Search This Blog

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Smoke and Mirrors: My Experience with NBPTS/Pearson

            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.


No comments: