A look into the change of Common Core Standards by the US Department of Education

1. United States Department
of Education and Common
Core
By Jessica Woodyard
Organizations, Innovations, and Change
February 22, 2015
Note: US Department of Education
Logo retrieved from Department of
education website.

2. History of the Department of Education
 The United States Department of Education is an organization founded in 1980
“by combining offices from several Federal agencies”. (www.2ed.gov)
 This was so that it would be easier to establish policies on financial aid,
collect data on schools, focus much needed attention on educational issues,
and lastly, make sure that everyone was able to have an equal opportunity
education.

3. Structure of the United States
Department of Education
 The Department is structured in a way in which there is the office of the
secretary to the head of the department.
 Down the ladder, there is a section for the public school sector, private school
sector, along with offices for the inspector, civil rights and offices for financial
aid.

4. Structure map of the United States
Department of Education
Note: Structure map
retrieved from US
Department of
Education Website

5. Culture of the United States Department
of Education
 The mission of the Department of Education is ‘to promote student
achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering
educational excellence and ensuring equal access”.(USDofE.web)
 Put into place so that everyone had access to a good, quality education.

6. Narrative of Change
The change that occurred was the Common Core Standards.
The Common Core was “meant as a way, for the first time, to compare student,
school, and district performance across the land on a credible, common metric---
and gauging their achievement against that of youngsters in other countries on
our shrinking and ever more competitive planet”.(Finn, 2012)
The standards were reflected in Math and ELA as a basis for which teachers
would teach and as a basis for what standardized tests would reflect.

7. Actions to Implement Change
When President Obama became President, he expanded on President Bush’s No Child Left Behind.
 President Obama’s plan, along with the United States Department of Education, was to overhaul the standards from which
teacher’s teach, and comprise a new set of ELA and Math standards. They would be the same throughout the country, making
the lives of children who move frequently, easier.
 In 2008, Janet Napolitano, created a task force “composed of commissioners of education, governors, corporate chief executive
officers and recognized experts in higher education” who released a report that would become the building blocks to Common
Core. (US News, 2014)
 The task force took into account what they believed students should be learning at that time in Math and ELA and wrote
standards based on that.
 Teachers would be “graded” based on their students test scores. Each state rolling out their own teacher evaluation system.
 States were required to implement Common Core if they wanted federal funding for their schools.
 In order to quell the resistance to the change to the standards, educational leaders were asked to speak highly of them. During
the 2012 Democratic Convention, the standards were praised with helping our country become the leader in education. States
were unable to fight the implementation if they wanted their federal funding. With money scarce, and budgets with wide gaps,
losing federal funding was not an option for most states.
 There is no real sustaining the change. The change is the change. The only way that the Common Core can be abolished, is if a
new President comes in and along with the Department of Education, decides that there are better ways to teach our children.
Until then, states need to sustain the change in order to obtain their federal funding to teach our children.

8. Evaluation: What went well and what
did not!
 I think that the change itself, the standards are good. I believe that every
state following the same set of standards is good, especially for those
students who move frequently. Now they will not have to worry about moving
and falling behind
 The process in which the Common Core Standards were rolled out was not
good at all. The United States Department of Education should have tested
the standards in a couple of school districts in one state. They should have
taken data from those schools over the course of one to two school years,
compared that data to other school districts not using Common Core, and
fixed the standards and implementation of those standards accordingly. Also,
more training and workshops should have been given to states and schools in
the implementation of the standards.

9. Reflection
 I think that in keeping up with the world in the realm of education, the
United States needs to be innovative. I think the U.S is doing a good job of
that. However, I think that in being innovative, the U.S Department of
Education, along with the President, need to remember that testing is not the
answer. Evaluating teachers on student test scores is not the answer. We can
change and be innovative, without taking away the livelihood of those who
teach, and without making our students lives more difficult.

10. Reference List
 Bidwell, A. (2014) The History of the Common Core State Standards.US News.
www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-
common-core-state-standards
 Finn, C.E. (2012) The War Against Common Core. Retrieved February 22, 2015
from www.educationnext.org/the-war-against-common-core
 US Department of Education. www2.ed.gov