The Tennessean had an article a week or two back that charged that the “latest proof Tennessee lags in education” is the fact that we have very few teachers who become National Board (NBPTS) certified.  As a state, the article notes, we don’t really encourage NBPTS certification, though MNPS does by offering a $4,000 salary bump for achieving it.  That’s wonderful and all, but my question is remains: Where is the proof that National Board certification has a positive effect on student learning?

Just to start, note that I said student learning, which can be construed as a larger category than student achievement.  I’m willing to cut some slack here.  The easiest way to measure things up would be to see if the students of the NBPTS certified teacher had better value-added scores than those who did not.  However, that may seem a bit reductive to some, so I’m willing to roll with a broader, possibly more accurate (but more difficult to measure) standard of “learning.”  As the National Teacher Council’s 2008 report (discussed below) frames the issue:

Nearly all of these studies [i.e., other NPBTS certification studies] compare the achievement test scores of students taught by board-certified and nonboard-certified teachers; few compare other student outcomes, such as motivation, student engagement, breadth of achievement, attendance, or promotion.

So, how does NBPTS certification do?

Not that well.

My exhibit #1, mentioned in a previous post about pay for achievement, is NBPTS’s own commissioned study, which concluded:

The findings of this study do not support the conclusion that, in general, students of NBCTs [National Board Certified Teachers] receive better quality teaching than students of other teachers. This is in contrast to the findings of several other recent studies, none of which used hierarchical models to properly account for the nested structure of the data. Since failure to properly model hierarchically structured data is well-know to produce overly optimistic results, the conclusions from those earlier studies need to be reassessed.

One of the most well-researched, in-depth studies done on NBPTS certification was completed by the National Teacher Council in 2008, after being asked by Congress to evaluate such advanced certification programs.  The NTC released its report, titled Assessing Accomplished Teaching: Advanced-Level Certification Programs, last year.  The study looks at many different impacts of NBPTS certification (impacts on student learning, teachers’ professional development, teachers’ career paths, and the education system as a whole), but concludes this as to student learning:

As a group, these studies [the ones that controlled for school and student variables related to student achievement] show that the students of board-certified teachers performed better than students taught by nonboard-certified teachers (the magnitude of the differences is on the order of .02 to .08 of a standard deviation).

So there’s some support for National Board certified teachers having a greater effect on student learning than non-National Board certified teachers.  But how big?  My econometrics might be a bit rusty, but .08 of a standard deviation is a very, very small effect.  Small enough, for me anyway, to more or less dismiss it.

Most importantly, however, there’s a pretty critical caveat:

Few studies examined the extent to which the certification process caused teachers’ effectiveness to improve, and the findings from these studies were mixed.  We note that certification programs are not typically designed to improve the performance of those who apply (i.e. passing a certification test typically does not in and of itself improve performance), and certification programs are not typically evaluated on this issue.

This, for me, clinches the matter.  We’re either assuming one of two things: 1) that NBPTS certification actually makes a teacher better, and thus increases student learning, or 2) NBPTS certification simply highlights already good teachers so that we can pay them accordingly.  As to proposition one, the NTC study (and others) seem to fairly well explode this idea.  As to proposition two, if we’re simply looking for a way to find the good teachers and pay them more, this seems like an awful lot of rigamarole to go through to do that.  A better observation/evaluation tool combined with school and student-level achievement data, all of which we have at our fingertips, would be a much easier way to get it done.  Either way, I’m left wondering what NBPTS certification does for us.

********************

The crux of the matter is this: What do we want to pay for?  We’ve spent years paying for inputs (educational attainment, Master’s degrees, years of experience, NBPTS certification) that supposedly (though I’d argue not in any really “planned” sense) are a proxy for teacher quality and student learning.  Our current system overwhelmingly pays teachers for two things: 1) years of experience and 2) educational attainment (Master’s degrees, Ph.D.s, and NBPTS certification).  It’s not as if we all sat down and said, “You know what we really think are the best indicators of teacher quality which will lead to student learning?  Advanced degrees and years of experience.”  That’s not how the system came into place.

The origins of the system notwithstanding, it is now our duty to critically examine what we have and determine if we’re incentivizing and rewarding the right things.  This is especially the case when we start implementing reforms.  I know extra pay for NBPTS certification has been around a while, but before we decry the lack of NBPTS certified teachers, we need to determine if that’s what we really want and if it will be an investment in quality.  The research shows, to my mind, that NBPTS certification doesn’t really do a lot for us.  I’d be happy to be proven wrong.  A lot of awfully smart folks have spent time coming up with the program, and it’s certainly a gold star for any teacher.  It just doesn’t really seem to make a difference.  It’s just one more hoop for teachers to jump through to get a better salary.  Shouldn’t we give teachers steps instead of hoops?  Shouldn’t we pay them more based on becoming better teachers or taking on leadership positions, rather than for simply having the stamina to make it through a certification program?

