Subscribe
Science licensure: the quest for excellence
Minnesota education faces a supply and demand problem: As the state’s demand for science teachers grows, the supply of new science teachers can’t keep up. The Minnesota Board of Teaching (BOT) has eased licensing rules for science teachers, and the Minnesota Science Teachers Association is not happy about it.
The science teacher shortage – called “significant and persistent” by the BOT – is the result of a booming high-tech business climate and increased focus on science education in the schools. At the same time, this high-tech climate is drawing science students into private business, depressing the number of new science teachers.
The state issues four science license categories for grades 9-12: chemistry, physics, life science and earth and space science. A license in one does not translate to the others; therefore a high school must have four teachers to offer a full load of science classes. This situation is onerous for small schools that have difficulty hiring one science teacher, much less four.
The BOT addressed the problem earlier this year. It changed the rules to allow any teacher with a license in one science discipline to get a license in another science discipline if they have three or more years of teaching and can pass the Praxis II content knowledge test. The change allows biology teachers to become chemistry teachers – a huge boon to small schools that will allow them to increase the number of classes offered.
The Minnesota Science Teachers Association thinks the change drops the quality of science education. They say the Praxis II test doesn’t require a deep enough knowledge of the subject and doesn’t address pedagogy. They say large school districts will hire teachers with a chemistry degree while others have a chemistry teacher who simply passed an exam. They say the BOT should concentrate on recruitment, retention, alternative licensure and license reciprocity with adjacent states.
Though the MnSTA lobbied against it, the BOT approved the license change and it went into effect Oct. 15. No teacher has yet applied for the program.
Minnesota 2020 asked Karen Balmer, executive director for the BOT, and Charles Handlon, chair of the MnSTA legislative policy committee and a science teacher in Rochester, to offer their views on the issue.
Karen Balmer:
As set forth in Minnesota Statutes, the Minnesota Board of Teaching is charged with the oversight of matters relating to teacher licensure. The BOT is deeply committed to establishing and maintaining high licensure standards, and also to providing appropriate flexibility in the licensing process to recognize the varying needs of our Minnesota students and schools. In response to a significant and persistent shortage of science teachers in Minnesota, the BOT recently adopted a rule that would allow a Minnesota teacher licensed in Chemistry, Physics, Life Science, or Earth and Space Science for grades 9-12 and who has taught science for at least three years to take the content knowledge test in another area of science licensure. Successful passage of such an exam would allow the teacher to become licensed in that area.
In all licensure areas, the BOT expects teachers to be equipped with content knowledge in the subject matter taught and with the pedagogical underpinnings needed to be a successful classroom teacher. The BOT believes the new science licensure rule addresses both of these critical issues. Content knowledge must be demonstrated by passing a content-specific exam. Granted, one test cannot measure an entire body of knowledge, but it can capture a representative sampling. An individual must have a strong background in the entire content area to succeed on the test.
But it’s not sufficient for a teacher to only understand the content area. A successful teacher must be proficient in the art of teaching, which includes assessment, lesson planning, addressing student exceptionalities, classroom management, communication, differentiated instruction, and more. The new rule requires that a teacher must have at least three years of experience in teaching science. This ensures that teachers have had time to refine their pedagogical skills. The BOT believes that these skills are not subject-specific, but rather are transferable across courses and subject areas.
Finally, this option makes science licensure more closely parallel Minnesota’s other secondary licensure areas. In several other areas, such as communication arts, social studies, and mathematics, Minnesota licenses are valid for grades 5-12 and allow a teacher to teach multiple subjects under one license. For example, a teacher with a 5-12 math license can teach algebra, geometry, calculus, and more; a teacher with a 5-12 social studies license can teach seven disciplines, ranging from history and economics to sociology and anthropology.
For these reasons, the BOT believes that the new science licensure rule is both necessary and reasonable, and that it will provide an additional opportunity for Minnesota students to be taught science by teachers with the critical components of strong pedagogy and content knowledge.
Charles Handlon:
In the 2006 Omnibus Education bill the Minnesota Legislature included a mandate that all high school students must take one year of either chemistry or physics before graduating by 2014. This is a lofty standard and one which will increase the approximate 54 percent statewide enrollment in chemistry. However, how will this requirement be implemented when there is a current shortage of chemistry and physics teachers? The recruitment and retention of highly qualified science teachers is a critical component to the state’s efforts in improving Science Technology Engineering and Math education.
