There is a severe lack of equal opportunity in the United States education system that has persisted for years. Young students looking to advance into prestigious high schools and those looking to seek higher learning at Universities and colleges are being left out due to financial constraints. The costs of preparation and registration for standardized tests disproportionately affect low-income students. This has a ripple effect on teachers, parents, and both state and federal governments. Now, if we cannot rid ourselves of these tests, we have to allow the low income students to level the playing field by giving them access to free tutoring for federal exams like the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers and state exams, given throughout K-12. Over the past two decades, education bills such as No Child Left Behind Act were created to aid students who were disadvantaged. Yet, it only put unwarranted pressure on their teachers, not solving the real issue at hand. If education is really our future, it needs to be properly attainable for all students, not just those who can properly afford it. I have seen all of this first hand, including paying out of pocket to take the ACT and SAT. Due to this, I feel I am uniquely qualified to speak on this subject at length. It certainly was a financial burden on me, and I am considered middle class. The fiscal struggle is only maximized for those who are less fortunate than I am. Free tutoring for federal and state testing programs and free of charge examinations that colleges require for admission must be provided by the individual state governments so that each student can properly prepare for these exams, and take them, without financial burden. This issue with education speaks to a much larger problem that has affected the United States for decades. 

There is no doubt that there is an achievement gap in this country. Those who are of higher income brackets succeed in academics more than those who are of lower income brackets. Even a spokesperson for the College Board, owners of the SAT, admitted in an interview that there is an "achievement gap in this country ... the test mirrors what is going on in the country" (CNN Video). This is not a new revelation, however. According to a recent study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, achievement test scores between "rich and poor have grown by almost 60% since the 1960's" (Rooks). Yet, as this spokesperson says, these tests continue to be used in a situation where it is known that students of low income will not do as well as high income students. There is also evidence of a disparity when it comes to white and Asian students against those of different races. For example, the Virginia public schools published the percentages of how many students within each racial group that have to pass the test in order to remain in 'good academic standing'. Only forty-five percent of African American students, compared to sixty-eight percent of white students and eighty-two percent of Asian students, need to pass the test (Rooks). To set the bar that low for these students is one of the reasons why these students do not succeed. They should be given equal opportunity and held to equal standards as every other race, because then these current expectations "will become a self-fulfilling prophecy for school districts and those students will fall even farther behind" (Rooks). Equal opportunity through the use of free tutoring for federal and state exams and free of charge examinations will be a step in the right direction in closing this gap between the rich and poor, as well as the gap between the whites, Asians, and minorities. There have been attempts to close these gaps, however, as the government has understood this is a very serious issue.

The United States Government recognized this achievement gap early in the 21st century, and took steps to fix the issue. The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2001 by President George W. Bush, with the goal of improving underperforming schools and holding schools accountable by holding back funds unless goals are met (Jost). It has been overhauled by the current administration under President Barack Obama with bipartisan support. Yet, some of the key pieces of the original bill that were untouched by the new administration are still having negative consequences on schools and teachers. These pieces, like teacher accountability and national core standards, have created more problems than solutions. In fact, the introduction of sanctions and penalties to school districts and teachers that have low test grades in their classes by the No Child Left Behind law has only forced more teachers out of the workforce and deterred incoming applicants for the positions (Ehrenfruend). These teachers leave because they cannot be held to these rigorous, one size fits all standards set out by the federal government. Students, especially in low income areas, cannot be expected to learn or progress at the same rate as students in a higher income area. An example of this is Marcia Clemmitt of the CQ Researcher published an article with a "tenured, award winning teacher whose students have received in the bottom ten percent of test scores in the area" (Clemmitt). These students, who live in a low income area, were considered failing even though they had an award winning teacher educating them. The teacher continued to teach the same way that won them the awards before, but now was penalized. By posing these sanctions, they have caused unneeded pressure and tension to the backbone of the school systems, our teachers. This had led to, according to the Government Accountability Office, thirty-three states reporting "at least one instance of school staff flat-out cheating" (Rizga). If our educators are choosing to either leave their jobs or cheat, this is not the answer to the problems that our education system faces today. In attempt to see the progress of these improvements of the No Child Left Behind law, two new testing systems were put in place by the current presidential regime. 

In attempt to raise test scores nationally, the government wanted to create exams that could accurately measure knowledge in high school students. In 2010, the United States Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has rewarded two groups of states with grants to develop tests that would attempt to "measure real student knowledge and skills" (US Department of Education). These grants developed two tests that are called the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, abbreviated SBAC and PARCC, respectively. The response to increased testing has been fairly negative, and activism has become commonplace in every state. Parents now tell their children to 'opt-out', or refuse to take the state tests. They feel that their children take enough tests, and studies show they are correct. According to a study done by the Center for American Progress, "Students in American public schools today take more standardized tests than their peers in any other industrialized country" (Rizga). Trying to become a more educated country is certainly a positive step, but there is not an equal amount of testing throughout all schools. Students who attended middle class or high class schools do not feel the full effects of this change, as a recent study exposed that "urban high school students spend 266 percent more time taking district level exams than their suburban counterparts" (Rizga). This is a severe disproportion that has still not solved the issue of low test scores. Students that do not have access to the most qualified teachers or up to date testing supplies should not be subject to "16 weeks of testing scheduled at the high school level", as one math teacher put it (Rizga). These children need to have access to adequate preparation materials that can benefit their test scores without setting their families back financially. These are not the only tests they need to study for, however, they also need to think about college admissions tests. 

