The article (and Andrea) don't speak to the monumental problem that this was (or was not?). How many new teachers in MN fail the basic skills test? Is it 50%? 10%? 1%?

My guess is the fail rate is very low. MN teacher training programs at the universities and colleges are some of the top rated in the nation. If you can't read, write and do 'arithmetic you don't get through the college program for starters.

This was "feel good" legislation, but it addresses a problem that, for the most part, does not exist.

Why did it take some teachers so long to get around to taking the test? Will it now have to be administered more often (on taxpayer nickel) or will we just put up another roadblock that makes it harder for a recent teaching graduate or an experienced teacher moving in from out of state to get a job in Minnesota?

It seems like we have more important issues to tackle in Minnesota these days . . . hassling teachers seems to be popular for some odd reason. OTOH, Lori has a good point. We could use some competency tests for legislators.

" but a few who totally abuse the system"

This test won't weed out those who abuse the system. It is a simple basic skills test (can you read, write and do math?). It won't do anything to change teacher salaries, workdays, etc.

It was rather useless, as legislation goes . . .

The devil is in the details. Who pays for the test? Taxpayers? Teachers? What happens when an experienced teacher arrives in Minnesota in October with a spouse due to a job transfer, secures a job to start in November, and the test isn't given again until January? Under this new legislation she can't take the job, because she must have results from a test to prove she can read and write at an 8th grade level (basic skills) before she can step into the classroom. That's a loss to her (financially), the hiring district (talent lost), and the community (excellent teacher can't be hired).

Seems stupid to me, but hey, what do I know?

Why did the provisional system exist in the first place? Was it because a teacher moving in from out of state can't take it from out of state? If they show up the week before the job starts, will the test be given (and scored) in time to jump through that hoop? Some tests take six weeks to be scored by an outside firm. Will the turn around on that be speeded up?

As I said, the devil is in the details, and Kieffer isn't talking about those details. I guarantee that at least one great teacher will be prevented from walking into a Minnesota classroom by this legislation.

That's all I'm saying, and I hope someone has taken this into account. Kieffer can crow about this legislation because it panders to the "those incompetent teachers and they're overpaid!" crowd. Fine. She did it on the backs of a few good teachers and the kids who need their services. It's not real reform. Not even close. It won't change anything, and will make some things worse.

So . . . was this legislation passed to set up a roadblock to keep disgruntled Wisconsin teachers (due to the Walker mafia cluster muck on teachers and state workers) out of Minnesota? That's the only way I can see the Minnesota teachers agreeing to this odd and seemingly arbitrary change to the law . . . it seems there is more to this bill than appears at first blush . . .

Inquiring minds . . . and all that . . .

Thanks, Kris. Yes, it does have far reaching implications. There's this:

"Private-school teachers are not legally required to pass the test, Hovis said."

This means the private schools will get the "underachiever" teachers.

Then there's the greater irony of the "less regulation" and "local control" Republicans passing a bill that introduces more regulation and takes control away from the locals -- the districts doing the hiring and assessing skills needed for a particular teaching job. One could argue that a first grade teacher doesn't need to have college level math skills . . . as she'll never teach that level of math in the classroom. Same for many special ed positions. And there's the argument that hiring someone with required high skill level into those positions is a waste of their talent, and someone with those talents will likely be more frustrated or burn out sooner on jobs requiring a constant drone of low level skill teaching.

I think this was more political than anything else. It's a win-win-win for both parties ("see? we did do something to reform teaching!").

Just saying . . . the emperor is scantily clad here. This type of legislation is 3 fries short of a happy meal.

"private schools have a much greater ability to evaluate teachers on performance over entitlement"

How does that work?

" So public schools are compelled to catch the incompetents much earlier than private schools."

So the private schools can let the incompetents teach for a year or two before they are "compelled to catch" them?

Actually this has nothing to do with a Republican accomplishing the passage of the legislation. She didn't. It was bipartisan -- did you forget the fact that this was signed into law by Dayton?

Kieffer was just one vote on it.

" a female Republican at that, a profile with whom you seem to have a consistent problem."

I find it interesting that you can extrapolate from my dislike of Bachmann to all female Republicans. I actually like Kieffer, even though I'd never vote for her based on ideological differences. She's bright. She shows up and talks to constituents, unlike some others. I'd be careful about trying to analyze the motives of others. I don't swift boat your motives, Davea, but this "kill the messenger" tactic seems to be typical of Rovian types . . . ;-)

Well Davea, let's see. I've been critical of Bachmann, Lillie, and Kieffer -- all representatives of my area, whom I have ideological differences with . . . a couple just happen to be female . . . I suppose, because you don't agree, this make me a person with a "consistent problem". Well yeah . . . I guess I could counter by saying you have consistent problem in not agreeing with me . . . but that would just be more pissing match rhetoric that isn't productive. But go ahead, Davea, have at it if it makes you feel good.

And which point did I prove? I've come around to liking Mitt Romney. I like Santorum even more. In fact I'm hoping he'll be the party nominee, mostly because he loves and respects women so much ;-)