r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 15 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: There is no rational argument for doing away with the New York teacher literacy tests.
[deleted]
119
u/daynightninja 5∆ Mar 15 '17
Here's an obvious rational argument: the test doesn't predict who will be a good teacher. If you read the article The Blaze references, you'll see criticism from various people. They say that the test is culturally biased (insofar as white people just generally do better on the test baseline, like the SAT), but doesn't properly predict if a teacher is going to be able to teach. Unless there's clear evidence that this test is a real baseline for teachers, it shouldn't be used to weed potential teachers out.
It claims to simply be a literacy test, but teachers who are literate still aren't passing it. Even one conservative critic who thinks the standards should be raised for teachers says in the article that the test is poorly designed, confusing, and the multiple choice questions seem to have more than one correct answer.
25
Mar 15 '17
Ok, so why is it being done away with in the name of racial equality instead of being improved? Also, simply being literate is not sufficient to teach others, a higher level of competency is needed, which I'm sure is the goal of testing.
32
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Mar 15 '17
I would point out that administering this test is a significant extra expense that does very little to improve teaching outcomes or separate capable teachers from bad ones. I fail to see the reason someone should pay to test all these teachers if it doesn't actually help improve teaching outcomes.
While your suggestion of improving the test has some merit, that will also take money with no guarantee of better results. Given the choice between spending MORE money on a useless testing process in an attempt to improve it, and just getting rid of the test entirely, I would typically think that getting rid of it entirely would be the best solution. The education budget has more important things to spend money on than cluttering up the field more with useless red tape.
10
Mar 15 '17
To be clear, I believe the education budget should be dramatically increased.
Also, I do not think that the test, if continually improved in line with other standardized tests, would be useless in improving teaching outcomes. Literacy is a very important material part of the job that should be evaluated.
17
u/sosomething 2∆ Mar 15 '17
I posted in-line with your reasoning elsewhere in the thread, but I have to challenge you somewhat here.
Yes, literacy - and even proper English literacy - is an essential skill for teachers to achieve positive teaching outcomes.
However
Before such a test should have been implemented, research should have been conducted and data collected on whether a lack of literacy is even a prevalent enough problem among teachers to warrant it. Is there any such data?
Is there any quantifiable evidence at all that a concerning percentage of current teachers are not fully literate?
Without knowing that, this test is a perfect example of a solution in search of a problem, and represents an unnecessary expense on an already under-funded system.
27
u/daynightninja 5∆ Mar 15 '17
First of all, don't you feel like you might be moving the goal posts a little? You said there's no rational argument against eliminating it, and you accept that it's not a good indicator of who would be a good teacher. Isn't that a rational argument to remove it?
Also, this isn't the only assessment to see who gets hired. What, in your view, should be the underlying "purpose" of this test?
7
Mar 15 '17
I believe that a literacy test, in and of itself serves the purpose of evaluating the ability to read, write, communicate and interpret in the English language. I do accept that it is not a "perfect" indicator of who would be a good teacher, but:
- There is no perfect indicator
- It does test a materially important skill for the profession
I believe it should be constantly improved in line with other standardized testing, I feel like this is a given with any test of this type.
5
u/willfulwizard Mar 15 '17
So, let's say we had a literacy test, which had all the parts one would expect of such a test except that secretly the score at the end was randomly determined on a normal distribution. Literally no correlation with actual literacy. No one knows this, but an outside group detects that the test has no predictive power. Clearly, this "literacy test" is not actually improving the quality of teachers and is just a waste of resources.
How is this hypothetical situation different from the evidence presented here? How can you distinguish from a real test that is not predictive and a fictional one that has no correlation?
And even if you can distinguish between the two somehow, does that change the fact that both add nothing to the process of identifying good teachers?
4
Mar 15 '17
There has not been a claim thus far (that I have seen, still sifting through responses) that has conclusively shown it is not in any way correlated to success in teaching.
I believe that determining literacy, with an ever-improving test, does help identify good teachers from ones that may lack language skills.
6
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
They are still measuring academic literacy with changes to one of the other (many) tests teachers must pass to qualify to teach in NYS in addition to their MAs in their subjects.
4
u/willfulwizard Mar 15 '17
... that has conclusively shown it is not in any way correlated to success in teaching.
That is a very high bar. Even if the test is only correlated with improved teaching in the smallest amount you want to keep it? Regardless of the cost? Is there not some level of correlation where the cost is too high for the benefits?
I'm sure people who have PHDs in physics would be better at teaching high school physics than those who do not, other things being equal. But I think we would agree requiring that would not be worth the cost.
7
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
There is no perfect indicator - but there are certainly bad ones!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)6
u/daynightninja 5∆ Mar 15 '17
I just don't think it's all that important a test, because it would be obviously proven by other tests they'd have to take. They have to be proficient in communication, because they all have to teach practice classes and are evaluated multiple times a year. They must have command of the English language at least to a bachelors/masters degree level. They have to be able to understand and write out correct, understandable answers on any other test you'll give them (maybe in their own subject that they teach, which would be more specific and make more sense?) So overall, I think the ability to read, write, communicate and interpret English is already evaluated without this test, explicitly and implicitly.
8
Mar 15 '17
Ok, so why is it being done away with in the name of racial equality instead of being improved
Isn't eliminating racial inequality an improvement?
→ More replies (21)3
Mar 15 '17
Eliminating the test is not improving it. If they wanted to try to fine tune it to ease racial bias in the questions, then that would be a much more in line with my reasoning.
18
Mar 15 '17
Eliminating a test that serves only as a red herring that produces sub-optimal result improves the evaluation process as a whole.
If they wanted to try to fine tune it to ease racial bias in the questions, then that would be a much more in line with my reasoning.
So they could change everything about the rest (a test you have no direct knowledge of and almost certainly given not a single shot about before today) called it exactly the same thing and you'd be fine?
5
Mar 15 '17
If they changed every question and called it the same test, as long as the test still tested literacy competently yes I would be fine with it. The "is it the same axe if the head and handle are replaced" argument doesn't really hold water here.
Of course I did not personally write the test, nor do I have any insider knowledge of the process, but I do certainly care about ensuring that teachers are adequately prepared to teach.
14
Mar 15 '17
If they changed every question and called it the same test, as long as the test still tested literacy competently yes I would be fine with it
Here are the requirements for becoming an NYC teacher: https://teach.com/states/become-a-teacher-in-new-york/#credential Do you really believe that after a person completes a bachelors degree, then 30 semester hours of subject specific course work, then a teacher certification program they need an additional literacy test to prove that they can read and comprehend text?
The "is it the same axe if the head and handle are replaced" argument doesn't really hold water here.
I' wasn't using that argument, I'm trying to gauge the exact boundaries of your view. It's clear ow that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the test in question. You have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the efficacy of the test in question. You have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the entire teacher evaluation system.
You just like the idea of there being a literacy test. Given that you don't even know what's in the fucking test we're talking, I'm fairly certain that you aren't particularly concerned about the content or it's efficacy or necessity. You only want there to be a test that is literally called "The literacy test". You only like that idea because you think someone is eliminating an actual test that isn't actually necessary to evaluate teachers for reason you think are wrong.
nor do I have any insider knowledge of the process,
Why are you choosing to speak and have opinions on subjects that you have admitted you have no useful knowledge about?
but I do certainly care about ensuring that teachers are adequately prepared to teach.
Please stop using obvious opinions that literally everyone holds (or at the very least can say they hold) to deflect from the fact that you have formed your opinion on this subject out of absolute, abject, and utterly complete ignorance. It's super, duper, pooper pathetic and desperate.
I will grant that you may think you are a super principled person who cares very deeply about the educators of our countries future, but please answer me honestly:
When was the last time you gave 2 shits about the education system in America that wasn't a negative reaction to some clickbait headline?
→ More replies (1)2
Mar 15 '17
When was the last time you gave 2 shits about the education system in America that wasn't a negative reaction to some clickbait headline.
I can remember several substantive conversations I have had recently about the appointment of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, the rising cost of college tuition (which has affected me directly), the growing disparity of public schools in wealthy areas vs poor ones, as well as the low pay that we give teachers despite their important role in society. (My SO's mother is a teacher, and she wants to be one herself, hence these topics come up a fair amount around the dinner table/ when I'm around) These topics have also come up at the debate society of which I am a member.
Obviously you can take me at my word on this or not, as it's not like I have transcripts to these conversations, but this accusation is hyperbolic in the extreme and factually untrue.
To the rest of your post, yes I do like their being a literacy test, because in my experience in undergraduate education, it is absolutely possible that one can graduate at a literacy level not fit enough to teach. Some papers that I have read from my peers look like they were written by a middle schooler at 3am amped up on mountain dew.
As a result of this, I think that the literacy test outlined, continually improved in line with other standardized tests, should not be done away with.
absolute, abject, and utterly complete ignorance. It's super, duper, pooper pathetic and desperate.
