For one of my class requirements for an education elective, I'm taking is to complete some fieldwork in a local urban school known for its diversity. The school district Jewell partners with is one of the most impoverished in the metro area and I happened to be placed in the most diverse high school in the district. I tried getting to know the students I'd be working with for the remainder of the semester. In doing so, I met a girl who seemed very bright, but discouraged by her perceived senselessness of school. She felt like most of her time in class was wasted on things she will never use in her future and the notion of a freshman already knowing what they want to do with the rest of their lives was ridiculous. She had a wide range of art-related interests that she felt her time would be better served to indulge in.

First, I saw a young girl who was at great risk of dropping out or, at least, who wouldn't even begin to consider higher education. Then, I saw a girl who seemed incredibly gifted in the arts and who would be a great asset with an art degree one day. I started talking to her about the prospect of going to William Jewell in the future. Not only did I think someone else believing she was capable of something greater than the trivial tasks of high school would lead her to begin believing the same, but I also could see how much she would fit in there: Jewell doesn't require the typical Gen Eds that most universities do, because they recognize the value of our time and don't believe we should be spending time, money or our effort in taking courses that we will never apply to our major. Instead, we are required to take a core curriculum of Critical Thought and Inquiry classes that are designed to provide students the foundations that can house an intellectual perspective of the world. It asks three main questions throughout four years of study: What is real? What can we know? How should we live? Being in my last year and finally taking my Capstone CTI courses, I can honestly say these classes are more valuable to my growth into adulthood than every class pertaining to my major combined. On top of all that, Jewell offers a self-designed major with approval of our Provost. This means the student in question could work with her academic adviser to design a degree that will envelop all of her artsy interests, which she could later use in life to do whatever she wanted with her passion.

I thought this conversation went very well and I really felt I made some headway until I discussed it with my very well-meaning teacher. She warned me against encouraging certain children to consider Jewell, because their work in high school will not properly prepare them for the academic requirements of a private liberal arts college like Jewell and I should, instead, encourage a local community college. Otherwise, these students will tell themselves they could do it, find out they can't halfway through and drop out with some hefty debt without a degree to make up for it. Wait a minute, I thought. Why won't these kids be ready? Shouldn't our universal curriculum be teaching them the critical thinking and study habits necessary for higher education? Noticing my obvious bewilderment, the teacher began telling me the current story of American high schools. A story of Standardized Tests and minimal funding.

Did you know public schools receive government grants when they reach specific average test scores on standardized tests? Or that teachers' effectiveness is determined by how high their students score on these tests? The Obama administration set aside $4.3 billion dollars for their Race to the Top competition, a grant-based program that relies on recorded data to determine teacher effectiveness, state success and improving "low-achieving schools." While this doesn't specify standardized test scores as the only acceptable means of recording this data, according to my fieldwork teacher, they are by far the cheapest option.

Now put yourself in the shoes of an administrator for an impoverished urban school. Your community doesn't receive enough public education tax dollars to support the population of students who attend, so you rely heavily on government funds. To receive those funds, you have to show in some statistical way that your students are achieving at the same level as the rest of the country. The only data collection you can afford is that provided through standardized tests. So, you start encouraging teachers to ensure their students know the material tested on and remove the ones who fail. How do you know if the students learned the material? Why, the test scores, of course. Now your teachers begin to "teach to the test" just to save their jobs and their livelihoods. They change their teaching style to prep their students for testing. They stop being able to find creative ways to get the kids active and involved. They stop getting children out of the classroom, challenging their minds to think in different ways. They stop changing their curriculum to be relevant to what is going on in students' lives. They stop integrating applicable culture to their lessons. They stop teaching and start preparing students to fill in the correct circle on a form. Dawn Neely-Randall beautifully penned her struggles as a teacher through the years as standardized tests became more and more prominent:

"I have to TEACH my students to write in a specific way just for this OAA test. Yes, for this ONE test on this one day in their lives, which will give them a "label" of their knowledge (limited, basic, proficient, accelerated, advanced), which is supposed to represent their entire school year with me."

This should be especially concerning considering the numerous articles and studies that suggest standardized tests aren't actually accurate in measuring intelligence or learning.

Now I don't know what the answer to education reform is, but I do know a teacher should never feel like her students won't graduate prepared for college. If assessing effectiveness of teaching and intelligence of students is necessary, we need to find a better way of doing so.

Every presidency since I've been in school has proposed new legislation to "fix" our education system and they have failed each time. We're coming up on another election and it seems as if foreign affairs and the many, many gaffes each candidate has committed has taken precedence over what should be one of our main priorities: our own children. So when you're watching the debates or researching policies to determine who you will support this election, pay attention to their stances on education and what they plan to do to fix this issue.