An old proverb says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." The time spent in a classroom is one of the most crucial times in a child's life. From the age of four, and sometimes younger, to the age of seventeen or eighteen, most children are in a classroom for at least seven hours a day, five days a week. Not only are they learning valuable information that will be useful throughout their life and careers, but they are also learning precious life lessons and skills that are key to a successful life. During this stage, whether it is positive or negative, they are being shaped and molded by the education system and the teachers, administrators, staff, and whoever else they come in contact with. One of the most crucial times of anyone's life should, and always will be, the time spent in a classroom. Because of this, the education system should focus on the betterment of the child's skills and ability to make a life for himself, rather than compromising the opportunity to build and improve those abilities to give each student the same success rate. Today's public school system has become a one-size-fits-all mold that is hindering students from excelling. The US government has created a system of rules and regulations that each school must follow and bases the success rate on how many students achieve a certain score, instead of focusing on the individual results and achievements of the students.

The public school system in the United States has a history of being mediocre and failing at providing student's with the proper tools and skills to achieve anything more than a mediocre lifestyle. One author put it this way; "There is no perfect prototype for public education hidden in history, to be uncovered today and bestowed on a thankful nation. Rather, American public education is best thought of, historically, as mediocre. It was a serviceable system for preparing students for an agrarian or assembly-line world in which only an elite pursued higher education." (Hood). The current governing law of the public education system is the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, established by President Barack Obama on the tenth of December 2015. This act replaced the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, put into place by President George W. Bush in 2002, and before that was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson's education act was a civil rights law providing educational funding to all states and attempting to ensure every student had access to public education. The law, however, would become void every three to five years, requiring reauthorization and revamping by Congress.  By 2001, the expiring law was causing achievement gaps, leaving poor and minority students in failing schools. Congress decided to propose a bill to "fix" the gaps in testing and accountability and the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into place in 2002. The bipartisan NCLB required states to test students on math and English, become more accountable of the progression of minority groups, remedy failing schools, and set a policy for funding. On the other hand, the Every Student Succeeds Act "tries to preserve the spirit of No Child Left Behind, while fixing what were widely perceived as its one-size-fits-all approach" (Korte). The ESSA still requires testing, but the districts now have flexibility with when and how they administer the tests. Accountability goals are now left completely up to the states, but they must submit them to the Department of Education for review and there are rules the states must follow regarding test scores and graduation rates. The new act is much more specific about when a school requires intervention, but does not define what should take place once the underperforming school is taken over. The law also allotted more money to the education fund, and with each new congressional meeting, the amount is growing (Korte). The Every Student Succeeds Act is a rare product of bipartisan compromise, after many amendments both sides finally came to a consensus. Senator Lamar Alexander told Politico, "I think this has turned out to be a textbook example of how to deal with a difficult subject" (qtd. in Wong).  Even though both sides had to give and take, they finally settled on a semi-improvement of No Child Left Behind (Wong). No matter what changes with each new bill, the guidelines and procedures are still not adequate and fail to provide students and states with profitable results.

Despite many tries, both recent education laws still lack one major component, a new vision for teaching. In the past few decades, a status quo has been established, causing complacency and inefficiency throughout the education system. In order to have a productive outcome from the students, the expectations of teachers must also modernize and improve along with them. The federal government has attempted to govern the standards and requirements of the educators, but educator standards are not a responsibility of the federal government, and should be addressed and delegated to the state and local levels. If the teachers are not moving forward and improving, the students will suffer the consequences of inadequate teaching. The teachers are the ones who have the most impact on the achievements of students and advancing and improving their focus will increase the success rate of all students, especially those who are disadvantaged (Martin). One of the key elements of both recent education laws is the Common Core Standards. Common Core Standards, simply known as Common Core, was developed by a group of state governors and education superintendents wanting to create a set of common education standards. The Common Core produced a new direction in education, stemming from seven years of lessons learned from the No Child Left Behind Act concerning standards and assessments. The creation of a common set of standards established universal education guidelines for all of the states that adopted them. States adopt standards that express what students will learn and expect students to learn, and master them by a particular point in their schooling. However, the standards do not provide specific content to teach or how teachers are supposed to make these results happen in a classroom. Once the standards are adopted, the states develop a curriculum for the districts to follow. Judson N. Kempson defines standards as setting the goal of what students should learn, and curriculum as the way of accomplishing that goal. Originally, the states accepted the standards without controversy, but parents and politicians eventually began realizing that the standards were an overstep of the federal government and the standards were unconstitutional, as they are a violation of states' rights. The Tenth Amendment delegates control of the education system to the states, prohibiting the federal government from having a direct influence on the system, standards, and curriculum. With Common Core, the government established the standards and left it up to the states to adjust them according to their needs, however most states did not deviate from the original outline. Many politicians agree that the standards are an overreach of the federal government. Kempson wrote, " ... opponents of the Department's efforts to support the adoption of common standards believe the Common Core represents an attempt by the Department to impose federal standards and control over education in violation of the Tenth Amendment" (Kempson). In August 2014, the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, sued the Department of Education in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, claiming, "The Department is incentivizing states to adopt common state standards in violation of the Department's enabling statutes, ESEA, and Tenth Amendment. In addition, the Complaint asserts that the use of ARRA and ESEA to support states in adopting common standards was coercive and thus exceeded the constitutional limits of the Spending Clause" (Kempson). In the video "A Teacher Describes Why She Left Teaching in Public Schools... Common Core," a former Georgia teacher, left anonymous, appealed to the state Board of Education about the inefficiency of the state's standards. She argued that the current education standards are mediocre and the curriculums are not age appropriate. She stated that information is being crammed into the student's heads and are not being taught information efficiently, instead they are being taught so that the students pass the test at the end of the year rather than fully understanding and applying the material. To exemplify this, she told of a struggling student who, by January, was much improved, but was still behind because at that point in the year it was time to cram for the exit exam. Her argument was solely against common core, and the standards expected of students (A Teacher ... Common Core). These firsthand accounts of opposition to Common Core Standards are prime examples of why an education reform needs to take place and the ineffectiveness of the current education system. 

