Five
thousand dollars and five years. This is what it cost me to try to achieve
National Board certification in English Language Arts. That, and of course, the
work: I designed, wrote, edited, and submitted four painstakingly prepared
portfolios of approximately twenty pages each (plus three retakes, same number
pages), and a three-hour written test of six questions (plus one rewrite). This
was comparable to the work I did for my master’s thesis, only, for that I got
feedback along the way and a master’s degree in the end.
The
NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards) contracts with
Pearson Education, Inc., a division of the global media giant and largest
education business in the world, to administer this national certification
program. Yet, the website touts that it was “Created by teachers, for teachers,” and “National Board
Certification is the profession's mark of accomplished teaching.” If you
check out their Twitter site, it says, “The definitive source for improved teaching, learning & leading. Transforming schools so every student has
great teachers & every school has great leaders.” Inspirational
testimonial videos abound with well-groomed and well-spoken individuals
boasting about NBPTS certification: “It’s part of our growth as professionals,”
“It’s how I tell other people that what I do is an art form---it is a skill,”
and “It means I’ve met the highest standards in the teaching profession.”
NBPTS/Pearson
excels at professional marketing, and I was one of many naïve enough to buy it.
What the propaganda does not reveal is what it is like to immerse your whole
teacher self into this program and fail. Not only did I fail, but I also felt I
failed my students who allowed me to videotape numerous lessons and use their
work, parents and other professionals who took the time and effort to write
letters of affirmation for my professional portfolio, and peers who spent
valuable time reading my submissions and given me feedback.
My
quest for National Board certification began in 2010 primarily to renew my
teaching license because it would give me ten years certification instead of
five. I had previously earned my master’s plus 30 graduate credits and
completed a PDP for professional development, so I was ready for a new
challenge. And, the stipend from both our district and the state motivated my
decision as well. Achieving this certification is now the only way to fully advance
on the pay scale in my district and many others across the nation.
A
teacher gets three one-year cycles to pass the National Board; the first red
flag appeared on my first try. After planning and collecting student work in
March through May of 2011, I spent five weeks when school got out analyzing,
reflecting and writing my entries, whereas most applicants push through and
submit by the May deadline. I then sent in my four portfolios for the next
year’s scoring cycle. An NBPTS/Pearson representative called me several months
later to say they were switching to a digital format so I would need to upload
and resubmit all my work or give them permission to do so. I gave permission,
and in May of 2012, two weeks before the portfolio was due, they told me to
review my entries. It had been nine months since submitting and almost a year
since completing the work, but I looked over my written commentaries and
artifacts, watched a few minutes of the two video clips and approved the
submission. When I received my scores six months later in November, I found I
had failed and saw a zero and the comment “Deliberately Edited Video” next to
my Small Group Discussion entry. I was stymied. Either the DVD was damaged in
transit or in the process of uploading because I had watched it in its entirety
before packing and sending it as instructed. After three months of phone calls,
emails and letters protesting this false accusation and unfair grade and
offering to send a copy of said video (which they refused to accept), I was
informed that NBPTS/Pearson decided to evaluate a section of the video and
award me a score of 2 out of 4, plus the comments: “You may wish to provide clearer evidence that
demonstrates your ability to apply the appropriate pedagogy to facilitate
classroom interactions; You may wish to provide clearer evidence that you are
able to create a stimulating and productive learning environment.”
On
the second go-round in 2013 I redid two portfolio entries and rewrote one test
question and improved, but, again, I failed. My composite score was now 269
points, six less than the 275 required to succeed. The NBPTS/Pearson online
retake calculator showed that I needed to raise the 2 to a 2.25 on my Small Group Discussion entry in order
to pass.
I researched NBPTS sites, reread instructions,
and consulted with peers at my school who had certified in other subject areas
and planned my strategy. For the first entry, I had featured an AP class in a
video, which showed me sitting with various groups of students discussing
essays with a blank wall as background. So, for my retake, considering the
comments I had received on the first entry, I chose a diverse (both
intellectually and culturally) English 11 class and moved around the room asking
questions and encouraging discussion between group members. A student-created
mural, student work on the white board, and inspiring posters provided
background to reflect the positive learning atmosphere I had created. I chose
Mark Twain’s “The War Prayer” for the featured lesson and included close
reading instruction and small group discussions of thought provoking follow-up
questions I had designed using Bloom’s Taxonomy. My certified peers read over
my commentary and gave me feedback to maximize the substance, analysis and
clarity, and, with much confidence, having done everything I could muster to
improve, I submitted my entry.
