LEARN ASSESSMENT: CURRICULUM STANDARDS 2
Learn Assessment: Curriculum Standards
The call for higher standards and increased rigor in the classroom is not a new
occurrence. Academic success for all students has been a focus for the American education
system for over a century (Parkay et al., 2014). Since the early 1900s, educators such as John
Dewey and Franklin Bobbitt have given a voice to curriculum creation and the importance of
standards-based education (Parkay et al, 2014). Over the past 50 years, an increased attention to
curriculum and curriculum standards as a means of educational transformation has brought a
myriad of changes, but few have had the impact of common core state standards (CCSS). For
better and for worse, CCSS has drastically changed the educational landscape, introducing higher
standards in learning while narrowing the scope of education to focus only on content and
concepts found worthy of assessment. There are valid arguments for both sides of the debate
regarding higher “world-class” standards in curriculum (Parkay et al., 2014).
Supporters of standards-based curriculum and more uniformity in the national education
system have many reasons for their stance on public education. Curriculum standards clearly
define the content and concepts to be taught, as well as the expected student outcomes from this
instruction. Standards come with clearly defined, measurable goals for learning and assessments
to quantify student comprehension and successful mastery of the material. Advocates promote
common standards as a way to provide families and educators with accurate data to profile
student and teacher success within the classroom.
Many proponents also assert that these common standards provide rigorous content
which challenges students to use higher-ordered thinking skills to acquire knowledge and
complete assessments successfully (Ravitch, 1995). Some, including Diane Ravitch (1995),
champion common standards as a necessity to achieve equal opportunity for all students
LEARN ASSESSMENT: CURRICULUM STANDARDS 3
academically. According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative or CCSSI (2010),
created by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers,
CCSS are standards based on evidence, research, and are influenced by leading countries in the
global educational arena. These standards, according to CCSSI, are aligned so all students will
be well prepared to succeed in today’s global economy and society (Parkay et al., 2014).
For opponents of the CCSS and higher standards in general education curriculum, not all
impacts of these standards are positive. With greater federal involvement, and the CCSS
implementation tied to greater federal monetary support for state educational systems, these
standards come with greater federal involvement in education, a constitutional responsibility of
the state and local government. Any additional federal influence is seen by some as an overstep
of mandated governance boundaries. CCSS is not a cure for many of the issues affecting public
education, failing to reform systems that are biased toward the financial elite and creating further
disparities between affluent and poor schools. This in turn widens the preexisting academic
opportunity gap between advantaged and marginalized student populations.
Some adversaries of CCSS and higher curriculum standards are frustrated by what is
perceived as a narrowing of academic focus in the different courses of study. “Teaching to the
test” has become catch phrase and concern for those who assert that these standards and the
associated assessments designed to measure teacher and student success are forcing teachers to
limit instruction to only the content to be assessed. forgoing a richer, more experienced based
educational model that offers students a greater spectrum of content and educational enrichment
(Au, 2011). Au (2011) highlights how this approach undermines critical thinking, creativity, and
a broader understanding of subjects. This trend in education creates a system that prioritizes
measurable outcomes over a genuine understanding of the material, limiting both students and
teachers in their educational experiences.
LEARN ASSESSMENT: CURRICULUM STANDARDS 4
While not at all opposed to higher standards in curriculum, there must be a moderation of
the control exerted by outside influences in the classroom. Federal and state regulations are
created in a vacuum, with little prioritization for student needs and present levels. No account
has been given to the number of diverse learners in America’s classrooms today. It would seem
that little consideration has been given to the impact higher standards, and the assessments that
accompany them, have on students in poor socioeconomic categories or those with learning
challenges. While all students have the capacity to learn and improve, their ability to do so is
impacted by many things, which these higher standards and assessments fail to consider.
Working closely with students who have learning disabilities and come from challenging
home environments, my role as an educator is to find ways to close the gap between what they
are able to learn in an accelerated curriculum classroom and what they need to accomplish on
standardized state assessments. Much of the school day for the students in my school is devoted
to fast-paced, intense, rigorous curriculum, with little differentiation or even time for proper
absorption of the material. As a charter school, all students are welcome to apply and cannot be
turned away, however, no part of the instruction model takes into consideration the varied present
levels of students who enter the classroom. Higher standards are a great advantage for
approximately a quarter of the student population, while the other three quarters struggle just to
produce at a 60% passing level. My school presents as a possible microcosm of education on a
national level, high standards, high stakes testing, and no real consideration for the struggles this
system presents for a majority of the student population. Without a balanced strategy to support
those struggling students, higher standards presents as more of a survival of the fittest than a
model for strong educational planning or future success.
LEARN ASSESSMENT: CURRICULUM STANDARDS 5
References
Au, W. (2011). Teacher under new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the
21st-century curriculum In F.W. Parkay, E.J. Anctil, & G. Haas (Eds.), Curriculum
leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs. (pp. 323-335).
Pearson.
Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014).DCurriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs. Prentice Hall.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide In F.W. Parkay,
E.J. Anctil, & G. Haas (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality
educational programs. (p. 303). Pearson.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
