The possibility of increasing the national minimum wages is discussed in detail by the scientific community, introducing the potential advantages and disadvantages of this action. Although some scholars believe that improving the minimal possible salaries of the employees could benefit the economy, others dispute this approach, arguing that such changes might disrupt the stability of the corporations. To understand the problem in its entirety, it is essential to evaluate both positive and negative viewpoints on this issue, assessing the validity of the arguments and establishing committed fallacies. This work addresses the academic opinions in support of and against the increase of national minimum wages, ascertaining the quality of the arguments presented and introducing an individual position on the matter.
Supporting Argument: Inspiring the Increase in Minimum Salaries
The scholars who state the benefits of enhancing the workers’ minimal payments often refer to the increased employment rates and higher labor costs, the potential effects on the economy of the country. As such, Harasztosi and Lindner (2019) claim that offering the candidates a better-paying occupation results in heightened workforce demand, which is advantageous both for the corporations and their employees. While the workers receive improved working conditions, obtaining additional monetary reimbursement, the companies instill higher prices for the services and goods delivered, negating the potential financial losses and enhancing the affluence of the enterprise. Overall, these effects account for the improved state of the nation’s economy, increasing the productivity of the citizens and businesses. This argument can be displayed in the standard form as follows:
- Premise 1: Increasing national minimum wages establishes a higher occupation and workforce demand, presenting the corporations with additional labor supply.
- Premise 2: A substantial occupation demand enhances the financial standing of multiple organizations, additionally allowing them to substitute missing labor with capital through elevated product and service costs.
- Premise 3: Expanded labor demands and employment positions act as an improving factor for the economy, increasing the rate of economic achievements secured by the country.
- Conclusion: Increased minimal salaries are a beneficial practice for the economy of the state.
Opposing Argument: Negative Consequences of Higher Employee Payments
Several researchers present a contrasting argument that highlights the aspect of overestimated expectations. According to Meer and West (2016), there are considerable differences between the proposed beneficial models and the actual ramifications of introducing increased wages, meaning that the suggested positive effects might not be achieved. The scholars claim that real-life improvements require a substantial amount of time and are less efficient in the process. Therefore, the desired outcomes do not enhance the companies’ financial output, rather presenting additional challenges, namely increased salaries and the need to find a balance between the elevated prices and the consumers’ capabilities. The provided argument can be displayed in the standard form as follows:
- Premise 1: Increasing the national minimum salaries creates a discrepancy between the companies’ financial funds and the demand to fulfill the elevated expenses, compelling the employers to reduce the employment opportunities available.
- Premise 2: The corporations’ encountered complications cause a lack of involvement in human resources management, decreasing the labor demand.
- Premise 3: Elevated prices and considerable workforce costs detrimentally affect the economy of the state, hindering subsequent improvement.
- Conclusion: Increased minimal wages adversely influence the financial state of the organizations, reducing the rate of the nation’s economic achievements.
Evaluating the Quality of the Main Arguments
The opinions offered can be regarded as high-quality assessments produced by scientists with exceptional academic standing. Both studies implement a range of theoretical arguments and practical evidence to support their suggestions and develop a comprehensive explanation for the suggested premises. For instance, Harasztosi and Lindner (2019) strengthen each of the premises with existing theories and empirical findings from other credible research, which relates directly to the topic discussed. The conclusion for this argument derives from the hypotheses that were proven by the previous investigations and the current study.
However, it is essential to note that the changes in the economic state of the country are not discussed in needed detail, creating an inconsistency within the argument. It is possible that the scientists were influenced by a confirmation bias, as the majority of the evidence on this topic reflects the positive effects of the increased wages.
The second research also contains several fallacies that should be addressed. As the scholars use historical data for the subsequent analysis, a selection bias might be present. The lack of contemporary information significantly undermines the value of the results achieved. Another complication is represented in the hyperbole evident in premise one, which suggests a specific approach to resolving financial difficulties without consideration of alternatives (Hardy et al., 2015).
