As national education reforms march on, the details are taking more time. Although the 26 states that assisted in developing the Next Generation Science Standards agreed to consider implementing them, only eight have actually signed on now that the standards have been finalized, Liana Heitlin writes for Education Week.
The Common Core State Standards were accepted much more rapidly; there are several reasons for the difference. Some states are too busy becoming accustomed to the Common Core State Standards and are reluctant to change anything else just yet; some are experiencing legislative restrictions; and still others say it's because of the lack of federal incentives, Heitlin writes. "I always thought it would take two to three years—but I'm very optimistic the majority of states will adopt," said David L. Evans, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, a partner in developing the standards.
Even the states that chose to adopt the Science Standards are taking their time. Matt D. Krehbiel, a science education consultant for the education department in Kansas where the standards were approved in June, said, "If there's a general theme, it's that folks are really encouraging a slow approach."
"Interestingly, there's been less public back-and-forth so far about the content of the science standards than has been the case with the common core," Heitlin writes, "even given the hot-button political issues—including the teaching of climate change and evolution—embedded in the standards."
One leading critic, Thomas B. Fordham Institute Executive Vice President Michael J. Petrilli, told Heitlin: "There's not enough focus on content. . . . The standards seem to go out of their way to downplay the knowledge." Brian J. Reiser, a professor of learning science at Northwestern University, disagrees. He said the new science standards require "a greater attention to the content based on what decades of research say about the best way to help kids understand ideas."
Although states and schools aren't causing much of a ruckus over the Science Standards as some may have expected, Petrilli said when it came to the Common Core, "the backlash came much later. I wonder if with the science standards it's the same thing. The folks most likely to be opposed to these things haven't spoken up now, but perhaps they'll speak up a few years from now." (Read more)
The debate over the Common Core State Standards, which guide math and English content in 45 states and the District of Columbia, continues. To help quell objections, some states are rebranding the Common Core so it will be more readily accepted, Lyndsey Layton writes for The Washington Post. For example, Iowa uses the label "The Iowa Core," while Florida calls it "Next Generation Sunshine State Standards." Debbi Higginbotham, co-founder of Florida Parents Against Common Core, says renaming the Common Core will not change her opinion of it. "What they're trying to do is pull the wool over the eyes of the regular parents who are not as engaged. They're trying to say these are Florida standards they they're not."
Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a conservative commentator, is part of the impetus to rebrand the Common Core. Saying the name has become "toxic," he said, "Rebrand it, refocus it, but don't retreat."
While Common Core supporters say the standards prioritize critical thinking and analytical skills that will make students more competitive in the global marketplace, much of the controversy stems from a belief that the standards constitute a federal takeover of local education, Layton writes.
Christopher Johnson, a branding expert, said he doesn't think renaming the standard will help the situation in the long run. "It's something that might be politically expedient in the short term," he told Layton. "They might succeed in bamboozling people who are opposed to the idea of nationwide standards by giving them local names. . . . But I think it's skirting around the issue." (Read more)
The Common Core State Standards were accepted much more rapidly; there are several reasons for the difference. Some states are too busy becoming accustomed to the Common Core State Standards and are reluctant to change anything else just yet; some are experiencing legislative restrictions; and still others say it's because of the lack of federal incentives, Heitlin writes. "I always thought it would take two to three years—but I'm very optimistic the majority of states will adopt," said David L. Evans, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, a partner in developing the standards.
Even the states that chose to adopt the Science Standards are taking their time. Matt D. Krehbiel, a science education consultant for the education department in Kansas where the standards were approved in June, said, "If there's a general theme, it's that folks are really encouraging a slow approach."
"Interestingly, there's been less public back-and-forth so far about the content of the science standards than has been the case with the common core," Heitlin writes, "even given the hot-button political issues—including the teaching of climate change and evolution—embedded in the standards."
One leading critic, Thomas B. Fordham Institute Executive Vice President Michael J. Petrilli, told Heitlin: "There's not enough focus on content. . . . The standards seem to go out of their way to downplay the knowledge." Brian J. Reiser, a professor of learning science at Northwestern University, disagrees. He said the new science standards require "a greater attention to the content based on what decades of research say about the best way to help kids understand ideas."
Although states and schools aren't causing much of a ruckus over the Science Standards as some may have expected, Petrilli said when it came to the Common Core, "the backlash came much later. I wonder if with the science standards it's the same thing. The folks most likely to be opposed to these things haven't spoken up now, but perhaps they'll speak up a few years from now." (Read more)
The debate over the Common Core State Standards, which guide math and English content in 45 states and the District of Columbia, continues. To help quell objections, some states are rebranding the Common Core so it will be more readily accepted, Lyndsey Layton writes for The Washington Post. For example, Iowa uses the label "The Iowa Core," while Florida calls it "Next Generation Sunshine State Standards." Debbi Higginbotham, co-founder of Florida Parents Against Common Core, says renaming the Common Core will not change her opinion of it. "What they're trying to do is pull the wool over the eyes of the regular parents who are not as engaged. They're trying to say these are Florida standards they they're not."
Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a conservative commentator, is part of the impetus to rebrand the Common Core. Saying the name has become "toxic," he said, "Rebrand it, refocus it, but don't retreat."
While Common Core supporters say the standards prioritize critical thinking and analytical skills that will make students more competitive in the global marketplace, much of the controversy stems from a belief that the standards constitute a federal takeover of local education, Layton writes.
Christopher Johnson, a branding expert, said he doesn't think renaming the standard will help the situation in the long run. "It's something that might be politically expedient in the short term," he told Layton. "They might succeed in bamboozling people who are opposed to the idea of nationwide standards by giving them local names. . . . But I think it's skirting around the issue." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment