Design Of Ethics Program

Assignment: Design of Ethics Program
In a 5–7 page document, outline an ethics program designed for a new company. Tables 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.12 in PDF Attachment will provide assistance with the elements that you choose to include.
Guide on how to complete the Assignment:
The “outline” required for should be presented in standard written format, i.e. not in an outline format. If for example I am asked to outline the most important factors of parenting I might provide the following.

The most important factors of parenting are structure, safety, nurture, and guidance. These factors help to ensure that the child will grow up to be well rounded and mentally balanced. Blah, blah, blah. NOTICE: these are my primary points of interest. The remainder of the paper will discuss why these four points are important, how they may impact the child now and in the future, etc.

Thus there should be a discussion of the points that you deem are important in an ethics plan, and not just a list of bullet points.
The document is to be well-referenced and in APA format.
APA Required Format as follows.
References listed on the Reference page should be cited in the text. Please use in-text citations, consistent with APA formatting. In-text citations give credit to other authors and highlights areas in the paper that are explicitly not your original work. Content requires, “References are applied substantively to the paper topic”. Absent in-text citations, the paper does not address this content requirement. Similarly, Analysis requires a demonstration of, “strong higher-order critical thinking and analysis”. If your thoughts and analysis are not distinguished from those of other authors, assessing your analytical ability is difficult. The following formatting issues should be addressed for future papers: APA formatting requires a title page, there should be a page break to separate the reference page from the body of the text, and include a running header. Separate paragraphs with indentions. Indented paragraphs increase the quality of the content and readability of the paper the text should be double spaced and new paragraphs should be indented. Your score for this paper was based on the following rubric:
Direct quotes may constitute no more than 10-15% of student papers and assignments. Excessive quotation – more than 15% – does not reflect the student’s original thinking. Submissions with excessive quotation will be marked down for lack of originality.

Paper On Management Question 4

Question 4: Please use the below article to guide your response. Minimum of 2 academic references and 1 data for appendix, it could be a graph or table or piechart (2 and half pages NOT double spaced).

GENERAL ELECTRIC: AN OUTLIER IN CEO TALENT DEVELOPMENT by W. Glenn Rowe and Roderick E. White and Derek Lehmberg and John R. Phillips

displayImage

W. Glenn Rowe is the Paul MacPherson Chair in Strategic Leadership at the Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario.

Roderick E. White is the Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Research at the Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario.

Derek Lehmberg is a doctoral student at the Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario.

John R. Phillips is an assistant professor at the Odette School of Business, the University of Windsor.

A recent Ivey study confirms the commonly held view that General Electric is an excellent breeding ground for future business leaders. This article summarizes the study and its three conclusions: Firms led by CEOs who were trained at GE will outperform firms led by CEOs who were not; GE’s reputation for developing CEO talent is, in fact, well deserved and not mere hype; and GE appears to develop more CEO talent than other noted CEO talent-generating firms.

An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall pattern of a distribution. Usually, the presence of an outlier indicates some sort of problem. In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. Outliers may be indicative of data points that belong to a different population than the rest of the sample set. – Wikipedia

An outlier is something that is situated away from or classed differently from a main or related body; a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample. – Malcolm Gladwell1

The General Electric Corporation (GE) has long been known as an organization that excels at finding and developing managerial talent. In addition, GE managers are sought after by other organizations to serve as senior managers. Consequently, many GE managers leave the firm for employment elsewhere.

GE has developed a reputation as a breeding ground for CEOs, and a relatively large number of ex-GE executives have been at the helm of Fortune 500 companies over the last 25 to 30 years. In addition, many business press writers have commented that firms which hire an executive from GE for their Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position experience an immediate increase in their stock market valuation, an increase that is not apparent for firms that hire their CEOs from other firms.

This leads to several questions: Do firms that hire CEOs from GE perform better than those firms that hire from the general pool of CEO management talent? Does GE have a better reputation than other firms for developing CEOs, and is this reputation deserved? Are more CEOs developed in GE than in other firms that also have a reputation for being a CEO talent generator?