Enterprises might incorporate extra approaches other than decreasing the number of occupations available. Another pertinent complication is probability neglect, which can be seen in the use of supporting arguments. The authors view the creation of increased labor costs and elevated processes as equally possible events, which often occur independently from each other. Therefore, multiple complications can be observed in the construction of the premises and the final conclusion of the opposing viewpoint, meaning that the supporting argument, which only presents one fallacy, is substantially stronger.
Presentation of a Personal Argument
In my opinion, it is necessary to consider both opinions on the topic in order to create a reasonable and comprehensible argument that avoids potential biases. It is imperative to address the impact of the companies’ financial success on the economy of the state, clarifying their role in the future economic achievements of the nation. Therefore, I present my argument on the issue in the standard form as follows:
- Premise 1: Contemporary scholarly research emphasizes the demand for higher employee wages, an issue commonly addressed by modern organizations (Harasztosi & Lindner, 2019).
- Premise 2: A considerable workforce supply is essential for the affluence of the enterprises, which influence the national economy by creating a pattern of supply and demand and competing on the global market (Feenstra & Sasahara, 2018).
- Premise 3: Increasing the minimum salaries creates better opportunities for the candidates and allows the corporations to achieve a needed level of employment interest.
- Premise 4: Enhanced occupation demand, better employment rates, and improve workforce conditions account for the affluence of the national corporations, which advance the economic stability of the nation.
- Conclusion: The rise in minimum employee payments is advantageous both for the companies and the economy of the country.
Objection to the Individual Argument
A pertinent complication in the structure of my argument is manifested in the stated necessity of the workforce supply and the demand to maintain their salary expectations for the profit of the companies. Some researchers report that there is a significant distinction between achieving higher employment rates and improving the financial output of the enterprise. According to Feenstra and Sasahara (2018), although a stable interest from potential candidates is a prominent factor in the development of the organization, labor demand is only one element of such advancements. Other issues might include the state of the global market, occupied business area, and incorporated management strategies, which are not resolved by heightened employment interest.
To defend the individual argument offered, I would like to refer to the importance of the employment aspect of company management. Even though this attribute is not the only one impacting the success of the organization, its necessity is explained in a number of theoretical and practical studies. When devising an approach to enterprise advancement, it is strongly recommended to consider the tactics that will increase the professionals’ interest in obtaining a position within the company (Johnston & Mas, 2018).
Sustaining a constant level of attention that is slightly higher than the company’s needs ensures that the most suitable candidates will be found, aiding the corporation in resolving other pertinent issues. The lack of employee support negatively affects the business even when all other factors, such as management strategies and global market pressure, are accounted for. Furthermore, elevated employment rates are often associated with reliable and stable economies (Johnston & Mas, 2018). Therefore, maintaining a significant workforce demand is necessary to advance the financial success of the companies and the economic output of the country.
Conclusion
To conclude, supporting and opposing arguments regarding the rise of national minimum wages were discussed in detail in this paper, evaluating their credibility and potential fallacies. Although both the studies present valuable insights into the debate, the fallacies committed by the opposing opinion remarkably diminish its argumentative strength. The influence of increased salaries appears to be highly profitable for the national enterprises and the economy of the state.
Although increasing the employees’ minimal wages might be considerably challenging in the current economy, the research suggests that this endeavor is highly beneficial for the financial state of the country. Given the analysis conducted, critical thinkers should not only address controversial topics from the scientific standpoint but consider the logical requirements for creating a sound argument. Confirmation bias and probability neglect drastically reduce the validity of the statements and should always be accounted for in academic research.
References
Feenstra, R. C., & Sasahara, A. (2018). The ‘China shock,’ exports and U.S. employment: A global input–output analysis. Review of International Economics, 26(5), 1053–1083.
