National Board Certification

3 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Miami-Dade: United Teachers of Dade National Board Support Program ..... housed at the San Diego County Office of Education, but the network uses a ...... Dade support program, while a school district operates the San Antonio support.
National Board Certification as Professional Development: Design and Cost

August 2005

Carol E. Cohen and Jennifer King Rice

This project is funded in part with grants from the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. Through September 2005, NBPTS has been appropriated federal funds of $149.1 million, of which $136.7 million was expended. Such amount represents approximately 34 percent of the National Board Certification project. Approximately $261 million (66 percent) of the project’s cost was financed by non-federal sources. The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.

Contents 1. Executive Summary 5. Chapter 1: Study Questions and Approach 5. Introduction 5. Study Questions and Background Research 8. Study Approach 11. Report Outline 15. Chapter 2: Requirements and Learning Opportunities in the National Board Certification Candidacy Process 15. The Candidacy Process 17. Learning Opportunities from the Candidacy Process 17. Learning Opportunities from Studying the Standards 17. Learning Opportunities from Completing the Classroom-Based Portfolio Entries 19. Learning Opportunities from Completing the Documented Accomplishments Portfolio Entry 19. Learning Opportunities from Preparing for the Assessment Center 20. Summary 23. Chapter 3: Design Features and Learning Opportunities in National Board Certification Candidate Support Programs 23. Design Features of the Support Programs 24. Structure 33. Major Program Activities 36. Policy Environment 37. Learning Opportunities and Other Supports in the Support Programs 37. Peer Learning Opportunities 39. Other Supports 42. Program Design Features Associated with Candidate Performance on the Certification Assessment 42. Quantitative Methods and Data Set 42. Findings and Analysis 46. Hypotheses About Program Features Associated with Certification Assessment Performance 47. Hypothesis Testing 50. Summary Chapter 4: Alignment of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with Principles of High-Quality Professional Development Vision Intensity and Duration Intersection of Content and Pedagogy Content Derived from Analysis of Disaggregated Data Job-Embedded Learning Collegiality and Collaboration Summary

Chapter 5: Resources and Costs in the National Board Certification Professional Development Model Need for Cost Analysis of the NBC Model of Professional Development Site Selection Analytic Approach: The Cost Template Purposes and Use of the Cost Template Raw versus Standardized Templates Cost Analysis Findings Resources Required in the Support Program Sites Cost Estimates Contextual Factors Affecting Cost Analysis Findings Summary Chapter 6: Comparison of the Cost of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with the Costs of Other Forms of Professional Development Literature Review Methods Cost Comparison Findings Summary Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications Conclusions Regarding the Design of National Board Certification Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs as Professional Development Conclusions Regarding the Cost of National Board Certification Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs Conclusions Regarding the Comparison of the Cost of the NBC Model of Professional Development with the Costs of Alternative Approaches to Teacher Professional Development Implications for Investments in NBC Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs Implications for the Design of Candidate Support Programs Implications for the Diffusion of the NBC Model of Professional Development Implications for Financing the Costs of NBC Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs Implications for Further Research References Appendix A: Supplementary Information on Study Methods and Instruments Appendix A.1: Supplementary Information on Study Methods Site Selection Data Collection and Analysis Review Process Appendix A.2: Questionnaire to Collect Descriptive Information on National Board Certification Candidate Support Programs Appendix A.3: Interview Protocols Program Directors/Partner Representatives National Board Certification Teacher Candidates National Board Certified Teacher Mentors Principals/District Representatives Appendix A.4: Variables Considered for Analysis

Appendix B: Candidate Support Program Descriptions and State Teacher Workforce Context Appendix B.1: Candidate Support Program Descriptions Cincinnati: Pathways to World Class Teaching Miami-Dade: United Teachers of Dade National Board Support Program Mississippi Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project North Carolina A&T: North Carolina A&T State University National Board Support Program San Antonio: Accomplished Teaching Initiative San Diego County: Accomplished Teacher Support Provider Network Stanford: Stanford University National Board Resource Center Winston-Salem: Winston-Salem Forsyth County National Board Support Program Appendix B.2: Number of National Board Certified Teachers by State, 2003 Appendix C: Supplementary Information Related to Candidate Performance on the Certification Assessment Appendix C.1: Average Scores by Assessment Subpart for Study Sample Appendix C.2: Average Scores on NBPTS Certification Assessment for All Candidates, Assessment Years 2002–03 and 2003–04 Appendix C.3: Average Assessment Scores by Candidate Characteristics for Study Sample Appendix C.4: Total and Disaggregated Assessment Scores of All Candidates in Study Sample by Support Program Site Appendix C.5: Correlations of Candidate Characteristics with Certification Assessment Performance for Study Sample Appendix D: Detail on Methods and Analysis for Estimating Costs Appendix D.1: Decision Rules for National Board Certification Professional Development Model Cost Templates Appendix D.2: Standardized Out-of-Pocket Costs for Candidates Appendix D.3: Standardized Out-of-Pocket Costs for Mentors Appendix D.4: Standard Values Used in the National Board Certification Professional Development Model Cost Analysis Appendix D.5: Cost of National Board Certification Professional Development Model by Candidate Support Program Site Mississippi Gulf Coast San Antonio Stanford Winston-Salem Appendix E: Summary of Cost Studies Identified in Literature Review Appendix E.1: District-Sponsored Professional Development Appendix E.2: Comprehensive School Reform Models Appendix E.3: Master’s Degree Programs Appendix E.4: Induction Programs Appendix E.5: Privately Marketed Professional Development Alternatives Appendix E.6: Other Professional Development Programs About The Finance Project

Acknowledgements Carol E. Cohen, deputy director of The Finance Project, was a principal investigator and author of the study. She also managed the project. Dr. Jennifer King Rice, an associate professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at the University of Maryland, led the investigation into costs and resources. She was co-principal investigator of the study and authored Chapters 5 and 6. Other Finance Project staff and partners also contributed to the project. Kate Neville, education practice group leader, was a key participant in all study phases. Casey Robinson, program associate, played important roles in the early stages of the study, particularly phase 1 of the data collection. Heather Clapp Padgette, senior program associate, was a valuable contributor in later stages of the study, including phase 2 of the data collection. Anne Kaiser, consultant, performed quantitative analysis and helped draft part of Chapter 3. Mark Moon, program associate, provided assistance with research and report drafting. Christopher Hayes, program assistant, also contributed research support. Karen Glass edited the report. Jane Hall, a doctoral student in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at the University of Maryland, served as a research assistant to Dr. Rice on the cost analysis. Dr. Bruce Haslam, managing director of Policy Studies Associates, Inc., was an advisor to the project and reviewed and commented on report drafts. The authors want to thank the staff, participants, and partners of the candidate support program sites in the study for the time and information they provided. They would especially like to thank program directors Sara Eisenhardt (Cincinnati), Valda McKinney (Miami-Dade), Martha Hart (Mississippi Gulf Coast), Patrice Faison (North Carolina A&T), John Guardia (San Antonio), Rae Adams (San Diego), Misty Sato (Stanford), and Joan Celestino (Winston-Salem). In addition, the authors extend their appreciation to Cheri Hayes, executive director of The Finance Project, for her advice and oversight throughout the study. They also are grateful to their many colleagues who contributed thoughtful comments and advice, including reviewing drafts of the report. These individuals include Barnett Berry, Bob Croninger, Maxine Freund, Dan Goldhaber, Stephanie Hirsh, Jack Jennings, Victoria Kane, John Knapp, David Lustick, Kent McGuire, David Monk, Martin Orland, Randy Ross, Misty Sato, Jon Snyder, and Andrew Wayne. Finally, the authors want to thank the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® for funding the research and its staff, particularly Joe Aguerreberre, president, and David Lussier, assistant to the president, for providing valuable assistance, information, and feedback during the study period.

i

Executive Summary National Board Certification® (NBC) candidacy is the process teachers undertake to attain voluntary certification of accomplished teaching by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS). This study by The Finance Project of the candidacy process and candidate support programs found they incorporate elements of high-quality professional development identified in the research literature and are no more costly than other forms of professional development. Professional development is increasingly seen as a way to improve teacher quality and raise student achievement. Our findings on design and cost suggest policymakers should consider the NBC model as an alternative way to target professional development dollars and salary rewards. NBC is an important education innovation that has evolved during the past decade. Today there are more than 40,000 National Board Certified Teachers®, and nearly all states and school districts provide some financial incentives or rewards for certification. The rigorous requirements of the candidacy process are guided by standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. NBPTS commissioned this independent research study to examine the design and costs of the NBC model of professional development. Eight NBC candidate support programs in six states provide the basis for the program design information in the study and four of the sites for the cost information.

Design of the NBC Model of Professional Development The NBC candidacy process and candidate support programs offer professional learning opportunities for teachers who engage in them. We found the design of the process and programs aligns closely with common characteristics of high-quality professional development found in the literature. •

Candidates are afforded opportunities to study high-quality teaching standards and analyze their teaching against those standards.



The portfolio development process is particularly valuable because it integrates content and pedagogy, requiring teachers to demonstrate and analyze their teaching in the context of the subject matter and students they are teaching. Moreover, it enables teachers to embed the learning from the NBC process into their daily classroom experience.



The NBC process also encourages teachers to refresh or enhance content knowledge, especially in preparing for the required “assessment center” exercises.

The candidate support programs in this study offered activities, such as group meetings and individual mentoring, as well as other supports, such as structure, technical assistance, and emotional support, that varied in duration, intensity, and other characteristics. We explored support program design features that were associated with higher scores on the certification assessment.

1



Participation in support programs affords candidates additional learning opportunities, most notably opportunities for collegiality and collaboration through mentoring and peer learning.



High intensity of group sessions, formal incorporation of candidate professional exchange, mentor-candidate matching by certificate area, and required mentor training may be associated with higher candidate assessment scores.



These components of candidate support programs seem to have the greatest positive impact on the assessment scores of black candidates and candidates from high-poverty schools. Historically these groups have experienced lower rates of certification achievement.



If borne out by further research, these findings could suggest ways for support programs to strengthen their programs and help close NBC certification achievement gaps.

Cost of the NBC Model of Professional Development This study provides the first estimates of the cost of the NBC model of professional development. Using a methodology that systematically estimates component and total professional development costs, we arrived at these findings. •

Per-participant total societal costs of the NBC model of professional development—including the costs of undertaking the candidacy process and operating the support programs—in the four sites range from a low of about $18,000 per year to a high of about $31,000 per year.



The cost of teacher candidates’ time to develop their portfolios—estimated at a standard value of approximately $12,500 per participant and all or nearly all of which is uncompensated—is the primary driver of total costs. Many jurisdictions provide nonmonetary incentives for teachers to engage in the NBC process.



Annual costs of the support programs in the four sites range from about $1,000 to about $11,000 per participant, with the two programs in the middle costing between $2,500 and $6,000 per participant. Some of this variability in costs is explained by economies of scale realized by larger programs and some is a function of program design.



Excluding the value of candidates’ and mentors’ uncompensated time, the estimated fiscal resources that would be needed to implement the support program and pay the candidates’ application fee in the two middle-cost sites are about $4,500 per participant.

The cost burden of the NBC model of professional development is distributed across different institutions and individuals, depending on the policy environment and the sponsors and partners of the support program. •

Notwithstanding the significant amount of uncompensated time contributed by teachers in our four cost study sites, states contributed between 5 percent and

2

16 percent of total costs in three sites. Schools and school districts shouldered between 2 percent and 37 percent of costs in three sites. •

Three of the programs received resources of 5 percent or less of total costs from other sources, including grants, universities, businesses, and a union. These findings suggest options for defraying the public costs of the NBC model by maximizing resource contributions from other sources.

Compared with the costs of alternative approaches to teacher professional development, the NBC model is no more costly than alternative forms of professional development and less costly than some. We do not have data on program effectiveness, however, so we cannot draw conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of various alternatives. •

Based on nine studies with estimates of per-participant costs, the cost of most other forms of professional development, as well as relevant costs for three of the four NBC programs, were $1,000 to $5,500 per participant. The remaining two alternative forms of professional development and one NBC program cost between $10,000 and $16,000 per participant.



We found one study that estimated the cost of completing a master’s degree in Virginia for teachers who attended graduate school full time, during the summer, or at night. Our comparable estimates of the cost associated with the NBC model of professional development in the four support program sites—including the value of candidates’ time—is lower in every scenario.

Our findings on the design and cost of the National Board Certification candidacy process and candidate support programs suggest the potential of this model of professional development. Policymakers can use this information to help make informed choices about professional development investments and program developers and providers can consider integrating the NBC model or its components into their professional development activities.

3

Chapter 1: Study Questions and Approach Introduction National Board Certification® (NBC) is a significant innovation in American education. Since the early 1990s, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS) has created standards for accomplished teaching in various subjects and developed a rigorous process for assessing teachers’ practice against those standards. It awards the designation of National Board Certified Teacher® (NBCT) to those who voluntarily undertake the assessment and can demonstrate that their teaching meets the NBPTS standards. Nationwide today, more than 40,000 teachers are NBCTs. Furthermore, the process has touched many more who have attempted certification, who have colleagues who are NBCTs, or who have participated in the process in other ways. Many states and districts support National Board Certification by subsidizing application fees, providing stipends to successful candidates, and offering other incentives and rewards. As more teachers pursue certification and states, districts, and teachers invest resources in candidacy and NBCTs, it is increasingly important for researchers, policymakers, teachers, other educators, and education stakeholders to understand the dimensions, impacts, and value of National Board Certification and the candidacy process. Clearly, one of the key questions is whether National Board Certification can help improve student achievement. Recent studies point to a correlation between NBCTs and higher student achievement. 1 Beyond learning the effect of NBCTs on student achievement, however, much more needs to be known about National Board Certification. In 2002 NBPTS commissioned 22 research studies, of which this study is one. This study and three others look at the professional development aspects of National Board Certification. The remaining studies address other significant issues, including those related to the effects of NBC on teacher quality and student achievement, psychometric and technical aspects of the NBPTS assessment, NBCT teaching styles and leadership, minority teacher achievement of NBC, and the impact of NBCTs on lowperforming schools. 2

Study Questions and Background Research Recent education research highlights the importance of promoting quality teaching as a critical step toward improving student learning. 3 Moreover, the professional development of teachers is seen as holding considerable potential to improve the quality of teaching. 4 This view is reflected in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), federal legislation that requires states to provide highquality in-service professional development and annually increase the percentage of their teachers that participate in such activities. Given this context—and the fact that districts already spend significant resources on in-service teacher professional development activities—it is critical that decisionmakers understand, among other considerations, the learning opportunities and costs associated with alternative forms of teacher professional development in order to help guide such investments. This study analyzes National Board Certification as a form of professional development. The model of professional development examined is NBC candidacy for candidates who participate in a formal candidate support program. As with any form of professional development, it is important to understand how the model works, whether the professional development is of high quality, and what resources and costs are associated with the model. This information is necessary so decisionmakers can make informed comparisons among alternative professional development investments and those wanting to replicate the model can plan for successful implementation.

5

To contribute to an understanding of National Board Certification as a form of professional development, we examined how the candidacy process and candidate support programs provide opportunities for teacher learning and how this model of professional development relates to principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature. We also examined the cost of this model of professional development and how that cost compares with what is known about the costs of other forms of professional development. Four key research questions guided our study.

1. What are the salient design factors in the National Board Certification model of professional development? Our study rests on and examines the assumptions that the rigorous requirements of NBC candidacy create learning opportunities for teachers who attempt certification by encouraging them to engage in activities that can develop or strengthen their teaching knowledge and skills, and that these learning opportunities may be enhanced and expanded by candidate support programs. Several researchers and education groups have analyzed professional development aspects of National Board Certification and discussed the learning opportunities offered or experienced by candidates, including those participating in candidate support programs. 5 Sato, for example, categorizes the significant aspects of the assessment process for teacher learning as the use of the NBPTS standards as an analytical and critical framework, the opportunity to engage in analysis and reflection, and the chance to collaborate with peers. 6 Berg characterizes the key components of candidate support as intellectual (explaining standards and pedagogy, providing research, and helping with writing), emotional (attitude and patience), and logistical (communication, resources, and organization). 7 Our study draws on existing research to frame our discussion of key design features of both the candidacy process and the candidate support programs that contribute to professional learning opportunities for teachers. None of the existing studies, however, offers a systematic and detailed look at candidate support programs. Our focus on a small sample of these programs permits systematic analysis of similarities and differences in their design. Furthermore, we explore features of the candidate support programs that are associated with candidate performance on the National Board Certification assessment. As a result, this study adds to knowledge of the design of professional development features of NBC candidacy—and, particularly, of candidate support programs— and the implications of these features for teacher learning opportunities and candidate performance on the NBC assessment.

2. How does National Board Certification as a model of professional development align with principles of high-quality professional development? Education policymakers, program developers, administrators, and teachers want to identify high-quality professional development to guide their decisions about investments of time and money in alternative professional development choices. During the past several years, researchers, professional organizations, and others, including the National Staff Development Council, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, and others, have worked to identify and document principles or characteristics of high-quality professional development. Their efforts have resulted in several lists that have overlapping elements but also vary in detail. 8 This study addresses the issue of whether National Board Certification represents high-quality professional development by looking at the alignment of the NBC candidacy process and candidate support

6

programs with a core set of principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature. We use the following principles to guide our analysis: • • • • • •

vision; intensity and duration; intersection of content and pedagogy; content derived from analysis of disaggregated data; job-embedded learning; and collegiality and collaboration.

The principles from the literature are best viewed as inputs to high-quality professional development. There is not a strong empirical base that links professional development meeting these criteria to outcomes such as changes in teacher performance or improvements in student learning. 9 Thus, although this study does not address the effectiveness of NBC as professional development, our analysis is based on current thinking about assessing the quality of alternative forms of professional development.

3. What are the costs of the National Board Certification candidacy process and candidate support programs and who typically bears those costs? Like all forms of professional development, NBC candidacy and candidate support programs require various and multiple resources, both monetary and nonmonetary, that when quantified represent the true economic costs of this model of professional development. Some of these costs are well recognized (e.g., the $2,300 application fee or support program payments to mentors), while others may be outside budgets and more difficult to measure (e.g., teachers’ time spent in the process or in-kind donations to a candidate support program). Furthermore, the costs of candidacy and candidate support programs may be borne by different individuals and entities, including teachers, schools, school districts, states, universities, teacher unions, and businesses. Good information is lacking on what professional development initiatives cost (i.e., the economic value of all the resources they require). 10 Most studies of the costs of professional development since the 1980s have tended to focus on estimating the range of spending by states, districts, or initiatives on professional development; identifying and estimating the costs of certain categories of activities or budgetary line items for professional development; and examining the distribution of the cost burden for professional development across government and stakeholder groups. 11 In conducting a scan of 16 promising professional development initiatives, The Finance Project found that when asked about the costs of their initiatives, leaders reported a variety of measures—budgeted amounts, grant awards, operating costs, prices, and expenditures. It also found that these measures do not always represent the same concept, making it difficult to compare costs across initiatives. Furthermore, initiative leaders did not quantify—and sometimes failed to mention—nonmonetary resources supporting the initiatives. 12 These studies illustrate that there is no consensus in the research community or among practitioners on how to comprehensively conceptualize or measure the costs of professional development. Yet resource requirements and sources for obtaining the required resources must be understood if effective professional development initiatives are to be sustained and replicated. 13

7

Our study makes a major contribution to knowledge about the costs of professional development in education in general—and National Board Certification in particular—by providing a methodology and tool for comprehensively estimating and analyzing the costs of professional development initiatives. Using this methodology and tool, it produces the first estimates of the costs of the National Board Certification model of professional development and their distribution based on the candidate support program sites studied.

4. How do the resource requirements and costs of the National Board Certification model of professional development compare with those of other common approaches to teacher professional development? Decisionmakers need sound comparative information on the costs of National Board Certification and other professional development models to make informed investment decisions. Other research studies have produced information on costs of other professional development models, though the concepts and methodologies used in these studies vary considerably. For example, many studies exclude or underestimate the value of teachers’ time spent participating in the professional development. Other studies do not present estimates of per-participant costs, which are necessary to reasonably compare costs across models. Our study makes a major contribution to the field by undertaking a review of existing literature on the costs of professional development approaches, compiling their results, and analyzing how the costs they present compare with the costs we estimate for the NBC model. Although neither this study nor the comparison studies present effectiveness data that would also be necessary for choosing alternative investments on economic grounds, this comparative cost analysis can help policymakers and program developers understand the resource requirements and costs associated with alternative forms of teacher professional development.

Study Approach This study examines the NBC model of professional development—the learning opportunities provided by the candidacy process and candidate support programs—in eight candidate support program sites across the nation. Each support program facilitates a common professional development learning experience tied to National Board Certification, but each is independent of and different from the others in its structure, environment, activities, and other features. Therefore, the professional development models in the eight sites represent variations on a general NBC candidacy model of professional development. Because of our interest in understanding the design and cost of high-quality professional development, we sought to select a sample of candidate support programs that had reputations for high-quality professional development and that exhibited variation in key characteristics such as program sponsorship, program design, candidate population, and policy environment. (See Appendix A.1 for more information on the site selection criteria and process.) All information in this study is based on the 2002–03 NBC candidacy year (summer 2002 through spring 2003). Based on the selection criteria, the project team selected the following candidate support programs. •

Cincinnati: Pathways to World Class Teaching. The support program in Cincinnati is a mid-sized program in our study, serving approximately 80 candidates per year. Developed by National Board Certified Teachers, it is connected to other state and local National Board Certification support efforts in Ohio and serves as the main support program in the Cincinnati area. The program requires precandidates to attend a

8

weeklong summer institute and then relies primarily on small group sessions with mentors organized by certificate area to deliver support to candidates during the candidacy year. The program operates in a state that has one of the highest proportions of NBCTs in its teaching force, 14 and support for NBC is reflected in state and district financial incentives as well as other policies. •

Miami-Dade: United Teachers of Dade National Board Support Program. The candidate support program in Miami-Dade is the only union-run program in our study and serves several hundred racially diverse candidates annually. Program offerings include a 40-hour precandidate workshop and various seminars and forums for candidates and mentors. The program also works to connect candidates seeking direct mentor support with willing NBCTs who receive a state stipend for this activity. Florida provides a high level of financial incentives for accomplishing National Board Certification and has a relatively high proportion of NBCTs compared with other states.



Mississippi Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project. Housed at the University of Southern Mississippi–Gulf Coast, operating under the umbrella of a school district consortium, and funded primarily by the state, the Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project is a partnership among the state, university, local school districts, and business, community, and education entities. Candidate support is provided through a four-day precandidate standards study course, small group sessions organized by certificate area, and more general large group workshops. Part of a state-funded initiative in a state with a relatively high proportion of NBCTs in its teaching workforce, the program serves a moderate number of candidates who enjoy state support for candidacy and generous stipends for certification.



North Carolina A&T: North Carolina A&T State University National Board Support Program. The North Carolina A&T candidate support program is among the smaller programs in our study. Taken on by the state university in 2000, the program is coordinated by a clinical faculty member and also involves the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. Three mentors support the candidates by providing four large group workshops, small group sessions, and individual assistance. The program operates in a state that provides a high level of support for National Board Certification.



San Antonio: Accomplished Teaching Initiative. The Accomplished Teaching Initiative operated by the San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) is the only completely district-sponsored program in our study. It operates in a state that does not provide any policy support or recognition of the NBC process. It is one of the smallest programs in our sample, serving 8 to 20 candidates per year. The program provides a high level of support to candidates during a precandidacy year as well as the candidacy and advanced candidacy years. Candidate support is provided through large group and small group meetings with NBCT facilitators as well as individual support from other NBCTs. The program director actively advocates for and supports National Board Certification in other school districts and at the state level in Texas.



San Diego County: Accomplished Teacher Support Provider Network. The Accomplished Teacher Support Provider Network (AT*SPN) is composed of a network of NBCTs in San Diego County, California, who mentor candidates attempting National Board Certification as well as disseminate, coordinate, and support local efforts to promote NBC and opportunities for NBCTs. In 2002–03, the program coordinator was

9

housed at the San Diego County Office of Education, but the network uses a decentralized approach to cover the large geographic area and the large number of school districts in the county. Candidate support is provided by six paid regional facilitators who organize group meetings and, with the help of volunteer NBCTs, provide individual mentoring to candidates. The network also organizes meetings for the facilitators and for district liaisons as well as works to engage other community partners. In 2002–03, the state provided significant financial incentives for candidates who achieved National Board Certification. •

Stanford: Stanford University National Board Resource Center. This candidate support program is a mid-sized program operated out of Stanford University’s School of Education in Stanford, California. Its design and operation draw on the staff and intellectual resources of the university and integrate program activities with other research, support, and technical assistance on NBPTS principles and standards of accomplished teaching. Candidate support is organized around monthly meetings that include a large group component and small certificate-based group meetings with facilitators. The program encourages teachers to think about NBC as a multiyear professional development process, and precandidates participate in all facets of the program along with first-time and advanced candidates. In 2002–03, the state provided significant financial incentives for candidates who achieved National Board Certification.



Winston-Salem: Winston-Salem Forsyth County National Board Support Program. The NBPTS candidate support program operating in Winston-Salem in Forsyth County, North Carolina, is a mid-sized all-volunteer program designed and operated by NBCTs with minimal district support. The program has grown from a single-person operation to one that involves approximately 30 mentors. It matches candidates with a mentor, who provides individual support to those candidates. Three large group sessions for candidates also are offered. The program operates in a state with a high level of support for National Board Certification, and its director is active in related NBPTS activities at the state and national levels.

Along with a review of the literature and other research, we used the candidate support programs in the study to obtain program and cost information that would help us address the study questions. We gathered qualitative information from program administrators, candidates, mentors, and other stakeholders in each of the support program sites to understand the candidate support program design features and learning opportunities. We used data on individual candidates participating in the support programs to examine relationships between program features and candidate performance on the NBC assessment. For the cost analysis, we gathered detailed information in four of the study sites from program administrators, candidates, mentors, and partners on the resources used and their sources. Further detail on our study methods is provided in Appendix A. This study is not intended as an evaluation of the candidate support programs. Instead we describe their common and varying characteristics to better understand the general design, cost components, and estimated costs of the NBC model of professional development. Of course, our findings reflect the sample of support programs we selected—those with a reputation for high-quality professional development—and the information we were able to obtain in each site, including that from program staff and candidates. In general, the staff and candidates from whom we were able to collect information were very positive about their experiences with NBC and their candidate support program. Nor does this study permit comparison of the experience

10

of candidates who do not participate in support programs with those who do, because we only consider a model of NBC that includes candidate support program participation.

Report Outline This report presents the results of our research on the study questions. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 focus on providing an understanding of National Board Certification as a model of professional development. Chapters 5 and 6 focus on resources and costs associated with National Board Certification and other models of professional development. The report is organized as follows. •

Chapter 2. Requirements and Learning Opportunities in the National Board Certification Candidacy Process begins to addresses the first research question: What are the salient design factors in the National Board Certification model of professional development? We describe key requirements of the National Board Certification candidacy process and the associated learning opportunities they offer to teachers who undertake this process.



Chapter 3. Design Features and Learning Opportunities in National Board Certification Candidate Support Programs also addresses the first research question: What are the salient design factors in the National Board Certification model of professional development? We analyze key features of the candidate support programs in our study, discuss the additional learning opportunities and other supports these programs provide for participants, and explore program features that contribute to participating candidates’ performance on the National Board Certification assessment.



Chapter 4. National Board Certification as High-Quality Professional Development addresses the second research question: How does National Board Certification as a model of professional development align with principles of high-quality professional development? We examine how both the candidacy process and candidate support programs incorporated in the National Board Certification model of professional development relate to six core principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature.



Chapter 5. Resources and Costs in the National Board Certification Professional Development Model addresses the third research question: What are the costs of the National Board Certification candidacy process and candidate support programs and who typically bears those costs? We identify the resources involved in the candidacy process and four of the candidate support programs included in this study. We also quantify and analyze the costs of those resources and identify who bears these costs.



Chapter 6. Comparison of the Cost of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with the Costs of Other Forms of Professional Development addresses the fourth research question: How do the resource requirements and costs of the National Board Certification model of professional development compare with those of other common approaches to teacher professional development? We present the results of our literature review on the costs of other professional development models and compare those costs with the cost of National Board Certification.



Chapter 7. Conclusions and Implications summarizes the study’s key findings and draws policy, program, and research implications.

11



Additional information is contained in several Appendices.

In the current environment where the No Child Left Behind Act is placing pressure on schools and educators to raise student achievement and improve teacher quality, this study can help place National Board Certification in the context of alternative professional development investments. It can also guide considerations for the design of professional development within National Board Certification and other systems of professional development. Finally, our findings can help inform decisionmakers about the costs of alternative models of teacher professional development. 1

Bond et al. compared NBCTs with unsuccessful National Board Certification applicants. They found that NBCTs were more effective in the classroom and that their students performed better on writing assessments. Goldhaber and Anthony found that third- through fifth-grade students of NBCTs in North Carolina showed improvements on year-end tests that were 7 percent to 15 percent greater than those of their peers who were not taught by NBCTs. Other recent research has shown that Arizona students in grades three through six taught by NBCTs made educational gains of more than one month greater than the gains made by students of non-National Board Certified Teachers. The same study revealed that Miami 9th and 10th graders who were taught by NBCTs performed better on year-end math assessments. Turner found statistically significant, positive correlations between a Georgia school district’s average test scores for third and fifth graders on the Stanford-9 in reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies and the number of NBCTs the district employed. See Bond et al., A Distinction That Matters—Why National Teacher Certification Makes a Difference (Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2000); D. Goldhaber and E. Anthony, Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively Assessed? (Seattle, Wash.: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2004); D. Humphrey, J. Koppich, and H. Hough, Sharing the Wealth: National Board Certified Teachers and the Schools That Need Them Most (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, in press); B. Rowan, R. Correnti, and R. Miller, “What Large-scale, Survey Research Tells Us About Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary School,” CPRE Research Report Series, RR-051 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2002); L. G. Vandervoort, A. Amrein-Beardsley, and D. C. Berliner, “National Board Certified Teachers and Their Students’ Achievement,” Educational Policy Analysis Archives 12, no. 46 (September 8, 2004): 34–37; K. Turner, National Teacher Certification: Is It Worth It? (Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia State University, 2003); and D. Goldhaber, “National Board Certification and Its Impact on Teachers and Students: Who Becomes Certified, Where Do Certified Teachers Teach, and How Does Certification Affect Student Learning?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, Ky., March 17–19, 2005). 2 “New Research Studies Begin on National Board Certification®,” press release of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Arlington, Va., September 9, 2002, at http://www.nbpts.org/news/article2.cfm?id=97. 3 L. Darling-Hammond and D. L. Ball, Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able to Do, JRE-04 (Philadelphia, Pa., and New York, N.Y.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, November 1998); Rowan, Correnti, and Miller; and S. P. Wright, S. P. Horn, and W. L. Sanders, “Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, no. 1 (1997): 57–67. 4 D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, “Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-based Theory of Professional Education,” in Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, ed. G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass, 1999), 3–32; L. Darling-Hammond, Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching (New York, N.Y.: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1997); and National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (New York, N.Y.: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996). 5 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, The Impact of National Board Certification on Teachers: A Survey of National Board Certified Teachers and Assessors (Arlington, Va.: National Board

12

for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001); M. Sato, “The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Teacher Learning Through the Assessment Process” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., 2000); J. Zimmerman, When the Journey Is Its Own Reward: Supporting National Board Candidates (San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2000); J. Berg, Improving the Quality of Teaching through National Board Certification Theory and Practice (Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., 2003); and E. Chittenden and J. Jones, “An Observational Study of National Board Candidates as They Progress Through the Certification Process,” ERIC No. ED412257 (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill., 1997). Another study commissioned by NBPTS is using pre-tests and post-tests to gauge teacher learning throughout the process. See D. Lustick, National Board Certification as Professional Development: What Teachers Are Learning? (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, in press). 6 Sato. 7 Berg. 8 D. Sparks and S. Hirsh, A National Plan for Improving Professional Development (Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development Council, 1999); M. S. Garet, A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Birman, and K. S. Yoon, “What Makes Professional Development Effective?—Results from a National Sample of Teachers, American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 4 (2001): 915–45; Thomas Guskey, “What Makes Professional Development Effective?, Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 10 (2003): 748–50; W. D. Hawley and L. Valli, “The Essentials of Effective Professional Development: A New Consensus,” in Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, ed. L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass;1999), 127–150; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Standards for Professional Development Schools (Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001), at http://www.ncate.org/documents/pdsStandards.pdf; and Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing, Assessment and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue (Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992), at http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf. 9 Thomas Guskey, “Analyzing Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development to Promote Visionary Leadership,” NASSP Bulletin 87, no. 637 (December 2003): 38–54. Furthermore, there is insufficient knowledge about how to judge when an initiative has met the criteria of high-quality professional development (e.g., how much of a characteristic is enough or how many principles need to be present). 10 See David Monk and Brian O. Brent, “Financing Teacher Education and Professional Development,” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, ed. W. R. Houston (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1990). Monk and Brent write, “As evidenced, there is a limited body of research that has adequately examined the fiscal implications of the escalating public investment in teachers’ professional development. The importance of the topic would seem to require that it receive more attention than it has.” 11 Miles et al., “Inside the Black Box of School District Spending on Professional Development: Lessons from Five Urban Districts,” Journal of Education Finance 30, no. 1 (2004): 1–26; Little et al., Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices (Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987); D. H. Stern, W. H. Gerritz, and J. W. Little, ”Making the Most of a School District’s Two (or Five) Cents: Accounting for Investment in Teachers’ Professional Development,” Journal of Education Finance 14, (1989): 368–79; K. M. Killeen, D. H. Monk, and M. L., Plecki, “Spending on Instructional Staff Support Among Big City School Districts: Why Are Urban Districts Spending at Such High Levels?”, Educational Considerations 28 (2000): 8–25; K. H. Miles and M. Hornbeck, “Reinvesting in Teachers: Aligning District Professional Development Spending to Support a Comprehensive School Reform Strategy,” District Issues Brief (Washington, D.C.: New American Schools, 2000); R. Elmore, Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District Number 2, New York City (New York, N.Y., and Philadelphia, Pa.: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future and Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1997); B. Miller, B. Lord, and J. Dorney, Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts (Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, 1994); D. R. Moore and A. A. Hyde, Making Sense of Staff Development: An Analysis of Staff Development Programs and Their Costs in Three Urban School Districts (Chicago, Ill.: Designs for Change, 1981); and Education Commission of the States, Investing in

13

Teacher Professional Development: A Look at 16 School Districts (Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 1997). 12 Carol Cohen, Issues and Strategies in Financing Professional Development in Education (Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2001). The Finance Project and its partners continue to research the costs and financing of professional development for teachers and principals through several projects. 13 J. K. Rice, “Recent Trends in the Theory and Practice of Teacher Professional Development: Implications for Cost” (paper presented at a conference of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, Wash., March 18–20, 1999). 14 The proportion of NBCTs in each state can be found in Appendix B.2.

