I have been a strong supporter of certification tests for teaching candidates, and continue to be. So, many people were curious about why I rejected Governor Cellucci’s plan to test veteran teachers as a condition of recertification. If the test is valid for incoming teachers, why would it not be useful for discovering weaknesses in the existing teacher corps?

To begin, it is worth remembering that many mechanisms already exist at the school district level for weeding out incompetent teachers. It may be true that many people who failed the test this year would have been certified in previous years–before the testing requirement–and, thus, it may be fair to say that many people in the past have been certified without the literacy skills or subject area knowledge that these tests seek to assess. However, it is highly unlikely that many, if any, of those people are teaching in our public schools.

Almost every district has its own additional requirements for hiring teachers, including, in most cases, a writing sample. Thus, if any people of limited literacy skills were certified in the past, it is most unlikely they were hired. Moreover, all districts have three years to observe individual teachers before granting them “professional teacher status,” which confers the job protections of tenure. During those three years, removing a teacher is relatively easy. If for some reason a person is hired who proves to be lacking in basic literacy or content skills, the likelihood of that teacher surviving three years and receiving tenure is minimal. Finally, in a field where 30 or 40 percent of teachers leave in their first five years, it stands to reason that this also represents a form of “weeding out,” a process by which some people never meant for the profession choose to leave. (Unfortunately, too many of those who leave are perfectly good teachers who leave in frustration at low pay, lack of respect, and lack of discipline, etc.)

So while I applaud the effort to tie teacher certification to meaningful standards, we should guard against the easy assumption that an initial 60 percent failure rate on the teacher certification test–or even the subsequent 50 percent failure rate on the second round of tests–implies that 50 or 60 percent of our current teacher force is illiterate or incompetent. Indeed, even the Governor, in testifying before our committee, stated that he believed the “vast majority” of veteran teachers are competent teachers. I agree. But if the Governor and I are correct in our assessment of veteran teachers, then testing each of them seems an expensive, time-consuming, and unnecessarily insulting approach.

I want to stress that there is a need to examine the current teaching corps and assess their skills. But the Governor’s proposal is not the most effective way to accomplish this. As a high school principal for 20 years, I can say without hesitation that where inadequacies exist in teachers’ practices, they are almost never the result of a lack of basic literacy skills. They are sometimes the result of inadequate content knowledge–either a teacher working outside his or her field, or not keeping up with the latest developments in the field. But by far the most common area where a teacher may need improvement is in teaching ability itself–the ability to impart knowledge, excite students about learning, and explain clearly the information they hope to make students understand. This is a far more difficult task than most people imagine, and it can fairly be said that all teachers, even the “best and the brightest,” need constant improvement in this area. Because the current teachers test does not, could not, and should not test for teaching ability, but simply defines a minimum level of competence, the Governor’s proposal does not speak to the greater problem of teachers who know their material and can’t teach it successfully enough.

The best way to achieve real gains in teacher quality is through a meaningful evaluation process in which principals and administrators are able to assess personnel according to school and district goals, including how well versed they are in teaching the new state curriculum frameworks. Such evaluations would enable teachers to be judged on a range of skills and abilities and to better identify the precise areas where a given teacher needs improvement. If some teachers are indeed lacking basic literacy skills, that deficiency can be caught by evaluation just as easily as by a test. Such an evaluation could also identify the areas where a teacher may have fallen behind in his or her subject area. Finally, evaluations are also the best and only means of identifying those teachers who know their subject inside and out but have difficulty teaching it and who need assistance in finding sound and effective teaching strategies. Over the past few decades, considerable research has been done, and continues to be done, on brain development, learning styles, and effective teaching methods. One of the main goals of reform over the next few years must be to make sure that such research is known and used by every teacher in the Commonwealth, so that successful practices may be replicated and repeated.

Any evaluation process must be tied to better control over professional development. A principal who has identified the needs of a particular teacher must be able to work with that teacher to craft a program of professional development that speaks to those needs and helps lift the teacher to a higher level of performance. Finally, such evaluations must always be tied to specific improvement plans and to greater administrative flexibility to dismiss those who do not improve, or whose skills remain, after evaluation and remediation attempts, below where they need to be. This should be tied to a mentoring program in which veteran teachers with sound skills and exemplary practices can be used to train incoming teachers and work with them to develop good teaching habits from the start. The Department of Education is currently working on such a plan as part of Commissioner David Driscoll’s proposal to improve teacher quality. They deserve credit for their work, and I hope it will become a very strong part of our teacher-quality initiatives in the future. By avoiding completely the issues of teacher evaluation, professional development, and dismissal, the Governor has avoided the truly controversial issues of teacher quality, and forfeited a golden chance to put forward comprehensive reform. Instead, he favors a simplistic, piecemeal approach that insults the intelligence and ability of many qualified educators. Where he could have shown leadership by creating a positive climate encouraging constant improvement and professional growth for all teachers, he has instead pandered politically, spreading an atmosphere of fear among teachers, encouraging public contempt for a profession that fewer people want to join every year, and demoralizing a teacher corps on whom the true burdens of education reform have fallen, and on whose energy and enthusiasm we continue to rely for the successful education of our children.

Rep. Harold M. Lane, Jr., a Democrat from Holden, is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Education, Arts, and Humanities.