States across the nation are considering the adoption of new national education standards.  The Obama administration and Arne Duncan, Education Secretary, will be awarding points to those states who decide to adopt the standards in their "Race to the Top" competition.  Presumably, the administration hopes to achieve some state-to-state continuity with the implementation of these standards.  But what are the ramifications of this standard adoption?

For those states who choose to adopt the new standards, there is the hope of being a step to closer to the grand prize in the "Race to the Top" competition.  Certainly some states will be awarded enormous amounts of money to implement, but what about the others?  New standards aren't just a paper change.  They will require a lot of other changes:  teachers will need to be retrained in some instances, textbooks will need to be created and adopted to support the new curriculum, supplementary materials will need to be created, pacing guides and curriculum outlines will need to be made, and the list goes on.  The implemenation of the new standards is totally different from the adoption alone.  Will the states who make these adoptions be penalized in the future for non-compliance if they can't make the changes necessary for financial reasons?

For the states who choose not to adopt the standards, is that really going to be an acceptable position in the eyes of the federal government?  Can they really be called national standards if not every state in the nation adheres to them?  Will these states lose federal funding in the future for not adopting the standards?  Some states are caught between the desire to remain autonomous and the desire for much needed financial assistance.  Can the federal government entice these states with the hope of money for their programs?