The common core state standards attempt to predict the result of common core on the learning process in all public schools. This includes the effect on performance of students, service delivery by teachers and the relevance of the program on school management. The move targets at increasing the superiority of the education system compared to the existing one. It also has the element of being rigorous. Consequently, the move would put the study system under one umbrella in that it would eliminate the differences purported to be existing across the states. However, the definition of the core values of the study is not clear. This implies that the quality of the study has no real perspective on whether it is of low or high quality. This leaves the whole idea of implementation into an ambiguous state among the states. For instance, the academic performance record between the year 2003 and 2009 had an extremely low margin of performance among the terrific performers and the awful performers.
According to ACT (2010), one notable thing that the study does not give adherence to is the standard qualities. This is a setback to the system. It is a key role of the national government, which is vulnerable to criticism over the quality. On the other hand, the study aims at addressing the issue of deviations among states. This is fully a state led initiative, whose standards came into development with the aid of teachers and other school administrators for furnishing students with mechanisms of coping with life at college and the global market. The cons of the system are that it creates a common level of assessment of performance of students across the entire nation (Mathis, 2010). However, the major constrain to the system as revealed by critics is that control by the federal government would lead to much bureaucracy.
This research paper gives the depicted impact of the common core state standards and its effects on the future of literacy.
Mathis (2010) asserts that the core state standards have a stipulated criteria, which includes build up from the state of the art standards, they potent critical evidence, they also prepare students for the global market. Apart from the defined criteria, the basis of the common core state standards is consistency and ease of understanding.
Creation of the standards was such that they could give the teachers, parents and students the true picture of the career pursuance by the students throughout the learning period. Consequently, the standards would bring the unity among education programs for students. This would help gauge the performance level at a nationwide level rather than the state level.
Carmichael, Martino, Porter-Magee, and Wilson (2010) affirm that the major attribute of contribution of the standards to the literacy of the states is to streamline the courses per subject. This would enable alignment of the curriculum in such a way that it gives every citizen the opportunity to rate their academic efforts on a nationwide level. This could lead to increased enrolment of students into the academic system. The study would also give a chance for rigorous content and application of knowledge by the learner, which would increase mastery of content. Consequently, the study would streamline the education sector to include a furnished system per subject, which gives a firsthand acquaintance to the applications of each subject taught from the preschool up to the global market thus attracting more students who would have learned from beneficiaries (Loveless, 2012).
Standardizing of education programs would uplift resources vested towards academic achievement. This would correlate with higher enrolment rates. The student population seeking to benefit from the program would increase. In the end, this would reduce literacy levels.
The standardization program would also see the school administration benefit from the subsidized effort vested in development of the curriculum. If a national curriculum were in place, it would reduce the time wasted in developing state based curriculum, whose implementation is solely the role of the school administration. In fact, the administration would be left with the duty of implementation, which is easier than development; this would correlate with high academic standards.
The program is also beneficial to the parents in that it gives openness to the career opportunities that students need. This would go a long way towards boosting the morale of parents in motivating their children into uptake of the school programs (Loveless, 2012). In addition, the program creates confidence in parents to vest resources essential in education programs and, since the students act as the product of this system, the levels of literacy among the school aged would reduce.
The program would affect the teacher fraternity, in that the subject considerations for each teacher within a framework are harmonious. This is essential in mastery of topics per subject as a requirement of the tutor. Consequently, the standardization process is essential in building teamwork within the teacher peers teaching similar curriculum.
The standards are essential in coordination of politics within states as they target for enabling of a harmonious platform of discussion for political elevation. Although they act as a setback to the political maneuvers, as well as a tool for the end of elevation of political career. It is also beneficial for students who take up careers related to political science (Mathis, 2010).
On the converse, the study has various critics who believe that the management of the federal government would increase the levels of bureaucracy. This is a setback to the student fraternity in that it would set powers of control of the education system into the hands of the central government. The students would fall short of the set targets since the individual states know the area of coverage in curricular activities. The system would also disable the curricular activities based on the state level. This implies that performance of learning institutions in terms of co-curricular activities would be on a decline because of focus on the central government.
The major source of criticism to the standardization process is that changes in performance levels do not correlate with change in policies. For instance, each state has different student, parent and teacher capabilities. This implies that standardization of education programs on a national level would eliminate the focus on individual capability. Consequently, this process would eliminate the pride held by individual performing states. There is a variation within states, and this implies that working on a common system is a source of discrepancies to the education system (ACT, 2010).
The fact that each state knows its capabilities could result into disintegration of the quality of education. For instance, each state works within the capabilities of available resources. Merging up the system of education would surmount to need for new efforts and resources, which are not necessarily close to proximity. This would facilitate poor programs in place.
On the other hand, education programs aim at solving current problems facing the society. Each state has programs targeting problems that they face. Standardization of programs would lead to expatriation, which would be a benefit to the national development. This implies that local development of resourceful persons would shift to national levels, which might be a costly affair.
In addition, the standardization program would not focus on the quality of education. For instance, there is an extraordinarily low margin between poorly performing states and the higher performers from the year 2003 to 2009 (Mathis, 2010). This implies that standardization does not necessarily lead to higher education qualities.
In conclusion, the common core state standards have various assumptions depending on performance. For instance, the states of Maine, Massachusetts and Ohio uphold a common believe that the rankings for the current state standards is the same for states despite the strength of the standards. This implies that the rankings in performance of states with weak standards are the same as states with strong standards. However, the system aims at reducing the discrepancies within states and merge up the education system. This is beneficial to students in that it prepares students for global competition. It is also essential for the school administration since it reduces the workload of formulation of education programs. The move is also essential for teachers, as it would allow a national performance level, which is a source of prestige. In addition, it would be beneficial to parents since the resultant effect would have a sense on the resources vested in education programs. Having a national core state standard would shift the focus of fighting illiteracy from the state level to a national level. This would correlate with high rates of literacy as it creates awareness among citizens. The program is essential in harmonizing the education system to give a chance for global performance. This would shift local attention and aim at a national attention. As a result, the move would lead to exportation of talent. Consequently, the move would lead to expatriation since local performers would have national recognition. Most of the beneficiaries would act as a motivation to those seeking education. In the end, this would eliminate illiteracy among states due to national awareness standardization program.