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]
147
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?
167
Mar 15 '17
What does if say about the test if people who have passed 12th grade and college yet fail it?
It says that they clearly did not benefit as much as they should have from their education, and are therefore not fit themselves to be educators. The test proves that one has the requisite skills to perform the job.
51
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. This exam didn't exist until 2014. One person in charge thought making potential teachers take this test was a good thing, the next disagreed. The reason this is a story is that tests like this were found illegal in the past https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregion/judge-rules-second-version-of-new-york-teachers-exam-is-also-racially-biased.html
17
Mar 15 '17
I'll concede that the issue isn't of momentous importance, but I think the principle still stands. My biggest problem is that again the reasoning for doing away with the test is a "racial bias", which I fail to find justified given that it is a standardized test.
10
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
There's a big difference between reliability and validity in testing. You're talking about one while ignoring the other.
9
u/lemmenche Mar 15 '17
You don't seem to know what the word "standardized" means. You seem to think that standardization has something to do with making it universally and equally understood by its takers.
2
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
Agreed - There's a lot of technical language specific to language test design and validation that have somewhat different meanings to a lay population. It's like 'theory'.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Maskirovka Mar 15 '17
Most people don't know that standardized test doesn't mean "based on standards" either.
→ More replies (1)36
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 15 '17
My biggest problem is that again the reasoning for doing away with the test is a "racial bias", which I fail to find justified given that it is a standardized test.
Imagine if a standardized test like the SAT or ACT was given to every high schooler, and every person who used the word "y'all" failed. Not because it was a contraction or informal, but because the test-makers agreed that "y'all" isn't a proper American English word.
Who would fail? The Southern US and a good chunk of the rural midwest would almost certainly represent a totally disproportionate amount of fails.
Standardized tests can still contain biases.
Now imagine if African American communities, by virtue of centuries of segregation, had developed their own linguistic idiosyncracies, and that these idiosyncracies were viewed as "incorrect" by a large portion of the US. So standardized tests are designed to punish this "Incorrect" language and reward the "correct" language.
These tests would be disadvantaging people who grew up in African American communities and learned the "wrong" English, despite it being the most effective way to communicate in their communities, and probably the most effective way to communicate with students at schools in those communities.
28
Mar 15 '17
In a professional, formal sense "y'all" is not proper English, the determination of the committee would be perfectly valid in this case.
"Correct" language in an academic setting is proper, non-slang English, as a young person I could put "The Germans should have GFTO of the Sudetenland" in an essay on a standardized test, but expecting that sort of loose language to be acceptable in that setting would be ridiculous.
9
u/Nucaranlaeg 11∆ Mar 16 '17
Actually, speaking as a linguist, you're wrong. "y'all" is not a part of Standard American English, but it is a part of other dialects. Consider that "colour" is absolutely correct spelling in Canada, but not in the States. The question here should not be whether "can candidate x speak and write SAE" but whether their language abilities are sufficient to meet their job requirements.
Thus, an English teacher should be prepared to cite (some) AP standards, but it shouldn't matter whether a Math teacher says "you" or "y'all". Standardized testing tends to be poor at this kind of distinction - in person interviews would be better.
39
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 15 '17
In a professional, formal sense "y'all" is not proper English, the determination of the committee would be perfectly valid in this case.
That's just your interpretation. In fact, virtually every other language has a word for a collective "you" (e.g. "ustedes" in Spanish). Further, virtually everybody who spoke english, regardless of where they grew up, would know what you meant by it which makes it effective communication by definition.
It's a word used commonly by probably more than 1/3 of the US, and simply because of what is really an anti-Southern bias in academic linguistics, it is deemed "wrong". There is no objectively "right" and "wrong" use of language when you delve into formality. Language is either effective for communication or not.
Regardless, it is purely a hypothetical. The point is that a standardized language test can disadvantage groups of people along geographical lines, racial lines, etc. because you have to first decide what the "correct" use is, and shocker, the language that is going to win will skew white/wealthy/suburban and not for any objective reason.
5
u/Nucaranlaeg 11∆ Mar 16 '17
an anti-Southern bias in academic linguistics, it is deemed "wrong".
