Teacher Readiness, Student Achievement and Praxis Scores - Case Study Example

Teacher Readiness, Achievement and Praxis Scores: A Correlational Study Introduction Of late, testing has been brought into the limelight, taking center stage in federal education policy. In the 1970s and at the onset of the 1980s, such assessments have controlled college placement through the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and American College Test, evaluating aspirants for graduate school through the Graduate Records Exam, the Law School Admissions Test and Multiple Subjects Assessment for Teachers. While the Educational Testing Service (ETS) have presented year-on-year the fact that minorities and low-income students yielded lower scores on SAT tests, increased testing has pervaded, presumably to enhance accountability by would-be teachers (Popham, 2000). In fact, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) has utilized test scores to indicate that the United States was losing its worldwide leadership position, which resulted in the focus of educational reform in the realm of politics. Given such a focus on testing for screening and accrediting teacher candidates, the present study intends to investigate the validity of this measure by studying its correlation with teacher readiness and student achievement. Review of Related Literature History of Teacher Testing and Assessment in the United States The usage of testing and assessment to increase schools’ accountability has significantly developed throughout the 1990s. For instance, Texas has been the acknowledged leader in test-focused educational reform through its Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. 1998 marked the passage of the Higher Education Act which called for annual reports on teacher preparation and licensing were set at directives in Title II. States ascertained that the most convenient way to address this requirement was to gather quantitative data to resolve a qualitative issue (i.e. aptitude for success). ETS oversees the administration of more than 20,000 various tests in 180 nations, and was then prepared with Praxis to supply such quantitative data requirement. Towards the end of the decade, several political candidates made promises related to reforms in education. While there have been various issues that were brought forth by testing, political figures promoted that children, teachers, and schools undergo such assessments (Kohn, 2000; Sacks, 1999). Moreover, President Bushs No Child Left Behind educational reform legislation practically federalized public education in the United States, with high-stakes assessment being its core. Some educators did rally against the use of tests to evaluate teachers, schools, districts, or even states overall; however, they did not have sufficient political backing to strongly push for this end (Gage & Berliner 1998; Kohn, 2000). One major issue in teacher testing is the fact that minority and low-income teacher candidates yield lower scores than their mainstream counterparts. High-stakes assessments, with more or less the same cultural and socio-economic weaknesses as the SAT, serve as obstacles to the teaching profession for many US states (Tanner, 2001; College Board, 2001). While a handful of states have gone into the development of customized screening tools, the more popular choice remains to be Praxis. A Description of the Praxis Series The intention of Praxis I is that it be taken at the onset of an aspirant’s college career to assess the following areas: reading, writing, and mathematics (ETS, 2001). If an individual has an SAT score of at least 1,000 (with a minimum of 480 for verbal, and 520 for math), he is granted an exemption from Praxis I. The SAT is also administered by the ETS, and is acknowledged as the US’ most popular assessment tool for evaluating college applicants. Based on the report of ETS (2001), 26 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Virgin Islands use Praxis I computer-based assessments for teacher screening and evaluation. The composite scores for every state are computed by adding the cut-off scores on all three assessments; however, it may be worthy to note that not all states are amenable to composite scores. For instance, ETS (2001) asserts that the five states in particular, are the most stringent in screening teacher applicants: these are Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, Arkansas, and Georgia. Moreover, the five states with the lowest cut-off scores include Montana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Minnesota. Praxis II is a requirement for each candidate graduating from an accredited teacher education program in some states. Aspirants who have accomplished an accredited program yet fail Praxis II, may not be given a license in certain states. Thus, they have practically nullified nearly two years of college course work and a career. Based on ETS, Praxis II is meant to assess teaching field content knowhow, in addition to general and particular teaching skills (ETS, 2002). By convention, Praxis II normally is administered as a two-part, multiple choice and essay assessment with a duration of four hours. It is believed that this screening tool is useful in deciding who among a state’s candidates will eventually teach after four years of equipping themselves with requisite teaching knowledge. The test is undertaken at the onset of the teacher’s first year and is utilized to evaluate the individual’s teaching practices. It is meant as a tool for making certification decisions. These tests are administered in the classroom by state educators who utilize commendable standards for performance evaluation of teachers (ETS, 2002). Describing the Current Scenario of Performance on Teacher Testing There is an apparent outcry in the low test scores on the Praxis series. Teacher aspirants in several states are subjected to basic skill assessments in their course curricula. It is