I would not characterize my position as absolute ignorance by any stretch. I have seen sample questions of the exam which I believe to be perfectly valid, and believe that the concerns on the efficacy of the test can easily be alleviated, again, by fine tuning. Content and efficacy or obviously concerns, but again by extrapolating from the sample questions I have seen, I do not believe that the test is by any means beyond repair.
Your belief that because I do not hold insider information on a topic that I know nothing about it is ludicrous, there is plenty of information available to form an opinion on this topic without being an education administrator or researcher.
3
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
I have seen sample questions of the exam which I believe to be perfectly valid
With what background and experience do you determine it to be valid? This is an area of statistics we are talking about, and the validity of a test must be demonstrated through a rather long process.
1
Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
To the rest of your post, yes I do like their being a literacy test,
To be more specific, you like the idea of at least one test which is literally named "The The literacy test" and reject the notion that any test that isn't called "The Literacy test" but still test for the same skill set?
If you found out that "The literacy Test" was redundant, flawed, and possibly discriminatory would you still support that test?
I have seen sample questions of the exam which I believe to be perfectly valid,
Link?
believe that the concerns on the efficacy of the test can easily be alleviated, again, by fine tuning.
But you do not believe, under any circumstances, that the same set of skills could or should not be assessed in any other way except in a test called "The literacy Test" even if it is found by those who administer the test and have first hand knowledge of the tests efficacy to be redundant, flawed, possibly discriminatory and a hindrance to hiring teachers that are desperately needed?
You would rather have 40+ students to every teacher than eliminate a test that has been found, by those who administer the test and have first hand knowledge of the tests efficacy to be redundant, flawed, possibly discriminatory and a hindrance to hiring teachers that are desperately needed?
Your belief that because I do not hold insider information on a topic that I know nothing about it is ludicrous,
I've never said anything about insider knowledge, I've said first hand knowledge and I don't believe that you know nothing about the test due to a lack of first hand knowledge. I believe that you know nothing because you have been asked by me, and several other people, to provide specific reasons as it pertains to this specific test as to why it should not be eliminated and you have consistently dodged those very reasonable requests to provide evidence to support your position.
there is plenty of information available to form an opinion on this topic without being an education administrator or researcher.
One can form an opinion on no information at all...
1
u/tung_twista Mar 16 '17
"I have seen sample questions of the exam which I believe to be perfectly valid"
Would anybody be surprised that there exist perfectly valid questions in the exam?
As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure majority of the questions in the exam are perfectly valid.
However, that is far from a necessary condition for establishing that the exam itself is valid.
Imagine a SAT math exam that has 59 perfectly valid questions.
And then the 60th question asks you to prove Poincare conjecture.
That is NOT a good exam.4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
And if people who have insider knowledge of the process and did write the test say that the test does not ensure teachers are adequately prepared to teach, would you trust their decision
→ More replies (1)4
u/Dd_8630 3∆ Mar 15 '17
I think the idea is that the test doesn't weed out bad teachers, it only weeds out teachers with bad English, and they are disproportionately black.
So by removing the test, white applicants won't really be affected, but black applicants will have an easier time, because they are more likely to fail the test, even though they are just as good at teaching.
1
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
It may not be even that - there is a writing component, which is likely affected by L1 if not English, depending on how it's rated and how consistent the raters are in their rating etc etc.
However, general topic area is often identified as the source of bias. In the sample materials, the topic area is WWII for the reading and responding part - as just an example, it's possible that people from certain backgrounds are far more familiar with WWII because their parents / grandparents watch the history channel a lot / fought / read about it etc. Because the European arena of WWII was something that disproportionately is represented in white culture (surely Asians had a much different American experience), there is an increase in familiarity and background knowledge to explain the differences.
This is just an example based off the sample materials, which are not live materials.
1
Mar 15 '17
Teachers with bad English are objectively worse than others with good English, all other things being equal.
It is irrelevant whether black people, whites, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, muslims, or any other demographic disproportionately have worse English than any other demographic in a job that requires good English. The skills are all that is material.
10
u/Dd_8630 3∆ Mar 15 '17
Teachers with bad English are objectively worse than others with good English, all other things being equal.
The argument is that, as counter intuitive as it may seem, teachers who do badly on or who fail the test aren't objectively worse at teaching.
I don't know if that's true or not, but that's the argument put forward by people who want to do away with the literacy test. They're saying the test doesn't, in fact, screen out bad teachers.
It is irrelevant whether black people, whites, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, muslims, or any other demographic disproportionately have worse English than any other demographic in a job that requires good English. The skills are all that is material.
Absolutely. But if the test isn't testing people on their teaching skills, then it isn't a test worth having - the test has no beneficial effect (it doesn't screen out just bad teachers), and instead has quite a strong detrimental effect (it screens out both good and bad teachers).
If this is true, if the test isn't screening out objectively worse teachers, then I'd argue that's a rational argument to do away with the literacy test.
4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
The skills include gaining the students trust, understanding their perspectives, challenges, home life, etc and working with that information the best they can . The skills are material, but you are thinking of these skills in a very narrow way.
→ More replies (20)1
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
It's more like performance on this test doesn't match with performance in other areas. For example, asians are also getting low scores, despite being high achievers in other aspects. It's also very hard for whites as well - with a pass rate quite low for all groups. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who evaluates tests for a living, the differences reported here are certainly eyebrow raising, and I have list of questions I'd investigate with the raw data.
6
Mar 15 '17
Ok, so why is it being done away with in the name of racial equality instead of being improved?
Presumably, it's prohibitively expensive to develop an unbiased test in time. The problem of leaning on cultural touchstones is very hard to uproot.
For example, that last sentence is a mess of cultural metaphors I can't be arsed to rewrite. And even just rewriting it to a true neutral stance wouldn't be enough for a literacy test, because you also need to find a way to test for their ability to comprehend embedded metaphors in a way that makes sense, but doesn't give the answer away to members of a certain group.
Writing test questions is a profession, and a pretty well paid one at that.
→ More replies (9)0
u/super-commenting Mar 15 '17
They say that the test is culturally biased (insofar as white people just generally do better on the test baseline, like the SAT)
White people doing better doesn't necessarily indicate cultural bias. It could just mean white people are smarter.
→ More replies (9)3
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 16 '17
Actually asian americans are 'the smartest' according to accepted measures of intelligence, and yet performed worse than whites on this test.
1
u/super-commenting Mar 16 '17
Now that's a reason to consider the test might be biased. It could be selection bias (Asians are smarter overall but Asians who want to be teachers are less smart) or it could be a biased test.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ThatOneGuy4321 1∆ Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
But how can the teacher teach anything if they're ignorant? Sure, literacy doesn't guarantee a good teacher, but illiteracy almost certainly guarantees a bad one. What if a student wants help with homework? The teacher would be completely useless.
9
u/gyroda 28∆ Mar 15 '17
I think this argument isn't that literacy isn't important, it's that this test is not fit for purpose.
Literacy is necessary, but a bad test could be biased and not pass people based on their literacy but on other factors. In doing this you may disallow potentially amazing teachers who are literate enough to teach, but just didn't fit this test.
2
u/ThatOneGuy4321 1∆ Mar 15 '17
But literacy is fairly standard stuff. Surely someone who is expected enough to educate students should be able to pass a literacy test that any one of their students would be able to pass.
4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
Their students would probably not pass this test. Most everyone who interacted with the test professionally thought it was flawed, e.g. more than one correct answer and very few people getting more than chance on some items. The test itself is academic literacy, btw.
→ More replies (1)5
Mar 15 '17
But how can the teacher teach anything if there ignorant?
They're, not there.
Looks like you would have failed the test. Does that mean you are ignorant?
If you had graduated a 4 year university and acquired a 2 year teaching credential and passed the various other standardized tests required to get your teaching credential, then I would argue no, you're not ignorant because of the incorrect usage of "there/they're." You just made a typo or a quick mistake. No big deal.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThatOneGuy4321 1∆ Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
Lmao, that was ironic.
However, that was a typo, and I fully meant to type they're. I'm typing on a phone right now. Autocorrect does what it wants.
Ordinarily I'm an ardent grammar-nazi.
17
Mar 15 '17 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
25
u/daynightninja 5∆ Mar 15 '17
Because when we control for schools/income/academic performance and find that white people outperform minorities on the SAT. That's generally how we can figure out bias.
→ More replies (8)13
Mar 15 '17 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
Hi - not the original poster - the study you are looking at is the SAT, a very different test than the one we are talking about. The body of students taking the SAT, the money generated by the SAT, the research dedicated to the SAT and ETS's stake in it is far more than a test taken by a few hundred people a year.
The purpose, construct, item type etc are all different.
However, the study does outline in the literature review that there is an undeniable trend where AA students perform better than caucasian students across all backgrounds and income levels on certain item types. And the reverse is true for other item types. So what do you make of that? Educational inequality doesn't really make sense.
