Consequences for Schools and Students

If a school follows the approach of teaching students in a way that will ensure that they will do well on state standardized tests, the result will be that the school can protect their funding.  This is because the amount of funding the school gets is tied to its performance on the state standardized testing.  The thing is, is this approach really good for the students?  Low ability students will benefit because everything they are taught is what they are expected to know in order to pass these tests.  High ability students are unlikely to meet their potential.  They will not learn anything more than what they need to pass the test.  These students are in danger of becoming bored.  However, if a teacher teaches for the sake of learning, not just to pass the test, all of the students in the class are more likely to love learning.  The high ability students are also less likely to become bored and are allowed to reach their potential.  The low ability students may have to work harder.  Some people may argue that the low ability students will have a disadvantage in that they might not get the help that they need.  This will depend on the district they are in and how much money is being distributed to Special Ed. or tutoring.  This creates a cycle in which teaching beyond the bare minimum may mean extra funding is necessary for struggling students, but yet that funding is based on standardized test performance.  I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter.