I’m writing today to respond to a letter drafted by the State Advisory Committee on the Education of Students with Disabilities re: PRAXIS and other standardized tests relative to teacher certification.
As you can see, the attached letter is addressed to you, but it’s my understanding, it may not have been sent yet. I considered waiting until it was sent to you, but even the drafting has me deeply concerned. Even if the members vote against sending this draft to you, the letter has me now losing confidence in the leadership and the direction of this organization.
As I read through their recommendation to eliminate the PRAXIS, I was disappointed that they did not advocate for a replacement that would strengthen the pool of teachers who would be licensed to teach in New Hampshire.
I’m attaching a report from the Pioneer Institute titled: Why MTEL, NOT PRAXIS, will maintain teacher quality. I would have hoped that any advisory committee would have included this important report for your review. As you can see from the report, the MTEL would be an improvement, but that is not mentioned in SAC’s advisory.
From the Pioneer report:
EXCERPTS:
“Teacher tests for initial licensure were first given in Massachusetts in 1998, and the results revealed that large numbers of prospective teachers graduating from the state’s preparation programs were deficient in their reading and writing skills, as well as academically under-qualified to teach the subjects they desired to teach.”
“Among the causes of the gains in K-12 student achievement in the past decade are the improvements in teacher preparation that can be directly linked to the implementation of the MTEL…..”
The Boston media reported on the high numbers of teachers who could not pass a basic math test after earning a teaching degree. How can we expect the best for students attending public schools if we are not willing to place the best teachers in the classroom? The best includes teachers who know the academic content they are expected to teach.
Currently, New Hampshire requires the passage of the PRAXIS to receive a teaching license. But as you can see from the attached report, there may be an even better test to ensure our licensed teachers are better prepared to teach in our public schools.
We can look to Massachusetts for guidance on this. It was Massachusetts children who scored at the top nationally when they developed the best state standards in the country and required their teachers to know the academic content they were expected to teach. Parents chose their local public schools because they knew the quality public education their children would receive.
Unfortunately, Common Core and the Next Generation Science Standards have played a role in lowering proficiency scores; I’ve already addressed that with you and other elected officials. We can certainly look back and see how a focus on teacher quality in Massachusetts helped public schools, teachers, and students.
What would happen if prospective teachers were given the Pearson exam instead of the PRAXIS?
As you can see from this article, many teachers in North Carolina failed basic math, indicating that they did not know the content they were expected to teach.
This may suggest that using the PRAXIS may not be the best test for licensure and that maybe we should improve the licensure test. This is not the time to lower the bar as SAC seems to be suggesting but instead look to improve teacher quality in the classroom.
Massachusetts officials understood the importance of good quality teachers in the classroom. They understood that if graduates earning a teaching degree did not have the knowledge base, then the answer was not to lower the licensure requirements but instead go back to where the problems originated— in the schools of education.
If we are serious about supporting public education in New Hampshire, then there needs to be a focus on improving the standards, tests, and the quality of the teachers in the classroom.
It’s disturbing to read media reports about lowering the standards for licensing teachers in other states. We should be looking for ways to strengthen our teachers in the classroom. That is pro-teacher, pro-public education, and pro-student.
This suggestion by an advisory committee has been an eye-opener for me. This recommendation, if submitted, would not provide you with the best information available so that you can make an informed decision. An advisory committee should focus on strengthening public education in New Hampshire, which starts with supporting teachers in the classroom. If their role is to advise you, then I have to ask, why are they not doing the proper research and including it?
Education officials in the state of Washington recently addressed teacher quality. They knew that they had to look at Massachusetts for guidance based on their history of success.
EXCERPT:
“I know Washington has issues with charter schools. This was as bad—or worse,” said Michael Sentance, Massachusetts’ former education chief, about the years when that state’s leaders were hammering out plans to improve teacher quality. “It was an all-out ground war.”
In the early 1990s, there were neither stringent pre-hire screenings nor requirements for employed teachers to maintain their skills. “It was basically a lifetime certification, and the bar was extremely low,” Sentance said.
So were Massachusetts’ results. Thirty percent of elementary- and middle-school students could not do basic math. Business leaders worried they would grow into a permanent underclass and cripple the economy.
But several years after the state passed its ambitious Education Reform Law in 1993, teachers had to take tests demonstrating knowledge in their area of specialty (more than half failed the first time). Then they had to renew their credentials every five years.
“That sent shock waves through the state,” Sentance said. “But it precipitated change.”
Massachusetts now enjoys the country’s top test scores, and ranks internationally in science and math.
As an advocate for public education in New Hampshire, I have heard enough excuses as to why we cannot improve the academics in the schools. Two of our legislators on the House Education Committee made shocking comments about how students can now look to the internet for content. That’s not pro-public education –that’s a recipe for failure. Parents are smarter than that and expect more for their children.
The people charged with education policy should advocate for high-quality public schools, not making excuses for lowering the bar. Advocating for more spending is not enough. They need to be the champions of improving public education through proven reforms. If the schools of education fail their college students, that needs to be addressed, not ignored.
As you move forward, I hope you will consider strengthening teacher quality in New Hampshire. I hope that you will also consider any advisory from this committee with extreme caution. If they will not provide you with good information and advocate for what could ultimately hurt teachers in the classroom, then their recommendations need to be under severe scrutiny in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
