Teacher incentive is a determining educational issue for the presidential candidates.  Kerry intends to provide an additional $5,000 salary for teachers of math and science (Pascopella, 2004, p.1). There is a need for teachers in these fields, especially with the added emphasis in theses areas due to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act’s standardized testing.  This incentive is fabulous for its purpose of gaining teachers of these desired areas, but is not beneficial for all.  Other teachers in different areas are working equally as hard, yet receiving no compensation.  Equality among teachers is essential in providing a successful learning environment, and only rewarding a certain demographic of teachers would cause contention and jealousy, not unity.

Graphic: www.johnkerry.com

Bush plans to increase teacher pay as well, but does not limit the rewards to math and science teachers.  School districts across the nation will be given a portion of $500 million that Bush plans to set aside in a teacher incentive fund (Bush, 2004b).  These districts will determine which teachers from their schools deserve the bonus.  Bush, like Kerry, intends to provide additional incentives for the teachers of the less popular subjects: math, science, and special education (Bush, 2004b, p. 6).  Teachers in these areas are scarce, and this additional motivation could create an increase in teachers of these fields.  This advantage could, however, create conflicts that arise in teacher unity similar to those of Kerry’s plan.

Graphic: www.georgebush.com

President Bush and John Kerry have similar views on teacher incentive, but they base their philosophies on diverse content.  Bush’s plan for education places an emphasis upon the No Child Left Behind Act.  The goal of this act is to improve student achievement and close the academic gap between richer and poorer student’s (Where They Stand, 2004, p. 1).  Bush states, “The national objective is to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations and to raise the standards for every single child” (Where They Stand, 2004, p. 2).  No Child Left Behind literally intends to leave no child behind.  The bar is the same for every child, rich or poor, which pushes students to their greatest potential.  President Bush stated, “If you lower the bar, you are going to get lousy results” (Bush, 2004a, p. 5).  Results reflect expectations.

Graphic: www.georgebush.com

The No Child Left Behind Act has remarkable goals, but lacks support in other areas.  Bush’s major flaw in creating the No Child Left Behind Act was his neglect to fund the schools with enough money to provide the necessary teachers and supplies needed to fully achieve its goals.  Although he increased funding 59.8 percent, it was not great enough to sufficiently carry out his plan (Where They Stand, 2004, p. 2).  N. Bodrero (personal communication, October 20, 2004), a kindergarten teacher for the Tempe Unified School District, has experienced this funding first hand.  She stated, “The intentions of the No Child Left Behind Act are ligit, but the funding is short.  Even through this, I support George Bush because he carries the concern and values we need in the classroom.  He also cares about the result of his plan, which is important to me.”   When it comes to education, Bush agrees with Bodrero and argues that dollars alone do not make a difference; Bush does intend, however, to increase educational funding by $203 million (Bush vs. Kerry on Education, 2004, p.1).  This money will greatly benefit education.  It is questionable, however, whether this amount of money will be utilized in education as Bush has stated, for he previously neglected to contribute the promised amount.

Graphic: www.gerogebush.com

Regardless of the financial issues, Bush uses standardized testing to measure the stance on the No Child Left Behind Act’s goals.  The test is a temperate resolution and holds an equal standard to all students. There is, however, “a common complaint among teachers…that the act created a new emphasis on testing, which they believe shifts the focus in the classroom from teaching to testing” (Bush vs. Kerry on Education, 2004, p.1).  This teaching style may not contain each teacher’s ideal lesson plan, but aspects of their teaching methods can be utilized if teachers become creative with their planning, teaching portions of the test in an enjoyable manner.  In order to lift every child to the same point on the educational scale, they must be held to the exact same standard.  Lowering the standards of the test for title I schools will imbed the theory that poor students are not as intelligent as the students from higher socioeconomic schools are.  If closing the gap is the goal, then high set expectations will produce effective results.

Graphic: www.georgebush.com

Bush stands strong in his reasoning for student and teacher accountability through these tests regardless of learning abilities.  President Bush stated, “ My opponent…starts talking about weakening the accountability standards.  That makes no sense: to weaken something that’s working” (Bush, 2004a, p.6).  Regardless of what Bush states, arguments can be placed that his techniques are not working.  The accountability system Bush set up has helped to achieve excellence in student achievement for the past two years that it has been enforced (Bush, 2004a, p.6).  In order to measure if the No Child Left Behind Act is working, accountability and an evaluation of each school must be made; according to results, it is working for some, but not for all (Bush, 2004a, p.6).  

Graphic: www.georgebush.com

Presidential candidate John Kerry has a plan for achieving the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act that differs greatly from Bush.  Although he voted for the act as a member of congress, he criticizes Bush’s standpoint and vow’s to change the negative factors of education. He plans to reduce the emphasis on a “one size fits all” frame that the No Child Left Behind Act enforces (Where They Stand, 2004, p.2).

Graphic: www.johnkerry.com

Kerry intends to provide the necessary funding to carry out this plan, but has created a more promising strategy.  He stated when proposing an Education Trust Fund, that his plan “makes sure–with mandatory funding–that we meet the promises in the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act…--This will enable schools to fund more after-school programs, hire more teachers, and improve quickly” (Where They Stand, 2004, p.2).  These additional aspects could benefit struggling students immensely.  Creating a system of mandatory funding will force the funding to be sufficient, for it will be set aside no matter what happens.

Graphic: www.johnkerry.com

Despite teacher testing, Kerry has great intentions in testing students. The obstacle of learning styles and disabilities that hinders Bush’s standardized testing solution intends to be surmounted by Kerry’s s testing strategies.  Every child learns differently, and a standardized test measures each student in the exact same way.  Shockingly, the significant learner and English learner students are required to take the same test as the advanced placement and honors student.  This is absurd. Standardized testing is not an accurate model of testing to determine the academic standard for every learning style or learning situation.  Kerry intends to provide numerous testing techniques so that every student can be assessed in the most effective way for them (Bush v. Kerry on Education, 2004, p.1).  It is obvious that the different learning styles and disabilities that children possess are innumerable, which causes one major question to surface: where do you draw the line in creating this flexible test frame?  This hazy area could create serious chaos.  If a definite line is placed and the academic standards are not reduced but altered, this testing solution will solve numerous problems in closing the gap of student achievement.  Results will be much more accurate.

Graphic: www.johnkerry.com

Bush or Kerry: what will the answer be?  Based on his plans and goals, Kerry is the most beneficial presidential candidate for education.  The plan he has presented for teacher incentive is nearly equal to Bush’s plan, and other aspects of his educational philosophy carry much more strength.  Kerry realizes that the No Child Left Behind Act has great intentions, but needs some major refurbishing.  Bush’s major fault in carrying out the No Child Left Behind Act was his lack of funding; Kerry’s Education Trust Fund should eliminate this detrimental conflict.  His philosophy of creating various tests to channel to different learning styles will provide students of numerous methods of learning with tests more easily understood and completed.  In return, the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act will be met more effectively.  The new emphasis Bush has placed on education is wonderful, but has not been approached with a reasonable method.  It is impossible for every child to be tested and assessed based on a single test.  Children are diverse.  With the necessary funds, Kerry will recognize the different needs among America’s children and strive to create a professional method of teaching and testing each of them.  With Kerry in office, America’s education will begin to emerge from a season of storm and shipwreck and sail smoothly towards educational success.

Graphic: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com