I don't think that the Praxis is rigorous enough to determine competency. It's not really the type of questions on the test, but rather the scores required to pass.
This is what bothers me so much --- that so many people can't pass a very basic test on the first attempt. Then add in all the borderline and near-borderline ones. That's a lot of people who teach math (and tell us that our kids don't need acceleration) who aren't really competent in the subject, even at a very low grade level. If they can't pass this test, how can they teach math --- even elementary math?
I think that teachers already get such a bad rap and we don't need any more attacks on our intelligence and competency. If you want smarter, more qualified teachers, you have to make the profession more appealing to smarter people.
I'll send a reply to this tomorrow afternoon; I actually have to go teach right now. And then I have a deadline tomorrow.
I'm not trying to dump on people and I may have sounded too aggressive (that's the argument-dissecting scientist in me). But the reality is that people who can't pass a very basic math test like the Praxis I (as well as the borderline cases) are simply not competent.
I looked at the higher level math test and agree that it has real meat in it. But I'm not talking about people who take that test. People who do well on it know stuff. I'm talking about the ones who barely pass the basic tests. I honestly don't think they should be teaching (especially because according to a paper I found, they tend to end up in lower-income schools). Just because some teachers get criticized wrongly doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong. Honesty is important on both sides: teachers do an important job and often don't get credit for the challenges they face. But this doesn't detract from the fact that some of them lack sufficient knowledge to teach even lower-elementary classes.
I'll pull that paper up tomorrow.
