There have been anxieties to school officials and legislator
towards the possibility of declining teacher quality. Early 1960’s, screening
potential teachers was to guarantee that minimum standards for basic skills and
knowledge are met, and by 1999, about 41 states required passing of a
standardized certification test. However it is unclear with regards to the
effect of such testing. Test requirements or other certifications might
consider only reaching for the established minimum achievement standard; on the
other side it might also discourage skilled candidates from teaching if the
prerequisites are seen to be expensive. The latter is the barriers-to-entry
story in the in the occupational licensing framework by Milton F. Friedman and
Simon Kuznets (1945). In addition, there is also a concern on the likelihood of
an unpleasant effect on minority applicants, who generally don’t do well on
tests.
There were simultaneous increased in the state’s
participation in teacher certification and increase in the teacher’s
educational credentials, particularly in public schools. By 1991, more than
half of public school teachers had a master’s or education specialist degree.
On the other hand, only about 33 percent of private school teachers had
advanced degrees. This is primarily due to the lack of experience of teachers
in the private sector thus they are less likely to be state-certified.
Increasing teacher education is from the fact that only few
teachers specialize in an academic subject, instead, their major field is
usually education itself. Furthermore, teaching education is interconnected
with teacher testing, because the main mission of teacher education program at
both graduate and undergraduate level can be perceived as preparation of
students for state certification and tests.
I. Background
and Theoretical Framework
In Kleiner and Petree (1988)’s study on estimating the
effect of teacher licensing it showed no definite connection between licensing
and student achievement or teacher pay. Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) were able
to relate pupil achievement with state teacher licensing and testing
requirements. Moreover, Hanushek and Pace (1995) observed that state
requirements for courses and tests significantly decreased the possibility that
potential teachers complete the training, a result which is consistent with the
barriers-to-entry story.
In the study it is assumed that the potential individual
wages gauge the teachers’ latent efficiency or ability in teaching. Note however
that the ability is probably less than perfectly correlated across occupations.
State calls for a test requirement with the goal of attaining high-ability
teachers.
It is crucial to know that in the absence of test
requirement when the potential individual wages are less than the fixed wage
(possibly set by collective bargaining) those individual will choose to teach.
The screening wherein there is accurate selection of those individual whose
potential wage is greater than the quality threshold, is said to be a positive
information effect since the test filters out low-ability candidates. However
applicants will only opt to teach if the potential wage is less than the
difference of fixed wage minus the cost for testing, this is the discouragement
effect. Thus, as test becomes more costly, the average ability of teachers
hired with testing decreases. [1]
Now consider a test that imperfectly gauges ability. Assume
candidates pass the test if their potential wage plus the mean-zero assessment
error (uncorrelated with the potential wage) is still greater than the quality
threshold. Take into account four conditions:
· Potential
wages are greater than the quality threshold
1. Pass:
potential wage plus the mean zero-assessment error is below the quality
threshold
2. Fail:
potential wage plus the mean zero-assessment error is above the quality
threshold
· Potential
wages are lesser than the quality threshold
3. Pass:
potential wage plus the mean zero-assessment error is below the quality
threshold
4. Fail:
potential wage plus the mean zero-assessment error is above the quality
threshold[2]
Normally schools would want to hire those belonging in the
first two groups; however they are bound by law to hire only those in group one
and three. This is considered the ineligibility effect, since those fit
candidates are disqualified from being employed.
Schools typically observe the potential wage but pay the
fixed wage, thus candidates whose potential wage is below the fixed wage would
tend to earn more by teaching than in other occupations, and since the union
prohibits schools from reducing the salary, there is a line of candidates from
which schools can pick from. The schools choose and hire teachers by their
potential wage, generally they pick from the first group, and if there are still
slots to be filled, though they would like to proceed in choosing from the
second group they are not allowed to do so because those belonging in that
category are ineligible, hence they are forced to proceed to the third group
thus dropping the mean ability of teachers employed.
II. Teacher
Tests and Teacher Education
A number of states testing teachers for license use at least
various Praxis components.[3]
The study compared the participants respective SAT and Praxis scores. SAT
revealed that college-bound seniors scored higher in both math and verbal than
those students with intended education majors. In addition, for Praxis takers
only, it was observed that those applicants who passed (about 87 percent of the
total candidates) the (Praxis) test had SAT scores higher than those who
failed. Furthermore, 81 percent of those with C+ grade point average (GPA) were
able to pass the Praxis. The GPA can be seen as highly correlated with SAT
scores; however it is not highly correlated with Praxis pass rates, therefore
screening done by Praxis for academic skills are not measured by grades.
Results showed that applicants with teacher-education
background scored lower at SAT than those without, however the former were more
likely to pass the Praxis. Same result were seen when applicants were evaluated
according to whether they undergone a National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) - accredited teacher-education program. There’s an
implication that teacher-education programs are set up to effectively prepare
relatively weak pupils for tests such as initial licensing or advanced board
certification. It seems that applicants with teacher-education or accredited
background have a clear advantage on the Praxis exam. Nevertheless, the
introduction of state certification requirement does not increase the
possibility that teachers would necessarily have a teacher-education
background. Additionally, there is no link between test requirements and the
dominance of teachers having master’s degrees, nor is there any evidence that
test prerequisites augment the quality of teachers’ educational background.
Also, no indication was found that testing increases the mean SAT scores of a
teacher’s undergraduate institution.
III. Teacher
Tests and Teacher Characteristics
Though some might expect that the possibility that teachers
lecture the subject area they majored can be affected by the testing, however
the study showed otherwise. There was no connection between state requirements
and whether teachers majored in their academic subject or not.
Moreover, with the concern on the increasing usage of
alternative certification there might be successful evasion of tests, however
it was noticed that there was little evidence of a relationship between the use
of tests and alternative certification.
Last part of the study deals with the relationship between
the testing requirement and the proportion of black and Hispanic teacher since
they are less likely to pass the Praxis II and possibly other teacher tests.
According to Gitomer et al. (1999) the pass rates were 91, 69 and 59 percent
for the white, blacks and Hispanics, respectively, the latter two are seen to
be much lower. The result confirmed that the state testing has a statistically
significant negative impact on the proportion of new and inexperienced Hispanic
teachers. In contrast, the proportion of black teachers seems to be unrelated
to testing requirements.
Source:
Joshua D. Angrist, and
Jonathan Guryan, “Teacher Testing, Teacher Education, and Teacher
Characteristics”, American Economic
Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, (May, 2004), pp. 241-246.
0 comments:
Post a Comment