Johnston, A. C., & Mas, A. (2018). Potential unemployment insurance duration and labor supply: The individual and market-level response to a benefit cut. Journal of Political Economy, 126(6), 2480–2522. Web.
Harasztosi, P., & Lindner, A. (2019). Who pays for the minimum wage? American Economic Review, 109(8), 2693–2727. Web.
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Postigo, G. Z. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. Bridgepoint Education. Web.
Meer, J., & West, J. (2013). Effects of the minimum wage on employment dynamics. Journal of Human Resources, 51(2), 500-522. Web.
Why Celebrities Should Avoid Political Topics
Celebrity is a somewhat novel concept that has emerged after the focus of public lives moved away from the government. It may be partially attributed to television, which enabled people to see famous people up close and changed the course of politics. However, even then, the interactions of media stars with the public were limited to the scope of television shows that were subject to editing and attempted to earn money by attracting audiences above all other goals. However, nowadays, celebrities can interact with people in a freeform manner. They have increasingly started using their platforms to promote political topics, notably on Twitter via hashtags such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. However, this politicization of celebrity social media discourse is harmful due to its lack of depth and the misrepresentation of the positions presented.
Celebrities have the power to affect social trends, primarily through the use of social media. Duvall and Heckemeyer (2018) highlight how their power translates into perceived authority, which they have used to promote the #BlackLivesMatter movement and help it achieve its current prominence. Without receiving the assistance of celebrities, the movement may have become substantially less prominent, and the issues that it highlights may have been forgotten. Berkman (2020) provides the example of Wole Soyinka, who exposed Europe’s role in South African apartheid. Celebrity power can promote movements and create change in political and social climates. However, the existence of this influence raises the question of responsibility and whether celebrities use their platforms to promote political causes that they can advocate for meaningfully.
Celebrity status is not indicative of a person’s political knowledge or ability, and neither does it imply access to information not available to the public. As a result, when a celebrity endorses a particular hashtag or movement without a more detailed explanation, their opinion holds no more credibility than that of any other person. However, their platform, which often consists of large numbers of followers that subscribe to the celebrity because of their work rather than their politics, gives them disproportionate influence. Russel (2017) highlights this danger of hashtag activism as a practice likely to “casually involve uninformed publics in complex and charged issues” and reinforce their positions through the feeling of accomplishment while promoting faulty solutions (p. 85). By investing several minutes and little effort into a tweet, a celebrity can substantially influence the political activity on the platform.
With that said, sometimes celebrities will speak out against less controversial matters or ones they understand well. According to Douglas and McDonnell (2019), the #MeToo movement started gaining prominence when celebrities such as Rose McGowan and Angelina Jolie spoke out against Harvey Weinstein and accused him of sexual misconduct. The producer’s situation can be compared to the case of Bill Cosby, where allegations were ignored until celebrities came forward, and contrasted with the allegations against Woody Allen, where they are still dismissed because of the accuser’s non-celebrity status (Hannem & Schneider, 2019). In each of the confirmed cases, the involvement of celebrities was necessary before justice could be served despite the massive scale of the misconduct. However, these cases also raise the question of why the perpetrators, who were celebrities themselves, were able to conceal their crimes for a long time despite knowing that they were widespread in the sphere.
As people with money and power, celebrities are prone to corruption, with some, such as the sexual abusers discussed above, engaging in criminal acts with the expectations that the victims will stay quiet and that they will not be caught. They are often not alone in these pursuits but rather form connections with others, as exemplified by Jeffrey Epstein’s broad network of business, political, and celebrity connections that may have been involved in his trafficking and sexual offenses (Rogers, 2020). These networks of connections intimidate victims, including other celebrities, who are afraid to speak out because of the potential damage to their careers and the difficulty of proving their cases and only do so after someone else starts the movement. Combined with their own potential misconduct, this complicity raises the question of celebrity authenticity when they speak out.