quite alarming that they are currently failing these tests in notable numbers. In a country that puts high premium on quantitative data, it is surprising to know that there is no national data to determine the gravity of the issues. However, there have been occasional state and local reports that indicate its severity. Thus, based on these limited information, their performance is described as follows: Based on a September 2001 Chicago Sun-Times series that investigated test scores for elementary, middle and high school teachers in Illinois, 67,118 teachers were assessed between July 1988 and April 2001. Of these, 5,243 failed at least one test, while 1,308 failed on three or more. Solely on basic-skills tests, 66,769 teachers were evaluated within the same period and 2,132 failed at least one test, 414 failed three or more tests and 868 failed to pass any basic-skills assessment (Ballou & Podgursky, 1999). In June of 2004, the Lawrence, Massachusetts school district was compelled to place 21 teachers on unpaid leave since they did not meet English test score requirements, suggesting that they cannot be well understood in this language medium in a classroom. Out of the 92 teachers assessed in Lawrence for English fluency, 31 failed. Given a second chance at the assessment, only four made the required mark (Danielson, 1996). Based on the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), 35 states utilize Praxis I to ascertain that graduates have adequate general knowledge, professional skills and content knowledge to teach in a public-school classroom. Conservative Republican James Gilmore, a previous governor of Virginia, purported that as much as one-third of teacher aspirants in the state failed the test. The state possesses the highest cut-off score for Praxis I, and field experts assert that hardly half of aspiring teachers across the nation who underwent the test qualified using the Virginia cut-off score (Darling-Hammond, 1997). The following facts were reported by the National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, describing the status of performance in teacher exams: 1.) Less than half of the US’ 1,200 teachers qualify for the professional accreditation standards. 2.) Recently, over 50,000 teachers who were adjudged as in need of training for their jobs have engaged in teaching yearly on emergency or substandard certification. 3.) Over 40 states permit school districts to select and hire teaches who have not qualified for fundamental education requisites. In addition, over 12% of new teachers across the US have started with zero training. 4.) Pennsylvania assesses its teacher testing, and purported that teachers could meet the requirements for positions in difficult-to-fill subject areas simply by signing their names. 5.) On the other hand, in Hawaii, over half of new hires did not meet the cut off scores or failed to pass certification exams. 6.) A superintendent who made a decision to accord teaching applicants an English test conventionally given to 11th graders found that only one in four made the grade. This was in Long Island, New York. 7.) Out of the 21 states which utilized the Praxis I math test for teacher screening, majority have pegged cut-off scores so loosely such that a test taker may miss 40% of the items and still manage to pass the exam (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999). These facts explain why teacher testing remains to be one of the most controversial issues facing educators of the data. What may be surprising is the fact that a substantial number of educators uphold that failure in these standardized tests should not be adequate basis for disqualifying an aspirant for the role. Simply out, the overall belief is that the lack of content knowledge is not sufficient basis for excluding him or her from sharing or imparting such material (Goldharber & Brewer, 1999). Issues on High Stakes Testing for Minorities and Low-income Groups Praxis I is said to be the initial high-stakes obstacles for those who wish to go into the teaching profession. There are several issues posed for the average Asian-American or European-American candidate; however, the average African American or Latin American will undertake Praxis I (ETS, 2002). It may be worth noting that Praxis I does not distinguish between inept candidates and disadvantaged populations. On the principle that the SAT and Praxis test scores do have a significant correlation, Praxis seems to be an expensive, redundant assessment. In addition, other parties perceive it as a burden for those who cannot afford it. If Praxis I could effectively reduce if not eliminate the discrimination seemingly intrinsic in SAT averages, its utility may easily be justified. However, this is apparently not the case. As some parties put it, SAT seems to evaluate foundational competency in math, reading, and writing, as well as Praxis I. Neither can then be counted on to surpass the issues faced by minority and low-income populations. Similar to the SAT, Praxis is said to pose testing bias or uncontrolled variables, encompassing family background, income, schools, and individual competence. Those from implicitly disadvantaged school districts (i.e. those which are African-American and low income) are not yielding the same education as those who have been adjudged as affluent (i.e. European-American and high-income) groups. Livingston thus made a prediction that applicants from the Souths "Black Belt" would be fortunate to finish high school under new test-for-promotion reforms, much less be qualified for teacher education programs. Praxis I blocks the entry into teacher education for many minority and low-income candidates, while Praxis II blocks the exit. If education programs earn licensure rights according to their Praxis II pass rates, we can expect schools serving disadvantaged populations to discontinue teacher education as well as a decrease in diversity among teachers (Salzer, 