'This is the initiative which seeks and establish consistency standards of education to ensure that students who graduate are competent enough to face the workforce or the credit-bearing courses. The objectives of the initiative are to primarily have a clear understanding and consistency on what the students are expected to learn and to give parents and teachers the impetus to know how to help them.'
Impact of Common Core State Standards in Georgia
The common core standards are an initiative which was undertaken by the United States government to ensure that K-12 students master mathematics and English language arts at the end of each grade. This is the initiative which seeks and establish consistency standards of education to ensure that students who graduate are competent enough to face the work force or the credit-bearing courses. The objectives of the initiative are to primarily have a clear understanding and consistency on what the students are expected to learn and to give parents and teachers the impetus to know how to help them. The initiative was designed to be robust and be in line with the demands of the real world, to having a reflection of the skills and knowledge which the young people need in the real world (Williams, 2012). This is regarding the enabling the students to be competent for gaining success in careers and colleges. The initiative was intended to make the American students be able to be able to compete in the global economy.
Most of the states in America have adopted the common core state standard initiatives, and one of the states is Georgia. The common core states standards were adopted in Georgia in July 2010, under the administration of Governor Sonny Purdue which were an initiative of the state to comply with the Top grant federal race. The common core was an attempt to have a nationalized curriculum in competencies of English language and mathematics for grades K-12. However, it has been rectified that Georgia did not comply because they wanted the grant from the national government, but rather that it was a competitive grant which necessitated that the district education officers to apply for the grant. It is from this perspective that the common standards represented a common sense of moving in the direction of Georgia Performing standards where the students would be competitive in the 21st century professional market place (Vander Hart, 2013).
By the end of 2012, the state of Georgia had adopted at least some portions of the common core standards. Since their adoption, some states, Georgia included had taken steps to delay the implementation of the CCSS and had introduced legislations to prohibit their full implementation. By then, the CCSS had become a hot issue in the educational sector in Georgia where educators and public official sough guidance on the matter. This is because the initiative would have seen the strengthening of the rigor of states or weakened the standards of education in others (Greer, 2013).
As of the fall of 2012, students who were reporting to school that year were expected to be taught in according to the common core Georgia performance standards (CCBPS). They were a subsection of the common core standards (CCSS) which were intended to raise the standard of education in Georgia. The impact of the implementation of the common core state standards in Georgia has been varied in that it has had its advantages and disadvantages to both the students, teachers, and parents (Vander Hart, 2013). The standards were expected to teach a few things but in greater depth. At the start of the initiative, for the teachers, it would not have posed any challenges because the transition of the CCBPS would not have given any challenges since the standards were already overlapping with the States’ curriculum (Williams, 2012). It can, therefore, be denoted that they would not have posed dramatic changes to the teachers and the students in Georgia.
After the standards where implemented, for students, the common core state standards had a positive impact on them. This was because they had been internationally benchmarked and that meant that they were favorably up to the standards of the other countries favorably. With the consideration that the united states had dropped significantly in world educational ranking, the CCSS would have ensured that the global ranking of the united states would significantly improve. Also, the CCSS had taken the path to ensure that states would compare and tests score accurately. Until the initiative of the CCSS, each state had its set of standards and assessments. The difference in this manner made it impossible to have a comprehensive, accurate comparison of one state to that of another (Ogletree, Ogletree & Allen, 2014). Therefore, for the teachers and educators, that was no longer to be the case since the CCSS had the same standards of assessments which were to be practiced in every state.
The other impact which the CCSS had for the educators in Georgia was that they reduced the cost of developing a test, reporting, and scoring. This was made so because it became apparent that each state was not required to have its unique tests developed. The state of Georgia was the reduced the cost of footing her educational development kitty (Greer, 2013). This meant that the amount which the parents could pay as part of tuition fees had reduced significantly. Georgia as with the other states had to cost share the cost of developing their tests since they had the same standards and could, therefore, spilt the costs. As of May 2017, there was two main common core relating consortia, in that there were nine states who were in the PARCC which the Georgia withdrew from in 2013 and a Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Greer, 2013).
