US moves towards national curriculum

10:58 PM 10 March 2010.

Educationalists and state education officials in the USA have released details of a proposed national education standard for public schools (see details on www.corestandards.org).  

By seeking to simplify and better co-ordinate English and maths curriculums a national school standard will replace the current disjointed checkerboard array of locally written standards that vary considerably in content and sophistication. 

State education authorities have received a considerable ‘carrot’ to facilitate school curriculum change, namely, the potential to receive financial grants under the Obama Administration’s $4.3 billion ‘Race to the Top’ program to improve public education standards across the country. 

It is hardly coincidental that the Rudd Government is taking a broadly similar stance to standardise primary and secondary curriculum programs.  

While Australia's confederacy should make cross state/territory negotiations simpler Education Minister Gillard appears determined to stare down resistance and negativity from certain teachers unions and other critics regarding the ACARA national curriculum proposals. 

US Education Secretary Arne Duncan may have marginalised criticism that the US federal government was meddling in classroom teaching by securing broad tacit approval from a number of US teaching unions involved with English and maths curriculum setting.  

Not all US states are enamoured to curriculum standardisation. Texas has withdrawn from the standards writing effort stating that only Texans should decide what their children learn.  

Early indications show that the vast majority of US states and education authorities will agree to the revised education charter for these two key learning areas.    

 

 

 

 

Details of the proposed standards can be read on the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) website  www.corestandards.org    

 

Panel releases proposal to set US standards for education.   New York Times, 10 March 2010.  www.nytimes.com   

 

Comments:

Please log in to post comments