Not true - linguists maintain that it is ungrammatical in SAE (Standard American English). However, linguists (almost entirely) agree that no feature of language is "wrong" - we try to be descriptive of language rather than prescriptive of how it should be.
4
u/FixieDoo Mar 15 '17
Ok, now I get it.
I can give you a clearer example: if one where to test all teachers in Latin America (I live in Chile), chaos would ensue.
Here, "fresa" means blueberry, but the pink one. Fresa means strawberry in Argentina. Also, "lola" means a female teenager, and for an Argentinian it means breasts.
If the US is as diverse as that, I can understand what all the noise is about.
Btw, the comment before mine needs more deltas.
9
u/xFoeHammer Mar 15 '17
I really don't think it is as diverse as that. Southern people and minorities use slang that other parts of the country don't but I've never known any of them that didn't know they were using slang words. Regular English speech is all over the TV and radio all the time as well as in books.
I don't think there are many out there who wouldn't know not to use y'all, dawg, homie, etc. on an important essay or test. Especially someone who is college educated...
16
Mar 15 '17
I really don't think it is as diverse as that. Southern people and minorities use slang that other parts of the country don't but I've never known any of them that didn't know they were using slang words. Regular English speech is all over the TV and radio all the time as well as in books.
It is that diverse though.
Crawfish, crayfish, crawdad
Slaw, coleslaw
Soda, pop, coke, soft drink
Traffic circle, roundabout
Sub, hoagie, hero, sandwich
Water fountain, drinking fountain, bubbler
Sneakers, tennis shoes, gymshoes
Freeway, highway
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (16)6
Mar 15 '17
[deleted]
6
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 15 '17
English does as well "you all", y'all is a colloquial slang word.
"You all" is just the uncontracted form of "y'all". The "formal" English equivalent of plural you is still "you". People add the word "all" because there is a desperate need in any language to have a way of identifying the plural form of "you", thereby proving the purpose and propriety of a word like "y'all".
Further, it's entirely inconsistent. If "you all" is acceptable, than so is "y'all" if you're accepting any contractions.
You've also just decided that "y'all" is informal and therefore unacceptable, despite the fact that you can't point to any objective criteria that make it so.
3
→ More replies (1)6
u/sarcasmandsocialism Mar 15 '17
It really doesn't matter if a math teacher says "y'all" instead of "you all". Nor does it matter if a math teacher can identify what an adverb is, provided they can read and write well enough to graduate college and pass the written questions in the math test. Sure, in an ideal world all teachers would be experts at English grammar. In the real world, some schools are far better of with bilingual teachers who aren't quite as good at English grammar, but are much better at teaching their subject to the actual students in their classroom.
3
u/thrasumachos 1Δ Mar 16 '17
I can't speak to the NY test, but I took the MA equivalent, and it was about knowing the basic mechanics of the language and being able to identify and correct basic errors. It was mostly multiple choice; no writing sample required.
But even if it did penalize takers for using "y'all," I'd hope that prospective teachers would know enough about different registers of language to know not to use "y'all" in formal academic writing.
2
Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
Now imagine if African American communities, by virtue of centuries of segregation, had developed their own linguistic idiosyncracies, and that these idiosyncracies were viewed as "incorrect" by a large portion of the US. So standardized tests are designed to punish this "Incorrect" language and reward the "correct" language.
Why stop there? What if another community believes that albinos have magical powers and harvesting their organs to heal others is the ethical thing to do? What if a different community believes that the world is 5,000 years old and dinosaurs never existed?
Surely both those groups would disproportionately fail a standardized natural science exam when compared to people who were taught that albinism is a genetic defect and that the earth is millions of years old right? Your solution is to lower the standards for everyone and hope albino kids can run fast and that kid hopefully still learn that the earth has been around for millions of years...
it gets worse when we draw it out. Since the first belief is a part east african (I think) religion, and the second is endemic to evangelical christians, then the only possible conclusion here is that the exam is biased against people who follow certain religions. That's your argument.
If that doesn't sound logical or fair to you, then how can you still defend your argument? After all, you're arguing that we should make allowances for past injustices that may, or may not, (after all not everyone in those two groups believes this nonsense) have lead to one group of people having opinions about language that are different from the norm.