14

Chapter 2: Requirements and Learning Opportunities in the National Board Certification Candidacy Process Besides being a mechanism for designating and rewarding accomplished teachers, National Board Certification® (NBC) can also be thought of as a process that offers professional development learning opportunities for those who undertake it. 1 The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS), for example, calls the NBC process a “forceful professional development experience . . . requiring intense selfreflection and analysis of one's own practice.” 2 Other researchers have described or are studying how the candidacy process and support programs assist teachers’ learning and 3 the types of learning that occur through them. This chapter and the next one address the first research question: What are the salient design factors in the National Board Certification model of professional development? In this chapter we describe the requirements of the National Board Certification candidacy process and the learning opportunities they present. In the next chapter we discuss the professional development opportunities arising from the candidate support programs. Although the potential for learning opportunities from candidacy exists, not all candidates will experience learning, or learning of all possible types, through this process. Some candidates may be practicing at such a level that fulfillment of all or some of the requirements of candidacy becomes primarily a demonstration of their already-existing capacities. Others may not take advantage of the learning potential that the process provides, because they do not feel the need, are not able or willing to put in the time and energy, or do not intellectually engage in the process. On the other hand, it is possible that teachers who undertake the candidacy process but do not achieve certification— either initially or after subsequent attempts—may still experience a great deal of learning during the process yet cannot sufficiently demonstrate that their teaching meets the NBPTS standards. Our objective is not to measure the learning that occurs during the candidacy process, but to point out the opportunities for learning that this model of professional development offers.

The Candidacy Process The process NBPTS designed to certify accomplished teachers is a rigorous one. Certification is limited to teachers who have taught for at least three years and who also meet specific other education and licensure requirements. 4 Teachers apply for certificates in specific areas that are defined by student developmental stages and subject matter (e.g., Early or Middle Childhood/Generalist; Early Adolescence/Social Studies–History; and Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Science). 5 Candidates pay a $2,300 fee to NBPTS at the time of initial application. 6 NBPTS has established standards, developed by committees of teachers and other experts from across the nation, for accomplished teaching in each certificate area. The number and content of the standards differ somewhat for each certificate. Certificates tend to have similar standards relating to themes such as preparing the way for productive student learning―including, for example, knowledge of students, learning 15

environment, and instructional resources―and teacher self-reflection, professional relationships, and family outreach. Certificates differ in the standards relating to content. For example, the Early Adolescence/English Language Arts standards for teaching students ages 11 to 15 (2nd edition) has six standards relating to Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, and Viewing; Language Study; Integrated Instruction; and Assessment. The Early Adolescence/Science standards for teaching students the same age has four standards in the content areas of Understanding Science Pedagogy, Science Inquiry, Contexts of Science, and Assessment. The NBPTS assessment consists of 10 parts, or entries. For successful completion of candidacy, teachers are required to develop and submit four portfolio entries demonstrating their teaching practice. They must also participate in a six-part assessment center designed to elicit their knowledge of subject-matter content in their certification area. Three of the four portfolio entries are based on the teacher’s classroom, two of the three require videotapes of the candidate’s practice, and all three require particular examples of student work. The videos and student work must be accompanied by written descriptive, analytical, and reflective essays that include “commentaries about the goals and purposes of instruction, analysis about what occurred, the effectiveness of the practice, and the rationale for the candidate’s professional judgment.” 7 The fourth portfolio entry, known as the documented accomplishments entry, requires teachers to document their accomplishments in working with their students’ families and community as well as their own professional community. In the assessment center, a three-hour test taken at a designated place and time, candidates respond in writing to six computer-based prompts. Candidates have 30 minutes to respond to each prompt. 8 Each of the 10 entries asks teachers to demonstrate their competence in teaching to one or more of the standards. Entries are scored in terms of whether they meet the standards for accomplished teaching established for that entry. 9 There is a four-level rubric for each entry. Level 3 or 4 represents accomplished teaching and level 1 or 2 is less than accomplished teaching. Once each entry and each assessment center exercise is scored, each entry is weighted to compute a total score. 10 The total score is then compared with the NBPTS-set performance standard of 275. If teachers achieve a total score of 275 or above, they are certified. Historically, fewer than 50 percent of firsttime candidates achieve certification. 11 Candidates with a total score below 275 may “bank” the scores received on each entry and retake any entry in the succeeding two years. NBPTS charges $300 per retake entry. Candidates who apply to retake entries are referred to as advanced candidates. The scores they receive on the retake entries replace their previous scores and count toward a new total score. Candidates have three years to achieve the required total score for certification. NBPTS reports that about 66 percent of all candidates have achieved certification within three years. Given these requirements, National Board Certification candidacy is necessarily a lengthy and intensive process. Candidates typically apply to NBPTS and receive the standards and portfolio directions in the fall, and they then submit the completed portfolio in the spring. The assessment center usually is offered in the late spring and is taken after completion of the portfolio. 12 Preparation for National Board Certification occurs over most of a school year―or years, if the candidate participates in a precandidate program and/or does not achieve certification on the first attempt and retries in a 16

subsequent cycle—and requires a significant time commitment from candidates. According to NBPTS, “Teachers report a wide variation of time spent on the complete portfolio, yet most state an expenditure of 200–400 hours.” 13 (We examine the resources involved in candidacy and the support programs, including candidates’ time, in more detail in Chapter 5).

Learning Opportunities from the Candidacy Process Below we highlight learning opportunities that arise from elements of the National Board Certification requirements, including learning opportunities from studying the standards, from completing the classroom-based portfolio entries and documented accomplishments entry, and from preparing for the assessment center. 14

Learning Opportunities from Studying the Standards The organization of the certification assessment requirements and the scoring around the NBPTS standards require successful candidates to demonstrate they understand and can implement teaching practice that meets the standards. Therefore, one of the key learning opportunities the candidacy process provides is exposure to, and an incentive for teachers to study, the NBPTS standards and thereby review or learn what constitutes high-quality teaching. Furthermore, especially through the portfolio preparation process, teachers must reflect on and compare their own teaching with those standards. ¾ “The process [is one of] reflecting on use of [the] standards; focusing on what I do.“—candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “I learned so much about what it takes to be a good teacher.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “My students gained enormously. What I was doing in curriculum—it upped the bar.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “I integrate subject areas much better—math and science were hard to do and make explicit—seeing the standards there made me know how to integrate them better.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program ¾ “[National Board Certification requires teachers to] look at the standards and what they mean and how they are used; teachers are not prepared for [these] standards through the general preparation process.” ─ dean of the North Carolina A&T College of Education (sponsor of the North Carolina A&T candidate support program) The consistent focus on the NBPTS standards also provides an opportunity for teachers associated with the process to develop a common language about their practice. As noted by the Stanford support program director, “The standards provide a language, a way to articulate and make explicit . . . . This is a learning process.”

Learning Opportunities from Completing the Classroom-Based Portfolio Entries The requirement for candidates to develop several classroom-based portfolio entries that include descriptive, analytical, and reflective analysis on student work samples and

17

videotapes of their own teaching provides still other learning opportunities. The candidates we interviewed overwhelmingly cited the reflective nature of NBC candidacy as one of the most important experiences of the process. ¾ “A highlight of the process was reflection—what is the meaning? What is the purpose? Instead of just teaching, making it worthwhile.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ I discovered the process and value of reflection . . . why I do things, how to fix them, make some notes on it. . . . ”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “I consider [National Board Certification] really appropriate professional development because it made me look at what I did.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “[National Board Certification] challenged me to think outside the box, to think differently about meeting kids’ needs. I ask myself why I’m doing things and is it effective or not. It started as reflective thinking and became proactive thinking while planning—is it going to work?”—candidate from the North Carolina A&T support program ¾ “Taking things I’m thinking about, transferring it to students—that’s probably the best.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program Specifically, through examining and writing about student work in the classroom-based portfolio entries, candidates have the opportunity to reflect on their own teaching by looking at assignments, student response and progress, and assessment methods. ¾ “I learned a great deal about assessment methods. I started to explore many more methods than I had used in testing.“—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “I learned about assessment—choosing assessments to fit lessons, not simply testing after completing a unit. It surprised me—I thought assessment was no big deal.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program By observing and writing about their videotaped lessons, candidates must reflect on their classroom planning and interactions. ¾ “Videotaping makes you think about how to make it effective and how you want it to be.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program ¾ “The videotapes helped me learn what was really going on in the classroom. I learned about my questioning techniques.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “Learning occurred about teaching to different students. If I need to do it, I can.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program

18

Specific portfolio requirements can also encourage teachers to try new teaching lessons or techniques that they then add to their repertoire. ¾ “I had to find or develop activities.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾

“I had to revamp what I do in the classroom to make it fit the portfolio requirements—I was forced to do it. The first year helped. This is now one of the central things.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program

¾ “From practicing for six months, I had units and lessons already in hand.”— candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “I did a new nonprint to nonprint exercise to understand ‘theme’—now I will do it forever . . . it challenged my students in a new way.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program

Learning Opportunities from Completing the Documented Accomplishments Portfolio Entry Development of the portfolio entry on a teacher’s documented accomplishments in working with others gives candidates the opportunity to consider themselves and their role with respect to parents, teachers, and others in the education community. Some respondents we interviewed reported that candidates may undertake new activities during their candidacy—such as keeping parent communication logs or serving on staff committees—to enhance their portfolio entry. These activities can also contribute to their knowledge, skills, and practice. ¾ “I learned through keeping a phone log. I saw I wasn’t doing enough. Now I see parents as allies.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “I saw a major change in [her] teaching—in working with parents, networking with others in the state. She tried new methods and did a lot of reading.”— superintendent in Mississippi school district commenting on an NBCT from the Mississippi Gulf Coast support program ¾ “[Candidates] learn from the process so that they do things differently next time if something doesn’t work; particularly, they give more consideration to parents’ involvement.”—director of the North Carolina A&T support program

Learning Opportunities from Preparing for the Assessment Center The assessment center entries test a candidate’s content knowledge in his or her field. Preparation for the assessment center holds the potential for teachers to refresh or enhance their content knowledge, because candidates often study for the assessment center by reading new material or reviewing material they studied in the past. The candidates we interviewed also noted that in preparing for the assessment center they often felt they needed to broaden their content knowledge because they knew the assessment center would cover numerous and different topics, not just the particular grade or specific subjects they typically taught.

19

¾ “[The process enabled me to] expand my professional library [and] fill areas in knowledge of teaching practice.”—candidate from the Stanford support program However, many candidates indicated that because of the schedule for submitting the portfolios and taking the assessment center, the time they spent preparing for the assessment center was considerably shorter than the time they spent developing their portfolio entries. This choice could result in fewer learning opportunities arising from this part of the candidacy process.

Summary National Board Certification candidacy is a lengthy and intensive process that offers professional development learning opportunities for teachers who undertake it. The NBC assessment process consists of 10 entries organized and scored in reference to NBPTS standards for accomplished teaching. Four portfolio entries require candidates to document and reflect on their teaching practice, while the six assessment center activities test candidates’ content knowledge in their certification area. The rigorous requirements of the candidacy process provide several key learning opportunities. • •





Through study of the NBPTS standards, teachers can learn what constitutes high-quality teaching and develop a common language about professional teaching standards. Development of the classroom-based portfolio entries, including examining student work, videotaping classroom lessons, and developing written commentary, requires teachers to reflect critically on their teaching. It may also prompt teachers to try new teaching techniques or lessons. Preparation of the documented accomplishments entry requires candidates to consider their relationships with parents, teachers, and others in the education community and may also induce them to undertake new activities, such as parent communication logs. The assessment center requirement creates an incentive for teachers to review or enhance their content knowledge, for example, by reviewing or reading new material.

1

For information on the history and original purposes of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and National Board Certification, see Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986). Also visit the NBPTS website at www.nbpts.org. 2 NBPTS website at www.nbpts.org. 3 J. Zimmerman, When the Journey Is Its Own Reward: Supporting National Board Candidates (San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2000); J. Berg, Improving the Quality of Teaching through National Board Certification Theory and Practice (Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., 2003); E. Chittenden and J. Jones, “An Observational Study of National Board Candidates as They Progress Through the Certification Process,” ERIC No. ED412257 (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill., 1997); M. Sato, ”The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Teacher Learning Through the Assessment Process” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., 2000); and D. Lustick, National Board

20

Certification as Professional Development: What Teachers Are Learning? (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, in press). 4 To be eligible for certification, teachers must submit proof that they meet the following specific education, employment, and licensure requirements: • possess a baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution; • have completed three years of successful teaching (or as a school counselor if applying for the ECYA/School Counseling certificate) in one or more early childhood, elementary, middle, or secondary school(s); and • hold a valid state teaching license (or valid state license as a school counselor if applying for the ECYA/School Counseling certificate) for each of the three years of employment. 5 NBPTS currently offers 24 separate certifications. For a complete list, visit www.nbpts.org. 6 The state or school district may subsidize part or all of the application fee (see Chapter 5). 7 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, “Questions and Answers About National Board Certification” (Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2004), 8. 8 The requirements for National Board Certification have changed over time. Before 2001, candidates had to prepare four portfolio entries and respond to four assessment center prompts requiring 90 minutes each. NBPTS has reduced the assessment center time to three hours total, requiring 30-minute responses to six prompts. In addition, NBPTS has added certifications in new areas and continues to do so. 9 Scorers are other teachers trained by NBPTS who work in the same content area but are not necessarily NBCTs. 10 Each of the three classroom-based portfolio entries is worth 16 percent, the documented accomplishments portfolio entry is worth 12 percent, and each assessment center exercise is worth 6.67 percent. In addition, every candidate is credited with a base score of 12, which is added to the scaled scores from each entry to reach the total score. 11 In the 2002–03 assessment cycle (the year of this study), 38.2 percent of all first-time candidates achieved certification. 12 Recently, NBPTS has moved to a new schedule, so candidates can begin the process at any time during the year. 13 “General Information About National Board Certification,” at http://www.nbpts.org/standards/nbcert.cfm#process. 14 Teachers may develop in additional ways from National Board Certification candidacy, such as by increasing their desire to take on leadership roles or by changing their criteria for selecting professional development in the future. In this chapter and the next, we highlight learning opportunities closely related to the potential for increasing teacher knowledge and skills used in classroom practice.

21

Chapter 3: Design Features and Learning Opportunities in National Board Certification Candidate Support Programs The National Board Certification® (NBC) candidacy process described in the previous chapter often is undertaken with support and assistance from other teachers or colleagues, either through a formal support program or through more informal relationships in a school, a district, a region, or beyond. 1 In a 2001 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS) survey of current candidates, 79.5 percent reported they participated in an organized candidate support program. 2 Such support programs are independent of NBPTS, though the board has established guidelines for facilitators and offers Facilitator’s Institutes for those intending to provide such support. 3 Furthermore, support programs and relationships may take a wide variety of forms. According to Cramer and Cramer, “NBPTS support programs are found in myriad formats and are implemented by myriad institutions/agencies to meet myriad agendas. Although Facilitator’s Institutes administered by NBPTS provide background on the certification process and tips for facilitators to assist candidates, no set curriculum has been established for support programs. Facilitators develop activities and strategies which they feel meet the needs of their particular set of candidates.” 4 This study examines eight candidate support program sites across the nation to increase understanding of the NBC model of professional development. The directors of the support programs we studied agreed that their program adds to the professional development experience of candidacy, though often the programs also had other objectives. For example, the Cincinnati support program’s primary goal is “to provide the highest quality of professional development through comprehensive coaching experiences to enable teachers to improve instruction, and to successfully participate in the NBPTS assessment,” while its secondary goal is “to restructure the teaching profession . . . by creating a network of accomplished teachers with the proven ability to provide active leadership in our schools . . . .” 5 Similarly, the goals of the Mississippi Gulf Coast support program are to “provide information and support to teachers interested in National Board Certification, to make the pursuit of this certification a professional growth experience, and to provide leadership opportunities for outstanding NBCTs [National Board Certified Teachers®].” 6 In this chapter, we analyze key design features of the candidate support programs in our study, discuss the learning opportunities and other supports these programs provide participants beyond the professional development offered by the candidacy process alone, and explore program factors that contribute to performance on the NBC assessment for candidates in those support programs.

Design Features of the Support Programs The support programs in our study exhibit similarities and differences in key features of their structure, major program activities, and policy environment. These are summarized in Figure 3.1 and described below. Detailed descriptions of the eight candidate support programs in our study can be found in Appendix B.1.

23

Structure •

Sponsorship. The programs in our study exhibit different configurations of sponsors and partners. These groups, institutions, and individuals influence the design, resources, and sustainability of the support programs by, for example, providing monetary, intellectual, political, and other types of support. Three of the support programs in our study—Mississippi Gulf Coast, North Carolina A&T, and Stanford—are housed at universities. Yet these programs also have other partners, and the university may not contribute the largest amount of resources to the program, as is the case with the Mississippi Gulf Coast support program. Several of the support programs, including Cincinnati, San Diego County, and Winston-Salem, are NBCT-designed and -driven, but their institutional homes range from an independent professional development provider in Cincinnati to the county education agency in San Diego County to none in the all-volunteer Winston-Salem program. A union operates the MiamiDade support program, while a school district operates the San Antonio support program. Nearly all the programs receive funding or in-kind resources or work in other ways with various partners, including schools, foundations, local universities, and the business community. (The resources contributed by all partners are examined in Chapter 5.)



Candidate Population and Area Served. The candidate population varies across sites in many dimensions, including size, racial composition, and the characteristics of the schools and communities from which candidates come. The size and composition of the candidate population in any program can affect learning opportunities by, for example, determining the ratio of candidates to staff and other resources and the diversity of backgrounds, teaching experiences, and school environments and policies represented. The sample of support programs in our study contains small programs (North Carolina A&T and San Antonio) serving fewer than 30 candidates per year, medium-sized programs serving 60 to 100 candidates per year (Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem), and large programs (Miami-Dade and San Diego County) serving hundreds of candidates per year. They also range from programs that serve candidates in one district only (San Antonio) to those that operate regionally. (Although the San Diego County program serves a large geographic area, it is limited to teachers working in districts in the county.) Each program is open to all candidates who want to attend and serves a candidate population with different demographic characteristics (e.g., race and school poverty level). 7

24

Figure 3.1 Key Features of Candidate Support Programs (2002–03) STRUCTURE Sponsorship

Candidate Population and Area Served

Cincinnati

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

NBCTdesigned and -driven; housed at Mayerson Academy; funded primarily by Ohio Department of Education grants; and directed by teacher on loan from Cincinnati Public Schools. Serves teachers in Cincinnati Public Schools and surrounding school districts in southwestern Ohio, about 80 per year.

Operated by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD); and funded by National Education Association grant, UTD, American Federation of Teachers, and Florida Education Association and local education donations. Serves UTD teachers (free for union members; fee for nonunion members), about 400– 600 per year.

Funded mainly by Mississippi Department of Education; housed at University of Southern Mississippi– Gulf Coast; and operated under umbrella of Gulf Coast Education Initiative Consortium.

Housed at North Carolina A&T State University; and jointly funded by North Carolina A&T and University of North Carolina– Greensboro.

Operated and funded by San Antonio Independent School District.

NBCT-designed and -driven; housed at the San Diego County Office of Education; and funded by California Department of Education grant, NBPTS grant, and community contributions.

Housed at Stanford University and funded by the Hewlett Foundation.

NBCTdesigned and -driven; operates on voluntary basis; and some in-kind donations provided by WinstonSalem Forsyth County Schools.

Serves teachers from 17 school districts in the Gulf Coast region, about 70 per year.

Serves teachers in the Greensboro area, about 8– 12 per year.

Serves teachers in San Antonio Independent School District, particularly minority teachers, about 9 per year.

Involves teachers and district NBC coordinators in San Diego County, about 100–200 teachers per year.

Serves teachers in the San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding regions, about 100 per year.

Serves teachers in the WinstonSalem area, mainly from WinstonSalem Forsyth County Schools, about 60 per year.

25

STRUCTURE Mentor Characteristics

Cincinnati

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

Mentors are NBCTs selected by the program director and are paid a stipend of $1,200. They attend National Board Facilitator’s Institute. Many mentors have been involved in the scoring process.

Any NBCT who mentors candidates 100 hours or more is eligible for a state stipend of 10% of the average state teacher salary from the prior year. Training is provided by the program but not required.

Mentors are NBCTs selected by the program director and are paid $100 per group mentoring session. Training is provided by the program but not required.

Mentors are selected by the program director and are paid $50 per group session. Training is not provided or required.

Mentors are NBCTs selected by the program director and are paid a stipend of $1,500. They attend National Board Facilitator’s Institute.

Regional facilitators are NBCTs who are paid a stipend of $2,000 (one also receives some travel reimbursement); meet occasionally to plan and troubleshoot; and coordinate NBCTs who volunteer to mentor candidates.

Mentors are NBCTs or advanced candidates selected by the program director and are paid a stipend of $2,000. New mentors attend statewide training designed by Stanford National Board Resource Center and WestEd. Mentors meet monthly to discuss and debrief.

Mentors are NBCTs who volunteer. They attend National Board Facilitator’s Institute.

26

STRUCTURE MentorCandidate Matching

Cincinnati

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

Mentors and candidates are matched by certificate area, unless it is the first year of a new certificate.

Mentors and candidates are not matched. Program provides a list of mentors for candidates to contact. Candidates typically seek mentors in the same certificate area.

Mentors and candidates are matched by certificate area.

Mentors and candidates are not assigned or matched by certificate area.

Mentors and candidates are not assigned or matched by certificate area.

Mentors and candidates are not assigned, but efforts are made to help candidates find mentors in their certificate area.

Mentors and candidates are matched by certificate area, when possible.

Mentors and candidates are matched by certificate area, when possible.

Provides sessions at schools upon request and presents at union meetings several times per year.

Provides sessions for schools and districts annually and distributes brochures.

Sends brochures to post in schools.

Conducts sessions at schools, union meetings, and district events; creates promotional videos for principals; and distributes brochures.

Provides, through regional facilitators, school and district sessions upon request and distributes brochures.

Provides daylong information sessions at the center, provides district sessions upon request, distributes brochures, and maintains website.

Provides 3 district sessions per year.

MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Information and Provides school Recruitment sessions upon request, distributes brochures, and maintains website.

27

Cincinnati MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Large Group Meetings

Small Group Meetings

Offers 10–15 small group meetings with 5:1 ratio held throughout candidacy year; attendance at all or most sessions is expected. Peer-to-peer candidate exchange is part of design.

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

Offers different large group workshops and forums. Candidates attend those they choose.

Offers 10 large group seminars on topics related to highquality teaching.

Offers 3 large group meetings.

Offers 10 monthly large group meetings throughout candidacy year; attendance at all or most sessions is expected.

Offers, through regional facilitators, large group meetings the number and topics of which are at the discretion of each regional facilitator; candidates are encouraged to attend sessions based on their needs.

Offers 10 monthly large group meetings throughout candidacy year; attendance at all or most sessions is expected.

Offers 3 large group meetings.

Offers 10 small group meetings per certificate area throughout candidacy year; attendance at all or most sessions is expected. Peer-to-peer candidate exchange is part of design.

Offers twicemonthly small group mentoring meetings throughout year.

Offers small group mentoring meetings with dates and times determined by candidates and mentors. Peerto-peer candidate exchange is part of design.

Offers 10 monthly small group meetings with approximately 6:1 ratio held throughout candidacy year; attendance at all or most sessions is expected. Peer-to-peer candidate exchange is part of design.

28

Cincinnati MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Mentors are Mentor available to Assistance to assist Candidates candidates Outside Group via phone and Meetings e-mail.

Precandidacy Program

A weeklong intensive summer institute or 5week session during school year is held.

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

Candidates and mentors arrange individual mentoring.

Mentors are available to assist candidates via phone and email.

Mentors are available to assist candidates via phone and email.

Mentors are available to assist candidates via phone and email.

One-on-one mentoring is coordinated at discretion of regional facilitators.

Mentors are available for portfolio development and writing consultation via phone and email.

Candidates and mentors schedule individual mentoring meetings. Mentoring also is available via phone and email.

A 40-hour workshop provides teachers with information about the process before they formally apply.

Precandidates are required to attend a 4-day standards study course to orient themselves to NBPTS process and standards.

Separate offerings for precandidates are available in year prior to candidacy.

A 3-credit course offered through the University of San Diego prepares candidates for the NBC process.

Precandidates participate fully with other candidates in large and small group meetings.

29

Cincinnati

Miami-Dade

MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Significant Specialized one-on-one Assistance to mentoring Advanced occurs with Candidates an assigned mentor.

Other Candidate Support

Helps candidates complete application paperwork and access application fee subsidy.

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

One-on-one mentoring with the program director occurs before candidates are folded back into small mentoring groups.

Advanced candidates attend tailored large group meetings and receive one-onone mentoring.

Candidates receive ongoing support until they achieve certification.

Advanced candidates attend a small mentoring group before being folded back into small groups by certificate area. They also receive one-onone consultation with program staff.

One-on-one mentoring continues in the second year with any veteran candidates.

Administers state subsidy for candidate application fee.

Provides videotaping equipment, an individual to videotape, and child care at meetings.

30

Cincinnati MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Research, Development, and Dissemination

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

Establishes links with local colleges and universities to promote NBC.

Conducts outreach and dissemination efforts at school and district levels and attends state and national meetings and conferences.

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

Provides technical assistance to other school districts developing support programs; raises awareness of the NBC process at the state and local levels; advocates for new incentives; and develops partnerships with higher education.

Attends state and national meetings and conferences and seeks to involve colleges and universities in the NBC process.

Provides information to teachers, organizations, and districts about NBPTS standards and the creation of support programs; facilitates efforts to encourage, integrate, and reward NBC; and conducts research relevant to NBC.

Conducts state and national outreach based on program experience.

31

Cincinnati POLICY ENVIRONMENT State or District State pays full application Fiscal fee and oneIncentives* time $2,500 stipend. Cincinnati Public Schools provides additional one-time $1,000 stipend and has abbreviated lead teacher process for NBCTs (carries additional pay). Cincinnati Related Public Initiatives Schools teacher evaluation system is closely aligned with NBPTS standards.

Miami-Dade

Mississippi Gulf Coast

North Carolina A&T

San Antonio

San Diego County

Stanford

WinstonSalem

State pays $2,070 of application fee and annual stipend of 10% of the average teacher salary (about $3,900). Miami-Dade school district provides additional one-time $7,500 stipend.

State pays full application fee and annual $6,000 stipend for the life of the certificate. Release days vary by district.

State pays full application fee, provides 12% of annual salary as a bonus for life of certificate, and authorizes 3 release days.

District pays full application fee and one-time $4,000 stipend and provides 3 release days to first-time candidates and 2 release days to advanced candidates.

State pays $1,000 of application fee, one-time $10,000 award for all NBCTs, and an additional $20,000 award for teaching in a low-performing school. Release days vary by district.

State pays $1,000 of application fee, one-time $10,000 award for all NBCTs, and an additional $20,000 award for teaching in a lowperforming school. Release days vary by district.

State pays full application fee, provides 12% of annual salary as a bonus for life of certificate, and authorizes 3 release days.

State induction program, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment, is closely aligned with NBPTS standards.

State induction program, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment, is closely aligned with NBPTS standards.

WinstonSalem Forsyth County Schools has developed local board certification.

Note: *Local districts other than those cited may contribute additional amounts.

32



Mentor Characteristics. Mentors and mentoring are key to all the candidate support programs in our study. However, the programs differ with regard to selection, training, and payment of mentors, which can affect the quality of the mentoring provided and, therefore, the quality of the learning opportunities. In all but one program, the program director, mentors, and other staff are all NBCTs; Stanford is the only program where the program director is not an NBCT, and advanced candidates may also serve as mentors. In the Miami-Dade and San Diego County support programs, any NBCT may serve as a mentor. In the others, the program director selects the mentors. In these two programs and the North Carolina A&T support program, mentors require no special training beyond being an NBCT, while in the other five sites the support program requires or has a goal of all mentors receiving training through an NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute or similar training. In two of the programs, the program director provides training to new mentors. One site, Winston-Salem, arranged for an NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute in the study year. Of the eight support programs, Winston-Salem is the only one that relies completely on mentors to volunteer their time; mentors receive some payment in all the other programs. Payments to mentors are $50 and $100 per session in North Carolina A&T and Mississippi Gulf Coast, respectively, and annual stipends range from $1,200 to $2,000 or more in the other programs.



Mentor-Candidate Matching. Four of the support programs (Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem) directly assign candidates to particular mentors. All the support programs that do this also match candidates and mentors by certificate area where possible, except, for example, where the number of candidates attempting a specific certification is too small or mentors are not available. Support programs that do not directly match candidates and mentors provide mentors that serve any candidate, as in the San Antonio program, for example, or provide a list of mentors but leave it up to the candidate to establish a relationship with a mentor. Programs that match candidates with mentors help ensure a continuous relationship for teacher-to-teacher learning. By matching candidates with mentors in the same certification area, they also offer greater opportunities to support content learning and the integration of content with pedagogy.

Major Program Activities •

Information and Recruitment. All the support programs provide information about NBPTS and NBC to current and prospective candidates. Common information and recruitment activities include providing information sessions at a central location or in schools or districts upon request, distributing brochures and other promotional materials, and maintaining a website. The San Antonio program’s extensive activities in this area include creating promotional videos for principals and conducting a large number of information sessions at schools, union meetings, and district events. The extent of a support program’s information and recruitment activities can affect the number and types of teachers who engage in NBC candidacy.

33



Large Group Meetings. Large group sessions are offered to all candidates in a program and are led by a mentor or other program staff member. They typically focus on providing information and support applicable to all candidates, such as updates on policy developments in a state; encouraging candidates to continue through the process; and offering guidance on key understandings or skills required for National Board Certification, such as studying the standards, documenting professional accomplishments, videotaping classroom practices, or writing portfolio entries. Large group meetings are used regularly in every support program except Cincinnati, which instead relies primarily on small group meetings. Four of the programs offer both large and small group meetings. Two support programs (Stanford and San Antonio) offer 10 monthly large group meetings throughout the candidacy year, and candidates are expected to attend all or most of the meetings. The topics for these sessions are predetermined and correspond to the portfolio development and assessment center activities that candidates are undertaking throughout the year. Mississippi Gulf Coast also offered 10 large group sessions, but these seminars on high-quality teaching were less closely related to the candidacy process. North Carolina A&T and Winston-Salem offered three large group meetings, and Miami-Dade and San Diego County offered various large group sessions for candidates who wanted to attend. In all the study sites, large and small group sessions take place outside of teachers’ regular workdays—usually in evenings or on weekends.



