There are two huge lessons I learned from developing my portfolio for National Board Certification.
First was a lesson about teaching: Every minute of every class period I teach, and every task I ask my students to do must be intentional, aimed squarely at a valid and worthwhile learning goal. Those goals are not arbitrary either: they are developed from assessing my students' needs, dispositions and prior learning.
Second was a lesson about writing: To fully communicate the value of any message I seek to transmit, I have to be clear, consistent, and convincing.
A recent paper from the Center for Reinventing Public Education (based at the University of Washington) has taken a stand that is critical of National Board Certification, and in particular the past practice in the state of Washington of providing a yearly stipend to accomplished educators who have achieved National Board Certification. I hesitate to question this paper's intention, as that would open a can of political worms. What I do question, though, is based on the second lesson my National Board experience taught me: to make a point, I need to be clear, consistent, and convincing. To me, the CRPE report failed in this regard, and is therefore pushing the limits of outright misinformation.
In particular, as other state education leaders have pointed out, the assertions offered by this report feature incomplete, inconsistent, or unclear data. As a result, if taken on face value, the conclusions drawn in this paper are misleading. The incomplete data means that the conclusions are not fully or convincingly valid. Unfortunately, this is an instance where data is being misused and misconstrued. In particular, this data seems to attempt to undermine a far more comprehensive and complete examination of National Board Certification in the state of Washington previously completed (in 2010) by the State Board of Education.
According to my reading of a recent Washington Education Association press release in response to the CRPE report, regarding the data offered by SBoE and the CRPE: one study is clear, consistent, and convincing… and the other isn't.
This forum here at SFS has a track record of level-headed, well-informed and respectful discourse: like no other time in history, level-headed, respectful and well-informed discourse is what we need right now. I worry that the CRPE paper, if taken as truth, will serve to muddy the waters of this discourse and set back some tremendous progress which actually has happened as part of our state's efforts to improve the quality of the teaching that our schools provide.
The CRPE study simply lacks clarity and consistency, and ought not to be convincing since it fails to effectively offer a comprehensive picture.
Kim… there is research to suggest that as one teacher develops and improves, there is a measurable effect (positive) on the teachers around him/her even if those other teachers do not participate…so I think you are right… I do think there is a benefit to a building when one or some engage in this kind of professional development.
It’s CRAPPY, Brian, truly CRAPPY.
That bonus wasn’t just to attract highly qualified teachers to low income schools – it was also to retain those highly qualified teachers. I would say that in that sense, it has been successful. The fact is, there IS a value to going through the process as Mark pointed out. The turnover at my high-needs schools has decreased the more NBCTs we have gotten on staff. Whether or not there is a cause and effect is difficult to say, but that consistency of staff from year to year is incredibly important in building good programs for our kids.
I think the main reason NBCTs have not moved to challenging schools is the Economy! Are any teachers moving from school to school in this economy? I haven’t seen it. People are glad to have a job at their school and staying put for now. The CPRE study cites a 1% mobility rate for NBCTs moving to challenging schools in the 4 years since a 2007 study- at least 3 of those years have been during a very depressed economy and I’m sure that’s prevented a lot of teacher mobility.
Mark, sorry for the confusion. My sarcasm misses the mark again. I meant the CRPE report missed the point. I am agreeing with you!!
(BTW, if we called the WASL the ‘wassel’, and the HSPE the ‘hispy’, what should we call the CRPE?)
But Brian, this report basically recommends cutting the stipend… that’s where I have issues with its consistency, clarity, purpose, etc. (Actually Brian, I’m confused by your response… my point IS exactly what you identify: there are increasing numbers of teachers already in challenging schools who are pursuing NBPTS certification…and in the report that is minimized to instead focus on the premise the the lure of money hasn’t DRAWN NB certified teachers to high needs schools…unfortunately, not many in our business enlisted for the money, so it should be no surprise that the money alone is not an incentive….or not enough as Rob D. points out…rather, this money it is what it should be, a stipend for undergoing a rigorous and reflective process and investing effort in improving as an educator.)
Perhaps the “failure to attract” premise is easier to use against the NB stipend, since acknowledging that many teachers in challenging schools actually did choose to undergo the NBCert process actually would mean an endorsement of the stipend’s function in helping encourage professional growth and development…were they motivated by money? Maybe. But nonetheless, they embarked on the most rigorous and challenging professional development widely available to educators today.
One point that the CRPE reports tries to make is that increase in NBCTs working in needy schools is due to the fact that there are more needy schools, and teachers who already work there are becoming certified. And your point is? More NBCTs in needy schools, and they spin that as a bad thing? If the state wants to encourage more NBCTs to move into needy schools wouldn’t it make more sense to increase the stipend rather than cut or eliminate it?
Mark, thanks for your analysis & the links to the sources.
What I know of this issue came to me as a radio news blip that the Center for Reinventing Public Education had released a report sayings the State’s funding of the National Board bonus for teachers at high needs schools had failed to attract NB certified to the highest need schools.
If that assertion is correct, why do you suppose it’s true?
Rhetorically, did you consider changing schools to earn an extra 5k?
If you have changed to a high needs school, was the extra stipend the reason?
I presume you enjoy where you work, I do. Is an extra $275 per month after tax enough incentive for you to spend weeks in a summer moving your classroom, learn a new curriculum, teach a new grade level, establish new professional relationships among colleagues, parents, and stakeholders?
It’s not enough for me. I don’t chase money. The money wasn’t the reason I chose to pursue boards. Likewise, I’d need to have some other reason to change my setting.
But if some other reason presented itself, I’d consider moving. Start tolling the I-90 floating bridge- that may do it.