For the students, the CCSS had increased the rigor of activities in the classroom and therefore set the students to be better prepared for the world in global success and college education. This reason being the prime for the introduction of the initiative, the CCSS have provided the impetus for the increased performance of students and teachers. There had been concerns by educators and parents that when students were joining college, they needed remedial tuition. However, this has since then changed with the imitative which seeks to prepare students for college. The increased rigor is advantageous in that it has facilitated the objectification of students being ready to join college (Williams, 2012).
The CCSS have contributed to the development of high thinking skills of students. The development of critical and creative thinking of students has been made possible because the CCSS has allowed the program to test one skill at a time. The structure of the CCSS covers several skills within a specific question which will give the students the ability to develop their thinking capacity. The structure also allows that teachers can gauge the development of the students in the certain skills and which pose a serious challenge to students. Therefore, for the CCSS leads to better reasoning and better skills at problem solving (Tran, 2016).
It can be deduced that the common core states standards assessments have given teachers and educators the mechanisms to monitor the progress of the students all year long. The assessment is designated and structured in such a way that they have progress monitoring tools and optional pre-test which the teachers can use to monitor the students. This is in the educational dimension of what the students knows, where they are heading to, and gain the knowledge to redirect them to be where they are needed to be (Ogletree, Ogletree & Allen, 2014). The CCSS, therefore, have given teachers in Georgia the tools and mechanisms to compare the individual progress of a student which is different from the former avenue of pitting one student against another. Student assessment is the core of every teacher experience to determine the effectiveness of his or her pedagogical methods, therefore the avenues which are given by the CCSS offer a better mechanism which individual progress of a student can be monitored and corrective measures put in place in case they are not moving towards the intended direction (Tran, 2016).
The assessments in common core state standards have been more authentic to the students learning experience in learning. The structure and the design of the CCSS have in its place instituted a multi assessment model which in a larger sense has given the impetus for teachers and educator being able to see what has been learned across the curriculum. The learning experience of the students has been improved because learning is not now reduced to just giving the right answer. In the structure of the CCSS, the students, after giving the right answer must give and show how they have arrived at such an answer. Thys should also show hoe they arrived after the answer and be able to defend it in an informed and scholarly manner (Ogletree, Ogletree & Allen, 2014). In this regard, the students of Georgia can polish their educational skills before they join college or even the job market.
The students and parents of Georgia need not worry about the discontinuity or continuity of the children when they decide to move from one state form another. Parents who have been forced to move out of the state of Georgia or move in the state can do so with ease with the knowledge that their children will resume school with ease. Similar educational standards in most of the states in America indicate that students who shift to new schools will have easy times to blend and adapt to the new environment. Therefore, with the CCSS, gives students the high mobility benefit in that students can move from one region to the other since most states share the same set of standards (Greer, 2013). What students were learning in New York is what they will be learning in Georgia, and what students in Georgia were learning is what they will learn if they shift to Kansas. Therefore, the same set of shared standards across states, Georgia involved offers students and parents continuity of their child’s education.
The common core states standards have improved the perception of students about their purpose in school. The students have the stability to determine and can understand what is expected of them. The CCSS gives the students the impetus to understand why they are learning and this gives them more confidence o develops a positive attitude towards education. The CCSS in Georgia has shown the students the light of why they are studying, that is not as a routine for every child, but to prep them for college and probably to be competent in the 21st century job market (Tran, 2016). This, therefore, makes the students develop a sense of direction in allowing the students to know the greater purpose and sense of learning.
Teacher professional development and teacher collaboration have been enhanced by the adoption of the common core states standards in Georgia. All teachers in most of the states in the nation have been teaching the same curriculum, thanks to the CCSS. This, therefore, offers teachers in Georgia to collaborate with another teacher in all corners of the country in having professional development. Teachers can learn about practices from each other and apply them to their institutions. According to Ogletree, Ogletree & Allen, (2014), it has given the state of Georgia the impetus to improve or maintain its standards since all states are on the same page and can easily benchmark on the progress of one state and failure in another and come out with a better one for themselves. This, therefore, gives the momentum for the public development of education where the significant development of professionalism is spearheaded. Georgia will no longer be liable for the failure of some its systems in education because they the CCSS has sparked conversations all over the country which will be used a platform for the development of education all over the country, Georgia included.