Last
November I received my score on this Small Group entry: it remained a 2 and was
accompanied by the exact same two comments as I received on the first one. I
couldn’t believe my eyes. There must have been some mistake.
I
filed a formal appeal to NBPTS/Pearson outlining the changes I had made to
improve and cited the “inconsistent scoring” of my two entries as unfair. I
wrote, “Please explain why and how my most recent entry, on which I had made
numerous positive changes according to NBPTS/Pearson comments and website
suggestions, earned the same score and comments as the initial one?”
Trey
Clifton, Vice President of Assessment responded, stating that NBPTS/Pearson
does not release specific feedback and is “confident in its scoring process”
and that inconsistent scoring “does not demonstrate good cause for appeal.” He
included these three points to assure me of the reliability of the scoring
process:
1. We evaluate performance of individual
exercise/entries by computing the exercise or entry level statistic and
inter-rater agreement (IRA) rates for each individual exercise or entry.
2. We compute and report the following reliability
indices for composite measures (i.e., section scores and overall assessment
scores) to confirm that quantitative indicators of reliability are sufficiently
high: a. Reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) estimates due to
exercise/entry sampling b. Reliability and SEM estimates due to rater sampling
and c. Latent trait-based reliability and SEM estimates that take into account
both exercise/entry sampling and rater sampling.
3. We compute and report decision consistency indices
for certificate decisions by certificate area to ensure that classifications of
candidates are sufficiently
stable.
If
only this impressive rhetoric answered the question I had asked.
Based
on my experience, it is clear that major flaws
pervade the NBPTS/Pearson certification process:
1.
A majority of time requires reading, understanding and following pages of fussy
formatting and submitting guidelines that have nothing to do with teaching,
and, if not followed, will result in a score of zero. (In my case, even if you
do follow them.)
2.
The hours of staging and choosing videos, gathering and scanning documents, and
endless writing and editing text dramatically limits time and energy for
teaching students. The teacher’s focus becomes achieving certification rather
than helping students accomplish theirs.
3.
One, sometimes two, people score an entry, and scorers are other teachers in a similar
subject area and grade level who were supposedly trained but do not necessarily
have National Board certification. Unlike a college class where one can review
the professor’s qualifications, a teacher never knows the evaluator’s identity
or expertise and can ask no questions or get any specific feedback before,
during or after portfolio submission.
4.
Scores for portfolio work submitted in May are not released until late
November.
5.
Short, scripted, generic comments accompany scores of entries that do not pass.
It is NBPTS/Pearson policy not to divulge any specific feedback to a candidate,
even if requested for the purpose of retakes.
6.
Scores are not valid over time, so if teachers retake entries and make positive
changes, they may receive the same scores and comments as the first time.
Growth in portfolio retakes is not considered; they are scored independent of
previous entries, likely by different scorers, which can result in skewed
scores because of scorer subjectivity.
7.
When teachers retake entries or test questions, they pay fees each time.
Some teachers who passed the National Board say they are
glad they undertook the program; however, teachers and concerned citizens
should be cognizant that the National Board/Pearson holds all the cards.
Applicants pay a lot of money to do a lot of work for which they receive no
specific feedback or answers to questions on that work; blind faith in the
skill and qualifications of the anonymous evaluators is imperative.
It
is unfortunate that many school districts have begun requiring teachers to get
this certification in order to advance in their profession because, unlike the
formatting and submission instructions, the actual portfolio and test
assessment teem with ambiguity. The program attempts to quantify teaching by
imparting confusing scores on vague concepts without giving any specific
feedback in a timely manner, which is highly hypocritical. If we as teachers
performed assessments on our students in this manner, we would be rightfully
reprimanded by administrators and chastised by parents and students.
Becoming
a more effective teacher while retaining and passing on the excitement of
learning is what teachers look for in a professional development program. Why
can’t teachers, administrators and school boards design professional
development and advancement plans that fit their teachers and their districts?
It would certainly be more advantageous for the students.
My NBPTS experience left me not only disappointed in
myself for not passing, but also frustrated that I had let my husband and
family down because of all the time and money I spent, and embarrassed that
colleagues and students gave their time and effort to help me in this
endeavor---all for nothing. If you try and pass, good for you. If you try and
don't pass, keep in mind you are not alone and you have no recourse but to bear
it because that's how NBPTS/Pearson operates.
Can you achieve success through NBPTS/Pearson
certification? Maybe, if you’re prepared to throw your money down and dedicate
yourself to volumes of meticulously formatted portfolios and years of work.
And, a little luck never hurts either.