In a study recently conducted at the Richard Ivey School of Business2, we attempted to answer these questions. The results are intriguing and of interest to those interested in senior leadership development, selection and training. We discuss the results in this article.

To assess the performance implications of selecting a CEO from the talent pool at GE versus the general CEO talent pool, we assessed the cumulative abnormal returns to stockholders over the three-day period surrounding the date the appointment of a new CEO was announced by 78 firms – 39 who announced the hiring of CEOs from GE and 39 who announced the appointment of CEOs from the general CEO talent pool.

We searched GE’s annual reports from 1977 to 2002 to identify the company’s senior leaders over that period. We found 651 senior leaders. From this group we selected 39, based on the following criteria. They had to have spent a minimum of five years with GE and become the CEO of a publicly traded company after leaving GE. Further, there had to be no other significant events in a 20-day period surrounding the announcement of each CEO appointment. Examples of other significant events are renegotiation of bank loans, outcomes of major lawsuits, major changes in strategic direction and going ex-dividend.

In the following manner, we then searched for our comparison group of CEOs from the general talent pool for CEOs. First, for each ex-GE CEO, we found a group of CEOs from the general talent pool who were outsiders and who had been announced as their respective firm’s CEO within a one-month period of the ex-GE CEO’s announcement date. Second, for each of these groups of CEOs, we determined the market capitalization for the firm led by each CEO and selected the CEO whose firm had the closest capitalization to the firm led by the respective ex-GE CEO. Finally, we matched as closely as possible with respect to industry. These comparison CEOs also had to have served with their previous firms for five years or more. This gave us 39 ex-GE CEOs and 39 non-GE CEOs, all of whom were outsiders when appointed CEOs of their respective firms. This meant we had 39 pairs of CEOs (one from GE and one not from GE in each pair) whose appointments were announced within one month of each other and whose firm’s market capitalization were closely matched.

GE: An outlier

GE is an outlier in many respects and we discuss three of them. First, it is one of a very few successful U.S.-based conglomerates. While conglomerates were very popular in the 60s and 70s, they became less popular in the 80s. Today, there are very few conglomerates. GE has not only survived as a conglomerate, it has prospered and become one of the largest, most successful, diversified firms in the world.

Second, GE is an outlier from a performance perspective. During the period, 1993 to 2002, it had phenomenal success in creating value for shareholders. It ranked either first or second in the Stern Stewart Performance 1000 on Market Value Added (MVA). In 2001, it ranked first with a MVA of $427 billion.3 GE competed with Coca-Cola for top spot in the MVA rankings from 1993 to 1996. From 1997 to 2002, its main competitor was Microsoft.

Third, GE is an outlier in its ability to develop managerial and leadership talent. One business writer stated that GE’s managerial development system, in addition to producing senior managers for GE, produced “an astonishing number of CEOs of other major companies.”4

Of course, these three characteristics that help make GE an outlier are related. Several writers have detailed how GE’s performance is a result of GE’s executive development system. In addition, GE’s diversity in, and large number of, business units creates the necessity to deploy, and offers the opportunity to enhance, the general management and strategic leadership abilities of its middle and senior level managers. This capability is a very important source of sustained competitive advantage for GE.

Leadership development at GE

GE’s leadership development system is probably due to its informal, tacit, socially complex, and path-dependent nature. Numerous business press writers have hailed GE’s leadership and managerial capabilities. The corporation has been described has one of two legendary “caldrons of managerial brilliance.”5 One writer called GE a “CEO breeding ground.”6 Another business writer said that: “[w]when a bank needs a loan, it goes to a bank. When a company needs a CEO, it goes to GE.”7 Finally, it has been argued that executives at GE have been shaped by a system that is better than any other outside of the military, and that is unparalleled in its ability to identify and develop leadership talent.

