Common Core Standards

As far back as the settling of the United States, individual states have held the opportunity to govern the education within their state. This was reinforced by the Constitution of the United States, granting state governments the right to set the standards and goals for education within their own state. This inevitably led to a range of standards throughout the United States. As America is contending with other nations, her school systems have begun to lag. This among other concerns resulted in the implementation in Common Core Standards that were adopted nationally by the majority of states, including New Jersey. The Common Core Standards are a step in leveling the playing field for all students within the country with the goal of competing in a world where we are no longer the top competitors. The Common Core Standards were developed to provide students with the skills necessary to be successful in both college and their careers.

Common Core Standards, like many items in education, are controversial. On many levels there are both positive and negative aspects to adopting national standards in education. It is in our nation’s best interest to keep what is best for the students at the forefront of the debate. Teachers, administrators, parents, and the community alike hold opinions on the matter at hand. While educators in America are debating over the affects of common standards, children in China and other industrialized countries are preparing to compete with our children for the jobs of the twenty first century.

To begin, common national standards will provide students with the ability to have high quality education regardless of the state they live in. The majority of states, prior to Common Core Standard adoption, had lower expectations of their students. Implementing the national standards guarantees, to the best of the government’s ability, that each student is provided with the most appropriate public education. The national standards also ensure that teachers are aware of exactly what is necessary to teach students to compete in the global economy. Furthermore, parents are also able to be aware of what their children are being held accountable for and how they can assist in the process. Common Core Standards will allow for states that have been consistently behind in education when compared to other states, to theoretically catch up. No longer will students in rural or urban areas receive lower expectations are goals than students in wealthier states or districts. This provides students and teachers with the motivation to succeed.

Although there are numerous positive aspects of Common Core Standards, there are also several negative affects. In the most basic sense, national standards remove the running of education from the state into the hands of the federal government. Where as in the past districts were run locally and by the state, the federal government would have more power with national standards. This is related to the information taught as well as funding. Local municipalities are facing the fact that they may not hold control over how their school is run as well as seen and will make the choice to accept what the national government is planning or risk losing funding. The loss of teacher creativity is also discussed as a drawback of national standards. When the standards are clearly and directly states, it takes away from the teacher’s chance to use their own experience and creativity. There is also the idea that not only teacher’s ability to be unique is being under- minded by national standards, but students as well. Parents fear that their child’s chance to be unique within the education system may be diminished by common standards. Finally, states that feel their present standards are higher than the national standards fail to realize why they should chance. If it is found that a state’s expectations exceed that of the nation, who is the federal government to insist on the implementation of Common Core Standards?

Common Core Standards

Our nation is lagging behind other nations, such as India and China, when it comes to education. Reforms take place throughout the United States to try and improve our school systems. National and state standards are a way of setting educational goals to improve what our students are learning. Standards were created with the intention to clarify and raise expectations by providing a common set of expectations for all students. New Jersey State Board of Education adopted the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards in 1996. New Jersey’s standards were created to improve student achievement by clearly defining what all students should know and be able to do at the end of thirteen years of public education. When the Core Curriculum Content Standards were created, the State Board required that the standards be reviewed and revised every five years. Reviews began first in 2001, but updated standards were not released until 2004. Recently, in 2009, the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards were revised and released. The 2009 NJ Core Curriculum Standards appeal more to the 21st-century student and outcomes for students require a deeper understanding of academic content at a higher level than ever before.

Two subjects, Mathematics and Language Arts, were not revised under the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards. These subjects’ standards come from the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and were adopted by majority of the country, including New Jersey. Each state has its own process for developing, adopting, and implementing standards. As a result, what students are expected to learn can vary widely from state to state. The CCSS are part of a state-led effort to give all students the skills and knowledge they need to succeed across the country. It is no surprise that Mathematics and Language Arts standards are nationwide since standardized testing mainly focuses on these two subjects.

In the education world, debates and arguments occur regularly. Educational standards are nothing different and unfortunately disagreements surround this topic as well. According to the CCSS website, educational standards are needed to ensure that all students are prepared for postsecondary education and the workforce and common standards allow for high quality consistency from school to school. In terms of CCSS, not just NJ Core Curriculum Standards, consistency is not just from school to school, but extends from state to state. This can be very beneficial to our nation’s students. With standards being normalized across the nation, every student is guaranteed to be taught solid knowledge of the most important topics. According to a report completed in June 2010 by EdSource, supporters assert that common standards will ensure that students have more opportunities upon graduating, make the county more competitive in the global economy, and allow states to learn from one another. In addition, CCSS supporters feel if states had the same core content standards, students moving from one state to another would have more consistency in their learning than is possible today. According to an article in NY Times, other supporters feel that financially strapped state governments do not have to spend limited resources on developing their own standards and tests.