The relationships and career dangers described above apply to political matters, as well. Many celebrities tend to follow social media trends to secure positive reactions, which may be indicative of their views reflecting the widespread consensus. However, Farrel (2019) highlights how celebrities such as Russel Brand speak out against neoliberal policies while affirming and reinforcing them through their work. Many similar contradictions can be found in celebrity activism, with people expressing views publicly that conflict with what they do privately. This form of activism is dishonest and damages both the movement and the person in question. The former is compromised by prominent supporters who undermine its credibility through their hypocrisy in ignoring inconvenient positions while demanding their enforcement on others, and the latter loses the respect of both sides of the debate.
With that said, the lack of authenticity may also be associated with another, more dangerous concept. Some celebrities may be coerced into supporting prevalent causes by the public as well as their peers. Watkins (2017) describes the phenomenon using the example of feminism: “Other people, however, are pressured and bullied into feminism. […] That is to say, they are mercilessly attacked and trashed for attempting to distance themselves from feminism” (p. 186). To avoid attacks, or as a response to attacks, celebrities will promote causes that they do not support. Moreover, due to their authority and position as users with some of the highest follower counts, these people sway opinions and present a potentially skewed picture of the social trends. The tactic may be used by political activists to misrepresent their causes as more prominent than they are in reality.
Celebrity activism is vital for promoting matters in the public consciousness, as it has the power to connect people to topics they may not be familiar with, and in which they can be initially uninterested. However, social media enables and often forces them to support causes that they do not understand or support. Moreover, even the celebrities who appear to be committed to causes publicly can turn out to not lead by example, hurting the movement and themselves once the contradiction is uncovered. As such, the dangers of this low-commitment style of activism outweigh any positive effects that it may have. People must remember the inauthenticity of celebrities, their limitations, and the constraints placed on them by the system in which they exist. If a celebrity intends to participate in activism, they should establish their separate credibility and identity as activists first.
References
Berkman, K. (2020). Literary celebrity and political activism: Wole Soyinka’s Nobel Prize lecture and the anti-apartheid struggle. Critical Arts. Advance online publication.
Douglas, S. J., & McDonnell, A. (2019). Celebrity: A history of fame. NYU Press.
Duvall, S. S., & Heckemeyer, N. (2018). # BlackLivesMatter: Black celebrity hashtag activism and the discursive formation of a social movement. Celebrity Studies, 9(3), 391-408.
Farrel, N. (ed.). (2019). The political economy of celebrity activism. Taylor & Francis.
Hannem, S., & Schneider, C. J. (2019). Stigma and the “Weinstein effect”: A comparative analysis of sexual misconduct allegations against Donald J. Trump and Harvey Weinstein in news media. In S. S. Chen, Z. J. Chen, & N. Allaire (Eds.), Building sexual misconduct cases against powerful men (pp. 11-36). Lexington Books.
Rogers, T. N. (2020). Les Wexner just stepped down as the CEO of L Brands amid fury over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Here are all the famous people Epstein was connected to. Business Insider. Web.
Russell, A. (2017). Journalism as activism: Recoding media power. Wiley.
Watkins, V. (2017). (Black) feminism online: The political uses of social media and the implications for Africana studies. In J. L. Conyers Jr. (Ed.), Africana race and communication: A social study of film, communication, and social media (pp. 169-196). Lexington Books.
Why The Common Core Should Not Be Adopted By The State Of Missouri
Broadly, there has been much controversy over the involvement of the federal government in the public education system since the institution of the Department of Education in the U.S. This problem arises from the establishment of the Common Core standards. By definition, Common Core refers to a public education initiative underwritten by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The Common Core Standards were modeled to endorse standards-based education reform to ensure state education curriculum aligns with standards implemented in other states as stipulated by the federal government (Bigham 45). Even though the majority of states have begun the adoption of the Common Core Curriculum, there seem to be issues that threaten the nationwide implementation of the Common Core standards. In the state of Missouri, the Common Core has brought much controversy, and opponents have differed with the standards for various reasons, including intrusion of the federal government and the concern for the collection and mining of students. Thus, on the premise of drawbacks and shortcomings, the State of Missouri should not implement the Common Core Curriculum for all public and private K-12 educational institutions.