2000b). Attempts to Building an Objective Screening System Prior to high-stakes testing’s domination of educational reforms, teacher aspirants were assessed on a case-to-case basis, by experts in the field. This was done nationwide for both state and accredited programs. While grades and test scores of these applicants were transparent and could be openly reviewed, decisions were undertaken from an array of important considerations. For instance, aspiring teachers conventionally underwent an entrance application, presenting a portfolio, and undergoing a personal interview. The application process encompassed recommendations, academic achievements, references, perspective or philosophy on education, and career plans (Parkay & Stanford, 2001). Through the use of a holistic perspective in evaluating future teachers, educational programs have been successful in addressing the following factors in evaluation: Candidate experience. Teacher aspirants start with differing extents of experience. By screening autobiographies and interviewing, educators may have the chance to more profoundly comprehend a candidate’s background and related experience. In addition, teacher educators have purported that those without experience are able to broaden their knowhow in their respective programs (Parkay & Stanford, 2001). Importance and relevance. In choosing a career, the content knowledge and skills of that career becomes more important than ever. Teacher educators track the acquisition of knowledge and promote the importance of content for effectiveness and success (Parkay & Stanford, 2001). Identification of strengths and improvement areas. A female aspirant who intends to instruct kindergarten students may be extraordinarily strong in verbal skills and a truly effective nurturer; however, she may be judged unfit for the role because she is poor in mathematics. Teacher educators help such aspirants in selecting areas that best fit their strengths and downplay their improvement areas. Toilers and intellectuals. Those applicants who obviously excel academically and have had very high grade point averages do not necessarily make the best teachers. Candidates who have not been as successful but have struggled and survived may have a good frame of reference for instructing underachievers. Teacher educators evaluate candidate achievement levels from the point of view of ability and potential for success through persistence and diligence in school work and past experience. Heart and brains. A critical number of aspirants decide to teach because of an authentic intent to serve (Parkay & Stanford, 2001). While academics perform a crucial role in education, the human interaction component is as equally important. Moreover, teacher educators evaluate aspirants for traits that predispose them to associating well with students. Learning styles. Right and left-brain dominant individuals learn and utilize information quite distinctly (Rubenzer, 1978). Significant differences have been presented between brain hemisphere dominance and assessment scores on a 30-item multiple choice test (Gardner, 1983; 1999). Teacher educators are keenly aware of a wide array of teaching styles that allow learning for students of differing teaching styles, optimizing the educational experience. Building measurable evaluations for assessing teachers is not tantamount to ensuring content validity (Dwyer, 1994). Teaching aspirants are most effectively assessed through a variety of methods: observation and qualitative narratives, among others. While the Praxis series is capable of measuring knowledge content and pedagogical approach, there is still uncertainty as to whether it can capture compassion, personality, understanding and being earnest to pursue a teaching career. Given these disputes on the utility of Praxis scores, it may be timely and relevant to undertake a study that demonstrate the content validity of Praxis testing. If it is proven that Praxis scores do have a significant relationship with these two variables, it would help resolve these controversies relating to teacher testing, particularly using the Praxis series. Statement of the Problem In general, the study intends to address the following problems: 1.) Is there a significant relationship between teacher readiness and Praxis scores? 2.) Is there a significant relationship between student achievement and Praxis scores? Specifically, the following subproblems will be answered: 1a.) Are Praxis scores significantly correlated with the following student behaviors that suggest teacher readiness? a.) Following structured, reasonable time frames and utilizing clear metrics that depict a continuum of quality (i.e. from unsatisfactory to excellent), for each learning output or performance, assisting students in determining high quality output b.) Free expression of ideas without fear of reprisal, teasing, or embarrassment from peers or teachers; students are not punished for making mistakes at the onset of the learning process c.) Utilizing learning feedback to enhance comprehension and effort, and picking up from these errors d.) Choose what they study, with whom, and the manner by which they exhibit learning e.) Work frequency with peers for practice and application of learning in problem solving and creation of output or performance f.) Immediate application of learning for problem solving or in the creation of output or performance, and enhancing their mastery and learning transfer to novel and important contexts (Hill & Crevola, 1999) 1b.) Are Praxis scores significantly correlated with the following teacher behaviors that suggest teacher readiness? a.) Sustaining students’ attention and interest in learning through innovative and diverse learning methodologies and activities b.) Giving direct instruction for particular skills and content knowledge c.) According students with continuous and varied formative and summative learning evaluations d.) Align the taught and tested curriculum so all students have chances to learn content and skills on which their academic progress will be gauged e.) Utilizing student assessment data to come up with relevant diagnosis for planned instruction of individual students, determine student mastery, and give feedback to students promptly to enhance their learning (Danielson, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Hill & Crevola 1999). 