letter+I+sent+to+Parents+United

Parents United,

As a licensed teacher supporting teacher candidates in preparing for their second, third and fourth sitting for one or more of the MTLE Basic Skills tests, I'm very much in agreement with the points made in your February 2013 update. ("[|Teacher licensure – MTLE replaces Praxis, but what was the reason?]")

In addition, I'd like to draw your attention to a few other points:

As I note in my discussion, to the extent that the MTLE combines a strong incentive to cheat with weak protections against cheating, it creates a situation that could lead to an increasingly large portion of the Minnesota teacher corps being comprised of the integrity-challenged.
 * Potential for Cheating. ** Because the same version of the test is administered for the entire four-week period of the testing window, the test is highly susceptible to the type of cheating that is well-documented in credentialing and other high-stakes tests. On a Wikispace I'm keeping, you can find links to my explanation -- as well as links to the test security firm, Caveons, discussion of the exact type of cheating that I described.
 * MTLE Wikispace: http://mtle.wikispaces.com/
 * On the potential for cheating: http://mtle.wikispaces.com/Cheating-question
 * Caveon Test Security brief on cheating: [|http://www.caveon.com/articles/newsltr_04_Q1_1.ht]


 * Irregularities in Setting Pass Scores: ** The Minnesota Association of Colleges for Teacher Education have repeatedly expressed concerns for the process by which the Board of Teaching set the pass scores for the tests, noting concern such as the following:
 * passing scores appear arbitrary,
 * The Board ignored the score recommendations of both NES-Pearson test designers and the Passing Score Panel, drawing guidance instead from advocates seemingly uninformed about either the purpose or design of the MTLE.
 * The Board established passing scores "one Standard Error of Measurement above the score recommended by the expert panel**"**
 * Higher passing scores simply serve a “gate keeping” function by guaranteeing fewer candidates will pass, regardless of their ability to perform in classroom settings
 * the Board lowered the passing score on one test with which a Board member had difficulty
 * []

**The Legislatively-mandated Review of the MTLE Implementation already documents how the test is radically selecting against minority teacher candidates.**
 * The breakdown of test results by ethnicity and gender starts on page 20 of this technical report: []

** Finally, I also am concerned about the widespread misperception communicated by the term "Basic Skills Test." ** As you point out, this is far from the case. The public would be much more informed if they skimmed a full set of test questions in a subject area such "Basic Skills Math." While the MTLE is fairly secretive about many of its aspects (you have to agree to a non-disclosure agreement to access the purchased prep materials), there are similar Pearson-designed basic skills tests that can be examined on line. The Pennsylvania Basic Skills Math Test, for example, has the format and essentially the same Math Objectives tested (of the thirty or so objectives listed for each test, the MTLE and the PAPA share 28 in common and only diverge on 4 objectives) : []

Furthermore, because of the MTLE's "arbitrarily high passing scores" noted by the MACTE, candidates have to earn 70% of all points to pass the test. The Minnesota test consists of 50 multiple choice items (which must then be solved at the rate of one every 1.5 minutes. The items are weighted, so even getting 35 of 50 correct could still result in a failing score. Since the MTLE doesn't report on the details, range or proportion of weighting (i.e., how many and what type of items are worth 3 points; how many and what type are worth 7 points, etc.), I'm counseling the teacher candidates I support to operate on an assumption that they'll need to 40 of the 50 items correctly to guarantee passing. Members of the public who suggest that it's not unreasonable to expect teachers to show competency in basic math should ask themselves if they could answer 75% of these questions right.

There are other tests that more clearly tap teacher's "mathematical thinking" without so clearly demanding substantial recall of high school and college math. (The Pearson-designed California CBEST Math test is an examle of this: []).


 * Perhaps the only saving grace in this situation ** is what one of my Spanish-Home Language students discovered on her fifth try at the Reading Test: The fifth re-take of any particular test and all subsequent re-takes are free. It's kind of like a Subway punch card.

Other that that, this test is ultimately harmful to the state, to the diversity of the teacher force, and as a result, to the entire state. Thank you for taking a stand against it.

John Wolfe