Analysis of Common Core State Standards - Essay Example

Analysis of Common Core Standards Practically, policies feature as the most influential guidelines of task performance in social, economic and political contexts. Economically, regulatory bodies are usually engaged in formulation of policies meant to enhance convenience and promote effectiveness of a nation’s economic framework. On the other hand, political institutions are involved in continuous synthesis of policies meant to streamline the political environment. Similarly, social organizations strive towards enhancing a nation’s social landscape by formulating propositional policies meant to increase effectiveness in social settings. Therefore, formulation and subsequent application of policies is a characteristic aspect of democratic environments (Fischer and Miller, 77). Policy formulation and application processes tend to be dynamic in nature rather than being static. There is always a constant need to revise and introduce new policies as a means of responding to changes in operating environments. The continuous need for policy change ushers in the corresponding need for policy analysis exercises. After conception of each policy framework, there is an inherently remote yet distinct possibility that the framework will not address perceived challenges in a holistic manner. As a response to shortcomings of a given policy framework, policy makers embark on another journey of developing advanced policy provisions. Each time a policy system is created; underlying problems coupled with desired objectives serves as the directional tools of the entire process (Fischer and Miller, 83). This element of directionality explains why policy analysis exercises are carried out in a procedural manner. One step always comes before or after another rationally adjacent step. For illustrational purposes, all the procedural steps of policy analysis will be employed in examination of Common Core State Standards, an example of policy initiative used by the American education system. Step 1: Objective Problem Identification This is the first step in policy analysis process. Also, problem identification feature as one of the most important step in deriving the directional aspect of policy formulation. Shallow and subjective identification of an underlying problem will lead to a correspondingly subjective conclusion. However, deep comprehension of a problem in hand ensures that subsequent steps in a policy process facilitate development of efficient solutions. With respect to the Common Core State Standards initiative, the underlying problem was low performance capabilities by high school graduates. Apparently, colleges and employers of high school leavers had increased performance demands of high school graduates (Leslie and Kober, 28). However, elementary and high school education system lacked a comprehensive mechanism meant to ensure attainment of performance standards demanded by colleges and employers. Therefore, students completing high schools continually fall short of the market expectations in terms of academic knowledge and skills. In this context, absence of a mechanism meant to facilitate congruence of knowledge and skills of high school graduates with demands of colleges and employers is the problem directing the policy initiative (Kendall, 127). Step 2: Establishment of Criteria and Alternatives’ Construction After objective identification of a problem, policy process proceeds to develop a measurement scale and create an exhaustive list of alternatives. Establishing a measurement criterion involves acknowledging concepts of costs, desired benefits, socio-political feasibility and administrative efficacy among others. Creating alternatives involves brainstorming any form of viable option to solve the problem. Alternatives are derived from informed research recommendations, experiments and past experiences. Common Core State Standards initiative used global knowledge standards, global economic expectations and relevant government policies as criteria for developing the standards (Kendall, 165). On the other hand, alternative options for the aforementioned problem included strengthening of instructional methods; harmonization of graduation requirements with workplace demands of knowledge and formulation of rigorous standards for pre-college education, which in this case was adopted and became the Common Core State Standards education policy. Step 3: Evaluation of Alternatives based on Established Criteria Initially, alternatives constructed for the problem of pre-college shortcomings were multiple. Each of the constructed alternatives had distinct benefits and disadvantages. Therefore, each of the alternatives mentioned above like strengthening of instructional methods; harmonization of graduation requirements with workplace demands of knowledge and formulation of rigorous standards for pre-college education, would be evaluated according to requirements of the criteria. The first criteria involved the concept of global knowledge standards. Any alternative that would not facilitate achievement of global-based standards was dropped (Leslie and Kober, 32). In addition, alternatives were also evaluated in terms of socio-political feasibility. For example, mere strengthening of instructional methods would require increase in education resources, thus contravening existing social and political policies meant to cushion parents from economic harshness of tuition expenses. At the end of this step, alternatives are outlined in ascending order with regard to conformity with criteria. Alternatives demonstrating the highest conformance to criteria are forwarded to the succeeding step. Step 4: Selection and Implementation of an Alternative As acknowledged earlier, the alternative with the best conformance to criteria will be selected. In the midst of multiple options, the committee mandated to address the problem in pre-college American education system selected application of common core standards by all states as the best alternative. Components of the common core standards sought to raise the level of knowledge and skills in subjects like Mathematics, English and arts (Kendall, 130). The standards also outlined the manner in which these goals would be attained in practical settings. During implementation, relevant state education agencies were involved in numerous outreach programs. Outreach activities aimed at promoting awareness and counteracting resistance of the new standards by reaching out to stakeholders like teachers, parents and learners (Kendall, 119). In addition, nonprofit organizations at district levels played a role in ensuring implementation of Common Core curricula standards. Step 5: Assessment of implemented Alternative The chief purpose of Common Core State Standards is to promote knowledge and skills of students in order to meet requirements of higher learning or the workforce. Since development of this initiative in 2009, pre-college learning institutions in almost every US state have employed proposed techniques in Mathematics, English and Arts lessons. In policy analysis, implementation of policy components is not the last step of the process. The last step is assessment or monitoring of the policy initiative in order to ensure that desired objectives are attained. Failure to assess progress of policies in practical application compromises on the aspect of control and corrective intervention (Fischer and Miller, 104). The progress of Common Core State Standards is monitored and subsequently assessed annually. Assessment teams in each state comprise of professional policy analysts, representatives of political institutions and commentators from the academic fraternity. Since 2009, most states have conducted independent assessment tests. However, the first formal assessment of the Common Core State Standards will take place in 2015 (Leslie and Kober, 56). Assessment report will indicate whether the initiative is beneficial in its current form or whether additional amendments are necessary. Works Cited Fischer, Frank and Miller, Gerald. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, politics and methods. Pittsburg: CRC Press, 2013. Print. Kendall, John. Understanding Common Core State Standards. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011. Print. Leslie, Anderson and Kober, Nancy. Common Core State Standards in 2014: Districts’ perceptions progress and challenges. Washington D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2014. Print. Read More