So, let me get this straight: the Massachusetts Senate just passed legislation allowing teachers who have failed the MTEL test to become certified as educators…right? If you have taken the test three times and gotten close, you can apply for a waiver and become licensed.
Does anyone else find this utterly idiotic? As a teacher myself, I can tell you that the tests are really not that hard, and anyone that can’t pass them within THREE attempts needs to find another job. Someone else on this site was bemoaning the high school drop out rate (nationally about 30%) and rightfully so. How is this stupidity going to help us solve the problem of kids leaving school? By providing them with underqualified teachers? That makes a lot of sense.
I think I know why this is happening: minority test takers are failing at a higher rate than white test takers, so the solution must be to lower the standards. How logical.
http://www.boston.com/news/edu…
Agree completely with the first two paragraphs. For the third one, you’re on your own. My theory would be that this is an attempt to balance out the increasingly acute teacher shortage.
Is that true? Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m just unaware of a shortage.
This September, New Bedford advertised three special education openings, and got one applicant between the three posts.
…but the drumbeat for more “educators of color” is loud and clear in my field, and the fact that minorities fail these tests at such higher rates than Caucasian teachers leads me to my conclusion. I agree that the need for teachers of any sort is acute, but the Powers of Diversity are outraged that so many black and Hispanic students are being denied entrance to the field because of test scores (that is: objective standards).
<
p>I have a novel idea: let’s hold colleges accountable for their graduates and thier lack of academic ability. Instead of making these people teachers, let’s have the University of Dumb offer them a tuition rebate.
<
p>Upon reflection, the third paragraph in my original post was unintentionally severe. My apologies.
…
<
p>Without an actual in depth (at least somewhat) analysis of actual numbers and some further research to establish ‘intent’, I wouldn’t go around calling it a conclusion. I’d call it a hypothesis. Conclusions before the evidence is in is a fools errand.
Hypothesis it is.
ouch
So, like, if you can SPELL ‘waiver’ you can get one? You know?
For anyone that’s interested:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bill…