Teacher Control System

Education is a long-term investment. We, as students, work hard to acquire knowledge and to hone our skills so that we may use them one day. The effort we put into a single assignment should be considered as both for that specific assignment and for our rounding as complete, educated individuals. And with this mindset, students should be motivated even more to put more effort and hard work into academics, with the goal of bettering themselves for the future and advancing their prospects as individuals. And with this hard work and effort will come progress, and this progress should be reflected in the grading—not necessarily on individual assignments, but on the student’s education as a

In the United States, the average grade has been slowly creeping up during the past years. This grade inflation has generally been seen as a positive for students and parents, but it has much more detrimental effects for the state of higher education. One person to address these consequences is Brent Staples, author of “Why Colleges Shower Their Students With A's.” In his essay, he not only explains how grade inflation came to be, but he also describes how it is something negative since it is the lowering of standards so that excellence is no longer excellent because of how easily higher grades is given out.

Schools and college professors, who give you a good grade for excellent productivity on assignments, allow students to perform poorly, but still benefit relative to a person with an A. Two articles that observe grade inflation, find the rising problems of grade inflation, and finding solutions for grade inflation. Stuart Rojstaczer, an author from Grade Inflation Gone Wild, is a professor of geophysics at Duke university, and created gradeinflation.com in regards for his concern about grade inflation. On the other hand, Phil Primack is a journalist and teacher at Tufts University, and published in the “Boston Globe” Doesn’t Anybody Get a C Anymore? While college students, who work with little effort and still attain easy A’s by working poorly on assignments and exams, Primack and Rojstaczer, develop a firm connection towards grade inflation and the solution that can regain control over real education.

Following the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, US students have slipped from being ranked 18th in math in 2000 to 27th in 2012, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non-English speakers and students with special needs [E. (2011, January 01)]. A 2007 national study conducted by the Center for Education policy revealed that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an estimate of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math while neglecting the other areas of study.

Margaret Heffernan once said, “For good ideas and true innovation, you need a mix of human interaction, conflict, argument, and debate.” In the article it is debated if there is any benefit in monetary rewards for students. Teachers, and parents alike are always trying to find the best way to reward and inspire there students to do well in school. Matthew G Springer is a professor of Public Policy and Education at Vanderbilt University. He is also the director of the National Center on Performance Incentives. He wrote this article to display his research and studies.

A never-ending issue has loomed over the head of our nation-- education. According to the Institute of Education Sciences, 63.7% of American students are below proficient in reading and 65.7% in math. In order to improve educational standards and increase student achievement, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (also known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) in 2002. Designed to increase the role of the federal government in education, it holds schools accountable based on how students perform on standardized tests. Statistics show that the average student completes about 110-115 mandatory, standardized tests between pre-kindergarten and end of twelfth grade (an average of eight tests per year). Standardized testing utilizes

With standard grading processes on the school level, motivation for sufficient learning is advancement and graduation from that educational branch. Except in cases of completely deteriorated motivation from the student, typically culminating in said student dropping out on their own accord, this incentive to complete the curriculum typically maintains student motivation. The shortsightedness of such testing is the assumption of a unified degree of student motivation, especially at the high school level (Forte, 2010). Standardized tests administered to student at this age group are frequently low pressure and low stake. Because the tests pose far less consequence to the student, and motivation for students can occur on such a wide spectrum, test results become far less uniform than expected (Ryan, Ryan, Arbuthnot, & Samuels, 2007). When applied to a common, realistic scenario, the model begins to break down. For example, an unmotivated student would characteristically perform poorly on a test. When the scores are returned, however, the school is still expected to facilitate this student’s learning in order to resolve the previous score, following the trend of school culpability. Due to differing degrees of motivation, the test results therefore possess a significant potential for ambiguous validity, which subsequently requires filtering of test results to stabilize the statistics (Wise, Wise, & Bhola, 2006). To filter

The author's main point in this article was focusing on the problems of standardized testing in the school system. Ronald Roach states how in the past decade since the no child left behind program was established that there was no sufficient gains in the overall student math and reading scores. The author then goes on to explain how the Obama administration has been criticized over the issues of no child left behind program and how they are not effectively improving the program.