Moving from state standards to national standards is an excellent way to create commonality and unity in our nation. However, those who disagree with national standards feel that each state should be responsible for the education of their students within their state. Mathematics and Language Arts are the first subjects to be nationally standard, but many feel this is just the beginning. Those who disagree with national standards argue that the states are losing control over education. According to a Massachusetts newspaper article, adoption of the federal standards will change what is taught and what is tested in public education. Some teachers will have to change everything they are use too.

In general terms, many teachers feel standards are needed within schools, but the standards have become too strict. Unfortunately, teachers feel they are losing creativity in the classroom because the standards have to be followed rigorously, especially with the subjects that appear on standardized tests.

Overall, this debate will not go away. Standards are needed in order to have structure. Teachers can not “blindly” teach and standards help with allowing teachers to understand what topics or areas are important for students to learn. The problem is teachers feel they are unable to teach what they want to teach. In my opinion, national standards are great way in ensuring that all of our nation’s students are gaining the same knowledge and similar education.

Modifications to No Child Left Behind Obama Era

The No Child Left Behind Act was a reform, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, of 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson. President George W. Bush created this new reform, known as NCLB, in 2001, which promised to close the achievement gap and increase accountability for school districts, while ensuring that all children meet high standards, so no child is left behind by the year 2014. It created a performance based system focusing on standardized tests to measure the success of students, where districts are then labeled as failing schools if they do not meet adequate yearly progresses, AYP. No Child Left Behind was enacted into law on January 8, 2002, with a bipartisan vote and has been our current educational law up till now.

As of March 13, 2010, President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden are proposing a change called a Blueprint for Reform, which will once again reauthorize the ESEA and modify NCLB. Together, they believe that while NCLB’s overall goal of ensuring all children can meet high standards is right, they agree the law has significant flaws that need to be addressed. Under NCLB, teachers, principals, and schools have been without necessary resources to accomplish the goals of No Child Left Behind, which has led to a need for change. Obama and Biden are proposing to improve assessments to track student progress and create assessment models that will provide educators and students with timely feedback, which can aid in improving student learning right away and measure their readiness for college and success in the workplace.

Obama and Biden also want to improve the accountability system and support schools that improve, rather than punish. Top performing schools will be considered “Reward” schools and will have less federal interference, while the lowest performing schools will be considered “Challenge” schools and require more vigorous interventions. They understand that world-class education is a prerequisite for success and expect that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion.

In addition, Obama and Biden’s plan will work to recruit and reward well-qualified teachers in every classroom in America, support principals and school leaders, make science and math education a national priority, reduce the high school drop out rate, close the achievement gap, ensure high quality early childhood and kindergarten programs and empower parents by taking a greater role in their child’s education. Through these key points established by Obama and Biden, they believe the Blueprint for Reform will strengthen American’s public education system.

While there are many positive changes in response to NCLB, there are a few changes, which cause concern. Many teacher unions believe this blueprint places 100% of the responsibility on teachers and gives them no authority on implementing the changes. The blueprint also requires all states to develop evaluation procedures to distinguish effective instructors, partly based on student learning, which teacher unions may challenge. In addition, many states and districts could face drastic differences in the amounts of funding they receive due to a new formula for funding. The accountability system will also change, as a result, and may cause districts to become more independent to receive more funding, rather than working together for the national goal of educating all students to achieve.

While change will be instrumental in allowing America to become more competitive globally and provide our students with the world-class education they need and deserve, educators need to be included in developing the change so we can work together and have a shared responsibility in strengthening American’s public education system.

