Common Core vs. No Child Left Behind
The education system is an always changing thing, and it is a constant argument that common core is really helpful in the states the put it into use. Common Core has left parents around the US unable to help their children when it comes to homework, and the children can not explain what they have learned to their parents in enough detail for the parents to fully understand the homework. No child left behind is an English based education core and common core is more about putting things together and is very mathematically based. Common Core is based off cores that the US used in the early 1900s. Many schools would agree that common core is less effective than NCLB, but NCLB also has some disadvantages that …show more content…
The author of “The Common Core And Common sense” says “we should use the reasoning skills we gained in school to analyze what these various groups are saying. We should then determine what's appropriate for our local schools and not take a backseat to those who would use arguments against the Common Core to bend our schools to fit their particular interests” (The Common Core and Common Sense 3) This show that common core makes us use our reasoning skills to help learn information and attain it easier. The author of “The Common Core And Common sense” also said “Schools that feature predominantly low-income students and other demographic variables that may cause students to do poorly on tests are considered in the results. This gap-closing technique mitigates most of the problems opponents often use as an argument against Common Core” (The Common Core and common sense 5) This shows that there is a learning curve for students in low income areas, so people often argue it is unfair for those who are in higher income demographics, but this learning curve actually allows a better education for people need all areas. There are some real benefits that can come from the Common Core …show more content…
one disadvantage is shown is the article "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." when the author says “First, as with ESEA, critics charge that NCLBA causes the federal government to intrude too much into what has traditionally been the domain of the states. Second, opponents contend that NCLBA has resulted in unfunded federal mandates, which essentially passes financial problems from the federal government to state and local governments. Finally, detractors allege that the law places too much emphasis on standardized testing and stringent teacher qualifications” ("No Child Left Behind Act of 2001"). this shows there are some important fact to consider if NCLB is being implemented into a school, like the federal government coming into our education system which has been a state domain for the most part. another disadvantage would be when the author of "Education" said “ States select a "starting point" based on the performance of its lowest-achieving demographic group or of the lowest-achieving schools in the state (the higher of the two). The state then sets a level that schools must reach after two years to show adequate yearly progress.” this is showing us that students aren't really learning if they take the test scores from the lowest achieving demographics to make future tests, to learn students need to be challenged a bit more. although there are
The education system is an always changing thing, and it is a constant argument that common core is really helpful in the states the put it into use. Common Core has left parents around the US unable to help their children when it comes to homework, and the children can not explain what they have learned to their parents in enough detail for the parents to fully understand the homework. No child left behind is an English based education core and common core is more about putting things together and is very mathematically based. Common Core is based off cores that the US used in the early 1900s. Many schools would agree that common core is less effective than NCLB, but NCLB also has some disadvantages that …show more content…
The author of “The Common Core And Common sense” says “we should use the reasoning skills we gained in school to analyze what these various groups are saying. We should then determine what's appropriate for our local schools and not take a backseat to those who would use arguments against the Common Core to bend our schools to fit their particular interests” (The Common Core and Common Sense 3) This show that common core makes us use our reasoning skills to help learn information and attain it easier. The author of “The Common Core And Common sense” also said “Schools that feature predominantly low-income students and other demographic variables that may cause students to do poorly on tests are considered in the results. This gap-closing technique mitigates most of the problems opponents often use as an argument against Common Core” (The Common Core and common sense 5) This shows that there is a learning curve for students in low income areas, so people often argue it is unfair for those who are in higher income demographics, but this learning curve actually allows a better education for people need all areas. There are some real benefits that can come from the Common Core …show more content…
one disadvantage is shown is the article "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." when the author says “First, as with ESEA, critics charge that NCLBA causes the federal government to intrude too much into what has traditionally been the domain of the states. Second, opponents contend that NCLBA has resulted in unfunded federal mandates, which essentially passes financial problems from the federal government to state and local governments. Finally, detractors allege that the law places too much emphasis on standardized testing and stringent teacher qualifications” ("No Child Left Behind Act of 2001"). this shows there are some important fact to consider if NCLB is being implemented into a school, like the federal government coming into our education system which has been a state domain for the most part. another disadvantage would be when the author of "Education" said “ States select a "starting point" based on the performance of its lowest-achieving demographic group or of the lowest-achieving schools in the state (the higher of the two). The state then sets a level that schools must reach after two years to show adequate yearly progress.” this is showing us that students aren't really learning if they take the test scores from the lowest achieving demographics to make future tests, to learn students need to be challenged a bit more. although there are