The myth of Praxis testing for teachers

This letter is in response to the statement by an educational official that the “Praxis testing will raise the quality of teachers.” This statement is not accurate. The test will only establish teachers’ level of knowledge or competency and establish a “base line” or average for the level of teachers’ knowledge or competency in the CNMI. Some teachers will pass the test and some will fail the test in establishing the baseline requirement. The problem with studying to pass a test does not necessarily create quality, especially if the new knowledge is not retained and applied.

Teachers who fail the test can study to pass the test, but the quality of their abilities may never match or equal the level of the highest scores. Studying to pass a test has the potential for you to gain some knowledge but it does not prepare you for practical application. I’m sure the average person that has studied for a test can’t remember half of the things they studied after a period of time because the knowledge was only stored in their memory to be recalled for the test and not to be applied. Teachers will be focusing on passing the test and not so much on applying the new knowledge they have received. How can we prove that teachers who initially failed the test and studied to pass the test are applying the new knowledge they have learned? We can’t prove the practical application of this knowledge; thus the myth of testing to improve the quality of teachers is born.

In order for testing to improve the quality of a person there must be a means of demonstrating their improvement like we see in police departments, fire departments, the military and other organizations that require testing for promotions. For example, if you are a sergeant and you improve your knowledge and experience to pass the lieutenant test, you are also given lieutenant duties, which require higher skills that must be applied and demonstrated. We can’t do that with teachers because they will go back to the same old classroom to more than likely do the same thing they have been doing all along. When we pass the driving test it does not mean we are high quality drivers; we have only met a standard. We can all attest to how many drivers’ quality decline after passing the driver’s test because they develop bad habits. Only those drivers that “try” to improve are the ones that become “quality drivers.” The myth of testing to “improve” is clearly demonstrated in these two examples. Tests only set standards, which is good, but they don’t create quality—only the individual can create quality in their competency.

If PSS truly wants to raise the bar for teachers they will require a test for each level in the salary matrix with additional duties but it’s almost impossible to do that in teaching. To totally improve the quality of teachers, PSS needs to support and encourage teachers with BA and BS degrees to pursue Masters degrees. One test will only create the myth that the quality of teacher has improved because they passed the test—they have only met a standard that won’t change. Professional development workshops and training does much more than a test in helping improve the quality of a teacher because the new knowledge is focused and presented for practical application.

I’m still for the testing because we certainly need a base line or standard for our expectations in the CNMI. Many state boards, unlike the CNMI, already require a test for a teaching certificate, making the Praxis test a redundancy to the state’s certification test. But my major concerns are the lack of respect for teachers’ and the BOE Teacher Rep’s input, the total cost being placed on teachers, the test requirement is not linked to present teachers’ contracts, the lack of real support offered by PSS, and the implementation process. I haven’t seen any official documents that 44 states are using the test and that some states have replaced their certification test for the Praxis test. But I’m sure those who are using the test have varying conditions for testing and they had to reach some form of an agreement with the teachers’ union first.

Some states have even created Board policies to eliminate the test for another method of demonstrating the “quality of their teachers.” The test is just the easiest way for state boards to put the entire burden on teachers but the law actually places the burden on state boards, not teachers. Should the base line requirement for passing the test remains the same and functions for teachers remain constant, the quality of teachers will primarily remain the same. There is also a possibility our baseline requirement may be far lower than other states, leaving us right back where we started when it comes to real quality.

It is my duty to inform teachers and the general public about this critical issue and they should not be misled into thinking that a test is really going to make a significant improvement. Teachers and the people of the CNMI should also know there are state boards that agree with me on the Praxis testing. One people, all teachers, one direction.

Ambrose M. Bennett
BOE Teacher Rep.