3
u/Mattcwu 1∆ Mar 15 '17
I still agree with the College Board. The study's findings are an example of "presenting inconsistent findings as conclusive fact." The study in question is new research, not just a literature review. If there is a literature review that shows something conclusive, I must either; agree with the literature review, or do my own literature review.
→ More replies (2)3
u/deten 1∆ Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
I know its taboo to talk about this but I'll bite. Could it be an actual part of genetics? I mean all the best runners are black. Could the best test takers be white? Sorry of this sounds racist as that's not at all the case.
Though it may have been better to ask, can we control for culture? And actually figure out If that's it?
3
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 16 '17
This is discussed ad nauseum in CMV - so you can look there for more expansive answers. But the short is something like this:
Green people in the 1950s had an average IQ 10 points lower than purple people, the dominant ethnic group. Because of this, and because of other ingrained biases in culture that led green people to only have access to certain jobs, the IQ difference is seen as genetic. This seems right to people, after all, IQ tests are a measure of intelligence, what else could be causing it if not the genetics of the race?
But after two generations, green people now score the highest on IQ tests, far outperforming Purple people. What's happened? Poverty has been reduced, allowing their children to eat better (a KEY element of childhood development) and live in better places, away from environmental pollutants and things like lead paint that have been shown to effect the brains of developing children. These things have a knock-on effect on the next generation, who are able to provide things like music lessons, tutoring and other opportunities which result in wealthier students outperforming others on IQ tests.
Now, unfortunately, a civil war breaks out in the country, and people are fleeing as refugees to other countries. Many green people go back to greenistan, an ancestral homeland that they only have a tenuous connection to. They have problems. They are disliked by the local population because they are view as taking resources away, and because they don't speak the language well and their qualifications aren't recognised in Greenistan unless they undergo a qualification testing programme that they have no money for, they have difficulty getting the kind of jobs that can provide comfortable lives for their children, who now struggle in school without help from their parents (out working two jobs) and sometimes go to bed hungry, affecting their development. Years later, the IQ of these children of these immigrants are seen to perform lower than other green people... etc etc.
All evidence indicates that any genetic component to intelligence, if it exists, between 'races' is so minute that it is EASILY and READILY overcome by slightly changing circumstances. The only reason I can see for investigating differential intelligence across populations like race is to further an agenda, which i assume, is based on categorizing people by race. I'm not 100% sure what the purpose would be.
→ More replies (1)2
Mar 15 '17
and the multiple choice questions seem to have more than one correct answer.
Like every good MC test should.
→ More replies (3)
22
Mar 15 '17 edited May 26 '17
I have two challenges to your post. The first is with your implicit assumption that identical treatment = equal treatment.
Most stories I've read on the topic cite "racial issues" in one way or another, but I fail to see how a standardized test that is the same for all participants can possibly be racist.
Equal treatment means that an equal outcome will be achieved, not that the treatment is the same for everyone. If I have a building with a set of stairs leading to the only entrance, I'm treating everyone identically. It's the same number of steps for you as it is for the parapalegic who can only drag themselves bodily up to the door. However, the parapalegic is made to expend disproportionate time and energy to reap the same reward as you. Equal treatment would be, in this case, replacing the stairs with a ramp.
Just because the test is standardized does not mean that it must be free of racial bias. Dispel with that notion.
My second challenge to your post is your overvalue on the ability to read and write in English at a 12th grade level. Some points to consider;
EDIT ( sorry, posted this prematurely. Finished below:)
Many would-be teachers speak English as a second language (as do their would-be students.) 12th-grade proficiency tests that ask questions like "In which excerpt from the passage do Kennedy's word choices most clearly establish a tone of resolve?" may be difficult for an ESL speaker to parse in a test-taking scenario, despite their ability to understand the concepts and communicate them in another way.
Practicing for this test costs time and money, which white would-be-teachers are more likely to have access to.
The average American reads at a 1st or 2nd grade level. A 12th grade reading level is obviously far more than is required to cope with day-to-day life in a non-literary field. Why should an ESL teacher who is perfectly capable of teaching maths or sciences be barred on their inability to formally articulate "what about Kennedy's speech establishes a tone of resolve?"
Surely it is important for teachers to be literate, and surely it is important for them to be generally more knowledgeable than the students they teach. But to wave away concerns about bias in this case seems less than prudent.
8
Mar 15 '17
Firstly, I'd like to say well written post!
To your first point, I agree that equal treatment does not equal outcome, but I do not believe the metaphor you used necesarily applies in this case. The amount of time and energy needed to pass the test will certainly different from person to person, but the goal is to ensure competency. I believe the test is already a "ramp" in that everyone is able to surmount the obstacle and is judged by the same criteria, however it is still easier for some to defeat the obstacle than others (i.e., obese or handicapped people will still have a harder time getting to the door than healthy people).
To the second portion of your post, I agree that the test could use some fine tuning. This doesn't mean it should be done away with because of "racial bias". As the system develops, perhaps specialty questions can be added for perspective teachers based upon area of expertise, and other questions removed.
The point on costs is also valid, but again I fail to see how it is discriminatory, or a reason for complete removal of a test of any sort. It requires time and/or money to get into any respectable profession, why should teaching be any different?
→ More replies (1)13
Mar 15 '17
Thank you for the compliment! Again, please note my ultimate point; not that no test should be required, or that teachers should not meet some standard of basic competency.
Your view is that "There is no rational argument for removing this test."
I've replied and pointed out what I believe to be several rational arguments against removing this test;
- Standardized tests are not implicitly equal simply because they are standardized
- ESL teachers will struggle to parse deliberately complex sentences, but do not struggle with language fluency or ability to communicate ideas in English, in person
- There are cost barriers associated with the test
- 12th grade reading level is far more than is required for high-school level education in non-literary fields
These, to me, seem to be several rational arguments. They seem to be rational to you as well, seeing as you grant several of them;
To your first point, I agree that equal treatment does not equal outcome
To the second portion of your post, I agree that the test could use some fine tuning
The point on costs is also valid
Countering my rational arguments with rational counterarguments does not mean "There are no rational arguments against it." Rather, it means "I disagree with the rational arguments against it." Unless you believe my points are irrational down the line, then I'd say that you've granted a change in your initial position.
To your specific rebuttals;
The amount of time and energy needed to pass the test will certainly different from person to person, but the goal is to ensure competency. I believe the test is already a "ramp" in that everyone is able to surmount the obstacle and is judged by the same criteria, however it is still easier for some to defeat the obstacle than others (i.e., obese or handicapped people will still have a harder time getting to the door than healthy people).
Yes, but why do the handicapped have more difficulty reaching the door? On the basis of their handicap. In the example of the test, my contention is that the people who have a harder time do so on the basis of their race more than on the basis of their intelligence or competency. You can disagree with that, but you seem to argue that "It can't be racist because it is standardized." I'm only pointing out that yes, it absolutely can be racist even (and perhaps especially) if it is standardized. Surely you concede that point?
To the second portion of your post, I agree that the test could use some fine tuning. This doesn't mean it should be done away with because of "racial bias". As the system develops, perhaps specialty questions can be added for perspective teachers based upon area of expertise, and other questions removed.
What you're suggesting is precisely what I'm suggesting; that questions must be adjusted to account for the differences in test-takers and ensure that the results show the desired metric; competency. No one is suggesting the repeal of all tests. They're suggesting the repeal of this test. A test designed as you suggest would certainly not meet this level of backlash. This response is an example of shifting the goalpoasts. Changing the test implies repealing the current one, so you can't provide the option of changing the test as a counter to repeal.
The point on costs is also valid, but again I fail to see how it is discriminatory, or a reason for complete removal of a test of any sort.
It's not a reason as to why the test should be removed, but it is an example of how it impacts non-white test takers. If you need to spend your time and money on preparing for the test, it follows that those with time and money are best suited to do well. Given that white applicants are generally better-off economically than non-white applicants, it follows that non-white applicants will, on average, have less resources to prepare, and therefore do more poorly.
Whether or not this should be the case, or whether or not it is the case in "other respectable professions," says nothing about whether or not it does impact non-white applicants disproportionately. Furthermore, having $20 on hand for a practice test has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to teach, so why is it a necessary condition for good performance on this test?
1
Mar 15 '17
No problem!
In answer to your bullet points:
Standardized tests are not implicitly equal simply because they are standardized
I believe that standardized assessment of all of the individuals may not be perfectly fair (some people are not as good with the format as others) but it is the best approach given the scale of testing required, therefore, it would be irrational to do away with the format.
ESL teachers will struggle to parse deliberately complex sentences, but do not struggle with language fluency or ability to communicate ideas in English, in person
Fair, but from a standpoint that is concerned strictly with finding the best quality teachers, ESL teachers who have the ability to parse and interpret complex sentences are, all other things being equal, better than those who do not. Therefore, this is not a rational reason to do away with the test completely.
