Common Core State Standards: SWOT Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
SWOT Analysis
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The United States’ federal government has developed various policies to help improve the quality of education in the country. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was one of the most important policies that focused on aligning skills gained in school with job market requirements (Shober, 2016). In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law to help in ensuring that quality education was accessible to all Americans irrespective of their financial capacities (Roberts, 2015). It was then replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act because of the changing forces in the education sector. The decision by the federal government to allow states to develop K-12 student assessment evaluation and reform to replace the above policies is a sign that the government appreciates the dynamism in this sector. In this paper, the researcher will conduct a SWOT analysis for Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as one of the possible replacements that states can embrace.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

According to Ledgerton (2013), one of the greatest strengths of CCSS is that it is evidence-based policy. It was developed after careful research by a team of experts in the field of education. It seeks to align the skills and competencies of K-12 graduates with college expectations. The new assessment approach ensures that skills gained in high school remain relevant to the needs of the job market. The fact that it is supported by the federal government is a sign that it will be successful.

Weaknesses

It is important to look at some of the fundamental weaknesses of this new assessment policy. As Zimba (2014) suggests, it did not receive the support of the parents who felt left out when developing the program. The numerous tests associated with it have also made it less popular among teachers and students. The program also fails to consider the weaknesses of students learning English as a second language.

Opportunities

The new assessment approach has numerous opportunities that can enable it to be a success in transforming the education sector. The use of technology to enhance learning, the political support at the federal and state levels and the competitive nature of the tests may make it easy for it to be implemented. The regulatory approach at the state level will encourage the involvement of local stakeholders, while social forces such as the common use of the English language may speed up its implementation. The economic forces in the country, especially the changing requirements in the job market, will also make the stakeholders value its relevance.

Threats

The new system faces a number of threats that need to be addressed. Technology has been blamed for introducing games that lead to time wastage among students. A section of the political class, supported by parents, has voiced resentment towards the new policy. The competitive nature, especially the numerous tests, has made teachers and students uncomfortable with the policy. Hall (2015) argues that regulatory approaches give states an opportunity to accept or reject the new policy. Some of the social and economic forces are also acting against this new policy, as identified in Table 1 below.

Table 1: SWOT Analysis Templateю

Strengths

It is an evidence-based policy.
It aligns the skills of K-12 students with college expectations.
It has the support of the government.

Weaknesses

Parents were not adequately involved in developing the policy.
It entails numerous tests.
It fails to take into consideration the varying capabilities of learners (specifically these learning English as a second language).

Opportunities

The use of technology makes it easy to implement a new assessment evaluation system.
CCSS has received massive political support, especially at the federal and state levels.
It introduces a competitive approach to assessment, which makes it popular among many states across the country.
The regulatory approach (state-level) makes it easy for local stakeholders to be actively involved in its implementation.
The social forces, especially the existence of a common language, have made it easy to implement the policy.
The changing economic forces (changes in the job market) have convinced many people of the relevance of this new policy.

Threats

The emerging gaming technologies have been blamed for time wastage among students, making it difficult to implement this highly demanding policy.
A section of the political class (with the support of many parents) has rejected this new assessment and evaluation policy.
The competitive nature of the new policy has been blamed for putting unnecessary pressure on K-12 students.
The regulatory policy at the state level is a major threat to its implementation because states have the final decision on its adoption.
The social environment, especially the rejection by many parents is a threat to its implementation.
The economic impact at the school-level may affect its implementation because of the need for more teaching resources.

Conclusion

The Common Core State Standards introduced a new assessment and evaluation approach that is based on aligning skills gained by K-12 students with expectations in college and in the job market. The paper has looked at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new policy. If properly implemented, the new policy may transform the education sector positively and ensure that high school graduates gain skills and competencies needed to pursue a career in different fields.

References

Hall, P. (2015). Teach, reflect, learn: Building your capacity for success in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ledgerton, C. (2013). Special educational needs in practice: A step-by-step guide to developing an inclusion policy and delivering the requirements of early years action plus. London, UK: McMillan.

Roberts, R. (2015). Parents and the common core state standards for Mathematics. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Shober, A. F. (2016). In common no more: The politics of the common core state standards. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

Zimba, J. (2014). The development and design of the common core state standards for Mathematics. New England Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 2.

Click Here To Order Now!