Of course, GE has a long history of leadership development. A long succession of GE CEOs has emphasized the development of leadership talent. The John F. Welch Leadership Center at Crotonville, NY will be 53 years old in 2009. GE’s president in 1958, Ralph Cordiner, stated that: “Not customers, not products, not plants, not money but managers may be the limit of General Electric’s growth.”8 Jack Welch said it differently with his “people first, strategy second”9 mantra, but the emphasis was still on people.

An important point is that GE develops much more leadership talent than it needs or uses. The system selects and develops good leaders, and is combined with a disciplined evaluation and promotion system that is merit based. Those not selected for the highest leadership position at GE, or those who have inappropriate timing,10 leave GE for CEO positions with other firms – a process that is supported and even facilitated by GE. Two contenders to succeed Jack Welch, James McNerney and Robert Nardelli, were told by Welch to find CEO jobs outside GE when Jeff Immelt won the horse race to replace him in 2001. The timing of choosing a successor is inappropriate for some, as GE chooses relatively young CEOs (both Welch and Immelt were approximately 45 years old when selected) in its last two CEO succession processes.

The GE Effect

Stock prices generally change in accordance with the positive or negative expectations of shareholders when significant events such as the renegotiation of major bank loans, outcomes of major lawsuits, major changes in strategic direction, going ex-dividend and the announcement of a new CEO happen. We assume that these expectations are the result of information surrounding these important events and this information being made publicly available. In addition, these expectations are a function of the net present value of the expected future discounted cash flows of the firm as a result of these events. With current statistical techniques, we measure the cumulative abnormal returns to shareholders that are related to a particular firm event – such as the announcement of the appointment of a new CEO. When these returns are positive, it suggests that shareholders expect that the firm will perform better under the leadership of that CEO.

In our study, we measured the stock price increase surrounding each of the 78 CEO announcements over a three day period – the day before, the day of, and the day after each announcement. We then assessed whether each of these three-day cumulative relative returns was significantly higher than, equal to, or less than zero. Further, we examined if the average for the group of ex-GE executives was significantly different and higher than the average for the group of newly appointed CEOs who came from the general CEO talent pool.

The results in Table 1 are very telling. First, we see that the value of shares for the ex-GE CEOs ranged between -8.2 percent to 30.2 percent, while that for the CEOs from the general CEO talent pool was -23.6 percent to 26.0 percent. Second, the averages were 3.92 percent versus -0.61 percent, respectively. Third, the Z scores tell us that the average for the ex-GE CEOs was significantly different from zero and significantly higher than the average for the CEOs from the general CEO talent pool. A final interesting result was the plus/minus ratio. This shows that shareholders expressed confidence that 25 CEOs in the ex-GE CEO group would improve performance, while they expected that only 14 would not improve performance. The corresponding numbers for the group of CEOs who did not come from GE was 17 to 22.

These results suggest that shareholders believe that performance is more likely to improve under CEOs who have been developed in GE’s management development and training system. The majority of firms that hired CEOs who came from GE had a positive increase in stock price in the three-day period surrounding the announcement of their appointment. This more than offset the impact of the 14 firms whose stock price did not increase because performance was not expected to improve.

TABLE 1: Relative Returns for CEO Announcements over 3-Day Event Window

  N Min Max Mean Z Score +/- Ratio
Ex-GE Executives 39 -8.20% 30.20% 3.92% 5.95 25:14
CEOs not from GE 39 -23.6% 26.00% -0.61% -0.53 17:22

GE’s reputation: Deserved or hype?

The second question we examined was whether GE deserved its reputation or whether it was hype created and sustained by the business practitioner press. We assessed this in two ways. First, we looked for as many lists as possible that highlighted firms which were considered CEO talent generators. We found nine such lists – one from 1981 and the rest from 2002 to 2007. These are listed at the bottom of Table 2.

There were 66 firms found on these nine lists. However, only six were listed five or more times. These six are listed in Table 2. GE is mentioned on all nine lists and IBM is next, being listed on seven of the nine lists. This suggests that GE has a reputation for the development of CEO talent that is recognized by those who compile these lists. But, is this reputation deserved or is it hype?

