In Jennifer Gabel’s letter (“Educators need regular testing,” SN 10/24) she makes a very good argument: support Proposal 1 because it requires teacher testing every year. However, she fails to mention how this plan would be implemented or what the consequences would be for a teacher who fails the test.

I believe there are already a lot of requirements placed on teachers without adding annual teacher testing to the list. First of all, Gabel was correct in stating that new teachers have to take subject-area tests. In fact, I’ll be taking four tests before I receive my Michigan teaching certification and then I will be spending an entire school year in a classroom working with an experienced teacher. But it doesn’t stop there.

Michigan then requires continuing education work, usually graduate classes leading to a master’s degree, within the first five years of teaching. Furthermore, there are annual performance reviews to evaluate a teacher’s ability and those should be used more vigorously before we try to establish some sort of annual testing plan. And of course the problem arises: Who would create and administer the test? Would it be based on the teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom or would it only test her subject-area knowledge? And what would happen to a teacher if he or she didn’t pass the test? Would they get rid of him or her? Would the state decrease his or her salary? There are no answers to these questions.

Furthermore, everyone knows we already have a teacher shortage and it’s hard enough to attract new teacher candidates to the field. This would just be one more obstacle in recruiting new innovative teachers. And finally, why is this issue a proposed state constitutional amendment? Teacher testing is not a constitutional issue. There is no reason why we should be discussing it in this context. Required teacher testing is just a ploy for proponents of the larger issue of Proposal 1, vouchers, to try to push their agenda on the voters by misleading them. I praise The State News for seeing through the agenda and endorsing a “no” vote on Proposal 1.

Dawn Cova
education junior