It is rare to report that any state has eliminated any standardized test at all, but that is exactly what may be about to happen in New York.
A committee of the New York Board of Regents has proposed to eliminate the “Academic Literacy Skills Test for Teachers,” which is a useless hurdle. For now, the test has been suspended. Its future will be decided in July at a meeting of the full Board of Regents.
The test was adopted in 2014. It has a disparately negative impact on minorities. But that alone is not the reason to eliminate it. It should be eliminated because it has no predictive value about good teaching.
Critics complain that the Regents are “lowering standards,” but that is nonsense.
To get a license to teach in New York State, applicants must take and pass four exams. In the contemporary mania for testing, policymakers decided that one test was not enough; two tests were not enough; three tests were not enough. No, future teachers had to take and pass four tests, all of them at the expense of those who want to teach.
The Regents, led by Regent Kathleen Cashin–a former teacher, principal, and superintendent–conducted a review of the tests. The Cashin committee concluded that the most useless of the four tests was the ALST. It is a 43-question exam that costs future teachers $118, takes about three-and-a-half hours, and has no predictive value whatever as to who will be a good teacher. Here are sample questions. Like all standardized tests, some questions have more than one right answer. If anyone can explain how this test shows the qualities of a good teacher, please let me know.
Like all standardized tests, the ALST has a disproportionately negative impact on people of color. There is a higher failure rate among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
If the test actually predicted who would be a good teacher, maybe the state could ignore the disparate harm to racial minorities.
But nothing about the test has any relationship to teaching. It is a test that weeds out anyone who can’t think like test makers think. It does not predict who has the knowledge and skills to teach well. It does not predict who has the sensitivity and concern to be an effective teacher for children with disabilities. It does not predict who will succeed as a teacher of students with limited English skills. It does not predict who will be successful in any kind of classroom.
Perhaps Harvard or Yale might find it to be a good substitute for the SAT, to weed out all but the most advantaged students. Perhaps law schools might find it useful to gauge reasoning skills.
But it is not a test of the skills of teachers and should be eliminated as a requirement for teaching in New York state.
Diane Ravitch's blog 