conceptual skills will be enhanced in terms of reading and writing would result into more innovations either in science or arts, and more new emerging technologies would enhance economic empowerment of the country. Discussions and policy implementation regarding curriculum development have been liberalized and that the government is not directly involved in policy formulation and implementation. The guidelines regarding changes in math and English were released in 2010 (Brigman & Mastopieri, 2013). These are the core subjects of the general knowledge base as they greatly contribute to a learner’s ability to read and comprehend information (Brigman & Mastopieri, 2013). The current trends and innovations are readily available for review, and implementation. Other recommendations were that any curriculum implementation must be able address career and market trends. Modern businesses world requires that the graduate easily adapt to their normal practice easily without additional training. This is a cost cutting measure that allows them to compete fairly in the global market. Curriculum must be tailored to compete with those of top performing economies in the world. The above view partly addresses the question as to whether the schools should adopt the common core syllabus. It does not directly advocate for the same, but rather is more concerned with the content of the curriculum and which subject areas must be emphasized and reviewed frequently. It compares the curriculum to that of the top performing economies without taking consideration of the values, cultures and beliefs of the people in those countries. For instance, the China’s culture, civilization and traditions are very ancient, therefore knowing all about their schools’ syllabus and curriculum is not enough. There is a small section of their civilizations and it must to some extent be misleading. However, the article is moderately researched and the content data real. According to Liebtag (2013), there have been enormous changes in the education content since 1983 when the government released the national risk report. There was actually a wakeup call to those who were overseeing the education system at that time. There was a wholesome review and implementations of the curriculum for all the areas of study and they incorporated all the learners’ needs wholesomely to ensure none was left behind. Their article supports the question as to whether schools should adopt a common core curriculum. The author advocates for a common core curriculum while stating that all learners were allowed to move forward wholesomely and their state, business system and the economy as well. However, as much as allowing the learners moved forward as a whole was advocated for, individual differences and potentials were not looked into fully. Powel &Gardner 2013 advocated for setting up a learner’s benchmarks on what is important now and in future. Their views focus on a learners’ strength and skills that they will need once they finish school. These institutions train learners on professional career areas and in their regard, early diagnosis of their skills and potentials is very important in order give students, best ways of analysis and will enable them handle challenges in their professional undertaking. They would, therefore, not need any additional training in their careers. Smooth growth of their careers and professional growth will also be ensured. In addition, there will also be smooth transition from one level of education to another since the skills are linked from the most basic to the most complex. The author, therefore, emphasizes the need to focus more on personal development plan as this will yield excellent graduates who would in turn produce excellent professionals for a greater and more prosperous business world. On the question as whether schools should adopt a common core curriculum, it suggests that if the desired goals for the future of the country have to be achieved, learner’s personal skills and needs coupled with their differences must be addressed. Vecellio (2013) advocates for a different approach- the learning process. Schools should adopt a common core curriculum, but the later should address the nature of each subject taught and the intentions of having that subject in the syllabus. Some of the subjects taught in schools are actually irrelevant. Curriculum developers have to come up with a policy of reviewing their intentions into the syllabus to influence the learner’s future education or careers positively. The qualifications of teachers have to be examined and upgraded from time to time to enhance teacher’s development skills. With new emerging trends in teaching methodology and pedagogy, whereby advancement in technology has brought competitiveness, new innovative ways of making learning and teaching effective are available. Therefore teachers must be ready to prepare themselves adequately in order to use these new tools for effectiveness of the learning process. Common core curriculum developers must come up with more complex assessment methods that would induce debate in learners in order to help them solve more difficult tasks. More diversified learning materials must be made available to increase the span of teaching. In addition, teachers should avoid daily repetitive tasks and engage in more creative methods of teaching. Before the curriculum is implemented, school content developers and publishing units must come up with more diversified materials for schools to adopt and initiate the process of change. Kornhaber, Griffith & Tyler (2013) discuss the availability of resources and opportunities for all learners in the education system. Challenges in terms of finding out how educational opportunities have been spread across the citizens in their country with diversity as the key consideration have been experienced. Several forums have encountered the issue and as a consequence, the question of common core curriculum has been overtaken by the debate. Most people argue that all learners must be able to access educational opportunities and resources anywhere