Introduction
The objective is to offer an alternative initiative to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The journey starts with investigating the CCSS and the issues within the educational community, including children, teachers, and parents. Supovitz et al. (2018) claim that forty-six states approved the CCSS with widespread bipartisan support in 2010. Supovitz et al. (2018) describe the initiative’s background; essentially, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of objectives that describe what students should learn in “mathematics and English language arts at each grade level, from Kindergarten through 12th grade” (p. 423). Nevertheless, by 2015, the initiative had become a significant catalyst for various criticisms about the school system, while public approval had decreased drastically.
The Principles of the CCSS
The Common Core standards are a crucial component of a philosophy of action for systemic school reform. The program was initially articulated in the 1990s and is based on three broad principles (Supovitz et al., 2018). Firstly, each state’s aspirational standards would give a set of benchmarks for what children should understand and be able to perform at critical grade junctures. Secondly, states used aligned exams to track progress toward standards, combining rewards and punishments to hold educators responsible. The third component was local organizational freedom in determining how to achieve academic standards best. The new standards were termed “Common Core” because they were designed to remove the variance in state standards that existed in the 1990s (Supovitz et al., 2018). Nevertheless, Common Core has been condemned for not being developmentally suitable for younger learners, particularly in literature and mathematics.
The Current Group’s Concerns Regarding Common Core and Emerging Needs
It is fair to say that teachers, students, and parents nowadays require a more innovative educational approach than prior generations. Education creativity is becoming more than just a buzzword in the classroom (MIT ID Innovation, 2021). Innovativeness is the setting for people today; students and instructors are encouraged to study, explore, and employ all available instruments for learning something new via innovation and change. Moreover, individuals are up against standards-based reforms that restrict flexibility and creativity in the classroom. For instance, Loveless (2021) states that the philosophy of standards-based reform is predicated on the premise that high academic criteria should be created first, influencing the subsequent formation of other vital parts of education such as curricula, teaching, evaluation, and monitoring. The strategy seems to be fundamentally top-down and regulated, with policy authorities and content specialists’ continuous quality improvement at the system’s top (Loveless, 2021). Additionally, the other elements linked to academic standards gain significance downstream and are frequently under practitioners’ influence.
Despite its applicability, standards-based reform does not function well in practice. One primary reason is that coordinating crucial parts of education at the system’s top limits flexibility at the bottom (Loveless, 2021). Moreover, the emotional and personal cost of the standard-based education dynamic involves reduced teachers’ engagement and students’ creativity. According to the AQI Team (2021), a centralized curriculum and performance goals provide clear numerical objectives, resulting in standardized instruction, diminished classroom creativity, and less motivated educators. When centralized evaluation of student achievement determines jobs, compensation, or punishments against a school, it unavoidably focuses teaching on the examination rather than what is best for an individual kid (The AQI Team, 2021). Thus, society will benefit from a more individualized approach to the education system.
The developmental concern with Common Core is that certain books are being studied much earlier than previously, and many teachers are worried about exposing too sophisticated literature to children. Furthermore, mathematics is taught differently now than it was formerly. Replacing Common Core with a new set of standards will accomplish very little; the United States cannot achieve educational excellence by regulation (Loveless, 2021). It is vital to spend resources on enhancing education’s basic science and developing innovative, effective teaching practices and curricula that enhance teaching and learning. Loveless (2021) acknowledges that a new strategy is required that focuses on improving curriculum and instruction, the technical foundation of education, via deliberate experimentation and the creation of new materials and techniques. Hence, the innovative educational program will unleash the potential for life and society.
The Individual Level: Struggles and Limitations Within the Community
A standardized system like Common Core harms an individual level. An and Cardona-Maguigad (2019) assert that the CCSS has fallen short when measured by standardized test results. For instance, only one-third of Illinois pupils met the new high bar on state examinations assessing how well children comprehend the Common Core learning requirements. Many districts with a majority of low-income students that have historically performed below the state average remain underperforming (An & Cardona-Maguigad, 2019). The Common Core standards do not appear to have contributed to closing the achievement gap between high- and low-income schools and pupils (An & Cardona-Maguigad, 2019). Hence, parents and educators frequently expressed concern that the requirements were challenging and disputed if they supported an appropriate learning style.
