The No Child Left Behind Act and Standardized Testing is Dumbing Down Students

Even though standardized testing was piloted in several states, the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) nationwide has created several negative effects on the U.S. educational system. Designed with the intention of making schools more accountable for their curriculum, requiring more qualified professionals in the classroom, and offering incentives to high performing schools, the program has been anything but successful. The reality has been just the opposite of NCLB intention. Since the beginning of NCLB and the mandating of standardized testing the curriculums have narrowed, schools are unable to fill all positions with properly qualified professionals, and student dropout rates have been on the rise.

The implementation of mandatory standardized testing has resulted in the narrowing of curriculums, robbing students of courses such as Arts, Science, and History. With such high focus on testable material, schools have set curriculums high on reading, writing, and arithmetic. The American Educational Research Association, the nation’s largest professional organization in scientific study of education, issued a research-based position on high-stakes tests that stated “testing inevitably creates incentives for inappropriate methods of test preparation” (AERA). Teachers have begun to fall away from teaching a wider spectrum of information to concentrating on assignments and working repetitive drills that are believed to produce the highest test scores. Several schools are taking Arts such as music and theatre out of the classroom. Less time and focus are given to science fairs and projects that occupy time and funding that can be spent toward test preparation software and booklets. As a result, standardized testing has reverted schools into memorization of test subjects and pushed the students chances of reaching higher levels of learning to the wayside.

NCLB also requires schools to acquire teachers that are “highly qualified” to teach in their subject field, creating a shortage of teachers. In order to be considered “highly qualified,” teachers must have majored in all their class subjects. This means that science teachers who often are asked to teach biology, chemistry, and physics or earth science would have to hold a major in all of these subjects (Darling-Hammond 16). The federal law’s failure to institute better methods of judging teacher qualifications has created road blocks for interdisciplinary teaching. The expense of obtaining multiple majors is simply too excessive for the small salaries teachers already live on and teachers are ultimately detoured from pursuing multiple majors. This has forced schools to search for more qualified teachers in the classroom, and there simply aren’t enough college graduates with required majors who are willing to enter into the teaching field. In fact, many current teachers are choosing to leave their schools for another line of employment.

As if the narrowing of curriculums and the inability of obtaining 100% “highly qualified” teachers in all the classrooms wasn’t enough, students are growing tired of the educational inadequacies and deciding to drop out of school. The national Educational Longitudinal Study produced data that indicated high-stakes testing was not associated with improved scores but associated with higher dropout rates (Jacob 100). Schools no longer harbor a learning atmosphere. With curriculums narrowing and many teachers turning to test approved assignments and repetitive drilling, students are beginning to tune out. The classroom no longer contains a thirsting for knowledge; it has been replaced by the demand and preparation for testing year in and year out. Students are not being shown the real world applications of their education; instead they are drilled constantly to score high on standardized tests so they can qualify for advancement to the next grade level. In the end, they lose interest or reach their threshold of tolerance and drop out.

Even with all the inadequacies of NCLB, there are some that would point to the positive increase in parent involvement with their child’s academics. Child Trends Databank compiled data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics that showed a significant rise in parent involvement on numerous activities. Between 1999 and 2003 there was a 10% increase in attendance to general meetings, 5% increase in scheduled teacher meetings, 5% increase in attending school events, and a 5% increase in parent volunteers and service on a committee (“Parental Involvement”). Although parental involvement is a positive, it only accounts for a fragment of the educational needs as a whole. Parents may be attending more parent/teacher conferences, but many still do not understand what is going on inside the classroom, much less the school, district, and state in which the classroom operates. More simply stated, parents simply don’t understand the politics that restrict their children from receiving the best education possible.