Small Group Meetings. Small group sessions, used in place of or in addition to large group meetings in five of the eight programs, typically involve 3 to 10 candidates with a mentor. 8 In small group sessions, mentors may assign tasks, such as preparation of draft entries; bring materials and other resources, such as studies or sample teacher rubrics, for the group to consider; and plan and lead group discussion. They may also foster and facilitate peer-to-peer interaction, discussion, and review of entries against the standards. For example, candidates may share and critique one another’s videotapes, student work samples, and written entries as portfolio entries are being prepared, study jointly for the assessment center, and engage in discussion and examination of teaching practices and artifacts, such as samples of teacher rubrics or assessments. Three of the programs (Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, and Stanford) offer 10 or more small group sessions that correspond to the portfolio development and assessment center activities occurring throughout the candidate year, and candidates are expected to attend all or most of the meetings. In these programs, candidates are grouped by certificate area, and peer-to-peer candidate exchange is part of the design of the small group meetings. The North Carolina A&T and San Antonio support programs convene a large number of small group meetings, but the topics or dates are not predetermined. The San Antonio program also incorporates peer-to-peer candidate exchange into its small group meetings.



Mentor Assistance to Candidates Outside Group Meetings. Every program in our sample uses mentors or other support program staff to provide one-on-one support to candidates. However, some of the study support programs, including the programs in Miami-Dade and Winston-Salem, rely primarily on one-to-one 9 mentoring, rather than group meetings, to deliver support. One-on-one

34

mentoring often revolves around the mentor reviewing and providing feedback on candidate portfolio entries. Individual mentoring can also focus on specific topics, such as writing assistance. Once the mentoring relationship is established, mentors and candidates typically arrange their own communications and meetings; mentoring may occur in person or via e-mail or the telephone. •

Precandidacy Program. Six of the eight support programs in our study offer support for precandidates (i.e., teachers who are preparing to attempt National Board Certification in the future but who are not presently candidates). In our sample of support programs, precandidate support takes two distinct forms. Four programs (Cincinnati, Miami-Dade, Mississippi Gulf Coast, and San Diego County) offer specific, time-limited support for approximately one week or 30 to 40 hours. This support typically is offered in the summer before the candidacy year; candidates work to become familiar with the NBC standards and requirements and begin to practice the tasks that will be required of them in the portfolio development process. Precandidates in the San Antonio and Stanford programs follow a different model. They have the opportunity to participate for a full year in precandidacy activities before formally beginning candidacy. The San Antonio program offers specialized activities for precandidates, while Stanford integrates its precandidates into the activities for active candidates. In the Mississippi Gulf Coast and San Antonio programs, participation in precandidacy support activities is mandatory for candidates to receive continuing support, but such participation is voluntary in the other programs. 10



Specialized Assistance to Advanced Candidates. Although all the programs in our study offer support to advanced candidates as well as first-time candidates, some offer special support to advanced candidates. In several programs, advanced candidates receive specialized assistance from the program mentors or administrators. This typically takes the form of more intense mentoring assistance, often from the program director, or one-on-one counseling and strategy sessions with advanced candidates on which entries to retake. In two sites, San Antonio and Stanford, advanced candidates receive some support in groups that is tailored to their needs.



Other Candidate Support. Some of the programs, including Miami-Dade and Mississippi Gulf Coast, help candidates with logistics, such as accessing application fee subsidies. San Antonio provides candidates with logistical support that includes providing child care at meetings and offering videotaping equipment and videotaping assistance.



Research, Development, and Dissemination. Each program engages in some research, development, and dissemination activities that go beyond, but are closely related to, providing direct support to candidates and prospective candidates. Nearly every program director, for example, serves as a liaison and advocate for NBPTS, NBPTS standards, the certification process, and the support program locally, statewide, or nationally. In addition, program directors, such as those in the San Antonio and Stanford programs, may provide technical assistance to others developing candidate support programs. They may also conduct research on NBC-related topics (Stanford); coordinate or participate in Facilitator’s Institutes or other training for mentors (Stanford and Winston-Salem);

35

coordinate continuing professional activities for NBCTs (San Diego County and Stanford); or work to integrate NBPTS standards into master’s degree programs or other professional development systems (North Carolina A&T). These activities help connect NBC to other education reforms, build additional knowledge and capacity (e.g., research knowledge and additional trained mentors), and help teachers engage in a professional and learning community that extends beyond National Board Certification.

Policy Environment •

State or District Fiscal Incentives. State, district, and school support for NBC can set an important context for the candidates and the program. Except for Texas, the states in which the study sites are located have significant numbers of NBCTs compared with most other states (see Appendix B.2) and exhibit substantial support for NBC. ◊

Contribution to Application Fee. In each study site, candidates receive help with the application fee from the state and/or their local district. In 2002–03 three states (Mississippi, North Carolina, and Ohio) of the six states in which our study sites are located paid the entire application fee; Florida paid 90 percent of the fee and California paid $1,000 toward the fee. Texas did not contribute to the fee. Yet in Texas, as well as in California, some local districts, such as our study site, the San Antonio school district, independently contributed toward the application fee of candidates in their district.



Release Days. The number of release days available to a candidate to work on his or her portfolio varies depending on the state, district, and school in which the candidate works. North Carolina authorizes all candidates in the state to take three release days. The San Antonio school district provides three release days to first-time candidates and two release days to advanced candidates. The number of authorized release days in California and Mississippi is determined by the school district in which the candidate works. In states or districts that authorize a fixed number of release days, local districts or schools may sometimes grant additional release time.



Stipends and Rewards. The achievement of National Board Certification and, occasionally, the completion of candidacy, is often rewarded with a monetary stipend or other rewards from the state. Local school districts sometimes offer additional stipends; for example, NBCTs in Dade County School District receive a one-time award from the district as well as an annual salary supplement from the state. Stipends from the states or districts with candidates participating in our study programs included onetime awards ranging from $3,500 in Cincinnati to $10,000 in California for all NBCTs—more if the NBCT accepted certain assignments—and annual salary supplements ranging from a fixed amount of $6,000 in Mississippi to 10 percent and 12 percent of salary in Florida and North Carolina, respectively.

36



Related Initiatives. The extent to which other NBPTS-related initiatives exist in the vicinity of the support program is another indication of the policy environment for NBC. In California, the statewide teacher induction program, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment, is closely aligned with NBPTS principles and standards, and parts of the Cincinnati Public Schools’ teacher evaluation system track the board’s standards. Although Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools has developed a local board certification intended to serve as an introduction to National Board Certification, it is not currently coordinated with the Winston-Salem candidate support program.

Learning Opportunities and Other Supports in the Support Programs In addition to the learning opportunities presented by the requirements of the candidacy process, support programs can provide candidates with additional learning opportunities and other supports to help teachers fulfill the specific requirements of candidacy. According to NBPTS, “Candidate support includes providing resources, mentoring, coaching, guidance, and technical assistance to candidates. It incorporates intellectual, logistical, emotional, and technical support . . . . ” 11 Other researchers use similar frameworks to enumerate and discuss the key types of support provided. 12 In subsequent sections, we discuss learning opportunities and other key supports the support programs in our study offered.

Peer Learning Opportunities A key learning opportunity the support programs offered is peer interaction that can deepen the learning that occurs through the candidacy process. Interactions with mentors and other program staff and with other candidates on the portfolio development and assessment center requirements and preparation facilitate professional discussions of the NBPTS standards, the review of teaching practices against the standards, and the sharing of knowledge, materials, and other resources. Candidate and support program staff expressed that such interactions are particularly valuable because they help teachers engage with other teachers in new ways. “The support program furthers learning by posing questions, coming to answers about those questions. It opens the doors of the classroom, allows learning from [one another].”—director of the San Diego County support program. ¾ “[The support program] forces you to open up practice, let others critique.”— candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “Meeting teachers outside my district . . . you see different challenges, get insight into someone else’s classroom. It was a broadening experience.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “Writing did not fit my brain. I needed discussion.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “A highlight was crossing certificate areas.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program

37

This peer learning can occur through group meetings, in individual contacts with mentors, and from professional exchange with other candidates. Group Sessions. Group sessions, especially the large group sessions used by nearly every support program in our study, provide opportunities for program staff to share with candidates information on the candidacy requirements and process as well as knowledge about the NBPTS standards and high-quality teaching. The group format also provides opportunities for discussion of the standards and how they play out in the classroom, enabling candidates to deepen their understanding and internalization of the standards. The support programs also use group sessions to provide training on specific skill sets required for successful completion of candidacy, especially the descriptive, analytical, and reflective writing and communication of professional accomplishments required by the portfolios. Some support programs also have used the group session format to provide seminars on topics and teaching skills that support the NBPTS standards but are applicable beyond the candidacy process, such as assessment practices or teaching science with the inquiry method. Mentor Interactions. Mentors are a key feature of every support program in our study and are a major source of the intellectual and technical support provided to candidates. A central role of mentors is to work directly with individual candidates to review and provide feedback on their portfolio entries. Mentors in support programs guide candidates toward making good choices about evidence they provide to attest to their teaching performance, help them clearly articulate the rationale behind their decision to include or exclude evidence, and clarify technical and procedural aspects of the process. 13 Mentors or other support program staff can also provide learning opportunities by encouraging discussion of the standards and modeling analysis of teaching against the standards; bringing resources or samples of teaching materials for teachers to consider; and offering assistance with particular tasks or skills, such as writing. Support program participants reflected on the value of mentor assistance in the following ways. ¾ “The mentors were valuable because of having your entries read, [being asked] ‘So what?’ or being told to ‘develop further.’”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “The support helped clarify. The learning occurred on my own . . . . It occurred through writing.”─candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “The most important thing is conversations teachers have [and to] facilitate conversations around it.”—facilitator in the San Diego County program ¾ “More support equals more professional growth”—mentor from the Stanford support program Candidate Exchange. Every support program in our study provides candidates with learning opportunities from their interactions with mentors or other program staff, but several also intentionally foster peer-to-peer interaction and learning among candidates, typically in small groups organized by certificate area. Peer interactions in small groups include jointly reviewing, studying, and discussing the standards and other resources; sharing knowledge, experience, and practice; and providing and receiving feedback on portfolio entries as they are being prepared. In addition to meeting in small groups, 38

candidates in some programs, such as Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and WinstonSalem, demonstrated the value they found in peer exchange by choosing to meet outside formal support group meetings. Candidates in support programs with such peerto-peer exchange highly valued these learning opportunities. ¾ “It put you in touch with others. The discussion was much more rich than going through it alone.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “[Working with other teachers going through the process is valuable because of] seeing what’s going on in a different world, being able to draw on others not from my district. Being able to say ‘I do that; I don’t do that; that would be a neat idea.’”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “Having peers was the most helpful part.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program ¾ “The level of collegial discourse is extremely high. It provides concrete ideas for your classroom [and] creates collaborations that persist beyond candidacy.”— candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “A highlight was being with others in my exact field and sharing ideas with them.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program

Other Supports Candidate support programs can also provide several important types of support that help candidates meet the demands of the candidacy process, including logistical and technical support, a structure for managing the candidacy process, and psychological and emotional support. Logistical and Technical Support. Logistical and technical support includes providing candidates with basic infrastructure and assistance that enable and assist their candidacy. Such assistance supports the learning opportunities available through candidacy and the support programs. It includes providing factual information about the process and requirements, a time and place for meetings and peer interaction, and other supplies or services that help make candidacy or the support program accessible. The need for and value of such support is reflected in statements by program participants. ¾ “[It’s a] formidable process to go through without assistance.”—candidate from the San Diego County program ¾ “Part of my mission is to let them know what they’re getting into.”—facilitator in the San Diego County support program ¾ “The program facilitated finding partners. I found two other people from my district.”—candidate from the Stanford support program All of the programs provide candidates with this basic level of support, for example, by holding information and orientation sessions and other group sessions. However, such support varies depending on the intensity and resources of the program. Informationsharing activities provide opportunities for candidates, prospective candidates, and other

39

educators to learn about the availability and requirements for National Board Certification and the support programs and to be introduced to the standards and methods associated with the process. For prospective candidates, such information can help them assess their readiness to undertake the NBC candidacy process. Some of the programs, most notably the San Antonio support program, also helped candidates with logistics. For example, the program made video equipment, videotaping assistance, and other materials and services available to the candidates. ¾ “The district providing video equipment was key and the tech department helped, too. The director printed things for candidates, gave them notebooks and folders, and [gave them] meals once per month.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program Other programs, such as Mississippi Gulf Coast, provided other logistical support. For example, some candidates received help in obtaining a state subsidy to cover the application fee. Structure for Managing the Candidacy Process. National Board Certification candidacy is a long, intensive process involving many different parts and requiring many hours. Candidates expressed how difficult the organizational and time management aspect was for them. ¾ “Conceptualizing the organizational process for the portfolio was one of the most challenging parts of the process. I could have used even more help in understanding the requirements of the portfolio.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “It was not difficult to address the portfolio; I expected it to be more difficult. The process was mostly about time management and organization.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “[The requirements are] asking you to do something in nine months that took two years in a master’s [degree program]”—candidate from the San Diego County support program Support programs can help candidates plan for and pace themselves to fulfill the requirements of candidacy and help them access the learning opportunities that occur through participating in the candidacy process and support programs. Support programs create this structure by, for example, organizing group sessions throughout the year that parallel and create expectations for completion of various parts of the assessment, or putting candidates in touch with other mentors or candidates who can help them plan their activities and use of time. Candidates reflected on how this support helped them in several ways. ¾ “How to get through the process—[the support program] made it so much easier. . . . It forces nonprocrastination.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program.

40

¾ “Pacing is a critical element. The structure and peer group process builds trust.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “[The support program] came up with a series of outlines and handouts, created verbal ‘analyzation’ . . . .”—candidate from the Stanford support program Psychological and Emotional Support. Candidates express a high degree of emotional stress from the intensity and high stakes of the candidacy process. Leaders of the Stanford support program described the emotional stages candidates go through as naïve (precandidate), doubt (getting started), despair (writing), anticipation (box sent), euphoric (post-assessment), and wondering (waiting to hear). One candidate likened the box of standards and directions that candidates receive at the beginning of the candidacy process to “a terror movie.” A candidate’s school or personal environment can also add to emotional stress, for example, if the school is not supportive of candidacy or if there is a high degree of pressure to achieve certification. Staff in the North Carolina A&T program noted that minority candidates may feel isolated if there are few candidates of their racial or ethnic background they know who are undertaking candidacy or who are in their support program. Candidates emphasized how critical the support of family, colleagues, and others was to their ability to engage in candidacy. By providing psychological and emotional support that enables candidates to successfully engage in the candidacy process, the programs provide another important learning support. Programs provide forums and opportunities for candidates to interact with program staff, mentors, and other peers who can share the experience and provide support and encouragement. ¾ “The support group didn’t just help with the portfolio. The emotional support was a very important piece.”—candidate from the San Antonio support program ¾ “[The support program] puts a human face on the process.”—candidate from the San Diego County support program ¾ “The large group meetings showed me that [other candidates] are people like me, they look like me.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “I may not have been able to finish without the support group. I really needed the commiserating.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program Nearly all the programs provide group opportunities for candidates to share and release their emotions. For example, the Miami-Dade support program holds a “Waiting to Exhale” academy in October for candidates who are waiting to hear their scores. An advanced candidate from the Stanford support program described a session for those who learned they did not achieve certification as a “big ‘boo-hoo’ meeting.” Most of the programs also hold a celebration for those completing the process or for those who successfully achieve certification, and some provide additional celebrations throughout the process. The San Antonio support program, for example, holds a kickoff dinner, a winter celebration after the portfolios have been completed, and a culmination celebration each year after the assessment center. Program participants cite the key role of mentors and other candidates in providing psychological and emotional support. 41

¾ “The mentors support applicants in any way they can. They answer questions, read and edit entries, hug candidates, be a support figure, know what they’re going through, understand the steps. There are lots of e-mails and phone calls.”─director of the North Carolina A&T support program ¾ Psychological support is the majority of what I do. Criticism is shocking to teachers . . . . I ease people through so they can break down the tasks and better communicate who they are as teachers.”—director of the Winston-Salem support program ¾ “[I received] fellow teacher support: ‘You can’t quit.’”—candidate from the San Diego County support program

Program Design Features Associated with Candidate Performance on the Certification Assessment In this section we explore the relationship between key design features of the support programs and candidate performance on the NBC assessment. Knowledge of program design features associated with higher candidate performance can add to understanding of the potential of support programs to help candidates achieve certification. It can also help support program leaders consider how to develop or adjust their program design to help their candidates toward the goal of National Board Certification.

Quantitative Methods and Data Set We use descriptive statistics and simple quantitative analytical methods to examine associations between the certification assessment performance of candidates in our support program sites and support program variables. These methods provide a basis to test hypotheses about the relationships of support program features to certification assessment performance for all NBC candidates in our sample and for different subpopulations. 14 Because our data set consists of candidates in the support programs in our study, the methodology does not permit analysis of candidates who pursued NBC without the help of a support program or comparison between those who participated in a support program and those who did not. It also does not account for the potential bias that may result from self-selection of candidates into different support programs. Further exploration into the question of the effect of program factors on certification assessment performance could be performed with more rigorous statistical methods, if warranted. 15 Our sample includes data for 438 first-time candidates participating in seven of the support programs in our study in the 2002–03 assessment year. 16 (Details on how the data set was created and what it contains are included in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.4.) Our data set includes information on candidate characteristics, such as race and poverty level of the school in which the candidate teaches. It also includes information on the candidate’s performance on the NBC assessment for the 2002–03 assessment cycle, including whether the candidate earned certification, the score on each of the 10 entries, and the total scaled score. 17 These data enable us to measure assessment performance by achievement or nonachievement of certification and by score—both total score and disaggregated scores. In general, we use candidate scores rather than certification achievement as the measure of certification assessment performance. The scores capture greater variation in the data set and, therefore, enable us to examine the

42

data in more detail and to consider how closely candidates’ performance approaches the certification cutoff score even if certification is not achieved. Table 3.1 below shows the composition, certification rates, and average total scores of candidates in our sample overall and in comparison to national totals. The data also are shown by race/ethnicity and school poverty level. These subgroups are of special interest for several reasons. First, our data and other research show that a candidate’s race and school poverty level are correlated with certification assessment performance. Furthermore, nationwide poor and minority students generally achieve at lower levels than students from other environments, and these students are more likely to have minority teachers. 18 Given the national goal to improve student achievement among all groups of students, it is important to examine the performance of teacher candidate subgroups on the NBC assessment and what factors may be associated with higher certification performance for them. The proportion of whites in our sample is smaller than their proportion nationally. As in the nation generally, however, the largest group of candidates in our sample is white. 19 The proportions of black and Asian candidates in our sample are similar to their proportions nationally. The most notable difference in the makeup of our data set compared with national totals is an oversampling of Hispanics. This is because the site with the largest number of candidates in our data set has a large proportion of Hispanics in its program, while three sites have no Hispanic candidates in the data set. Table 3.1 Demographics, Certification Rates, and Average Total Scores of Sample Candidates and Candidates Nationally, 2002–03 First-Time National Board Certification Candidates Study Sample Nation Certification Average Total Certification Proportion Proportion Rate Score Rate All 100.0% 42.4% 263.0 100.0% 38.2% Candidates (n=438) Race/Ethnicity* Asian 2.3% 50.0% 288.0 1.4% 32.6% (n=10) Whites 81.0% 41.6% 50.2% 56.8% 276.4 (n=220) Hispanics 4.4% 31.4% 33.1% 27.6% 254.0 (n=145) Black 9.1% 12.4% 11.0% 10.4% 222.2 n=48) School Poverty Level** Low Poverty N/A N/A 13.0% 68.4% 284.3 (n=57) High Poverty N/A N/A 54.3% 37.8% 258.4 (n=238) Notes: N/A means not available. * The disaggregation of data by race/ethnicity excludes a total of 15 candidates in our sample whose race/ethnicity was coded as American Indian or Pacific Islander or was not coded.

43

** Low poverty means teachers from schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students receive free and reduced-price meals. High poverty means teachers from schools where 50 percent or more of the students receive free and reduced-price meals.

The certification rates for candidates in our sample reflect fairly similar patterns as the national candidate population overall and for most racial or ethnic groups. Our sample has a modestly higher first-time achievement rate (42.4 percent) than all candidates nationwide in that year (38.2 percent). This result confirms that, on average, we selected sites with above-average certification rates. Both in our sample and in the nation generally, the certification achievement rate for whites is higher than for any other racial or ethnic group—56.8 percent for our sample, compared with 41.6 percent for the nation. The achievement rate for blacks also is comparable to the national average—10.4 percent for our sample, compared with 12.4 percent for the nation. However, the achievement rate for Asians in our sample is considerably higher than for this group nationally—50.0 percent for our sample, compared with 32.6 percent for the nation (based on n=10). The certification achievement rate for Hispanics in our sample is fairly close to the national average for that group—27.6 percent and 31.4 percent, respectively. The average assessment score for our sample is 263.0, or 12 points less than the total score of 275 needed for certification; the range is from 134 to 367, and the standard deviation for the sample total score is 40.9. As detailed in Appendix C.1, candidates in our sample generally scored higher on the classroom-based portfolio entries (average raw score of 2.66) than on the assessment center entries (average raw score of 2.31). The average raw score on the documented accomplishments entry (2.57) fell between the other two scores. This pattern of average lower scores on the assessment center entries than on the portfolio entries is consistent with the performance of all NBC candidates nationally in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 assessment cycles, based on data provided by NBPTS (see Appendix C.2). 20 This pattern of scores across subparts of the certification assessment is found across nearly all subpopulations and support program sites that we examined (see Appendix C.3 and Appendix C.4).

Findings and Analysis Our analysis focuses on the relationship between support program components and candidates’ performance on the certification assessment. 21 We would like to explore salient program design features related to assessment performance. However, we realize that candidates’ performance on the certification assessment is likely due to factors besides the support program in which they participate, including characteristics of the individuals themselves as well as their school and other environments. Studies such as that by Goldhaber, Anthony, and Perry suggest that different candidate characteristics play a critical role in explaining certification assessment performance. Blacks scored significantly lower than whites. The researchers also found a positive correlation between teachers from relatively more affluent districts and higher assessment scores. Finally, they found that being older and male correlated with lower assessment scores. 22 Likewise, data from our sample indicate similar correlations between certification assessment performance and characteristics such as candidate age, gender, education level, race or ethnicity, and school poverty level (see Appendix C.5). Research indicates that policy and school environment factors also can influence candidates’ application for certification as well as their assessment performance. 23

44

Although other factors play a role, we would like to examine the potential impact of program factors on certification success because program factors could, for example, enhance or offset the effect of other factors. An analysis of variance in total scores across our sample—determining the extent to which variance exists within groups of candidates in the same support program versus among candidates across the support programs—reveals that 9.75 percent of the score variance in our sample is across programs. This suggests that program factors play a relatively small role in explaining candidates’ overall performance on certification assessment in our sample. Further research is needed to explore the relative importance of candidate characteristics and policy and school environment factors on candidates’ performance on the certification assessment. To begin to examine whether program factors can have an impact on certification assessment performance, we looked at average scores by site and ranked the performance of all candidates and candidate subpopulations. This helps us explore the association of programs to levels of performance for different groups of candidates. Of course, average scores by site reflect differences in the characteristics of the candidates who participate in that site’s support program. For example, if site 1 were overwhelmingly composed of white candidates or those from low-poverty schools and site 7 were overwhelmingly composed of black candidates or those from high-poverty schools, we would expect the average score of site 1 to be higher than that of site 7 based solely on the candidates’ characteristics. On the other hand, if the candidate populations in the sites are racially and demographically diverse, then we can examine whether the rankings of the sites remain consistent for each candidate subpopulation. If the general pattern of performance in the rank order of sites remains consistent across candidate subpopulations, it would suggest that different programs are associated with different results, regardless of their candidate compositions. Table 3.2 Rank of Support Program Sites by Average Total Score for All Candidates and Subpopulations Support Program Site

Average Total Score

All Candidates

Site 1 285.2 1 (n=25) Site 2 285.1 2 (n=69) Site 3 271.8 3 (n=36) Site 4 267.6 4 (n=5) Site 5 264.5 5 (n=29) 6 Site 6 258.7 (n=27) 7 Site 7 253.6 (n=247) Notes: N/A means not applicable.

White

Hispanic

Black

LowPoverty School*

HighPoverty School**

2

N/A

N/A

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

4

1

2

N/A

3

5

4

N/A

N/A

5

6

N/A

3

3

4

3

N/A

4

4

7

7

3

5

5

6

45

* Low poverty school means teachers from schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students receive free and reduced-price meals. ** High poverty school means teachers from schools where 50 percent or more of the students receive free and reduced-price meals.

Table 3.2 presents a rank ordering of sites by average total score for the candidates in that site as well as by candidate subpopulations. For all candidates, site 1 and site 2 average scores are well above 275, the cutoff for certification. The average scores in sites 3 through 5 are above the average for the total sample, but they are below the certification cutoff score. The average scores in sites 6 and 7 fall below the average score of our sample. The data demonstrate a general consistency in the rank order of sites across racial and ethnic dimensions and high and low school poverty levels. Sites that ranked higher according to the total scores of all their candidates also appear to rank higher according to the scores of subpopulations of their candidates, and the reverse holds true for the lower-ranked sites. The pattern holds particularly well for black candidates and those teaching in high- and low-poverty schools. However, a few anomalies break the ranking pattern. The lack of data on Hispanics for all sites and their concentration in one site prevent strong conclusions about their performance across sites. Moreover, site 6 follows the general ranking pattern for black candidates, while white candidates in site 6 perform better than would be expected from the site’s overall ranking. The general consistency of the patterns in the table indicates that participation in a particular support program can be associated with a candidate’s assessment scores, regardless of the candidate’s racial or ethnic group or school poverty level. These observations suggest the possibility that some programs are more effective than other groups in producing higher scores among their candidates and across subpopulations. An alternative hypothesis is that candidates, regardless of their racial or ethnic group or school poverty level, self-select into programs that roughly match their scores. The latter hypothesis seems unlikely, particularly because in many of our sites the candidate support program we examined was the only program—or by far the main program—in the geographic area.

Hypotheses About Program Features Assessment Performance

Associated with Certification

Assuming that support programs are associated with the certification performance of their candidates, what program features might be responsible for this association? To explore this question, we posited and tested hypotheses about four program features that were distinguishable among sites and that we hypothesized were positively related to certification assessment performance. Absent more specific research on the relationship of candidate support to performance on certification assessments, our hypothesis was that more support—as captured in the presence of each of these variables—would have a positive effect on certification assessment performance. Our specific hypotheses are discussed in subsequent sections. 24 High Intensity of Group Sessions. In four of the eight study sites, the support program offers a comprehensive series of group sessions. Generally numbering 10 or more and occurring monthly or more frequently, the sessions’ topics are predetermined and

46

correspond to the portfolio development and assessment center activities that candidates are undertaking throughout the year. Furthermore, the support program creates the expectation that candidates will attend all or nearly all the group meetings. The other four sites offer fewer sessions, the topics are less comprehensive, and attendance at the sessions is at candidates’ discretion. The higher level of intensity of group sessions represented by the comprehensive series of sessions indicates a higher level of learning opportunities, meaning candidates are getting more opportunity to focus on the standards, content, and pedagogy throughout the candidacy period. Our hypothesis was that this higher intensity of learning opportunities is positively associated with certification assessment performance. Formal Incorporation of Candidate Exchange. In the same four program sites, the support program intentionally groups candidates together, typically in small groups, and facilitates and encourages peer-to-peer candidate exchange. The sites that do not place an emphasis on such candidate exchange typically rely more on individual mentorcandidate relationships. Peer-to-peer candidate exchange is highly valued by candidates and provides opportunities for teachers to learn from one another, both around the NBC requirements directly and more generally to share teaching knowledge, skills, and materials. Our hypothesis was that the presence of this formalized peer learning opportunity is positively associated with certification assessment performance. Mentor-Candidate Matching by Certificate Area. The four support programs with this feature directly assign candidates to particular mentors. All the support programs that do this also match candidates and mentors by certificate area unless, for example, the number of candidates attempting a specific certification is too small. Programs that match candidates with mentors help ensure a continuous relationship for teacher-toteacher peer learning. By matching candidates with mentors in the same certification area, they also offer greater opportunities to support content learning and the integration of content with pedagogy. Our hypothesis was that mentor-candidate matching increases the quality of the learning opportunities experienced from interactions with mentors and is positively associated with certification assessment performance. Mentor Training Required. Four of the eight support programs in our study require or have a goal of all mentors being trained through an NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute or provide training to their mentors through a similar alternative formal, structured training process. In the other sites, training is more informal or NBCTs are encouraged to serve as mentors without being required to train formally for the role. Our hypothesis was that requiring mentors to be trained as facilitators provides a measure of quality control, enhances the peer learning experiences available through the support program, and is positively associated with certification assessment performance.

Hypothesis Testing We tested our hypotheses about the four variables—high intensity of group sessions, formal incorporation of candidate exchange, mentor-candidate matching by certificate area, and mentor training required—by looking for: • the presence of the selected features in the higher-ranked sites; and • higher average scores of candidates in groups of programs with the selected features than in those without.

47

Presence of Selected Features in Higher-Ranked Sites. The distribution of the four program features across the study sites, shown in Table 3.3, provides some support for their positive relationship with certification assessment performance. In general, the presence of these variables correlates with higher average scores of the site’s candidates, with the two variables of high intensity of group sessions and formal incorporation of candidate exchange particularly highly correlated.

Table 3.3 Distribution of Selected Program Features Across Support Program Sites Support Program Site

High Intensity of Group Sessions

Formal Incorporation of Candidate Exchange

MentorCandidate Matching by Certificate Area

Mentor Training Required

X X X Site 1 X X X X Site 2 X X X X Site 3 X X X Site 4 X X Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Note: Sites are listed in the same order as they are ranked in Table 3.2. Our findings are these. • Each of the four highest-scoring sites has high intensity of group sessions. In statistical terms, considering each site as an observation (n=7), the correlation between this program feature and the average score of each site is strongly positive, .8101. • Each of the four highest-scoring sites formally incorporates candidate exchange into its model, supporting our hypothesis that this program feature is associated with better certification assessment performance. This program feature is found in the same sites as the high intensity of group sessions variable, so the correlation between this program feature and the average score of each site is the same as for the previous variable, .8101. • Four of the five highest-scoring sites match candidates to mentors by certificate area, suggesting a positive relationship between this variable and certification assessment performance. The correlation value between the average score of the site’s candidates and the presence of mentor matching is positive and fairly strong, .7309. • Four of the five highest-scoring sites, except site 1, require mentor training, offering some support for our hypothesis. However, the correlation between the average score of the site’s candidates and the presence of this feature, .2811, is weaker than the correlations for the variables of high intensity of group sessions, formal incorporation of candidate exchange, and mentor-candidate matching by certificate area. Higher Average Scores in Programs with Selected Features. The second way we tested our hypotheses was to examine the average total scores of candidates in sites

48

with and without these program features. The average scores and differences are shown in Table 3.4. For every combination of candidates and sites, the total average scores for candidates in sites with the program variable are higher than the total average scores for candidates in sites without the program feature. This finding supports the hypothesis that these program features matter to higher performance on the certification assessment. Notable differences in average scores between sites with the program features and those without occur for candidates who are black and those who teach in high-poverty schools. The presence of the variables high intensity of group sessions and formal incorporation of candidate exchange, which co-exist in the sample sites, signals an average difference of more than 53 points in the total score for black candidates. The presence of the mentor-candidate matching by certificate area and mentor training required variables results in a difference of 36 points. Similarly, candidates in highpoverty schools appear to benefit by approximately 30 points when any of the selected program features is present. Not only do these data continue to suggest that the identified features of candidate support programs contribute to certification performance, but they also suggest that these features might have the greatest impact on black candidates and those from high-poverty schools. These are populations that traditionally have earned lower scores on the NBC assessment and have achieved certification at much lower rates. Table 3.4 Total Average Scores for Groups of Candidates in Support Program Sites With and Without Selected Program Features High Intensity of Group Sessions AND Formal Incorporation of Candidate Exchange

Mentor-Candidate Matching by Certificate Area

Mentor Training Required

Candidate Population

With

Without

Difference

With

Without

Difference

With

Without

Difference

Total Sample

280.9 n=135

255.1 n=303

+25.8

278.3 n=159

254.3 n=279

+24.0

276.7 n=139

256.7 n=299

+20.0

300.0 n=6 282.4 n=106 257.9 n=10 271.5 n=4

270.0 n=4 270.8 n=114 253.7 n=135 217.7 n=44

300.0 n=6 280.0 n=128 258.7 n=9 253.0 n=7

270.0 n=4 271.4 n=92 253.7 n=136 217.0 n=41

300.0 n=6 278.4 n=107 257.9 n=10 253.0 n=7

270.0 n=4 274.5 n=113 253.7 n=135 217.0 n=41

292.9 n=33 279.8 n=63

272.4 n=24 250.7 n=175

291.2 n=37 279.6 n=65

271.4 n=20 250.4 n=173

287.6 n=23 278.2 n=62

282.0 n=34 251.4 n=176

Race/ Ethnicity* Asian White Hispanic Black

+30.0 +11.6 +4.2 +53.8

+30.0 +8.6 +5.0 +36.0

+30.0 +3.9 +4.2 +36.0

School Poverty Level** Low Poverty High Poverty

+20.5 +29.1

+19.8 +29.2

+5.6 +26.8

Notes: * The disaggregation of data by race/ethnicity excludes a total of 15 candidates in our sample whose race/ethnicity was coded as American Indian or Pacific Islander or was not coded. ** Low poverty means teachers from schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students receive free and reduced-price meals. High poverty means teachers from schools where 50 percent or more of the students receive free and reduced-price meals.

