The federal government plays an important role in funding local schools, and without federal funding many schools would cease to exist. Schools don't have to administer annual tests, but they'll lose funding if they don't. School districts determine test content, but with the push toward meeting Common Core standards, states' tests are becoming more standardized. A school that consistently fails to meet acceptable yearly progress standards may not be able to access some grants and other forms of funding. After five years of failure to meet state standards, a school can be closed altogether. The threat of closing has brought school testing to become all about the money, further stressing out parents, teachers, and most importantly students. Testing limits how teachers want to teach, limiting student personality showing through. Many teachers argue that ‘teaching to the test’ limits classroom creativity and reduces students' opportunities to learn skills that aren't on the test. Also, the tying of funding to school performance may mean that poorly performing schools actually have access to fewer resources, and that students may be sent to schools in other districts if their schools are closed. Some people …show more content…
If a teacher's students consistently perform well on standardized tests, the teacher may become eligible for a pay raise. Houston's board of education, for example, offers up to $3,000 annually to teachers whose students meet performance benchmarks and up to $25,000 to administrators whose schools meet state performance guidelines. In the Movie Lean On Me, Mr. Clark was worried about how the school would do on the basic skills test. When the pre-test came in and he saw how bad the students did, he blamed the teachers, he even fired some. The testing in school districts pressures administrators to have the best, and cutting pay may be a motivation to get a teacher to get her students to perform