Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Is whether or not you survive Ebola all about your genetics? A new study on mice indicates that it might be. Scientists found that certain genetic factors determine if the disease manifests as mild or devastating.

To reach this conclusion, scientists injected mice with the same strain of Ebola that caused the 2014 West Africa Outbreak. The expressed severity of the disease among the mice was scattered although they were all injected with the same unaltered and unmutated strain. Why did some resist the disease while others surrendered?

One correlation posits a provocative answer. Scientists noticed a strong correlation between symptom expression and the genetic lines of the mice. Dr. Michael Katze, a researcher on the project, declared that their data suggest disease outcomes are largely dependent on genetic factors.

It seems that the genes of the mice determined their immune response. In some mice, the genes that promote blood vessel inflammation and cell death became agitated and ultimately these mice succumbed to the disease. In other mice, the white blood cells were more lively and the genes that promote blood vessel repair were activated. These mice were able to fight back. As they observed the mice over multiple generations, they found that the ability to survive was tied to genetic lines. The continuous correlation of immunity in genetic lines presents a puzzle. Did the mice pass specific immunity on to their offspring?

Immune responses to specific pathogens, like Ebola, only develop after exposure. Specific immunity is an acquired trait, and so far, science has told us that acquired traits cannot be passed on through DNA. Traits we acquire in our lifetimes are not written into DNA and therefore not built into genes. Acquired traits result from environmental influences, like memories or even tans. If you’re a bronze goddess while pregnant, you won’t have a baby with a gorgeous tan.

So it is intriguing to think that mice who were exposed to Ebola had somehow passed on their specific, acquired, immunity to offspring through their genes. Below we’ll explore the possibility of inheriting acquired immunity.

Your Two-Sided Immune System

We’re all born with an innate immune system. It’s responsible for the classic immune response that recognizes and eliminates foreign invaders with the help of killer cells and cytokines. Skin, mucus, cells, and molecules all present at birth innately protect your body from foreign pathogens. Think of any computer you buy. It comes with a built in operating system. But that doesn’t mean you can’t upgrade, right?

Environmental factors prompt us to make little upgrades to our basic innate immune system like we do to our computer’s operating system. This is called adaptive or acquired immunity. Adaptive immunity activates in response to a specific problem that the innate immune system isn’t able to overcome. As it works, it also forms memories, so it can remember how to fight a specific pathogen if it ever returns for vengeance. A classic example is the Chickenpox. It doesn’t take much for most people to catch it the first time, but after that, many are resistant for life.

Acquired immunity, like other acquired traits, is not inherited. Even though you might have had the chickenpox, your kid will probably still get it, just like they can’t inherit your amazing tan or stellar vocabulary. With that said, we return again to the mice in the study above. Is it possible that they passed on their acquired immunity to their offspring?

“Lamarck-y” malarkey! Or maybe not….

If you’re intrigued by the study above, one historical figure would be absolutely riveted. Jean Baptiste Lamarck had this idea a long time ago — in 1801 to be specific. He theorized that evolution takes place when species develop traits to adapt to their environment and then transmit those adaptations to their offspring. Per his theory, giraffes developed long necks to feed from the tallest trees and then passed the “long neck” trait to their offspring.

Somebody else thought that evolution occurred in a different way. Charles Darwin proposed that evolution occurs through random mutations that bestow a competitive advantage for survival over a long time. Per his theory, the giraffes didn’t develop long necks to feed. It was just that the giraffes that happened to have slightly longer necks were able to survive to make more offspring. Eventually, the long neck became a dominant feature of all giraffes.

Darwin’s theory eclipsed Lamarck’s as the favorite theory of evolution. But were there some nuggets of truth in Lamarck’s musings? A growing body of evidence is creating a whisper of renewed interest in Lamarckian evolution. Collectively, it’s a young field called epigenetics.

For example, observations of starving Dutch mothers during the famine of World War II revealed that they had offspring and grandchildren more susceptible to obesity. Experiments on rats have found that obesity in mice might be caused by the high fat diets of their fathers. And there’s more where that came from.