in the country based on their competence, regardless of their backgrounds, race, religion and culture. In addition, there should be some forms of reward system whereby students who excel in all areas of learning, regardless of their relevance are rewarded in order to motivate them work even more harder in order to raise the levels of performance in schools and for the nation good. Learners who excel in areas such as sports, academics, music, science, art and design and others should be rewarded well to create a competitive system within the common core education system. There has also been an argument based on theatrical injustices, whereby some races have been denied learning opportunities in some institutions. This is very discouraging as some potential are lost. The common core curriculum in schools can only be effectively implemented if school governing bodies and all stakeholders are not selective when it comes to enrollments and it should purely be based on merit. Cases of racial prejudices and profiling have magnified the notion to the extent that even in the new modern world, globalization is growing fast, most of those who call themselves natives still apply these vices during enrollments in schools. Common core curriculum would really advance to much more global levels if education system is allowed to accommodate all races, religions, cultures, values and belief systems. The debate on when and how to integrate the policy in America’s politics has been there for a long time. The indispensable concern has been the management of resources in schools. It is seen that some school managers are involved in misappropriation of funds, and this slows down the development of these specific schools (Hess & Mcshane2014). There has to be reforms in schools before the implementation of the common core curriculum, whereby school managers are supposed to be trained on proper and effective use of time and money. The government released funds to policy geared at implementation of common core curriculum in 2009 through the economic stimulus package. These funds were meant to spearhead the training and facilitation of policies that are geared towards common core implementation in schools. Neuman & Roskos (2013) pointed out that a number of schools in different regions have agreed to implement common core curriculum in their schools. However, there has not been enough awareness to educate parents on what the policy entails. The lack of information will create chaos in the system since in the process of transferring a student from one school to another, they would end up in one that has not enlisted for common core or vice versa. In addition, this would in turn lead to lots of inconveniences to the learner and the parent as well. Part III: Ways of Implementing Common Core Curriculum in Schools Kornhaber, Griffith & Tyler (2013) discuss the availability of resources and opportunities for all learners in the education system. Determining how educational opportunities have been spread across the citizens in the country with diversity is a key consideration. Their very notion alone brings to fore one major reason why some would argue that common core curriculum in schools is not a good policy after all. Discrimination based on race, gender and religion has been the center of all major controversies in the state. There is a need to focus attention more on race and language. Some learners from certain races are not competent in English language and, therefore, by implementing common core curriculum, they will be greatly disadvantaged. Their performance will not be as good as those perceived to be native English speakers. Secondly, there have been cases of terrorism across the world. Therefore, by implementing common core curriculum, some illegal immigrants from nations perceived to be condoning terrorism will find their way into schools, thereby engaging in acts of terrorist activities and endangering lives of millions of learners. In addition, racial profiling in certain schools is still rampant. It would be for good of learners from specific races that are being targeted to be taken through a different curriculum to prepare themselves to undergo the normal curricula in approved schools in the country. The issue has to be addressed by all stakeholders before common core curriculum is implemented. Conclusion The idea of implementing common core curriculum in schools is a noble idea. However, it has to have the best interest of all stakeholders. Learners must have a level platform where they will be allowed to compete fairly in all areas of education system including business opportunities. Same teaching and learning materials for teacher must be availed. Favorable opportunities for parents to enroll their children should be assured. References: Gardner, N., &Powel, R. (2013). The common core is a change for the better. Kappan, 95(4), 49-53. Hass, F., & Mcshane, M. (2013). Common core in real world. Kappan, 95(3) 61-66. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2010-2011). Beyond Comprehension. American Educator. 31-36. Kohnhaber, M., Griffith, K., &Tyler, A. (2014). It is not education by zip code anymore-but what is it? Conceptions of equity under common core. Education policy analysis archives, 22(4), 3-26. Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with common core standards implementation: Possibilities of potential problems. Journal of curriculum and instruction, 7(2), 61-66. Loveless, T. (2012/2013). The Common Core Initiative: What Are the Chances of Success?” Educational Leadership, 70 (4), 60-63. Mastopieri, M., Brigham, F., & Scruggs, T. (2013). Common Core Science Standards: Implications for Students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities research & practice, 28(1), 49-57. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2013). Common core Matters. The reading teachers, 67(1), 9-11. Troutner, J. (2000). Common Core, Content Creation and Curriculum. TeactTeacherarian, 40 (2), 48-50. Vecellio, S. (2013). How shall I tech thee? An uncommon pedagogy for common core. School fall, 222-241. Read More