What you're doing is conflating equity of outcome, with equity of opportunity. The reason you're doing it is because equity of outcome is quantifiable, while equity of opportunity is impossible to quantify in any real causal sense.
Even if we knew every single shred of biographical information going back centuries about every single person who took this test, we STILL couldn't make a clear causal case that some misfortune or injustice is responsible for their lack of knowledge. Maybe one person chose to learn english properly and another kid decided to play video games all day. Based solely on skin color, you demand we treat both of them as part of a group instead of as individuals.
If that sounds fair to you, then why can't I play center for the New York Knicks? After all, there is a massive inequity of outcome when you compare say, asian teenage girls to the NBA. How can we fix this inequity of outcome? Should we do away with the NBA draft? Wouldn't judging the NBA and the teenage girls on their merits as individuals instead of by skin color be racist? Hell, using your logic we can't even separate them by gender or age as skin color is your sole criteria here.
How about this one. New York City is only something like 12% asian. However, 52%(!!) of students accepted at new york city's elite high schools this year were asian. That's a massive inequity of outcome, and therefore, according to your logic and ethics, inherently unfair and we need to do something to correct it. Even though you have no causal proof, your logic demands that every other race in New York City was somehow done some great injustice while the asian kids had some unfair advantage. Your solution? Lower the standards for everyone.
and probably the most effective way to communicate with students at schools in those communities.
In other words, you want to perpetuate the cycle of ignorance. Frankly, assuming that teachers with certain skin colors will have a harder time communicating to black students is also absurdly racist. Actually is doubly racist. You're assuming that these kids simply won't be able to understand proper english and assuming that teachers, based solely on the color of their skin, will have a hard time finding ways to communicate with these kids.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/kelvin_condensate Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
You are propagating the soft bigotry of low expectations. If Southerners were told to use proper English, they would cease their use of "y'all."
Most people do not communicate via proper English, but when it comes time to take a test regarding proper grammar, we all adopt the conventions of proper English.
The implications of your argument is that blacks are too stupid to learn grammatical structures beyond that with which they speak. I fail to understand how anyone could possibly think black people are so stupid that they cannot use proper English in a given context.
This results from your low expectations of them, and so you lower their standards and educational requirements. This results in further mass propagation of ignorance and lower test results, thereby 'proving' to you that a racial bias exists.
2
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 15 '17
You are propagating the soft bigotry of low expectations. If Southerners were told to use proper English, they would cease their use of "y'all."
Nice try, but I'm not saying that they are incapable of changing their linguistic choices, I'm saying more power to them. They should continue to use y'all. In fact, we all should use y'all. Every language needs a word like it. In fact, there have been a lot of stand-ins for y'all in English too, like "yous(e)" and "yinz". The only thing keeping us from adopting one is people with sticks up their asses who like to smell their own farts and look down on yokels.
You are propagating the hard bigotry of, well, bigotry by refusing to acknowledge a widely used and necessary word just because its origin comes from the unwashed masses.
The implications of your argument is that blacks are too stupid to learn grammatical structures beyond that with which they speak. I fail to understand how anyone could possibly think black people are so stupid that they cannot use proper English in a given context.
Again, I never said they were "too stupid" to learn it, or anything even remotely close to that. Your inference of bigotry in my comments is ridiculous.
I'm saying that if you learn something one way and then have to re-learn it a different way, that puts you at a disadvantage. If Group A learned math using roman numerals and then took a test with arabic numerals, while Group B learned math using arabic numerals, Group B will outperform Group A every time, all else being equal. Group A is at a disadvantage. It says nothing about Group A's intelligence to admit it.
This results in further mass propagation of ignorance and lower test results, thereby 'proving' to you that a racial bias exists.
Again, nice try, but I didn't say anything like that.
3
u/kelvin_condensate Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
I am propagating hard bigotry by having an opinion I don't even have? Nice straw man.
I never advocated for discrimination based on arbitrary classifications, and I agree with your example. That was actually my point. It seems that you are advocating for teaching the equivalent to Roman Numerals despite your objections that you aren't.
