Initial Teacher Certification Testing in Massachusetts

Abstract

Though seemingly logical in rationale, teacher testing in Massachusetts has led to consequences in the state's colleges and within its prospective teaching pool that run counter to the policy's intent, Ms. Flippo and Mr. Riccards assert. STATE policy makers throughout the U.S. are concerned with improving student achievement. During the last two decades, they have attempted to accomplish this goal primarily through the vehicle of what Susan Fuhrman calls new accountability.1 That is, rather than focus solely on compliance, policy makers have begun to focus on performance. This push for increased student performance has been coupled to tests that are intended to ensure the basic competency of teachers, as well as to sanctions against colleges engaged in teacher preparation if the performance of their students on these tests is low. These measures have been introduced in the face of evident problems from the start of this particular type of testing.2 Basic competency testing of teachers began in the late 1970s. As Gregory Anrig explained: Because public officials viewed schools as a large part of the standards problem, they looked for an extended yardstick that could be used legislatively to force higher standards into the educational system. In the name of accountability, state after state enacted testing requirements, first for students and then for teachers.3 While 39 states now require tests of basic skills for their teacher candidates,4 prospective teachers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were not tested until April 1998. The Massachusetts Educator Certification Test (MECT) was meant to determine if prospective teachers were competent in communication skills and subject knowledge prior to licensure. Initial results made national headlines: 59% of applicants failed the first round of the tests (and more recently, in October 1999, 53% failed). As a result, the colleges that have trained these applicants, the professors who taught them, and the applicants themselves have been under scrutiny ever since. As a professor and a president respectively of a Massachusetts state college, we acknowledge that the goals of this policy seem positive. However, as is the case with many state policies, there may be consequences that the crafters of the policy did not intend. Therefore, we have focused on the question, What are the unintended consequences of initial teacher certification testing on teacher colleges and prospective teachers in Massachusetts? Methods We are conducting an ongoing inquiry based on a mix of qualitative and quantitative data. We have been using a qualitative case study approach to outline the intent of the Massachusetts initial teacher-testing policy and its effect on teacher colleges. Our analysis is based on a document review that includes the following sources: articles from newspapers in Massachusetts and elsewhere; reports from the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE), from the Massachusetts Council of College Presidents, and from state and private institutions of higher education in Massachusetts; in-house activities at our college (Fitchburg State); and the literature on teacher certification testing. In order to understand the impact of these tests on the prospective teaching force, we provide selected data taken from the MDOE's cumulative summary results of the first two test administrations (April 1998 and July 1998), as well as some data from Fitchburg State College. Results Our results are organized into three subsections. We begin by summarizing the apparent intent of the Massachusetts initial teacher-testing program. Second, we review how this policy has affected the practices of teacher preparation colleges. And finally, we examine how this policy has affected prospective teachers in Massachusetts. Teacher testing in theory. On 18 June 1993, then-Gov. William Weld signed into law the Massachusetts Education Reform Act. …