Six states put forward legislation to remove its obligations from Common Core standards implementation. A majority of states are in the process of phasing in the new national K-12 curriculum. However, the curriculum overhaul geared towards a modern world is facing resistance from states rights advocates.
State lawmakers in South Dakota‘s House want to “require the Board of Education to obtain legislative approval before adopting any further Common Core standards.” House Bill 1204 passed with a 36-32 vote, but was recently rejected by the state’s Senate Education Committee.
Indiana’s state Senate shares many of the same sentiments. Senate Bill 193 reads:
“The bill requires the State Board to compare Indiana standards with the Common Core Standards, to seek information concerning best practices from a broad range of sources, and consider other superior standards before adopting new standards.”
Indiana Governor Mike Pence expressed concerns of Common Core becoming another over-reaching federal education policy. The bill passed through the state Senate, but is being merged into a state House bill to be heard by its education committee.
Both state houses in Kansas (HB 2289) and Missouri (HB 616) have introduced bills that are outright rejections of Common Core standards. The bills are flowing through respective legislatures and may experience revisions and amendments.
The Alabama state Senate and House introduced bills to prohibit Common Core standards, but both failed to pass. Georgia‘s Senate considered rejecting federal standards programs including Race to the Top. The bill in Georgia also failed to pass through its legislature.
The official Common Core Standards website mapped out the current state of its adoption. Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia are the states that have rejected Common Core from the start:
IVN contributor Kelly Petty previously covered how Common Core Standards implementation fits into the global economy. The focus on non-fictional texts and STEM raised concerns about a departure from critical thinking development alongside classic literature. It is contended that the new curriculum remains to be deeply rooted in liberal arts.
It’s unlikely that many states will be joining those that have already rejected Common Core standards implementation. Although the new curriculum seeks to centralize the academic standards across the country, it does not directly replace No Child Left Behind. States that have not been granted NCLB waivers are still subject to the regulations of the law.
With a solid understanding of K-12 education and an even-keeled approach to the debate, how do you perceive the nuances and challenges of curriculum development? Are politics too strong of a factor? Is a nationally developed curriculum an effective solution or should states create their own standards?
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
Maybe a research university would do a good job of that. Not sure if a university would want to though, may not be lucrative research. If it's mandated by the government, a govt agency would have to carry out something P-20.
The experience this article leads with is Exactly what I experienced with one addition to boot. I also didn't realize that a loophole about numbers of hours could allow my loan to come due before I graduated. It Is a fact that the Only reason why i can't pay my loan off is because I haven't had a job since graduating. I never missed a bill payment prior to losing my last job.
Some of friends of mine, a married couple, were not able to get the house they wanted to because of the student loan debt of one of them even though they make regular payments, the debt is so high it showed up as a red flag when approving the mortgage.
the big problem I see is how students cant qualify for loan forgiveness under bankruptcy or other means. Why do other types of loans allow it but not for student loans?
Another aspect to student loans that doesn't get solved with new policies. Thanks for sharing your experiences Mr. Reinhardt!
really interested to see how this plays out and what exactly the criteria for de-accreditation by the ACCJC are...if their interference isn't indicative of academic performance, then what are the shortcomings they are responding to? I hope the campus advocates are making some noise about their side of the story.
I think national standards can be useful, especially in maintaining some measure of congruency across the nation, but states should be given some room to meet such standards in the manner they see fit.