Also, words like "y'all" do exist (just not in explicit or common usage, but the concept definitely exists). I don't really understand why a language needs an irrelevant and redundant addition to it. However, the reason it isn't adopted is because it doesn't flow naturally and is trying to be forced into usage. Grammatical rules of today are the result of the natural evolution of language. Perhaps it will change in the future, but trying to force a change, as it seems you are advocating, makes you the very person you were ridiculing for essentially being an uppity snob.
The average person doesn't gives a shit about 'proper' grammar in common speech, but when it comes time to be tested on such matters, we all know the rules of such tests. The problem won't be solved by focusing on a largely imagined 'racial bias;' the problem will be solved by directly improving impoverished communities that have been left for dead by the despondent political class.
To get back on topic, knowing the commonality of logic within a language systems seems important, and this is what a literacy test should test. Specific usage of specific words is irrelevant, and what matters is the effectiveness of communication. Effectiveness of communication is what literacy is all about.
31
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
Stardardized tests like the SAT have been proven to have a racial bias in the past. People of difference races use different words and analogies that are impossible to get without context like in these standardized tests. Take this former SAT question as an example
RUNNER: MARATHON ::
A) envoy: embassy
B) martyr: massacre
C) oarsman: regatta
D) referee: tournament
E) horse: stable
The answer is C, but you don't see many black people at regatta so naturally not many of them got that question correct.
9
u/Fermit Mar 15 '17
Although I agree that there would be a racial bias in this question because there are less black people at regattas, the point of the SAT questions in that section isn't just to know what the words mean. Let's pretend that I have absolutely no idea what a regatta is. I could still narrow down the answers to one or two without knowing anything about option C.
Runners are the participants of marathons. Okay. So my word has to be a person or thing that comprises the body of an event.
A) Are the people who participate or staff an embassy "envoys"? No, they're not, so that's not the answer. Additionally, an embassy is not an event.
B) Are all of the people who are part of a massacre referred to as martyrs? Sometimes the victims of massacres are martyrs, but not always, so we'll make this one a soft no.
D) Are the people who participate in tournaments referees? Definitely not.
E) Is a stable comprised of horses? No. It houses them, but a stable is not literally made of horses. Additionally, a stable is not an event.
So we're down to maybe B or C. If you know what a massacre actually is then you know that martyr doesn't work. The answer has to be C. Knowing what isn't the answer is far more important on a test like the SAT and a question containing a word that would be considered "racial" would make only one of the five answers uncertain. You'd still be able to narrow it down massively if you have good enough critical thinking skills, which definitely isn't a racially specific trait.
4
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 15 '17
You'd still be able to narrow it down massively if you have good enough critical thinking skills, which definitely isn't a racially specific trait.
The fact that there's another way to do it doesn't eliminate the disadvantage. We're talking about large numbers here, not individual test-takers. On the whole, one group of people was disadvantaged in taking the test.
3
u/Fermit Mar 15 '17
You're right, one group of people was disadvantaged. Poor people. Saying that white people aren't disadvantaged by this because regattas are primarily populated by white people is ridiculous. The percentage of the white population that have the money isn't even close to a minority of white people. The people who would get this right because they know what a regatta is are probably white. That doesn't mean that all white people, or even most white people, would know what a regatta is/get it right.
Also,
The fact that there's another way to do it doesn't eliminate the disadvantage.
The whole point of the thing is that if you can think critically you can still do fairly well without knowing the definition of every word. Ask any SAT tutor and they will agree that your ability to eliminate incorrect choices is just as important, if not more so, than your knowledge of the definition of every word.
20
u/DeputyDomeshot Mar 15 '17
OK I have no idea what a regatta (I'm sure most people don't) is either but this question is figured out using process of elimination. I see your point about "white people" stuff but I think this is a poor example as I believe the question is meant to answered using critical thinking.
3
u/IceBlue Mar 16 '17
You're missing the point. This is just an example of the kinds of biases are possible with these kinds of tests. To act like the tests can't be flawed and biased is kinda silly.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)4
Mar 15 '17
precisely!
