As the name suggests, Common Core State Standards mean an even and consistent educational standard across the country that will pave the way for equal learning opportunities.

Jointly sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the initiative focuses on standards of English language arts and mathematics, and the progress in them at the end of each grade.

A specific guideline is set to give a clear understanding of the curriculum and syllabus, transparent between students, teachers, schools and also parents. These are designed to keep in mind that students need to be prepared for the real world and this comprehensive education will be their ally.

However, the Common Core State Standards have faced a lot of opposition ever since they were announced. They have been at the center of heated debates across the country, and many states feel that it is a violation of their local educational standards — in some cases lowering the standards or even too steep a rise for some.

The reality is that like every new idea, this too has its pros and cons and needs to be evaluated and assessed properly. What Common Core aims to do is not just create a common platform for competition, but also make American children ready for global competition.

Initially, the program faced a lot of flak from educators along with the individual state and education boards. Many were resistant to change, but others also had healthy skepticism about the actual advantages of the program.

But now, more and more teachers are coming around to the notion of making their children ready for the inevitable challenges that they are going to face in future.

A recent survey by Scholastic and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation found that 57 percent of teachers think that the Common Core State Standards will have a positive effect on students while 73% think it will be challenging but are still keen to implement it in their classrooms.

There are valid arguments from both sides, but one cannot get the true picture without weighing the pros and cons firsthand.

Pros of Common Core

• Global readiness — The program is designed to make students ready for the future and equipped with comprehensive knowledge to survive and succeed the competitive global economy
• Educational equality — These standards will allow all states to conduct the same standardized tests, so that there is an even flow and continuity in the national education standards but perhaps fairer assessments and comparisons.
• Higher standards — The program is based on extensive research to improve on current educational standards and use the best standards as their base to move on with. States that are lagging behind others will get help, but those with higher standards can expect even better results.
• Monitoring and adjustments — The assessments lined up in the program will allow teachers to continually assess individual student progress with advanced monitoring tools. With 15 percent room for specific statewise tailoring, the program has immense scope to help students achieve a better standard.
• Collaboration and development — Because of the evenness of the program, there will be better collaboration among teachers across the country who will now be teaching the same curriculum. Developmental and interactive workshops with participating teachers from all over will contribute to a more 360-degree improvement of the standards.

Cons of Common Core

• Difficult transition — The teaching as well as learning standards are going to be vastly different from now for most states. It will take time to assimilate these changes and ensure that everyone is on the same plane at once. In the process, there may be disruptions in the existing learning programs, too.
  
• No guarantees — The program has been developed to make our students ready for stiff global competition. But the agendas that can get them there are still vague with no specific curriculum to address those exact issues.
• More pressures — Since the program will be adhering to higher standards of learning, students will face more academic pressure throughout and have to take more exams and sit for more assessments. A vast number of parents are against the idea of adding undue pressure onto their children.
• Technology spend — Since all assessments are online, the technology spend for schools all over will go up dramatically. It is not just about taking the tests but instructing and preparing students online as well. It might be cause for major constraints, not just for schools with low-income students, but for all public schools in general.
  
• Pushy agenda — One of the main cons of the program is that it has been pushed by the federal government as a must-have or else there will be no funding for them. Many states and educators feel that it will take time for students to gain benefit from the program, so they would prefer a trial-and-error phase before implementing it. But with no funding threats they have to go ahead even if it doesn't help.

Time will tell whether the program will really help or hinder. Maybe it will evolve and improve to offer more benefits in the future. Opposition is a good thing because then one can assess what is missing and incorporate more changes to achieve the goal that was set at the onset.