I think there are better ways of rewarding excellent teachers, administrators, and schools, and closer proxies for student learning than years of experience and a national hoop-jumping certificate.  At the very least, if we’re going to pay teachers for getting advanced training and education, let’s pay them for getting specific training and education that we know is tailored to the teacher’s school, school district, and state, not just a broad “expert’s” take on what makes a good teacher (“That there’s a USDA prime teacher, folks.”).

English teacher Emily Baas and Social Studies teacher Brian Easton of Los Alamos High School have become National Board Certified Teachers. Photo by Carol A. Clark/Monitor

Two teachers from Los Alamos High School are among an elite group that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan referred to as “extraordinary.”

English teacher Emily Baas and Social Studies teacher Brian Easton have become National Board Certified Teachers.

Teachers and school counselors who have achieved National Board Certification this year have “demonstrated a commitment of taking their teaching practice to an entirely different level,” Duncan said, calling them “amazing leaders.”

National Board Certification is achieved through a performance-based assessment that typically takes one to three years to complete.

“The process itself was worthwhile in helping me reflect upon my teaching,” Baas said during an interview Friday.

Easton agreed, describing the program as one of the toughest challenges of any sort of teacher training they’ve undertaken.

“It really took a lot of time but it was definitely well worth it,” he said.

Easton and Baas expressed relief that they got it right the first time and didn’t have to redo any part of the rigorous program.

“I don’t think either of us could have attained certification without the support of our students and Principal Grace Brown,” Easton said.

Read the full story in the Los Alamos Monitor.

This summer, Liz Garrigan attacked Erick Huth, President of the Metro Nashville Education Association (the teachers’ union), in a column in the City Paper.  The column took the form of an imaginary interview.  Its choicest moments:

“…The City Paper caught up with Huth, if only in our dreams, relishing the chance to tap a personality so distinguished by its absence of enterprise.”

“I’m very circumspect about public policy — like merit, or performance, pay — that treats teachers as individuals and rewards them for their work. I try to represent the collective spirit, because even bad teachers need a place to go.”

The column was a pretty pointed satirical take on Huth’s stances in recent years, particularly on charter schools and pay for performance/merit/achievement.  Huth, who never misses a chance to voice his opinion, responded:

Contrary to Garrigan’s assertions, the MNEA has engaged in performance pay plans for teachers in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. For the better part of a decade, we have had an agreement with the Board of Education to provide a supplement to teachers who become certified by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards.

MNEA and the Board agree NBPTS certification is proof of one’s merit as an educator and, therefore, we reward those who achieve the certification. I personally believe our supplements for NBPTS certification are consistent with the “Knowledge and Skills Based Pay” concept advanced by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our NBPTS compensation is pure “merit” pay based on measured performance.

You have got to be kidding me.  First of all, Huth knows what pay for achievement (that’s what I’m calling it) is all about: STUDENT achievement, not teacher achievement.  On that score, paying for National Board certification totally misses the mark.  As well, it’s highly debated as to whether National Board certification even makes a difference in student achievement.  A quick internet search pulls up the National Board’s own research report which has some evidence that certification has a positive effect on student achievement, but also some evidence that it does not.  A little further digging turns up this article, commissioned by NBPTS, that concludes:

The findings of this study do not support the conclusion that, in general, students of NBCTs [National Board Certified Teachers] receive better quality teaching than students of other teachers. This is in contrast to the findings of several other recent studies, none of which used hierarchical models to properly account for the nested structure of the data. Since failure to properly model hierarchically structured data is well-know to produce overly optimistic results, the conclusions from those earlier studies need to be reassessed.

Pretty heavy conflicting evidence, I’d say.  In light of the conflict, why pay for something that we think might contribute to student achievement rather than paying for achievement itself?  Furthermore, I’d argue that even if National Board certified teachers had better performing kids, 1) if we paid based on student achievement, those teachers would still earn more, and 2) it might well be that the causal arrow runs the other way (i.e. that good teachers who are already getting solid achievement out of their students also go out and get National Board certification, not that attaining National Board certification makes the teachers demonstrably better).  Huth’s other examples, paying for high-need positions and so-called “combat pay” are good ideas, but are also not pay for achievement.  Note that I do not think pay for achievement should be the only basis for teacher pay; rather I think that it should make up a sizable chunk of payment and evaluation (student achievement on a test should not be the only way we evaluate and pay teachers; this is even more clearly the case for teachers of subjects for which there is no test).

With the ascendancy of the Obama administration (and Arne Duncan), pay for achievement has again come to the forefront of the educational research and policy field, and for good reason.  Unlike merit pay in the 80’s and 90’s, this round of pay for achievement is research-based and focused on the proper goals: student achievement.  Some part of me thinks: “You know what?  I don’t really care how teachers get students to achieve (as long as it’s honest).  If they’re getting the kids there, then whatever they’re doing is fine.”  It’s a bit of a black box approach, and a massive oversimplification to boot (not to mention the honesty problem I’ve elided), but some part of that formulation has a visceral appeal.