Because of the ineffectiveness of the public school system, many parents and educators are looking for a better alternative for their children. Many conservative Americans believe that the education system is in the state it is in because of the cultural and social trends that began in the 1960s. These trends wrecked classroom discipline and the moral basis of education. Many free-market thinkers believe that competition will solve many of the educational problems (Hood). Many parents and conservatives see charter schools and private schools being the better alternative to public education. Christopher Lubienski defines charter schools as "state supported but independently or privately managed [schools], often by for-profit groups." Charter schools are an option for students; they are not assigned to them like the district-run public schools. Funding for these institutions comes from the attendees, giving the schools more of an incentive to provide quality education. Lubienski advocates for privatized institutions because of the increased access to quality education for underprivileged students and greatly improved academic outcomes compared to their public, state-run counterparts. He states, "Charter schools hold notable theoretical promise in leveraging external incentives to induce improvements in school quality and access to those opportunities. Proponents advocate for such incentivist approaches often by using social-justice rhetoric, but argue at the same time that market incentives produce better outcomes for all" (Lubienski). The failure that is the United States public school system has caused parents and educators to look for other options; they see private schools and charter schools as their alternative and have created academic competition for the state-run schools. 

The argument opposing the current status of the US education system has raised the question of whether or not academic standards will boost literacy and close the achievement gap. Supporters of state standards advocate for the less fortunate and argue that common standards will, indeed, close the achievement gap because they have the same opportunity has someone more fortunate. An article written by Ron Haskins, Richard Murnane, Isabel Sawhill, and Catherine Snow states, " Standards are routine in American life. Sports have them; businesses have them; professions have them. Standards are useful in clarifying the knowledge, skills, and competencies that society expects from individuals and organizations. Society also needs a way to determine whether the standards have been met, usually through testing, certification, licensing, or inspection systems. And a respected body of experts must be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the standards" (Haskins 1). They argue that in order for the system to be successful, uniform standards must be established by every state and they play an important rile in improving literacy skills for all students. In support of Common Core, Haskins, Murnane, Sawhill and Snow, state, " If American children were to master the Common Core, they would fare better in international comparisons, the American economy would receive a boost, and the literacy achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children might narrow somewhat -- and in any case, disadvantaged children would boost their literacy skills, giving them a better opportunity to compete in the twenty-first century economy" (Haskins 3). Their contention for Common Core Standards is one of a shallow understanding. 

Sonia Niento researched why teachers stay in the field even when the education system is a failure. Her evidence was based off of the accounts of several teachers who continued to teach because they felt like they played a crucial role in society. Many of the participants in Niento's project were excellent examples of why so many teachers continue to educate America's youth. Most of them responded with answers pertaining to the wellbeing of the students. Several of the teachers said they just want to give the students a sense of hope and show them love. Niento calls teachers "one of the United States' greatest resources." Even though that is true, teachers are often overlooked when it comes to talk about education reform and new policies. The author writes, "These teachers believe deeply in U.S. public education as the foundation of a democratic society. Yet they recognize that many so-called reform policies are not really about providing a better and more equitable education for all students; instead, these policies often favor the corporations that profit from those policies and the foundations supporting them ... they reflect a growing group of teachers who are fed up with business as usual, who are demanding a better education for their students and decent working conditions -- not to mention respect -- for themselves. They believe in the potential benefits of public education, and they're advocates for social justice, providing multiple examples of what it looks like in practice, from quiet advocacy to public demonstrations at state capitals" (Niento 58).

There are many flaws in the public school system of the United States. Common Core Standards, as argued above, does not leave room for advancement by intelligent students. Common Core creates an obvious achievement gap between the students excelling and those who are not. The one-size-fits-all laws that prompted the creation of the common core system are unconstitutional in that they do not delegate educational responsibilities to the state and local governments like the Tenth Amendment requires. Sonia Niento made a great statement in her article pertaining to the flawed system. She wrote, "There's a discernible change in the air concerning public education. More teachers are becoming activists for true reform. More parents are "opting out" of mandatory high-stakes tests for their children. More principals and superintendents are refusing to go along with blaming teachers and their students for the results of policies that were poorly thought out in the first place. More reporters are becoming critical of current policies (Merrow, 2014). More researchers are questioning the myths surrounding education reform (Berliner & Glass, 2014). And more citizens on both the political left and right are unconvinced about the potential benefits of the Common Core State Standards. But these changes, by themselves, may not be enough to stem the tide of privatization. Remaking public education in the image of business has been on a fast track for at least a couple of decades now, and turning it around will take not only the most dedicated and passionate teachers, but also more concerned citizens, administrators, teacher educators, policy- makers, and the media to remind the United States what public education is about" (Niento 58). The United States, while at the forefront of many things, lacks adequate education for their youth. If the young people are not being taught the important information and life skills in schools and instead are being taught to pass a test, then they will not contribute to society and the country will eventually succumb to the consequences of the failing school system.