This finding, if confirmed by other research, has potential significance for the ability of support programs to help black candidates and candidates teaching in high-poverty

49

schools improve their performance on the NBC assessment and achieve National Board Certification at higher rates. If support programs were able to achieve these results by incorporating the features identified above in their design, this could contribute to reducing the certification achievement gaps between black candidates and white candidates and between candidates from high-poverty schools and candidates from lowpoverty schools.

Summary Many National Board Certification candidates participate in support programs to help them through the candidacy process. We conclude the following about the eight support programs we examined in this study. • •



The programs represent different structural configurations, including sponsorship; population served; selection, payment, and training of mentors; and arrangements for matching mentors and candidates. The programs engage in similar activities, including recruitment and information, large and small group meetings, mentor assistance to candidates outside group meetings, and individual mentoring. In addition, some offer precandidacy programs, specialized assistance to advanced candidates, and various forms of technical and logistical support. Several programs also engage in related activities, such as outreach, technical assistance, and research. However, the extent, intensity, and implementation of these activities vary among support programs. The programs exist in differing policy environments that affect the context in which they and National Board Certification candidates operate. Elements of this policy environment include contributions to the application fee, the provision of release days, monetary stipends or other rewards for certification, and related initiatives such as the alignment of the standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards with teacher induction or evaluation systems.

Candidates who participate in support programs benefit from additional learning opportunities and other support key to fulfilling the candidacy requirements. •



The main professional learning opportunity the support programs offer is peer interaction that can deepen the learning that occurs through the candidacy process. This peer learning can occur through group meetings, interactions with mentors, and peer-to-peer candidate exchange. Other key supports the candidate support programs offer are logistical and technical assistance, such as videotaping, a structure for managing the candidacy process, and psychological and emotional support.

50

We use quantitative data and analysis to explore associations between support program features and candidate performance on the certification assessment. Our data provide support for hypotheses that the following program features may be associated with higher candidate assessment performance. Our data also suggest that these components of candidate support programs might have the greatest impact on black candidates and those from high-poverty schools. These support program features are: • • • •

high intensity of group sessions; formal incorporation of professional exchange among candidates; mentor-candidate matching by certificate area; and required mentor training.

1

Researchers at The George Washington University are completing a study that will investigate characteristics of mentors in both formal and informal support relationships and the role they play in National Board Certification. For more information, see http://www.nbpts.org/research/currentres_item.cfm?id=32. 2 For results of the candidate survey, see http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/cert_allcand_survey.pdf. 3 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Guidelines for Ethical Candidate Support (Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, March 2003), at http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/policy_ethical_cand_supp.pdf. Information on Facilitator’s Institutes can be found at http://www.nbpts.org/highered/institutes.cfm. 4 Mary Kay McCart Cramer and James E. Cramer, “Candidates’ Perceptions of Effective National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Support Programs” (unpublished paper, Arkansas State University, College of Education, fall 2000). 5 “A Pathway for World Class Teachers,” an undated proposal from the Cincinnati candidate support program to the state. 6 “Questionnaire to Collect Descriptive Information on National Board Certification Support Programs,” as completed by Dr. Senita A. Walker. 7 In San Antonio, participants selected by the program director and principals are encouraged to attend. A goal of the program is to encourage minority teachers to undertake candidacy. In the Cincinnati support program, participation may be limited by the amount of state funds available for candidate application fee subsidies. 8 In some programs, including Stanford and Winston-Salem, candidates also meet in small groups without a mentor. 9 Some program mentors we interviewed said they also provide individual support to NBC candidates who are not participating in the support program, for example, to other teachers in their school or remotely by e-mail. 10 Candidates in San Antonio may bypass the precandidacy year if they meet certain other program requirements. 11 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Guidelines for Ethical Candidate Support. 12 Joy Zimmerman categorizes the common elements of diverse support approaches into two groups: helping candidates manage the process and helping candidates become more analytical about their own teaching. Jill Harrison Berg uses a three-way framework of logistical support, emotional support, and intellectual support. See J. Zimmerman, When the Journey Is Its Own Reward: Supporting National Board Candidates (San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2000); and J. Berg, Improving the Quality of Teaching through National Board Certification Theory and Practice (Norwood, Mass. ChristopherGordon Publishers, Inc., 2003). 13 Cramer and Cramer. 14 We use these methods for the following reasons. • The data set represents a small number of programs (n=7). This limits our ability to use statistical techniques such as correlation or regression analysis to analyze programs in relation to one another because the small number of program observations limits the power of such analysis. Ideally, further research into program effects would include a larger number of

51

programs in order to have a more adequate number of programs relative to the number of variables being examined. • The data set reflects “nesting” of candidates within specific support programs, meaning that all of the candidates in our sample participated in one of seven candidate support programs. However, the certification assessment performance of the candidates in our sample will be influenced by other factors as well as program factors, making it difficult to isolate the effects of the program factors on performance. Consequently, the simple quantitative techniques we use support an exploratory and suggestive analysis. More definitive analysis would require significantly more sophisticated techniques, such as hierarchical linear modeling, that can account for nested data. • Our sample contains widely varying numbers of candidates in each program―ranging from less than 10 to more than 200―because of our selection of program sites. This uneven distribution of observations among sites creates uneven weighting in statistical analyses across sites that bias the results. In addition, within the smaller sites, the small number of participants limits conclusions from site-specific analysis. 15 Ideally, the data set for such analysis would contain an adequate number of randomly selected National Board Certification candidates representing a larger number of support programs. 16 As explained in Appendix A.1, we were unable to obtain relevant data from one of the eight support program sites. 17 The total scaled score is computed by multiplying each component score by its weight, summing all these scores, and adding 12. The weight for the first three portfolio entries is 16, the weight for the fourth is 12, and the weight for the six assessment center exercises is 6 2/3. The total is rounded to the nearest whole number. 18 N. Kober, It Takes More Than Testing: Closing the Achievement Gap (Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2001); and Wayne et al., Exploring Differences in Minority and Majority Teachers’ Decisions About and Preparation for NBPTS Certification (Arlington, Va.: SRI International, 2004). 19 In the subsequent tables and discussion, we follow the terms used by NBPTS in its candidate survey and databases—“white,” “black,” “Hispanic,” and “Asian”—to describe race/ethnicity. 20 Based on a sample of more than 23,500 candidates in 26 certificate areas, the average score for the classroom-based portfolio entries (entries 1-3) was 2.56; for the documented accomplishments entry (entry 4) was 2.52; and for the assessment center entries (entries 5-10) was 2.40. 21 Because our goal is to understand the relationship of support program components to certification success, rather than to compare the overall performance of the support programs, we do not use the support program names in this section. 22 Dan Goldhaber, Emily Anthony, and David Perry, “Making the Grade: Who Applies for and Earns Advanced Teacher Certification?”, Learning Curve: Facts and Perspectives, no. 2 (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 30, 2003). 23 See, for example, R. Linquanti and J. Peterson, An Enormous Untapped Potential (San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2001); D. Goldhaber, D. Perry, and E. Anthony, NBPTS Certification: Who Applies and What Factors Are Associated with Success? (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003); and Wayne et al. 24 We also considered the hypothesis that the availability of a precandidacy program would be positively associated with certification performance. Six of the eight support programs in our sample offer some form of precandidacy program. These programs help candidates or prospective candidates begin to understand the requirements and prepare for the process of candidacy, thus extending the duration and intensity of the candidacy experience. As discussed earlier, the precandidacy programs in our study sites take two general forms. 1) One form of precandidacy program is a specific, time-limited program for teachers considering or committed to undertaking National Board Certification candidacy that introduces the NBPTS standards and certification process requirements and begins to prepare teachers for candidacy. Typically, this program occurs over about one week or 30 to 40 hours. In one of the three sites offering this form of precandidacy program, participation is mandatory in order to continue in the program; in the other sites, participation is voluntary. 2) Under the second form, the support program encourages candidates to think of National Board Certification as a multiyear process and either requires or offers teachers the opportunity to participate in support program activities to prepare them for candidacy for a

52

year prior to formally beginning their candidacy. In one of the two sites offering this type of precandidacy program, participation is mandatory; in the other sites, participation is voluntary. Because the precandidacy programs offered by the support programs differ along several dimensions, it is difficult to hypothesize a single relationship between the existence of a precandidacy program and candidate performance on the certification assessment. While support programs with any precandidacy program would appear to offer more support to candidates than support programs without precandidacy features, the extended precandidacy programs would seem to offer considerably greater learning opportunities. More research is needed to understand the impact of different types of precandidacy offerings and experiences.

53

Chapter 4: Alignment of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with Principles of High-Quality Professional Development This chapter explores this research question: How does National Board Certification as a model of professional development align with principles of high-quality professional development? Education researchers, practitioners, and others have attempted to identify characteristics of high-quality professional development in order to support efforts and investments that will lead to improved teaching quality and, ultimately, better student achievement. The task of defining high-quality professional development, however, is a continuing challenge. The literature contains several lists of characteristics or principles of high-quality professional development design. 1 However, these lists were “derived in very different ways, used different criteria to determine ‘effectiveness,’ and var[y] widely in the characteristics they identif[y].” 2 Nevertheless, several principles are frequently included in these lists and in discussions of high-quality professional development. Acknowledging the unresolved nature of this issue, we nonetheless use as a tool of analysis six common principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature to guide our analysis of National Board Certification® (NBC). We consider NBC against the principles of: • • • • • •

vision; intensity and duration; intersection of content and pedagogy; content derived from analysis of disaggregated data; job-embedded learning; and collegiality and collaboration.

Vision High-quality professional development is guided by a vision of what constitutes effective teaching. This vision may also articulate the relationship between the definition of effective teaching and key reform priorities. 3 The National Board Certification requirements for candidates are clearly guided by a vision that is articulated in a system of standards for high-quality teaching. NBC candidacy offers the opportunity for teachers to learn and internalize these standards, if they have not already done so, and demands they provide evidence that they can meet the standards in their teaching. The support programs work to support this vision of high-quality teaching and professional development by guiding candidates through the process in pursuit of certification, which requires demonstrating that a candidate’s knowledge and skills meet the NBPTS standards. These programs encourage candidates to constantly examine their work against the NBPTS standards. For example, the Stanford support program directs candidates to “Read the standards. Read them again. Read them again.” 4 The Mississippi Gulf Coast support program reflects this vision in its precandidacy standards study, where potential candidates begin to study the standards for their certificate area.

53

Some of the support programs, such as Stanford, try to move beyond the emphasis on certification and stress that NBC is a multiyear process of learning to teach to high standards. The Mississippi Gulf Coast program’s addition of seminars for all teachers to its regular program of support sessions also reflects this broader vision of fostering highquality teaching. The support programs we studied ensure consistency of their program and mentoring with the National Board for Professional Training Standards® (NBPTS) standards in several ways, including these. •

• •

Program directors have often served on the NBPTS board of directors and/or standards committees. Several of the program directors or founders of the sites in our study, including Linda Darling-Hammond of the Stanford program, John Guardia of the San Antonio program, Sara Eisenhardt of the Cincinnati program, and Joan Celestino of the Winston-Salem program, have previously served in these roles for the NBPTS. They continue to advocate for National Board Certification nationally as well as in their state or region. Mentors attend Facilitator’s Institute training developed by NBPTS or similar training. Five of the eight programs in our study required or encouraged mentors to attend such training in preparation for their role as support program mentors. Some mentors have been scorers for NBPTS. The Cincinnati support program, in particular, encouraged teachers who had been scorers for the NBPTS to become mentors in the program.

NBPTS also has a vision and some history of success in connecting its standards with other educational systems. 5 For example, the board works to incorporate its standards into pre-service teaching education programs and teacher evaluation systems in some districts. In the support program sites in our study, the teacher evaluation system in the Cincinnati Public Schools is closely aligned with the NBPTS standards. California’s Beginning Teachers Support and Assessment induction program incorporates NBPTS principles. The candidate support program based at North Carolina A&T University is working to incorporate the standards into its regular pre-service teacher preparation program. The support programs also demonstrate the connection of the NBPTS standards with other educational systems in their partnerships and relationships with other educational institutions and in their activities beyond candidate support. Although the programs vary in the type and extent of their research, development, and dissemination activities, many of them work to spread the incorporation of NBPTS standards or certification into preservice and in-service programs offered by institutions of higher education and into school district professional development or evaluation systems. For example, the Stanford candidate support program is part of a broader National Board Resource Center that works to advance education reforms related to the NBPTS teaching standards for the purpose of improving student learning in American schools. 6 It also provides technical assistance to districts or schools wanting to develop or incorporate NBC into their professional development plans. Several of the candidate support programs seek to involve National Board Certified Teachers® (NBCTs) and provide opportunities for them to continue their involvement with NBPTS and the standards through advocacy or mentoring of other teachers. Likewise, the San Antonio and Winston-Salem program directors spend significant time advising others nationally and

54

in their state and region about developing and implementing candidate support programs.

Intensity and Duration Intensity and duration interact and refer to the amount, frequency, and duration of time that is necessary for the professional learning experience or that participants spend in the professional learning experience. The literature indicates that intensity and duration are desired features of teacher professional development. For example, one-time workshops frequently are criticized as insufficient to meet teachers’ professional development needs. Professional development experiences that occur frequently and continue over several months or years offer a greater opportunity for teachers to absorb and integrate new learning. There is no doubt the NBC candidacy process is longer and considerably more intense than most other kinds of professional development in which teachers engage. The process generally occurs over the better part of a school year and, for candidates who do not achieve certification initially and choose to retake parts of the assessment, the process may extend for an additional one to two years. Furthermore, according to NBPTS, candidates spend between 200 and 400 hours in one school year on the process. 7 The support programs that we studied vary in the level of intensity they add to the NBC candidacy process. Although all offer individualized support from a mentor outside group meetings, they differ in the level of intensity they provide on a group basis. Four of the programs we studied (Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, and Stanford) anticipated that candidates would attend about 10 or more large and/or small group sessions during the year, with each lasting between two and three hours. The Mississippi Gulf Coast program offered the most number of sessions; in 2002–03 not only were candidates expected to attend monthly group sessions, but 10 additional seminars on standards-based teaching practices were offered for NBC candidates and other teachers. 8 In the other four programs, fewer sessions are offered or attendance at group sessions is voluntary. For example, Winston-Salem offers three major workshops during the year—on documenting accomplishments, videotaping, and writing portfolio entries—that most candidates attend. Alternatively, the regional coordinators in San Diego County’s support program may schedule numerous sessions per month, but candidates are invited to attend any number of sessions they want. The degree of intensity of the support programs correlates with other key features. For example, more sessions means more time for focusing on specific topics, such as content knowledge in preparing for the assessment center or teaching techniques in analyzing student work or videotapes. Not surprisingly, intensity also correlates with the level of resources the program uses. Importantly, all the higher-intensity sites formally incorporate peer-to-peer learning, or candidate exchange, into their programs, a feature not seen in the lower-intensity sites. Precandidacy and other activities offered by the support programs can extend the duration of the candidacy process. Although all the programs offer some form of short recruitment or orientation sessions to inform prospective candidates about NBC, six of the eight programs we studied offer some form of precandidacy program. These fall into two categories. In the first category are programs that typically extend for 30 to 40 hours,

55

often over one week in the summer preceding the candidacy year. In general, these precandidacy programs introduce prospective candidates to the NBC standards, requirements, and reflective analysis. For example, the Mississippi Gulf Coast support program offers a one-week standards study session during the summer prior to beginning candidacy. The San Diego County program arranged to offer a semester course at a local university that serves as a precandidacy program. In at least one of the support programs in our study, participation in the precandidacy program was mandatory for candidates to receive mentoring through the program in the candidacy year. The second category consists of precandidacy programs that extend over a full year, reflecting the philosophy that achievement of certification is often a multiyear process. For the San Antonio support program, candidates are required to participate in a precandidacy year except in special circumstances. In the Stanford program, participation in a precandidacy program is voluntary, but candidates who choose to do so fully participate in the support program, including being part of small groups and preparing sample portfolio entries, for a year before formally applying to NBPTS and beginning their official candidacy. All the support programs also support the extended duration of candidacy for advanced candidates in the second and third years of their candidacy. In most cases, this involves some special support from the program director or other staff as well as inclusion in the activities available to first-time candidates.

Intersection of Content and Pedagogy High-quality professional development focuses on deepening both teachers’ knowledge of content and their understanding and mastery of the pedagogical skills necessary to help their students master the content. 9 During the past decade, considerable attention has been paid to improving teachers’ knowledge of content, and emphasis on content knowledge is a key feature of the NBPTS standards and the NBC certification process. As important as content knowledge is to successful teaching, knowledge of how students learn and the pedagogy necessary to help them learn also is critical. Too often, professional development focuses on one of these to the exclusion of the other, leaving teachers to make the connections by themselves. In contrast, the NBPTS standards and requirements for portfolio entries explicitly require concentrating on the intersection of content knowledge and pedagogy without diluting the importance of either one. The NBC assessment is designed to assess teachers’ mastery of both content knowledge and teaching skills. The standards and assessments are subject-specific. The preparation and submission of the portfolio entries, particularly the three entries that require videotapes and written commentary on the teacher’s classroom teaching, aim to assess teaching skills in the context of the subject matter being taught. These requirements encourage teachers to focus on demonstrating both their content knowledge and teaching skills to succeed in achieving certification. In addition, the assessment center entries seek to assess a teacher’s knowledge of subject matter in his or her field. Candidates typically prepare for the assessment center by reviewing previously studied sources, and they may also study material to which they previously had not been exposed. Clearly, this part of the NBC preparation offers an opportunity to refresh or enhance content knowledge. Yet even with the content-focused learning opportunities the assessment center presents, on average, NBC candidates

56

score lower on the assessment center entries than on the portfolio entries, as discussed in the previous chapter. The support programs provide learning opportunities in content and pedagogy by supporting candidates in the preparation of their portfolios and preparation for the assessment center. However, they differ in the number of group meetings and total amount of organized group time devoted to this process. These different support group designs affect the availability and intensity of the learning opportunities that focus on content and pedagogy. Furthermore, all the programs spend more time on helping candidates prepare their portfolios than prepare for the assessment center. Typically, the support programs leave preparation for the assessment center—focused specifically on solidifying or bolstering content knowledge through mechanisms such as recommending and discussing certain texts—for one or sometimes two sessions late in the spring. In at least one site, there is no group session focused specifically on preparing for the assessment center. The lesser amount of time devoted to this part of the certification preparation process appears to be a function of the schedule for candidates to submit their portfolios and then take the assessment center. It may also be a strategic choice by support programs in the use of time, because the contribution of the assessment center scores to a candidate’s total score is less than the contribution of the portfolio entries.

Content Derived from Analysis of Disaggregated Data The content and focus of high-quality professional development are derived from analyses of various kinds of data, including disaggregated data on student learning outcomes, other kinds of student outcomes (e.g., attendance and disciplinary referrals), and teacher performance. 10 This principle reflects the goal that teachers should be able to address the learning needs of all their students. Districts that are recognized for the quality of their teacher professional development initiatives use student achievement data to guide the content of professional development, monitor progress, and identify the needs of individual teachers. 11 This characteristic of high-quality professional development is reflected in the requirements for the portfolio entries. These requirements call on teachers to provide work samples from specific students in their current classrooms and videotapes of classroom teaching. They also call on teachers to reflect on and explain how they are teaching those students, whether the techniques worked well for those students at that time, and what they might do differently in the future. As described by one candidate, “Your class is a laboratory.” Because of the comprehensiveness of the standards, the process also encourages candidates to take a disaggregated look at their own teaching practices and compare them with the standards. Many candidates we interviewed spoke of the self-realization about aspects of their teaching that came from this process. As stated by a candidate from the Cincinnati support program, “I identified strengths and areas where I wanted to improve.” Each support program, by assisting candidates throughout the process, helps teachers focus on disaggregated student data from their classrooms and their own teaching practices. Yet, again, the intensity of this support varies among the programs we

57

studied. The support programs that use small groups and candidate exchange also open up candidates’ classrooms and teaching practices to one another through discussion and the sharing of classroom materials and videotapes.

Job-Embedded Learning High-quality professional development is embedded in the routine work of teachers. The notion of professional development as job-embedded learning has several dimensions, including that professional development is explicitly linked to the real work of teachers and is directly applicable to their teaching assignments. 12 The requirements of the NBC candidacy process, especially the requirements for development of the portfolio entries, are explicitly embedded in teachers’ workplace experiences. Completing these entries, which requires a candidate to describe, analyze, and reflect on the teaching in his or her classroom and how it could be improved, as well as on his or her professional interactions with parents and other teachers, exemplifies job-embedded learning. Furthermore, the duration and intensity of the process help candidates integrate this learning into their teaching over time. Candidates characterized the job-embedded nature of the process this way. ¾ “It is like a master’s degree in the classroom. Other professional development does not have an intense connection to what you do . . . [this is] directly connected to students and outcomes.”—candidate from the Stanford support program ¾ “It’s effective because you have to live it.”—candidate from the Cincinnati support program ¾ “Integration of the process into the classroom makes it a successful process; those who divorce it have the most problem.”—director of the Stanford support program As with other aspects of teacher learning that are built into the requirements of candidacy, the candidate support programs can enhance this learning by adding intensity, duration, and learning from peers.

Collegiality and Collaboration Teachers benefit from working and learning together. The notion that teacher professional development should be collaborative is one that is emphasized in recent literature. Examples of professional development that promote collegiality and collaboration are common planning time, observation of others’ teaching, group inquiry, discussion, and mentoring. Such practices are not common in teaching, because teachers typically are isolated in their classrooms. However, collegiality in general, and mentoring in particular, can help improve school culture and increase retention over time. 13 The documented accomplishments entry specifically focuses on candidates’ professional learning and interactions with other teachers and educators as well as on their relationships with parents and the community. For example, in this entry, candidates can highlight their contributions to study groups or service on staff committees within their

58

school, reveal how they communicate with parents, or describe their participation in education advocacy activities. The support programs tend to devote time and attention to the documented accomplishments entry in proportion to its share of the total assessment and the total number of group sessions. The more-intensive programs devote more time and group sessions to this entry than do the less-intensive programs. However, the support programs offer significant learning opportunities from collegiality and collaboration beyond attention to the documented accomplishments entry. By their very nature, all the support programs bring candidates together with mentors and other program staff, and often with other candidates, to discuss, study, and analyze teaching. As noted earlier, candidates we interviewed said this was one of the most rewarding aspects of the NBC candidacy process. The support programs enhance collegiality and collaboration in different ways. Those with more group time, whether candidate meetings occur in large or small groups, provide a greater opportunity for collegial learning and interaction. Furthermore, those that bring candidates together in small groups offer an opportunity for more-intensive discussions among peers. Those that organize these small groups around a certificate area facilitate incorporating subject-matter knowledge into discussions of high-quality teaching. In several of the programs, including Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, and Stanford, some small groups choose to meet outside formal meetings. If candidates take advantage of this opportunity, this extends the opportunities for peer learning and demonstrates the value these teachers see in additional collegial interaction. Each of the more-intensive programs also builds peer-to-peer candidate exchange into its formal program design. Candidates’ interaction with support program mentors is a common manifestation of collegiality and collaboration in the support programs we studied. In all the programs, mentors interact with candidates by reviewing and providing feedback on draft entries. In some programs, they also lead group sessions and may facilitate peer-to-peer discussion and review. In four of the eight programs we studied (Cincinnati, Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem), program staff matched mentors with candidates so these individuals could work together consistently during the year. The programs matched candidates with mentors in the same certification area unless, for example, the certificate is new or the number of candidates in a certification area is very small. In the other four programs, direct matching of candidates with mentors did not occur, because the number of candidates in the program was small (San Antonio and North Carolina A&T) or because the program simply referred candidates to possible mentors. The candidate support programs also differ in the criteria they use to select mentors and in the training these individuals receive to play this role. In all but two programs, program directors select mentors. Program directors generally look to NBCTs to serve as mentors based on the assumption that they understand the standards, have successfully navigated the candidacy requirements, and can model high-quality teaching. Personal characteristics, such as the ability to work well with others, also are commonly considered in selecting mentors. For example, the Stanford program director looks for mentors who “understand the challenges candidates face, have a broad and deep knowledge in content and pedagogy, have compassion and empathy, understand what

59

other teachers need, and have the knowledge and skills to support diverse teacher needs.” Program directors may also look to teachers who have served as NBPTS scorers to serve as program mentors, such as is the case in Cincinnati. In the two more decentralized programs—Miami-Dade and San Diego County—any NBCT may serve as a mentor to candidates associated with the support program. Of the programs that select mentors, all except Stanford require mentors to be NBCTs. Stanford is unusual in that advanced candidates selected by the director can also serve as mentors. Mentors in all these programs also receive training on their facilitator role through an NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute or a similar formal, structured training process. Not only has the Stanford program developed training for mentors that it provides with WestEd, but the mentors also meet as a group after each monthly session to debrief and discuss mentoring strategies.

Summary The National Board Certification model of professional development is closely aligned with common characteristics or principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature. •











Vision. The National Board Certification requirements for candidates are clearly guided by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ vision and system of standards for high-quality teaching. The support programs promote this vision of high-quality teaching by assisting candidates in the pursuit of candidacy. NBPTS and many support program leaders also work to connect the standards with other educational systems. Intensity and Duration. NBC candidacy is a long and intensive process. The support programs add to this intensity in varying degrees with group meetings and also extend the duration of candidacy with precandidacy programs and support for advanced candidacy. Intersection of Content and Pedagogy. The requirements of candidacy encourage teachers to focus on demonstrating both their content knowledge and their teaching skills. Preparation for the assessment center specifically offers an opportunity to refresh or enhance content knowledge. Content Derived from Analysis of Disaggregated Data. Preparation of the portfolio entries requires teachers to reflect on and explain how they are teaching the specific students in their classroom. The support offered by the programs to assist in such analysis of disaggregated student data varies with the intensity of the program and the extent of peer-to-peer learning. Job-Embedded Learning. The requirements of the NBC candidacy process lend themselves to learning that is directly connected to teachers’ classrooms. As with other aspects of the learning that are built into the requirements of candidacy, the candidate support programs can enhance this learning by adding intensity, duration, and peer learning. Collegiality and Collaboration. The documented accomplishments entry requires candidates to focus on their learning and other professional interactions with other teachers and educators. It also requires them to focus on their relationships with parents and the community. In addition, support programs bring candidates together with mentors and other candidates for collegial and collaborative learning.

60

1

This literature is based, to varying degrees, on expert consensus and on empirical research on teacher learning, teacher change, and teacher satisfaction. A common criticism is that there is little empirical research linking professional development to student outcomes. 2 Thomas Guskey, “What Makes Professional Development Effective?” Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 10 (June 2003): 748–49. 3 Thomas B. Corcoran,"Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development,” CPRE Policy Briefs (New Brunswick, N.J.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University, June 1995); Thomas B. Corcoran, Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State Policymakers (Washington, D.C.: National Governors’ Association, 1995); and L. Darling-Hammond and M. McLaughlin, “Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform,” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 8 (April 1995): 597–604. 4 One candidate in the Stanford program reflected on this continuous emphasis on incorporating standards study into every activity by stating that he returned to reading the standards every week. He estimated that he spent a total of 80 hours on this activity alone during the candidacy year. 5 For more examples on NBPTS’ efforts to integrate its work into other educational systems, see http://www.nbpts.org/edreform/stories.cfm. 6 Visit http://nbrc.stanford.edu/. 7 In our cost analysis, we use a standardized estimate of 357 hours for candidate time spent on portfolio development outside formal group meetings. This figure is the median value of total time spent estimated by eight candidates and one program administrator across the four sites in our cost analysis. This time is spent reading standards and directions; examining student work; videotaping activities; planning for and writing entries, including the classroom-based portfolio entries and documented accomplishments entry; preparing for and participating in the assessment center exercises; collaborating with mentors and other candidates outside group meetings; and performing administrative and clerical tasks, such as collecting the required documents and organizing and packing the box submitted to NBPTS. However, some candidates reported spending double or triple that time, and some also reported spending significant time worrying about the process. 8 The Stanford program also was moving in this direction. In the year following the study year, it offered additional large group sessions on topics such as How to Know Students Better; Assessment; Equity, Fairness, and Diversity in the Classroom; and Parent and Community Partnerships. 9 Guskey. 10 W. Togneri and S. Anderson, Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools (Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance, 2003). 11 Kate Neville, Mark Moon, and Stephen Frank, The Delivery and Financing of Professional Development in High-Performing High-Poverty Districts. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, in press. 12 See the National Staff Development Council’s standards at http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm. 13 R. Ingersoll and J. M. Kralik, “The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the Research Says,” ECS Research Review (Denver Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 2004).

61

Chapter 5: Resources and Costs in the National Board Certification Professional Development Model As does any form of teacher professional development, National Board Certification® (NBC) candidacy requires time and money. Gaining a clear understanding of the resources required for candidacy and for programs designed to support teachers through that process is necessary for decisionmakers interested in developing policy on National Board Certification for teachers. At the most basic level, policymakers and program planners need to know what resources are required so they can ensure an adequate resource base to support the programs and policies they are considering. In addition, to make informed decisions about the best way to invest limited resources, information on the costs of various alternatives is necessary. National Board Certification stands alongside several alternatives for teacher professional development, and various NBC candidate support program options exist. This chapter analyzes the cost of the NBC model of professional development through the lens of four candidate support programs. The goal is to provide useful information to state and local policymakers faced with limited resources and the responsibility to choose among competing policy options. The analysis addresses the third research question of the study: What are the costs of the National Board Certification candidacy process and candidate support programs and who typically bears those costs?

Need for Cost Analysis of the NBC Model of Professional Development Answers to several cost and resource-related questions can guide state and local policymakers as they consider different approaches to teacher professional development. How much does it cost to offer professional development to National Board Certification candidates through an NBC candidate support program? What types of resources are needed? What individuals and organizations are expected to provide those resources? Although budgets from operating programs provide some information on requisite costs and resources and are important tools to help administrators plan and operate programs, these tools fall short of providing a comprehensive and accurate picture of program costs on numerous fronts. 1 This presents the need for a cost analysis. The approach used in this study is to “unpack” costs in a systematic way that is sensitive to geographic cost differences, specifies resources in meaningful units, and identifies the distribution of the cost burden. 2 In calculating the cost estimates, we devote particular attention to gaining an understanding of the types of costs and how these are distributed across various stakeholder groups. This analysis goes beyond a study of expenditures to look at the total cost and percandidate cost of the NBC professional development model, including fiscal as well as nonmonetary resources. Such comprehensive information on cost may be of interest to several groups, including:

63

• • • •

policymakers considering adopting an NBC candidate support program who need a sense of the resource requirements to make decisions about the feasibility of such a program; administrators implementing NBC candidate support programs who need information about resources for planning purposes; state and district policymakers who are interested in supporting the NBC process; and teachers who are considering NBC candidacy who want a sense of the time and resources needed to complete the process, with or without a support program.

Site Selection This study estimates the costs of the NBC model of professional development associated with four different NBC candidate support programs. These four programs were selected from the eight sites included in phase 1 of the study based on the following five criteria: 1. programs that are specified in such a way that they can be replicated; 2. programs with moderate to high National Board Certification achievement rates of their candidates in the study year, controlling for other factors; 3. initiatives that represent a range of sponsors of support programs (e.g., university-based, school district-based, and volunteer-based); 4. programs that were expected to illustrate a range of costs; and 5. programs whose staff and other participants were willing to participate in this more intensive round of data collection. Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, Stanford, and Winston-Salem are the four support programs included in the cost analysis.

Analytic Approach: The Cost Template Drawing on available information collected from the four NBC candidate support programs selected for phase 2 of this study, we designed a cost template that can be used to systematically estimate the costs of the NBC model of professional development. The cost template is organized around the components and activities associated with the NBC candidacy process and support programs in order to identify and assign values to all relevant resources. Although the cost estimates generated in this study are based on data from a finite number of sites, the template has been designed to be a useful tool for considering the costs of support programs across multiple sites. A cost analysis such as this must recognize that variability exists across sites in how candidate support programs are designed and implemented. The template approach permits systematic analysis even in the face of such variability. In addition, the analysis imposes assumptions (e.g., standard values of particular resources) to facilitate comparable estimations of the costs. These assumptions are applied uniformly across sites.

