A test which fails

Anastasia De Waal, 26 June 2009

One of the latest changes amongst what appear to be last ditch attempts to win over the public on education policy is the introduction of ‘personality’ tests to ‘weed out’ weak teachers. Outlined in today’s Times Educational Supplement are proposals to use a diagnostic tool in teacher training institutions to work out who is and who isn’t suitable for teaching.

Starting in September, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (the national agency designated with teacher training) will pilot a test of ‘resilience, communication skills and empathy with young people’.

Resorting to psychometric testing seems ludicrous when the obvious suitability criteria for teaching criteria have been systematically disregarded. The bar for entry into teaching is currently set staggeringly low, allowing pretty much anybody to become a teacher. (Generally unless they have committed a string of criminal offences, although not always.) A scenario which is a huge disservice to the profession, never mind pupils.

Taking primary school as the most problematic example of low entry requirements, maths provides a pertinent illustration. Whilst all primary teachers are expected to teach maths – to set pupils up for their mathematical futures no less – the subject knowledge standard required is worryingly low. The only pre-requisite in maths for primary teacher training candidates is a C at GCSE. The standard of a C grade at this level is illustrated by the fact that on some GCSE papers a C requires just 16 per cent per cent. The maths standard then required by teacher training is 60 per cent on a mental arithmetic, rather than subject knowledge, focused test (the QTS numeracy skills test). Nevertheless, in spite of this, in 2006/2007 almost a quarter of trainee teachers failed the QTS skills numeracy test the first time and 13.2 per cent of candidates failed to pass even after their second attempt. The likelihood of repeated failure has clearly been accepted with a change in regulation allowing the test to be taken repeatedly until the candidate passes. Unsurprisingly, our trainee teacher subject knowledge in maths has been found to compare very poorly internationally.

When it comes to teachers who go down the one year post-graduate PGCE route, a weak background in maths becomes even more problematic. As few as 15 days are spent on maths on a PGCE, the most commonly taken graduate route into teaching, despite the fact that the vast majority of primary teachers last studied maths at GCSE. Margaret Brown, Professor of Mathematics Education at King’s College London has highlighted the reality:

‘In the past trainee teachers’ maths had time to develop on the three-year [BEd] courses; whereas on the PGCE it’s a long time since most of them [the graduates] have done any maths and there just isn’t that much space for maths on the course.’

As a result, research has repeatedly found primary school teachers’ subject knowledge to be inadequate. This is leading to teachers teaching maths they themselves do not understand. Notably, the highly prescriptive nature of government guidance on maths teaching through the National Numeracy Strategy and successor Primary Strategy has propelled this as teachers impart pre-prepared material from official guidance without necessarily understanding the concepts. As more schools turn away from the Strategies, in response to the forthcoming white paper (Monday), it will be interesting to see what weakly equipped teachers turn to.

Primary school teachers do not need to be mathematicians, nor do they need to be trained to a sophisticated level. However, they do need to have a solid foundation in basic maths so that they understand what they are teaching. A situation which teachers themselves would find infinitely preferable. This doesn’t mean someone who didn’t excel in maths at school should be barred from teaching – it means that their maths levels today needs to be raised. Which is a lot fairer, as well as more efficient, than writing prospective teachers off on the basis of spurious ‘personality’ tests.