A Facebook friend posted this link about education reform efforts in New Jersey. Governor Christie "unveiled a tough-love reform package that will make classroom achievement — not seniority or tenure — the basis for pay hikes and career advancement in Garden State public schools."
One of the things the article mentions is that teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade will actually have to pass tests in reading and math in order to be certified. I am sure there is going to be quite the backlash about this. No one wants to say that their teachers don't need to be smart or knowledgeable, but the argument will be that elementary school teachers need not be experts on higher-level math; rather, they need to know how to teach basic concepts. It will go along the lines that an elementary school teacher doesn't need to pass a calculus exam, for example.
I'll be honest: I am on the fence about this one.
Why? Simple: we don't yet know the level of the tests. Too easy and it's just a hoop. Too difficult, and we fall into the argument above. I definitely believe in testing our teachers. But New Jersey already requires the Praxis. See here. What will this proposed new exam do differently?
The same anti-content argument is often given for high school math teachers who are getting their masters' degrees: Why do they need to take graduate-level math courses? Why not take courses on pedagogy in high school content areas such as Algebra 2?
I happen to agree that we need more education courses that focus on "how" to teach. Conferences and workshops are expensive and most teachers don't get to go to them with any regularity. Why not incorporate that type of dynamic learning-how-to-teach with more frequency and depth than most programs presently offer? Great point. But I still want teachers know fundamentally know their material.
So, let's separate these issues.
First: Ideally, all teachers would have content-area expertise. But if you're working with a finite number of courses that fit within a degree program, the "one or the other" decision is often the issue.
Second: If I have to choose, I'd rather have a competent teacher who has a proficient knowledge of the material he or she is actually teaching, and expertise on how to actually teach it, as compared to a teacher who knows the material and took x, y, or z upper-level classes, but who would have benefited more from a more practical methods, practicum, or workshop-style class.
Elementary school kids are in comprehensive classrooms most of the time: they have one teacher for all subjects. It simply is not practical to expect the teachers to have graduate-level knowledge of history, reading, math, and science. They do, however, need to know how to reach kids with the most basic of concepts -- stuff we as adults take for granted is often quite difficult to teach.
And let's not forget, we don't yet know what level of competency New Jersey elementary school teachers will be expected to have. Kindergarten teachers may not need to pass calculus tests, after all. But a functional literacy would be nice, and I don't think we should stop with math and reading. We need to test the four basics: reading, math, science, and social studies. Quite frankly, I have seen dishearteningly many elementary school teachers who don't have even that. The teachers can't competently teach fractions because they barely understand them themselves. I have neighbors whose daughter routinely brought home letters from her teacher to her parents, and the letters were rife with grammatical errors. I do not think it's too much to ask for an elementary school teacher to know when and how to use an apostrophe, or the difference between "there" and "their" (nevermind "they're"!).
So, where do I stand? I support competency testing. I like New Jersey's approach, and it will be interesting to see what level of knowledge the teacher-candidates are required to have. I am also very curious about how this will affect their current Praxis requirements, and whether it will be redundant. It is imperative that our teachers are literate, and too many are not. But I also think that we need more "how to teach," and if it comes at the expense of upper-level content-area work, well, for today, that's a trade-off I will take.
On a personal note, I had to take a basic skills test to get my teaching certification in Alabama. I was offended by the ridiculous level of the questions. Things along the lines of "Read this memo from a manager to a group of employees." At the bottom of the memo it would say "Be sure when moving inventory that you do not use the red cart."* Then the question would ask "Which piece of equipment should an employee not use when taking inventory?" The test was a waste of my time, and to paraphrase Billy Madison, I was stupider for having had to sit through it. But people failed. And that is scary.
*I made this question up completely. But it is similar in style and difficulty to the questions I was asked.
I was kind of shocked when I read this post. I had always thought that the Praxis was an indicator of a teacher's knowledge and literacy. If the Praxis is doing this, then why is another test needed? If it is NOT doing this, then does it need to be fixed?
ReplyDeleteI can understand an ongoing, status check-type test to make sure teachers still recall important information they may have to use at some point in the classroom. Maybe I missed the point, but another test just to make sure they qualify to teach seems like an admission that the first test doesn't do that.