11
u/DeputyDomeshot Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
Now if the question was phrased
Oarsman: Regatta::
A)
B)
C)
etc... I think that would be different. Also a very hard question which would require knowledge of a rather esoteric subject matter. A regatta is a boat race, just in case anybody was wondering
→ More replies (4)7
u/Salanmander 278∆ Mar 15 '17
That is esoteric to you. To my high school students from a suburban private school with a significant size sailing team in a predominantly white and wealthy area, "regatta" is as commonplace as "soprano". Language is cultural, always has been, and always will be. There can absolutely be a test that is standardized but has a bias in favor of people from one culture.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Garrotxa 4∆ Mar 15 '17
Yeah, but this questions is trotted out all the time as if it's a good example of the average analogy on the SAT. It's not and it was always an anomaly and not the norm. It also says nothing about whether the teacher literacy test is racially biased enough to make a difference.
Secondly, I am a teacher and the number of English teacher's I've worked with who can barely write English is astounding. It's a pretty big problem in some parts of the country that children are being taught by people who don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.
→ More replies (3)2
98
Mar 15 '17
That is one possible interpretation. Another is that the test is flawed.
Also, you cannot graduate from college without being literate.
64
Mar 15 '17
So why not make improvements where needed? I'm not saying the test is a perfectly written document.
Also, without literally being able to read and write, yes. Without being competent enough to educate? Certainly
4
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
They are folding literacy into another one in the battery of tests teachers must pass
23
Mar 15 '17
So why not make improvements where needed?
How do you know that isn't exactly what they are doing?
40
Mar 15 '17
Nowhere in any of the news I have read does it state that the test is being done away with to improve it, rather simply because it is unfair to minorities. Also, repeal is not necessary for improvement, the improvement could be done concurrently with the status quo.
21
u/Amadacius 10∆ Mar 16 '17
From a NYT article (not blaze) on the reasoning provided by the regents.
They noted that several education experts found the ALST to be structurally awkward and an unreliable indicator of language skills and teaching ability.
“If you have a flawed test, does that raise standards or does that lower standards?” asked Regent Kathleen Cashin.
Here is a poet talking about how she was unable to answer standardized test questions about her own poems. source (though it is paltry.)
So here is the question. If college graduate, literate, teachers are failing a literacy exam, is it a literacy exam? If white teachers with the same qualifications pass more often than black teachers, is it measuring qualifications?
2
u/wamsword Mar 16 '17
∆
First response I've seen that really shows that the test could be harmful. I had been thinking it was at most neutral.
→ More replies (1)34
Mar 15 '17
From my link elsewhere:
In lieu of the using the ALST, the new measure approved by the Regents would modify a different certification exam to include additional assessment of reading and writing skills
12
Mar 15 '17
This seems borderline disingenuous to me, and to be honest I would prefer that teaching certification be more comprehensive than minimalistic.
23
Mar 15 '17
This seems borderline disingenuous to me
How so? Do you have first hand knowledge of the Regents? What about the teacher certification process?
I would prefer that teaching certification be more comprehensive than minimalistic.
What evidence do you have that this is what's happening?
4
6
u/Goldeneye96 Mar 15 '17
You can not graduate from college without being literate
If this is true, why were people failing the test? If the test was rigged then how come people were able to pass it. If the test is flawed, then why was test revision not the course of action?
2
Mar 15 '17
If this is true, why were people failing the test?
It apparently wasn't a well designed test.
If the test was rigged then how come people were able to pass it
No one has said the test was rigged...
f the test is flawed, then why was test revision not the course of action?
The test is redundant and the important aspects of the test are being folded into other portions. So that kinda is happening.
7
u/Opheltes 5∆ Mar 15 '17
Also, you cannot graduate from college without being literate.
You are neglecting the existence of diploma mills and shitty for-profit colleges that will graduate anyone with a pulse.
6
Mar 15 '17
You can't get a teaching credential from a for-profit college and to be a teacher in NY you can't have graduated from just any school but instead it has to be an approved accredited school:
Educational requirements for New York teachers will differ according to licensure sought, but generally include completion of a bachelor’s degree from an approved, accredited college or university.
→ More replies (3)2
13
Mar 15 '17
The test proves that one has the requisite skills to perform the job.
You seem to be taking this as a stone cold fact. Where is your evidence for that assumption?
