Albert Shanker Institute writes that, “State teaching quality oversight bodies to work on linking student standards and curriculum guidance to teacher preparation and development, and to ensure that sufficient resources are allotted to these efforts (Albert Shanker Institute, 2011, p.381).” Implementing an assessment for both teachers and students would help initiate equality among schools across the country. This is essential to America because it promotes a sense of equality for everyone through attaining equal skills and concepts among students. Given that state governments prefer their sovereignty from the national government when it comes to state affiliated issues such as education and healthcare, state governments are in fear of a centralized education system that limits their control of education governance that is outlined in the American constitution. It is crucial to note that a coherent education system would benefit the greater society at large because national education system enforces equity. Enacting laws that initiate a core education curriculum would initiate coherent set of goals that both students and teachers would have to meet in terms of educational achievement for all students (Albert Shanker Institute, 2011, p.378). Equity in the school curriculum means that schools will have matching resources such as technological development in schools as a way of equipping students with knowledge and skills. Thus, Shaker looks at the political paradigm in the US that should be altered such that the national government and state governments enact a law that enforces all schools to confer to the same school curriculum.
Unlike Shaker who believes that states should share their power with the national government in controlling the schools, Greene believes that schools should implement a common core standard for all schools. Greene presumes that education standards should be “similar for all children whether they live in Mississippi or Massachusetts, Tennessee, or Texas. We also think that curricula should be designed before assessments are developed, not the other way round (Greene, 2011, p.382).” This implies that Greene agrees that school curriculum is an amicable thing however; school programs should adopt or create a curriculum that ought to benefit both the students and the teachers. The Shanker Institute overlooks the fact that a curriculum need to be developed that favors all schools across the nation and increases student’s knowledge and skills. This illustrates that both writers ought to agree that a common curriculum should be integrated in the school system. However, Greene looks at the foundation to which will enable a core curriculum for all students in different states. The author also believes that teachers, experts, and cognitive scientists should be art in designing the curriculum that fits all students (Greene, 2011, p.385). Given the structural system engrained in the American culture, it makes it hard for the education system to implement change suddenly.
Both Greene and Shanker Institute agree that equity in the school curriculum is important for students in development of knowledge and acquiring crucial skills. I agree with Greene that a core curriculum should be implemented for everyone as a way of initiating equality among students in America. This would be beneficial to most students because some people such as military families tend to move around so much that it affects the child’s learning capability. As a way of helping such families, a core curriculum would be helpful in that the student doesn’t need to unlearn some things as a way of fitting into the new society standards because the curriculum is the same across the American states. In addition, curriculum sets standards for both the students and the teachers to meet, which means that assessing student’s learning activity can accurately be done through schools sharing a similar curriculum. This makes Greener argument stronger than Shanker institute that aims as assessing and evaluating students by overlooking the importance of setting standards, which the curriculum has to meet then and then assessment is the last step.
Greene, J. P., Stoksky, S., Evers, B., Forster, G., & Wurman, Z. (2011, May). Closing the door on innovation. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (17th ed.) (pp.382-387). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
The Albert Shanker Institute. (2011). A call for common content. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (17th ed.) (pp.376-381). New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.