School Choice and Vouchers

"Voucher proposals take many forms, and some are designed to deliberately disguise the basic realities that will result over time. The best students will be skimmed off -- those whom private schools find desirable for their own reasons. Since families will have to make up additional costs, those in the upper-and middle-income brackets will be helped the most -- as long as their kids don't have personal, behavioral, or educational challenges that cause the private school to pass them by."
-- Kweisi Mfume, president and CEO of the NAACP

School choice and school vouchers, in education’s most recent history, have been offered to Americans in various states, as an option out of poorly performing school districts. In 1991, Minnesota became the first state to pass a law for the inception of a charter school, and officially marked the beginning of this country’s rethinking about schools. Charter schools enjoy support from public funding, while remaining free from most government regulations. In 1996, 25 states had charter schools.

Essentially, education is inherently more personal than public. Most parents, having once been students themselves, are fully aware of how much education can affect one’s future successes. New Jersey continued its rethinking about education, in January 2000. At that time, the state legislature piloted a five-year program, known as the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program. This program sought to answer a question on many minds: is public school choice a viable option for families desiring the best education in New Jersey? In June of this year, the legislature made the program permanent. The pilot program limited each district to one choice school. There are currently 15 schools in the state program. Under the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program, enrollment restrictions may be made by the sending schools, provisions may be made for student transportation and must be financed by the sending school, and annual performance reports may be made available to the public.

Just as in most arguments, school choice is said to have its advantages and disadvantages. Supporters of school choice have argued that it:
• Offers a way out of poor-performing schools,
• Supports educational innovation, by challenging the traditional school structure, and
• Acts as an answer to the needs of students and their families, motivating their commitment to school success.

Those who oppose school choice say that it:
• Creates inequalities because they take desirable students,
• Creates fewer learning opportunities about tolerance and diversity, by the nature of its own homogeneity , and
• Takes focus away from public education, and shifts it to personal advancement.

School vouchers differ from school choice, in that vouchers shift students from the public school system to the private/parochial school system. Just as school choice, school vouchers have both pros and cons. Some supports say that vouchers:
• Provide the same options to the poor, already afforded by the wealthy,
• Act to breed improvement through competition, in the race to be the chosen school,
• Enable students, who may otherwise be exposed to a constant dose of antisocial behaviors, to share in an environment where teaching skills and values traditionally take precedent, and
• Increase diversity in private schools, by providing access to all.

Some opposers of vouchers believe that they:
• Take funds away from already under-funded public schools,
• Allow private schools the opportunity to act irresponsibly, as they feel safe from rigorous evaluation,
• Ignore the diversity issues that may stem from the fact that private schools can choose their students and may show favoritism, and
• Threaten the private school environment, as educational standards may be lowered by new student inabilities.

"There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream." ~Archibald MacLeish

America was founded on the idea of freedom. Therefore, education should be offered under the design of that same freedom. Families and their students should be allowed the opportunity to attend the school of their choice, whether by choice school programs or vouchers. With sound regulations put in place to encourage student body diversity and high performance standards, programs could be the answer to any learners needs. It is about time teacher performance determined jobs, rather than tenure.

Church & State

The Phrase “Separation Between Church and State” is not something new. In fact, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase way back in 1802 when he wrote there is a “wall of separation between church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Why was there this wall of separation? In the 1800’s it was to protect religion from government interference. Today, although it is based on the same principals, the phrase is used most exclusively to debate how much or how little religion should be allowed in public schools.

Jefferson’s letter later lead to what we know now as the Establishment clause. This clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Clearly, this clause is based off the principals of which our country was founded. The United States was founded by British searching for religious freedom, therefore this clause helps to ensure our country stays true to the values that which it was founded. Little did the lawmakers know at the time that this would cause great debates about how much or how little religion is allowed in schools. At the time the United States was not a melting pot of races, nationalities, and religions. Most people living in the United States were white Anglo-Saxtons. Today, as we all know, the United States has a very eclectic mixture of races, religions and national backgrounds.

In 1947, the Supreme Court heard the case of Everson vs. The Board of Education. Everson filed suit because he believed that public tax dollars should not be spent to bus students to parochial schools. The court did not agree with Everson. The court decided “the state must remain neutral, not adversarial in its relation with religious groups.” As a result of this case the separation of church and state became a highly debated topic, particularly the separation between religion and schools.

It would be nearly impossible to remove all religion from schools without sacrificing the education of the students. Religion is a huge part of the history of the world. It is intertwined with so many historical events, that we need to teach about how religion was involved in history. However, this is where it gets unclear where to draw the line. How do social studies teachers teach children about the holocaust, 9/11, or old western civilizations without mentioning religion? Clearly, the teacher must be very careful when they approach the topic in order to be sure they do not bestow their religious beliefs on students.