The first reason why Common Core standards should not be adopted is the fact they homogenize learning. Public educators and politicians seem to consistently bring the arguments of centralization as a means to restructure the disadvantages of the American education system (Center on Education Policy). The residents of states adopting Common Core will be troubled to find schools with relative advantages to benefit their children. The implementation means that not only will the public school be made as uniform as home schools, but private and church schools will be required to consider using the Common Core curriculum (VanTassel-Baska 5). In its adoption, students in private schools will not be forced to administer Common Core tests, but need to consider a section of their curriculum to prepare students for reforms in the assessments, which are crucial for college qualifications (Dueck 52). Moreover, teachers and public educators acknowledge the fact that students have different ways of learning, and therefore, the education system in place should strive to address these needs. By instituting the Common Core standards, the needs of students with learning disabilities may not be addressed.
The Common Core curriculum is a depiction of a top-down approach to reforming the education system. This program is based on grade-by-grade specifications for what, how, and when it should be taught. Throughout history, several top-down reforms have not improved the American education system. Long-time educators in the United States are familiar with the unfulfilled promises aimed at promoting efficacy, only to leave waste of administrative requirements, changes in curriculum, and new assessment standards (Akkus 49). For instance, this is evident in a 2018 report by the Rand Corporation investigating the Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Initiative (National Education Association). The initiative involved four charter management organizations and three school districts, where each used assessment criteria and trained observers. Nonetheless, the report indicated that the program was not successful despite running for several years and costing nearly a billion dollars (Vegel 27). In another instance, the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) followed a top-down approach as it was initiated by Congress (Vegel 28). Instead of using a top-down approach, ideal education reform should be community-based in that it entails the application of different instruction methods and programs.
Common Core standards should not be considered as they lead to discrimination against students from low-socioeconomic regions of the U.S. Such values do not live up to their expectations as they undermine the overall American education system to its lowest dominator (Guillory 667). The disparities that exist in the country in regards to minority, ethnicity, and race mean that some students will be unable to receive the same learning-rich resources, same quality teaching, or same learning experiences (Guillory 668). Moreover, the adoption of Common Core also facilitates the formation of two American classes, that is, those able to pass the national test, and those unable not to. Thus, it closes the door for the disadvantaged, minorities, and the middle class from securing a good job in the math and science domains leaving jobs to those residing in wealthy and privileged communities. Although the curriculum could establish a high bar for Missouri students, it does not provide the required schools and teachers with the needed financial support necessary to assist millions of American students.
Common Core curriculum should not be adopted as it confers exclusive power to standardized assessments and tests. Majorly, the Common Core is intertwined with standardized tests, not because the American College Test (ACT) and the College Board had a huge involvement in their development (Center on Education Policy). It was evident from their creation that they play a big role in the teacher evaluation, a requisite for applying for Race to the Top funds. The Department of Education has provided 300 million dollars for the development of these tests (Starkenburg 14). The assessments will provide functioning reality to the Common Core, by in fact becoming the standards, and there will be marginal incentive to teach untested skills. Additionally, they will put immense pressure on the state of Missouri to implement interim tests. The standardized tests are not suitable to evaluate the expressive, writing, and speaking abilities of students. Even though there exist standards that support the Common Core, they are not likely to be tested in a complex or serious way.
