Pedagogy

Recent developments in educational reform in the United States saw the concerted efforts of educators, experts and policy makers from different states to create common core state standards at a national level for Kindergarten-12 grade level.  In March 2010, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) released the Draft of Common Core State Standards, a product of the collaboration of representatives from participating states.  The striking feature of this policy is the incorporation of college and career preparedness standards into the English and Mathematics K-12 grade level standards.

The article provides a detailed explanation of the created core standards in English language arts and Mathematics.  According to the draft, English language learners (ELLs) share the same standards as students who are already proficient in English.  A provision for students with disabilities is also provided by the draft.  These standards demand the need for continues research-based practices to optimally address the needs of students with disabilities and allow them to maximize their potentials.

The Common Core State Standards raise the bar of expectations among all individuals regardless of race and disabilities.  These are internationally benchmarked with the aim of ensuring that all American students are prepared for the global economic workplace.  (Common Core State Standards, 2010, p.8).  Whereas K-12 grade level standards in the past were created to academically equip students for higher education, the proposed new state standards emphasize the importance of preparing the students for work opportunities.  In the process, as early as this stage, students are encouraged to reflect upon their career paths and start building the foundations before starting post-secondary education.

The article precisely states that at its inception stage, it is not yet comprehensive but has only identified two major subject areas, English and Math.  The authors have also expressed the importance of evaluating and revising the standards accordingly.  Towards the end of the article, the draft clearly points out that the standards cannot be taken as a curriculum and curriculum development is still left under the domain of local responsibility or state-led initiatives.

These new developments however, have been interpreted as propelling the move towards the creation of a national curriculum.  Educators, experts and policy makers have conflicting views about this.  In the article, E pluribus unum Two longtime school reformers debate the merits of national curriculum, Chester Finn and Deborah Meier expresses their opposing views.  Chester Finn answers in the affirmative explaining that the national curriculum will only cover content and not pedagogy or instruction.  Finn (2009) cites Japan, Singapore, England and France as examples of strong nations with national curriculum.  Finn (2009) believes that through a national curriculum, equity in education will be achieved.

Deborah Meier on the other hand, raises five critical issues from the proposal of Finn.  Meier (2009) explains that having a national curriculum will become a threat in propagating a society that celebrates diverse origins and beliefs.  The second point that she highlights is the possibility of selection bias about subjects that will be included and considered important.  There is a danger that due to controversies, compromises will be made and certain influential individuals will dominate the selection of core subject areas.  The national testing system which is a consequence of having a national curriculum is identified by Meier as posing possible hindrances for teachers who may find it more important to drill the students with knowledge required to pass the tests rather than allowing flexibility for teachable moments.  Another concern that she raises is the measurement of higher cognitive processes in standardized testing.   The final and most important point of Meier explains how the establishment of a national curriculum stifles the concept of democracy which the United States have long protected and imbibed among the young generation.

It should be noted that Finn and Meier are coming from different perspectives about what should and should not be included in curriculum formulation.  Finn (2009) talks about the installment of Core Knowledge that is used in International Baccalaureate (IB) courses.  He claims that the natural course would be the standardization of the curriculum to get rid of mediocrity, cacophony, waste, duplication, and confusion (Finn  Meier, 2009, p. 56) in the education system.  Meanwhile, Meier (2009) finds the solution of improving the public education system in the teaching approach and how educators instill essential habits that students bring with them as they progress in levels.  Meier and her colleagues believe that the basic underpinnings of academic discipline, referred to as habits of mind, are the mental and social disciplines needed for living in a complex and modern society (Finn  Meier, 2009, p. 56).  Meier argues that these disciplines can be taught even with a national curriculum.  However, it is the type of evaluation, specifically the standardized tests that will continue to limit the use of the approach and how habits of mind are nurtured inside the classrooms.

In a related document, Texas Commissioner of Education, Robert Scott expresses his disapproval for the proposed national curriculum and testing systems.  Along with Alaska, Texas did not participate in the creation of the Common Core State Standards.  Scott (2009) maintains that a local curriculum is best fitting to address the needs of the children since it is able to put the learners in their context.  Furthermore, he argues that a significant and large amount of the budget has been devoted to align schools with the Texas State Board of Education Standards.  Accommodating the new national curriculum will mean that resources will only be wasted and additional expenses will be required.

From the two articles, the opposing sides raise valuable and logical points.  While Finn is coming from the best practices observed in countries like Singapore and Japan, Meier contextualizes the issue in a democratic country like the United States.  Both arguments are valid in that Finn is basing his stand on best practices of financially strong and developed nations.  Meier expresses her disagreement based on strong philosophical and ideological points.  The stand of Scott, while also in opposition, is based on practical issues and financial considerations.  He actually gives further support to Meiers stand.

All these points raised by three prominent individuals must be taken into consideration in creating a national curriculum and testing system.  As explained by Meier (2009), habits of mind can be incorporated even with the presence of a national curriculum.  There danger comes from the added pressure of standardized testing.  Perhaps a point of interaction may be arrived as experts come together to create a national curriculum.  Independent testing may also take place with one that evaluates the core knowledge and another that is meant to measure the habits of mind based on the rubrics that Meier (2009) and colleagues have created.

An alternative that can be further researched and pursued is the creation of a national curriculum that provides cohesion of different subject areas while allowing a certain degree of freedom for state or local-based initiatives.  What these arguments demonstrate is the need for more research to justify the implementation of possible national curriculum and testing systems.  Perhaps action research in education setting must be designed in the United States to support the best practices learned from nations like Singapore, Japan and England.