The proof is in…the roundworm?

Dr. Oliver Hobert was curious to find out if Lamarck might have been right about the heritability of acquired traits. He suspected that ribonucleic acid, or RNA, and its role in genetic expression might shed some light on the subject.

Hobert was specifically interested in RNA interference (RNAi). Cells use RNAi to turn down or suppress certain genes. Watch the video below to see how it works.

Hobert and his team of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) researchers turned to roundworms to study RNAi’s influence on immunity. Roundworms have a unique capacity to battle viruses using RNAi that made them ideal for the study. The team found that a RNA molecule memory of instructions on fighting off certain viruses could be passed on from one generation of roundworms to the next.

Here is a quote from Dr. Oded Rechavi, lead author of the study, courtesy of the CUMC newsroom:

In our study, roundworms that developed resistance to a virus were able to pass along that immunity to their progeny for many consecutive generations.The immunity was transferred in the form of small viral-silencing agents called viRNAs, working independently of the organism’s genome.

More Pieces in the Puzzle

Studies like this one give scientists pause on long standing notions about the heritability of acquired traits and what we know about our genes. While many more studies are needed to completely vindicate Lamarck and his ideas, some puzzling clues are coming together. Here are some highlights from other studies that tackle similar ideas:

SardiNIA Study of Aging: Researchers at the National Research Council’s Institute of Genetic and Biomedical Research in Italy found that genetics play a key role in our ability to fight off disease. According to the study, the immune system has evolved to reject certain pathogens and cancers. The basis of the study is that several adaptive immune cells are regulated by genetics. They found 89 gene variants with significant ties to the production of specific immune system cells.

Chief of NIA’s Laboratory of Genetics, David Schlessinger, Ph.D., sums it up nicely:

If your mother is rarely sick, for example, does that mean you don’t have to worry about the bug that’s going around? Is immunity in the genes? According to our findings, the answer is yes, at least in part.

Natural Environment Research Council UK: This study demonstrates that genetic variations in cytokines are a crucial component of individual variation in pathogen resistance and immune function. During both adaptive and innate immune responses, cytokines carry messages. They directly determine how an immune system will respond to a given challenger. So variations in the genes that control these cytokines, therefore, ultimately affect the immune system.

Analysis of Genetic Variation in Animals: A study of hemophiliac individuals infected with HCV showed that genetic factors determine the outcome of the disease. The researches studied siblings and found correlative rates of disease recovery among siblings was much higher than the pairs of randomly paired individuals, concluding that people who share genes might also share higher resistance to certain diseases.

Innate Immune Activity: Another study looked at the genome sequence that regulates expression of genes involved in the immune system. The study found that sometimes genes of interest reveal themselves when certain cells involved in fighting an infection are stimulated.

Back to the E-word…

Ebola usually depletes a person’s immune cells. Some immune systems stand up against the initial attack and their bodies are able to maintain some immune cells. These people are more likely to survive. We learned from the study on mice that it could be genetic factors that determine the disease outcome. What about people?

One study found that people with certain variations of the human leukocyte antigen-B  gene survived Ebola while those with another variation did not. Another finding deals with a mutation in the NPC1 gene. Cells taken from people with this gene are resistant to Ebola. The mutation is relatively common in certain populations in Europe and Nova Scotia.

More research is needed, but studying these genetic variances might reveal more secrets of why some survive Ebola and others do not.

Immuno Synergy

These findings do more than just play with our ideas of how traits can be inherited. If doctors were able to browse through your genetic catalog of specific pathogen resistance, they could administer therapies that create synergies among treatments. We might be able to predict what ailments you’re more susceptible to and take appropriate preventive actions. We might be able to study the genetic factors that make some people resistant to illnesses like Ebola, and synthesize them to construct even more effective treatments.

Is this science fiction? We don’t know yet, but no theories should be completely forgotten. As we’ve learned from Lamarck, even formerly discarded ideas can make a splash centuries after their inception.

