MEASURING WHAT REALLY COUNTS IN TEACHER PREPARATION AND SELECTION
Yet again, school districts – especially urban and rural – are facing teacher shortages in almost every field except elementary education — shortages that existed even before the pandemic. And yet again, education pundits are demanding that the bar to entering the profession be raised again, with more inflexible testing and academic requirements.
Here’s the crux of the matter – without changing any other aspect of the teacher profession, from the salary levels to the shortened (9 month) contract most teachers teach, raising standards will only punish districts that are already desperate for finding and keeping qualified applicants. Unlike other professionals – doctors and lawyers who have a far greater earning potential – most teachers’ contracts only compensate for nine months of work, greatly depressing their capacity to earn a comparable living. And while pundits often refer to the benefit of a teacher’s pension, many would be far better off if they were given a portable 401K instead of a benefit they have to wait 30 years for.
Mercifully, several states in the USHCA Network are considering lessening or even eliminating testing and other stringent requirements for entry-level teachers. They are wisely considering these changes for two important yet often ignored reasons:
1) Still no definitive proof exists that candidates scoring higher on pre-employment tests make measurably better teachers once on the job; and
2) Pre-employment or pre-certification tests disproportionately weed out candidates of color, especially at a time when districts are desperately in need of increasing those teaching populations
So why, I ask, do state lawmakers and even state department of education leaders cling so intensely to the teacher testing requirements for full certification? Universities and schools of education who have just graduated the teacher candidate vouch for their capability by giving them a diploma – so why is additional testing required? Is dropping such requirements really lowering the bar or is it just changing the bar, and allowing new teachers to prove themselves in the classroom instead of passing tests that do not correlate to their success?
Here’s what we think needs to happen:
For State Departments of Education:
- Offer a Basic Skills Tests Free Pass to any candidate applying for certification for at least one year, preferably two, then study the success of those who get hired in their first two years of employment;
- Publish every vacancy that exists during the 2021-22school year by subject field to assess how the teacher shortage is impacting classrooms by subject field;
- Provide full certification to any teacher who has received a positive recommendation for continuation by their Principal, regardless of whether they have been able to pass Basic Skills Tests or not;
- Continue to widen the pipelines into teaching, making alternative certification pathways as accessible and valid as traditional teacher preparation programs.
For District Human Resources Offices:
- Discontinue the process of non-renewing employment for beginning teachers who have not yet passed Basic Skills Tests but who have positive recommendations from their Principals for continued service;
- Make all applicants available for Principals to see, regardless of whether they are fully eligible for state certification or not;
- Lobby your State Department of Education to allow the district to recommend renewal/vouce for teachers who have not yet passed testing requirements for certification
Watching school districts struggle for so many years to fill critical shortage fields like science, math, special education, bilingual, computer science, foreign languages, as well as trying to increase the diversity of their mostly white teaching corps, it is time to change the bar for entry or continuing in the profession. Let us trust the Principals and districts who hire teachers to testify to their success, using measures such as classroom observations, student achievement, and parent input, rather than decreasing the number of eligible candidates who cannot meet the non-correlated requirements. Either that, or restructure the whole teaching profession to make them 12-month employees with commensurate salaries. Only then can we continue these bogus comparisons with entry requirements for doctors and lawyers. Who’s with me?