The installment of the NCLB Act was an attempt to increase education across the nation and establish a level of excellence in the nation’s education system. The

Act has been a failure on a large scale. Emphasis on standardized testing has to be removed from America’s educational system. Although testing may be necessary in the educational system, the weight high-stakes testing has on funding and rewards for schools and districts has created a backlash effect. Federal laws demanding more education and qualification for teachers that are already underpaid and underappreciated are detouring future graduates from choosing a career in the educational field. This continues to enlarge the shortage of qualified teachers in the classrooms. What bears the greatest tragedies are the effects passed down to the students of the classroom. The desire to learn has been stifled, the means to learn has been narrowed, and the entire nation is left to suffer from its result. The children are the future, and NCLB is dimming the lights on the nation’s brightest stars.

Works Cited

“AERA position statement concerning high-stakes testing in pre-K-12 education.” 2000, July. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. April 4, 2007. http://www.aera.net/policyandprograms/?id=378.

Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Barnett, Berry. “Highly Qualified Teachers for All.” Educational Leadership. v.64 no.3. 2006. 14-20.

Jacob, B. “Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. v.23 no. 2. 2001. 99-121.

“Parental Involvement in Schools.” 2003. Child Trends Databank. April 12, 2007. http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/39ParentalInvolvementinSchools.cfm

Merit Pay: Insufficient solution to teacher salary problem

A majority of Americans agree that teacher salaries are insufficient for the hard work and dedication educators put forth. As a professional career that builds and shapes youth and plays a critical part in America’s value in the global market, the salaries have been inadequate and only continue to grow worse as they fail to keep up with rising inflation. Other professional careers requiring the educational background and degrees equivalent to teachers receive greater financial compensation even when their overall contribution to the nation is far less. So the thought of a merit pay, or pay for performance plan as a resolution to salary shortcomings is an insult. Merit pay systems are insufficient solutions to underpaid teacher salaries because they perpetuate too much emphasis on standardized-tests, undermine teamwork amongst teaching staff, and fail to increase salaries as a whole.

A majority of merit pay systems base teachers’ salaries on scores from standardized-tests resulting in inordinate amounts of time being focused on the test material. Standardized-tests focus solely on the subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic, causing less attention to other courses such as arts, science, and history. The result eventually becomes repetitive drills and assignments that are believed to produce the highest test results. While basing a teacher’s salary on test scores promotes test preparation over educational learning, it also neglects teachers as a whole. With these tests as a basis for pay, how are teachers of history and art evaluated? More importantly, how are teachers of learning disabled children evaluated? Although many believe that merit pay is a bold, new idea, it was first attempted in England around 1710. England’s experiences found that in order to maximize financial rewards, teachers and administrators narrowed curriculums to the testable basics and were even found to have falsified results (Troen). The merit system was eventually ruled a failure and removed.

Initiating a pay for performance system would also create a competitive atmosphere in a system designed for collaborative effort, further deteriorating America’s educational system. Teachers would become unwilling to share their ideas and strategies with one another for fear of losing their portion of limited bonus funding. With the loss of teamwork in the system, educational value would diminish. Such was the case in Oregon between the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Teachers became competitive over acquiring the best students in their classes, complained about evaluations based on non-objective data, and then suffered greater financial difficulties after budgets were cut decreasing the bonus limit further (“Teacher Merit”). Such competition should have no place in America’s educational system, where the main goal should be to educate youth, not protect what is already a minimal limited income.

Pay for performance systems attempt to increase a teachers output by offering incentive bonuses to overachieving individuals, but this continues to fail to raise salaries as a whole. While bonuses are generally welcomed as added income for extraordinary performances, it simply cannot be the sole plan for increasing underpaid salaries. The Miami Herald notes that newly-elected Governor Charlie Crist has proposed to increase funding for bonuses so that the top 25 percent of teachers will be awarded 10 percent instead of 5 percent awards. United Teachers of Dade President Karen Aronowitz puts this into perspective by stating, “That is like saying, ‘We’re going to give you dessert’ and you’re a starving person. Because where’s the main course? Just raise our salaries. You want to talk about performance pay after that? Fine” (Sampson). Additionally, this only addresses 25 percent of teachers in the state of Florida, excluding 75 percent of the states teachers from receiving these bonuses. The issue remains that teachers need a sufficient pay increase to compensate them for dedicating their careers to an instrumental function in American society. The pay issue needs to be addressed for 100 percent of teachers’ salaries.