 Resources

Primary

PLOS Genetics: Genetic Diversity in Cytokines Associated with Immune Variation and Resistance to Multiple Pathogens in a Natural Rodent Population

The Royal Society: Variation in Immune Defence as a Question of Evolutionary Ecology

NIH: Genetic Variability of Hosts

University of Western Australia: Genetic Variation of Host Immune  Response Genes and Their Effect on  Hepatitis C Infection and Treatment Outcome

Additional

Science Daily: Genetic Factors Behind Surviving or Dying From Ebola Shown in Mouse Study

Broad Institute: Scientists Make Connection Between Genetic Variation and Immune System in Risk for Neurodegenerative and Other Diseases

Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics: Study Tracks Effects of Immune Activity Across the Genome

MNT: Immune Response Determined by Our Genes, Study Shows

History of Vaccines: Viruses and Evolution

LiveScience: How Do People Survive Ebola?

Research Gate: What is the Scientific Position on the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics (Lamarckism)?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Key to Surviving Ebola in Your Genes? appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on it’s that our education system is in dismal shape. A big chunk of that comes from the fact that our public schools have not, in some places, been able to provide students who come from low-income families with the resources that they so desperately need to be successful. One proposed way to fix this for at least some students is to institute a system of school vouchers. The idea of such programs has been heavily debated and discussed for decades. Read on to learn about school voucher programs and both sides of the debate.

What are school vouchers?

Vouchers parents to send their children schools outside of those assigned to them by location. These schools are often described as more innovative charter schools than are found in the traditional public system or private schools. Use of school vouchers varies throughout the United States, with some programs run at the state level, and others at the city level. Some notable long-lasting programs include those launched in Milwaukee in 1990, and Cleveland in 1995.

What is the argument in favor of school vouchers?

Providing families with more choices about how to raise their children is a staple of the American way and the voucher system would give control to parents to select the school that is best for their child. Vouchers would also allow children in low-income areas to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and go to a higher quality school so that they can get a better education. Additionally, private school vouchers would create direct competition between private schools and public schools and the competition will force all institutions to better themselves in an effort to attract students.

What is the argument against school vouchers?

For all the potential benefits that could come if state and local governments provided school vouchers, the policy also has notable flaws.  Opponents argue first and foremost that private school vouchers compromise the integrity of the entire public school system. The government operates public schools, yet it also incentivizes families to avoid them.  The conflicts of interest in this scenario makes it seem ineffective. Any public funding that goes to school vouchers is money that could have been spent improving the public school system, which cannot improve without support and investments from the government. Opponents also argue that many private schools are religiously affiliated and school vouchers provided by the government is essentially taxpayer funding of religious institutions.

How do school vouchers hold up in court?

The constitutionality of school vouchers has been heard in several court cases. Cleveland launched its program in 1995 in response to the city’s dismal public schools; however, because Cleveland’s program allowed students to use the vouchers to attend private schools with religious affiliations, the program was almost immediately the subject of lawsuits. Eventually, the question made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the plaintiffs argued that the case violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides for the separation of religion and state. The court ruled that the vouchers could remain, because even though the religious schools were receiving government funding, the purpose of the vouchers was compelling and there were non-religious options possible. In addition, the program didn’t go to the religiously-based schools, but rather the parents and students who needed the aid, and the program didn’t proselytize or advocate for the religiously-run schools.

Case Study: Milwaukee Public Schools

Vouchers have been an option for students since the early 1990s, but whether or not the implementation has been effective is still up for debate. Thousands of students in Milwaukee take advantage of the voucher program, and like in Cleveland, many do end up in religiously-run institutions. The main question is whether or not it has worked.

The consensus seems to be: sort of. Evidence from the 2012-2013 school year shows that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are not outscoring their public school peers as a whole on state tests. That sounds disheartening, and would seem to indicate that vouchers have been a failure, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the picture requires more digging than that. The voucher students have, in fact, scored better than their low-income public school peers. Also, test scores in the Milwaukee voucher program have on the rise, perhaps indicating that the program is on the right track.

