Value-added measures are increasingly the gold standard for research. It is just this “gold” standard that the NBPTS was partially created not to serve. The National Board Certification process largely bases its evaluation on the “art” of teaching with good (sometimes scientific) reasons for teaching a certain way.
It is like researchers and the NBPTS are from two different professional wrestling organizations. They need to have a cage match and figure out who is going to be the Cham-Peen of the Teaching Pro—fession!
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was established in 1987 with the goal to “define what teachers should know and be able to do”1 as standards and create an assessment to certify teachers based on the highest standards in the nation. Challenges to NBC have concerned the validity and reliability of the NBC assessment process, public funding of NBC assessments, pay increases for teachers who achieve, and lack of correlation between NBC and high student achievement.
The NBC process occupies the worlds of certification, advocacy, and professional development. It is this multiple personality that seems to trouble detractors of the process. The mission of the NBPTS is defined as: “maintaining high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do, providing a national voluntary system certifying teachers who meet these standards, and advocating related education reforms to integrate National Board Certification in American education and to capitalize on the expertise of National Board Certified Teachers.” 2
The first two mission statements consider the assessment or certification aspect of NB while the third mission considers a policy direction. When issues have emerged it has been due to conflict between these three mission goals. For example, some teachers do not believe that standardized tests accurately gauge what they do in the classroom, no matter how accomplished or deficient they are. The National Board’s support of this position, by not including student test scores in the NBC process, could fall under the third mission statement of “capitalizing on the expertise of NBCTs.” However, in the policy world, student test scores, no matter how accurate they are about teacher practice, are the best tool available to measure student learning and should be included in the assessment of NBCTs. Recently, two studies point out strengths and weaknesses of research into the effects of NBC on students, teachers, and communities.
The Center for Teaching Quality recently conducted a TeacherSolutions project that combined NBCT interviews and discussion with a review of NB studies. In the study, Measuring What Matters: The Effects of National Board Certification on Advancing 21st Century Teaching and Learning the group found that NBC is a professional development opportunity in the form of an assessment. CTQ found that research of NBC effectiveness should: focus on using multiple measures of student learning, consider the effects of NBCTs on schools as expert resources, and researchers should consider the board’s vision and mission before making policy recommendations based on findings. 3 Another study found that the NBC process was validated by value-added measures of student achievement.4 Researchers also found that high scoring NB candidates were more effective in terms of student tests than low scoring candidates. Finally, the study found that, “Ineffective teachers are just as likely as effective teachers to apply for national–board certification but the board process does seem to provide some information on teachers’ effectiveness, so people who are certified are a little bit better than the average nonapplicant, and unsuccessful applicants are worse than nonapplicants.” 5 The study recommended that student test scores become part of the NB process.
The NBC process is a valuable tool in education but how and why it is valuable is up for debate. A recent push to offer the certification to principals makes it clear that some see the value of the process. 6 It is hard to see what effect the board’s recent consideration of certification for principals would have. It could damage its credibility with teachers and increase credibility with policymakers. The board’s advocacy component continues to baffle some researchers and hearten some practitioners. If the board weakens its advocacy component in favor of a more scientific assessment process they may lose credibility with teachers. If it does not consider the voices of researchers it will lose credibility with policy makers, the key to the board’s mission to capitalize on NBCTs as a voice in education reform at all levels. Advances in value-added statistical measures have presented the NB with a new challenge, to prove it matters.
Endnotes
1 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, “History.” National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 26 July, 2008. NBPTS. 28 Jul 2008
2 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, “What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do.” National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 26 July, 2008. NBPTS. 28 Jul 2008
3 Center for Teaching Quality, “The Effects of National Board Certification on Advancing 21st Century Teaching and Learning.” National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 26 July, 2008. NBPTS. 28 Jul 2008
4 Viadero, Debra. “Weigh Student Gains, NBPTS Urged.” Education Week Vol. 27, Issue 4316, July 2008 1, 14-15. 28 Jul 2008
5 Viadero, Debra. “Weigh Student Gains, NBPTS Urged.” Education Week Vol. 27, Issue 4316, July 2008 1, 14-15. 28 Jul 2008
6 Manzo, Kathleen. “Teachers Make Case for National Board.” Education Week Vol. 27, Issue 4417, July 2008 1, 14-15. 28 Jul 2008
Image from: Battel for Kids