Our study found that firms which hire CEOs developed at GE have persistent positive abnormal returns. We considered this support for our notion that firms with CEOs from GE outperform their rivals. We know it is possible for shareholders in a market to make mistakes, but it is hard to believe that they would make mistakes consistently over the 25-year period of our study. If firms managed by CEOs from GE are unable to outperform rivals, we believe, over time, that shareholders will notice this failure to meet performance expectations.

This means that the abnormal returns to shareholders found in our study would decline over time. But, over the period of our study they did not decline – they persisted. If we are to believe that the observed GE effect is hype, it then requires us to believe that markets do not learn and are highly inefficient. The fact that the returns persist suggests that GE’s reputation is not hype but in fact is well deserved.

TABLE 2: Firms Considered CEO Talent Generators

Firm Name 1981 2002 2003 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 Total
General Electric Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9
IBM   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   7
Proctor & Gamble   Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes Yes   6
Johnson & Johnson   Yes Yes Yes Yes     Yes   5
Dell Computer   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes       5
Colgate-Palmolive   Yes Yes Yes Yes     Yes   5
Source Fortune Hewitt Associates Hewitt Associates Hewitt Associates Hay Group Hay Group Groysberg in HBR Hewitt Associates Hay Group  

GE versus other firms

The final question asks: Does GE develop more CEOs than other firms that have a reputation for being a CEO talent generator? A corollary question is whether the CEOs from these other firms are expected to improve performance in a manner that is better than, similar to or worse than ex-GE CEOs? To answer this question we searched for all CEOs who had been developed in the firms listed in Table 2. We found 20 useable (see the sidebar for our criteria) CEO announcements – 13 from GE and 7from the other five firms. We then assessed the impact on stock price over a three-day period, when each firm announced its choice for CEO as we did for our earlier study. The results are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3: Relative Returns for CEO Announcements over 3-Day Event Window

  N Mean Z Score +/- Ratio
Ex-GE Executives 13 8.17% 3.39 12:1
Ex-Talent Generator Executives 7 -2.92% -0.16 3:4

These results suggest that GE does develop more senior leaders who become CEOs than any other firm that is known for developing senior leaders. In addition, the impact on stock price when the appointment of each of these 20 CEOs was announced is even more dramatic than in our previous study. The average for our group of ex-GE CEOs is 8.2 percent while that for the CEOs from the other noted CEO talent generators is -2.9 percent. The Z scores suggest that these are significantly different from each other. Finally, the plus/minus ratio is 12:1 for the ex-GE group and 3:4 for the non-GE group. These results suggest that shareholders expected firms led by ex-GE CEOs to perform much better than firms led by CEOs from the other five firms that are considered to be CEO talent generators.

Conclusion

Shareholders expect that firms led by CEOs who were trained in the GE managerial-development and training system will outperform firms led by CEOs who came from the general talent pool for CEOs. Second, GE has a reputation for developing CEO talent that is deserved and not just the result of hype in the business press. Third, GE appears to develop more CEO talent than other noted CEO talent-generating firms, and these ex-GE CEOs are expected to lead their firms to better performance.

Is GE an outlier? Is it a firm that lies outside of the overall pattern of CEO talent generators? Is it possible that GE belongs to a different population than other CEO talent generators? Based on our studies, we believe that GE is a unique developer of CEO talent. It is an outlier. The emphasis on leadership development by successive CEOs, the merit-based promotion system, the ability to bring people in at the bottom and develop them, or have them leave if they are in the bottom ten percent, leads GE to develop many more leaders with a CEO capability than the corporation needs. This excess in CEO talent gets dispersed among the general population of firms and helps make GE an outlier in the development of CEO talent.

Critical Analysis Worksheet

Common Core

Sept. 29–MONTGOMERY — It is called Common Core. Yet despite the name, there is little common ground between those on opposite sides of the debate about Alabama’s new education standards.