The Common Core standards present a challenge for special education. Within its confines of standards and skills, the Common Core does not consider the fact that several American students experience a level of difficulty with numeracy and literacy which makes it impossible for them to attain such standards (Rakow). Lee and Lee claim that the curriculum is not suitable for special students as it does not provide for collaboration, individualization, and a required level of the prospectus for learners, hampering progress in American schools (31). Even though the Common Core standards are aimed at ensuring academic attainment in the American system, it has been said that the curriculum does not consider the learning requirements of some students. This shortcoming is evident in the assessment of special education involving custom-built instruction, assessments, and learning outcomes to meet the need for special learning. Teachers in special education have tussled with adapting the Common Core test that meets the learning styles and needs of students with disabilities.
Students with special needs learn according to Individualized Educations Programs (IEPs) developed by parents and teachers. These programs outline the type of adaptive technologies needed by students. According to public educators and teachers, the adoption of the Common Core standardized test is bound to create problems (Starr and Weiss). For instance, the current special education tests have differed from the classroom experiences of special education students. This results from the fact that special students have been unable to perform well on Common Core tests since they are rapidly needed to learn technologies that may not ascribe to their learning needs. In addition to this issue, teachers have also struggled with the nature of Common Core tests in that it has been difficult for a teacher to meet the instructional needs of the special student while still considering the stipulated curriculum (Krakow 21). It should be noted that students with disabilities require more time for various reasons such as the speed of adaptive technologies and cognitive impairments. Common Core standards highlight grade-level criteria despite students with disabilities needing more, and thus, in their achievement, the gap is widened.
Assessments under the Common Core standards are considered difficult as they require using technology not conversant with student proficiency and do not emphasize important content. Even though most educators acknowledge that using separate state tests is an ineffective means of assessing the literacy levels of students, there is no consensus on using an alternative (National Education Association). The new Common Core assessments depict a clear direction in the course of performance-based items, requiring more effort to complete from the student perspective and are more open-ended. Nonetheless, it is not clear how American students will perform under the implementation of new assessment tests. Most states have shown their concerns about the student performance levels with the adoption of Common Core assessments. Evidence from New York has indicated that students in their state have comparatively lower performance levels (Giray and Oare 32). On the other hand, the earlier state standards on education used to have a higher level of performance for students. In this regard, teachers and educators require ample time to adjust instructions of the Common Core curriculum.
Common Core curriculum should not be a consideration for the State of Missouri as it represents a takeover of education by the federal government, a move leading to a standardized curriculum. Common Core bids to standardize the learning system in America in various developmental stages in key subject areas (Starr and Weiss). However, it does not portray the attempts of the federal government to decree what teachers and students understand on how learning should occur. The standards are the framework within which instruction and curriculum are designed. Conservatives and public educators have criticized the Common Core because of its emphasis on standardization which has been attributed to a federal takeover (Ellspermann 15). Similarly, opponents have criticized the CCSS on the premise of standardization, but they imply that it may not address the individual attention of students. There is a necessity to be concerned about the degree to which standardization addresses the needs of individual adaptations. The position of the gifted community has been to apply the standards and adjust for individual differences in classroom projects and activities.
Another reason why Common Core should not be implemented is that few experienced teachers were involved in the establishment of the standards. The Common Core has been criticized as it resulted from the efforts of corporate executives, politicians, or educators who are not familiar with the needs of American schoolchildren (Starkenburg). The summits that led to the induction of the standards are believed not to consider the crucial expertise of educators. Karen Effrem, an educationist, explains how classroom teachers were not involved in the drafting process (Dueck 30). She further points out that even though teachers were allowed to provide feedback and comments during the development process, there was no evidence that their comments were revised by the committee (Dueck 52). The involvement of K-12 teachers was crucial to this process as they possess substantial information on student needs.