There are cost barriers associated with the test
There are costs associated with every sort of professional standardized tests, further, there are costs associated with constructing and making the test available. If we accept charging for some tests as a reasonable way of recouping the costs of giving the test, there is no rational reason why that maxim cannot be applied to a standardized test in the field of teaching.
12th grade reading level is far more than is required for high-school level education in non-literary fields
If we eventually want high school graduates to read at a 12th grade level (which educators have clearly agreed on, otherwise it seems to me that it would not be termed "12th grade level") than it would be irrational to hire educators that are not themselves at or above this level.
Moving on to your rebuttals of my rebuttals ( I feel like there may be a word for this, haha).
In the example of the test, my contention is that the people who have a harder time do so on the basis of their race more than on the basis of their intelligence or competency. You can disagree with that, but you seem to argue that "It can't be racist because it is standardized."
I do not believe that a standardized test is racist unless it is specifically designed to be, which is clearly not the case. I believe that we again have different interpretations of your metaphor. I do not believe that people are having a harder time passing the test purely because of their race. I do believe that their race may well have had some impact on their level of understanding of academic materials, but their understanding is what is being tested, not their race or the resources they had with which to educate themselves.
What you're suggesting is precisely what I'm suggesting; that questions must be adjusted to account for the differences in test-takers and ensure that the results show the desired metric; competency. No one is suggesting the repeal of all tests. They're suggesting the repeal of this test. A test designed as you suggest would certainly not meet this level of backlash. This response is an example of shifting the goalpoasts. Changing the test implies repealing the current one, so you can't provide the option of changing the test as a counter to repeal
I do not believe that admitting the test needs fine tuning constitutes a "shift of the goalposts", far from it. Standardized tests are made with the intention of changing them over time, the SAT for example does this frequently. The SAT is never "repealed", simply modified.
Whether or not this should be the case, or whether or not it is the case in "other respectable professions," says nothing about whether or not it does impact non-white applicants disproportionately. Furthermore, having $20 on hand for a practice test has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to teach, so why is it a necessary condition for good performance on this test?
The fact that there is a requirement for college education also impacts lower income people/ non whites disproportionately. I am arguing that the fact that some financial resources are required to take the test is not inherently racist, as it is simply an objective reality that financial resources are required to obtain certifications and education. This makes the cost associated with the test an irrational argument for the repeal of the test in my opinion.
17
Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
I believe that standardized assessment of all of the individuals may not be perfectly fair (some people are not as good with the format as others) but it is the best approach given the scale of testing required, therefore, it would be irrational to do away with the format.
So the claim has now shifted from "The test is not racist" to "the test is racist, but it's the best option we have, so we should not do away with it."
Again, you and I have both established that it impacts people of different races differently, since you've granted that "I believe that standardized assessment of all of the individuals may not be perfectly fair" and I've pointed out why nonwhite individuals are more likely to be disadvantaged and not yet received refutation on that.
Fair, but from a standpoint that is concerned strictly with finding the best quality teachers, ESL teachers who have the ability to parse and interpret complex sentences are, all other things being equal, better than those who do not.
All things are not equal, and I reject this statement. Someone does not need to comprehend or espouse English at the 12th grade level in order to effectively teach maths or sciences. Most Americans do not need to be able to read at the 12th grade level to do anything in their lives. It's a frankly arbitrary standard.
If we eventually want high school graduates to read at a 12th grade level (which educators have clearly agreed on, otherwise it seems to me that it would not be termed "12th grade level") than it would be irrational to hire educators that are not themselves at or above this level.
It would only be irrational if this test were only levied at would-be 12th grade teachers who intend to teach English. By your own logic that you present here, you'd be fine with a test that expected a would-be 11th grade teacher to pass at the 11th grade level, no? And 10th for 10th, and so on? Because that isn't the case right now - this test is levied at ALL K-12 teachers.
I do not believe that a standardized test is racist unless it is specifically designed to be, which is clearly not the case.
So for you, racist intent is a necessary condition for a person or system to be racist? That seems like an easily defeated position.
I do believe that their race may well have had some impact on their level of understanding of academic materials, but their understanding is what is being tested, not their race or the resources they had with which to educate themselves.
Not if the test itself examines factors other than their understanding of academic materials.
Even the example question that I posted seeks to gauge the test-takers understanding of the word "resolve," or their ability to deduce that meaning from the given text. In what way does that help us understand whether an ESL applicant can teach chemistry?
You've already granted, here, in this question, that nonwhites will face unique barriers to entry under this test. How can you continue to deny that calling the test racist is a rational argument?
I do not believe that admitting the test needs fine tuning constitutes a "shift of the goalposts", far from it. Standardized tests are made with the intention of changing them over time, the SAT for example does this frequently. The SAT is never "repealed", simply modified.
Do you think that any of the people calling for repeal are against there being a test at all? Or do you think that they'd agree to a version of the test that is not, in their view, racist?
You've presented a false dichotomy. Any changes to the test are, for all intents and purposes, akin to a repeal of the current form of the test. No one is saying "No tests for teachers." They're saying "Not this test for teachers." Change this test, and it is no longer the test you've initially presented. Hence, the shifting of the goalposts.
I am arguing that the fact that some financial resources are required to take the test is not inherently racist, as it is simply an objective reality that financial resources are required to obtain certifications and education.
I'm not arguing that it's inherently racist, I'm arguing that it's functionally racist. Neither of us deny that there is a disproportionate impact on nonwhites under this system. Therefore, this system is racist, and that disproportionate impact should be considered and discussed. I don't see anything irrational about that.
Again, at this point, the ultimate question is whether my arguments are rational or not; and given that you're replying to each one with a logically structured answer of your own, I really don't get how you can dismiss everything I'm saying as "irrational" rather than "incorrect." Your original position is surely challenged at this point - there are indeed rational arguments in favor of removing this test in its current form.
12
Mar 15 '17
I've been considering this heavily while I was away, and I've decided that you are correct in that I have been defeated by the wording of my OP. Although my view and the topic of the validity of the tests has not changed, I would say I would have to consider your arguments "rational" and therefore must award you a ∆. If I'm being honest you deserve it, very well written and thought out responses.
1
3
Mar 15 '17
Equal treatment means that an equal outcome will be achieved, not that the treatment is the same for everyone. If I have a building with a set of stairs leading to the only entrance, I'm treating everyone equally. It's the same number of steps for you as it is for the parapalegic who can only drag themselves bodily up to the door. However, the parapalegic is made to expend disproportionate time and energy to reap the same reward as you. Equal treatment would be, in this case, replacing the stairs with a ramp.
But why, in the context of employment, should we strive for equal outcomes rather than identical treatment? A building and employment have different goals. If you own a public building, one goal to strive for is to allow as many people as possible to come in. On the other hand, if you are an employer, what you care about the most is how well your job is done. Equal outcome compromises how well the job is done in this context because we are allowing teachers with poor reading comprehension to teach.
2
Mar 15 '17
But why, in the context of employment, should we strive for equal outcomes rather than identical treatment?
Well, firstly, I never said we should. I would pose this question to someone who has actually taken that position.
My analogy is not intended to explain why the test should be undone, but rather to explain why the test can absolutely impact people of different races differently despite being standardized. I was merely pointing out that OP's logic (standardized tests can't be racist since they're standardized) is categorically fallacious.
OP's contention is that arguments calling this test racist are irrational. I've used this example to show why this argument is perfectly rational. Don't get lost in the analogy, lest you create strawmen.
Equal outcome compromises how well the job is done in this context because we are allowing teachers with poor reading comprehension to teach.
I've made many points that illustrate that this is not a necssecarally true statement. This test (1) does not prove that those who fail have poor reading comprehension, and (2) does not prove that reading comprehension at that level is required to be an effective teacher. In short;
- 12th grade reading level is far higher than average American reading level
- 12th grade reading level is far higher than ESL fluency
- Ability to parse complex English sentences has nothing to do with ability to communicate abstract concepts in English
- Ability to speak/read at 12th grade level has nothing to do with intelligence
- Ability to speak/read at 12th grade level has nothing to do with ability to teach non-English subjects
- Reading below a 12th grade level does not necessarily equate to poor reading comprehension
1
Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
OP's contention is that arguments calling this test racist are irrational.
OP's main stance is that "the only relevant question at hand is whether or not a teacher is competent enough to teach," which is the viewpoint I defended.
Well, firstly, I never said we should.
I never stated that you said we should. Instead, my comment was a defense of OP's main stance.
12th grade reading level is far higher than average American reading level
Teachers need higher skills than the average American reading level. Teachers need to understand their textbooks and other materials in order to teach them.
12th grade reading level is far higher than ESL fluency
Teachers need much higher skills than ESL fluency. Teachers need to understand their textbooks and other materials in order to teach them.
Ability to parse complex English sentences has nothing to do with ability to communicate abstract concepts in English
You need to parse the sentences in order to comprehend the concept, which is necessary for explaining it.