Although there are many negative sides to the merit pay systems, many still find reason to believe that the single salary schedule is outdated and in need of a drastic change. Among these supporters are many first- and second-year teachers as well as other individuals who are concerned over teachers at the bottom of the pay scale. Fresh from college, armed with new ideas and teaching strategies, it’s believed they might make a greater impact on today’s youth than tenured teachers who use older or out-dated teaching strategies. For this reason they feel as though they deserve increases through a bonus system. The problem with this approach are the possibilities of over paying new strategies that only improve short term results while taking away from the tenured teachers that have spent a lifetime of work and continued education to consistently deliver great education.

Teachers are the backbone of their nation. Without their hard work and dedication to education, children wouldn’t gain the knowledge that they need to excel in the workforce, and America would cease to compete globally in a high tech marketplace. That is why it should be in the interest of every American to insure that the educational staffs are compensated. For a salary bordering poverty levels, a bonus incentive is an insufficient substitute to a pay raise. This is an even more increasing problem as annual pay increases are consistently lower than the rise of inflation. America should ask themselves, why should the educators that institute America in educational riches be forced to live in poverty themselves?

Source Reference:

Sampson, Hannah. “Cautious optimism for budget proposal.” Miami Herald, The(FL). P. 5B.

Teacher Merit Pay. 2 Sept. 1996. Oregon School Boards Association. 21 Mar. 2007. http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/perfpay/primerc.htm .

Troen, Vivian and Boles, Katherine C. “How ‘merit pay’ squelches teaching.” The Boston Globe 28 Sept. 2005. 20 Mar. 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/09/28/how_merit_pay_squelches_teaching/. .

Teachers: Underpaid and Underappreciated

Teachers are the foundation of our society. Their hard work and dedication to their field is driven by their determination to properly educate the future of our nation, our children. After hours of work in a classroom, with groups and one-on-one sessions, they spend several hours after class and at home finishing their day, grading papers and planning for future classes. With all this hard-work and dedication, why is it that America’s teachers are so grossly underpaid and underappreciated? We need to take a long, hard look at what goes into a teacher’s career and provide a salary base that adequately compensates for not only the long hours of dedication, but the product that is produced by their efforts.

Like many professional jobs of today, a teacher is required to meet certain educational requirements before they can even be considered for a position in their career field. Not only must they complete their Bachelor’s Degree, but they often must complete internships, specialization courses, and costly certification tests for licensing in their home state. As with many college students, aspiring teachers must apply for student loans that continue to mount and grow throughout their educational study. Although some Universities include internship in their final year, others may require a teacher to complete internship after completing their degree. With educational loans and the cost of living, some teachers start their career working a second job to create income during their internship. After all this just to begin their career, teachers are then expected to achieve their Masters Degree and possibly their PhD while constantly attending workshops or completing “continuing education” courses throughout their career. Although required to continue their education, few educational facilities actually pay for advanced degrees and classes.

For all the education that our teachers are required to obtain and the financial burden they must take on to achieve that education, the compensation they receive in return is insulting. According to a study by Diverse Issues in Higher Education, in 2004-2005, the average teachers in fifteen states were receiving salaries that were lower than $39,999 (“Study: Inflation”). Teachers’ salaries are decreasing every year according to the 2005 annual reports by the National Education Association, which reports inflation increases almost one percent higher than teacher salary increases. NEA President Reginald Weaver expressed his concerns saying, “It’s unsettling that when the rate of inflation is considered, on average, our teachers are actually earning less this year than they did the previous year” (“Study: Inflation”). American Teacher pointed out, that according to an AFT salary survey released in October of 2005, other professions requiring similar educational background have gained between 5 and 14.4 percent after inflation, while the average teachers’ salaries have only grown 2 percent in the same 10-year period (“Inflation Outstrips”). For an occupation that builds and molds our future leaders, teachers are slowly being driven into poverty levels, restricting many of them from living in the districts which they teach. In areas that are saturated with soaring real estate costs, teachers can barely afford to live within the county where they teach.