The national benchmarks, designed to ensure Alabama students are learning the same concepts in the same grades as students anywhere else in the country, were adopted by the state’s elected Board of Education in 2010.

Since that time, and with increasing frequency, board members and state Superintendent Tommy Bice have had to defend the standards from those who say anything to do with Common Core amounts to a federal takeover of schools and is not good for students.

Implementation of the math standards started last year. English begins this year.

Alabama Board of Education member Charles Elliott, R-Decatur, said he has heard nothing but good things from educators in his district about Common Core.

“Everyone’s said they were an improvement, and even in the some of the best schools, they were going to have to do a better job of teaching students,” said Elliott, who does not plan to seek re-election in 2014. “I’ve spoken with a majority of the superintendents in the 6th District, and they’ve said we can’t go back. They say if we were forced to generate our own standards, we would seek out these Common Core standards.”

But opponents, including many tea party organizations, continue to demand change. Some lawmakers are listening. Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, promises to introduce a bill next year to repeal Common Core.

“It’s an unproven curriculum,” Beason said. “They can’t point to anywhere in the world that it’s been successful. You wouldn’t buy an electronic device no one had tried. Why would you buy an education system that no one’s tested?”

He disagrees with educators who say there still is local control of curriculum.

“If we’re still in such control, why don’t they just get out of it?” Beason said. “Why don’t they just take the parts they like and get out of it?”

Elliott said a lot of misinformation about Common Core continues to be circulated, and he’ll continue to listen to educators.

“With all due respect to the tea party, they are really good Americans, but am I going to listen to teachers and principals or am I going to listen to the tea party?” he said.

Here’s a look at Common Core in Alabama.

Common Core history

The state Board of Education, including then-Gov. Bob Riley, approved the adoption of Common Core State Standards along with selected Alabama standards in November 2010. They were not referred to as Common Core, though. Instead, they were approved under the name “Alabama College and Career Ready Initiative.”

In its literature, the U.S. Department of Education tries to make clear the standards always have been a state-led effort. It states the federal government did not play a role in the development of the standards, and it is not playing a role in implementation. It also is careful not to call the standards a curriculum. Curriculum still is up to local districts.

Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Some federal grant money has been tied to it, but Alabama hasn’t received federal money related to the standards.

Yet, federal influence in local schools is high on opponents’ list of things they dislike about Common Core.

“I am opposed to federal control of our education system,” Gov. Robert Bentley said last week. “I’m opposed to Common Core because of the potential for federal intrusion. We want the absolute highest standards for Alabama, and I believe we can do this. I believe Alabama should set our own high standards, without intrusion from the federal government.”

Bentley was governor-elect when the board voted on Common Core, and he asked it to wait until he could have a say. Board members chose to proceed before the new governor took office.

Control, choices in debate

State school board member Mary Scott Hunter was not on the board when the standards were adopted, but she has been a vocal proponent of Common Core.

“The Alabama standards define what students should know at each grade level, and they are more rigorous and focused than our previous standards,” said Hunter, a Huntsville Republican. “The federal government does not govern or control the Alabama standards. Under the Alabama standards, curriculum, textbooks and required reading are determined at the local school district level, as they always have been.”

Opponents want standards that are 100 percent made in Alabama.

“Instead of subjecting students to this giant experiment, let’s write our own standards that are superior to Common Core,” said Elois Zeanah, president of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women. “You’re going to hear from people who want to force Common Core on schools and students say these are Alabama standards, not Common Core. That is disingenuous. Alabama did not write Common Core. It is copyrighted by outside organizations.”

The standards weren’t birthed here, but they were modified here, Bice said.

“If we go back to facts, stay with facts, which I’ve done all along, we had a group of Alabama teachers and Alabama administrators look at the Common Core and look at our current standards,” Bice said.

He said the group assembled the best standards from each and brought them to the state school board.

One of the things Elliott said he hears often about Common Core is that it takes away schools’ choice in what they put in front of their students and the message it tries to impart.

