Teacher tests key to reforms
An obscure trial challenging New York state rules requiring teachers to pass competency tests wrapped up testimony in a federal court in New York City last month. More than 3,300 black and Latino teachers sued the state, saying their careers were derailed after they flunked certification exams.
To the teachers, the issue is about fairness. They claim the tests for basic math and literacy skills have nothing to do with their performance in the classroom. And they say because minority teachers failed at far higher rates than whites, the tests were biased.

The decision, expected this summer, will reach beyond the careers of these teachers. It will help determine the future of a White House plan to improve teacher quality.

Teacher testing is a key part of President Bush's education-reform bill signed into law in January 2002. Under one provision, every public school student must be assigned a "highly qualified" teacher by September 2005. Each state can set its own standards, but at a minimum, teachers must either have majored in the subject they teach or pass a test of their knowledge in the field they instruct. If the New York teachers win the back pay and benefits they are seeking, other states might feel pressure to dumb down their certification tests. Yet they already are so easy that test experts say they merely measure high school-level skills.

Worse, a win for New York teachers would put their plight ahead of students' needs. That would perpetuate a troubling cycle in which inadequate teachers turn out poorly educated students.

Several studies show that teachers who score low on the tests and have skimpy knowledge of the subjects they teach tend to end up in low-performing schools. In New York City, poor kids are three to four times more likely to draw unqualified teachers, reports the Education Trust, a non-profit group that advocates for schools in high-poverty areas.

Certainly, many of the New York teachers who are suing the state deserve sympathy. They were already on the job — some with many years of classroom experience. But the general-knowledge tests they failed are important. During the testimony, education experts established links between testing — for both basic skills and subject content — and classroom competency. Carnegie Mellon economist Robert Strauss calculates that student achievement would rise 10% if school districts required the teachers they hired to score in the top quarter on certification tests instead of the bottom quarter.

Such benefits are already apparent in Texas. Research there shows that poor children assigned above-average teachers five years in a row progress enough to close the test-score gap separating poor and middle-class children, according to the Education Trust.

Test scores are not the only factor in determining who's a good teacher. But they are a gauge school reformers can't afford to lose.

Tests are superficial solution
By Barbara Olshansky
Everyone agrees children deserve teachers who are dedicated, enthusiastic and skilled. Everyone also agrees that testing and evaluation are reasonable means to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, the No Child Left Behind Act does not require that states demonstrate a correlation between these two near-universally accepted goals — it just requires tests.
The act also ignores the inescapable fact that the U.S. education system is broken and the adoption of standardized tests cannot fix it. Although these tests are a cheap and superficial solution to parents' concerns, they do not address systemic problems. Serious efforts are needed to make the profession more attractive to talented people, improve teacher education and training, and create fair and effective evaluation systems.

Currently, different states use different tests or combinations of tests to certify teachers. Many states, however, never evaluate performance in the classroom. Instead, they administer tests before the individual begins teaching and never confirm whether that individual became an effective teacher.

To ensure high-quality teachers, meaningful evaluation programs assessing teacher effectiveness can no longer be dismissed as too difficult to administer or too expensive. These programs exist. For example, Connecticut teachers are evaluated against the state's professional teaching standards. Teachers are tested on academic skills while in college, their teaching areas and pedagogy before teaching and their effectiveness after they start teaching. In their first year, they are provided with mentors, school-based support and professional development workshops. In their second year, school support is available, and they submit teaching portfolios for evaluation.

By contrast, standardized tests used by other states, particularly those assessing "general knowledge," negatively affect minority teachers while doing little more than evaluating a teacher's fluency in majority culture. We are not aware of studies demonstrating that these tests predict whether individuals will be effective teachers.

In a pluralistic society, we cannot accept certification systems that eliminate those who show children the virtue of living in a land rich in varied cultures. Our schools and states are failing this most important test.

Barbara Olshansky is an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the teachers suing New York State.