Unbalanced Educational Practices in America

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.