Ruminations on Teacher Pay and High Stakes Testing

Matthew Lynch – There is a tendency for American teachers to be treated like factory workers. They receive little recognition, a meager salary, and their training after hire consists of professional development that rarely fosters much growth.

Since a mediocre teacher earns the same salary as a high-quality teacher, there is little monetary incentive to strive to become an excellent educator. In addition, No Child Left Behind holds teachers entirely responsible for their students’ performance on state achievement tests, regardless of the many variables that influence students’ performance on these tests. For example, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prepare a sixth grade student reading at a second grade level to perform well on a state achievement test. It is no wonder that standardized testing has caused schools and teachers to panic.

Generally, students’ performances on tests are considered to be directly attributable to the instruction they receive from their regular teachers. Many teachers lose their jobs every year because of poor standardized test scores. Our current educational assessment system refuses to take into account all extraneous variables that lead to educational gaps among our students. For instance, some teachers may end up having mostly high achieving, well-behaved students in their classrooms, while other teachers may consistently have classrooms with low achieving students, students with special needs, and students who exhibit behavior problems. In the case of the latter, it seems unfair to hold teachers accountable for the shortcomings of their students’ abilities. Even the best teachers are not miracle workers.

The sad reality of education is that some children do not have the ability to achieve standards within the time periods set by of NCLB. Teachers should be held accountable for students’ test performance; but the focus of that accountability should be a teacher’s ability to improve student’s test scores based on the student’s level of achievement when he/she enters the teacher’s classroom. For example, a student who is well below the expected level of proficiency at the beginning of the school year may not reach the expected proficiency level at the end of the school year, but they may show significant improvement. This is a better measure of a teacher’s effectiveness and their ability to impact student learning.

In addition to concerns about job security, low compensation, and student performance on high stakes test, teachers must also worry about subpar principals who are overcompensated for the successes of teachers. Although administrators deserve to be fairly compensated for their work, their pay does not seem equitable compared to that of teachers. If administrators are to be compensated fairly for the job performed, then teachers, too, should be fairly compensated.

Matthew Lynch is an Assistant professor of Education at Widener University.

He can be contacted at mlynch@mail.widener.edu.

Comments

Concerned Teacher

April 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Thank you, Matthew.

Quite frankly, there are people who never become grade level proficient for the same reason not everyone becomes proficient at “carrying a tune,” mastering a double axel, hitting home runs, and any number of other human activities along which people are separated by, largely, their work ethic and their ability, once capable instruction has been delivered.

Good instruction takes everyone farther along the way, but even Frank Carroll cannot and does not create a champion of every student who hires him, though some parents dash from coach to coach because they mistakenly believe the coach can make their child a champ. They are almost always disappointed.

Even Frank Carroll, ice skating coach of more than one U.S. and Olympic champion since the 1960s, cannot make a winner out of a student who has little innate talent or one who does not PRACTICE diligently on the ice.

Learning academics is not different. I wholeheartedly agree with those who submit that teachers can control a percentage of the outcome, though I believe that percentage runs around 15-20% maximum, perhaps a little less, even 10%, though I suspect it is difficult to quantify.

Reply
- mathgrump
  
  April 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm
  
  Concerned Teacher makes an excellent point here re: the % of effect a classroom teacher has on student achievement. I read once from one of the country’s best testing experts that only about one-third of student achievement can be attributed to the efforts of the school & the teacher; the rest stems from out-of-school factors beyond the control of the school & teacher. This brings up a more critical point regarding achievement, one which is almost never discussed or addressed by the educational policy-makers. Specifcally, the learner (i.e.-student) must be the first filter in learning rather than the teacher. That is, the learner must do their “job” first before the efforts of the teacher can effectively kick in. To be sure, a teacher shares some of the responsibility for learning & achievement, but the individual student must be willing to put in the time & effort to try to learn what is being taught. The student learner is the first academic achievement “filter”, as it were. But far too many students in this day & age blow off this responsibility, & then the teacher gets blamed for a lack of achievement. Of course this is par for the course—it’s very simplistic & easy to bash teachers & the schools, as this has turned into modern America’s blood sport of the moment.
  
  Reply
Matthew Lynch

April 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Great comments. Thanks.

Reply

Education News

Ruminations on Teacher Pay and High Stakes Testing

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Hot Topics