The BOT has chosen to address the shortage of science teachers by a science licensure rule change that would allow any licensed science teacher with three years experience to obtain licensure in additional science disciplines by only passing a written Praxis II content test in that discipline. Many organizations such as the Minnesota Science Teachers Association feel this change lowers the qualifications and standards for science teaching licensure and this will negatively impact science education in Minnesota.
The MnSTA position paper posted on its website outlines critical objections. These include concerns that the Praxis II test isn’t rigorous enough. A SciMath Minnesota study determined that the Praxis II test covers only 40 percent of the BOT standards for science teaching licensure. The Praxis II test has been developed by Educational Testing Service which has made the caveat that the test itself should not be the sole determinant for licensure. The Praxis II test also doesn’t asses a science teachers skills and strategies at delivering the science content (pedagogy). It doesn’t assess the science teachers understanding of laboratory safety and field work unique to each science discipline. Testing provides a “shortcut” which encourages candidates to bypass teacher preparation programs designed by higher education to assist teachers in adding science licensure.
A Praxis II licensure method will produce “inequity” in the state’s system of providing science education. Larger school districts will be able to afford hiring a chemistry teacher who has a chemistry degree and licensure. Other districts will be forced to “settle” for a science teacher who has only passed a chemistry exam. The Praxis II testing doesn’t address the problem of recruiting and retaining more science teachers, it only “stretches” current teachers by adding more licenses and class preparations. This might actually discourage new candidates from obtaining science licensure if multiple licensures and multiple class preparations become the “expectation”.
Finally, the BOT claim that the Praxis II licensure method will at least provide a teacher where none other might be available does a disservice to students across the state. This attitude makes a statement that discounts the importance of the science education which must be delivered as our world becomes increasingly more complex technologically. Instead the BOT should promote current methods of alternative licensure pathways such as the portfolio process. It should also work to develop methods for improving reciprocity of science licensure with other states to increase out of state recruitment. The BOT needs to consult with the legislature and higher education to introduce systemic changes that will increase the recruitment and retention of science teachers. This would better serve the students of Minnesota than the BOT “shortcuts” of Praxis II licensure and granting hundreds of variances which allow teachers who aren’t licensed in disciplines like chemistry to teach the classes.
Comments
Support Minnesota Science Education
There is a shortage of physics and chemistry teachers not only in the small schools but also in the large school districts. Instead of having the Praxis II exam be the only requirement besides teaching science for three years, why isn’t there a push for a Master’s Degree in Physical Science or an MEd that addresses Physical Science with Earth Science and/or Biology, with a science teaching license required to get in the program, that will address the lack of knowledge in the area not licensed? This would ensure further needed education for those teachers assigned to teach non-licensed science areas. The issue then becomes time and cost for teachers in this program. If we want to maintain a high quality of teachers, the state and local districts need to support teachers with funding and time (paid for summer involvement) in these programs, like Hamline University’s PhASE program for physics teachers. Lowering the standards because of funding is not a good enough reason. Minnesota has kept a high standard for our teachers in science, unlike some other states. Lets look for a good way to license science teachers, not the easiest.
Science Lincensure
Support MnSTA
As a chemistry and physics teacher at all levels of high school and college for 35 years (and still loving my job) I can only caution our leaders: you get what you pay for. If we provide chemistry teachers to our children who have only one or two college chemistry classes (or worse, none) we will reap in our students what we sow… incomplete understanding and superficial preparation for college or the next step…just like their “praxis certified teacher” teachers.
Two thoughts: 1. I was part of a group of chemistry teachers here in Minnesota a couple years ago who took the Praxis II test (as part of the national norming process) and then took part in some discussion about the test. It is a good test as far as it goes but it doesn’t begin to cover the scope or depth needed to teach chemistry in Anoka High school. There was almost no organic chemistry included, absolutely no biochemistry included and precious little physical chemistry. It was basically freshman chemistry that was tested. Do we really believe that a teacher with a content background equal to more extra year of chemistry past what most high school science classes teach is acceptable. In our school, we currently teach a year long (85 minute class periods) college level chemistry course using a popular college text as our principal resource. Do we really think that a teacher who took the same course, maybe 10-15 years ago, is in a good position to help those students be successful. I have my doubts. Better than nothing…absolutely. But not good enough to become the standard in our classrooms. Our kids deserve better.