Importantly, the Common Core curriculum, through its rigorous system, creates a challenge for the early childhood curriculum in America. By emphasizing grade-level skills, the standards have put immense pressure on teachers in primary and early childhood levels to instruct on the application of paper-and-pencil methods, instead of using experiential approaches (Guillory 670). The assessment and evaluation of children’s performance have been described as expensive as the continuing budget concerns mean that the funds for professional development in the early childhood curriculum and the components of its program are hard to come by (Dueck 68). Regarding early childhood curriculum, there emerges a problem since early childhood curriculum is not regulated or funded in the same means as other K-12 institutions as its providers include private organizations, state-funded programs, and home-based daycare organizations. The inadequacy to address the development needs has serious repercussions for social, creative, cognitive, and emotional operationality.
While it is important to address the shortcomings of implementing the Common Core curriculum in the State of Missouri, the discussion would be partial without considering the potential benefit that would result from its adoption. The standards are designed to be in alignment with college expectations, employers, and workforce training programs, thus, striving toward a productive American economy (Starkenburg). Despite the claims of discrimination, the Common Core standard upholds equity and uniformity by ensuring that American students are sufficiently prepared to interact and compete with their cohorts in the country and abroad. Contrary to the previous standards which broadly varied from state to state, Common Core calls for the collaboration among states on a variety of policies and tools (Vegel 28) For instance, the development of common inclusive assessment systems that substitute the present state testing systems to offer teachers with quality feedback to help ensure students conform to the standards (Ellspermann 17). The Common Core curriculum provides students and teachers with a set of expectations in ensuring that all American students have the required skills to succeed in school.
In general, it has been ten years since the unveiling of the Common Core standards and their adoption by various states in their curriculum programs. However, the standards have been met with a lot of controversy from different states, organizations, public educators, parents, and teachers for a variety of reasons. As highlighted in the discussion, the State of Missouri should not adopt the Common Core curriculum into its K-12 private and public institutions due to various reasons. These include homogenizing the American system through the adoption of a uniform set of standards, representing a top-down approach that ultimately leads to policy failure, discriminates against the students from the low-socioeconomic regions of the country, it confers exclusive power to standardization of assessment and tests, it poses a substantial challenge for special students and student with disabilities by not considering their needs, it is deemed as difficult and requires proficiency, and it is also described as a form of the federal takeover on education system. Common Core standards are described to provide students and teachers with a set of expectations in ensuring that all American students have the required skills to succeed in school.
Works Cited
Akkus, Murat. “The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” International Journal of Research in Education and Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, p. 49.
Bigham, Jared T. The Common Core Standards. Alpha, A Member Of Penguin Group Inc, 2015.
Center on Education Policy. A Compendium of Research on the Common Core State Standards. Center on Education Policy, 2015.
Dueck, Jim. Common Sense about Common Core: Overcoming Education’s Politics. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
Ellspermann, Jayne. “When It Comes to the Common Core, We Should ‘Teach to the Test’— and No, There’s Nothing Wrong with That!” The Hechinger Report, Web.
Giray, Selim, and Steve Oare. “Common Core to Common Score: Implementing the Common Core State Standards in Orchestra Classes.” American String Teacher, vol. 68, no. 1, 2018, pp. 30–34.
Guillory, John. “The Common Core and the Evasion of Curriculum.” PMLA, vol. 130, 2015, pp. 666–672.
Lee, Gregory, and Howard Lee. “A Common Core for a Common Culture? The Introduction of a General Education Curriculum.” Teachers and Curriculum, vol. 1, no. 1, 2017, pp. 30–50.
National Education Association. “Common Core 101 | NEA.” National Education Association, 2020, Web.
Starkenburg, Ed. “The Common Core: Good or Bad?” In All Things, 2015, Web.
Starr, Joshua, and Elaine Weiss. “5 Questions Policymakers Need to Ask about Common-Core Test Results (Opinion).” Education Week, Web.
VanTassel-Baska, Joyce. “Arguments for and against the common core state standards.” Gifted Child Today, vol. 38, no. 1, 2015, pp. 60-62.
Vegel, Anton. “Framing Democratic Proceduralism in Education Reform: No Child Left behind and Common Core State Standards.” Education Reform Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 26–34.