A hot topic of debate between state and local governments, school boards, teachers unions, and teachers is how do we rectify this growing problem? Most recent attempts at a solution have been an alternative pay system referred to as merit pay. In short, merit pay is a system that would award bonuses or raises to teachers based on a measuring of classroom performance. This has sparked both positive and negative feedback. A younger teacher that supports the merit pay plan was quoted saying, “Some of our first- and second-year teachers who are at the bottom of the pay scale do brilliant work that often goes unrecognized. Conversely, there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who have not changed teaching methods in twenty-five years to meet the needs of the kids they work with now”(Drevitch). However, can we so easily dismiss our tenured teachers and award higher bonuses and pay to young unproven teachers that happen to find a year or two of success attempting to replicate a new study they read about before graduating college?

Additional money based on a student’s achievement is probably the most highly debated portion of the merit pay plan. A student’s achievement goals would be determined by the administrator following a teacher/principal meeting. The teacher would then receive a bonus if or when that student achieved those set goals. A merit pay system being proposed by Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would award pay increases based on students’ standardized-test scores and evaluations by teacher supervisors. Massachusetts Teachers Association president, Kathy Boudreau, opposes these plans, stating; “Education is all about collaborative effort, but if teachers believe other teachers are getting consideration for pay based on non-objective criteria, it can create a breakdown on the team. If I’m a great teacher with great practices, I might think, ‘Why would I want to share?’” (Drevitch) With standardized-test scores being a basis for pay increases, what does this plan do to the salaries of specialized high needs teachers? What happens to the teachers of children with autism? How are the teachers of mentally challenged children evaluated?

Here in Florida, new Governor Charlie Crist has proposed raising the bonus funding from $147.5 million to $295 million so that the top 25 percent of teachers can have their bonuses raised from 5 to 10 percent (Sampson). However, this still only considers the top 25 percent. Are the other 75 percent of our teachers unworthy of a pay increase?

The proper response to the debate over teachers’ salaries is to simply raise them. President of the United Teachers of Dade, Karen Aronowitz, compares bonuses as giving dessert to a starving person. She says, “Just raise our salaries. You want to talk about performance pay after that? Fine” (Sampson). We can’t continue to offer bonuses and incentive programs to an underpaid profession that is so vital to our future. The federal government needs to match the cost of teachers’ salaries with the funds already supplied by the state. However, this isn’t enough. Additionally, the federal government needs to apply a cost of living allowance, as they have done for our military, based on the average living cost in each state. The new plan wouldn’t be complete without including a mandatory percentage increase every year that will increase salaries by a minimum of 5% over the increase of inflation. We could achieve this with a shift in government spending. Far too many programs are receiving excess funding that would better serve our nations education. How about a raise in taxes guaranteed for teacher salaries? Our nation should gladly offer aid to our teachers with such a contribution. By raising base salaries and providing a plan that would continue to increase those salaries ahead of inflation, not only would we reward today’s teachers, but increase interest of future teachers. This would give our school districts more qualified applicants to choose from, greatly strengthening our schools faculties.

Without teachers to guide our children in acquiring the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life and advance their hopes, their dreams, and their careers, our nation would simply deteriorate. We would fail to remain competitive and vital in our world’s global markets and backslide into a third world country. So isn’t it vital to all of us that we compensate these teachers in such a manner that allows them to care for their own families, at any cost?

Drevitch, G. “Merit Pay: Good for Teachers?” Instructor (New York, N.Y.:1999) v. 115 no. 5 (January/February 2006) p. 21-23.

“Inflation Outstrips Teacher Salaries.” American Teacher. v. 90 no. 3 (November 2005)

Sampson, Hannah. “Cautious optimism for budget proposal.” Miami Herald, The(FL). P. 5B.

“Study: Inflation Outpaces Teachers Salary Growth in More than 40 States.” Diverse Issues in Higher Education. V. 22 no. 23 (December 29, 2005) p.9.