The common core state

States have embraced the common core state standard mode of instruction in order to improve student performance in school. It is a set of high academic requirements for mathematics as well as English language arts and literacy. It was created primarily to prepare youngsters for their future lives in college and careers (Shannon et.al. 2014). Students’ performance has stagnated over time, and they have lost ground on their foreign peers. One of the recurring fundamental problems is an uneven patchwork of academic standards that differ from state to state and fail to agree on what kids should know and do at each grade level. The Common Core State Standard is deemed the most effective and highly ranked standard of teaching since it was first put into practice (Shannon et.al. 2014). Parents should be well informed with information about this system. Clear, consistent guidelines have been established to give a clear outline of the hat should be one by students. A copy of this can be given to parents so that they can know what it entails.

Rationale for the intervention of decisions

The Common Core state standard as a teaching mode plays the role of preparing students for a successful college life and their careers. It has an ultimate aim to enable students read, write, speak, listen and use language and apply skills accurately (Bullard 2016). This thus promotes literacy in expertise and competence needed for college and career readiness in different disciplines. Unlike developmentally appropriate practice which aims at promotion of excellence in early childhood education, Common Core State Standard engages children to participate in reading stories, literature materials and more complex texts where they find factual information in common areas such as science and social studies (Gestwicki 2013). The Common Core State Standard has a particular set of standards which give a guideline to the practice (Coleman and Pimentel 2012). This includes: Research and evidence-based, clear, concise and consistent, aligned with college and career expectation, it has its basis in application and content knowledge rigorously through high order thinking, built upon strength and the lessons of the current state standards and informed by top-performing countries with a view to prepare students for a success in the global economy and society. It should be noted that these standards were drafted by experts and teachers from across the country and are designed to make sure that students are prepared for the day’s entry-level careers. Implementation of new standards offers for teachers to measure student progress throughout the school year and ensure that students ate o the correct path.

Common core state standards are beneficial to the children in the sense that it is a system that brings creativity into the classroom. This entails engaging them in hands-on activities that help them understand a concept or relationship. Students are also able to explore a concept and really immerse themselves in content, emerging with the full understanding that lasts beyond the testing season. It then becomes easy for students to understand and apply the applicable knowledge in real life (Lee et.al. 2013). Common Core requires students to take part in their learning and also to think critically about content, instead of just regurgitating back what they directly get from their teachers. Common core is collaborative in the sense that it allows for educators to own the curriculum and hand it back to the hands of teachers who know what is best for students and how best to deliver it to students(Bullard 2016). Through this, it allows teachers to crowd source their knowledge and experience besides integration of instructions with other disciplines such as English and Social Studies. Common core advances equity in that it gives children from all walks of life the opportunity for achievement of life goals and dreams (Gestwicki 2013). This helps teachers serve their students better, where a grade one teacher focuses consistently and comprehensively on critical and fundamental concepts. Lastly, the reason for the adoption of this teaching mode is to prepare children for their college and career life which is ahead of them. Having a provision for critical thinking in this teaching system, students will then be able to decide and choose a career path that is relevant to their abilities and interest. This is because teachers realized that college eligibility does not necessarily mean college ready, and thus the implementation of ways to make students college read is preferable (Lee et.al. 2013).

Implementation of the program

Principals, teachers, and educators should have the required support and guidance to effectively implement and achieve the desired and intended outcome (Calkins et.al. 2012). The essential professional development opportunities needed to fully implement the Common Core State Standard (CCSS), to transition to rigorous standards which will strengthen teaching and learning and to develop the effective strategies which engage both family and community in schools should be easily accessible (Bullard 2016). Successful implementation of the Common Core State Standard requires of the national and state educational leaders to work hand in hand with the building principals. These building principals, on the other hand, should be able to turn to the educational leaders for guidance and both should understand the vision of the CCSS and be willing to put in the required efforts to shift expectations, curriculum and instructions in their schools (Calkins et.al. 2012). A leading implementation calls for the school leaders to focus on building teacher capacity, and they must be reminded of the profound changes that could be stressful and intimidating to some extent.

The steps and activities involved to make the system beneficial for students are numerous. Culture, literacy instruction, and text complexity and informational text are the few discusses ways. Principals set a tone for a climate of both trust and culture which is open to innovation and focuses on an improvement where the staff that is ready to work hard for a common goal is involved. Schools require strong cultures with leaders who keep a focus on learning through frequent conversations, build a collaborative culture which is characterized by conversations centered on student learning and reflective inquiry among others. Literacy instruction entails open discussions with staff related to the teachers’ capacity of integration of literacy skills into the content area of instruction and to identify teachers with particular strength in literacy (Calkins et.al. 2012). Time spent in writing can be increased, teacher preparation for teaching writing skills can be improved, time spent writing and time spent learning how to write can be balanced and student motivation to write can be increased. Text complexity and informational text constitutes of forming a school-wide literacy council, then begin discussions of text complexity and the move to informational text, then analyze a library of books and later conduct an annual diagnostic literacy assessment of all students or use state.

