{"id":322,"date":"2014-05-21T19:27:12","date_gmt":"2014-05-21T19:27:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.smartdesks-computer-office-furniture-blog.dev\/?p=322"},"modified":"2021-07-14T12:27:48","modified_gmt":"2021-07-14T12:27:48","slug":"the-common-core-state-standards-widespread-standardized-testing-and-the-american-education-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/smartdesks.com\/knowledge-center\/the-common-core-state-standards-widespread-standardized-testing-and-the-american-education-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"The Common Core State Standards, widespread standardized testing, and the American education industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Standardized testing is historically a hot-button topic in the American public education system.  From the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002 and Race to the Top in 2009, to the more recent controversy surrounding the release of the Common Core State Standards in 2010, questions abound as to whether standardized testing can provide an accurate metric for academic success, in terms of both teacher and student performance.
\nAccording to the Common Core website<\/a>, the standards “provide clear and consistent learning goals to help prepare students for college, career, and life. The standards clearly demonstrate what students are expected to learn at each grade level, so that every parent and teacher can understand and support their learning.” The ultimate goal of the standards is to produce college and career readiness from a young age — beginning in the elementary years. <\/span>
\nBut concerns remain about how exactly to prepare students for college, especially across a diverse array of school districts and student bodies. <\/span>Some who oppose the Common Core cite the limiting influence of “teaching to the test,” which according to this editorial<\/a> could create a standardized test meritocracy, defining students by ratings and rankings rather than their individual intellectual and creative strengths (which are not well measured by multiple choice tests). In addition, the Common Core standards were written by 27 members of the organization Student Achievement Partners. Many of these writers are involved in the pre-existing standardized testing industry and maintain interests in its economic growth. <\/span>
\nOn the other hand, proponents of the program argue that because the standards merely indicate what students should be capable of as they progress through the grade levels. Individual curricula are still left to the discretion of their teachers and schools. As such, they claim that teaching a standardized skill set within the flexible framework of the Common Core will, on the whole, boost students’ academic performance.
\nSMARTdesks and the Common Core  <\/strong>
\nSMARTdesks is a firm believer the project-based learning and collaborative work allows students to grow in ways that exclusively “teaching to the test” does not offer. Standards have the capacity to enrich education, but they also must constantly adjust to account for students and their individual learning needs. Just as rows of desks are a dated classroom layout, uniform standards can curb the opportunity to foster creativity and entrepreneurship from an early age.
\nThis Washington Post article<\/a> offers a pertinent critique of the standards and their dependence on standardized testing as a measure of success, calling this method the “test-and-punish” approach as opposed to a “support-and-improve” model. Involved diagnostic entities working to improve education – such as the California Collaborative mentioned in the article – can identify strengths and weaknesses of schools in a way that the ranking inherent in standardized testing cannot. This approach emphasizes constructive feedback rather than punitive sanctions, and enables educators to better design curricula without the looming threat of losing their jobs based on their students’ standardized test scores. <\/span>
\nIn general, how much dol, so that every parent and teacher can understand and support their learning.” The ultimate goal of the standards is to produce college and career readiness from a young age — beginning in the elementary years. 
\nBut concerns remain about how exactly to prepare students for college, especially across a diverse array of school districts and student bodies. <\/span>Some who oppose the Common Core cite the limiting influence of “teaching to the test,” which according to this editorial<\/a> could create a standardized test meritocracy, defining students by ratings and rankings rather than their individual intellectual and creative strengths (which are not well measured by multiple choice tests). In addition, the Common Core standards were written by 27 members of the organization Student Achievement Partners. Many of these writers are involved in the pre-existing standardized testing industry and maintain interests in its economic growth. <\/span>
\nOn the other hand, proponents of the program argue that because the standards merely indicate what students should be capable of as they progress through the grade levels. Individual curricula are still left to the discretion of their teachers and schools. As such, they claim that teaching a standardized skill set within the flexible framework of the Common Core will, on the whole, boost students’ academic performance.
\nSMARTdesks and the Common Core  <\/strong>
\nSMARTdesks is a firm believer the project-based learning and collaborative work allows students to grow in ways that exclusively “teaching to the test” does not offer. Standards have the capacity to enrich education, but they also must constantly adjust to account for students and their individual learning needs. Just as rows of desks are a dated classroom layout, uniform standards can curb the opportunity to foster creativity and entrepreneurship from an early age.
\nThis Washington Post article<\/a> offers a pertinent critique of the standards and their dependence on standardized testing as a measure of success, calling this method the “test-and-punish” approach as opposed to a “support-and-improve” model. Involved diagnostic entities working to improve education – such as the California Collaborative mentioned in the article – can identify strengths and weaknesses of schools in a way that the ranking inherent in standardized testing cannot. This approach emphasizes constructive feedback rather than punitive sanctions, and enables educators to better design curricula without the looming threat of losing their jobs based on their students’ standardized test scores. <\/span>
\nIn general, how much do Americans really know about the Common Core?<\/strong>
\nA UConn poll<\/a> from earlier this month showed that the more Americans know about the initiative, the less likely they will be to support it.
\nSome Statistics:<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n