The current discussion about testing, along with an off-forum exchange, and adding the fact that a number of people on these forums are in Massachusetts... I thought I'd revisit the topic of Massachusetts' institution of testing for teacher candidates. Just to dispell any misconceptions or ire about the history and results of those tests.
<hr>
In Massachusetts, John Silber (formerly the feisty chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor) was appointed as the Chairman of the Board for the State Department of Education, putting the Education Establishment into a state of shock and fear. And they were right to worry.
Agree with his politics or not, Dr. Silber took a look at the low academic level of new teachers and decided something had to be done. He decided that the most likely route was to send large groups of graduate education majors packing! Silber's method was actually quite simple. Take the traditional teacher licensing test - which in most states is set at
about the 10th grade level - and elevate it a notch or two. After all, Silber reckoned, the candidates were college graduates (the equivalent of "grade 16"), even if most had come out of "diploma mill teacher training schools" where they had majored in education.
At the time (and rather suprising to some of us), Massachusetts had been among the most lax states for teacher "certification." In fact,
there had been no licensing test of any kind. Those who completed the approved teacher training programs were almost automatically certified for the classroom. Silber was determined to create a "true screen" that would eliminate the unqualified, which in essence meant that they were not bright enough or skilled enough to teach.
The new exam was custom-developed for the state by National Evaluation Services in Amherst, which tests teachers for eight states, including California and New York. It was first given to 1,800 aspiring teachers in Massachusetts in the spring of 1998. As previously posted, the results were catastrophic. The fact is that the results sparked a national alert and debate about education and the quality of American teachers almost as potent as the one that came after the Federal government's 1983 "Nation at Risk" critique of American student's achievement.
As previously posted, 59%
flunked the first time taking the exam. The rejected teachers and their union, the National Education Association (NEA), were in an uproar at Silber
and the State. Several of the candidates asked, "What should we do?" Silber, who resigned his post in March of 1999, responded, "Find another line of work."
The Education Establishment was equally frustrated. Veteran teachers were retiring, and schools nationwide had to hire 2 million more teachers over the next decade. How could they accomplish that when Massachusetts was eliminating
half of the candidates - all of whom had successfully finished a four- or even
five-year training course in
education?
In July of 1998, a new group of some 2,100 teacher candidates took the test. The results were almost as startling. 47% failed this time. Since the state permitted applicants to take the test an
unlimited number of times, one would think that by the second or third time the applicants would get the hang of it. That July 1,000 of those who had failed the first time tried again. Of that 1,000 only
60 (6%) passed with the second taking. The
third time around, the failees did a bit better. A whopping 8% passed that screening. Using some rough calculations, it appears that in the final analysis, almost 40% of the state's aspiring teachers never made it to the classroom.
Despite objections from the Massachusetts Teacher's Association (a branch of the NEA) prompted by the high failure rate, the Massachusetts test was
not a complex bar exam. In fact, the reading and writing portions were quite simple, much of it composed of essay questions that challenged the test-takers' ability to write lucid and correct English. In the world of modern education, where so much is
subjective and knowledge can be and has been called "trivia," such
objective criteria as correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, it seems, had passed many of the teacher candidates by. (some examples were previously given.)
Similar examples of teacher "certification" tests can be found in other States. But, unlike Massachusetts, these other state tests have traditionally had very low standards. And there is resistance in the Education Establishment to raising those standards.
The most common tests used nationwide are the Praxis tests. (I and II) These are used in 36 states.
Praxis I is a general test taken in the second or third year of teacher training. Praxis II includes several tests of knowledge ("content" as the Education Establishment calls it) for teaching specialties and is taken at or near graduation. Passing these exams in most states leads to near-automatic certification and licensing as a teacher.
For your reading pleasure, here are some sample questions from the Praxis I exam obtained from the Educational Testing Service (ETS). (
Perhaps it's just me, but the test seemed disturbingly easy. Some questions, as you shall see, are an insult to even a marginally educated person.)
One of the questions describes a conversation between a customer and what she believes is "TransGlobal Airlines" about a flight from New York to Tokyo. In the question, the customer has dialed a wrong number. Is the question a difficult one about the distance between the two cities? Perhaps it is a tough question about the time zone differences vs. travel times? No.
It is a multiple-choice question that asks whether the customer is contacting the airline by letter, radio, telegram or telephone!
Another question shows simple bar graphs of world crude oil production for nine countries in 1974 and 1975. One of the two side-bys-de bars for each country is black and the other one shaded. Is this a complex question about the countries? About their oil reserves or production? No.
It simply asks how many of the countries produced more oil in 1975 than 1974. Nothing more! All that is required is to look at the graph and compare the two bars for each country! The question is more suited to a fourth grader than a college graduate, let alone a would-be
teacher.
There are other numerous examples of the simplistic nature of the test. However, let's get back to the Massachusetts test that seems a bit more difficult than most.
In a section near and dear to
my heart, the test has a lengthy passage on James Madison and the Constitution. Test-takers are asked to write a summary of what they have just read. Here is one response that has been published by the Massachusetts Department of Education (but not necessarily the most unnerving):
"
James Madison was the Father of the Constitution. But he was no good at taking notes. He wrote a lot of notes on the debats. But also left some stuff out. What we will never know. In the convention, delegats had to debat and compermise. 42 people did not sign and thanks to James Madison we will never know, why?"
(A precise re-creation of the response.
)
And while the Massachusetts Teachers Association fights to prevent testing of
current teachers, there are citizens who have thought to help out with the teacher shortage in their towns by teaching. Some of these people have been highly sought after professionals, members of honor societies (such as the Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta Pi), award-winning students when in school and apparently well versed academically. Yet upon filling out an application to teach they are told, "Sorry, you don't have an education degree." It seems incredible that a community routinely hiring marginal people academically as its teachers would turn down someone with those credentials. Yet organizations like the MTA and NEA have pushed to create the legal barriers that prevent the best and brightest of our citizens (who wish to) from teaching.
With that comes the first recommendation.
Stop the monopoly that prevents those without an education degree from teaching. Stop the Education Establishment's fierce guarding of its own turf.
The Education Establishment has the unknowing public and beholden politicans as allies in a cabal that the Federal Trade Commission would call restraint of trade in any other situation.
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited July 16, 2001).]
