join

Proposal for GAPSC Fair use of Tests

“No candidate for teacher certification shall be denied state certification solely upon scores on standardized tests. Candidates falling below the pre-set scores established by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GAPSC) may request assessment on approved criteria determined by the GAPSC as assessed by the teacher preparation unit’s certification committee.”

With very few exceptions educators and psychologists condemn the use of standardized tests as sole indicators of academic aptitude or achievement. This precept is well-articulated by the American Psychological Association (APA) in Code of Fair Testing. It states, “Avoid using a single test score as the sole determinant of decisions about test takers. Interpret test scores in conjunction with other information about individuals” (2005, Section C. 5).

Praxis I is used as a candidate screening tool in 28 states, Washington DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the US Department of Defense (ETS, 2005). Eight states (Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico and New York) use no Praxis tests for teacher screening or licensure. Thirteen states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) use a variety of Praxis II tests, but not Praxis I. Alabama has chosen to use a “homegrown” testing program—the Alabama Prospective Teacher Testing Program (APTTP). As of July 1, 2005, South Dakota will join a growing number of states that initially certify any candidate who has earned at least a baccalaureate degree, completed an approved program of teacher education, and passed Praxis II for their certification area (ETS, 2005). Rhode Island has adopted the following policy:

“No person shall be barred from certification solely because of his or her score on any standardized teachers examination. The Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education may require those persons who score below a pre-set level on such an examination to undergo a successful job performance review, based on criteria established by the Board of Regents, annually for three (3) years. Said teacher's certification shall be given provisionally on an annual basis during said time” (ETS, 2005).

On the US Department of Education (2005) website, the New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers fact sheet declares, “NCLB provides flexibility in developing assessments for teachers to demonstrate subject-matter competency. States may tailor teacher tests to the subjects and level of knowledge needed for effective instruction.

For those observing the ever-changing testing scene in the US, there is currently a noteworthy trend away from screening pre-service candidates through high-stakes tests. The Education Commission of the States (Allen, 2003) failed to find empirical support for the practice of screening candidates through testing. The Economic Policy Institute (Rice, 2003) states that scores on candidate screening tests are poor predictors of teaching success. Blue and O’Grady (2002) suggest a single test should not be used to screen teacher candidates because many significant teacher attributes are not quantifiable. Nweke and Hall (1999) state Praxis eliminates competent teachers indiscriminately through false rejections. Correlations between SAT and Praxis I scores further erode the credibility of general skills tests as effective screens for pre-service candidates (Pool, Longwell, Pool, Dittrich, & Hausfather, 2004, Wakefield, 2003).

American Psychological Association (APA) in Code of Fair Testing. Section C. 5, http://www.apa.org/science/fairtestcode.html).

Allen, M. (2003). Ensuring high-quality teachers: It’s all about context remarks to the national research council, Education Commission of the States, retrieved on April 15, 2004 from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/search/default.asp.

Blue, T., & O’Grady, J. (2002). Finding the best teachers: A study of relationships among SAT, GPA, Praxis series tests scores, and teaching ratings. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator, 1, 1-12.

Educational Testing Service, (2005). State requirements, retrieved from http://ets.org/praxis/prxstate.html.

Nweke, W. C. & Hall, T. R. (1999, April). Evaluating cut-scores on two certification tests: How well do decisions based on cut-scores match teacher- and principal-reported ratings of competence in the classroom? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Pool, K., Longwell, E., Pool, J., Dittrich, C., & Hausfather, S. (2004). An analysis of SAT and Praxis I performance of teacher education candidates, Action in Teacher Education, 26 (2), 60-68.

Rice, J. (2004). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

US Department of Education. (2005). New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers Fact Sheet, retrieved March 10, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html.

Wakefield, D. (2003). Screening teacher candidates: Problems with high stakes testing, The Educational Forum. 67, (4), 380-388.