“I’ve had people tell me that schools are going to use “Three Little Pigs” to teach socialism,” Elliott said. “I said, ‘You’re killing me.’ ”

Local school systems are still deciding how students will be taught and from what materials. There are no mandated textbooks or reading lists, but there is a list of national “exemplars.”

What has changed?

Jeremy Zelkowski is a high school math teacher turned professor at the University of Alabama. Recently, he and two other professors have been reviewing the new standards with high school teachers in several west Alabama school systems.

“The difference is there is a higher level of expectation,” Zelkowski said. “That’s really what Common Core does: It raises expectations. The old course of study only expected student understanding at a basic skills level. The new course of study expects students to be at a proficient skills level and have a deeper understanding of the curriculum.”

Students can’t get by with just retaining information long enough to regurgitate it on an exam, proponents said.

“In the previous way, they could know enough to pass the test and move on, but not take any real knowledge with them,” Zelkowski said.

That could, in part, explain why 36 percent of Alabama public high school graduates in 2012 needed remedial math and/or English courses when they got to college.

“They’ve learned little at the high school level,” he said.

Zelkowski agrees education in the U.S. and Alabama has improved in the past 20 years without Common Core, but “just not at a rate that would make us internationally competitive.”

Beason said that’s not the fault of the state’s previous benchmarks.

“Our problem is not that we didn’t have standards. The problem is that we didn’t have a focus on meeting our standards,” Beason said.

Reaction elsewhere

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted Common Core standards. But many are having the same fight that is playing out in Alabama. Some recent examples reported by the Associated Press include:

–Last week, Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature responded to pressure from tea party conservatives who have called for a “full and immediate investigation” into the standards. Gov. Scott Walker said he supports holding hearings and identifying more rigorous standards than those in Common Core.

–Similarly, in Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said he wants the standards studied further, and his state will not participate in national testing related to Common Core.

–In Louisiana last week, a Republican lawmaker urged the governor to pull the state out of Common Core participation or he’d have a bill next year to do so.

–Earlier this month, lawmakers in Tennessee held a hearing to listen to concerns about the standards and hinted to legislation changing that state’s use of them in 2014.

–In Michigan on Thursday, the state House voted to move forward with the standards, which are backed by the Republican governor and the business community.

Common Core’s cost

The state Department of Education doesn’t have a total price tag for putting the Alabama Career and College Ready Initiative in every classroom in the state.

A 2012 chart shows the development of the standards cost less than previous years’ standards: $128,000 compared to $228,000 for the English standards.

The Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank, said in 2012 that Common Core would cost all 45 states about $15.8 billion during seven years. A large chunk of that came from technology improvements and professional development.

But Sen. Dick Brewbaker, chairman of the Senate education policy committee who opposed Common Core in the 2013 legislation session, said he hasn’t seen any cost estimates he trusts enough to repeat.

It’s hard to determine whether money used for technology or textbooks related to Common Core would be used for new technology or textbooks under a different course of study.

Info gathering, sharing

Next month, the state board will vote on a student data privacy policy that states, among other things, “no personally identifiable individual student data is shared in either state or federally required reporting.”

Privacy issues have been a major point of contention in Common Core. Earlier this year, at least seven states were sharing student data — including names, dates of birth and sometimes Social Security numbers — with third parties.

That’s not happening, and won’t happen, in Alabama, Bice said. He added nothing about student data collection has changed since 2010.

Zelkowski said data gathering, especially on students’ performances, has been going on for decades.

“We’ve been doing that since the ’70s,” he said. “That exists. I’ve analyzed that information. You don’t see names; you see 12-digit numbers.”

Testing options

Two different groups are developing standardized tests to go along with Common Core. The Washington Post has reported $360 million in federal money is being spent on the tests.

While some states have signed on for the testing, Alabama did not. It won’t be doing additional testing related to the standards, officials said. The state, however, will use new Common Core-aligned tests from ACT Inc. to assess students.

Poppycock or good business?

Leaders at Redstone Arsenal have asked the state to keep the standards, saying they ensure military families they won’t have to deal with varying standards and expectations if they move to Alabama. They add the standards will help them attract the best possible workforce.