2. I think better than most, I have some personal experience to comment on the need for advanced study in order to be certified and qualified to teach high school science. I am certified to teach Chemistry and Physics in Minnesota. I have a B.S. degree in Chemistry and an M.S. degree from the U of MN in Chemistry and 45 more credits towards a PhD that include some educations courses but mostly chemistry and physics course work. I would say that I am well trained in chemistry. Though I have never been asked to teach a course on quantum chemistry or advanced organic chemistry I use much of what I learned all through my undergraduate and graduate training to provide thorough, correct and simple explanations of chemistry. In working with many other teachers over the years, I have found that superficial understanding on the part of the teacher leads to superficial, often complicated or just plain wrong explanations. Because of my training in chemistry and pedagogy, I have the background and perspective to provide my students expert instruction and not inadventantly teach then misconceptions. We already have trouble avoiding misconceptions in science instruction. We don’t need to add more misconceptions because of the inadequate training of our teachers.
Contrast my chemistry training with my physics training. I have had one year of college physics (algebra based), two history of physics classes and one quarter of modern physics. That is the sum total of my training in physics. No electricity…no magnetism… no calculus based mechanics.. no waves (light and sound). Yet, my certificate says I am equally qualified to teach both disciplines…chemistry and physics. I taught physics at Anoka for 10 years… general physics and honors physics. I think I did a good job for the kids, I worked very hard at it, enjoyed it tremendously and they left knowing more physics than when they came in but… and this is a big but… hardly a day went by when I wasn’t asked a question that I had a hard time answering. I was constantly struggling with giving thorough explanations based on incomplete understanding on my part. I often had to say, “I don’t know… I will see if I can find you that answer”. These weren’t questions that were extentions of what I was trying to teach… they were what I was supposed to be teaching. They were from the curriculum. I probably taught my students just as many misconceptions as I did correct conceptions. The worst of it is… I will never know because I didn’t know physics thoroughly enough to know when I was messing them up and when I was actually helping them.
I believe this is our biggest concern here. Incomplete training for the teacher leads to incomplete or wrong training for the students. Every teacher knows that reteaching a misunderstood idea is much, much harder than doing it right the first time. We “get what we pay for”. I had no business teaching physics without more training. Fortunately, I was teaching along side a very accomplished physicist who could answer all my questions and more. My colleague provided me with a lot of advanced instruction in physics that i need to be more competent….but most teachers don’t have that luxury.
I understand we have a problem getting qualified teachers in science. That is a problem. The answer is not to lower the standard so more people qualify. That is a paper solution and offers no substantive solution. If we are short of qualified heart surgeons do we lower the training standard for becoming a heart surgeon to make more heart surgeons available. If you took one heart class and can pass a two hour test on hearts then you can operate on hearts. Not on my heart. The answer is to make it possible for more teachers to become truely qualified. Provide a temporary license which will end unless the teacher completes the necessary coursework to become “highly qualified”. Provide summer course work near by in upper level science classes. Provide a stipend for successful completion of those courses. Continue to provide good salaries for career teachers. Maybe… just maybe, we should consider extra pay from these technically trained teachers in hard to find disciplines. I know that will not play well with some, but that is how “the market place” works. We owe our children qualified teachers. Taking a two hour test written to test freshman level understanding is not my idea of a “highly qualified” staff. I hope our leaders agree.
science licensure
Thankfully heart surgery and teaching are very far apart and require very different skills. What are small often rural school districts to do? They can’t afford or find teachers for each discipline and making more requirements won’t make more teachers. The science methods class I took in college was no different regardless of the discipline you were studying. The difference between a science teacher that has passed the test and passed a program is very little, even teachers with a major in that field run into problem areas they need help with, all teachers need support. Who is offering that support?
When will scientists and experienced other citizens step up and take more of an interest in the future, not just close to home but throughout the state?
I’m sure you can think of at least one teacher, with a degree, that was doing less than their best for their students, what about them?
The BoT is just trying to make it possible for our small districts to be legal, it’s up to each teacher to be their best.
Post new comment