Society, especially teachers, should be vocal about the educational problems regarding the CCSS to help students enhance their performance, knowledge, and skills. An and Cardona-Maguigad (2019) mention that educators in low-resource districts report difficulty transferring due to a lack of cooperation. In contrast, teachers in affluent neighborhoods received far more training and assistance. Thus, the lack of training, resources, and flexibility are crucial limitations for teachers that further affect students’ knowledge and abilities. The objective is to consider differences between schools, districts, and states and trust teachers’ ideas for education system improvement. If this goal is achieved, teachers will develop brand-new and unique educational techniques depending on the needs and resources of their district and school. The long-term outlook for the teachers and students includes better results, satisfaction, and higher engagement.
Art and Science Behind the Educational Program
The new initiative should focus on developmental psychology, highlighting such concepts as normative and idiographic developments. McLeod (2017) acknowledges that developmental psychology impacts an individual’s mind and personality by offering three goals: to characterize, understand, and enhance progress. To explain development, one must include both general patterns of change, known as normative development, and individual variances in patterns of change, known as idiographic development. Although there are common developmental paths that most people will take, no two people are precisely identical (McLeod, 2017). Thus, the vital physiological limiter of standardized education is not considering the individual traits and characteristics of each student, district, or state. The science suggests employing developmental psychology when creating educational initiatives for schools to ensure maximum performance for each individual. Burg (2021) argues that a future-focused leadership vision that is entirely concentrated on developing every student’s potential, highly skilled teaching personnel, and genuinely individualized education services are proven techniques for academic attainment and fairness. Moreover, popular educational narratives in the United States, such as quality versus justice and economic efficiency versus accomplishment for all, are erroneous and unfair dysfunctions.
The Alternative Offered: Learning from Finland
Finland continues to be an exceptional educational country with a unique program. According to the AQI Team (2021), although there is a national core curriculum, districts, school leadership teams, and educators have the freedom to decide how they teach. Curriculum and instructional methodologies have not been standardized (AQI Team, 2021). The emphasis is on allowing every citizen to learn to their full ability. The goals are qualitative rather than quantitative, encompassing health, well-being, and equality. Essentially, there were no unforeseen impacts of the Finnish educational program. Further research needs to be conducted on the possible implementation of a similar system in the United States.
Conclusion
Compared to previous generations, teachers, students, and parents today demand a more creative teaching program. Education innovation is becoming more critical than standard-based instruction. The education program offered to students up to 12 years old should focus on the most vital areas. Teachers decide the majority of curriculum, methodology, and evaluation decisions. The program adheres to Finland’s concept of taking a larger view of a student’s learning across a greater variety of subjects and broader talents, attitudes, and personal development. The initiative emphasizes collective and collaborative learning, cooperation between various schools and their educators, and collaboration between communities and schools. The ideas can be discussed further to deal with challenges and enable governmental financial support depending on each school’s requirements and students.
References
An, S., & Cardona-Maguigad, A. (2019). Common Core: Higher expectations, flat results. NPR. Web.
Burg, C. A. (2021). A Comparison of Finnish and American education policies and practices that address educational equity. In C. A. Mullen (Eds.) Handbook of Social Justice Interventions in Education. Springer. Web.
Loveless, T. (2021). Why Common Core failed? Brown Center Chalkboard. Web.
McLeod, S. (2017). Developmental psychology. Web.
Supovitz, J., Daly, A. J., & Del Fresno, M. (2018). The Common Core debate on Twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 419-440. Web.
The AQI Team. (2021). Finland: Going against the global trend. Home of Assessment and Qualifications Insights. Web.