Imagine the following: The Commissioner of Public Health issues a report that a substantial minority of pediatricians are deficient in their understanding of basic anatomy and childhood illnesses. While many of these pediatricians have been working for an average of two decades, the report indicates the very well-being of thousands of children was compromised by the inadequate preparation of these doctors. Remedies are debated. The Governor argues that the resolution is obvious: Test the pediatricians and those who pass may continue to practice. However, a professor from a school of medicine suggests that a test of veteran doctors would be punitive, that “there is much more to being a good pediatrician than simply knowing about the body or illnesses.” Medical associations complain about “doctor-bashing.” Some legislators weigh in by saying that the ill-prepared doctors probably left the profession years ago and urge that improved professional development is the better solution. The result is that these veteran pediatricians, some who are unqualified, are allowed to continue their practice.
A preposterous scenario? Certainly. We take the issues of health care and professional competency in medicine seriously. Shouldn’t there be the same level of outrage when it comes to unprepared teachers in our schools?
The recent test results of prospective teachers have provided a stark insight into the issue of professional competency. The teacher test assesses two things: literacy and knowledge of the subject matter to be taught. Unfortunately, 45 percent of the 3,351 prospective teachers who took the tests failed the literacy test or the subject matter test–or both. Is such knowledge important for a good teacher? The question may seem obvious to impartial observers, but it has been raised. The answer, of course, is an emphatic “yes.” Educational research, which so often follows common sense, demonstrates that literate teachers with a strong knowledge base in the subject they teach have the most impact on improving student performance. However, because Massachusetts has never before required passing a basic test for certification, reason has it that many of the state’s approximately 70,000 current teachers may be unprepared for the classrooms they now lead.
Governor Paul Cellucci stepped up and urged a direct response to the concern: Test all teachers. Let’s find out what they know and allow those who pass to continue to teach. Let’s not permit any child to enter a classroom that does not have a fully prepared teacher standing there.
What do we know about our veteran teachers? Beginning with the “Nation at Risk” report in 1983, the scope of the problem has been detailed repeatedly: Too many teachers have come from the bottom half of their high school and college classes. The SAT scores of teacher candidates lag markedly behind the national average. The coursework at teacher colleges has not been academically rigorous or directed at providing a strong base of content knowledge for the prospective teacher. Until this year in Massachusetts, teachers were certified without any independent demonstration that the teacher actually knows anything about the subject to be taught. Twenty-five percent of our 4th-grade teachers report that they have had no mathematics or science courses since high school when they may have had only two years of basic courses. One in nine of our secondary science teachers does not have a degree in science; one in four of our mathematics teachers does not have a degree in math.
The data also demonstrate that while good teachers may “touch the future,” ill-prepared teachers do, too: The impact of a poor teacher on student achievement lasts for several years. Furthermore, it is urban schools that too often employ these ill-prepared teachers, leaving these inner-city students with perhaps the most cruel disadvantage.
Other voices have suggested that school-based evaluations and professional development should solve the problems of ill-prepared teachers. Continuous meaningful evaluations undertaken by the principals and superintendents in our local school systems are necessary but not sufficient. When the Weld-Cellucci administration sought to invest public school educators with the same responsibility in evaluating prospective teachers as their private school counterparts by eliminating the requirement of certification, there was a horrified reaction to the idea that we would trust the evaluation systems in our local schools. We do not require such licensure of our educators in higher education or in private schools because the practice of evaluating new talent is rigorous and, of course, there is a marketplace discipline to the personnel decisions made in those educational institutions. However, the Commonwealth must certify teachers with tests because the evaluation systems in our public schools are insufficient.
Finally, opponents of teacher testing argue that there is more to being a good teacher than simply being literate and knowledgeable about the subject to be taught. Agreed. A test will not tell anyone who is a good teacher. But a test will determine who should not be a teacher. A solid grounding in pedagogy and a passion for children are also essential. But a love of teaching is no substitute for a keen understanding of mathematical concepts in an Algebra II class.
Whenever one discusses the reform of education, the question is always how much the interests of the adults in the system will be affected for the benefit of the children. In this instance, if all teachers were tested, a level playing field for teachers and schoolchildren would be established. The result would be better teaching, increased student achievement, and much deserved respect for these professionals… like their pediatrician counterparts.
Michael Sentance is Education Advisor to Gov. Paul Cellucci.