Enough with the kids, now lets test the teachers!

In the world of education, the answer to everything seems to come down to the one most common denominator-More Testing.

But now, instead of drilling the kids, the American Federation of Teachers, a powerful teachers union, is advocating a so-called “bar exam” intended to raise the standard for incoming teachers.  Their proposal calls for a nationwide, standardized test administered by state-level unions similar to the way states host bar exams for lawyers. It is, in essence, a competency test meant to ensure that the person who takes and passes the exam has at least that minimum standard good enough to negotiate this test.

Haven’t we learned already how useless such testing is?

Sure, we ought to have some kind of standard by which we can assure ourselves that teachers have at least the minimum requirements to teach whatever class levels they are teaching. Here in Virginia we do so via the Praxis 1 and Praxis 2 exams. Praxis 1 covers a broad spectrum of general subjects and Praxis 2 is for a more specific subject area, such as:  Math, Science, or English.

There used to be the National Teachers Exam, or NTE. But there will always be perfectly good teachers who for one reason or another have difficulty passing such tests. When I took the Praxis, we had several nights of training to prepare for the test. During the training, the instructors recounted war stories of people who failed the test repeatedly, one who had taken the exam 50 times.

While I believe that if you can’t pass the Praxis test in one or two tries you might be in the wrong career field, I understand that people sometimes have difficulty with testing. I know people who are very good at what they do, but face test anxiety and have a hard time dealing with subject matter they know well simply because it’s a test. It happens all the time. We provide special consideration for students who are documented with test taking issues, and allow them extra time or special assistance in order to overcome their anxiety.

We do not provide any such consideration for teachers who may well have similar issues. Does that make them bad teachers? No. While having a baseline set by some objective testing is a nice thing, it needs to incorporate other variables, such as classroom observation or results of classwork while in school.

The AFT says their proposed test is largely in response to young public school teachers who have expressed concern about being unprepared to enter a classroom. “It’s not fair to students, and it’s not fair to teachers if they are not prepared on Day One,” Union President Randi Weingarten said.

So, if that’s the case, what will this testing do? It won’t make young teachers, or old teachers for that matter, any more prepared to step into a classroom. It’s daunting for anyone to step inside a classroom full of 20 or more students and expect to have control and move the class forward. Often, it takes some time for new teachers to figure things out, and develop whatever style of leadership it takes for them to gain control and make things work.

You can’t instill that by testing. All a test will do is indicate whether or not the test taker has the requisite knowledge for teaching, it has absolutely no relation to ability. The only way to test ability is to jump in the water and swim.

Now, I am not saying we just throw prospective teachers into the water without some kind of “swimming” lessons. That’s why we send teachers to school. That’s why we have all those stultifying education classes. And in the end, we send them out for “student teaching” practicums and other events so that they can stick their toe in and see how the water feels.

For some, that taste is enough to send them into a tizzy and off to work in a retail store. For others, it is just what they have been looking for and now they are ready to take on the classroom on their own.

The point being, it’s different for everyone. Testing alone cannot improve the classroom situation. To some extent, training can help. But there also needs to be some responsibility picked up by the school administration. Most schools assign a mentor to new teachers, but the schools can do more. They can provide training and suggest training by assessing the teachers in the classroom.

That is one of the things that the ATF proposes to do with tenured teachers, teachers who are difficult to weed out of the system due to time in service. Weingarten said Monday that unions help tenured teachers improve through professional development and evaluations. But that is already being done at the school level all the time through in-service.

“What we’re focusing on is preparing new teachers,” she said in response to a question from FoxNews.com in a conference call.

A union task force developed the test, which its board of directors still must approve before asking states to adopt the concept. The task force also calls for teachers and educators to set and enforce the standards and said the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has agreed to get all parties together to design the standards.

To pass the written exam, teachers would also need a minimum grade point average and at least one year of successful student teaching. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is commending the proposal. He says the U.S. shouldn't tolerate having unprepared teachers in the classroom.

"It's time to do away with a common rite of passage into the teaching profession -- whereby newly minted teachers are tossed the keys to their classrooms, expected to figure things out, and left to see if they and their students sink or swim,” Weingarten said.

My point is that testing rarely provides the right answer. There needs to be a more holistic view of a teacher, and not whether he or she can dot the correct answer to someone’s idea of what essential knowledge is needed for a prospective teacher to get into a classroom. As much as there will be those who are competent in the classroom but fail at the test, there will be those who smoke the test but should never be allowed alone in a classroom full of children.