Common sense on PRAXIS, highly qualified teachers

With all the talk and focus on PRAXIS this past summer, I feel it is important to inform the parents and guardians of something teachers already know about PRAXIS. Yes, PRAXIS is indeed a long overdue requirement for our teachers because we never had a certification test for teachers. Yes, PRAXIS will help ensure that teachers are very knowledgeable in their content. Yes, PRAXIS has even forced us to align all our teachers within their subject area of expertise. But PRAXIS only sets a standard for content knowledge, it does not guarantee quality!

There is also the fact that the board and the Commissioner on Education have struggled with its implementation for several reasons. First, the requirement was originally for PRAXIS I but had to be changed to include PRAXIS II. Teachers were concerned about the cost being placed on them and I protested for teachers. The COE and her staff were able to come up with a solution by offering the Institutes and paying teachers to learn to pass the test, which I think was an excellent example of creativity to help teachers with passing the test and offsetting the cost of the testing. I hope teachers appreciate me speaking up for them and the COE and staff for coming up with a solution.

I’m sure many teachers are truly thankful for the Institutes on PRAXIS but now many elementary teachers and the language arts teachers in the high schools have brought a new concern to my attention. They are asserting that PRAXIS I is a “redundant” test and not even necessary. Their concerns are indeed legitimate when you consider the fact PRAXIS I is only reading and writing and they must also take PRAXIS II, which is basically the same thing, especially for teachers of Language Arts. Furthermore, it shouldn’t be necessary for a PE teacher to be taking a reading and writing test, which has nothing to do with her/his content. We can create our own reading and writing test like Guam and other school districts. Finally, on the mainland, PRAXIS I is only given to students who are leaving college to enter the teaching profession. So, there is still the issue of redundancy and the necessity of PRAXIS I that needs to be addressed. I will be pushing for teachers’ concerns over PRAXIS I in the next scheduled board meeting.

PRAXIS will surely improve our system but it is not the barometer for a “highly qualified teacher.” There are three other components to being a highly qualified teacher other than mastery of content knowledge: 1. Affective Performer (Mastery of Pedagogy & Best Practices) 2. A Reflective Decision Maker 3. A Humanistic Practitioner. As you can see, PRAXIS only addresses part of the requirement for being a highly qualified teacher. We are only addressing a portion of the equation to be a highly qualified teacher and it should be clear that we still have a lot of work to do in guaranteeing that other requirements are met within our school system.

Tenure has proven to be the “best practice” used by an overwhelming majority of the major educational institutions for addressing improvements in Pedagogy practices and the skills of being a Reflective and Humanistic Practitioner. Tenure offers a system of accountability for growth that is “mandatory” with specific requirements being outlined that address Pedagogy practices and the ability of teachers to be Reflective and Humanistic Practitioners. The 60 hours certification requirement for staff development we presently have doesn’t come close to offering the same benefits as a tenure system.

So do we address the other factors in the equation for highly qualified teachers by creating a tenure system or do we wait for the next president to force us into addressing these factors through federal law? We were already behind the rest of America with PRAXIS because we didn’t have a certification test, which most states just threw out for PRAXIS. It is also a known fact that we are also behind the rest of the U.S. with implementing a tenure system with a bargaining agreement, which is vital to any long-term plan in a school system for a stable and accountable workforce. Bargaining power will also generate improvements for the entire system and not just permanent status for teachers—it’s about the children and the future.

Teachers and the community need to be aware of the big picture and future challenges if we are to ever catch up with all the mainland expectations for education. It may appear we are doing our best, but I believe we can do even better, especially when cost is not a factor. The education bar will continue to go up to meet the additional requirements for quality that I mentioned along with other expectations. The good part is, most of the teachers in the CNMI are up to the challenge and we are on the right track by implementing PRAXIS. But common sense tells me we still have more work to do and the fat lady is not singing yet when it comes to having a “permanently” stable staff of highly qualified teachers in the CNMI. One people, one direction.

Ambrose M. Bennett
BOE Teacher Rep