So what’s the final word from the Tennessee unions?  Remarkably similar: a couched, cautious, vague embrace of a “general concept” which I’ve scorned in a previous post.

From Earl Wiman, President of TEA:

“We’re not opposed to performance pay or to merit pay, but we are if they’re going to be based on a single test score,” he said. “Achievement tests were designed to help us … see where we need to help children, not as a way to pay teachers more money.” (Merit Pay Proposal Divides Tennessee Educators, The Tennessean, Mar. 11, 2009)

From Erick Huth, President of MNEA:

“MNEA is not absolutely opposed to performance pay. What we are opposed to is performance pay for political or ideological reasons. In fact, we are open to continued discussions about effective uses of performance incentives.”

I’ll say it again: Like it or not, pay for achievement is coming (and Erick Huth, Earl Wiman, and the rest of the professional education community around the country know it).  Get on board, or get off the tracks.

Today was the day!

I was thankful to learn that they had invited MIT alumni to come for the discussion, and about ten of them did show up.  They represented a fairly diverse range, elementary, middle, and high schools; English, social studies, math, sciences, art, ESL.

We had two Representatives show up and one aide.  The Representatives were Sam Hunt, member of the House Education committee, Skip Priest, ranking minority member of the House Education committee and ranking minority member of the House Education Appropriations committee, and the legislative aide for Marcie Maxwell, also a member of the House Education committee.

In addition, they invited principals from local schools who spoke highly of the quality of the alumni they’ve hired.

I didn’t do a lot of talking.  For one, I was way more interested in what everyone else had to say.  I also don’t feel like I have experience to speak to.  I did speak a little about why I chose Evergreen’s program, and how I anticipate that what I’m learning will give me a strong foundation to adapt and to be a good teacher, but mostly I listened.

The legislators had a few key topics they wanted to discuss; class sizes, what it is that’s gained from a two year program versus a one year certification, prioritizing funding, and where it’s worth it to fund a higher pay bracket for teachers with a masters degree.

The alumni jumped right in with class sizes, starting with high school teacher who has an average of 34 students per class.  They talked about their personal experiences and what having a large class actually means practically for a teacher.  They also spent a lot of time talking about the value of a Masters in Teaching or Education and the importance of offering a salary incentive for it.  Everyone knows that teachers don’t do it for the money, but that doesn’t mean teacher salaries should be cut just because they have a larger motivation for being there.

Apparently the legislature is currently debating the value of offering a higher pay bracket to teachers with a Masters because their research group told them about a study which indicated that a Masters had no effect on student achievement.  Which got us into a discussion about whether the study differentiated what type of Masters degree, as a Masters in a content area would not provide the same foundations as a Masters in Teaching would for a future teacher.  They also picked apart other aspects of the study and provided some of their own.  MIT alums know their research.

It was a great conversation to be part of.  It was highly validating to hear the alumni talk about how prepared they were when they graduated, how they’ve been able to take on leadership roles in their schools and districts in integrating new practices they were exposed to in MIT, how they feel that MIT gave them the tools they need to be highly adaptable and effective teachers.  Several of them are getting their National Board Certification, and said that they weren’t nervous or stressed out by the process at all, that it seemed a lot like what they had already done in MIT, though their colleagues who hadn’t done MIT tended to find it extremely challenging.

It was also great to see legislators taking a interest and really engaging in dialog with experienced teachers about what is really happening in classrooms and what that means.  They took the time to explain what is happening around education in the legislature, listened to what the alumni had to say, and asked a lot of questions.

It was a great experience, and I’m glad that I was able to participate and observe.

Plus, the MIT staff gave us all apple cobbler.  Can’t go wrong there!

Okay, I should have no words but I am late in posting the news on this blog.  Sorry!

With NBPTS Portfolio sent in March.  I found out last week the great news.

Robin was invited to a reception at the Governor’s Mansion in Montgomery, AL to celebrate her monumental achievement of passing the National Board for Professional Teacher Certification! Here are some photos from the evening.

Completing a Teacher Work Sample was a class requirement of the CI 5055 ‘Connecting Learners and Subject Matter’ course taught at Appalachian State University by Dr. Melanie Greene. In it, I conducted an assessment and analysis of my teaching as a matter of professional practice. (I teach computer applications and programming at a public high school in rural western North Carolina, USA.) The process and requirements are similar to that of the National Boards for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). I provide it here with the expectation that someone might benefit from having access to it.

Since my Teacher Work Sample includes a number of images and charts that are wider than my blog’s page width, I have included a link to it instead of the full text.

• http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6qp9qn_21hgwkhhdg

By Paul Silli 

Many teachers I talk with have never heard of National Board Certification. They often ask “What are the advantages of getting certified?” Unfortunately, in my state of Colorado, there are not many teachers applying for the program. I think this is because a lot of them do not know of the many benefits. Aware of this, I decided to list some of the reasons teachers should attempt certification.

Benefits ¦