Purposes and Use of the Cost Template The cost template serves as the basic framework for the analysis. It provides a systematic tool for itemizing all of the resources required for the NBC professional development model and estimating the total annual cost, the per-participant annual cost, and the distribution of costs in each support program site. 3

64

Although the specific entries in the cost template vary across sites, the general form of the template remains constant, providing a systematic way to estimate the costs of the model. A sample cost template is shown in Figure 5.1. The template provides information for calculating the total annual cost of candidacy and candidacy support activities in each NBC support program site studied. We assume that the programs are designed to assist a candidate during the course of a one-year certification process. Since many candidates do not complete the certification process in a single year, our analysis includes the total number of participants, including advanced candidates, reported by the program directors. Note that the program-level cost estimates can be divided by the number of participants to derive an estimate of the annual cost per candidate. This is an important step in the analysis, because larger programs generally are associated with higher costs. Calculating per-participant costs controls for program size. Our analysis presents the total economic or societal costs of the programs. It also divides those costs into three categories: program-related costs, process-related costs, and other costs. ¾ Program-related costs capture the resources required for the support programs. These include the costs associated with administration and infrastructure, recruitment activities, group meetings, and mentoring. ¾ Process-related costs are the costs that arise from the typical activities associated with the requirements of candidacy. These costs include the resources required for portfolio development activities outside formal support program meetings, for preparing for and taking the assessment center exercises, and for the application fee. These process-related costs are associated with National Board Certification candidacy, whether or not a candidate participates in a support program. ¾ Other costs are costs associated with the NBC support programs that neither are central to the delivery of the programs nor are consistently observable in program delivery. For example, several programs included extensive research, development, and dissemination activities that arguably could be more limited or even discontinued without altering the delivery of candidate support. Likewise, one program offered a mentor training institute during the study year, but it has not done so at any other point in its history. Our analysis presents costs in terms of each of these three categories as well as in terms of total societal costs. Our approach also permits users to define and calculate other measures of costs that include or exclude particular elements of cost.

Raw Versus Standardized Templates Two iterations of the template were completed for each of the four sites included in the cost study. The actual data provided by the sites were used to complete the first round of templates; these are the raw data templates. The second round “standardized” the templates in three ways to facilitate even-handed comparisons across programs; the final result of this process was a standardized template for each site.

65

Figure 5.1 Sample Cost Template For National Board Certification Professional Development Model In Support Program Sites TOTAL ANNUAL COST COMPONENTS AND SERVICES

INGREDIENTS

Amount (natural units)

Number of Units

Unit Value ($)

Period (years)

Shared (percent to program)

Annual Cost ($)

DISTRIBUTION OF COST*

ADMINISTRATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Personnel Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation INFORMATION AND RECRUITMENT Administrative staff time National Board Certified Teachers' time Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation―administrator Travel and transportation―NBCTs GROUP MEETINGS Candidates' time Mentors' time Administrative staff time Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation―candidates Travel and transportation―mentors Travel and transportation―administrator Catering PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE FORMAL MEETINGS Candidates' time Technical support Mentors' time

66

TOTAL ANNUAL COST COMPONENTS AND SERVICES

INGREDIENTS

Amount (natural units)

Number of Units

Unit Value ($)

Period (years)

Shared (percent to program)

Annual Cost ($)

DISTRIBUTION OF COST*

Administrative time Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation―candidates Travel and transportation―mentors Travel and transportation―administrator MENTOR TRAINING Administrative time Mentors’ time Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation―candidates Travel and transportation―mentors Travel and transportation―administrator APPLICATION FEE NBPTS application fee RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DISSEMINATION Administrative time Facilities, materials, and equipment Travel and transportation―administrator FUTURE SALARY OBLIGATIONS TOTAL COST AVERAGE COST PER CANDIDATE Note: *In the full template, Distribution of Cost includes columns for state, district, school, university, union, grant, school principal, teacher candidates, other staff time, volunteers, business, community group(s), and students.

67

Using the Template for Cost Analysis The first step in the cost analysis involves identifying the components of and services included in the program as well as the resources required for those components and services. The first column of the template prompts the specification of the program components and services. The eight major headings listed in the first column are the same across all programs: (1) administration and infrastructure, (2) information and recruitment, (3) group meetings, (4) portfolio development outside formal meetings, (5) mentor training, (6) application fee, (7) research, development, and dissemination, and (8) future salary obligations. Under each major heading is a list of component-relevant resource categories consistent with our professional development cost framework. 4 These include personnel time (administrators, mentors, and candidates); facilities, materials, and equipment; and travel and transportation. The second column, “Ingredients,” requests a list of the resources needed to support the program components and services. 5 This includes donated and volunteered resources along with resource requirements that translate into expenditures. It includes all types of personnel as well as nonpersonnel resources such as facilities, equipment, and materials. The list of ingredients depends greatly on the specification of the program components and services in the first column, and together they guide the remainder of the template entries. The next set of columns in the template guides the calculation of the total annual cost of the program. The first column in this section, “Amount,” specifies the amount of each ingredient listed in the previous column. The resource amounts are left in the most natural and descriptive units possible. For example, personnel are recorded in terms of the number of positions needed or hours per year, while travel costs might be represented in terms of the number of miles driven and the amount of time spent traveling. The next column, “Number of Units,” indicates the number of the resource specified in the previous columns that are required for the program. In many cases, this column captures the effects of variable costs versus fixed costs. Some resources required for the program are directly linked with the number of teachers in the program (e.g., time spent in group meetings and materials for portfolio development), while others are relatively independent of the number of candidates (e.g., program director). This distinction can be important for individuals planning NBC candidate support programs, because there are potential implications for program efficiency (i.e., economies of scale). The column “Unit Value” requests a dollar value for the ingredients listed. In the case of personnel, this entry includes annual salary as well as fringe benefits, bonuses, and other add-ons. The figure entered in this column corresponds with the units used in the "Amount" column. For example, if hours-per-year is the unit used in the "Amount" column, then the appropriate hourly wage should be entered in the "Unit Value" column. Likewise, if the number of positions is entered in the "Amount" column, then the annual salary for that type of position should be entered in the "Unit Value" column. Recall that because the value of these resources can be expected to vary across sites, we have adopted standard values to minimize the degree to which the costs of the various programs reflect site-based anomalies and to facilitate generalizing the analysis across sites.

68

The next column, “Period,” requests information on the recurrence of the cost. Some resources are required year after year, such as salaries and benefits for personnel. Other resources, such as equipment, may be used for a number of years and should not simply be added into the annual cost estimate each year. The data in this column indicate the number of years over which various resources can be used. The number of years representing the expected life of the resource is entered, with recurring annual costs designated as “1.” The column titled “Shared” indicates the degree to which the same ingredient (e.g., a staff member) is used across multiple service components or multiple programs. Two types of sharing occur in NBC candidate support programs. If the resource is shared with other service components in the program, it should be prorated (e.g., time of the staff member) according to how much is spent on each component. This is most evident in the distribution of administrative time across various program components and services. If the resource is shared with programs other than the NBC candidate support program, the fraction devoted to the support program should be entered (e.g., the support program uses half, or 50 percent, of the office space listed in the “Ingredients” column). “Annual Cost” calculates a dollar figure representing the total annual societal cost of each resource. This information should be calculated using the entries in the previous five columns. The appropriate formula is: Annual Cost = (Amount x Number of Units x Unit Value x Shared)/Period The figures in the “Annual Cost” column can then be vertically summed to derive the total annual cost estimate of the resources required to support the program. The “Total Cost” estimate is calculated in the second to last cell at the bottom of the “Annual Cost” column. The cell at the bottom of the “Annual Cost” column divides the total cost by the number of NBC candidates in the support program in the study year to derive an estimate of the “Average Cost Per Candidate.” This per-participant estimate enables cost comparisons across programs by controlling for the size (i.e., number of participants) of each program. The final set of columns in the template illustrates how the costs of the program are supported by various sources, including the state, school districts, schools, universities, unions, grants, school principals, teacher candidates, other staff, volunteers, business, and community groups. Specified in fiscal units, the entries across a row in this section should sum to equal the figure in the “Annual Cost” column of that same row. The vertical sum of each column indicates the cost of the program to each constituency. However, the fiscal amounts entered do not necessarily imply that dollars actually change hands. In many cases (e.g., candidates’ time), it is time rather than money that is devoted to the program. We standardized the templates in three steps. 1. We applied a set of “decision rules” that facilitated similar coding and treatment of data across sites (see Appendix D.1).

69

2. We imposed assumptions about resources that should not be expected to vary across sites. For example, the magnitude of out-of-pocket expenses associated with portfolio development outside formal meetings should not be expected to vary systematically across programs. 6 Standardized resources in our cost analysis are: • •

• •

office infrastructure, including office space, office furnishings, and telephone and network services; candidate time for portfolio development outside formal group meetings— we use the value of 357 hours, based on the median from survey results obtained from candidates in three of the support programs and the program director in the remaining support program 7 ; specified candidate out-of-pocket costs of portfolio development, valued at $351.50 (see Appendix D.2); and mentor out-of-pocket costs for supplies, valued at $40 (see Appendix D.3).

3. We imposed standard values of resources so cost estimates could be generalized and would not reflect the unique circumstances of any particular site (e.g., geographic cost differences). The standard values and their sources are provided in Appendix D.4. State and local decisionmakers undertaking this analysis can substitute locally representative values to generate cost estimates that reflect their own circumstances.

Cost Analysis Findings Our findings on the costs of the NBC model of professional development, as examined through four support programs in our study, are presented in two parts. First, we describe what we learned about the resources required to support the model in each of the four sites. Second, we present estimates of cost in terms of total annual costs, costs of various components of the model, costs of conventional budget categories, and the distribution of the cost burden across various individuals and organizations.

Resources Required in the Support Program Sites Appendix D.5 presents the completed standardized cost template for each of the four support program sites studied. The four programs require a broad set of resources that are distributed across various individuals and organizations. Table 5.1 summarizes the key resources devoted to each program. Administration and Infrastructure. All the programs require resources devoted to administration and infrastructure. They all have personnel, ranging from a program director and an associate who volunteer their time to coordinate the program in WinstonSalem to a team of seven individuals supported by university and grant resources in Stanford. Administrative resources across all programs also include an office and materials and equipment needed to run the program. In addition, all four programs include administrative travel costs that cover at least attendance of the NBPTS annual meeting.

70

Information and Recruitment. For one of the programs (Winston-Salem), the only information and recruitment cost is postage. For the others, this category includes more extensive costs associated with meetings and publicity. Group Meetings. In all four cases, group meetings are a significant part of the support program activities. All four programs offer small and/or large group meetings. These include introductory meetings at the beginning of the program, sessions to help candidates assemble their portfolios, and assessment center preparation meetings. Several programs include celebration and recognition events; in the case of San Antonio, these events involve noteworthy facilities and catering costs. In some of the programs, the group meetings are informal and voluntary. In other programs, the meetings are formal and participation is expected. As is evident from the templates, the meetings vary in terms of their number, duration, and attendance. They also vary in terms of the amount of travel involved and the facilities, materials, and equipment they use. Portfolio Development Outside Formal Group Meetings. We standardized many of the resources for portfolio development outside formal group meetings across the four programs. This category includes the cost of candidates’ time in preparing their portfolios. It also includes the cost of administrative and mentor time in reviewing portfolio entries and providing individualized assistance to the candidates. In addition, in some programs, technical assistance is provided to candidates in the form of librarian time (Winston-Salem) and assistance with videotaping (San Antonio). Furthermore, this category captures the costs of facilities, materials, and equipment associated with portfolio development and travel and transportation costs associated with the assessment center. Mentor Training. In three of the four programs, the only cost associated with mentor training in the year of the study was administrative time to work with and assist mentors. In the fourth program, Winston-Salem, a National Board Facilitator’s Institute was conducted during the study year. This was a one-time occurrence that involved an extensive formal training program for NBC mentors. The institute involved teachers’ and administrators’ time as well as various facilities, materials, equipment, and catering costs. Travel and transportation costs are included for the administrator and the 30 mentors (25 from the Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools and 5 from other school districts) who participated. A single district fee in the amount of $8,500 and five individual fees for participants from other districts were paid to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS) to cover the costs of the external presenters who attended the training. Application Fee. Each candidate must pay a $2,300 application fee. The state covers the fee for candidates from the Winston-Salem and Mississippi Gulf Coast programs. The state provides a $1,000 subsidy to candidates from the Stanford program. In the San Antonio program, there is no state subsidy and candidates are responsible for paying the fee, though local districts such as the San Antonio school district may help pay for these costs. Research, Development, and Dissemination. Costs associated with research, development, and dissemination include personnel time, usually administrative; facilities, materials, and equipment costs; and travel and transportation costs. For the Mississippi Gulf Coast program, the only cost is a small fraction (5 percent) of administrative time. In 71

Table 5.1 Key Resources Associated with the National Support Program Sites Mississippi Gulf Coast ADMINISTRATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE One full-time program Personnel director and additional administrative support provided by the sponsoring consortium.

Facilities, Materials, and Equipment Travel and Transportation

Board Certification Professional Development Model in Selected Candidate San Antonio

Stanford

Winston-Salem

One part-time program director and additional administrative support provided by the school district.

One part-time program director, time of a faculty director, two part-time graduate assistants, and additional administrative support provided by the university. One shared office.

One program director and one program assistant, both of whom are full-time teachers.

One shared office.

One office.

Staff attend NBPTS meetings and conferences as well as state-level meetings.

Staff attend NBPTS meetings and conferences.

Staff attend American Education Research Association conference and NBPTS meetings and conferences.

Staff and mentors provide 5 general information meetings, and program director presents at additional 110 school faculty meetings.

Staff and mentors provide approximately 3 off-site information meetings and 3 additional meetings held at Stanford University.

INFORMATION AND RECRUITMENT Staff provide 4 information Administrative Staff/Mentor Time meetings at schools and additional meetings at the university.

One home office. Staff attend NBPTS meetings and conferences.

72

Other

GROUP MEETINGS Candidate/ Mentor/ Administrative Time

Mississippi Gulf Coast Brochures are distributed at information meetings.

San Antonio Food is provided at the 5 general information meetings. Brochures are widely distributed at meetings and in the community.

Stanford Breakfast and lunch are provided at Stanford University information sessions.

Winston-Salem Postage is provided.

Staff, candidates, and mentors meet for 4 days for the standards study class. They also meet 10 times in large groups for 3 hours each and 10 times in small groups for 2.5 hours each. There is an additional 6-hour assessment center preparation meeting. A pinning celebration is held for successful candidates.

Staff, candidates, and mentors meet 10 times in large groups for 2.5 hours each and 10 times in small groups for 1.5 hours each. Program also provides 3 recognition/celebration events for staff, candidates, and mentors.

Staff, candidates, and mentors meet 10 times in large groups for 1 hour each and 10 times in small groups for 2 hours each. Two of the large group meetings focus on the assessment center and a third serves as a celebration of completing the portfolio process. Staff and mentors also meet 10 times to debrief and train for 1.5 hours each.

Staff, candidates, and mentors meet 3 times in large groups for 1.5 hours each. An assessment center meeting and 2 packing parties also are offered. Individual candidates and mentors meet together 8 to 9 times for 2 hours each.

73

Facilities, Materials, and Equipment

Mississippi Gulf Coast Program uses university classrooms and other spaces.

San Antonio Program uses district classrooms and computer lab.

Dinner and child care are Meals are provided at the provided for all large group standards study class, meetings. assessment center meetings, large group meetings, and the pinning ceremony. PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE FORMAL GROUP MEETINGS Mentor/Candidate Mentors spend an average Mentors spend an average of 183 hours assisting candidates of 405 hours assisting Time with portfolio development. candidates with portfolio Candidate time on portfolio development. Candidate development is standardized time on portfolio across sites at 357 hours. development is standardized across sites at 357 hours. Other

Stanford Program uses university auditorium, classrooms, and computer lab.

Breakfast is provided for all large group meetings, and lunch is provided for all mentor debriefing/training meetings. Mentors spend an average of 91.5 hours assisting candidates with portfolio development. Candidate time on portfolio development is standardized across sites at 357 hours.

Winston-Salem Program uses district media rooms for large group meetings. Individual candidate/mentor meetings occur in homes or other privately arranged spaces. Breakfast is provided at the assessment center meeting.

Mentors spend an average of 64 hours assisting candidates with portfolio development. Candidate time on portfolio development is standardized across sites at 357 hours.

74

Facilities, Materials, and Equipment

Mississippi Gulf Coast Candidates are responsible for obtaining video equipment and paying for copying and office supplies.

San Antonio Program provides 48 hours of LCD projector time and 8 hours of digital camera time. Candidates are responsible for paying for copying and office supplies.

Stanford Candidates are responsible for obtaining video equipment and paying for copying and office supplies.

Program provides an individual to assist with videotaping and duplicating tapes.

Other

Winston-Salem Candidates are responsible for obtaining video equipment and paying for copying and office supplies. A district librarian provides videotaping support.

MENTOR TRAINING Administrative time.

Administrative time.

Administrative time.

All mentors attend the National Board Facilitator’s Institute.

$2,300.

$2,300.

Staff travels to National Board Support Network meetings, provides technical assistance in the region, and builds support for NBPTS certification and standards.

Staff makes presentations at state and national meetings as well as attends North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Board meetings.

APPLICATION FEE $2,300. $2,300. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DISSEMINATION Administrative time. Staff provides technical assistance to other districts and sponsors a district NBPTS standards session. Program also disseminates information via videotape to other districts and stakeholders.

75

the other three programs, however, the costs associated with these activities are more extensive. Future Salary Obligations. Many states and districts provide financial rewards for teachers who have earned National Board Certification. However, scholars debate the appropriateness of including such salary adjustments as a cost of professional development initiatives. When included in cost analyses, this category represents taxpayers’ largest investment in teacher professional development. 8 Our professional development cost framework suggests that these costs should be included only if they are design elements of the policy. 9 These costs should be included, for example, if policymakers use the financial incentives to encourage teachers to engage in certain types of professional development, to do this at particular stages of their careers, and to achieve certain levels of performance. Issues related to the policy context surrounding the NBC model of professional development are discussed later in the report. For now, we include the future salary obligations as a placeholder in our cost template, but we do not include these costs in our estimates.

Cost Estimates We calculated costs in several ways: the total annual costs of the model, the costs of the various components that define the model, the costs of conventional budget categories, and the distribution of the cost burden across various individuals and organizations. Total Annual Costs. Table 5.2 presents the total annual costs associated with the NBC model of professional development in the four candidate support program sites selected for cost analysis. The first panel presents total societal costs of the model, which range from a high of almost $2 million per year for the Stanford program to a low of $279,128 per year for the San Antonio program. These total annual cost estimates, however, are driven in large part by the size of the programs—Stanford is the largest, serving 100 candidates in the study year, and San Antonio is the smallest, serving only nine candidates that year. Because it adjusts for program size, the estimated annual cost per participant is a better tool for comparing costs across programs. The annual perparticipant cost ranges from a low of $18,254 for the Winston-Salem program to a high of $31,014 for the San Antonio program, a spread of $12,760. Note that once we adjust for program size, the San Antonio program shifts from the least costly to the most costly program.

76

Table 5.2 Cost of National Board Certification Professional Development Model in Selected Candidate Support Program Sites Site Mississippi San Antonio Stanford WinstonGulf Coast Salem Number of participants 70 9 100 60 TOTAL SOCIETAL COST ($) 1,627,326 279,128 1,896,762 1,095,228 Annual Cost 23,248 31,014 18,968 18,254 Annual Cost per Participant PROGRAM-RELATED COSTS ($) (Administration and infrastructure, information and recruitment, and group meetings) 397,809 100,949 262,844 61,447 Annual Cost 5,683 11,216 2,628 1,024 Annual Cost per Participant PROCESS-RELATED COSTS ($) (Portfolio development outside meetings and application fee) 1,221,259 165,474 1,618,731 995,254 Annual Cost 17,447 18,386 16,187 16,588 Annual Cost per Participant OTHER COSTS ($) (Mentor training and research, development, and dissemination) 8,258 12,705 15,187 38,527* Annual Cost 118 1,412 152 642 Annual Cost per Participant ESTIMATED PROGRAM-RELATED FISCAL COSTS ($) (Program-related costs minus uncompensated time plus application fee) 336,490 102,537 419,400 160,680 Annual Cost 4,807 11,393 4,194 2,678 Annual Cost per Participant * For Winston-Salem, $7,211 of the “Other Costs” is the one-time mentor training program that happened to coincide with the study year ($120 per participant).

The next three panels in Table 5.2 break the costs into three components of the total societal cost: program-related costs, process-related costs, and other costs. Programrelated costs include resources devoted to program administration and infrastructure, information and recruitment, and group meetings. Estimates of per-participant cost range from $1,024 for Winston-Salem to $11,216 for San Antonio. The $10,192 variance accounts for most of the difference in the total program costs. As discussed later in the section, differences in program intensity, design, structure, and economies of scale help explain these program-related cost differences. Process-related costs include resources required for aspects of the programs that would be required for NBC candidacy even in the absence of the support program. Specifically, this component of costs includes the NBC application fee and resources related to portfolio development outside formal group meetings. In contrast to program-related costs, process-related costs reflect a relatively small range of $2,199. The highest perparticipant process-related costs were associated with San Antonio ($18,386) and the lowest with Stanford ($16,187). One explanation for the close range of the processrelated cost estimates relates to the research design. Recall from our methods

77

discussion that we standardized many of the costs in this category, including the costs of candidate time associated with portfolio development outside formal group meetings and the out-of-pocket costs that candidates and mentors pay. Furthermore, the application fee is the same for all candidates, regardless of the program. Other costs of the programs relate to mentor training, which can occur periodically, and research, development, and dissemination. The costs of these program components are relatively small, ranging from $118 per participant each year for the Mississippi Gulf Coast program to $1,412 per participant each year for the San Antonio program. The final panel in Table 5.2 presents what we term the estimated program-related fiscal costs. These are the fiscal resources that would be needed to implement the support programs and pay candidates’ application fees in an average-cost location. These estimates are calculated by subtracting uncompensated time from the program-related costs and adding the $2,300 application fee. These costs range from $2,678 per participant for the Winston-Salem program to $11,393 per participant for the San Antonio program. Per-participant costs in both the Mississippi Gulf Coast and the Stanford programs range between $4,000 and $5,000. Summary Findings Regarding Total Costs. We can draw several conclusions regarding total costs. •

• •

Total costs of the NBC professional development model are driven in large part by the size of the program, so per-participant costs are a better tool for cost comparison. Per-participant total costs for the four programs we studied range from a low of about $18,000 per year to a high of about $31,000 per year. Total costs are driven by process-related costs. Although smaller in magnitude, program-related costs reflect more variability across programs. Estimated program-related fiscal costs range from about $2,500 to $11,000, with the two middle values falling around $4,500. This cost reflects the fiscal resources needed to implement a support program and pay candidates’ application fees in an average-cost location.

Costs of Specific Program Components. Table 5.3 presents estimates of the costs associated with the various components comprising the four programs. To control for program size, all costs are presented as per-participant annual costs. Furthermore, within each program component, costs are divided into personnel and nonpersonnel categories. Program-related components. The first panel in the table presents the costs of the program-related components. Again, administration and infrastructure costs include the resources required to administer and operate the support program. In general, these costs are a function of the size of the program; because many of these costs are fixed, smaller programs are associated with higher costs. The costs are dramatically highest for the San Antonio program, which served only nine candidates in the study year. Costs related to information and recruitment are the smallest component of the programrelated costs. These costs range from just $1 per participant for postage each year in Winston-Salem to $2,362 per participant annually for more formal efforts to recruit candidates to the San Antonio support program through faculty meetings, printed materials, and other means. Most of these costs are related to administrative staff time. 78

Table 5.3 Costs of Specific Program Components (Dollars per participant) Site

Mississippi San Antonio Gulf Coast PROGRAM-RELATED COMPONENTS Administration and Infrastructure Personnel Nonpersonnel Information and Recruitment Personnel Nonpersonnel Group Meetings Teacher Candidates’ Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Other Staff Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Administrative Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Nonpersonnel Total

Stanford

WinstonSalem

$509

$3,083

$252

$145

420 89 62 59 3 5,113

1,907 1,176 2,362 1,465 897 5,771

161 91 142 125 17 2,235

106 39 1 0 1 878

0 3,115

0 2,018

0 735

0 600

144 62

551 105

347 0

0 27

354 0 1,438 5,684

206 0 2,891 11,216

90 0 1,063 2,629

0 19 233 1,024

PROCESS-RELATED COMPONENTS Portfolio Development Teacher Candidates’ Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Other Staff Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Administrative Time - Compensated - Uncompensated Nonpersonnel Application Fee

$15,147

$16,086

$13,888

$14,288

0 12,495

0 12,495

0 12,495

630 11,865

0 1,823

73 2,477

94 611

245 859

354 0 475 2,300

206 0 835 2,300

30 0 658 2,300

0 222 467 2,300

Total

17,447

18,386

16,187

16,588

$59 59 0 59

$207 207 0 1,205

$90 90 0 62

$522 284 238 120

59 0 118

1,052 153 1,412

60 2 152

55 65 642

OTHER COMPONENTS Mentor Training Personnel Nonpersonnel Research, Development, and Dissemination Personnel Nonpersonnel Total

79

In all four sites, the costs of the program-related components are driven by the costs associated with group meetings. The value of candidates’ time commitment to these meetings varies from $600 per candidate in the Winston-Salem program, which offered three group meetings, to $3,115 per candidate in the Mississippi Gulf Coast program, which held 20 meetings. In all cases, the time that candidates devoted to these group meetings was uncompensated. Other staff members also devote time to group meetings. In most cases, they are teachers who serve as mentors, facilitators, and program leaders. The annual percandidate costs of the time requirements of these staff vary from $27 in the WinstonSalem program to $656 in the San Antonio program. This range may reflect the different number of group meetings the programs held as well as the staff-candidate ratios at these meetings. The four programs also vary in the extent to which staff members are compensated for their time. No compensation is offered to participating staff in the Winston-Salem program, while staff participating in the Stanford program are compensated for all their time. The Mississippi Gulf Coast and San Antonio programs provide partial compensation (i.e., the amount they are paid does not cover the full value of their time commitment). The group meetings also require administrative staff time. Again, Winston-Salem has the lowest per-participant cost of administrative time devoted to group meetings at $19; Mississippi Gulf Coast has the highest per-participant cost at $354. This time is compensated in all programs except Winston-Salem. The remaining group meeting costs are nonpersonnel costs, which show a 10-fold range of $233 per participant in Winston-Salem to $2,891 per participant in San Antonio. These costs include the facilities, materials, equipment, catering, transportation, and other costs (e.g., for child care in San Antonio) associated with the group meetings. Winston-Salem is the least resource-intensive program with respect to both personnel and nonpersonnel costs across all three program-related components. The costs associated with the San Antonio program are the highest among the four sites studied for every program-related component except teacher candidates’ and administrative time devoted to group meetings. Process-related components. The second panel in Table 5.3 presents the costs of the components that are related to the general candidacy process. Most notable are the costs associated with portfolio development and, specifically, candidate time devoted to this activity. This cost was standardized across programs at $12,495 per candidate (357 hours at $35 per hour). Candidates in the Winston-Salem program are compensated for some of this time by a North Carolina policy that provides up to three release days for NBC candidates, amounting to $630 per candidate of compensated time. This sort of benefit is not provided for candidates in the other three programs, so all of their time is accounted for as uncompensated. (Some local districts or schools in these sites may provide release days to NBC candidates, but this is not captured in our cost estimates.) Other staff members also contribute time to the portfolio development process of NBC candidates. Stanford appears to devote the smallest amount of personnel support for informal activities related to portfolio development, amounting to a per-candidate cost for these activities of $705, while San Antonio has the highest per-candidate cost associated with such staff time at $2,550. The annual per-participant cost of 80

administrative time devoted to portfolio development ranges from $30 in the Stanford program to $354 in the Mississippi Gulf Coast program. Across all four sites, most staff time―primarily the time of mentors―devoted to assisting candidates with portfolio development is uncompensated. Administrative staff time for this purpose tends to be compensated, except in the Winston-Salem program. The San Antonio program has the highest per-candidate nonpersonnel costs associated with portfolio development, reflecting its small size and relatively generous provision of video equipment and other equipment, supplies, and services. The $2,300 per-participant application fee is the same across all four programs. 10 The state or school district pays all or part of this cost in the four support program study sites. This is discussed further in the section on distribution of costs. Other components. The bottom panel of Table 5.3 presents the costs of mentor training and research, development, and dissemination activities. The Winston-Salem program was the only site to offer a formal mentor training program during the study year; this explains the high mentor training costs associated with the program relative to the other sites. The mentor training costs associated with the other programs reflect the time that program directors devote to informal training of mentors, including Stanford’s monthly group debriefing and training. The final program component in Table 5.3 is research, development, and dissemination. The per-participant annual cost ranges from $59 in the Mississippi Gulf Coast program to $1,205 in the San Antonio program. This category includes activities such as attendance of National Board meetings and other research, technical assistance, and outreach. Although Stanford and San Antonio engage in a significant amount of research, development, and dissemination, the relatively high cost associated with the San Antonio program is partially due to the fixed nature of these administrative costs, which results in economies of scale for larger programs. Summary findings regarding costs by program component. We can draw several conclusions about these costs. •





Process-related costs, ranging from about $16,000 to $18,000, overshadow program-related costs in terms of magnitude and percentage of total cost. The cost of candidates’ time to develop their portfolios—estimated at a standard value of approximately $12,500 per participant—is the primary driver of processrelated and total costs. Total program-related costs range from approximately $1,000 per participant for Winston-Salem to approximately $11,000 for San Antonio. Some of this variability in costs is explained by economies of scale realized by larger programs (e.g., the fixed costs associated with administration and infrastructure and information and recruitment) and some is a function of program design (e.g., group meetings or mentor training). Personnel costs tend to outweigh nonpersonnel costs across program components. A large proportion of these personnel costs is uncompensated.

81

Costs of Various Budget Categories. Table 5.4 reveals the budget category costs for the full NBC model of professional development, program-related components, processrelated components, and other components, respectively. The four major budget categories examined are: • • • •

personnel costs (administration, mentors, teacher candidates, and others); facilities, materials, and equipment; travel and transportation; and application fee.

Personnel costs. Table 5.4 shows that the most significant budget category in each of the four support program sites is personnel costs and, specifically, the costs associated with teacher candidate time. The time of teacher candidates accounts for 47 percent of the cost in San Antonio and about 70 percent of the cost in the other three programs. Together, the multiple panels of Table 5.4 show that the vast majority of this candidate time is devoted to processrelated activities (e.g., portfolio development) rather than program-related activities (e.g., group meetings); no candidate time is associated with other program components. Furthermore, Table 5.3 suggests that the cost associated with teacher candidates is more likely to be an issue of budgeting for time than for money, given that most teacher time devoted to these programs is uncompensated. Significant costs also are associated with administrators, ranging from about $400 to $5,000 per candidate, and with mentors, ranging from about $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate. In the Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, and Stanford programs, about 65 percent to 70 percent of the administrative costs are devoted to program-related components, compared with only 31 percent in the Winston-Salem program. This can be explained by the fact that the director of the Winston-Salem program spent much of her support program time serving in the capacity of mentor and traveling for development and dissemination purposes. In all four programs, most of the costs associated with mentors come from process-related components. These components consume between 70 percent of the mentor cost in the Stanford program and 90 percent of this cost in the Mississippi Gulf Coast program; the comparable percentages for the San Antonio and Stanford programs are 76 percent and 79 percent, respectively. Costs for personnel other than mentors and administrators, such as child care and technical support personnel, are relatively minor where they exist, and these come primarily from the process-related components to help with portfolio development. Facilities, materials, and equipment. The costs of facilities, materials, and equipment are fairly similar across three of the programs (Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem), ranging between about $450 and $820 per participant annually, or about 3 percent to 5 percent of the total cost of the programs. In contrast, San Antonio has a facilities, materials, and equipment cost of more than $4,000 per participant, or almost 14 percent of total cost. As is evident from Table 5.4, the variability in this cost stems from the program-related components. Part of the variability can be explained by economies of scale associated with fixed costs, making smaller programs more costly on a per-participant basis. For example, the cost of a classroom or meeting room is much lower per participant for a program serving 60 students, compared with a program

82

Table 5.4 Costs of Budget Categories (Dollars per participant) Site Mississippi San Gulf Coast Antonio NBC MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Stanford Winston-Salem

Personnel Costs Administration

$1,305

$5,004

$551

$412

Mentors

2,028

3,212

1,081

1,160

Teacher Candidates

15,683

14,541

13,391

13,165

33

0

245

4,271

695

457

1,653

950

335

Other Personnel (technical 0 support, child care) 819 Facilities, Materials, and Equipment (includes catering) 1,114 Travel and Transportation Application Fee

2,300

2,300

2,300

2,300

Total

23,249

31,014

18,968

18,074 +181 training fee 18,255

PROGRAM-RELATED COMPONENTS Personnel Costs Administration

$833

$3,559

$371

$125

Mentors

206

669

351

27

Teacher Candidates

3,115

2,018

735

600

7

0

0

3,335

335

60

1,628

837

213

Other Personnel (technical 0 support, child care) 462 Facilities, Materials, and Equipment (includes catering) 1,068 Travel and Transportation Application Fee

0

0

0

0

Total

5,684

11,216

2,629

1,025

PROCESS-RELATED COMPONENTS Personnel Costs Administration

$354

$206

$30

$222

Mentors

1,822

2,524

730

859

Teacher Candidates

12,568

12,523

12,656

12,565

Other Personnel (technical support, child care)

0

26

0

245

83

Site

Mississippi San Gulf Coast Antonio 357 797

Facilities, Materials, and Equipment (includes catering) 46 Travel and Transportation

Stanford Winston-Salem 360

367

10

111

30

Application Fee

2,300

2,300

2,300

2,300

Total

17,447

18,386

16,187

16,588

Administration

$118

$1,239

$150

$65

Trainers/Coaches (mentors) Teacher Candidates

0

19

0

274

0

0

0

0

Other Personnel (technical 0 support, child care) 0 Facilities, Materials, and Equipment (includes catering) 0 Travel and Transportation

0

0

0

139

0

30

15

2

92

Application Fee

0

0

0

0

Total

118

1,412

152

461 +181 training fee 642

OTHER COMPONENTS Personnel costs

serving nine students. In addition, some programs simply provide more costly programrelated activities with respect to these kinds of resources. For example, the San Antonio program includes several celebration and recognition events that involve facility and catering costs. Similar events are not as large a part of the other programs. Travel and transportation. Travel and transportation costs are quite similar across three of the programs (Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, and Stanford), ranging from $950 to $1,653 per participant each year. In contrast, these costs amount to only $335 per participant in the Winston-Salem program. These amounts translate to between 2 percent (in the case of Winston-Salem) and 6 percent (in the case of Stanford) of total program costs. In the cases of Mississippi Gulf Coast and San Antonio, travel and transportation costs constitute 5 percent of total program costs. Across all four programs, most of the costs in this budget category are associated with program-related components. The size of these costs is a function of at least three factors: the number of events requiring travel, the size of the geographic area served by the program, and the location of the services provided. The Winston-Salem program is relatively undemanding in terms of the number of activities participants attend, serves a relatively small geographic area, and provides services in or near the schools where many of the candidates and mentors work. On the other hand, the Stanford program serves a larger region, has a larger number of events, and also incurs costs for travel around the region for related activities, such as technical assistance to districts and schools.