“Unintended Educational and Social Consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, no. 2, Winter 2009, pp. 311. EBSCOhost. In this peer-reviewed academic journal article, Liz Hollingworth, an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Iowa, explores the history of school reform in the United States, and the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Hollingworth states that the great promise of NCLB is that schools will focus on the education of low-achieving students, reducing the gap in student academic achievement between White students and African-American, Hispanic, and Native American student populations. Hollingworth states that an unintended consequence of NCLB was that teachers and school administrators had to shift curriculum focus in an effort to raise test scores, but in some cases, they had to also abandoned thoughtful, research-based classroom practices in exchange for test preparation. NCLB also affected teachers, highly qualified teachers left high-poverty schools, with low performance rates especially those schools where teacher salaries are tied to student academic performance. Hollingworth concludes her article by stating “we need to be wary of policy innovations that amount to simply rearranging the deck chairs on the

The NCLB Act has become the largest intervention by the federal government. This act promises to improve student learning and to close the achievement gap between the white students and students of color. The law is aimed at having standardized test to measure student performance and quality of teacher. The Standardized exams are fully focused on reading and mathematics. This law characterizes an unequalled extension of the federal role into the realm of local educational accountability. High school graduation rates are also a requirement as an indicator of performance at secondary level. In low performing schools they get punished by receiving less funds and students have the choice to move to high performing school. The quality of our

One of the main issues with merit pay for teachers is found in the manner in which it is measured. Most of the new performances pay laws and union contracts measure “effectiveness,” at least in part, by looking at the students’ test scores from one year to the next. One test score cannot paint a full picture of a student's accomplishment. Teachers unions have historically opposed merit pay, arguing that test scores are not an accurate measure of student achievement (Turner, 2010, para 15). Most teachers will report that a test will only show part of the picture. Standardized tests do not reflect life lessons, effective citizen traits, or character building traits that were taught that year. All of these traits thrive in an effective teacher’s curriculum.

The No Child Left Behind act emerged as a result of a massive increase in the costs of schools, while failing to show an improvement in their students performances. (Paterson 32) Since these standardized test have been in effect teachers have been judged off them. The problem is that

NCLB, the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was preceded by the Improving America’s Schools Act. Under that law, high-quality teaching and learning were not prevalent in all schools, and achievement gaps persisted, leading to agreement that a greater federal role for accountability was necessary—from which NCLB was born. NCLB authorized 45 programs in 10 different areas, but public debate tended to focus on the law’s testing, accountability, and teacher-quality requirements. NCLB required that students be tested in the subjects of English language arts (ELA) and math in grades three through eight and once in high school, and for states to use the results to assess how well schools were meeting “adequate yearly progress” goals for student proficiency in these subjects. Schools that consistently did not meet these goals overall, or for subgroups of students, were targeted for interventions, and eventually for sanctions.

Growing up I was repeatedly told to make sacrifices for the greater good by giving through acts of charity. In a sense, by donating 16 percent of my grade to be distributed to those in my class I would be preforming an act of charity. Everyone cannot test perfectly all the time due to outside factors, such as a relative’s death, long hours at work, or illness. By promising others a “security blanket” of percentage points that will come their way if they happen to score lower than they intended, we are teaching them that mistakes are bound to happen, and when they do, their peers will be there to help them raise their grade in an act of generosity. These acts of humanity will allow our population to find the fine line where we are “equal before God and the law” so that we may carry out His work while simultaneously abiding by the basic rules and regulations of the United States of America (Vonnegut 1). If Professor Darr were to implement this way of grading into his future quizzes, we could push each other to study harder so that we may bring the average of the quiz up to a higher grade where people, such as myself, will not have to donate as much percentage points to their peers. Promoting study groups would also stimulate not only growth in our overall percentage as a class, but it would prevent the people who do not study or take a cheat sheet out of the garbage to use on the exam from scoring high without “putting in effort” (Moore). All of these factors would level the playing field as we take our exam, and leave all of us when a sense of satisfaction and gratitude knowing we were able to help others or that others were able to help us: in reality, we would all receive a blue ribbon because “we tried” (Vonnegut 3). By trying but still knowing we might receive a better grade than we earned because the average on the quiz was high than our

A student can be excluded from their peer groups because they have a bad grade. Being left out can make a student not want to improve academically. If they get bad grades others will see them as a poor student and will expect them to do poor in life. The process most schools use to evaluate student performance is grade point average and class rank. The academic recognition programs that exist in the United States are driven by a student’s grade point average and class rank. Those measures serve as the primary method in establishing student recognition. If this ranking is not the sole factor in the recognition program, it is always included in the student’s assessment. The school culture recognizes individuals that are in the top one-third of the school’s class rank