Many believe that high-stakes testing are for
providing teachers with a clearer picture of student weaknesses, and to allow
for educators to target failing schools, while encouraging students to work
harder. On the other hand, critics believe that the tests promote a narrowing
of the curriculum, and promote increased pressure on teachers and students (Blazer,
2011). While either belief has varying truth, an alarming problem still exist; regardless
of a school’s resources, or inequitable differences, each school is held to the
same standards; low income and high income are evaluated alike. Undoubtedly, standardized
tests have had disproportionate effects on low income communities (Blazer,
2011). The disparities of teachers and administrators in some districts have
triggered cheating scandals across America on high-stakes testing. Sadly, the cheating
has recently been among minority districts; although, cheating has occurred across
the United States of America; including Washington DC, Texas, Alabama, Chicago,
and New York City (Beckett).
As of 2014, eight teachers of the School District of
Philadelphia have been charged with cheating on standardized tests. A principal and teachers were punished for impropriety.
This year the most recent scandal in Atlanta has escalated to teachers being
sent to prison for cheating on high stakes testing. The conspiracy to inflate
scores was called “the sickest things that’s ever happened in Atlanta” by the
judge. Three educators were sentenced to seven years in prison and the others
were also given time as they were said to have changed scores on standardized
tests. The judge believed that the
students were harmed through the process. Las Vegas Nevada also had a recent
cheating scandal as three teachers of the Clark County School District are now
on leave during the investigation of the matter. Why have these educators been
driven to such disparities as to risk the loss of their own freedoms? All
educators administering the standardized tests are trained and warned of the
gravity of their role and of the security measures that are in place for
reliable test scores. However, I believe that a corrupt system of assessment
and education has enlisted some of the best educators to risk their own
futures; not to promote cheating but rather understanding of the inequities in education in America.
Consider how students in low income areas start out
with high intelligence like their suburban counter-parts, but the paths of
learning and experiences that are taken along the way, which correspond to the
income status of the student, unfortunately broaden the variances of knowledge.
As students attend school, the learning experiences differ greatly as funding
in the affluent communities is drastically different from those in low income
communities. Even qualification of
teachers differ; regarding credentials, background on a subject, test scores,
pedagogical training, or experience. Teachers who are less qualified often
teach in minority and low income schools (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002;
Socias, Chambers, Esra & Shambaugh, 2007). Students of color are more
likely to have teachers who teach outside their area of preparation than
students in affluent and predominantly white schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010).Teacher
qualification is important for student achievement as studies have shown that
teacher credentials and preparation greatly affect the gains of the students (Boydd,
Grossman , Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2006).
As charter schools are being promoted in urban
communities, many states do not require that teachers in charter school have certification
as only 75 percent of teachers in K-5 must be certified, and only 50 percent in
grades six through twelve must have certification(Carrunthers, 2009). Charter
schools are meant to provide choice for children’s education, and instructional
innovation while targeting the underserved student. Charter schools are said to
seek out the best teachers and are able to raise funds from individuals,
foundations, and corporations, to pay teachers as they can pay higher teacher
salaries (Manuel, 2007). However, many charters school pay less than traditional public
schools and they are not required to offer tenure or participate in state plans
for retirement for teachers (Carrunthers, 2009).
Certification of teachers is of utmost importance as while
one may possess a skill or ability to perform, one may not possess knowledge as
to how to differentiate instruction for various learning styles among children as a certified teacher.
While one may conclude that having a teacher in place is better than no
teacher, one must consider the suburban counter-part where only the best teachers
for their children are accepted. Succeeding on high-stakes testing will require
high-quality teachers to help students to gain the opportunities that
high-stakes testing affords them. Although many protest against high-stakes
testing, and are opting out of high-stakes testing, the tests remain lawful
practices and are still used to make decisions regarding the lives of American
students.
References
Adamson, F., Darling-Hammond, L. (2012).
Funding disparities and Inequitable distribution
of teachers:evaluating sources and solutions. Education Policy Analysis
Achives. 20(37).
Beckett, L. (2013). America’s most outrageous teaching scandals.ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/americas-most-outrageous-teacher-cheating-scandals.
Blazer, C. (2011). Unintended
consequences of high stakes testing. Information Capsule. 1008(22).
Boyd, D.,
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008, June). The
narrowing gap in NewYork City teacher qualifications and its implications for
student achievement in highpoverty schools (National Bureau of Economic
Research: Working Paper 14021). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Carrunthers, C.
(2009). The qualifications and classroom
performance of teachers moving to charter schools. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
American Research. 27
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff,
J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive
analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
Manuel, J. (2007): “Charter Schools
Revisited: A Decade After Authorization, How Goes the North Carolina
Experience?” North Carolina Insight, 22.
