Return to OPT Table of Contents
Note: Mary Carter is a teacher for Youngstown City Schools teacher at East Middle School. She is one of my former students and teaches 7-8th Proficiency Reading and 5-6th Reading. Her letter is simply outstanding; it speaks for all of us. (rlh)
Editor
Youngstown Vindicator
Youngstown, OhioDear Editor:
Faulty logic reveals ignorance
Your recent editorial regarding proficiency tests and teachers displayed a common but faulty logic that exposes your bias and ignorance. You conclude that some teachers oppose the test because it reveals their failure to produce a quality product (i.e., an educated graduate who scores well on the proficiency test). This logic implies that the product is dependent on only one variable, the quality of the teacher. Your direct insinuation is that the teachers in schools in which the proficiency test scores are better must "logically" be better teachers than those in which the scores are not as good.
An extension of this logic would conclude that since nearly all graduates of M.I.T would test higher on exams in math than nearly all graduates of Y.S.U., the math teachers at M.I.T. are clearly better at their job than the math teachers at Y.S.U.. Continuing the logic, all teachers of gifted classes must be better teachers than those who teach special, developmentally handicapped students, and since students at suburban schools have better scores than those at urban schools, the suburban teachers must "logically" be better. (Incidentally, if the success of a publication is measured by the number of issues sold then the writers for the "National Inquirer" must be vastly superior to those of the Vindicator).
In reality, the quality of the "product" (an educated graduate) is dependent on more than one variable. Teacher quality may play a role but only in combination with the socio-economic and educational background of the student's family, the stability of the student's family, the amount of parental involvement in the student's education, the value placed on school and education by the student and his/her family, support of the teacher by parents and the community, the quality and support of school administration, the availability of appropriate teaching materials, the availability of books, computers etc. at home, etc. etc.
To imply that teachers in wealthier suburban school districts are better as an aggregate than are teachers in Youngstown because the proficiency scores are better in wealthier districts is bad logic and biased reporting. It is wrong to make generalizations to make a point as well as to dispute one, but I don't think most people would argue that there are more poor children from very difficult home situations coming to school hungry in Youngstown than there are in districts like Poland or Canfield.
To believe that these children start off equal to those in the suburbs is to deny reality. Assuming the proficiency tests are a test of teacher quality (which they are not), who is the better teacher..the one who works with upper middle class gifted students who achieve a 90% pass rate or the one who works every day with kids for whom survival itself is a daily challenge and helps 60% of them to pass? Have I made more progress if I move from a 85 to a 90 or from a 20 to a 60 on an one hundred point scale?
There may be academic arguments against the test. I don't know much about its validity, reliability or cultural bias. What I do know is that if the test itself is OK, its use should be to measure where students are and where they need to go, not to rate teachers. Maybe opposition to the test comes from its use by those who use it for a purpose for which it was not intended and make inappropriate inferences from its results. Your editorial displays the kind of thinking that engenders the very opposition to the test that you decry.Sincerely,
Mary Carter
P.S. Cancel my subscription to your paper.