Proposal on

“Common Core State Standards Law”

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION3

LITERATURE REVIEW4

Historical Context of Common Core State Standards Law4

Common Core State Standards Law5

Rationale behind the Common Core State Standards Law7

Implications of the Law8

American Education System9

Works Cited11

INTRODUCTION

In the era of globalization and increasing competition, the education system demands the students to be fully equipped in order to confront the competition that awaits them in their professional career. The report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, published by the National Academies has issued a warning that United States is losing its competitive edge in the world. One of the recommendations presented in the report is to strengthen the domain of science and mathematics in the United States K-12 education system (Haycock, p.2). American students must get high level education and professional experience to compete successfully in a global economy. This has become a challenge for the present government. In order to achieve the purpose and improve the quality of the education system, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers (CCSSO) developed the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects K-12 and for mathematical content and practice, with science standards to follow.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Context of Common Core State Standards Law

The dynamic federalist system of education in the United States of America has historically resulted in great variation in quality of schooling and education across different states. This disparity is due to the fact that each governmental body holds authority over the decisions about educational systems within state, including testing and credit requirements, accountability, certification, and fiscal programs. As a result, the school finance reform has usually occurred at the state level, and is often based upon challenges to the constitutionality of finance systems and ultimately intended to increase inter-district fiscal equity (William, p. 3). These attempts at reform have met with different outcomes and varying levels of successfully changing state education finance structures. One of the most extensive and comprehensive federal program in the history of US education is “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)”. It linked the accomplishment on state standards tests to state allotments of federal Title funds and to a federal schedule of sanctions and rewards. Since all states allocate these federal funds independently; therefore, the influence of such distribution may vary across states. Moreover, some states follow the practice of even distribution, while others have set different criterion for the allocation of funds (Carnoy& Loeb, p. 305). The impact of state school finance reforms differ across the states. Although the adoption and imposition of centralized reforms have reduced the inequality in spending pattern; however, the overall impact of these changes vary across locales with some states minimally increasing overall resources at varying rates or not at all.

Several institutions including the Education Trust, the Commission on NCLB and the American Federation of Teachers, have been strong supporters of the development and adoption of national ...