Tests that colleges require for admission inquire many superfluous fees, besides just the registration for the exams themselves. These fees have become almost necessary if you want to receive a high score. These booklets, flashcards, textbooks, etc. are available to the public at exorbitant prices, but they have been proven to raise test scores. According to a report commissioned in 2009, it was found that "average gains from commercial test preparation courses were around 30 points on the SAT, and less than one point on the ACT" (Carrns). The report goes on to say that even though these are relatively small point increases, colleges might make "minimal test score gains potentially important in those decisions" (Carrns). Even small amounts of outside tutoring could be the deciding factor if a select student gets accepted into college. If they want to receive tutoring to potentially help raise their scores, that can cost anywhere from one thousand to ten thousand dollars, depending on the program (Carrns). Tutoring, for these tests in particular, should not be considered an extra benefit for those who can afford it. For most, it is the first time they have seen tests in this format, with an exam that crosses over a multitude of disciplines in a small amount of time. Tutoring, whether it be with textbooks and flashcards or through human interaction, needs to be provided by the state for all, even those if they cannot afford it. It will give each student a chance of an equal opportunity to succeed. Since this test is the same for every student, why should the preparation for it be any different? This is all fees before a student even registers to take the tests, where additional fees occur.

For most colleges and universities, standardized tests are highly factored into the admission decisions they make every year. Tests, such as the SAT and ACT, are pivotal in deciding where a student will be accepted. According to senior vice president and publisher of The Princeton Review, Robert Franek, these scores are also used "not just for admission decisions, but also to determine scholarship awards" as well (Carrns). That means these exams have not only an impact on your possible acceptance, but also any scholarship money you could receive as well. Yet, even before these students have the opportunity to see if they are qualified enough to attend these schools, they are charged with registration fees that can hinder them from even attempting the test. Although there are some schools that do not require these tests, any student who has the right qualifications and intelligence should be able to apply to any public or private institution they desire, and not be held back by unnecessary costs. Currently, in the year two-thousand and sixteen, the fee to take the SAT is fifty-four dollars and fifty cents and the fee to take the ACT is forty-three dollars. These charges add up, even before the student has a chance to hear back if they have been accepted into the university. Due to this, it constrains low income students to not take these tests, robbing them of a chance of the higher education they deserve. The SAT and ACT do have fee waivers for people in low income situations, but it needs to extend further. If a lower class family that doesn't have eligibility for a fee waiver is having money trouble for a period of time, they should not have their children pay the price. As a solution, the government should offer these tests for free to all, even those who might not be in low income situations. It is about equal opportunity, and we all must rise together. But, instead of economically solving this issue, many have suggested alternate ideas that have gained traction in the educational world.

There are those who believe answers to this problem exist outside of the economic realm, like allowing teachers to have more access to the tests before they are handed out to students. Teachers are also affected by this lack of opportunity, where their salaries sometimes depend on the results of these tests. This, known as 'teacher accountability', is highly debated if it is a successful in creating a more positive learning environment. These educators have voiced their concerns in an article published in the Creative Education journal. A solution posed in this article has been to "provide teachers with a clear description of knowledge and skills of specific content standards asked in the test" (Bhatt., 638). From a logical standpoint, this will help educators create curriculum that is curtailed to the exams. Which, in turn, could have the possibility of raising test scores. But, it will only truly benefit teachers and students who are best equipped at teaching these students as far as experience and equipment. At low income schools, according to a report done by labor economist Daniel Goldhaber, contain teachers who "are less qualified, or less effective, tend to be teaching more disadvantaged students" (US News). It would be a logical conclusion that, even with prior knowledge of the test, they will not be as useful to their students as the more qualified teachers will be to their higher income students. Also, this article states that there is a "high attrition rate among novice teachers" (Bhatt., 638). With this constant increase in teacher turnover, the students who do not have access to more advanced, tenured educators or tutors will suffer (Lacour). Allowing teachers access to these tests beforehand will only make them more accountable, where their jobs will depend upon the success of their students. Teachers unions are actively trying to stop this from being the public policy, and this solution will only make matters worse for our educators. This, logically, will make more 'novice', or inexperienced, teachers that teach the disadvantaged leave the workforce.

According to Diane Ravitch, we are living in a world today where an "overwhelming dominance of testing" exists in our society (Erikson). As this will only increase, there needs to be policy put in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The No Child Left Behind Law unsuccessfully helped the disadvantaged, who the law aimed to aid. With the rise and increased use of standardized federal tests like the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, those who struggle financially should be assisted when it comes to preparation supplies or assistance. Those who wish to test their knowledge on tests needed for college admission should not be punished just because they wish to receive higher education. As we have seen, this will only widen the achievement gap that is evident in this country. This is not just an education issue, as there is a racial component as well. We cannot pride ourselves on equality while those who are poor and minority suffer. Government-supplied tutoring for federal and state testing programs and complimentary examinations that colleges require for admission must be provided by the individual state governments so that each student can properly prepare for these exams, and take them, without financial burden. It is a tough balancing act, trying to service all of the American citizens in need but not wanting to become a welfare state. In this case, with education, the results can only be positive. Making these opportunities available to all can only make the citizens smarter, and it is one step in the right direction of an educated majority.