84

Application fee. The final budget category included in Table 5.4 is the application fee that all candidates must pay. This process-related cost amounts to $2,300 per candidate across all sites. Summary findings regarding costs by budget category. We can draw these conclusions about costs by budget category. •





Personnel costs, primarily associated with candidates’ uncompensated time spent preparing portfolios, drive total cost. Mentor and administrative costs are relatively small by comparison, and their distribution between program- and process-related costs varies with the design of the program (e.g., formal versus informal meetings between mentors and candidates). Programs are similar in terms of the percentage of per-candidate program cost associated with facilities, materials, and equipment (3 percent to 5 percent, except San Antonio at 14 percent); with travel and transportation (2 percent to 6 percent); and with the application fee (the same across programs). Fixed costs, including the cost of administrative time and facilities and equipment, are associated with economies of scale that drive up the perparticipant annual costs of smaller programs such as San Antonio.

Distribution of the Cost Burden. The costs of the NBC professional development model are distributed across various individuals and organizations. These may include states, school districts, schools, universities, grants, businesses, unions, teacher candidates, mentors, program directors, and others. Table 5.5 describes the resources that are provided by each of these sources in the four support program study sites. As is evident from the table, each of the four programs enjoys support from different sources. Tables 5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.3, and 5.6.4 illustrate how the cost burden of the NBC model of professional development is distributed across various individuals and organizations in the four selected study sites. These tables present the distribution of total cost, programrelated costs, process-related costs, and other component costs, respectively. As shown in Table 5.6.1, various individuals and organizations shoulder the costs associated with NBC candidacy and candidate support programs. The Mississippi Gulf Coast program is supported by eight different types of sources, and the San Antonio program is supported by seven. Five different types of organizations and individuals support the Stanford and Winston-Salem programs.

85

Table 5.5 Distribution of Resources Mississippi Gulf Coast Mississippi contributes State funds to the program for personnel salaries, office supplies, travel and transportation to various meetings and conferences, and mentor stipends. The state also contributes the candidate application fee. The business-district School District* consortium provides funding for personnel salaries, office equipment, and brochure printing costs. A school district hosts the website.

San Antonio

Stanford California contributes $1,000 toward the application fee for each candidate.

Winston-Salem North Carolina contributes the application fee and the cost of 3 release days for each candidate.

San Antonio Independent School District provides funding to the program for personnel salaries; office space; staff travel and transportation for national meetings, information sessions, group meetings, and technical assistance; mentor stipends; child care at meetings; travel and transportation for mentors; catering; and videotape equipment and support. The district also pays the candidate application fee.

A school district contributes an overhead projector and screen for some information meetings.

Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools contributes postage; access to computer, website, and network services; program fee for conferences; and fees and catering for the National Board Facilitator’s Institute.

86

School**

Mississippi Gulf Coast Schools contribute classroom space and equipment.

University

The University of Southern Mississippi contributes office space and network services as well as classroom space and equipment.

Grant

A grant from Mississippi Power pays for mentor stipends, mentor travel and transportation, and catering for 10 large group meetings.

San Antonio Schools provide in-kind donations of space for large and small group meetings.

A DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund grant provides funding for a computer and printer, recruiting brochures, copies of standards, and informational videotapes.

Stanford

Winston-Salem Schools contribute copying and office supplies, facilities and equipment for all meetings, catering for one meeting, equipment and staff time for videotape support, and the cost of substitutes for the National Board Facilitator’s Institute and other meetings.

Stanford University provides most of the funding for personnel salaries and provides in-kind donations of telephone and computer equipment and TV/VCR units. The Hewlett Foundation provides funds for a portion of personnel salaries. It also supports office and classroom space, office supplies, catering, mentor stipends, and travel and transportation for staff and NBCTs to conferences, meetings, and technical assistance sites.

87

Business

Mississippi Gulf Coast The business-district consortium contributes funding for personnel salaries, office equipment, and brochure printing costs.

Union

Teacher Candidates

Teacher candidates donate their time to portfolio development inside and outside formal meetings, travel and transportation costs to attend meetings, the costs of some celebrations, and materials to complete their portfolio.

San Antonio FirstMart Credit Union provides funding for some catering and a portion of the cost of recruiting brochures. The local teacher organization contributes funds for catering at celebration events. Teacher candidates donate their time to portfolio development inside and outside formal meetings, travel and transportation costs to attend meetings, and some materials to complete their portfolio.

Stanford

Winston-Salem

Teacher candidates donate their time to portfolio development inside and outside formal meetings, travel and transportation costs to attend meetings, materials to complete their portfolio, and a portion of the application fee.

Teacher candidates donate their time to portfolio development inside and outside formal meetings, travel and transportation costs to attend meetings, and materials to complete their portfolio.

88

Mississippi Gulf Coast San Antonio Stanford Winston-Salem The program director contributes a Mentors contribute some Mentors contribute some Mentors/Program Mentors contribute uncompensated time beyond uncompensated time beyond home office, including phone some uncompensated Directors service. The program director and what they are paid for with what they are paid for with time beyond what they mentors contribute all their stipend to assist their stipend to assist are paid for with their uncompensated time to assisting candidates with portfolio candidates with portfolio stipend to assist candidates with portfolio development outside formal candidates with portfolio development outside formal development inside and outside meetings. They also meetings. They also development outside formal meetings, travel and contribute travel and contribute travel and formal meetings. They transportation costs to attend transportation costs to attend transportation costs to attend also contribute travel various training and meetings, and meetings, and mentoring and transportation costs meetings, and mentoring mentoring supplies. supplies. to attend meetings, and supplies. mentoring supplies. Notes: *In programs that serve multiple school districts, the districts may pay the application fees for their teachers and provide other benefits such as release days. **Individual schools may provide additional resources to candidates in their buildings.

89

Table 5.6.1 Distribution of Total Cost Burden (Dollars per participant) Mississippi San Antonio Stanford WinstonGulf Coast Salem $3,463 0 $1,000 $2,930 State District

204

$10,170

0

216

School

86

1,514

0

493

University

292

0

478

0

Union

0

194

0

0

Grant

42

190

888

0

Businesses/Consortium

67

486

0

0

2,750

843

1,564

15,710

15,758

13,050

Uncompensated Staff Time 1,939 (mentors, director, other) 17,154 Teacher Candidates (uncompensated time)

Uncompensated time. Across all four support program sites, the most significant cost burden is borne by teacher candidates in the form of their uncompensated time. The perparticipant annual value of this time ranges from $13,050 in Winston-Salem to $17,154 in the Mississippi Gulf Coast site. In the cases of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem programs, participants shoulder between 70 percent and 85 percent of total costs. The comparable figure for San Antonio is 51 percent, because of the relatively high per-participant administrative and facilities costs. As seen in Tables 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 and consistent with findings presented in the previous tables, teachers’ cost burden associated with uncompensated time is driven by the process-related components. Another notable cost across the programs is the uncompensated time of other staff, including program administrators and mentors, librarians, and child care and videotaping support providers. In three of the programs (Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, and Winston-Salem), this cost ranges from about $1,500 to $3,000 per participant and accounts for 8 percent to 9 percent of total cost. In comparison, the uncompensated time of staff is smaller in the Stanford program, amounting to $843 per participant, or 4 percent of the total program cost. As noted in previous sections and shown in Table 5.6.3, the cost burden associated with uncompensated staff time is driven by processrelated activities, such as one-on-one assistance to candidates in the portfolio development process.

90

Table 5.6.2 Distribution of Program-Related Cost Burden (Dollars per participant) Mississippi San Antonio Stanford WinstonGulf Coast Salem $743 0 0 0 State District

165

$5, 668

0

$18

School

86

1,514

0

35

University

292

0

$322

0

Union

0

194

0

0

Grant

42

104

769

0

Businesses/Consortium

54

486

0

0

244

183

188

3,006

1,354

783

Uncompensated Staff Time 112 (mentors, director, other) 4,189 Teacher Candidates (uncompensated time)

Table 5.6.3 Distribution of Process-Related Cost Burden (Dollars per participant) Mississippi San Antonio Stanford WinstonGulf Coast Salem $2,615 0 $1,000 $2,930 State District

29

$3,192

0

0

School

0

0

0

295

University

0

0

26

0

Union

0

0

0

0

Grant

0

0

98

0

Businesses/Consortium

10

0

0

0

2,490

660

1,096

12,704

14,404

12,267

Uncompensated Staff Time 1,828 (mentors, director, other) 12,965 Teacher Candidates (uncompensated time)

91

Table 5.6.4 Distribution of Other Components’ Cost Burden (Dollars per participant) Mississippi San Antonio Stanford WinstonGulf Coast Salem $105 0 0 0 State District

10

$1,310

0

$198

School

0

0

0

164

University

0

0

$130

0

Union

0

0

0

0

Grant

0

86

22

0

Businesses/Consortium

3

0

0

0

16

0

281

0

0

0

Uncompensated Staff Time 0 (mentors, director, other) 0 Teacher Candidates (uncompensated time)

Other sources. A variety of other entities contribute resources to the programs we studied. •

Mississippi Gulf Coast. The state contributes resources amounting to $3,463 per candidate, or 15 percent of the total program cost. Most of the program director’s salary and other administrative and infrastructure costs of the support program are supported by the state. The state also pays for a portion of the time required of mentors. Finally, the state pays the candidates’ NBC application fee. 11 Costs of the Mississippi Gulf Coast program also are shouldered by districts at a level of $204 per candidate, or 1 percent of the program cost; these resources come through the Gulf Coast Education Initiative Consortium or directly from individual districts. District contributions support some of the program director’s salary and some facilities, materials, and equipment. Schools and a local university also help out with some facilities, materials, and equipment. The contribution of schools amounts to $86 per candidate, which is less than 1 percent of the program cost, and the contribution of the university amounts to $292 per candidate, which is about 1 percent of the total cost. A grant and contributions of businesses to the consortium cover the balance of the program cost; $42 per participant comes from the grant and $67 per participant from the consortium, with each amount accounting for less than 1 percent of the total program cost.



San Antonio. Besides the donated time already described, the San Antonio program receives a significant amount of support from the local school district in which it operates. With the exception of teacher candidates’ uncompensated time, this is the single largest contribution—in terms of both the amount and the share of the total cost—made by any single entity across all four programs. To support the San Antonio program, the district provides $10,170 per candidate— 32 percent of the program cost—to cover administrative personnel salaries and

92

most facilities, materials, and equipment associated with administration and infrastructure. The district also pays stipends to mentors who assist with the support program. In addition, the district provides resources for technical support and for materials and equipment that candidates use to prepare their portfolios, and it pays the application fees for the candidates. Finally, the district pays for some of the costs associated with research, development, and dissemination activities. Schools also support the San Antonio program by providing resources for facilities and equipment for meetings. The school support amounts to $1,514 per candidate, or 5 percent of the program cost. The local teachers’ union, a grant, and a local business also support the San Antonio program. The union contributes to catering for recognition events for the candidates—$194 per candidate, or less than 1 percent of the program cost. The grant supports the cost of computers, printers, and brochures as well as materials needed for the standards session—$190 per participant, or less than 1 percent of the program cost. The business contributes $486 per candidate, or 1 percent of the program cost, to help with the costs of catering and brochure production. •

Stanford. The Stanford program enjoys support from three different sources in addition to the uncompensated time of NBC candidates and other staff. The state provides $1,000 per candidate, or 5 percent of the program cost, toward the $2,300 application fee. Stanford University provides administrative staff time for the support program as well as some materials and equipment. This support amounts to $478 per candidate, or 3 percent of the program cost. A grant— amounting to $888 per candidate, or 5 percent of the program cost—pays for some of the administrative personnel salaries as well as most of the costs associated with facilities, materials, equipment, and catering. This grant also provides a stipend to mentors to cover some of their time devoted to program activities.



Winston-Salem. The Winston-Salem program also is supported by three entities in addition to the uncompensated time contributed by NBC candidates and other staff. North Carolina provides for up to three state-paid release days for candidates to assemble their portfolios. In addition, the state pays the application fees for NBC candidates. Together, these provisions amount to $2,930 per candidate, or 16 percent of the program cost. The district also contributes resources in the form of materials and equipment as well as support for a training institute for facilitators that happened to occur during the study year. District support amounts to $216 per candidate, or 1 percent of the total program cost. Individual schools also provide resources to support the program. These resources amount to $493 per candidate, or 3 percent of the program cost, and cover many facility, materials, and equipment costs associated with the group meetings and portfolio development activities.

Summary findings regarding distribution of the cost burden. Various institutions, organizations, and individuals provide resources for NBC candidacy and support programs in each study site. One of the four programs receives resources from eight different sources, another receives resources from seven different sources, and two receive resources from five different sources.

93









The most significant contribution across all four programs—averaging 75 percent to 80 percent of all costs, except in San Antonio, where it amounts to 51 percent—is made by NBC candidates in the form of uncompensated time for process-related activities. Other staff also contribute considerable uncompensated time—8 percent to 9 percent of all program costs in most of the sites—again, largely for process-related activities. States support three of the four programs studied; this support amounts to between 5 percent and 16 percent of total costs and largely offsets costs associated with process-related components of the programs (e.g., the application fee and release time for portfolio development). Districts and schools support these programs in three of the four sites. This support is typically for facilities, materials, and equipment needed to run the program-related components of the model, except in San Antonio, where it also covers significant amounts of staff time. In San Antonio, a district-sponsored program, this support accounts for 37 percent of costs. In the other two sites, it accounts for only 2 percent to 4 percent of costs. Three of the four programs receive resources from other sources, including universities, grants, businesses, and a union, for program-related components. Except in Stanford, where a grant accounts for 5 percent of costs and the university for 3 percent, such contributions account for 1 percent or less of total cost.

Contextual Factors Affecting Cost Analysis Findings The cost estimates generated by this analysis represent the monetized value of the resources required to undertake candidacy and provide support programs to teachers pursuing National Board Certification in the four selected study sites. It is important to recognize that the costs of the NBC model of professional development will vary depending on local circumstances. In particular, we assigned value to the resources in this analysis using national averages. The cost templates provide a tool for local decisionmakers to examine the resources required for NBC candidacy and candidate support programs and to adjust the cost estimates according to their own local circumstances. In this way, the cost analysis can be used across different settings that vary in terms of the cost of resources required and the sources of support available to cover those costs. Another important consideration is that the distribution of costs of the NBC model of professional development will vary according to the local policy context. Various policies can affect how different individuals and organizations shoulder the cost burden. For example, to the extent that a state provides release time for teachers to participate in group meetings or to prepare their portfolios, the costs to the teacher candidates in the form of uncompensated time decrease and the costs to the state increase. Similarly, districts and schools might be in a position to provide release time, resulting in a similar shift in the distribution of the cost burden. We observed this sort of support in several sites in our study. However, our analysis only captures such policies when they apply uniformly across a program; this translates to state-level policies in the cases of Mississippi Gulf Coast, Stanford, and Winston-Salem and to state- and district-level policies in the case of San Antonio. Admittedly, this approach underestimates the share of the cost covered by districts and schools and should be recognized as local policymakers consider

94

implementing programs to support NBC candidacy and candidate support programs. The policies we identified in our study that could shift the cost burden from individual teachers and mentors to other entities include release time, subsidies for the NBC application fee, and stipends for NBC candidates and mentors. Such policies can be implemented at the state, district, or school levels. In addition, many states and some districts offer a salary boost for teachers who have earned National Board Certification. Considerable debate surrounds whether such future salary obligations should be included as a cost of the NBC model of professional development, in particular, and of teacher professional development, in general. The rewards in the four sites we studied included a one-time payment of $4,000 in San Antonio; a one-time payment of $10,000 (plus an additional $20,000 paid over four years for teaching in a low-performing school) in Stanford; and annual bonuses of $6,000 in Mississippi or 12 percent of annual salary in Winston-Salem for the life of the certificate. Obviously, in states that provide an annual bonus for the life of the certificate, the longterm cost can be quite substantial. Consider the case of North Carolina: the state pays the $2,300 application fee for NBC candidates as well as a 12-percent salary increase to those who earn certification. This translates to an estimated annual outlay of more than $9 million for the cohort of NBC applicants in 2000 alone. 12 Based on data we collected for candidates in our study sites, the average incentive provided by states and districts for the first year of certification was more than $11,000 per teacher. The total additional salary amount that could be earned during the 10-year life of the certificate averaged almost $62,000 per teacher (see Appendix A.4). We elected not to include the cost of future salary obligations in our analysis, but they should be recognized as an important consideration as policymakers think about what incentives or rewards to provide teachers who pursue or earn National Board Certification. These policies can certainly translate into substantial costs to states and districts that offer them. On the other hand, they can be viewed as a benefit that offsets the high costs related to the uncompensated time that teachers invest in becoming certified. Furthermore, salary incentives could be used for other purposes, such as to attract National Board Certified Teachers® (NBCTs) to difficult-to-staff schools and districts struggling with the challenge of maintaining a high-quality teaching force. NBCTs could both directly affect the stock of human capital in these schools and indirectly affect human capital to the extent that these teachers serve as resources for their colleagues. All of these issues suggest that additional research should focus on important policy questions surrounding salary incentives associated with National Board Certification.

Summary This chapter analyzes the cost of the National Board Certification model of professional development in four candidate support program sites: Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, Stanford, and Winston-Salem. We use a methodology that systematically measures the economic or societal costs of the programs. To collect comparable data on the resources used in each program, we created a template. This template identifies eight components and services included in each program: (1) administration and infrastructure, (2) information and recruitment, (3) group meetings, (4) portfolio development outside formal meetings, (5) mentor training, (6) application fee, (7)

95

research, development, and dissemination, and (8) future salary obligations. We then collected data on the personnel time; facilities, materials, and equipment; travel and transportation; and other key types of resources used in each category. We elected not to include future salary obligations in our analysis, but they should be recognized as an important consideration for policymakers. After standardizing the value of the resources used in each site, we calculated the total annual cost and average cost per candidate. Key findings regarding costs are these. • Per-participant total costs of the NBC model of professional development in the four sites we studied range from a low of about $18,000 per year to a high of about $31,000 per year. • The cost of teacher candidates’ time to develop their portfolios—estimated at a standard value of approximately $12,500 per participant—is the primary driver of total costs. Nearly all of this time is uncompensated. Program staff and other personnel also contribute significant amounts of uncompensated time. • Personnel costs outweigh nonpersonnel costs. Facilities, materials, and equipment account for between 3 percent and 14 percent of total costs; travel and transportation costs for between 2 percent and 6 percent; and the application fee for between 7 percent and 13 percent. • Support program costs related to administration and infrastructure, information and recruitment, and group meetings range from approximately $1,000 per participant to approximately $11,000 per participant, with the two programs in the middle costing between $2,500 and $6,000 per participant. Some of this variability in costs is explained by economies of scale realized by larger programs and some is a function of program design. • Estimated fiscal resources needed to implement the support program and to pay candidates’ application fees in the two middle-cost sites are about $4,500. • Various institutions, organizations, and individuals provide resources to support the NBC model of professional development. In three of the four programs we studied, states contributed between 5 percent and 16 percent of total costs. Districts and schools supported programs in three of the four sites at levels of between 2 percent and 37 percent of costs. Three of the four programs received resources of 5 percent or less from other sources, including universities, grants, businesses, and a union. 1

First, budgets tend to be limited to fiscal resources, despite the fact that many in-kind contributions may not require financial outlay but nonetheless count as program costs. For example, office space donated by universities and the volunteer time of mentor teachers can be essential resources needed to sustain a support program. If these resources do not translate into additional expenditures, however, they generally do not appear in a budget. Yet the unavailability of these resources could undermine successful implementation of the program. Consequently, it is important that all resources—fiscal and nonmonetary—be included in a cost analysis to give policymakers and program planners a comprehensive and accurate picture of program cost.

Second, budgets typically are used for planning purposes and reflect the intended expenditure categories and amounts. Although a budget is an important tool to guide spending, there may be, and often is, a discrepancy between intended uses as reflected in budgets and actual uses of resources. A cost analysis provides a better sense of what resources are required and for what purposes. Third, even if budgets are accurate depictions of expenditures, various issues can limit the degree to which expenditures are accurate reflections of cost. For example, if funding availability

96

is plentiful and making a simple case leads to awards of higher levels of support, it may be to a program’s advantage to overstate the true cost of the program by adding in “extras.” Likewise, programs that enjoy high levels of support may have the luxury of spending more for certain things than is necessary (e.g., hiring overqualified personnel, occupying office space in excess of needs, or including extra provisions that are not absolutely critical to meet program goals). In such cases, expenditures overstate real program cost. Conversely, in cases where donated resources abound, expenditures may underestimate real cost. As a result, it is important to distinguish between expenditures, which are affected by many external factors, and cost, which represents the value associated with all resources needed to support a particular intervention or program. 2

For a description of the method used in this study, see J. K. Rice, “Cost Analysis in Education: Paradox and Possibility,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, no. 4 (1997): 309–17. For a cost framework for professional development, see J. K. Rice, “Investing in Teacher Quality: A Framework of Estimating the Cost of Teacher Professional Development,“ in Theory and Research in Educational Administration, Vol. 2, ed. W. Hoy and C. Miskel (Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2003), 209–33. Although a cost analysis such as this one can control for inflated costs associated with overspending for a particular input (e.g., overqualified personnel), it cannot account for overspending associated with extra provisions in a program that are not absolutely necessary to meet program goals. This analysis estimates the costs of programs as they are designed and offered, rather than the costs of the programs to meet a particular goal or outcome. 3 Rice 1997. 4 Rice 2003. 5 For a description of the “ingredients approach” to cost analysis, see Henry M. Levin and Patrick J. McEwan, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001). 6 Program design could affect the distribution of the cost burden, however, a consideration that is captured in the templates. 7 Although it is conceivable that participation in a support program might be related—either positively or negatively—to the amount of time candidates spend preparing their portfolios outside formal group meetings, our analysis did not demonstrate this to be the case, so we standardized this input. 8 Little et al., Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices (Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987). 9 J. K. Rice, Cost Framework for Teacher Preparation and Professional Development (Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001). Ross’ analysis of teacher development and salary incentives in Los Angeles suggests that salary credits (i.e., the transfer of professional development credits into higher salaries) are a powerful incentive to encourage teachers’ participation in professional development. It also suggests that such incentives could be used more effectively to promote higher levels of student performance. See R. Ross, Effective Teacher Development Through Salary Incentives: An Exploratory Analysis (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1995). Others have argued that future salary obligations should not factor into estimates of the cost of professional development but should be considered as a routine personnel cost, rather than a training cost. 10 This analysis does not account for the fact that advanced candidates pay a reduced application fee. 11 This fee is paid to candidates once certification has been acquired. 12 D. Goldhaber, “National Board Certification and Its Impacts on Teachers and Students: Who Becomes Certified, Where Do Certified Teachers Teach, and How Does Certification Affect Student Learning?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, Ky., March 17–19, 2005).

97

Chapter 6: Comparison of the Cost of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with the Costs of Other Forms of Professional Development Teacher professional development opportunities include options such as districtsponsored initiatives, professional development associated with comprehensive school reform models, master’s degree programs, induction programs, and privately marketed alternatives. To help make informed decisions on investments and budgeting for professional development, policymakers, program developers, administrators, teachers, and others need information on the costs of various alternatives. This chapter adds to knowledge about the costs of professional development alternatives by addressing research question number 4: How do the resource requirements and costs of the National Board Certification model of professional development compare with those of other common approaches to teacher professional development? This chapter compares our cost estimates of the National Board Certification® (NBC) model of professional development with what is known about the costs of other comparable approaches to professional development. To make good decisions about the economic desirability of alternative investments in professional development, cost data should be examined alongside effectiveness data to identify the most cost-effective option. For example, relatively costly alternatives could be the most preferable on economic grounds if greater effectiveness outweighs the higher costs. There are many ways to consider the effectiveness of professional development, however. In addition, for a fair comparison, measures of effectiveness for NBC—on which evidence is still emerging—would have to be compared against those for other forms of professional development. This study does not attempt to measure the cost-effectiveness of the NBC model of professional development or to evaluate it against the cost-effectiveness of different forms of professional development. Instead it aims to contribute knowledge that can help decisionmakers by placing the costs of this model in the context of what is known about the costs of other forms of professional development. Comparing the cost of the NBC professional development model with the costs of other forms of professional development presents its own challenges. Identifying a reasonable form of professional development for comparison on cost grounds was difficult given the variability among professional development approaches in goals, duration, teacher populations served, and other features. Furthermore, the comparisons were not straightforward, because the cost analyses we identified in the literature often did not include the same cost elements that we included in our study. Nevertheless, we were able to compile and analyze data that provides valuable insights into the relative costs of alternative forms of professional development.

Literature Review Methods We began this part of the analysis by conducting a broad literature review to identify studies analyzing the costs of alternative forms of teacher professional development. We searched for studies that examined professional development opportunities in education and included consideration of program cost. The principal source for our search was the

99

Education Resources Information Center. We used key words such as “professional development,” “cost,” “district,” “teacher,” “master’s degree,” “induction programs,” “comprehensive school reform,” and “in-service” to gather citations. We also gathered citations from The Finance Project website dedicated to professional development (www.financingpd.org). In addition, The Finance Project’s report, The Delivery, Financing, and Assessment of Professional Development in Education: Pre-Service Preparation and In-Service Training, describes articles focused on the professional development of teachers, producing additional studies that we examined for information on program cost. 1 The studies we identified through our review of the literature are presented in Appendix E. The review describes 23 studies of professional development in education that include some mention of cost. The studies are organized by six categories of professional development: district-sponsored professional development, professional development associated with comprehensive school reform, master’s degree programs, induction programs, privately marketed professional development alternatives, and other professional development programs.

Cost Comparison Findings The first finding that emerged from our review of the literature speaks to the scarcity of comparable cost estimates of alternative approaches to teacher professional development. Per-participant cost estimates are necessary to make comparisons across programs and approaches but, unfortunately, such estimates were only available in nine of the studies of teacher professional development that we identified. 2 These studies focus on various approaches to teacher professional development, including induction programs, programs associated with comprehensive school reform models, districtsponsored professional development, institutes and academies focused on developing specific knowledge and skills, and master’s degree programs. Findings from and descriptions of eight of the studies, along with our findings about the cost of the NBC model of professional development, are presented in Table 6.1. Our literature review reveals the difficulty of using existing studies to compare costs across different approaches to teacher professional development, and it underscores the need for a common and comprehensive framework for estimating the costs of professional development. 3 As is evident in the final column of this table, the cost estimates presented in the studies vary dramatically in terms of what resources are included (e.g., teacher time, donated resources, and future salary obligations). Most of these studies include only fiscal costs, so we use the program-related fiscal cost estimates for the NBC professional development model in the four support program sites we studied to facilitate fair comparisons. All cost estimates are presented in 2003 dollars to facilitate comparisons across studies. 4 The programs included in Table 6.1 are ordered roughly from least costly to most costly, except for the NBC program sites, for which information is presented at the end of the table. Across the eight comparison studies, the per-participant program cost estimates range from a low of $1,438 reported for Connecticut Beginning Educator Support and Training to $15,803 reported as the average total cost of the Academy for Mathematics and Science. Several of the studies report multiple cost estimates. However, the program cost estimates tend to cluster into two groups. Seven of the eight studies, and three of the four NBC program sites, show estimated costs ranging between about

100

$1,000 and $7,000 per participant, and all but one of these estimates is below $5,500. The estimated program-related fiscal cost of the lowest-cost NBC program site, WinstonSalem, falls in this range at $2,678, as do the program-related fiscal costs for the two middle-cost program sites of Stanford and Mississippi Gulf Coast, at $4,194 and $4,807, respectively. Two of the comparison studies, 5 as well as one of the four NBC program sites, show program costs of roughly $10,000 to $16,000 per participant. The estimated program-related fiscal cost of the San Antonio NBC program site falls at $11,393 in this range. The table reveals a second general finding from our literature review: lower perparticipant costs generally are associated with approaches to teacher professional development that are relatively less intense in terms of their duration and time requirements and with programs that serve a large number of teachers. This latter observation suggests a possible economy of scale associated with teacher professional development; the per-participant costs of a program are inversely related to the number of participants served. However, because we do not have data on program effectiveness, we cannot draw conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. It could be the case that programs serving large numbers of teachers (e.g., all the teachers in a district) may not adequately tailor learning opportunities to the particular needs of the teachers and, consequently, they may be less effective than programs targeting more limited audiences of teachers. This is an empirical question that remains unanswered. The point is that the least costly programs are not necessarily the most desirable alternatives on economic grounds. Good data on the effectiveness as well as on the cost of alternative programs are required to make informed decisions based on cost-effectiveness criteria. Table 6.2 compares the cost of the NBC professional development model with the cost of earning a master’s degree. We highlight this comparison for several reasons. Both approaches to professional development are finite in the sense that teachers complete the programs in a set time, or they do not complete them at all; both require extensive amounts of uncompensated teacher time; state and district policies provide incentives for both of these credentials; and the costs of both approaches have been systematically analyzed in a way that they can be compared. The master’s degree program cost estimates are provided in a study by Knapp et al. 6 The researchers compared the cost of teachers attending a 36-credit hour degree program in Virginia on a full-time, nighttime, and summertime basis. Their study presents estimates of the total cost per teacher that includes the cost of tuition, books, travel, and foregone earnings (i.e., the economic value associated with the time spent earning the degree). The estimates of state costs include teacher costs, state subsidies for higher education (amounting to $3,153 per teacher in 1988 dollars), and future salary obligations. 7 The estimates we use for purposes of comparison with the NBC professional development model are the teacher costs presented for the various scenarios plus the state subsidy. The rationale for including the state subsidy is based on the Knapp study authors’ recognition that tuition does not cover all the costs of higher education. They define the state subsidy as “the state expenditure for instructional and administrative programs per FTE [full-time equivalent] minus the tuition the school receives from the student.” 8 To capture the most comprehensive estimate of the costs of master’s degree programs, we include both the teacher costs and the state subsidy. 9

101

Table 6.1 Comparison of Studies of Professional Development Programs Providing Per-Participant Costs Professional Development Program and Study Citation Connecticut Beginning Educator Support and Training (Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001). Success for All, School Development Program, Accelerated Schools (Rice, J. K. “Meeting the Educational Needs of Atrisk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models.” Educational Evaluation and Policy 16, no. 1 (1994): 1–19). Four Districts (Miller, B., B. Lord, and J. Dorney. Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, 1994).

Cost Per Participant (in 2003 dollars)

Description of Model (duration, intensity, activities, etc.)

What Is Included in Cost Estimate

$1, 438.

Induction program that includes portfolio assessment and testing in content area.

Substitutes, seminars, administration, program development and revision, and scoring.

Accelerated Schools: $2,036. School Development Program: $2,247. Success for All: $2,267.

Comprehensive school reform models.

Training and staff development associated with program implementation.

$2,179, $3,360, $4,380, and $4,381.

District professional development investments; no specific duration or program.

Support from staff development office, district, school, and outside as well as teachers’ unreimbursed contributions.

102

Professional Development Program and Study Citation California District Professional Development (Little et al. Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987). Cincinnati Public Schools (Miles, K. H. Getting to the Heart of School Improvement: Integrating Professional Development Spending in the Cincinnati Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Network, May 2001). Boston Public Schools (Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools. Professional Development Spending in the Boston Public Schools. Boston, Mass.: Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools, 1999).