Conclusion

The voucher system is a creative solution to a debilitating problem in the American education system — particularly in some of our low-income public schools. The argument for vouchers includes the ability for parents and students to inject more choice into their education — hopefully creating more competitive school systems. In practice, however, it hasn’t necessarily worked out to that way. They’re also expensive, and could lead to public schools receiving less funding in the name of creating stronger charter schools. While some students may receive a better education, students as a whole population are left in a worse position. What’s indubitable is that we’re really not sure about the ultimate effects of vouchers yet as there’s no nationwide system to study.

Resources

Primary

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: School Choice Programs

Cornell University Law School: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Additional

World Bank: How Do School Vouchers Help Improve Education Systems?

PBS: The Case For Vouchers

NJ.com: Christie Tours Pro-Vouchers, Anti-Union Message in Philadelphia

Washington Post: Are School Vouchers Losing Steam?

Carnegie Mellon University: Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies

Education Next: The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment

WRAL.com: Voucher Bill Provides Public Money For Private School

Anti-Defamation League: School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice For Public Education

Americans United For Separation of Church and State: 10 Reasons Why Private School Vouchers Should Be Rejected

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Vouchers: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

Tenure was originally created as a protection for teachers. In more recent times however, critics have grown concerned that it has turned into a system that has the potential for abuse. Read on to learn about the history of tenure and the arguments for and against it.

The History of Tenure

The early twentieth century saw an immense number of unions formed in a wide array of industries, empowering the American workers and dramatically altering legal precedent concerning workers’ rights. During this time, American public school districts began adapting and adopting the process of tenure from colleges and universities and applying it to their own school systems. Tenure, in the K-12 public school sense, provides teachers with the right to due process before being terminated. Before tenure became a common aspect of public school districts, female teachers were often dismissed for getting pregnant or even being seen in town with a man to whom she was not married to; and older teachers were often replaced with new, younger teachers simply because they had become too expensive for the district.

As educational professionals seek ways to improve the American education system in the wake of No Child Left Behind’s rigorous standards, many argue that replacing teacher tenure with a merit-based system would improve teacher quality and, therefore, student performance. However, advocates of teacher tenure argue that is protects vital rights that, if removed, would allow teachers to be exploited and would constrict their ability to improve their educational strategies.

What are the arguments for teachers being able to receive tenure?

Advocates argue that the tenure system protects teachers from being wrongfully dismissed because of problems that could arise out of industry politics, economics, and other such dynamics, as well as personal or political reasons, such as disagreeing with the school board over whether to teach a topic such as evolution or to teach a banned book. Advocates argue that this allows teachers to take more risks in their teaching style and methods, encouraging teachers to push the pedagogical boundaries and improve themselves as educational professionals in the process. A distinction that many advocates of teacher tenure make is that it does not make it impossible to fire a tenured teacher. Instead, tenure ensures due process is followed when a district seeks to dismiss a teacher.

Tenure is not merely given to any teacher hired by a district; most school districts require teachers to spend three to four years in a probationary period before receiving tenure, which allows the teacher to gain experience and allows the district to determine whether the teacher will continue to be a valuable addition to the school’s faculty.

Many teachers also face the prospect of termination due to false student accusations. At times a student may falsely accuse his or her teacher of committing a fireable offense, which often gains a large amount of negative publicity for the school district and could potentially blacklist a teacher from getting a job elsewhere. Tenure ensures that a thorough investigation is conducted before the administration acts upon a student’s accusation, thus protecting good teachers from malcontented students.

What are the arguments against teacher tenure?

Opponents of the tenure system argue that it is being manipulated by teachers’ unions to make ineffective teachers difficult to dismiss and creates a system that favors seniority over merit. Opponents argue that while teachers must work through a probationary period before receiving tenure, nearly all teachers receive it once they reach that mark, and therefore tenure becomes a process not aimed at protecting and retaining good teachers, but at protecting the job security of all teachers regardless of merit. In the New York City public school district, 97 percent of teachers received tenure after teaching for three years, and opponents argue that statistics such as these indicate that tenure is not a highly selective process.