However, the common core states standards have had their disadvantages to the students, teachers, and educators of Georgia. This is primarily in the matter of transition from the older version which was the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) which had been adopted in 2009. The CCSS have posed a serious challenge for the teachers and students alike to adjust to the new system of education (Vander Hart, 2013). This is primarily because the CCSS are not the way the teachers had been teaching and they are not the way the students had been learning. It is reasonable to note that the CCSS cannot pose to have instant results and this has culminated into some stakeholders refusing to get into the CCSS of Georgia.
The problems in adjustments have cause many of the teachers to seek other avenues of employment or to even retire. The challenges of adjusting into the CCSS has made some of the teachers to opt to quit teaching and pursue other ventures in life. Many of the veterans have left the profession rather than adjust in Georgia. This is specifically to the pressure and the stress which is mounted upon the teachers to perform leading to many burning out (Vander Hart, 2013). This is primarily because for the teachers and other instructors, the provisions of the CCSS are very broad and vague. The standards do not give specific instruction. Georgia has taken this intro consideration and revised the provision especially in the adding and rearranging of few provisions. Most of the revisions have been done to clean up the terminologies and the language. For example, there have been changes in the wording of analytical geometry where words like to prove are changed to understanding.
The assessment of the common core states standards has not in its provisions provided an equivalency on the assessment of students with special needs. This has therefore caused challenges for the students with special needs (Marsh, 2015). The state of Georgia has had in some instances had to modify their tests for special needs to conform with those of the CCSS. In the CCSS, there are no modified tests. Therefore it makes the whole population of the school liable for reports of cases of accountably of the tests. The CCSS has also had the younger people in Georgia to learn at a quicker pace. With the high level of thinking skills and the rigor in classrooms, some programs such as those of the early-childhood have become more rigid. The CCSS have the made the kindergarten more essential in a child’s education (Marsh, 2015). This is in the case that the skills which the students in Georgia which they used to learn in second grade now are being offered and learned in kindergarten.
For the parents, the adoption of the CCSS has caused many of the books to become obsolete and irrelevant. For the schools and parents, it proved to be a pricy adjustment to develop and purchase materials and new curricula which conform with the new provisions of the CCSS. Also, it cost many of the schools in Georgia a lot of money to change or update the technology which was being used for the previous curriculum (Meador, 2014). This is essential because most of the assessments are online. This, therefore, proved difficult for the schools which had to purchase computers promptly for the assessment.
In conclusion, the CCSS has had both positive and negative impacts on the population of Georgia. Each of the educational stakeholders in Georgia has received her fair share of the pressure or the advantages of the adoption of the CCSS. Nonetheless, Georgians can still enjoy the benefit of high educational standards since it still has had them pegged high by the reforms which were adopted in 2004. It is therefore worth noting that, whichever position Georgia takes, educational reforms will always be there, and they will always have negative or positive impacts to all the stakeholder; parents, administrators, students and teachers.
References
Greer, L. (2013). Common Core Standards. AT ISSUE, senate research office.
Marsh, W. (2015). Common Core and the Uncommon Learner: How Autism Affects Acquisition of Common Core State Standards. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(2), 66-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40688-015-0048-8
Meador, D. (2014). The impact of the Common Core Standards. Thoughtco.
Ogletree, A., Ogletree, S., & Allen, B. (2014). Transition to Online Assessments: A Personal Perspective of Meeting Common Core State Standards in an Elementary School in Georgia. Georgia Educational Researcher, 11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.20429/ger.2014.110107
Tran, D. (2016). Statistical Association: Alignment of Current U.S. High School Textbooks with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 116(5), 286-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12179
Vander Hart, S. (2013). Comparisons of Common Core State Standards to Georgia Performance Standards Released. Truth in American Education Fighting to Stop the Common Core State Standards, Their Assessments, and Student Data Mining., 4:15 Communications, LLC.
Williams, C. (2012). Just the Facts: Common Core State Standards. Educational Horizons, 90(4), 8-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013175x1209000403
Comentarios