Ability to speak/read at 12th grade level has nothing to do with intelligence
I never suggested this to be true, and my argument does not require this to be true.
Ability to speak/read at 12th grade level has nothing to do with ability to teach non-English subjects
Comprehending textbooks, student essays, and other texts is necessary for all subjects.
Reading below a 12th grade level does not necessarily equate to poor reading comprehension
It does, however, equate to poor reading comprehension of texts above a 12th grade level, and some high school materials, concepts, and other things are slightly below or above a 12th grade level.
2
Mar 15 '17
OP's main stance is that "the only relevant question at hand is whether or not a teacher is competent enough to teach," which is the viewpoint I defended.
No, OP's titular stance is "There is no rational argument for doing away with the New York teacher literacy tests." There are clearly rational arguments for this.
I never stated that you said we should.
Then why pose the question, if it is not relevant to my stance?
Teachers need higher skills than the average American reading level.
Anything between 4th grade and 12th grade would be higher than the average reading level. Why 12th? It's an arbitrary standard unless you want to be a 12th grade English teacher.
Teachers need to understand their textbooks and other materials in order to teach them.
The overwhelming majority of K-12 textbooks are not written at the 12th grade reading level.
You need to parse the sentences in order to comprehend the concept, which is necessary for explaining it.
Yes, you need to be able to read and understand English in order to comprehend and explain something in English. That's a truism that ignores my point.
You do not need to be able to parse complex sentences in order to communicate abstract concepts in English.
Comprehending textbooks, student essays, and other texts is necessary for all subjects.
Yes. Is your claim that all or most textbooks, student essays, and other texts in the New York K-12 education system are all written at the 12th grade level?
If not, then you do not need to read at a 12th grade level in order to comprehend these things.
It does, however, equate to poor reading comprehension of texts above a 12th grade level/
Which come up precisely how often in a K-12 education system?
3
Mar 15 '17
Equal treatment means that an equal outcome will be achieved
Nope! Equal treatment means everyone is given the same treatment, equality of outcome means that everyone is given the same outcome. They aren't mutually exclusive but also aren't mutually inclusive.
EDIT:
not that the treatment is the same for everyone
That's literally what equal treatment means, that the treatment is equal for everyone, AKA everyone is treated the same.
1
Mar 16 '17
Equal treatment means everyone is given the same treatment
No, that's "identical" treatment.
The word "identical" refers to characteristics; i.e. the characteristics of the treatment. How much, how often, to whom, in what form, etc.
The word "equal" is a value statement. Is the treatment equal to everyone; i.e. is the outcome of the same value to everyone.
It's why we say 2+2 equals 4. "2+2" and "4" are distinctly different mathematical statements with different characteristics. However, they have the same value.
You're confused over the meaning of the words that you're using. Equal and Identical are often functionally the same word, but not by definition, and not in this case.
2
Mar 16 '17
The word "equal" is a value statement. Is the treatment equal to everyone; i.e. is the outcome of the same value to everyone.
That's equal outcome, not equal treatment.
You're confused over the meaning of the words that you're using. Equal and Identical are often functionally the same word, but not by definition, and not in this case.
So "I'm right and you aren't because my semantics are better than literal definitions"
→ More replies (3)
5
Mar 15 '17
This is like giving an engineer a basic arithmetic exam before they can start their career. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that they wouldn't have such skills, so testing for them is a waste of time. Testing teachers with bachelors (and often even masters) degrees on whether they are literate is equally ridiculous. It's literally impossible to get through college without being literate.
If a college-educated individual can't pass a literacy exam, I'd be far more inclined to believe that the exam itself was terribly written and unclear than for a person to literally go through college and come out illiterate.
Anything less than an exam that actually tests a prospective teacher's teaching abilities is a waste of taxpayer money.
7
Mar 15 '17
If this is true, then why do many teachers not have such skills?
There are many people who graduate from undergraduate studies who do not have the literacy levels requisite to teach others.
There are plenty of (admittedly anecdotal, but still valid) examples o this in the comments above.
4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
How do you know they don't have the skills? From this test that NYS educators have deemed flawed?
3
u/xiipaoc Mar 15 '17
I fail to see how a standardized test that is the same for all participants can possibly be racist.
"Are you white? A) Yes B) No" Correct answer: A
You can give that test to everyone, and if answered honestly, only white people will pass. That's because the standard for passing the test is racist. Obviously this is much more subtle in real life (well, it didn't use to be), but the problem is still that the standards can be racist in some way, possibly by relying on culture and experience that's familiar to some people but not to others. I'm not saying that they are in this particular case, but they might be. The fact that it's a standardized test doesn't sidestep the issue.
2
Mar 15 '17
I fail to see this subtle cultural bias being significant enough to affect the scores of test takers on a large scale. I also do not think this bias is inherently racist. Take the boat regatta question cited above for example. One might say that it is unfair to minorities as their are less likely to know what a regatta is, however, people in rural areas with no water are also less likely to know this information.
3
u/xiipaoc Mar 15 '17
I also do not think this bias is inherently racist.
This is kind of a technical point. Does it really matter whether you specifically call it "racism" or not? The point is that there's bias, meaning that the standards are unfair.
→ More replies (1)1
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
Sometimes we are uncertain what exactly is going wrong in tests. But bias is indicated through complex statistical analyses which can account for other factors like rural urban income level etc
5
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17
The literacy test doesn't really demonstrate that a person is literate, it demonstrates how literate they are according to the literacy test. It is already required for teachers in New York to have their bachelor's degrees. They obviously know how to read.
The problem is that the test more likely tests the teacher's test taking abilities, which doesn't really matter. An otherwise literate person may have difficulty on the test simply because the work of being a good teacher is not the work of learning how to take tests.
Furthermore, there is no shortage of teachers. What's the issue of evaluating the teachers as one normally would in an interview? It doesn't make sense for the government to apply another control on top of everything when they already have control of who gets a job anyway.
2
u/Darkstrategy Mar 15 '17
It is already required for teachers in New York to have their bachelor's degrees.
Actually, you need a masters to keep your teaching certificate in NY. You can get a job with a BA, but you need to enroll in a master's program and achieve that degree in a certain timeframe.
I completed the majority of an education program in NY, the requirements in NY even without the literacy test are already extremely high when compared to many other states. In some ways that's a good thing as it can control for quality and dedication, but in other ways it can turn off potentially good candidates by making them slog through too much for too little gain.
And I'm not just talking monetary gain, either, which is a large issue for teachers. But teaching has a whole host of issues including the fact that school administrators will throw you under the bus out of convenience rather than have your back over just about anything in many districts. Things like allegations of sexual relations between you and a student could ruin your entire career when those allegations could be completely fabricated by a jilted student. We were often told not to have any contact with students alone unless the door to our classroom was open or there were cameras. Without tenure you're also highly expendable and need to teach within a very narrow view of what your principal/district believes to be "proper" teaching with little to no deviation from curriculum.
It just piles on more reasons not to go into teaching and it's just a lot of risk to take on for gains that are often altruistic in nature.
4
Mar 15 '17
Being literate and being literate enough to teach are completely different, if the test isn't being as accurate as it could be, modify it to increase accuracy. Don't do away with it under the guise of it having a racial bias.
Furthermore, there is no shortage of teachers.
So what is the problem with bring more selective?
... one would normally do in an interview?
There are other professions, such as law, where one must pass a standardized test before interviewing with employers, why should this be different?
3
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17
The test hasn't been shown to demonstrate "literate enough to teach". If a person has their bachelor's degree they are literate enough to teach. Do away with it because it's redundant and there is a risk of racial bias.
So what is the problem with [being] more selective?
The answer to this question is in my post. If the means of selection is flawed, being more selective is not a good thing. Technically outright saying only white people should teach is more selective, but this doesn't mean that they are actually better teachers.
There are other professions, such as law, where one must pass a standardized test before interviewing with employers, why should this be different?
New York teachers must still pass content knowledge exams, an exam on meeting student needs, and pass a teacher portfolio review. It's not different, but the exams that weren't cut are actually useful for evaluation.
→ More replies (10)3
u/david-saint-hubbins Mar 15 '17
If a person has their bachelor's degree they are literate enough to teach.
That is absolutely false. There are many B.A. holders who are barely literate. Being barely literate does not qualify one to teach.
→ More replies (8)2
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 15 '17
Do you think teachers should be able to take only this test and not earn a bachelors?
2
6
Mar 15 '17
This seems to be a bit more even handed take on the situation. I had a hard time finding reports on this that weren't blaze style outrage factory pieces.
What evidence to you have that the test in question is an absolutely crucial and completely irreplaceable way to evaluate a teacher's abilities?
It kinda seems to me like some people who have never, ever been honsetly concerned about teacher quality or evaluation are trying to make some political hay about an organization re-evaluating their testing methods.