Tenure also makes teachers difficult to fire by allowing teachers’ unions to drag out the termination process and to dispute any decisions concerning dismissal, making the removal of poor teachers expensive and time consuming. A study published in 2009 stated that 89 percent of administrators did not fire ineffective teachers for fear of the time and money it would require to do so. Additionally, in the Chicago public school district, where only 28.5 percent of student met expectations on standardized tests, only 0.1 percent of teachers were dismissed for performance-related reasons between 2005 and 2008. Obviously, there is a disconnect between the poor performance of students in this district and the replacement of teachers who were unable to improve that performance.

Many opponents also argue that tenure allows teachers to stop seeking personal improvement and to begin to “coast” through their jobs. In a profession that demands constant improvement while children’s education hangs in the balance, a system that provides teachers with impeccable job security unrelated to merit is not the way to promote teacher development.

Conclusion

The history of granting teachers tenure makes sense, but whether or not the system has reached antiquity is a common topic of debate. Tenure has many benefits — protection and incentives for teachers — but also some downsides — potential to kill innovation. As the American education system evolves and begins to adopt more alternative forms of teaching, such as charter schools, tenure policies may have to evolve too to keep up.

Resources

Primary

University of Minnesota: A Study of Transparency of K-12 Teacher Tenure: What the Evaluation Policy Documents Reveal

Additional

Huffington Post: An Argument For Teacher Tenure

NEA Today: What Teacher Tenure Is and What it Is Not

Teach For America: Point/ Counterpoint: In Support of Teacher Tenure

News Observer: Wake County School Board Opposes Elimination of Teacher Tenure

Teachers Union Exposed: Protecting Bad Teachers

NPR: Is Teacher Tenure Still Necessary?

USA Today: States Weaken Tenure Rights For Teachers

Scholastic: Weigh In: Is Tenure For Teachers Over?

Education.com: Should Teachers Have Tenure?

Concordia Online Education: K-12 Teacher Tenure: Understanding the Debate

Teachhub.com: Teacher Tenure Debate: Pros and Cons

Take Part: Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure: What You Didn’t Know

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teachers and Tenure: An Outdated System? appeared first on Law Street.

I have sort of hazy memories of taking the Connecticut Mastery Tests when I was in middle school. They sucked. They were boring, and annoying, and I always got mad that my name never fit into that part where you have to bubble in the letters. So if anyone ever needs to see my 6th grade test scores, or whatever, they’re under “Annelie” Mahoney.

But what I remember most vividly is that we all were required to take those tests. They were normal, they happened every couple of years, and then we got over them. I never once heard the phrase ‘opt-out,’ even though I’m sure there were a handful of kids who didn’t take them. This isn’t a tirade about things “back in my day” because I took the CMTs about ten years ago, but I do feel like an old grump wondering how so many things have changed in just that short decade.

A constant debate in education over the past couple years revolves around something called “Common Core,” which does add some more tests to the curriculum. The intent of Common Core is to standardize education a bit more, so that students around the country have some of the same requirements. The goal is to make sure that a student in Mississippi learns the same basic tenants of history, English, and critical thinking as a student in Rhode Island or Hawaii. So far, 44 states have adopted the standards, which were often supported by state governors and legislatures. But a lot of parents are pushing back, demanding that their children not be required to take state testing.

And there are a lot of voices in the debate, but they seem to come mostly from a few different categories of people — parents, teachers, and politicians. I’ve yet to see a piece by someone who actually remembers being in middle school, or taking those tests. So as someone who actually took high school state tests as little as six years ago, here are the things that have stuck out to me in this debate.

3. I don’t think Common Core is a conspiracy. 

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Common Core, which I will arrange in descending levels of hilarity.

• The Common Core standards were created by President Obama. This is false. The standards have been worked on for years. In fact, the development started during President Bush’s presidency.