Cost Per Participant (in 2003 dollars)

Description of Model (duration, intensity, activities, etc.)

What Is Included in Cost Estimate

$2,778 without semester unit credits. $7,093 with semester unit credits.

Combination of professional development provided through universities, districts, and conferences.

Participant time and money, reduced instructional time, future salary obligations, substitutes, leader time, stipends, and facilities.

$3,117.

Individual, school-based professional development; some schools use comprehensive school reform models.

Amounts spent on Mayerson Academy, teacher coaching and instructional support at school sites, and teacher induction, career growth and leadership.

$5,405.

District professional development activities, including many one-time workshops.

Spending on teacher, principal, and headmaster professional development from all funding sources. Costs include principal professional development and 2 days of additional salary for teachers.

103

Professional Development Program and Study Citation Academy for Mathematics and Science (Allen, E. E., and L. Lederman. “Lessons Learned: The Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science.” Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2 (1998): 158–64). The Leadership Institute—St. Paul [Minn.] Public Schools (Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001). National Board Certification Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs (Cohen, Carol E., and Jennifer K. Rice. National Board Certification as Professional Development: Design and Cost. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2005).

Cost Per Participant (in 2003 dollars)

Description of Model (duration, intensity, activities, etc.)

What Is Included in Cost Estimate

$4,515 yearly (3–4 years). $15,803 average total cost.

Chicago-based program composed of guided instruction, individual support, curriculum and technology planning, and evaluation. Involves teachers and school-based leadership development teams.

Not clear from study what costs are included in the estimates; seem to be limited to fiscal outlay.

$13,958 for first year of program; $10,019 in second year.

Five-week institute (3 weeks in summer, 2 weeks during school year) plus monthly sessions, meetings with mentors, 3 modules, and formal presentation at end.

Costs include director, summer facility, design team, presenters, food, and materials. Costs do not include school district clerical support and facilities and participant time and costs.

$ 2,678 (Winston-Salem), $ 4,194 (Stanford), $ 4,807 (Mississippi Gulf Coast), and $ 11,393 (San Antonio).

Ten portfolio and assessment center entries, duration of at least 1 school year, support program participation, and standards-based assessment.

Estimated program-related fiscal costs: includes costs of support program-related components (excluding uncompensated time) plus $2,300 application fee.

104

Table 6.2 Comparison of the Cost of the National Board Certification Professional Development Model with the Cost of Earning a Master’s Degree (Dollars per participant) Professional Cost Per Participant Description of Model (duration, What Is Included in Cost Estimate Development Program (in 2003 dollars) intensity, activities, etc.) and Study Citation Duration of 2 years for full-time enrollment Average costs to teachers, including tuition, Master’s degree program $31,050 (nighttime in Virginia (Knapp, J. L., enrollment), and 5 years for nighttime and books, travel, and foregone earnings, plus a $44,563 (summertime et al. “Should a Master’s summertime enrollment; degree at end. state subsidy defined as “the state expenditure enrollment), and Degree Be Required of All for instructional and administrative programs per $71,052 (full-time Teachers?” Journal of FTE [full-time equivalent] minus the tuition the Teacher Education 41, no. enrollment). school receives from the student.” 2 (1990): 27–37). $18,254 (WinstonTen portfolio and assessment center Per-participant total societal costs: includes National Board Salem), entries, duration of at least 1 school year, program-related costs, process-related costs, Certification Candidacy $18,968 (Stanford), support program participation, and and other costs. and Candidate Support $23,248 (Mississippi Gulf standards-based assessment. Programs (Cohen, Carol Coast), and E., and Jennifer K. Rice. $31,014 (San Antonio). National Board Certification as Professional Development: Design and Cost. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2005).

105

Findings from this study reveal that when teachers pursue a master’s degree on a fulltime basis, the degree takes two years to complete, resulting in a total cost of $71,052 (in 2003 dollars). 10 However, teachers who attend graduate school during the evenings or summer need to attend for five years, and the total cost drops to $31,050 and $44,563, respectively. The difference in cost is a result of decreased foregone earnings associated with the evening and summer options. A teacher attending full time would be losing $28,680 per year that could be earned teaching instead of attending school. The study assumed that a teacher attending graduate school during the summer may lose earnings from summertime employment, but that the foregone earnings for a teacher attending an evening program would be relatively small. 11 We compare these estimates of the cost of earning a master’s degree with the NBC cost estimates that include participants’ time, because the master’s degree costs include the foregone earnings. We use the per-participant total societal cost estimates that include the costs associated with program-related components, process-related components, and other components (i.e., mentor training and research, development, and dissemination activities). As Table 6.2 reveals, the estimated costs of completing a master’s degree program in each of the three scenarios exceed the estimated costs associated with the NBC professional development model in each of the four study sites. Even the highest-cost NBC program site (San Antonio) is less costly than the lowest-cost approach to earning a master’s degree (an evening program). Although the difference between these two comparison points is small—only $36—it is important to remember that the San Antonio program site is an outlier in terms of its cost. The middle-of-the-road costs associated with the Stanford and Mississippi Gulf Coast program sites may be more instructive for comparison purposes. Consider, for example, the second most costly NBC program site, Mississippi Gulf Coast. The per-participant cost of this program site is $7,802 less than that of earning a master’s degree at night, $21,315 less than the cost of earning a master’s degree during the summer, and $47,804 less than the cost of earning a master’s degree full time. These differences are not trivial, suggesting significant implications for decisions about future investments in NBC as an alternative to master’s degree programs and other forms of professional development.

Summary To investigate how the cost of the National Board Certification professional development model compares with the costs of other common approaches to teacher professional development, we conducted a broad literature review that aimed to identify studies analyzing the costs of alternative forms of teacher professional development. Several findings emerged from our review. • We found few studies (23) with cost estimates of professional development, and even fewer studies (nine) included per-participant cost estimates to facilitate comparisons. Those with per-participant cost estimates vary dramatically in the resources they include, further complicating the comparison process. • Considering only fiscal costs, most of the alternative forms of professional development, as well as three of the four NBC program sites, cost between $1,000 and $5,500 per participant. The per-participant cost of the remaining two alternative forms of professional development and the San Antonio NBC program

106





site was between $10,000 and $16,000. Lower per-participant costs are associated with alternative approaches to professional development that are relatively less intense in terms of their duration and time requirements. They also are associated with programs that serve a large number of teachers, suggesting a possible economy of scale associated with teacher professional development. We do not have data on program effectiveness, so we cannot draw conclusions about the relative costeffectiveness of alternatives. Our comparison of NBC cost estimates with the cost of completing a master’s degree suggests that the costs associated with earning a master’s degree exceed those associated with the NBC professional development model in every scenario. Although more information on effectiveness is needed to draw conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of these two alternatives, this finding could have significant implications for future investments in alternative forms of professional development.

1

Kate Neville and Casey J. Robinson, The Delivery, Financing, and Assessment of Professional Development in Education: Pre-Service Preparation and In-Service Training (Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, December 2003). 2 In addition to these nine studies, we found one study that estimated the per-participant costs of a principal’s institute. We elected not to include this study in our comparisons because of its focus on principals rather than teachers. 3 See J. K. Rice, Cost Framework for Teacher Preparation and Professional Development (Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001). 4 We used the Consumer Price Index to convert cost estimates from the studies to 2003 dollars. Nominal dollar values of the estimates from the original studies are provided in Appendix E. 5 The two cost estimates for the Academy for Mathematics and Science account for this program being counted in both the lower-cost group and the higher-cost group. 6 J. L. Knapp et al., “Should a Master’s Degree Be Required of All Teachers?”, Journal of Teacher Education 41, no. 2 (1990): 27–37. 7 Knapp et al. The study’s estimate of the cost associated with future salary obligations is $1,309 per teacher. Although we did not calculate future salary obligations as part of our cost calculation of the NBC professional development model, one important consideration is that a master’s degree lasts for the life of the teaching career, while National Board Certification lasts for 10 years unless renewed. 8 Knapp et al. 9 As with our estimates for the NBC professional development model, we do not include the cost of future salary obligations. 10 For comparison purposes, we converted the Knapp et al. estimates to 2003 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. The nominal dollar values of the estimates from this study are provided in Appendix E. 11 It is important to note, however, that evening time is not without value. The analysis of the NBC professional development model estimated the cost of time uniformly using the hourly wage figure. By focusing only on daytime working hours in the calculation of foregone earnings, the Knapp et al. study could underestimate the full cost of the programs. To the extent that the foregone earnings approach to valuing time neglects to include all the time required for teachers to earn the degree (e.g., writing papers and traveling to classes), the former would result in an underestimation of cost.

107

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications This study by The Finance Project makes important contributions to understanding the design and cost of the National Board Certification® (NBC) model of professional development. This information can help policymakers, program developers, and other decisionmakers as they consider National Board Certification alongside alternative forms of professional development. We identify key design features of the NBC candidacy process and of candidate support programs that offer professional learning opportunities for teachers. In particular, we provide new and detailed information on similarities and differences in candidate support programs. We also explore components of support programs that are associated with higher candidate performance on the certification assessment and analyze the alignment of the NBC teacher professional development model with principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature. This study also provides a tool for systematically measuring the cost of NBC and other models of professional development, and it applies this tool in four sites to yield the first estimates of the cost of the NBC model. We compare what is known about the costs of other forms of professional development with the cost we estimate for the NBC model. Our cost analysis provides a way for decisionmakers to conceptualize the kinds and magnitude of investments required for this model of professional development and to consider these in relation to those for other common forms of professional development. The major conclusions from our research are summarized below. The implications of our findings for investments in National Board Certification, for the design of NBC candidate support programs, for the diffusion of the NBC model of professional development, and for financing NBC candidacy and support programs are discussed. Directions for further research suggested by this study also are given.

Conclusions Regarding the Design of National Board Certification Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs as Professional Development Based on our research, we conclude that National Board Certification candidacy offers several professional learning opportunities for teachers, including study of standards for high-quality teaching, analysis of one’s own teaching against those standards, and opportunities to build content knowledge. Furthermore, we find that the candidacy process aligns closely with several core principles of high-quality professional development found in the literature, such as intensity and duration, an intersection of content and pedagogy, and a direct connection to teacher’s daily practice. The candidate support programs in this study vary in design and, therefore, in the extent to which they enhance the professional development that candidates experience. However, the programs add value through the additional learning opportunities and supports to learning they provide, most notably the opportunities for mentoring and peer learning. Data in this study and others show that factors other than support programs, including the candidate’s race or ethnicity and school environment, help explain their certification assessment performance. Yet this study suggests that certain program features, such as the intensity of the program and the facilitation of peer-to-peer 109

learning, may also have an impact. Furthermore, these components of support programs, though associated with stronger performance for all candidates, may have the greatest impact on groups that have traditionally performed more poorly on the certification assessment, including black teachers and teachers from high-poverty schools.

Conclusions Regarding the Cost of National Board Certification Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs We find that the NBC model of professional development, including both the activities that candidates undertake to fulfill the requirements of candidacy and the activities that support programs undertake to assist candidates, requires various types and a significant amount of resources. Specifically, we estimate that the total societal cost of the NBC model of professional development in our four study sites ranges from approximately $18,000 to $31,000 per participant. Of these total costs, the large amount of time that candidates devote to the process—valued at approximately $12,500 per participant—is the largest driver of cost; however, depending on state and school district policies, all or nearly all of this time is uncompensated. Our methodology permits analysis of costs in several ways, such as the cost of support program components, the cost of the candidacy process, budgeted costs, and uncompensated costs. Looking at program-related fiscal costs—the costs of operating the support programs and paying for the application fee but excluding the value of uncompensated time—estimated costs are approximately $2,700 to $11,400 per participant, a range explained by both support program design and economies of scale. In addition to the contributions of teachers’ time to the process, we estimate the amount of cost borne by the various sponsors and partners of the NBC professional development model in the support program sites in our study. Depending on the program sponsor and state and district policies supporting NBC candidacy, public (state, district, and school) costs range from about $1,000 to almost $11,700 per participant (or 5 percent to 37 percent of total costs). The programs also receive relatively small amounts of support from other sources, such as schools, universities, grants, teacher unions, and businesses.

Conclusions Regarding the Comparison of Cost of the NBC Model of Professional Development with the Costs of Alternative Approaches to Teacher Professional Development In comparing the cost of the National Board Certification model of professional development with the costs of other common approaches to teacher professional development, we found relatively few studies with cost estimates of alternative approaches to teacher professional development. Furthermore, the studies that we identified use differing concepts and methodologies and include different components of cost, making it very difficult to compare costs. Nevertheless, based on eight studies that permitted comparison of per-participant fiscal cost estimates, the estimated cost of the NBC professional development model in three

110

of the four NBC support program sites was in the same range as the reported costs of most of the alternative professional development programs. The fourth NBC program site was in the same range as the remaining reported costs. Compared with the estimated costs for a master’s degree program presented in one study and considering all costs except future salary obligations, the NBC model is less costly under all scenarios. Neither this study nor the comparison studies measure program effectiveness, so we cannot draw conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of alternatives. However, the lower per-participant costs we found for alternative models generally are associated with approaches to professional development that are relatively less intense in terms of their time requirements and with programs that serve a large number of teachers. Our finding that the NBC model of professional development is less costly than a master’s degree program is particularly relevant because both approaches are of relatively long duration and require extensive amounts of teacher time.

Implications for Investments in NBC Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs Considerable resources are devoted to the professional development of teachers, and these investments can also have significant implications for future costs such as additional salary obligations. Policymakers and funders should make investments in professional development in ways that will maximize the benefit from these investments. Our findings that NBC aligns closely with many aspects of high-quality professional development and that its costs are in the same range or lower than other common approaches to professional development contribute to the information decisionmakers need to make such decisions. However, while our findings suggest that NBC as a form of professional development may be a good investment, they do not provide a sufficient basis for preferring NBC over other alternatives on an economic basis. Cost data should be examined in conjunction with effectiveness data to identify the most cost-effective option. It is beyond the scope of this research to estimate the effectiveness of alternative approaches to teacher professional development. However, existing research provides some insights about the relative cost-effectiveness of the NBC model compared with a master’s degree program. This comparison is of particular interest because of the prominent role of the master’s degree program in teacher professional development, its high cost, and the associated future salary obligations. Numerous studies have examined the effect of teachers with master’s degrees on student achievement. These studies have a history of showing that teachers’ advanced degrees have no systematic impact on student achievement. 1 In contrast, evidence is beginning to emerge that documents a positive effect on student achievement associated with teachers who have earned NBC. Coupled with our estimates of the lower relative costs of the NBC model of professional development compared with a master’s degree program, such findings suggest that the NBC alternative might be preferable on cost-effectiveness grounds. Clearly, more work is needed to draw firm conclusions about these types of costeffectiveness comparisons. Yet our findings suggest that policymakers should consider NBC as a way to spend professional development dollars and salary rewards that may be more cost-effective than other alternatives.

111

Implications for the Design of Candidate Support Programs Our study findings have several implications for the design of NBC candidate support programs. Recognizing that other factors influence certification assessment performance and building on what we learned about the strengths of the support programs, support program developers and leaders should consider taking these steps to boost candidates’ performance on the certification assessment, especially performance among black teachers and teachers from high-poverty schools. •







Heighten the intensity of the professional development by offering more group sessions that reinforce the learning occurring through candidacy. Based on the sample of support programs we studied, ways to do this include offering sessions that occur at least monthly or more frequently and parallel candidates’ progression through the portfolio development and assessment center process, and creating the expectation that candidates will attend all or most sessions. Another way to increase the intensity of the experience is to offer additional sessions on topics of high-quality teaching that may be less closely related to the requirements of candidacy. Increase the duration of the process by providing precandidacy programs and continuing to provide support to advanced candidates. In our study, the programs that offered the greatest duration—with yearlong precandidacy programs— adopted a philosophy of candidacy as a multiyear learning process. Extending the candidacy support process, or establishing that teachers cannot enter the final process until they have demonstrated certain threshold knowledge and skills, could improve certification assessment scores and potentially lower the rate of certification nonachievement. This is important, because the current likelihood of achievement may be a deterrent to many teachers, even with the “banking” option. Enhance collegiality and collaboration by encouraging formal peer-to-peer candidate exchange. This opportunity for professional discussion and sharing is highly valued by candidates and, along with high intensity of group sessions, appears to be one of the program features most strongly associated with candidate performance on the certification assessment. Programs should also consider enhancing the quality of the collegial relationships between mentors and candidates. They could do so by matching candidates with mentors in the same certificate area and ensuring the quality of mentors by requiring training or experience that is consistent with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards®’ vision and standards for high-quality teaching. Adjust program designs so candidates spend more time on building content knowledge and preparing for the assessment center. In some cases, this might involve adding group sessions, while in others it might involve reallocating time among existing group sessions. This could help address candidates’ lower overall performance on the assessment center. Grouping candidates by certificate area, as is done in the programs that match mentors and candidates, may also facilitate building subject-specific content knowledge.

Implications for the Diffusion of the NBC Model of Professional Development Candidates consistently report that their participation in the NBC candidacy process constitutes some of the most valuable professional development they have experienced.

112

The experience of the support programs also is highly valued by teachers and increases learning opportunities, particularly through mentoring and peer learning. Given that teachers often view professional development activities with great skepticism, those responsible for conducting such activities will want to consider the enthusiasm expressed about the NBC model. Particularly as evidence of the positive impacts of National Board Certified Teachers® on student performance grows, districts could decide to support a significant number of teachers in the candidacy process as a way of upgrading their knowledge and skills. In addition to or besides developing a candidate support program, a district could look at the candidacy process and conclude that it would be a good idea to develop something like it for the district, or perhaps implement components of the process. Those components could include portfolio development, videotaping of classroom lessons, and self-assessment. Components of NBC support programs could also be integrated into professional development activities more generally, such as creating small teams grouped by subject matter and grade level that share professional development over time and providing those groups with other experienced teachers or coaches with whom to discuss their classroom experiences. Mentoring for small groups and/or individuals is another component of NBC support programs that could be integrated more generally. For example, e-mentoring—used in several candidate support programs we studied— could be helpful to provide support to teachers without easy access to mentors or support programs in their geographic area or in their content area.

Implications for Financing the Costs of NBC Candidacy and Candidate Support Programs Currently, most of the costs of the NBC model of professional development are borne by candidates. Governmental entities—states, districts, and schools—tend to pay for all or a portion of the application fee and also sometimes cover some of the costs of the support programs. In addition, the programs have garnered fiscal and in-kind resources from various other partners. This cost distribution pattern suggests that finding ways to get candidates to spend their time in the process is one of the most important financing needs. Currently, payments toward the application fee and the financial rewards for successful completion are sufficient to pull candidates into the process who are willing to donate their time given the rigors and high stakes of the process. However, as evidence that National Board Certified Teachers have a positive impact on student performance builds, states and school districts will want to consider whether to invest more heavily in attracting, keeping, and helping teachers succeed in the process. They may also want to focus on teachers who to date have been less ready, willing, or able to undertake NBC candidacy and to donate their time. Compensating candidates for all of the time they invest in the process—estimated in this study at approximately $12,500 per candidate—is not the only way to finance this cost and may not always be necessary. Our research indicates there are other approaches besides cash to candidates that support program participation. Some districts and schools, for example, have supported teacher participation by providing release days for candidates to work on their portfolio, providing convenient group meeting places, and providing equipment and assistance with videotaping and other logistics. The recognition and rewards that candidates receive for achieving certification, including professional

113

opportunities for leadership or special assignments, can also provide incentives for teachers to engage in the process. Beyond public support and teacher contributions of time, other entities—including foundations, universities, teacher unions, and businesses—have shown a willingness to support NBC candidate support programs. Program leaders and developers should consider that such entities may be willing to sponsor support programs and can seek to defray public and candidate costs by maximizing resource contributions from these sources.

Implications for Further Research The results of this study should be considered along with the findings of other research in guiding decisions about policies, program design, and investments in National Board Certification. Considerable research is emerging or already underway to assess the value of NBC, including the impact on student achievement. The findings from these studies will also help identify further research needs and gaps. Nevertheless, at this time, we have identified several research needs to extend the knowledge developed in our study. Our findings about program factors that are related to certification performance are exploratory and suggestive. Further research would be desirable to accomplish objectives such as these. •







Understand the relative impacts of characteristics of the individual, features of the support program, and factors in the candidate’s environment that contribute to performance on the certification assessment. Although we know individual characteristics play a role in explaining performance, there is a need for a better understanding of the extent to which program and policy variables can influence candidates’ participation and performance in NBC candidacy. Confirm and extend the study results about the features of candidate support programs that help candidates’ performance on the certification assessment and their achievement of certification and determine what works well for whom. The data set in this study limited us to descriptive and exploratory analysis. Ideally, further research into this topic would draw on a random sample of candidates who did not participate in any support program and candidates from a larger number of support programs. This would enable analysis of a larger number of program features and help ensure adequate representation of groups of interest, such as minority teachers and teachers from high-poverty schools. Explore what can be learned from the experience of advanced candidates. Our analysis of the relationship between program features and certification performance excluded these candidates. However, study of this group of teachers represents an opportunity to consider the potential of the NBC professional development model to serve teachers who do not initially demonstrate teaching practice that meets the NBC certification standards, to better understand their learning needs and paths relative to the NBC standards for accomplished teaching, and to explore the influence of support program design in encouraging teachers’ persistence in the NBC certification process and in certification achievement. Assess the impact of state and district policies on teachers’ participation in NBC candidacy and candidate support programs, on their performance on the

114



certification assessment, and on costs. The review should look at policies such as stipends and other monetary rewards, payments for application fees, the provision of release days, funding for candidate support programs, and other fiscal and nonfiscal policies. As with support program features, it would also be instructive to understand the effects of such policies on different groups of candidates. It will also be critical to continue research into the costs and effects of state and local policies affecting other forms of professional development, such as the costs of supporting master’s degree programs and paying for the associated future salary obligations, so policymakers can make informed comparisons. Examine the applicability of the NBC model in different contexts. For example, it is useful to know whether NBC candidacy and candidate support programs can attract, retain, and offer high-quality professional development opportunities to teachers with fewer skills or to candidates in less-supportive policy or school environments. This information would be important to assessing the potential for diffusion of this model of professional development.

To extend and increase the utility of the information developed in this study on the cost of the NBC model of professional development and comparisons of this cost with the costs of other common forms of professional development, further research is needed in these areas: •





The costs of alternative models of professional development. We were able to find only 23 studies that contained information on costs of teacher professional development initiatives, and only nine of these studies provided information on per-participant costs. Because of the variety of professional development programs and cost methodologies, it is extremely difficult to make useful comparisons across studies. The tool presented in this study provides a way to systematically estimate the costs of alternative forms of professional development so they can be compared with one another. Conducting such cost analysis for more types of professional development initiatives can broaden the number of comparable estimates and help researchers, decisionmakers, and others better understand how the costs of NBC and alternative models compare. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of professional development. To compare alternatives on an economic basis, cost data need to be considered in conjunction with effectiveness data. Given the prominence of the master’s degree model of professional development and the amount of resources devoted to it, as well as the availability of the cost comparison between NBC and a master’s degree program in this study, the research could focus first on addressing the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two models of professional development. Extensions to the cost estimates and analysis. The cost estimation approach used in this study enables important data collection and analysis for understanding the costs of NBC and other professional development models. Valuable extensions would include producing estimates and analysis of development costs, such as the cost of starting up a candidate support program, and costs over time. Additional analyses could address the relationship of resource costs to candidate support program design. This could include the pattern of economies of scale across support program sites; the relationship of support program design to candidate time spent and the use of that time; and the

115



relationship of resource use to candidate performance on the certification assessment. The financing of NBC as a form of professional development. This study shows that candidates devote large amounts of uncompensated time to the process, states and districts may invest significant amounts, and other individuals and entities also help finance candidate support programs. To help policymakers and program developers committed to NBC finance their goals, it would be helpful to conduct further research into potential sources of funding and other resources, how they can be accessed, and other considerations in their use.

1

J. K. Rice, “Investing in Teacher Quality: A Framework for Estimating the Cost of Teacher Professional Development,” in Theory and Research in Educational Administration, Vol. 2, ed. W. Hoy and C. Miskel, 209–33 (Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2003). It should be noted that a few studies show a positive effect of master’s degrees on student achievement under particular circumstances; studies of high school mathematics and science show a positive effect of teachers who hold master’s degree in those subjects on student achievement in those subjects.

116

References Allen, E. E., and L. Lederman. “Lessons Learned: The Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science.” Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2 (1998): 158–64. Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. “Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-based Theory of Professional Education.” In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, ed. L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 3–32. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass, 1999. Berg, J. Improving the Quality of Teaching through National Board Certification Theory and Practice. Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., 2003. Bond, L., R. M. Jaeger, T. Smith, and J. A. Hattie. A Distinction That Matters—Why National Teacher Certification Makes a Difference. Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2000. Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools. Professional Development Spending in the Boston Public Schools. Boston, Mass.: Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools, December 1999. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986. Cavalluzzo, L. Is National Board Certification an Effective Signal of Teacher Quality? Alexandria, Va.: CNA Corporation, 2004. Chittenden, E., and J. Jones. “An Observational Study of National Board Candidates as They Progress Through the Certification Process.” ERIC No. ED412257. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill., 1997. Cohen, Carol. Issues and Strategies in Financing Professional Development in Education. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2001. Cohen, David K., and Heather C. Hill. Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001. Cohen, C., P. Gerber, C. Handley, R. Kronley, and M. Parry. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001. Corcoran, Thomas B. “Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development.” CPRE Policy Briefs. New Brunswick, N.J.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University, June 1995. Corcoran, Thomas B. Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: National Governors’ Association, 1995.

117

Cramer, Mary Kay McCart, and James E. Cramer. “Candidates’ Perceptions of Effective National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Support Programs.” Unpublished paper. Arkansas State University, College of Education, fall 2000. Darling-Hammond, L. Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York, N.Y.: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1997. Darling-Hammond, L., and M. McLaughlin. “Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 8 (April 1995): 597– 604. Darling-Hammond, L., and D. L. Ball. Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able to Do. JRE-04. Philadelphia, Pa., and New York, N.Y.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, November 1998. Available at: . Darling-Hammond, L., and G. Sykes, eds. Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Education Commission of the States. Investing in Teacher Professional Development: A Look at 16 School Districts. Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 1997. Elmore, R. Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District Number 2, New York City. New York, N.Y., and Philadelphia, Pa.: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future and Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1997. Farkas, S., J. Johnson, and A. Duffett. Stand by Me: What Teachers Really Think About Unions, Merit Pay, and Other Professional Matters. New York, N.Y.: Public Agenda, 2003. The Finance Project and the Public Education Network. Teacher Professional Development: A Primer for Parents and Community Members. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project and Public Education Network, 2004. Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. “What Makes Professional Development Effective?—Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 4 (2001): 915–45. Goldhaber, D. “National Board Certification and Its Impact on Teachers and Students: Who Becomes Certified, Where Do Certified Teachers Teach, and How Does Certification Affect Student Learning?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, Ky., March 17–19, 2005. Goldhaber, D., and E. Anthony. Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively Assessed? Seattle, Wash.: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2004. Goldhaber, Dan, Emily Anthony, and David Perry. “Making the Grade: Who Applies for and Earns Advanced Teacher Certification?” Learning Curve: Facts and

118

Perspectives No. 2. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 30, 2003. Available at: . Goldhaber, D., D. Perry, and E. Anthony. NBPTS Certification: Who Applies and What Factors Are Associated with Success? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003. Guskey, Thomas. “Analyzing Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development to Promote Visionary Leadership.” NASSP Bulletin 87, no. 637 (December 2003): 38–54. Guskey, Thomas. “What Makes Professional Development Effective?” Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 10 (2003): 748–50. Hawley, W. D., and L. Valli. “The Essentials of Effective Professional Development: A New Consensus.” In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, ed. L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 127–150. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Humphrey, D., J. Koppich, and H. Hough. Sharing the Wealth: National Board Certified Teachers and the Schools That Need Them Most. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, in press. Ingersoll, R., and J. M. Kralik. “The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the Research Says.” ECS Research Review. Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 2004. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing, Assessment and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992. Available at: . Killeen, K. M., D. H. Monk, and M. L. Plecki. “School District Spending on Professional Development: Insights Available from National Data (1992–1998).” Journal of Education Finance 28 (summer 2002): 25–50. Killeen, K. M., D. H. Monk, and M. L. Plecki. “Spending on Instructional Staff Support Among Big City School Districts: Why Are Urban Districts Spending at Such High Levels?” Educational Considerations 28 (2000): 8–25. Knapp, J. L., R. F. McNergney, J. M. Herbert, and H. L. York. “Should a Master’s Degree Be Required of All Teachers?” Journal of Teacher Education 41, no. 2 (1990): 27–37. Kober, N. It Takes More Than Testing: Closing the Achievement Gap. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2001. Kronley, R., and C. Handley. Framing the Field: Professional Development in Context. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2000.

119

Levin, Henry M., and Patrick J. McEwan. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001. Linquanti, R., and J. Peterson. An Enormous Untapped Potential. San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2001. Little, J. W., W. H. Gerritz, D. H. Stern, J. W. Guthrie, M. W. Kirst, and D. D. Marsh. Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987. Lustick, D. National Board Certification as Professional Development: What Teachers Are Learning? East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, in press. Madfes, T., and J. Shulman. Dilemmas in Professional Development: A Case-based Approach to Improving Practice. San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2000. Miles, K. H. Getting to the Heart of School Improvement: Integrating Professional Development Spending in the Cincinnati Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Network, May 2001. Miles, K. H., and M. Hornbeck. “Reinvesting in Teachers: Aligning District Professional Development Spending to Support a Comprehensive School Reform Strategy.” District Issues Brief. Washington, D.C.: New American Schools, 2000. Miles, K. H., A. Odden, M. Fermanich, S. Archibald, and A. Gallagher. “Inside the Black Box of School District Spending on Professional Development: Lessons from Five Urban Districts.” Journal of Education Finance 30, no. 1 (2004): 1–26. Miller, B., B. Lord, and J. Dorney. Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, 1994. Monk, David, and Brian O. Brent. “Financing Teacher Education and Professional Development.” In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, ed. W. R. Houston. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1990. Moore, D. R., and A. A. Hyde. Making Sense of Staff Development: An Analysis of Staff Development Programs and Their Costs in Three Urban School Districts. Chicago, Ill.: Designs for Change, 1981. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Guidelines for Ethical Candidate Support. Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, March 2003. Available at: . National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. I Am a Better Teacher: What Candidates for National Board Certification Say About the Assessment Process. Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The Impact of National Board Certification on Teachers: A Survey of National Board Certified Teachers and

120

Assessors. Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. “Questions and Answers About National Board Certification.” Arlington, Va.: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2004. Available at: . National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York, N.Y.: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Standards for Professional Development Schools. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001. Available at: . National Network of Eisenhower Regional Consortia and National Clearinghouse. Mathematics and Science Education: 1997 Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. Neville, Kate, and Casey J. Robinson. The Delivery, Financing, and Assessment of Professional Development in Education: Pre-Service Preparation and In-Service Training. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, December 2003. Neville, Kate, Mark Moon, and Stephen Frank. The Delivery and Financing of Professional Development in High-Performing, High-Poverty Districts. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, in press. “New Research Studies Begin on National Board Certification.” Press release of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Arlington, Va., September 9, 2002. Available at: . No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 110. 107th Cong., 1st sess. (8 January 2002), 82, 539–40. North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center. Exposing the Gap: Why Minority Students Are Being Left Behind in North Carolina’s Educational System. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center, 2000. Odden, A. “The Costs of Sustaining Educational Change Through Comprehensive School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 81, no. 6 (2000): 433–38. Peixotto, K., and J. Fager. High Quality Professional Development: An Essential Component of Successful Schools. Portland, Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Information Services, 1998. Rice, J. K. “Cost Analysis in Education: Paradox and Possibility.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, no. 4 (1997): 309–17.

121

Rice, J. K. Cost Framework for Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001. Rice, J. K. “Investing in Teacher Quality: A Framework of Estimating the Cost of Teacher Professional Development.” In Theory and Research in Educational Administration, Vol. 2, ed. W. Hoy and C. Miskel, 209–33. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2003. Rice, J. K. “Meeting the Educational Needs of At-risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models.” Educational Evaluation and Policy 16, no. 1 (1994): 1–19. Rice, J. K. “Recent Trends in the Theory and Practice of Teacher Professional Development: Implications for Cost.” Paper presented at a conference of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, Wash., March 18–20, 1999. Ross, R. Effective Teacher Development Through Salary Incentives: An Exploratory Analysis. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1995. Rowan, B., R. Correnti, and R. Miller. “What Large-scale, Survey Research Tells Us About Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary School.” CPRE Research Report Series. RR-051. Philadelphia, Pa.: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2002. Roy, P., and S. Hord. Moving NSDC’s Staff Development Standards into Practice: Innovation Configurations. Oxford, Ohio, National Staff Development Council, 2003. Sato, M. “The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Teacher Learning Through the Assessment Process.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., 2000. Showers, B., B. Joyce, and B. Bennett. 1987. “Synthesis of Research on Staff Development: A Framework for Future Study and a State-of-the-art Analysis.” Educational Leadership 45, no. 3 (1987): 77–87. Sparks, D., and S. Hirsh. A National Plan for Improving Professional Development. Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development Council, 1999. Stern, D. H., W. H. Gerritz, and J. W. Little. “Making the Most of a School District’s Two (or Five) Cents: Accounting for Investment in Teachers’ Professional Development.” Journal of Education Finance 14 (1989): 368–79. Stoddart, T. “Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an Urban Context.” Peabody Journal of Education 67, no. 3 (1990): 84–122. Togneri, W., and S. Anderson. Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools. Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance, 2003.

