Iowa is the only state that does not require its newly-minted teachers to pass competency exams in order to teach. It's probably no coincidence, then, that recent graduates of Iowa's teaching programs are not doing well on the competency exam required in the other 49 states:
A pilot study showed a surprising share of graduates from Iowa's teaching colleges did not score high enough on national standardized tests to meet requirements set by other states, a finding that disappointed state education officials.
The results of the study were presented to members of a legislative panel Wednesday and sparked debate among lawmakers on whether the state should make college graduates undergo testing before they are granted teaching licenses...
More than 5,300 teacher candidates from Iowa took part in the pilot study by completing the tests during the 2001-02 to 2003-04 school years. The candidates completed tests on basic teaching skills, with some taking "content" tests that measured their knowledge of a particular subject area, such as physics or world and U.S. history.
...21.6 percent of Iowa graduates did not meet Ohio standards to obtain a teaching license, although all of them would be eligible for Iowa licenses.
Rep. Cecil Dolecheck, R-Mount Ayr, said the test scores are a cause for concern, especially if those graduates end up taking teaching jobs in Iowa schools. He said a certain percentage of students would be expected to score below average, but if those graduates are being hired in Iowa and not in other states, the state might want to reassess its screening process.
The reaction seems to be that Iowa shouldn't test just because other states do, and that knowledge is not necessarily the most important thing in the classroom:
Bob Sunderbruch, human resources director for the Muscatine Community School District, said he's hired teachers from 10 states, including Iowa, during his 18 years with the District and doesn't see a difference in quality between teachers who test and those who don't...
"In Iowa, we teach a standard curriculum that we believe is the best in nation," he said. "It's one thing to be able to know what the correct answer is and it's quite another thing to be able to do that on a classroom day to day with 25 eager little faces."
Yes, but is there any reason that any education program wouldn't teach both correct answers and student management skills? It's certainly a valid point to claim that teachers who test well and teachers who don't perform the same in Iowa classrooms, although I'd be interested to know how "performance" is being measured. I can also understand why the more intangible aspects, such as "pedagogy," may not fit into a standardized testing routine, but I see no reason why teachers should not be expected to pass a test of basic core skills. You want to teach science? Then you pass a science test, because being good with kids isn't enough.
I believe that what teachers teach is as important as how they teach. Interestingly, this article claims that Iowa does test its teachers, only with multiple assessments instead of a standardized test. This article also makes the valid point that pilot study data results often worse than operational data would, simply because the participants are not under high stakes.
Posted by kswygert at February 5, 2004 03:19 PM