The separation of church and state has always been a core principal of our country since the USA was founded on the principles of religious freedom. However, over the course of history it has become increasingly more difficult to separate the two due the Constitution, Pledge of Allegiance, and Bill of Rights all being laced with Christian beliefs. The only conclusion we have come to is that there needs to be a balance between church and state. Students and teachers may have their individual religious beliefs but they cannot force them upon others. Most of all, it is important to share religious beliefs for the sake of tolerance and diversity education, but not force beliefs on others. In the modern day educations can refer to Religious Expression in Public Schools and Religion In the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law for information regarding religion in schools.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Charter schools are nonsectarian public schools of choice that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools. The "charter" establishing each such school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The basic premise of Charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for accountability for both academic results and fiscal practices to their private sponsors, parents, and the states which fund them (uscharterschools.org).

In reviewing various internet resources, Charter Schools are described as those which are: publicly funded (no vouchers), open to all students (although there may be a lottery system or waiting list), claimed innovators in public education, and committed to improving public education. The claimed benefits and predominant differences between Charter and public schools include: increased opportunities for learning and access to quality education for all students, choice for parents and students within the public school system, being highly accountable for academic results, implementation of innovative teaching practices, and supposedly high community and parental involvement in public education (wikipedia.org).

There are many differences between Charter schools and other public schools. The predominant one is that Charter schools permit teachers and students more authority to make decisions regarding curriculum choice. Instead of being accountable for compliance with rules and regulations such as upholding state mandated curriculum standards, they are accountable for academic results and for upholding their unique charter. Parents and teachers choose charter schools primarily for educational reasons such as high academic standards, small class size, safety, innovative approaches, and educational philosophies which are congruent with theirs.

According to the literature perused on the internet, The New Jersey Charter School Program Act of 1995 authorized the establishment a charter school program. The first cohort consisted of 13 charter schools which first began operations during the 1997-1998 school year. By the 2000-2001 school year, the fourth year of charter school operations, there were 54 charter schools operating in the State of New Jersey serving over 10,000 students. During the 2008-2009 school year, there were 65 charter school in NJ, with approximately 20,496 students enrolled (state.nj.us.education/chartsch). The national statistics during this same time frame indicated 4,624 Schools of choice with an enrollment figure of 1,536,099 students. According to the Center for Educational Reform (edreform.com), currently there are more than 5,000 Charter Schools serving more than 1.5 million in 39 states and the District of Columbia. On average, charter schools are funded at $6,585 per pupil compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. However, of the over 5,250 charter schools that have ever opened, 657 have closed since 1992 with 41 percent of the nation's charter closures resulting from financial deficiencies caused by either low student enrollment or inequitable funding, 27 percent closed for mismanagement and 14 percent closed for poor academic performance. All are not success stories (njcharterschools.org).

Statistically, Charter schools appear most extensively available in areas of the country with a preponderance of more disadvantaged, lower socio-economic populations. A 2004 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that charter schools are smaller than conventional public schools and serve a disproportionate and increasing number of poor and minority students. A Harvard University study in that same year found that charter school students are more likely to be proficient in reading and math than students in neighboring conventional schools. The greatest achievement gains were observed among African American, Hispanic, or low-income students. Those in operation for more than 5 years outpaced conventional schools by as much as 15 percent.

According to the results of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2009), claims were made that public charter schools are more racially isolated than regular public schools in most states and large urban areas. The authors found that African American students in public charter schools are much more likely than their counterparts in regular public schools to be educated in a segregated environment. In a typical Charter school attended by an African American student, nearly three out of four classmates were of the same ethnicity. The study offers several recommendations for ensuring equity and integration in public charter schools, including establishing new guidance and reporting requirements by the federal government and heightened enforcement of existing state-level legislation with specific provisions regarding diversity and monitoring patterns of public charter school enrollment and attrition (csmonitor.com).