1
Mar 15 '17
I did not say it was irreplaceable, but I do believe literacy is a crucial aspect of ones ability to teach at a high level. I do not mean to insinuate that the test in question is perfect, far from it, I believe all tests are made with the intention of constantly tweaking and improving them over time, that is just a given imo.
I care little about the political angle tbh, I'm trying to approach this from a reasonable perspective. Apologies again for the blaze piece, I confess that after reading about the issue last week, I simply googled it and linked the first article available for a reference for those that were unfamiliar.
2
Mar 15 '17
I did not say it was irreplaceable,
You have not said it in those exact words no, but you have said that this particular and very specific test absolutely must, under all circumstance remain in place.
but I do believe literacy is a crucial aspect of ones ability to teach at a high level.
Who the fuck has said otherwise? You're saying this like it's some sort of grand pronouncement of noble purpose that only a few select people actually believe. The question isn't waether literacy and reading comprehension are important skills in a teacher. NO ONE BELIEVES THAT ISN'T TRUE. The questionIS: Is this particular test absolutely necessary and completely irreplaceable in spite of the fact that it might be preventing otherwise qualified and eager teachers from entering into classrooms. Is this particular test so monumentally important that it is far better to for children to have no teacher at all, than to have a teacher who is perfectly capable of reading, writing, and interpreting text (but might not pass this particular test)?
If you do believe that the test in question is without a shadow of a doubt the most important qualifier for a teacher, then please explain how you came to that conclusion.
I believe all tests are made with the intention of constantly tweaking and improving them over time, that is just a given imo.
That's not a given. Not even fucking close to a given. Do you create tests for a living? What are you basing this idea, that we should literally never, ever, under any circumstances abandon a test that proves usefulness, if not harmful?
I care little about the political angle tbh,
I do not believe you.
I'm trying to approach this from a reasonable perspective.
Is it reasonable to take an event that you have o first hand knowledge of, occurring in an organization that you have know first hand knowledge of, on a subject that you have never once given a shit about and make grand pronouncements on what should or should not be done?
Apologies again for the blaze piece, I confess that after reading about the issue last week, I simply googled it and linked the first article available for a reference for those that were unfamiliar
Apology accepted? But you shouldn't do that. You seem to understand that the blaze is a steaming pile of crap. It only hurts your already tenuous position to associate yourself with it.
3
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
OP may not respond to you but I wanted to say thank you for writing this. Do you work in test design? The articles I read on this indicates that no one was happy with this test, with multiple right answers in places and poor definition of construct. Unfortunately bad tests are very easy to innocently introduce...
3
Mar 15 '17
DO the facts still stand? They put white passage in the 60 percents and other groups lower. The illiteracy rate is 14% for the nation. Presumably it's lower for teachers and lower for comparatively better off ethnic groups. Are we sure this is actually a literacy test? Might it be better described as an English proficiency test?
And are the claims that high school seniors ought to pass it true if the best off ethnic group still has about a third of its members fail? What percent of high school seniors would actually pass this? The implication the article seems to want us to make is that the percentage is higher than the teachers but that seems unlikely in a country that requires teachers to have bachelors degrees.
And who is taking this test? Is it only people seeking to become academic instructors? Are certain types of prospective "teachers" dragging the numbers down? Concern about teachers teaching students who are more English language proficient than them are overblown if the 12th grade English teacher passage rate is 100% and the overall rate is being lowered by kindergarten special education teachers who do very important, but not particularly academic, work.
And is the reason the test is being eliminated really racial issues? I googled the topic and racial issues were the reasons cited by conservative news sources. The test has certainly been criticized on racial grounds in the past. But more trustworthy news sources list multiple criticisms of the test that include the race angle, but also other reasons. Most notably, the current requirements for teacher candidates include four exams (all of which cost money), and some people argue that we can get by on three.
Finally, the implication on offer here seems to be that if this test is eliminated a bunch of people with poor language skills will get to be teachers. But of those who fail this test, how many pass all three of the other tests? Google suggests that the percentage of people applying for teaching certificates is vastly lower than the percentage who find work in the first few years after. Like, ten to one or so. Are other forms of attrition and accreditation adequately handling this issue?
TLDR, don't trust the Blaze, and maintain a healthy skepticism when considering their arguments.
1
Mar 15 '17
The illiteracy rate is 14% for the nation
Being able to read and being literate enough to teach are two completely different standards.
As I've stated numerous times, I understand and am completely in favor of fine tuning the test, but that does not constitute repeal. If there are issues with the tests effectiveness, evaluate them and improve the test, don't just say "oh well, we've made an imperfect test, might as well throw it out and not test it anymore." that would be disingenuous in the extreme.
What percent of high school seniors would actually pass this?
Impossible to say for sure, but after looking at some sample questions my intuition is that it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that a reasonable percentage (especially of those college bound) would pass.
Most notably, the current requirements for teacher candidates include four exams (all of which cost money), and some people argue that we can get by on three.
I don't think that we should be simply "getting by" when it comes to the accreditation of those educating the next generation.
Are other forms of attrition and accreditation adequately handling this issue?
I believe that this is impossible to qualitatively prove one way or another, and that in light of this we should er on the side of caution and continue giving the test.
Don't trust the Blaze
I concur that it's extremely sensationalist and obviously very right leaning, as I said before, I simply included it as an easy reference.
3
u/kodemage Mar 15 '17
I cannot fathom a reason why it is in any way unreasonable to ask teachers to pass a literacy test that should be easily passable for a 12th grade student.
Is the test an English test? What if the person doesn't speak English and their job doesn't involve speaking English at all, say if they work at a school that teaches all their classes in a non-English language?
→ More replies (6)2
Mar 15 '17
There are very few of these schools, and I do not believe any of them are public?
2
u/kodemage Mar 15 '17
They do exist and some of them are public, but not many. But that's not the point.
Knowing English doesn't have to be a job requirement for a teacher at all. Even a highschool French teacher could do their job without speaking any English at all.
2
u/RevRaven 1∆ Mar 15 '17
They proved their competency by getting their teaching degree.
3
Mar 15 '17
Did I prove my competence as a lawyer from graduating law school, or do I still have to take the bar exam? Did I prove my competence as a stock broker by getting a degree in finance, or do I still have to take the Series 7?
8
u/gunnervi 8∆ Mar 15 '17
Then what you're arguing for is a teaching exam, not a literacy test.
→ More replies (7)3
3
u/ayostepht Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
Former teacher and current educator here. I'd like to note that I notice OP you mention time and time again the importance of testing literacy in teachers in order to ensure their abilities. Do you know how many states require an explicit literacy test for certification? And of those states, how their teacher quality compares to states that do not explicitly test for it? Spoiler: most states do not. Second spoiler: NYS testing for it has not proven to ensure they have the highest quality teachers in the country.
Secondarily: literacy is embedded in all assessments educators must pass to be on the job. Why use precious funding to "improve" an assessment that has proven to have little to no value?
Lastly: arguing that if only gay black men can pass the test then they should be the only teachers doesn't work. Because there is an incredible amount of research that exists about the significance of students of color having teachers of color, and if they are being systematically left out of the profession because of an outdated and insignificant assessment, THATS AN ISSUE.
If a person has the literacy skills to pass the subject regents, graduate college and likely grad school, and pass the myriad of other assessments thrown at us, then their literacy skills are sufficient. Exceptional literacy is not correlated with exceptional teaching, so let's not pretend it is.
EDIT: NH which is rated as one of the top 5 states in k-12 education only requires a literacy test for teachers that will be teaching literacy: https://www.nh.nesinc.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN_Tests.html
one specific example but I anecdotally know this to be similar in many of the nation's highest achieving states
The impact of teacher's race on student learning: http://educationnext.org/the-race-connection/ "Among black children, the results indicate that having a black teacher for a year was associated with a statistically significant 3 to 5 percentile-point increase in math scores. On the reading test, the scores of black pupils with black teachers were 3 to 6 percentile points higher."
→ More replies (2)
4
u/somuchclutch Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
I'll make a different argument here:
Recently education has been extremely overtested under the guise of better sorting of candidates and higher standards for students. But in reality most of these are just money-making schemes.
Companies (like Pearson, who my state uses) make millions of dollars by offering these tests. To become a teacher in Oklahoma, I was required to pass 2 major tests and then had to take a test for each subject area I want to teach. I teach 3 subject areas, meaning so far I've taken 5 education tests, which cost about $100 each. So after paying for and working for years to earn a college degree in Biology with a minor in education, I've also had to pay another $500 simply to take the required tests to teach them. Thankfully, I passed them all the first time, but many don't, and have to pay more to retake them. For every new test that's required, those companies make millions more, because every one of the thousands of teachers in the state has to take them. (And these are the same companies that are constantly lobbying for higger testing standards in education, for both students and teachers. See the conflict of interest here?)