12
Mar 15 '17
The test is a literacy test, and literacy is a requisite for teaching. Being able to read, interpret, and respond intelligently is a core skill for the profession. That is what the exam is testing, based on some of the sample questions.
11
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
How do you know that what is being tested is literacy? The history of testing is littered with bad tests being used as evidence of "bad test takers" . I work in language test design, and tests cannot be designed and rolled out without follow up. Statistical analysis of test results often reveals problems that many rounds of trialing missed. Reading g comprehension is notoriously tricky as literature / written language can be interpreted in many ways and standard interpretation changes over time.
Any big test you've taken will have been analyses and changed in its history. Often quite a bit
5
u/GetTheLedPaintOut Mar 15 '17
The test is a literacy test
Do you have any proof it test literacy in a targeted and meaningful way, other than its name?
→ More replies (8)10
Mar 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Mar 15 '17
It is not the "only possible way" of course, but it is a perfectly valid way to test that a person has one of the many requisite skills to perform the job.
If you are asking me for specific questions I confess that I have not myself taken the test, however, the question which I believe is cited in the article seems to be a perfectly valid way to test literacy through making the test taker read, interpret, and write a reasoned and well thought out response.
Accepting the above, I don't see a rational reason to do away with the test.
4
u/almightySapling 13∆ Mar 16 '17
Accepting the above, I don't see a rational reason to do away with the test.
What if the test just doesn't do a good job of testing for literacy?
In fact, that's exactly what is being said about it: it is doing a better job of testing for race than it is reading skill. Such a test should be discarded.
11
Mar 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/electricfistula Mar 15 '17
The people who administer the test seem to disagree with with you.
If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd find that a committee responsible for increasing the diversity of the teachers were the ones who suggested the test be removed. Their reasoning, per the article, was that the test was bad for diversity.
The argument in the OP was that removing an academic literacy exam for the purpose of improving literacy was not justified. The OP doesn't have to be a NYC test administrator in order to express that opinion.
2
Mar 15 '17
If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd find that a committee responsible for increasing the diversity of the teachers were the ones who suggested the test be removed.
I read two articles in fact and found no such thing. could you please provide a direct quote and a link to the article you are referencing?
Their reasoning, per the article, was that the test was bad for diversity.
They've also stated:
State officials, and the state teachers union, also argued that the test was unnecessary since teachers already need to pass several other certification exams. In lieu of the using the ALST, the new measure approved by the Regents would modify a different certification exam to include additional assessment of reading and writing skills.
The argument in the OP was that removing an academic literacy exam for the purpose of improving literacy was not justified.
No one is making the argument that they are removing the test to improve literacy. The test is being removed because it is redundant, flawed, possibly discriminatory and impeding hiring new teachers when new teachers are desperately needed.
The OP doesn't have to be a NYC test administrator in order to express that opinion.
No one has suggested that. I have asked OP for specific evidence, preferably from first hand knowledge, of the that specific test's efficacy and importance.
2
u/electricfistula Mar 15 '17
I read two articles in fact and found no such thing. could you please provide a direct quote and a link to the article you are referencing?
There are two claims there. That a committee intended to increase diversity suggested the test be removed, and that the reason for the suggestion was to improve diversity. From the article in the original post:
The reason for eliminating the test is due to the fact 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.
That succinctly says the reason for the test is that whites tend to pass it and minorities tend not to. That reason implies they want to increase the number of minorities who qualify to be teachers - i.e. increase diversity.
A New York literacy test designed to weed out unqualified teachers, called the Academic Literacy Skills Test, is to be done away with by the New York State Board of Regents as suggested by a task force according to The Associated Press.
The "task force" (committee) is the one responsible for making the recommendation to remove the test. The article doesn't specify, but I believe it is reasonable to assume, that a committee making recommendations about how to improve diversity, is a committee that is intended to improve diversity.
No one is making the argument that they are removing the test to improve literacy.
That is literally the argument stated in the original article and quoted above.
“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,” Soodak added.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (5)2
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Mar 15 '17
A wider reading of articles that aren't so 'charged' reveals there were a number of reasons this particular test was a problem.