Common Core will indoctrinate children to be mindless-leftist-socialist-gay-Muslim-atheist-robots. No joke guys. That’s what some opposition is saying, like perennial crazy man Glen Beck, or Tea Party darling Elois Zeanah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqEGx46IiwBest part of that video is definitely when she makes a reference to the novel “1994.” It’s actually called 1984. And that, Ms. Zeanah, is why some of us want the young people of this country to have a better education.

• But hands down, my favorite conspiracy theory is this one: Common Core will make your child pee their pants. No, this is not my attempt at a lame post-April Fools joke. That’s a legit Daily Caller headline. The article claims that an elementary school in Chicago is making teachers implement new draconian policies that involve bringing their classes to the bathroom at the same time at the end of a period. Ok guys, have you EVER set foot in a public school? When I was in high school, you had to sign out to use the bathroom in most of my classes. That’s right, as a 17-year-old, with a license, and a job, and some modicum of personal responsibility, I had to alert the school when I used the restroom. Public schools have always been weird about bathroom breaks. This is not a conspiracy. This is not new. As a former public school student, I didn’t even bat an eyelash.

2. Parents who are opting their children out of the tests are treating the symptoms rather than the problems. 

One of the biggest arguments against Common Core is that it means that teachers teach too much to the test, as opposed to actually teaching substantive material. Which is a fair complaint, but opting your children out of the test does literally nothing to solve that problem. Common Core standards were put into place because the United States is failing at education. Compared to other developed countries, we spend more money on education, but consistently lag in scores. Common Core is an attempt to ameliorate that. Does that mean that the new standards are good or perfect or don’t deserve a whole ton of revision? No. But they’re a step toward trying to solve a pressing problem. We quite obviously don’t know how to get the United States back on track education-wise. That’s why we work toward a solution using analysis and critical thinking. And why we measure our progress through testing.

I truly hope that all these parents who are opting their kids out are attempting to be involved in the reform process. They should run for office, or lobby their politicians, or whatever, but they shouldn’t just opt their kids out and then stand idly by. Because that’s treating the symptom of the problem instead of dealing with the fact that our schools are failing our students.

1. Crappy, stressful situations are a part of life. 

There are some very legitimate reasons, such as medical issues, that parents are opting their children out of the tests. But one of the other major reasons is that they cause undue stress for students.

I have a problem with this. Tests are unpleasant, yes. They are stressful, ok. They are unfair, sure. But you know what can also be unpleasant, stressful, and unfair? Pretty much everything in life. I have a problem with parents opting their children out because their kids are stressed, because that’s a bad lesson to learn. We don’t get to choose not to do things because they’re stressful.

You know what stresses me out to no end? Parking. I’m a fine driver, but I’m a spectacularly horrible parker.

My deepest fear.

But just because parking gives me anxiety doesn’t mean I can just leave my car willy-nilly in the middle of the parking lot. I can’t opt out of parking.

Now I’m not suggesting that we allow children to walk around stressed out of their minds. That’s cruel and ridiculous. But I do think that there is merit in teaching children how to manage the stress, as opposed to getting rid of the stressful situation altogether. There are thousands of techniques out there to help people deal with stress. I think there’s more merit in teaching a child how to deal with stress than teaching that if something stresses them out, they can make it go away. Because unfortunately, that will make for a cruel awakening when they grow up. I think that the way that the exams are presented could also help mitigate stress — if parents and teachers stopped making such a big deal out of them, maybe the kids would too.

I don’t think there’s any sort of easy fix to the education problems in our country. Common Core might be a step in the right direction, or it might not be. But if we keep harping on conspiracy issues, treating symptoms instead of problems, and not getting to the root of the issue, it won’t matter if Common Core is better. We need to work together to make sure that our children are as well prepared as possible for every part of life, and until we accept that, we’re going to have those education problems in the US.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brittney Bush Bollay via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Everyone Calm Down About Common Core? appeared first on Law Street.