Teachers Taking Responsibility

Time for Teachers to Take Responsibility

Identifying the problem.

In today's society, many factors contribute to the academic failure in urban education. As time passes, however, schools and teachers are placing more blame upon the students for lack of potential, discipline, and motivation to learn. In reality, however, this scapegoat allows many teachers' to relinquish any responsibility for their students' not learning. Many students in urban schools live in poverty, have learning disabilities, or come from bilingual backgrounds where English is not their native language. When in this society did we start blaming the victim, or in this case the students, for not having the resources needed to nourish their bodies and minds, let alone their educational needs. As teachers, we need to break the vicious cycle of blame and start being held accountable for the achievement gap that progressively grows wider as urban children develop.

The current status of the issues.

In January of 2002 the Bush administration passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which "proposes to close achievement gaps and aims for 100 percent student proficiency by 2014" (Guilfoyle). This law requires schools to give standardized tests to students and holds individual schools, districts, and teachers accountable to nationwide standards. These tests carry consequences for schools and districts that perform poorly. If schools fail to bring enough of their students to proficiency, they face government reprimands. Are our schools measuring up to academic standards? According to a report by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, "most states... are doing a poor job of narrowing achievement gaps despite attention focused on poor and minority students by the federal No Child Left Behind Act" (Jacobson, 2006).

Unfortunately, this law may be causing as much harm as good. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools and teachers have begun to feel great pressure to meet the national standards by "focusing their energies solely on preparing students to excel on standardized tests" (Guilfoyle, 2006). This especially affects students from lower income and minority groups, because they are more likely to be given a curriculum that is heavily based on drills and test practices. Furthermore, in fear of losing funding, some states, districts, and schools are using methods to improve their students' scores without improving learning, cheating students of a suitable education. In the article The Whole Child: A Framework for Education in the 21st Century, researchers found that these methods consist of "making test items easier and lowering cut scores," resulting in a watered-down curriculum (Laitsch, Lewallen, & McCloskey, 2005).

Because of watered-down curriculums and growing achievement gaps, teachers have begun to have lower expectations for their students, especially from lower socioeconomic and minority groups. However, many teachers do not want to share in the responsibility of our failing educational system. Some find it easier to blame the children for their academic failure, such as teacher Dave Roscher who in an USA Today editorial titled For once, blame the students states, "Kids have convinced parents that it is the teacher or the system that is the problem, not their lack of effort. In my day, parents did not listen when kids complained about teachers. We are supposed to miraculously make kids learn" (Welsh, 2006). Furthermore, Ed Cannon is quoted as saying, "Today, the teacher is supposed to be responsible for motivating the kid. When they don't learn it is supposed to be our problem, not theirs" (Welsh, 2006).

What assumptions teachers make about their students has a tangible effect on a student's achievement. Students who are viewed as lacking ability or motivation tend to give teachers as much as is expected of them. In addition, "students who are perceived to be low in ability may also be given fewer opportunities to learn new material, asked less stimulating questions, given less informative feedback, praised less frequently for success, called on less frequently, and given less time to respond" (Kathleen Cotton, 1989).

When teachers and administrators maintain high expectations, they promote in students a desire to aim high rather than to just slide by. When teachers believe in their students, students believe in themselves. In addition, teachers who set high standards for their students, both academically and behaviorally, tend to come away with more respect from the students, because the students feel that the teacher cares enough about them to demand more. Children yearn for routine, structure, and guidelines; to expect less is to do students a disservice, not a favor.

High expectations alone, however, cannot magically equalize students' natural abilities

and learning rates. Teachers need to adjust their teaching without resorting to watered-down curriculums to help students achieve academic mastery. "Ultimately, schools and classrooms

need to enhance ...rigorous standards, first with respect to their interests, and then with respect to all their learning and work. Such capacities lead the student