Common Core State Standards: Ready or NotEssay Preview: Common Core State Standards: Ready or NotReport this essayCommon Core State Standards:Ready or NotDee DeeIntroductionAll across America, schools are preparing to adopt the Common Core State Standards, and educational leaders will play an essential role in this effort. Cynthia B. Schmeiser, Chief Operative Officer of American College Testing (2010), embraced this national focus which was established on decades of researched based data on student learning outcomes and academic preparation to succeed after high school. The State of California will phase out current curriculum standards with new national academic standards to prepare students to compete with the same requirements as other children in states who have elected to participate in this endeavor. The new standards are expected to be in place by the 2013-2014 school year, according to Bonnie Reiss, California Secretary of Education (Call to Action, 2011). This is a rigorous timeline, which requires the adoption of new textbooks, professional development for staff and to figure out how to fund this project given the current fiscal crisis faced by districts across the state. Educational organizations are depending upon institutes of higher education to prepare future practitioners with the readiness to implement the Common Core State Standards. As a member of the school of educations leadership team, for a private university, we are developing professional development models to share with districts and meeting with key personnel to conduct round table discussions focused on the successful implementation of the core standards. Institutes of higher education will assist in various capacities to ensure the accomplishments and implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
Challenges to Becoming a Transformational LeaderEducational standards are nothing new to the profession and have been adopted as benchmarks to ensure that students acquire designated skills and knowledge to reach established learning outcome goals. Standards are a key building block in providing a high-quality educational learning environment dedicated to accessibility to rigorous academic expectations for students. The aim of the Common Core State Standards is to expand academic expectations to a national level, which allow for common comparisons in a standardized test. As of this date, the national standardized test, known as the SMARTER Balanced Assessment (2012), is currently under construction. The Common Core State Standards will build upon Californias rigorous standards with other states and high-performing countries recognized for relevant global knowledge and skills required to ensure students are prepared for success in college and the workforce. Institutes of higher education must begin to strengthen, revise, rewrite and align curriculum and instruction for teacher credentialing programs to instruct new teachers in the content knowledge and teaching methods needed to teach the Common Core State Standards.
Innovative educational leaders, assigned to schools, districts, institutes of higher education, and other agencies, will be faced with changing the status quo of Californias current curriculum requirements, which have been considered best instructional practices for over thirteen years and adopt the national standards that need to sync with schools across the country. This has provided the opportunity to personally step into the role of a transformational leader to establish an action plan to revise and update the credential preparation curriculum to include the essential core standards. This is an occasion for educational teams to examine the components of action research as a contributing effective research method to transform educational organizational practices. Author Donaldson (2007), views the requirements of action research as a venue for the educational leaders to “critically reflect, clearly define problems of practice, have the knowledge for transformative practices
; and provide suggestions to the educational leaders. In the process, individuals and organizations have created programs to empower them through their actions and to share or challenge a problem in their organization and on their network. This approach represents a “leadership transformation to the present day,” as President Obama and his advisers recognize. With the current curriculum changes, this approach is not only only less likely to affect students and their families but may also affect students’ work and career progression. This approach also is not without consequences for the curricula in school. It has long been recognized that changes that reduce time spent in classrooms, improve teaching styles, and allow for more efficient learning experiences may lead to lower achievement. Although some organizations (e.g., school boards and agencies) have been trying to “reset” these core curriculum changes in the past, they have encountered the difficulty of having more than one, if not two or many, students enrolled in the same school, a fact that will have to be negotiated, evaluated, and implemented. Therefore, a change in the curriculum needs to have clear, action-oriented principles and policies. In order to achieve this, policy makers should be guided by the facts, and, indeed, the evidence, of what is true and necessary to progress. The recent revisions have raised important concerns about the effectiveness of reform, including whether the curriculum should be changed to include more clearly defining the “true value” of a school or what standards and standards are needed to teach a higher educational goal, or vice versa. The need for action to change the curriculum must be reflected in the way in which the new curriculum is based on the core components of the work of the student/teacher. In addition to making the new academic curriculum more flexible, it includes specific elements of research that are specific to education. Thus, for example, “The role of education in improving learning outcomes may help create new methods to advance knowledge and understand those outcomes.” (B. Scott Giese, ed., Teacher’s Manual (1926) The Author: Teach with Change and the Changing Standards of Teaching (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), pp. 14–41 and see also M. Kollis, “The Role of Education in the Change in the Content of Academic Standards” (New York: New Press, 1998). These changes may require the creation of new institutions of higher learning (“credentials organizations”) that will need to address the changes in knowledge, design, practice, and other elements. However, in the absence of strong leadership, these new organizational capabilities may not be sufficiently effective. So, even if the curriculum of a higher education institution is radically different in terms of standards and practices, it should not hinder other factors that influence its performance. Moreover, if schools and district organizations adopt the new academic curriculum in ways that emphasize learning and innovation or fail to provide the full support for faculty and students to develop new curricula, students are likely to not realize the benefits of their learning. As such, it is necessary to make the changes that are necessary for schools and districts to support and lead their students around their academic standards and research. When schools adopt the new standardized instructional curriculum, they are making significant changes to their student-development systems, and the changes will involve a large variety of factors other than the new curriculum. For example, these actions also require that a standardized learning learning plan contain clear guidance on instructional design, development, and implementation as well as on accountability for student learning outcomes. As a result, schools and district and board members will have greater responsibility and control over the course design and results of their student-focused curricula as well as their student-centric academic curricula. As we have explored extensively here at the beginning of this report, there are several implications concerning the way education and learning interact. For one, the changing educational landscape and focus on the classroom can make a significant impression on teachers, educators, and students without the help of higher education leaders—individuals who will be making meaningful decisions about learning outcomes in order to improve those outcomes. These changes are, of course