Administration of Assessment

The goal of Common Core State Standard has its aim to ensure the progression of the K-12 standard in place and ensure that students have the required skills and knowledge in mathematics and English Language Arts so that they can be ready for college and careers in states. In as much as there is need to significantly modify and create new curriculum frameworks, altering assessments to ensure proper alignment with the Core Curriculum State Standard is as important (Boudett and Murnane 2013). This is because assessment provides for a consistent measure of whether or not students are meeting or exceeding the states academic standards (Shannon et.al. 2014). An assessment system that is anchored in college ready and career ready expectations includes a combination of specific measures that are designed to meet certain goals which include: an effective measure of depth and breadth of the CCSS, an indication of whether or not the students are reaching mileposts which signify readiness, holding educators and schools accountable for student improvement in performance and readiness in postsecondary education and careers and to inform and improve the quality and consistency of instruction (Bullard 2016). To state assessment systems that will need to evolve and measure the CCSS, states will need to refocus their assessment towards measuring essential knowledge and skills as targeted by CCSS, improve quality and item type including on-demand tests so as to create cognitively challenging tasks which measure high order thinking and analytical skills, establish a college-and-career-ready anchor assessment that is given to all students near the end of high school (Boudett and Murnane 2013). Having regular and common assessments are beneficial since they provide a common and a consistent measure of student performance across states and this allows states to compare performance based on a common metric, it offers opportunities for states to pool their financial and intellectual resources so as to develop better assessments whereas reducing the cost to each state, provides opportunities for cross-state collaboration in other critical areas, and this includes the development of curriculum materials, formative assessments, instructional tools and teacher professional development. Lastly, assessment allows for states to collectively move to the next generation assessment system(Boudett and Murnane 2013). These evaluations are best done at the end of every term, to evaluate the work done during the three-month duration. The changes in curriculum needed to ensure alignment to the new standards and assessments are a vital factor.

Conclusion

A proper transition to the CCSS is likely to challenge the elementary, middle and high schools, regarding implementation. Schools embark on a journey into uncharted waters that are expected to challenge their willingness to learn and have a resolve to persist in times of adversity (Coleman and Pimentel 2012). The power of collaboration and collective action is a tool to help achieve this common goal. To help boost performance of the system, a checklist for principals can be implemented. This is usually designed to help principals determine their Knowledge and the set skills needed to lead their schools through implementing the CCSS (Gestwicki 2013). This checklist sets the stage for implementation of standards by providing a concrete way to reflect upon a schools operation. Aspects that are needed to be altered, so that smooth implementation changes demand by the CCSS are easily assessed by this questioning (Coleman and Pimentel 2012). Parents should be involved in knowing the outcome of the assessment plan so that they can feel acknowledged. Teams can be asked to collaboratively develop a common syllabus and pace a guide, as well as common formative and summative assessments (Boudett and Murnane 2013).

References

Boudett, K. P., & Murnane, R. J. (2013). Data wise: A step by step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A Primer on. Aspen Institute.

Bullard, J. (2016). Creating environments for learning: Birth to age eight. Pearson.

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from the Common Core Standards Initiative at www. corestandards. org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12. pdf.

Common Core Standards Initiative. (2012). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association

Gestwicki, C. (2013). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education. Cengage Learning.

Gunning, T. G. (2012). Creating literacy instruction for all students. Pearson Higher Ed.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233.

National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards. Light, J, 19, 19.

Oliva, P. F., & Gordon II, W. R. (2012). Developing the curriculum. Pearson Higher Ed.

Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core State Standards, 237-262.

Rothman, R. (2011). Something in Common: The Common Core Standards and the Next Chapter in American Education. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Shanahan, T. (2012). The Common Core ate my baby and other urban legends. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 10-16.

Shannon, P., Whitney, A. E., & Wilson, M. (2014). The framing of the Common Core State Standards. Language Arts, 91(4), 295-302.

Vacca, J. A. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C. A. (2014). Reading & learning to read. Pearson Higher Ed.

Venezia, A., & Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. The Future of Children, 23(1), 117-136.

wHY, M. A. T. H. Common Core State Standards.