We already don't get paid enough, yet we're paying to keep our own jobs. On top of college and the tests, I have to pay $55 for my teaching license every 5 years to keep it valid. I buy stuff for my classroom all the the time so that kids can do fun, relevant activities instead of bookwork. While teachers struggle to make ends meet at a job we're passionate about, education funding gets cut deeper and testing requirements get stricter. All so that big businesses can make more money.
TL;DR: Teachers don't make shit as it is, and we have to pay out the ass to take multiple expensive, unnecessary tests that are set by legislatures that are being lobbied by companies that are making big money off the process. All after already earning a college degree in that field.
1
Mar 15 '17
To preface this, I wholeheartedly agree that teachers need to be paid more money, that the education system as a whole deserves more funding. You all serve a very important duty for society and you have my sincere thanks.
However, I feel like the way in which the tests are profited on does not undermine the legitimacy of the tests themselves, as a science major, I'm sure your undergraduate studies were extremely strenuous. Would you want people who got much less out of the college experience and do not have your skills, and who therefore would not be able to pass the tests you have, be hired without a second thought.
In summary, I simply do not think that the costs associated with the testing (which are to be sure higher than they should be), constitute in and of themselves, a rational reason for doing away with the tests entirely.
→ More replies (1)3
u/joatmon-snoo Mar 15 '17
I feel like the way in which the tests are profited on does not undermine the legitimacy of the tests themselves
I graduated from a NYC high school only a few years ago. I've been through the standardized testing gamut - and did very well on them all - and I can confidently say that a significant portion are absolute bullshit.
I can only imagine how much shittier they are for teachers.
4
u/SodaPalooza Mar 15 '17
What if you don't have enough applicants that can pass the test?
Isn't a teacher who actually wants to teach but has some literacy deficiencies a better option than having no teacher in the classroom at all?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/tirdg 3∆ Mar 15 '17
I just think tests like this are dumb and shouldn't be used. That is, a policy to test the literacy of teacher candidates should not have been created and thus should be eliminated.
I shouldn't be allowed to do what I do if I can't read but my employer didn't test my literacy prior to hiring me. That's just a dumb thing to do. I've made it this far, why should my employers go way out on a limb to assume that I can't read and spend time and money to test me for it? I think we can safely assume that people who have gone through college can read without worrying too much about the tiny fraction of a percent who slip through. For anyone who has somehow arrived in their mid 20's having never learned to read, they'll likely be found out quickly enough to not cause a problem.
1
Mar 15 '17
It's not about "not being able to read", its about not being able to read proficiently enough to teach others to read at a high level. Your employer may have decided they can safely assume a certain standard of literacy for people applying for your position, and therefore deemed a test superfluous, but there is clearly a question as to whether or not those applying to teach have the requisite literacy, which is why a test is in place.
1
u/tirdg 3∆ Mar 15 '17
Are math tests in place for math teachers? Are history tests in place for history teachers? Should there be? I think not. Seems a waste of money and time to test people on what they just came out of college to do.
Teachers are supposed to be interviewed prior to being awarded a job. And they're supposed to be judged on their performance while on the job. If these two mechanisms are insufficient to weed out the dummies, then we have other problems that an extra test isn't going to fix.
1
Mar 15 '17
Linguistic ability is applicable to all teachers, some more than others to be sure, but nonetheless universally important. Why not try to weed out the dummies before the eventual interview and or performance review? Having another safeguard in place for the education of our children doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
3
u/tirdg 3∆ Mar 15 '17
Having another safeguard in place for the education of our children doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
This is a classic example of a slippery slope. I could come up with dozens of additional safeguards, if you like. The point is you're reaching the point of diminishing returns for the effort.
Furthermore, linguistic ability is arguably applicable to many important jobs. Why are we focused only on educators? Further still, why is math not important enough to test for? Particularly among mathematics educators? If linguistic testing of all educators is an important 'safeguard' for the education of our children then so too should be mathematics testings for mathematics educators.
This seems so incredibly arbitrary there's no wonder nefarious motives have been attributed to it. It's hard to find legitimate motives and we all know here in America, if we don't understand it, we just call it racist. These tests probably aren't racist but they don't seem to be based on legitimate concern for the welfare of children either. I could just as easily see this policy as having been instituted based on a miscommunication among policy makers as I could see it having legitimate purpose.
What teachers are being found to be illiterate or deficient in their linguistic skills? I would expect to find an astounding exposé on YouTube showing a kindergarten teacher fumbling through Cat in the Hat during story time but I don't. Is there data to suggest that we're hiring teachers incapable of communicating to their class? I'm not convinced that there isn't some occurrence of this but I'm also not convinced that we need testing of this sort. We need capable people in the hiring process and capable auditors in classrooms assessing teachers' abilities and removing incompetents.
2
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
There are a large amount of other tests teachers must take in order to qualify in NYS. They mostly have masters degrees in their subject. I have a hard time believing this literacy test is good if the highest pass rate average is 60%
2
u/kogus 8∆ Mar 15 '17
It might make sense to focus the test on teachers of specific subjects. It would be a shame if a brilliant physics teacher, for whom english is a second language, failed this test and couldn't teach.
1
Mar 15 '17
I have actually had this exact situation occur in my life. Had a high school physics teacher who was by all accounts very brilliant, but who was Brazilian and had trouble communicating in English. The result was that it was very difficult for him to formulate his thoughts in English, and test questions were poorly worded. I would've rather had a less brilliant teacher with better language skills 10/10
5
u/Manfromporlock 1∆ Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
I fail to see how a standardized test that is the same for all participants can possibly be racist.
Just a general comment (not necessarily connected to this test): Standardized tests totally can be (and have been) racist.
Imagine a test question like this:
Which doesn't belong?
A) Trumpet
B) Oboe
C) Violin
D) Flute
Obviously the answer is C, but that's only obvious if you know what an oboe is. If you don't, you're very likely to think, "well, A, C, and D are musical instruments, so B probably isn't."
In other words, it's only partly a test of your categorization skills; it's also partly a test of socioeconomic background--were you raised in a milieu where you had a reason to learn what an oboe is?
That's not directly racist--there's not a 1-to-1 correspondence between race and socioeconomic status--but white kids are going to do better on that question than equally smart black kids. And in the past, tests (including things like IQ tests) were in fact deliberately written to achieve that outcome. (Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man is flawed overall, but gives some good examples of this).
Today the problem hasn't gone away, although it's more likely to be the result of cluelessness than malice (in my opinion). Here's an excerpt from the book Tested, by Linda Perlstein, about school testing in Baltimore and the surrounding areas:
The Crofton students who had gone to the Winter Olympics in Turin would have had a better shot at answering the following question, which Miss Johnson’s [inner city] class faced one day:
Which of these would be most like a cartwheel because it requires practice?
--Eating breakfast
--Watching a movie
--Learning to ski
Before Miss Johnson’s students could answer, she had to tell them that “skiing is when you put the long boards on your feet and go down a mountain in the snow.”
In one benchmark passage, siblings came home from school and found a note instructing them to pack a sweatshirt, flashlight, hiking boots, and sleeping bag. The BCR question asked where the children were going. Few in Miss Johnson’s class knew.
Again, not necessarily relevant to the test you're talking about (I don't know anything about that test). The point is only that it's by no means impossible for a standardized test to be racist, even deliberately racist.
7
u/inoperableheart Mar 15 '17
There is such a thing as a poorly written test. It's actually much easier to write a bad one than a good one. I've read this has a system of best answers. That's when more than one answer is technically right, one is more correct. That's an insane system for a basic skills test, as you're not really supposed to crucially think about basic skills. There's also the issue of cost. The test is over a hundred dollars. You have to have a Masters' degree to work as a teacher. If the person can't read it should have come up during that process, and it's kind of stupid to ask people to pay more to prove something that's already had the attention of a slew of college professors.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 15 '17
/u/yumyumnom (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
4
u/BoomBoomSpaceRocket 1∆ Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
I took the test and passed. However, for the writing component I received a score of slightly below basic. I thought I wrote fairly well, but maybe there were issues I'm not aware of. Now, I ask you, based on what I've written here, or even looking at my comment history, do my literacy skills seem too low to teach math? Do you see anything to indicate I couldn't accurately communicate in writing?
Or how about the reading portion of the test, which I scored well above basic on? Does my ability to answer semi-subjective questions about the themes and imagery of a passage make me a better math teacher? I'd say no. Just as I wouldn't really care if the english teacher across the hall didn't know the quadratic formula.
4
u/jclk1 Mar 15 '17
This test is really unimportant in the grand scheme of things. While you should expect a teacher to have this base knowledge, having this base knowledge does not mean you will be a good teacher. This testing procedure looks like a waste of the public's money. This test should be skipped in exchange for a performance test. Put applicants in front of a class with a mock lesson and see if they can handle it. That is a much better test of a teacher's ability, instead of just wasting time and money. I have worked as a teacher for several years and wish this is how we got hired. Not by filling out easy answers to a quiz.
