Introduction
Current research has generated sufficient documentation about the continuation of a success gap that it appears people should prepare in moving toward resolutions. The initial ten years of the new millennium confirm to the increasing diversity in the society and learning institutions, on top of the inferences for the United States’ future achievements.
Currently, particularly, the U.S learning framework must take into account its customers (Taylor, 2011). This paper looks into the challenges of equity in the view of diversity, through assessing the contemporary standards in United States education.
Remaining Challenges
The expressively blamed cost associated with the success gap realism is clear. Quoting lawful examples that support stakeholders move over time in addressing equality challenges could attest encouraging if not for the prolonged injustices revealed by test results.
Correl and Stephen (2007) claimed that the achievement described by brown has failed to integrate the goal of an inclusive learning framework that offers all students with unbiased opportunity to learning. A student is graded against openly designed standards of success instead of being measured against national practices developed by all stakeholders.
With backup from the equity-minded teachers such as Pearson, the establishing of education standards for all clients becomes an entirely transparent procedure. Possibly the obscured set of inequities that has caused substandard education for bad and ethnically diverse school environments can become more evident (Marzano & Kendall, 1996).
Majority of American children just do not experience equitable access to the quality education essential for achieving high standard of education. Correl and Stephen (2007) caution that the challenge of assuming learning levels will enhance learning experiences for less fortunate and minority populations is that such a theory does not integrate the repulsively inefficient situations in their schools.
A large number of these children attend institutions that are poorly financed and have little chances in developing the skills documented in the new standard and emerging testing. Also, institutions that accommodate these poor and minority children frequently have problems hiring competent instructors.
Organizing institution learning around vividly described standards may address issues surrounding unfair learning that currently denies many students an opportunity to use testing curricula, and to get competitive jobs or take their education a step further after completing secondary level (Koelsch et al., 1995).
Current curriculum
In the current system the processes of learning are stressed more than outcomes. Trainings are based on time; syllabuses are “completed”; teaching is behind timetable; and testing is carried out at “unit” schedules. Also the syllabus is based on the current contents that are frequently defined by course materials. Further the instructions are planned based on a series subjects, topics, and sub-topics (Marzano & Kendall, 1996).
Basically, education processes are established upon a defined syllabus offered in scheduled time intervals. In the current curriculum testing is carried out based on mutually agreed practices. Also an assessment is carried out after completing each unit and frequently aims at minimum-standard knowledge that is capable of being tested through paper and pen feedbacks.
The performance is measured through a total averaging method whereby grades are spread over a fixed duration. Ideally, there is over dependence on the utilization of practice-based harmonized assessments.
Institution responsibility is prescribed based on programs provided, attendance and rates at which children dropout of school, the number of graduates, and the performance based on harmonized practice-based testing (Koelsch et al., 1995).
Arguing from this point of view it is clear that the current curriculum favors students blessed with high ability to learn. Institutions need to ensure equal participation of all children and apply the notion that great variations implied by the test outcomes are as a result of other factors and not the child’s potential to learn.
Alternative for Uniform Testing
Standards focused reforms are grounded on subject values that indicate learning outcomes and performance levels that define explicit prospects for different standards of expertise. Results are stressed more than practice and tactics in understanding, solving problems, and efficient communication regarding accrual of separate principles.
Testing aims at progressing rather than failure and the application of specific rubric in identifying growth. Use of such standards can help:
- national learning bureaus and test designers in developing nationwide examination policies;
- educators in organizing syllabus and instructions;
- teaching material publishers in developing learning sources for institutions;
- educator school based training programs (Correl & Stephen, 2007, p. 1298).
Standards could provide a way forward in the correct track in addressing Taylor’s (2011) need to develop an elevated standard towards the success of all students and to replace a vulnerable label with a promise mind set. Equity-focused teachers view the need for doing so as a vital inclusion in future. A just or amicable community is not achievable when its major sectors experience little hope for its learners.
So as to move past promise to equity, satisfaction, and diversity need to assume a central role in developing and implementing of standards. Correl and Stephen (2007) claim that people engaged in the standard-focused curriculum are guided by a collective vision where individuals from diverse backgrounds, traditions, and perceptible powers have equal access to quality learning provides a sign that the goal is conceivable.
Rationale
Any professional who is willing to engage in the reforms system, assuming that standards only will tackle learning inequity, should agree with Gordon’s caution that it is unethical to start by considering results prior to addressing the inequity in financing, competent educators and teaching, and good school settings (Marzano & Kendall, 1996). Like in all practically good intentions, actuality controls are essential.
Taylor (2011) asserts that the remaining challenge is one of will. Real life school experience shows that less fortunate and minority learners can perform well if granted equal opportunities. But many institutions do not treat all learners to the equal great standards. Indeed, people have developed a learning model so congested with injustices that it really worsens the challenges of racism instead of reducing them.
Such concern regarding equity menace led to developing a model for “equity-in-education” (EIE) to work within equity and standards design (Taylor, 2011, p. 232).
This harmonized assessment includes: equal and quality syllabus, teaching plans, and learning materials; content, teaching, and testing according to the standard that reflects great anticipations for learners; teacher competence in providing standard education; safe school setting; and fair learning practices (Koelsch et al., 1995).
Conclusion
Whereas such equity-in-education standard seems hopeful, its survival in books is not as good as to real life. Comparing with other developed states, the U.S has attested poorly ineffective to provide the funding compulsory for equalizing the learning skills for all students. If educational reforms are to prove effective then financial, social, and political powers will have to be responsible for the development of the country’s future.
References
Correl, J., & Stephen, B. (2007). Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1338.
Koelsch, N., Estrin, E., & Farr, B. (1995). Guide to developing equitable performance Assessments. San Francisco: WestEd.
Marzano, J., & Kendall, S. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing standards-based districts, schools, and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Taylor, C. (2011). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large-scale assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 231–262.