2.) Are Praxis scores related to student achievement scores in the following subject areas? a.) Reading b.) Mathematics Methodology Research Design The present study utilizes a correlational research design, specifically determining bivariate correlation between 1) teacher readiness and Praxis scores; and 2) student achievement and Praxis scores. Teacher readiness shall be measured using both student and teacher indicators. Each shall be correlated with the teacher’s Praxis scores. In bivariate correlation, the degrees of the association between two variables in assessed. Such a relationship has a degree as determined by its magnitude, expressed as a number between -1 and +1, the so-called correlation coefficient. A zero correlation denotes the absence of a relationship. As the correlation coefficient becomes closer toward either -1 or +1, the relationship gets stronger until there is a "perfect correlation" at either extreme. In addition, the direction of the correlation is suggested by the negative or positive sign. A negative correlation indicates that as scores on one variable rise, scores on the other decrease. On the other hand, a positive correlation suggests that the scores move together in either direction, as both increases or both decreases (Davis, 2005). Subjects and Sampling Design The subjects of the study shall consist of teachers from one particular state, who shall be purposively sampled using the following inclusion criteria: 1.) Should have taken and passed the Praxis 1 test; 2.) currently teaching either a Reading or Mathematics subject; 3.) taught the subject area for at least one year following Praxis testing. All teachers selected should be teaching in only one grade level, so as to make a uniform assessment of both student achievement and teacher readiness. If differing student grade levels are utilized, the data and conclusions yielded may not be as valid. Procedure Secondary data have been gathered to provide a comprehensive background for the study. These were gathered through books, journals, and on-line sources. The researcher shall then deploy the questionnaire that shall serve as an initial assessment. Primary data shall be gathered through the use of self-constructed questionnaires that shall be used to measure teacher readiness. Prior to deployment, these shall be pilot tested using 5-10 students of the selected grade level. They shall assess both their own (i.e. student) behavior, and their teacher’s. These ratings shall compose teacher readiness scores. On the other hand, student achievement shall be measured using self-constructed Reading and Mathematics tests. These tools shall again be self-constructed, and shall be composed on the basis of the curriculum designed for the chosen grade level. Data shall be collected, tabulated, and analyzed. Method of Data Analysis Frequency and percentage distributions shall be constructed to provide a descriptive assessment of teacher readiness and student achievement. These shall also be computed for describing the sample’s demographic profile. Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient shall be utilized to establish whether or not significant correlations exist between teacher readiness and Praxis scores, and between the latter and student achievement. References Ballou D. & Podgursky, M. (1999). Teacher training and licensure: A laymans guide. In Better teachers, better schools, M. Kanstoroom and C. E. Finn, Jr. (eds.) Washington, D.C.: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. College Board. (2001). 2000 college-bound seniors, national report. New York: CB. Available at: http://www. collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/yr2000/nat/cbs2000.html. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. -. 1999. Dwyer, C. A. 1994. Criteria for performance-based teacher assessments: Validity, standards, and issues. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(2), 135-50. Educational Testing Service. (2001). Understanding your Praxis scores, spring ed. Princeton, N.J.: ETS. Educational Testing Service. (2002). The Praxis series: Professional assessments for beginning teachers. Princeton, N.J.: ETS. Available at: http://issues@ets.org/praxis/ index.html. Gage, N. L. & Berliner, D.C. (1998). Educational psychology, 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D.J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. In Better teachers, better schools, M. Kanstoroom and C. E. Finn, Jr. (eds.) Washington, D.C.: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Hill, P. W. & Crevola, C.A. (1999). The role of standards in educational reform for the 21 st century. In ASCD 1999 yearbook: Preparing our schools for the 21st century, D. D. Marsh (ed.) Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Report to the Nation, the secretary of Education, and the United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: NCEE. ERIC ED 226 066. Parkay, F. W. & Stanford, B.H. (2001). Becoming a teacher, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Popham, W. J. (2000). Testing! Testing! What every parent should know about school tests. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rubenzer, R. L. (1978). The left-right hemisphere model for information processing: Possible implications for education. ERIC ED 242 109. Salzer, J. (2000b). University raises its standards for teacher education. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 August, F3. Tanner, D. E. (2001). Assessing academic achievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Read More