Bad idea back in bay state

NEA Today, Feb 1999

A basic skills test for current teachers? `No need, no way,' say Massachusetts NEA members.

Nobody could or should question your competence if you teach at Robin Hood School in Stoneham. Massachusetts. The quality controls are simply that good.

Since legislators passed the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, teachers at Robin Hood, like their colleagues across the state, have been working harder than ever.

They're meeting stiffer standards and tougher evaluation guidelines, studying for a required number of professional development "points,".and toiling to meet two mega-mandatesachievement of a Master's within five years of certification and recertification every five years.

Of course, along with that work comes a professional reward or two. Under the reform law, "school systems now have to devise professional development programs for staff," reports Alice Reilly, a fourth grade teacher at Robin Hood School. "For our staff. that has meant the opportunity to take more courses and get tuition reimbursement."

Moreover, the 1993 law prompted the district and the Stoneham Teachers Association to negotiate an innovative three-year "evaluation cycle." This process advances teachers in annual stages, from formal evaluation to targeted professional development to "colleague-to-colleague observation."

That last stage, says Reilly, "allows me to to go to another teacher's classroom to watch, say, a hands-on science program. Experiences like this really enhance classroom performance."

Tell that to Paul Cellucci, newly elected governor of Massachusetts.

Cellucci's campaign platform included a call to make "all current teachers pass a competency test in order to continue teaching."

As acting governor, Cellucci tried and failed to pass a testing bill last year. The legislation died in committee after Association members lobbied hard against it, and key legislators called it an "election-year gimmick."

Gimmick or not, current teacher testing is again on Cellucci's legislative agenda. He ignores these facts:

*Paper-and-pencil basic skills tests prove nothing about current teachers. This idea was tried and discarded in both Arkansas and Texas.

"In our state, the test was the brainchild of Ross Perot, who headed up a select committee on education reform," recalls Texas State Teachers Association staffer Annette Cootes. "He was convinced that many teachers were illiterate, and we were all tested. By the second try, 98 percent passed."

Stephanie Korchek of the Texas State Board of Educator Certification reports that the state paid $4.8 million in 1985-86 to develop this exam-and got nothing to show for it but.a "resentful environment, which is not what public education needs."

*Money wasted on such exams would be better spent on kids. Ask Massachusetts teacher Alice Reilly what she could do with $4.8 million.

"I work in an inclusion class with 10 atrisk kids," she says. "I need support for them. My school needs more computers and more computer teachers. And we're not online!"

*Current teacher testing creates needless conflict. At presstime, MTA leaders were ratcheting up a grassroots campaign against Cellucci's testing proposal-including mass meetings with legislators, postcard and letter writing campaigns, stepped-up public relations, and coalition building.

For those concerned about quality education, it's all very frustrating.

"These attacks on public education have brought teacher morale to an alltime low, and that affects the kids," says Reilly. "We could do much more for children and public education if we channeled the energy we expend on fighting into more positive activities."

For More Information

Go to the Massachusetts Teachers Association Web site at www. massteacher.org.