Counterpoint: State's been lowering education standards for a long time

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I was not surprised by the policy move discussed in recent commentaries ("Teacher licensure gets squishy in Minnesota," Feb. 19; "Teacher licensure test fail. Diversity succeeds," Feb. 26). Over the last 15 years the Minnesota Legislature and licensing board have been systematically lowering standards for science teachers.

I taught science for 40 years, the last 30 of them in Minnesota (mainly chemistry but also physics, biology and physical science). Since retiring in 2016 I have continued to substitute teach and work summer STEM camps. I am chair of the education committee of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Chemical Society. I've been a member of the Minnesota Science Teachers Association since 1985, the year I moved to Minnesota after teaching in Michigan for 10 years.

I arrived in the state holding a B.A. in chemistry and biology and had obtained an M.A. in chemistry education. I held full licensure in both life science and chemistry from the state of Michigan. I applied for a Minnesota teaching license for both life science and chemistry. I was shocked when I was granted full-time licensure in life science but only half-time licensure in chemistry.

I called the Minnesota Department of Education's science director and was told that in order to have full-time licensure in chemistry I also needed a major or minor in physics. I had 18 credits in physics though not a declared minor, and after a review of my transcript, I was granted full chemistry, physical science and physics licenses.

Minnesota's standards for a science teaching license were that rigorous in 1985. It was the last time, I feel, that those standards were adequately rigorous. Let me explain how those standards declined during my teaching career.

In the early 2000s under President George W. Bush, major education reform began through what was known as the No Child Left Behind Act. Federal mandates pushed state legislatures to raise standards and graduation requirements for students. A clause within the law required states to certify teachers as "highly qualified." However, states were given latitude to define "highly qualified."

In 2006 the Minnesota Legislature increased high school graduation requirements starting with the class of 2014-15. The requirement for science was changed from three credits in science, with one credit a life science course, to three credits in science, with one life science credit and one credit in either chemistry or physics. This meant that either chemistry or physics, previously "elective" classes, would become mandatory for all students.

Immediately there was pushback, mainly from rural school districts that claimed they did not have the chemistry or physics teachers needed to comply. As a result the Minnesota Board of Teaching made an administrative change (not a legislative one) to allow science teachers with at least three years of experience to obtain licenses in other science disciplines by passing the Praxis Subject test for that discipline. In other words, there would be no need to have undergraduate coursework knowledge, lab safety training or pedagogical training in the new content area. Pass the test and "presto" a biology teacher could now teach physics or chemistry. This rule still exists.

The Minnesota Science Teachers Association opposed the change and even tried to help broker additional course requirements in lab safety — to no avail.

As the deadline for implementation of the new requirements approached additional pressure was placed upon the Legislature to "soften" the requirement. Districts wanted courses in the Career Technical Education (CTE) field to count toward the science requirement. In other words, "applied science" courses, such as a program known as Project Lead The Way (which had some science within it), could count as science credits.

In 2012 the Legislature allowed CTE courses to count toward science credits as long as they held some science standards. The CTE teacher could obtain the science license by passing the Praxis Subject exam. This change now allowed CTE teachers who had no training or background in science to get science licenses by passing a test. Ironically, science teachers could not get CTE licenses by passing a test.

This change was also opposed by the Minnesota Science Teachers Association.

So where does science education in Minnesota stand now? First, there are revised science standards that are scheduled to be implemented in 2024-25. Second, the governor's education bill (HF 1269, SF 1311) now before the Legislature proposes to eliminate the current three-science-credits requirement (one life science and one of either chemistry or physics) to three science credits in any science class.

The Minnesota Science Teachers Association opposes this change. If implemented, there would be no uniformity from district to district and teachers would not have to have specific science licenses.

The Legislature has never developed a long-term, systematic plan to develop and support a pipeline of highly qualified teachers. Standards continue to be lowered and the result is being seen in the quality of students' education. Please contact your legislator and urge that standards not be lowered for teaching licenses. Instead, let's support those candidates who might be struggling to attain the standards.

As a teacher I strove to assist my students in learning and achieving. The "easy out" would have been for me to lower the requirements for passing. Please, Minnesota, stop lowering the standards.

Chuck Wheeler Handlon, of Rochester, is a retired science teacher.