Testing teachers

Last week (FS 3/1) I questioned why new teachers were being tested for English when their language proficiency was something we should have been able to take-forgranted. I further asked why the ministry saw fit to spring the test?

As we now learn nearly half of the 3250 applicants failed this test (FS 8/1), the answers to those questions are now obvious.

The test was set because the ministry had known for some time that things were amiss with tertiary teachertraining and graduation. Simply put, too many students were graduating who were not up to the job. Far from going-forward teaching and learning was seen to be going backwards.

Less certain than the above, perhaps, it may also be that lower entry requirements into teaching, combined with a growing demand for teachers brought about in part by the compulsory retirement age of teachers at 55, resulted in more entering the profession than there were vacancies to fill. Culling was called for.

Be that as it may, this week's results raise some serious concerns. First, whatever has gone wrong in teachertraining has occurred under the watch of the previous Minister of Education. Second, though the test applies only to new graduates (among whom these shortcomings have been found) one remains wondering how many ill-equipped individuals have already passed into the ranks of the teaching profession or for that matter into the administrative cadre. Third, news that those who failed the test will be allowed to re-sit is unlikely to lift the status of teachers and the hopes of students, parents, and society at large.