In reviewing the literature and opinions of various sources, the reader remains curious but skeptical for a few reasons regarding the advent and surge of Charter Schools. As reported in much of the literature, the most prominent descriptors seem to summarize the findings: accountability, standards, innovation, equity, and shared responsibility. There is a demand for meaningful and measurable change to the current education system which entails an openness to new ideas, with the insistence that schools produce results yet comply with reasonable rules and federal/state guidelines. It would seem that if parents were to be involved in the public school system to the extent boasted by Charter schools, then public schools would experience a congruent rise in student academic performance. There is a public cry for the demand of a variety of factors which have historically demonstrated increased student success: smaller class size, the provision of programs which encourage student individualism and creativity, alternative teaching methodologies, and parental and community involvement. These could result in such target outcomes as a love of learning among youth, low student attrition, and higher national academic standing. Let us not forget the ultimate goal of education: to produce capable, confident, and wise contributing members of our society.

Other References

Chartock, A. (2010). Charter schools vs. public schools. Kingston, NY: Daily Freeman Newspaper.

Ornstein, A. & Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues. Boston: Pearson.

School Choice & Vouchers

School Choice & Vouchers

     School Choice is an innovative public school program that offers alternative educational opportunities to families dissatisfied with their local school district.   One of the major objectives of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is accountability and promoting choice in education. School choice programs, including public school options and school vouchers, assures a school district’s accountability to better meet the needs of their students by offering families educational alternatives.

     School choice-public school option, recently took center stage in the New Jersey legislature.  On September 10, 2010, Governor Chris Christie signed the School Choice Bill into law (“School choice bill becomes law in N.J.”, The Courier Post, September 13, 2010). The new law expands upon a pilot school choice program called the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program Act of 1999.

     School districts wanting to enroll nonresident students in their district apply to the state education commissioner to become a choice school.  Districts selected to be choice schools indicate their seat availability and must accept students on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there are more applicants than seats available, a lottery system would be put into place. Choice schools cannot discriminate in the application process. However, the choice school does not have to accept students receiving special education services if they are unable to implement the students’ individual educational program (IEP). Students who aspire to attend a participating approved choice school district are required to apply to the choice district directly.   

     The student’s district of residence is responsible for transportation costs if the choice school is more than 2 miles from their home for elementary schools and more than 2.5 miles for secondary schools. If the mileage exceeds 20 miles, the state incurs the transportation costs. Sending school districts have the option of restricting the number of students attending choice schools to 7 percent of its total student body. Receiving school districts likewise have the option of limiting the total number of nonresident students to 15 percent of its student body. (“New law could bring big shift”, The Courier Post, September 19, 2010).

     The benefits of school districts participating as a choice school include increased state aid and the expansion of school programs. School choice encourages competition and curriculum enrichment as a means to improve school performance and maintain school aid.   School districts with available seats have the opportunity to increase their student population as well as diversify their student population. However, by accepting students from impoverished districts, choice schools may also incur lower test scores and have increased behavior issues (“New law could bring big shift”, The Courier Post, September 19, 2010).

     The benefits of school choice for families include greater satisfaction with public education, which historically has been reserved for wealthy families.  Interestingly, studies have shown that low-income families largely encompass parents who are less educated and are less likely to take advantage of the school choice program. This could ultimately lead to less equity in troubled schools if the “brightest” students in these schools take advantage of school choice and transfer to another school.

     In New Jersey, the School Choice Bill has a vast amount of support including the unanimous approval of both the NJ Senate and Assembly. The bill is also supported by New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and New Jersey School Boards due to the fact that the choice school program increases a school district’s accountability while maintaining students in the public school system. This is in opposition to school vouchers which divert public school funds to private schools.      

     On May 13, 2010, the NJ Senate Committee approved the school choice voucher bill which provides scholarships to nonpublic schools for students from chronically low-performing schools. Students from private and charter schools strongly supported the passing of this bill.  (www.nj.com/news/index/ssf/2010/05/nj_senate_commitee_approves-s-lhtml).

     The benefits of school vouchers for families include giving lower income parents a choice in education and “breaking the cycle” of attending low-performing schools.  School vouchers also encourage competition and motivate low performing schools to alter programs in order to increase student performance and avoid closing or reducing programs and staff due to loss of state aid.

     The school voucher program has many adversaries that claim vouchers send a message that public schools are not meeting the needs of students. Providing scholarships for students to attend private schools does not support public education due to the diversion of public monies.  Private schools are also not subject to public school regulations and can deny any student admission.

     The debate between choice school programs and educating students in their local school district will continue.  School choice-public school option seems to be a “middle ground” option for this controversy. As a result of school choice-public school option, public funds are maintained and public school districts are responsible to properly educate all students.