Business advocates, including the Business Council of Alabama, have said the standards make the state more attractive to prospective employers.

Beason and other opponents quickly dismiss that argument.

“That’s poppycock and they know it,” Beason said. “People who want to do business in your state care that you have an educated workforce, and we’ve done very well at recruiting business the last 20 years.”

 

The Battle Agaist Common Core standards

Quietly and almost without notice, an initiative which significantly erodes local and state control of school curriculum has passed in 46 states. The Common Core Standards Initiative sets Math and English curriculum in every participating state at the same level. In adopting this “common core” states are relinquishing their right to compose their own education requirements.

Only Alaska, Nebraska, Virginia, and the great state of Texas have refused adoption of the Common Core Standards. State legislators in Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and South Dakota have introduced repeal measures, but it is so far unclear how successful these measures will be.

One state however has a very real chance to throw off the “one size fits all” standard and preserve a measure of independence in their curriculum. Which state would have the nerve, foresight, intelligence, and independent spirit required for such an effort? Michigan.

That’s right; the state responsible for the tragic disaster that is Detroit, we now find taking a stand in favor of responsible self-governance. The one-time bastion of progressive ideology has seemingly begun a slow policy shift. Tired of being embarrassed, its legislators may finally make true progress possible in the state beginning with reversal of the Common Core Standards Initiative.

Largely a product of the 2009 stimulus plan Democrats passed in congress, the Initiative is a bureaucratic, top-down program heavily influenced by special interests. The Obama administration encouraged the states’ adoption of this initiative by providing incentives through his Race to the Top program. The program was $4.35 billion dollars of carrots swinging in front of fifty hungry rabbits.

The new standards are indeed tougher than many currently in place, but there is also the danger of states being disincentivized from ever raising standards beyond the initiative.

More dangerous still is the misplaced emphasis on common mass learning. Children do not fully “learn” through memorization. Drilling children until they memorize the curriculum may help them pass a test but rarely results in true understanding. Furthermore each child is different, and strictly teaching the “common core” will only impede exceptional students from reaching beyond the mediocre.

In his article “Do We Need a Common Core?” Nicholas Tampio states the problem quite succinctly. “The class… has gone from one where teachers, aides, parents, and students work hard to create a rewarding educational experience, to one where the teachers and students use materials designed by a major publishing house.”

In short, responsibility has shifted from the classroom to educational bureaucrats. Incentives to be creative in the classroom have disappeared.

Putting a stop to implementation of the Common Core would preserve a measure of sovereignty for states to dictate their own, individualized requirements. The Michigan lawmaker introducing the bill, Republican Tom McMillin, put it best when he said, “We don’t want our kids to be common. We want our kids in Michigan to be exceptional.”

The Initiative narrowly focuses on the difficulties high school graduates were facing in college and the job market. Unaddressed is the fact that much of what is currently taught at universities was once considered standard teaching in high school. Instead of simply making high schools better at preparing students for college/careers (something these standards in no way guarantee) more attention should perhaps be given to why even college graduates are learning far less than they did even fifty years ago.

In its essence the Common Core cheapens our children’s education and further erodes the nation’s tradition of Federalism. The argument here is not against educational standards being raised at public schools. The problem is loss of state control in making those standards. Keeping standards under state control puts more power into the hands of parents as opposed to bureaucrats.

Lawmakers should keep in mind that simply changing standards is no guarantee students will actually learn any more than they do now. It may be time to think about a more fundamental shift in the way we educate our children.

Describe how the topic relates to Biodiversity and Evolution

Go to the following website of the Smithsonian http://humanorigins.si.edu/ and select a topic of interest from the many displayed there.  In APA-style format, write a 2-3 page paper that:

1.    Describes the details of the topic

2.    Explains why you chose this particular topic

3.    Describe how the topic relates to Biodiversity and Evolution

4.    Details how a changing environment may have had an effect on the organisms studied in your selected topic