The Charge and the Challenges
Chapter 6. Crash [dis-]Course: a Critical View of Teaching, Testing, and the Times
In March 2010, the Obama Administration proposed revisions to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), called “A Blueprint for Reform” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). A major part of this blueprint was a focus on universal standards for language and mathematics education and college-readiness programs. From this legislative push, a renewed interest emerged in the work done at the state level, with the nation’s governors and education officials in the development of what have come to be called the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). However, the Common Core State Standards were actually written
…under the aegis of several D.C.-based organizations: the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve. The development process was led behind closed doors by a small organization called Student Achievement Partners, which David Coleman headed. The writing group of 27 contained few educators, but a significant number of representatives of the testing industry. (Ravitch, 2014, para. 15) ← 107 | 108 →
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were designed to balance our education system. Developed as a potential means for creating a universal standard of basic education in the United States, the CCSS provide literacy and numeracy skill minimums for teachers to use when developing educational programs for children, thus creating the standard for “high quality education.” To date, 45...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.