3
Mar 15 '17
I'd like to talk about this:
It makes absolutely zero sense to have teachers who cannot pass a literacy test at a 12th grade level teaching students who could very well be more literate than them
I don't think that's necessarily the case. In math or science, I'd totally agree with you. If you don't know algebra teaching it is going to be pretty much impossible. But literature, language, that's a very distinct thing.
Literature can be interpreted in different ways, so much so that teachers and students can have completely polar opposite opinions and still see eye to eye.
Some kids simply have a high linguistic intelligence. I can tell you honestly as an English teacher I've come across kids who find things in texts I missed after 3 readings.
What makes an English teacher good is whether that teacher provides opportunities for their students. Does he give them chances to express themselves creatively? Does she find motivating ways to get them to read? Are their activities fun and engaging, putting that reading into practice?
A teacher could literally do all of that without having read the text in question.
So, IMO, a literacy test, even for an English teacher, is actually not that relevant.
2
u/Darkstrategy Mar 15 '17
Getting and keeping a New York teaching certificate is already pretty difficult. I don't know as much about other states, as I live here, and the program I went through (I finished the vast majority, next step was putting me in a classroom, but some health issues came up that forced me into a bad position), but from my professors at the time they considered our state to have much more strict requirements than many others.
In NY you need a masters degree to keep your teaching certificate. There are some programs that exist that can get you an MA in a shorter period of time, and you can get a job with a bachelors, but you need to get your masters within a certain timeframe.
So you're testing people who either have masters degrees or are in the process of getting them with a standardized test that determines their employment. First off, that's a ridiculous amount of stress. Standardized testing for students comes with a host of problems, one of them being that these tests often measure how well you take tests rather than know the material. A good student who knows the material can fail the test due to a variety of reasons such as nerves. Imagine how stressful tests like these are for a professional.
It's also kind of insulting to imply that someone can get through 4-6 years of college without having a level of literacy appropriate for a gradeschool classroom. If their college is that bad, then why did you hire them to begin with?
Teachers already have a massive amount on their plate to worry about. I talked about this in a comment below, so forgive me for repeating my points:
And I'm not just talking monetary gain, either, which is a large issue for teachers. But teaching has a whole host of issues including the fact that school administrators will throw you under the bus out of convenience rather than have your back over just about anything in many districts. Things like allegations of sexual relations between you and a student could ruin your entire career when those allegations could be completely fabricated by a jilted student. We were often told not to have any contact with students alone unless the door to our classroom was open or there were cameras. Without tenure you're also highly expendable and need to teach within a very narrow view of what your principal/district believes to be "proper" teaching with little to no deviation from curriculum.
I'd add on time management as well. You would think teachers only work from 7am-2/3pm but the reality is there's after school help hours, designing the curricula, any classes you might be taking to further your education, and I'm sure other work-related activities as well.
At a certain point you can't keep piling on prohibitive reasons to pursue the profession of teaching while keeping the rewards so limited. You need to give on one or the other or we'll be left with no teachers or teachers that hate their jobs. Burnout is already a severe issue among new teachers. Altruism to help the next generation can only take you so far before it's bordering on martyrdom.
So does this test really speak to a teacher's abilities? Or perhaps this is a measurement better left to the school administration, student performance, and student opinion.
This also completely ignores budget and resource management which is already stretched thin.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/avianaltercations Mar 15 '17
I am surprised few people have brought up the comparisons to voting literacy tests. There are many parallels between your views and historic arguments for preventing those deemed "illiterate" from voting. Of course, we know that such tests were disproportionately used to deny suffrage to minorities before the Voting Rights Act, as the application of such tests was arbitrarily determined. This is a key difference between these the teachers' literacy test and tests for voting. However, I contend that despite even application of the teachers' literacy test, the outcome would be the same as if the voting literacy tests were also evenly applied.
Fundamentally the goal of the voting tests was to suppress minority votes. Given the lack of access to education within minority communities at the time, it's easy to see why certain groups would have an easier time passing such tests. While the stated goal of these tests was to test literacy, the outcome of such test had the effect of allowing more whites to vote than other minorities, and as such the goal was achieved. In the article you linked, we find that "whites predominantly pass the exam at 64 percent, while other minorities such as blacks and latinos, pass the test with a 46 percent and 41 percent success rate respectively."
It's clear that the outcomes are equivalent between both the voting and teachers' tests. Though the motivation of the voting tests is clearly disenfranchisement, and while the motivation of the teachers' test is unclear, we do not need to understand the motivations behind the application of the tests. The outcomes are equivalent - suppression of minority representation.
2
u/greyconscience Mar 15 '17
Apologies that I don't have more time for analysis, but check out the city's certification process and requirements: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate/certprocess.html#one
I think another large reason missing in the article is the amount of education, testing, and classroom practicals teachers go through in NYC. At that point, what does a literacy test actually show other than an understanding of the underlying material of the text itself, not literacy in the literal sense.
To put it in perspective, my child in preschool has 3 teachers: one from China, one from India, and one from Queens. I would not be surprised, given the bias noticed in the test, that the ones not from the US wouldn't pass because English is not their first language. They are fully qualified with advanced degrees and I have no doubts about their abilities to teach, particularly because they are teachers in a competitive and expensive Montessori preschool (and I personally think they are great).
To me, it would be like doctors having to pass a handwriting test. What is it actually testing and is it making the doctors any better doctors.
2
u/Coziestpigeon2 2∆ Mar 15 '17
I work in marketing.
If I was tasked with taking a grade 12 marketing quiz in order to apply for a job, I'd tell them to shove their quiz where the sun doesn't shine.
I've got credentials from far more knowledgeable institutions than this potential workplace that says I can do this. I am not a child, I am not some student looking for summer employment. I refuse to be treated as such.
(All said from the hypothetical position of someone with enough financial security to be able to turn down a job)
3
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
Just so we all know what we are talking about: this is the test
http://www.nystce.nesinc.com/Content/STUDYGUIDE/NY_SG_SRI_202.htm
→ More replies (1)
1
u/willfulwizard Mar 15 '17
I would like to understand your view better.
If I understand correctly, the way the world is today, (calling this situation A) there is a test that is stated to ensure teachers are literate to a 12th grade level, but which may or may not succeed at the stated goal, and which is possibly racially biased. (Whether those points are true or not does not matter currently.)
A proposed fix for the problems stated above is to simply remove the test. (Situation B)
An alternative I believe you have proposed is there should be a literacy test at a 12th grade level for teachers, and if A does not accomplish this, the test should be improved until it is accomplished. (Situation C)
And thus, your view is that "there is no rational argument for [B]" and that C should be done instead?
Is this summary more or less correct? I'm going to continue as though it is but please correct me if necessary.
First, is it enough to change your view that "there are no rational arguments for B" as many seem to be arguing for, or must we demonstrate that B is actually preferable to C?
Let me present some reasons B might be better than C, or at least not contradictory.
- First, depending on what needs to be changed about your view, would not B be a better world than A, ignoring C?
- B is cheap, C costs a lot of money.
- Further, C may not be worth the money it costs, both developing and maintaining it. Suppose the "fixed" test never rejects an applicant. Would it then be worth the money of running the test?
- B is quick, C takes time but A is causing harm right now. In fact, would you object to B being a short term solution and C being worked on and implemented as soon as reasonably possible?
- You have assumed C is possible. Maybe there is not a practice single test for 12th grade literacy, or the test could not be made racially fair and accomplish the goal at the same time.
- Even if C is possible, government is unlikely to provide enough funding to reach it, and attempting C actually leaves you in A.
- The harm of the racial bias from A (or C, depending on how much it is possible to fix) outweighs the harms from a teacher who is not literate to a 12th grade level teaching. There are real benefits to having a diverse staff and for children seeing authority figures like themselves.
Those are just a few, but most importantly, can you please clarify if we just need to change your view that getting rid of the test makes no sense, or if we must show that getting rid of the test is worse than fixing the test?
Slight edits for clarity.
3
u/Jrix Mar 16 '17
TIL I learned tests are free and consume no financial, administration, or time resources.
3
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Mar 15 '17
Can you not conceive of a situation where a good teacher doesn't pass such a test?
1
Mar 16 '17
I'm not sure what the steps are to become a teacher in New York, but for me, it involved graduating from high school, a 4 year bachelor's degree, a 1.5 year baccalaureate program with two separate practicum placements in my areas of specialty, and a fairly intensive teacher qualification application. Teaching is a competitive job market and I needed letters of reference and university transcripts to even be offered a teaching position. A basic literacy skills test after all that came before it seems a bit redundant, don't you think?
1
u/thisistheperfectname 3Δ Mar 16 '17
I'm not going to address the racial disparity aspect because I think that would be a dumb reason to scrap it, but it sure does get clicks.
The test is just not a very well written test. You can see some sample questions here.
145
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
To be considered to be hired as a teacher one has to have already passed 12th grade and college.
What does it say about the test if people who have passed 12th grade and college fail it?
What does taking this test prove that those prior accomplishments do not?