KATHLEEN A. MADIGAN ("Testing the Teachers," Op-ed, April 23) is absolutely correct about the "strong correlation between teachers' subject matter knowledge and student achievement." However, she is mistaken in thinking that Massachusetts' licensure tests are a national model, and that they help explain why students in the Bay State outperform most of their peers across the country. The reality is that the licensure tests are a farce, as far from a rigorous standard as pre-algebra is from calculus.
The standards are sufficiently low that I took - and passed with flying colors - the Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure history exam in 2003, despite having not taken a history course beyond high school 10 years earlier. Such tests are the least meaningful component of the teacher certification process, and passing them is hardly proof that one is "highly qualified."
Just as a juris doctor or medical degree is no guarantee of a person's eventual effectiveness as a lawyer or doctor, a piece of paper declaring a teacher "certified" says nothing about that person's effectiveness in the classroom. Rather than rely on such tests, principals should do their homework by scrutinizing candidates' undergraduate and graduate records.
JUSTIN SNIDER
New York
The writer is a Massachusetts-certified teacher of English, German, and history (grades 5-12).
rising
falling 