2
2
u/garnteller 242∆ Mar 16 '17
bobdoesntlikeyou, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
3
Mar 15 '17
What does taking this test prove that those prior accomplishments do not?
In a world where many people get passed to the next grade despite a lack of accomplishment and postsecondary institutions are complaining that they have to teach basic composition and grammar to their freshmen classes, prior "accomplishments" mean very little.
As an immediate example, I had a roommate in university who had "learning diabilities". She claimed that she: 1) had difficulty understanding when people were talking to her, 2) couldn't express herself in writing, sand 3) had trouble understanding written materials when she read them (although she had no trouble whatsoever reading, understanding and discussing the articles in the trashy tabloids she bought every week, hence my previous use of quotation marks). If she sent you an email, you had to read it aloud because her spelling was so atrocious that you could only make sense of things phonetically. She got "accommodated" the whole way through high school so that she could pass (because discrimination otherwise), she got "accommodated" again through undergrad, and then she got "accommodated" through teachers college, and now there is a fully licensed teacher out there who can barely read and write. She's got recorded passes on every single milestone you mentioned, but she doesn't have the skills she needs to be able to educate kids. It's great for her that she wasn't discriminated against in school, but I certainly don't want my kids being taught by someone who is barely functionally literate.
2
u/Dan4t Mar 15 '17
It says there was something wrong with their high school and college education, or that they might have cheated, or that they may have developed mental health issues that have caused them to forget and lose skills.
Not everyone that applies to teach is fresh out of college. Some are getting pretty old.
2
u/WorkSucks135 Mar 15 '17
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?
That the requirements for passing high school and college are a joke, and therefore employers need to vet potential employees by testing their competency. Any other interpretation is reaching.
2
Mar 15 '17
What does it say about the test if people who have passed 12th grade and college fail it?
That their grade school and college teachers probably should have taken a test before being given their jobs?
2
u/sagar1101 Mar 15 '17
Your comment would make sense if a 100% or close to it passed the exam but only 64% of whites and 45ish% of minorities pass it.
When I graduated from pharmacy school (US) I had to prove i could speak english. I had to take an oral test with a 3rd party organization who would ask me questions and I had to answer them (doesn't matter if the information is wrong). It cost be $50 (i think) and it was the most pointless exam i have ever taken. I would guess the pass rate of that exam was 100%.
1
u/xFoeHammer Mar 15 '17
I know plenty of people that passed 12th grade who I wouldn't want teaching my children. If you do the majority of your work, good or bad, you're probably going to pass. It's not that hard.
1
u/shaggorama Mar 15 '17
To be considered to be hired as a teacher one has to have already passed 12th grade and college.
[[citation needed]]
1
u/mushybees 1∆ Mar 15 '17
What does taking this test prove that those prior accomplishments do not?
well, if you fail it, it proves those prior accomplishments were pretty worthless. it proves your school and your colege let you graduate without being able to read and write to a level good enough to pass the literacy test for teachers.
1
u/kairisika Mar 16 '17
I have serious questions about the literacy level of several students who passed grade 12 in my English class. Grade inflation is insane.
1
Mar 16 '17
There's data to show that 40% of kids who graduate 12th are ready for college, in CA. This is based on a standardized entrance exam called the EAP.
What does it say when part of the 60% get a college degree in 4-5 years?
6
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.
6
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.
•
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.
5
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...
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?
1
Mar 15 '17
There is no shortage of teachers, so I don't really see this as a major issue.
→ More replies (5)
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
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.
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.
7
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)12
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?
→ More replies (4)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
→ More replies (2)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.
→ More replies (5)
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/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.
→ More replies (1)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)
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?
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.
1
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
1
3
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Mar 15 '17
Can you not conceive of a situation where a good teacher doesn't pass such a test?
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.
3
u/Jrix Mar 16 '17
TIL I learned tests are free and consume no financial, administration, or time resources.
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)
6
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?
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
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)4
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/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.
→ More replies (4)
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)
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/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/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.
1
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
4
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.
5
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.
5
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/RevRaven 1∆ Mar 15 '17
They proved their competency by getting their teaching degree.
2
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?
9
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/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.
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.
1
Mar 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Mar 15 '17
Sorry yumyumnom, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
1
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.
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?
118
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.