122

Turner, K. National Teacher Certification: Is It Worth It? Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia State University, 2003. Vandervoort, L. G., A. Amrein-Beardsley, and D. C. Berliner. “National Board Certified Teachers and Their Students’ Achievement.” Educational Policy Analysis Archives 12, no. 46 (September 8, 2004): 34–37. Walsh, K., and E. Snyder. Searching the Attic for Highly Qualified Teachers: How States Are Responding to the Nation’s Goal of a Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2004. Wayne, A., C. Chang-Ross, M. Daniels, K. Knowles, K. Mitchell, and T. Price. Exploring Differences in Minority and Majority Teachers’ Decisions About and Preparation for NBPTS Certification. Arlington, Va.: SRI International, 2004. Wright, S. P., S. P. Horn, and W. L. Sanders. “Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, no. 1 (1997): 57–67. Zimmerman, J. When the Journey Is Its Own Reward: Supporting National Board Candidates. San Francisco, Calif.: WestEd, 2000.

123

Appendix A: Supplementary Information on Study Methods and Instruments

125

126

Appendix A.1: Supplementary Information on Study Methods Information in this appendix supplements information in the body of the report on the methods we used for site selection, data collection and analysis, and review.

Site Selection Because of our interest in identifying National Board Certification® (NBC) design features and costs associated with high-quality professional development, we sought to develop a national sample of 8 to 12 candidate support programs that represented highquality professional development and exhibited variation in key features. We began the site selection process by seeking out support programs with reputations for high-quality professional development and higher-than-average NBC achievement rates (adjusted for the characteristics of their candidate populations). Although the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS) does not officially sponsor any candidate support programs, its staff is knowledgeable about many support programs that exist across the nation, and the leaders of many of these programs are involved in NBPTS activities. Consequently, we began our identification of support programs with recommendations from NBPTS about strong programs with relatively high achievement rates. We also vetted this list and gathered additional recommendations from other experts, including leading academics, researchers, and representatives of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. The study team did not have access to reliable information on certification success rates across all sites at the time the study sites were selected, so this was not a key consideration in the final selection of sites. From this list of approximately 20 programs, we sought to select programs that had been operating for at least three years and from which we could obtain needed information. The study team collected preliminary data on the recommended programs from their director, including length of operation, and considered the distribution across the program sites of several attributes. These attributes included geographic location, urban or rural setting, program sponsorship, program size, program activities, demographics of the candidates served, and poverty levels in the candidate teachers’ schools. In addition, the project staff considered the availability and willingness of site leaders to provide data and other support to the study. The final selection of eight support programs represents six states and eight communities. The selected programs also reflect varying geographic types and levels of support for NBC, a unique configuration of program sponsors, program sizes ranging from fewer than 12 candidates to several hundred candidates per year, and programs serving candidates with different racial and ethnic backgrounds and from schools with different poverty levels.

Data Collection and Analysis Data collection and analysis occurred in two major phases. Phase 1 focused on understanding the NBC candidacy process and candidate support programs as a professional development model and the design features of this model. Phase 2 focused

127

on understanding the resources and costs involved in this model of professional development. All data collected focused on the 2002–03 candidacy and support program year (summer 2002 through spring 2003).

Phase 1: Understanding the Candidacy Process and Candidate Support Programs To gain an understanding of the design of the NBC candidacy process and support programs in our study, members of the study team researched the NBC candidacy requirements and other literature and collected data from the eight support program sites. We visited five of the eight sites for one and one-half days to two days in April and May 2003 and conducted telephone calls with program representatives in the remaining three sites. Drawing on the literature and our existing knowledge of models of professional development, the study team developed a questionnaire and interview protocols to gather relevant information. Prior to our site visits, each program leader completed a questionnaire (Appendix A.2) on the history, goals, size, activities, sponsorship, expenditures, and policy environment of the program. In addition, the project staff developed interview protocols (Appendix A.3) for the visits that built on the questionnaire and focused primarily on collecting data that would help us understand the: • • •



support programs as variations on the National Board Certification candidacy model of professional development; resources contributed by individuals, support programs, and other partners in support of National Board Certification candidacy; factors associated with candidate performance on the National Board Certification assessment, potentially including individual teacher characteristics, candidate support program design, state and local policies, school and district support, and other environmental factors; and perceptions various stakeholders held about the value of National Board Certification candidacy and support programs.

In each site we visited, we worked with the program director to identify relevant individuals for our data collection and to arrange interviews and meetings with them. We held individual interviews with the support program director and, where the program had additional staff, we also met with these individuals. In most of the sites, we conducted two to four focus groups of approximately 5 to 10 NBC candidates each; the candidates were participating or had recently participated in the support program. In some sites, we met with candidates individually instead. Many of the candidates we spoke to had achieved NBC or were advanced candidates; we generally did not have the opportunity to interview candidates who had not achieved NBC and had chosen not to continue to pursue certification. At each site, we also held focus groups or interviews with program mentors. 1 In some sites we were able to meet with all of the program mentors, while in others we interviewed a smaller number of individuals who served in that capacity. To understand the context in which the program operates, including policies relevant to NBC, we also met with program partners, school administrators, principals, and other stakeholders as well as collected additional information from NBPTS and other state contacts. The principals we interviewed each had at least one National Board Certified Teacher® (NBCT) or NBC candidate in their school, and school administrators were familiar with

128

the support program and district policies related to NBC. Additional relevant documents were gathered during the site visits, and study team members observed support program sessions when schedules permitted. After completing the site visits, the project staff held conference calls with the program directors of the three remaining sites. The protocols used for the calls were similar to those used to interview site leaders on the visits; however, no candidates, mentors, or other stakeholders were interviewed in these sites. The questionnaire and interview protocols we used to collect data are included as Appendix A.2 and Appendix A.3, respectively. Subsequent to the first round of data collection, the study team identified key professional development features of the candidacy process, and the common and differing features of the candidate support programs and sites. This analysis is presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, respectively. In addition, we compared the NBC model with characteristics of high-quality professional development found in the literature. This analysis is presented in Chapter 4. We also began to formulate hypotheses about features of the candidate support programs associated with candidate performance on the NBC assessment. To test these hypotheses, we developed a data set of information on candidates in the support program sites and used descriptive and simple statistical methods to examine the relationship between program factors and certification assessment performance for this sample of candidates. To create this data set, we asked the support program directors to provide the names of all candidates participating in their program in the 2002–03 study year. We obtained the appropriate information from all but one of the sites. We submitted the lists of names to NBPTS for matching with records on individual candidates in its candidate and score databases. The variables we requested from those records included demographic information on the candidate, characteristics of the school and district in which they taught, and the results of their certification assessment (certification achievement or nonachievement and total and disaggregated scores). Finally, we associated with each candidate’s record the information we had gathered on the support program in which he or she participated and the state and school district in which he or she worked. State and school district data on financial incentives were obtained through our site visits and from the NBPTS website on financial incentives at http://www.nbpts.org/about/state.cfm. In some instances, we sought additional information from NBPTS and NBPTS state and district liaisons. Descriptions of variables considered for analysis are included in Appendix A.4. Findings from this analysis are presented in the latter part of Chapter 3.

Phase 2: Understanding Resources and Costs Phase 2 of the data collection and analysis focused on collecting data to estimate the costs of NBC candidacy and candidate support programs and to compare the costs of this model of professional development with those of other prominent forms of professional development. We conducted our cost analysis of the NBC model of professional development for the four sites of Mississippi Gulf Coast, San Antonio, Stanford, and Winston-Salem. Details of our site selection and analytic methods are contained in Chapter 5.

129

We visited each of the four sites selected for the NBC cost analysis in fall 2003—after the completion of the 2002–03 study year—to collect data on the resources used and their distribution. In all but one of the sites (Mississippi Gulf Coast), the visits were timed before the release of certification assessment results for candidates who had attempted certification in 2002–03. In each site, we held extensive interviews with program administrators to understand the resources used by the candidate support program. We also met with school officials and other program partners to understand the resources contributed by different individuals and organizations. Moreover, we sought to gather information on the time and out-of-pocket costs of candidates and mentors in each site from small samples of three to five candidates and mentors participating in the program in 2002–03; this information was gathered through focus groups during the site visit or from follow-up questionnaires. Additional follow-up information was gathered via e-mail and phone calls with support program staff. Site visit teams also observed support group sessions during these visits as schedules permitted.

Review Process NBPTS staff and the candidate support program directors were given the opportunity to review and correct all the factual data in this report about the candidacy process or their support program, respectively. These individuals, as well as other researchers, academics, and interested parties, also reviewed a draft of the report, and their comments were considered before final publication of the study findings. 1

Program mentors are referred to differently in different sites. Some sites use the term “facilitators,” “support providers,” and “coaches.” Although these individuals may operate somewhat differently in each of the support programs, they all fulfill the role of directly supporting individual candidates and/or leading groups that support candidates. We use the term “mentor” throughout this study to refer to these support program staff.

130

Appendix A.2: Questionnaire to Collect Descriptive Information on National Board Certification Candidate Support Programs Program Name _____________________ Program Contact ____________________ To collect descriptive information on your candidate support program prior to our site visit or phone interview, we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following questions. Please feel free to answer any of these questions by attaching existing documents that address the question(s).

1. What year did design of the program begin? What year did operation of the program begin? What phase of operation would you say the program is in (e.g., startup, scaling up, or mature)?

2. Who is/are the key sponsor(s), partner(s), and leader(s) of this support program? What are their respective roles (e.g., designing the program, operating program components, and/or providing funding)?

3. Approximately how many teachers participate in the program each year (precandidate, candidate, and advanced candidate)? How has this changed over time?

4. Please describe, in general, the characteristics of the teachers you support (e.g., length of teaching experience, previous teacher training, race, gender, age, union affiliation, teaching in urban or rural schools, and teaching in high- or low-poverty schools).

5. What geographic area does your program support? Are there other support programs in the same area? If so, what are they?

6. How many different schools and districts does the program serve?

7. What are the goals of the program? What support activities for National Board Certification® (NBC) candidates does your program offer?

131

8. About how many hours do NBC teacher candidates spend participating in each of these activities? Over what period?

9. What is the role of National Board Certified Teachers® (NBCTs) in the program, and what training do they receive for their roles?

10. How is technology incorporated into the program?

11. What have been the total expenditures for the program during the past three years? What amount is budgeted for the current year?

12. What do the expenditures for the program include? Program administrative staff NBCTs and other mentors/facilitators Substitutes for teacher release days Facility rental charges Research, development, and dissemination Other

Materials Equipment Technology Travel and transportation Future salary obligations

13. What are the key funding sources for this program? How much does each provide?

14. What expenditures do NBC teacher candidates typically make while pursuing National Board Certification?

Donated time Equipment Conference fees

Materials Tuition and course credits Other

15. Are there fees associated with participating in the program? What are they? Who pays them?

16. Are there financial or professional incentives for teachers to pursue NBC that are offered by the state? What are they?

17. Are there financial or professional incentives for teachers to pursue NBC that are offered by the local districts? What are they?

132

Appendix A.3: Interview Protocols for Program Directors/Partner Representatives 1. What is your view of the relationship between pursuing National Board Certification® and professional development? How do you view the role of this candidate support program with regard to this issue? 2. Please tell us about the goals of this support program and the activities that are undertaken or offered to support those goals. a. What goals is the program intending to achieve? b. Given the information you provided on the questionnaire, how much variation is there among candidates in terms of which activities they participate in, how often they collaborate with other teachers, and how much time they devote to the process? 3. Why was this program undertaken and how did the various partners become involved? 4. In general, not in reference to this program, which factors (e.g., duration, mentoring, and location) do you believe are most significant in successfully preparing teachers for National Board Certification? Which factors are most significant in providing effective professional development for teachers? a. What kind of support do teachers need to be successfully prepared for National Board Certification? b. How do the factors differ, if at all, between National Board Certification preparation and effective professional development generally? 5. Which factors of this program and its environment are most significant in successfully preparing teachers for National Board Certification? Which factors of this program are most significant in providing teachers with an effective professional development experience? a. Which elements of candidate support activities do you think have worked particularly well? b. Which elements have not worked particularly well and why? c. What makes participation in this support program an effective professional development experience for teachers? d. How is success measured in this program? e. Following up on your responses to our questionnaire, to what extent do you think that state and local policies encourage and support teacher participation in the National Board Certification process and their participation in the support program? 6. Of the factors discussed, which ones are most significant for which groups of teachers? How does the program accommodate the needs of these different groups of teachers? a. Are any of the factors discussed above more important for certain groups of teachers (race, gender, urban/rural, high-/low-poverty schools, first-time/advanced)? b. How does this program meet the needs of all the different teachers it serves?

133

c. How is this program tailored to meet the needs of different teachers? d. How has the program responded to candidates’ needs? 7. Given your answers to our questionnaire, which resources (defined broadly to include things such as teacher time, equipment, mentor time or expertise, or emotional and psychological support) do you think are necessary for teachers to successfully achieve National Board Certification? Which resources, as defined above, do you think are necessary for teachers to participate in effective professional development? a. Which resources are not available that you think should be available? b. If you had more resources available to you, what would you do differently? 8. How are these resources financed? Who makes decisions about financing for the program? How are these decisions made? a. b. c. d.

What sources of funding are being used to pay for the program? How much is contributed by each source? What specific functions or activities does each funding source pay for? How are financial planning decisions made (e.g., how much money is needed, where it will come from, and how it is allocated)? e. How are decisions on the deployment of financial resources made (i.e., how the resources are actually used)? f. How is the program supported financially? g. Does the money come from only one source or multiple sources? h. Do some resources only support specific activities, such as mentoring or technology?

9. What do you believe are the key benefits of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? What do you believe are the costs of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? In your answer we want to capture not only fiscal resources, but also the additional costs—including time and effort—borne by teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc. 10. What is the relative value of pursuing National Board Certification compared with other forms of professional development for teachers, such as pursuing a master’s degree or attending in-service professional development activities? 11. What plans does your program have to continue in the future? What do you want to sustain? What will it take? a. What are the major challenges you face? How are you planning to deal with these challenges? b. What adjustments are being made or will be made in the future in terms of program offerings or budgetary decisions? c. Briefly discuss the evolution of this program. For example, please comment on how participation rates have changed for various groups, how recruiting strategies have changed, and how the support program has adapted to better meet candidates’ needs. d. If you were starting over, what would you do differently today? What advice would you have for other National Board Certification candidate support programs or other professional development program developers?

134

Appendix A.3: Interview Protocols for National Board Certification Teacher Candidates 1. What factors play a role in teachers’ decisions to pursue National Board Certification®? a. Why did teachers decide to seek National Board Certification? 2. In what activities do National Board Certification candidates in this candidate support program participate? On average, how much time did candidates spend working on their portfolios and on participating in candidate support activities each week or each month? Which activities are mandatory and which are voluntary? 3. Which factors of this program and its environment do you think are most significant in successfully preparing teachers for National Board Certification? What makes this a successful National Board Certification preparation program? a. What do candidates see as the primary strengths of this candidate support program? b. What are the key factors that make this support program successful in preparing teachers for National Board Certification? 4. Of the factors discussed, which ones are most significant for you or your colleagues? How does the program accommodate the needs of these different groups of teachers? a. Based on your experience in the program, would you recommend it to other teachers? Which other teachers? b. Are there teachers for whom the program is not well suited? 5. Do you know of other teachers who pursued or are pursuing National Board Certification who did not participate in a candidate support program? What influenced their decision not to participate in a support program? 6. Which resources—for example, time, space, expertise, equipment, or emotional and psychological support—are necessary for teachers to successfully achieve National Board Certification? a. What kinds and how much support/encouragement do teachers receive from principals while they go through the preparation process? 7. Are all of these resources available in this candidate support program? If not, what is missing? 8. What do you believe are the key benefits of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? a. What do teachers see as the early benefits of going through the candidate support program (or candidacy)?

135

9. What do you believe are the costs of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? Please consider costs to include more than just financial costs, for example, time and effort. 10. What is the relative value of pursuing National Board Certification compared with other forms of professional development for teachers, such as pursuing a master’s degree or attending in-service professional development activities? a. In general, how do teachers think the candidate support program compares with other professional development in terms of time and energy requirements and personal and professional benefits? 11. How could this candidate support program be improved to better meet your needs? a. What would you change about the program? 12. Which factors of this program and its environment are most significant in providing teachers with an effective professional development experience? 13. Which resources—for example, time, space, expertise, equipment, or emotional and psychological support—are necessary for teachers to participate in effective professional development? Are all of those resources available in this program? 14. How does your decision to pursue National Board Certification advance your professional development goals? 15. Is this program meeting your needs as a form of effective professional development?

136

Appendix A.3: Interview Protocols for National Board Certified Teacher Mentors As a Teacher Having Gone through the National Board Certification Process 1. What factors play a role in teachers’ decisions to pursue National Board Certification®? 2. Which factors, such as duration, mentoring, and location, do you believe are most significant in successfully preparing teachers for National Board Certification? 3. Do you know of other teachers who pursued or are pursuing National Board Certification who did not participate in a candidate support program? What influenced their decision not to participate in a support program? 4. How does pursuing National Board Certification compare with other forms of professional development for teachers, such as pursuing a master’s degree or attending in-service professional development activities? 5. What do you believe are the key benefits of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? 6. What do you believe are the costs of pursuing National Board Certification for teachers, schools, students, districts, states, etc.? Please consider costs other than financial resources, for example, time and effort. 7. How did becoming a National Board Certified Teacher® prepare you to do things differently in your classroom and career? As a Mentor in This Candidate Support Program 1. Please tell us about the goals of this support program and the role of National Board Certified Teachers in reaching those goals. a. What is the time commitment involved? Does the time come out of the regular school schedule or primarily out of evening and weekend time? b. Are you compensated for your role as a mentor? Are there additional out-ofpocket expenses? c. How are mentors chosen? d. How many candidates do you work with? 2. What training do National Board Certified Teachers® receive for their role in this support program? 3. Why did you decide to be a mentor? 4. Which factors, such as duration, mentoring, and location, of this program and its environment do you believe are most significant in preparing teachers for National Board Certification?

137

5. Of the factors discussed, which ones do you believe are most significant for which groups of teachers? How does the program accommodate the needs of these different groups of teachers? 6. Which resources—for example, time, space, expertise, equipment, or emotional and psychological support—do you believe are necessary for teachers to successfully achieve National Board Certification? Are all of those resources available in this support program?

138

Appendix A.3: Interview Protocols for Principals/District Representatives 1. Which resources—for example, time, space, expertise, equipment, or emotional and psychological support—do you believe are necessary for teachers to successfully achieve National Board Certification®? 2. Which resources are necessary for teachers to participate in effective professional development? 3. Do you believe that preparation for National Board Certification is effective professional development? Why or why not? 4. In what ways do you think participation in a candidate support program enhances the professional development of teachers going through the National Board Certification process? a. Do you know of other teachers who pursued or are pursuing National Board Certification who did not participate in a support program? What influenced their decision not to participate in a support program? 5. What is the role of the school and district in providing support for teachers pursuing National Board Certification? 6. Are there costs for the school and district associated with teachers pursuing National Board Certification? What are they? 7. Would you prefer to have more National Board Certified Teachers® in your school or district? Why? If you would like more National Board Certified Teachers, what resources would you be willing to devote to attract and hire National Board Certified Teachers for your school or district or to have more teachers achieve National Board Certification? a. Why is having a teacher pursue National Board Certification/hiring National Board Certified Teachers a priority/not a priority for the school and district? 8. What impact do National Board Certified Teachers have in the school and district? 9. What role do National Board Certified Teachers play in the school and district? 10. What is the relative value for a teacher of pursuing National Board Certification compared with participating in other forms of professional development, such as obtaining a master’s degree or attending in-service professional development activities? 11. What is the relative value for the school and district of a teacher pursuing National Board Certification compared with other forms of professional development, such as obtaining a master’s degree or attending in-service professional development activities?

139

Appendix A.4: Variables Considered for Analysis Variable Age

Gender

Definition Demographic Information ─ Individual Date of birth is provided by National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS). Based on age as of 9/1/2002. A dummy variable indicating candidate’s gender.

Race/Ethnicity

Dummy variables for four categories of race/ethnicity.

Master’s Degree

A dummy variable indicating whether or not candidate held a master’s degree.

Years of Experience Teaching

A continuous variable indicating the number of years of teaching experience.

Certification Area

A dummy variable indicating the NBPTS certification area in which a teacher attempts to receive certification. “EA” is early adolescence. “AYA” is adolescence and young adulthood. The “All Others” category is a combination of 13 certification areas.

High Poverty

Low Poverty

Geographic Type

Saturation

Money Earned in First Year of Certification Money Earned During Life of the Certificate (10 years)

Values Average: 39.2 Maximum: 60 Minimum: 24 Male: 59 Female: 379 Black: 48 Asian: 10 White: 220 Hispanics: 145 Other or Missing: 15 No Master’s: 136 Master’s: 298 Missing: 4 Average: 11.4 Maximum: 35 Minimum: 3 EA English Language Arts: 17 AYA English Language Arts: 21 EA Social Studies: 7 AYA Science: 11 EA Science: 7 AYA Math: 14 Early Child Generalist: 94 Middle Child Generalist: 82 Exceptional Needs Specialist: 54 AYA Social Studies: 12 EA Math: 14 All Others: 105

Demographic Information ─ The School and District A dummy variable indicating whether a teacher Greater than 50%: 238 teaches in a school where 50% or more of the Less than 50%: 156 students receive free and reduced-price meals. Missing Values: 44 A dummy variable indicating whether a teacher Less than 20%: 57 teaches in a school where 20% or fewer of the Greater than 20%: 337 students receive free and reduced-price meals. Missing Values: 44 A dummy variable indicating the geography of a Rural: 20 Suburban: 77 school district. Urban: 327 Missing Values: 14 A continuous variable indicating the proportion of California: 0.87% teachers in a given state who already have Florida: 3.66% achieved National Board Certification® (NBC). Mississippi: 5.65% North Carolina: 7.74% Ohio: 1.78% Texas: 0.05% State and Policy Incentives A continuous variable indicating the maximum size Average: $11,619 of lump-sum monetary incentive given by the state Maximum: $15,146 and district in the first year for NBC achievement. . Minimum: $1,000 A continuous variable indicating the maximum size Average: $61,956 of lump-sum monetary incentive given by the state Maximum: $97,460 and district over a 10-year span for NBC Minimum: 5,000 achievement..

140

Variable Payment Toward Application Fee Release Days

High Intensity of Group Sessions Mentor-Candidate Matching by Certificate Area Mentor Training Required 30- to 40-Hour Precandidacy Program Yearlong Precandidacy Program

Definition Demographic Information ─ Individual A dummy variable indicating whether the state and district pay roughly half or all of the certification fee. A dummy variable indicating whether candidates do or do not receive release days from their state and/or district. Program Characteristics A dummy variable indicating whether there is high intensity of group sessions and formal incorporation of candidate exchange. A dummy variable indicating whether a program matches mentors to candidates by certificate area. A dummy variable indicating whether program required NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute or similar training. A dummy variable indicating whether the program offered a precandidacy program of 30–40 hours. A dummy variable indicating whether the program offered a yearlong precandidacy program.

Values Half costs: 57 Full costs: 381 Yes: 81 No: 357

Yes: 135 No: 303 Yes: 159 No: 279 Yes: 139 No: 299 Yes: 308 No: 130 Yes: 74 No: 364

141

Appendix B: Candidate Support Program Descriptions and State Teacher Workforce Context

143

144

Appendix B.1: Candidate Support Program Descriptions Cincinnati: Pathways to World Class Teaching Program Development and Structure The Pathways to World Class Teaching program has been operating in Cincinnati, Ohio, since 1997 to support candidates attempting certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards® (NBPTS). Two local National Board Certified Teachers® (NBCTs), Sara Eisenhardt and Caroline Mulvaney, developed the program. They partnered with other educational institutions in the area─including the Cincinnati Public Schools, University of Cincinnati, Xavier University and the Southwest Ohio Regional Professional Development Center─supporting NBPTS candidates and eventually merged to form one program. In the study year, 2002–03, the program was housed at the Mayerson Academy for Human Resource Development, an independent nonprofit provider of professional development that receives $1.5 million in funding from the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) to provide professional development offerings to CPS staff. Eisenhardt, who is on loan from the district, serves as program director. Mulvaney, who is still a full-time teacher, helps organize and coordinate the program. The candidate support program serves teachers in the greater southwestern Ohio region, though most teachers come from the four counties of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren. Within these four counties are 23 school districts that include rural, urban, suburban, high- and low-poverty, and private and parochial schools. Some certification candidates travel more than one hour to participate in the program. The program began with less than 10 candidates per year, but it has expanded to serve approximately 30 precandidates, 50 candidates, and 30 advanced candidates each year. Although most teachers in the program are Caucasian, approximately 20 percent of them are African American. The candidate support program aims to help teachers make informed decisions about when to seek National Board Certification® (NBC) and to provide high-quality professional development through comprehensive coaching experiences that enable teachers to successfully participate in the NBPTS assessments. A second goal is to restructure the teaching profession by introducing a cadre of accomplished teachers with the proven ability to provide active leadership in the redesign of schools and help colleagues uphold high standards of teaching and learning. Staff members credit the program with helping to restructure the teaching culture in Cincinnati with a network of accomplished teachers who serve in leadership roles and have a direct impact on district-wide instructional decisions. 1

Program Activities and Staff The candidate support program in Cincinnati recruits candidates by sharing information via websites, brochures, and newsletters. To start the candidacy process and receive an application fee subsidy, the state requires teachers to participate in an approved three-

145

hour orientation session on NBPTS. An NBCT must teach the session, and session participants receive a certificate of attendance. The support program staff and affiliated NBCTs conduct five such regional orientation sessions across the Cincinnati area in the spring. Once the candidacy process begins, teachers participate in an intensive weeklong summer institute or six-day session spread out monthly during the school year where they learn the structure of the NBPTS process. In addition, the teachers also develop an understanding of core NBPTS concepts associated with accomplished teaching and learn how to use NBPTS standards to evaluate their practices. They also engage in writing exercises and begin to develop samples of videotapes and written entries. After completing the institute, candidates receive support through a series of sessions titled “From Start to Finish.” From September through May, the candidates meet with their assigned NBCT mentors in small groups that are organized by certificate area; each group typically includes between four and six candidates but may include as many as nine candidates. The program staff tries to match candidates with mentors in the same certificate area, unless the certification area is new and there are no NBCTs in that area. These groups meet approximately every two weeks for a total of 10 to 15 meetings. The progression of meetings is organized around the portfolio entries and assessment center. For example, groups meet one time to discuss the portfolio directions and standards for an entry, then the next time to discuss candidates’ drafts for that entry. Subsequent meetings focus on different entries or final revisions to entries. Feedback is provided face-to-face; mentors do not take home the entries and edit them. The last two sessions for a group focus on preparation for the assessment center. The small groups can set their own pace, meeting more frequently if they choose, especially toward the end of the process. In addition, Eisenhardt and Mulvaney facilitate some large group training sessions. The advanced candidate offerings help candidates develop an understanding of NBPTS’ banking policies, which then guides their choice of entries to retake. This part of the support program involves mini-workshops that candidates take as needed and significant one-on-one mentoring with an assigned NBCT who continues the collegial dialogues with the candidates to help them provide better evidence of their meeting the standards and help them demonstrate their practice through writing and videotape. 2 The program director seeks to adjust the sessions and offerings each year to reflect candidates’ needs. For example, the precandidate sessions used to be scheduled in the previous year, but these were eliminated because she found them to be “too divorced” from the larger candidate support program. She also seeks to enrich the mini-workshops to make them better each year. Critical goals include focusing on student outcomes, making teachers more critical of their practices, and understanding how teaching goals and assessment come together. The mentors work in small groups with candidates and also assist with informational meetings. Eisenhardt and Mulvaney choose the mentors, who are all NBCTs. The mentors receive an annual orientation and, over time, the program has provided NBCTs with facilitator training. Many of the NBCTs associated with the program have been scorers, train scorers, or are scoring directors. In addition to the formal mentors, 146

Eisenhardt and Mulvaney are available to support the candidates during group sessions as well as outside class by e-mail and telephone.

Program Financing The candidate support program is part of a state-financed program of support for National Board Certification. The Pathways to World Class Teaching program, along with approximately 22 other programs in the state, receives funds under a competitive state grant program to deliver support to Ohio teachers. To be eligible for these funds, the program must: • support initial as well as advanced candidates; • identify measurable goals that address candidate recruitment, support, retention, and success; • adhere to a ratio of 1 NBCT to 5 candidates; • use multiple strategies to support all candidates; and • evaluate program effectiveness. Amounts are paid to candidate support programs on a per-person basis of $300 per initial candidate and $150 per advanced candidate. In 2002–03 the Pathways to World Class Teaching program received about $18,000 from the Ohio Department of Education, which was used to pay each mentor a stipend of $1,200. The Cincinnati Public Schools contributes the salary of the program director and helps with communication and publicity; however, less than 25 percent of Eisenhardt’s time is spent on the candidate support program. Mayerson Academy provides in-kind support, including office space, meeting space, some refreshments, and video and television equipment. A small Ohio’s Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST) Practice Grant supports a celebration to recognize teachers who achieve certification. Additional partners include the University of Cincinnati, which provides credit to teachers pursuing NBC, and the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, which assists with communication and provides additional professional support. In the past, the program received funds from the Southwest Ohio Regional Professional Development Center and the State Farm Family Insurance Foundation to supplement mentor stipends. Also in previous years, the program received other Ohio’s BEST Practice Grants for various purposes and additional funding from Mayerson Academy to help support the celebration to recognize new NBCTs.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives As of 2002–03, the state pays the entire $2,300 application fee for a certain number of applicants, which is determined by the availability of funds each year. In fiscal 2002, the state paid application fees for 900 candidates. Ohio also pays for up to two retake entries at a cost of $300 each. After certification, the state rewards NBCTs with a $2,500 annual stipend if they teach full time. Local rewards include an additional $1,000 stipend for NBCTs who are full-time CPS teachers, and at least two other local districts or schools provide a $2,500 stipend. CPS also affords the NBCT an abbreviated process to become a lead teacher, a position that comes with an additional stipend of $5,000 or $5,500. CPS’ teacher evaluation system is closely related to NBPTS standards. Candidates can also receive credit from

147

the University of Cincinnati for participating in the summer institute, From Start to Finish sessions, and advanced candidate offerings while paying a reduced tuition rate. After the study year, the program moved to Ashland University, where it combined with a smaller university-based program.

Miami-Dade: United Teachers of Dade National Board Support Program Program Development and Structure The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) National Board Support Program was started in 1995 as a pilot program involving a small group of teachers. Members of the union formed their own local networks to support one another through the candidacy process. Over time the program grew in size and expanded its mission to include policy advocacy related to NBPTS matters and encouraging local colleges and universities to link teacher preparation to NBPTS standards. Valda McKinney of the UTD coordinates the program, which mainly serves teachers in the Miami-Dade district but also has a few participants from surrounding counties such as Broward and Key West. Beginning with one certified teacher in 1995, the program now supports between 400 and 600 candidates each year. Currently, almost 500 NBCTs work in this highly urban district. The program successfully recruits a racially and an ethnically diverse candidate population; in 2001–02 Hispanics accounted for 42 percent of the candidates, white non-Hispanics for 34 percent, blacks for 22 percent, and Asians for 2 percent. The program has a number of wide-reaching goals related to National Board Certification. It primarily assists teachers in the journey toward NBC, but the program also is committed to developing professional development seminars on NBPTS standards and providing leadership opportunities for NBCTs. In addition, staff aims to increase minority participation in the program and establish links with local colleges and universities related to National Board Certification.

Program Activities and Staff The candidate support program in Miami-Dade offers a range of activities to achieve its goals of supporting candidates and promoting National Board Certification. Each year it holds information sessions from June through September at schools and union meetings to inform teachers about the certification process, incentives the district and state provides for certified teachers, and the support available for teachers who pursue National Board Certification. The program offers a 40-hour workshop through the Teacher Education Center, which serves loosely as the precandidate component, providing teachers with information about the process before they have formally applied. Teachers may take the course during the summer or in the evenings during the school year and receive continuing education credits. The candidate support program also helps candidates complete the paperwork for the state’s application fee subsidy program.

148

In addition, the candidate support program offers professional development seminars that are open to all NBC candidates. The workshops are free of charge for union members, but nonunion members must pay a fee to attend. These seminars are held monthly and cover topics such as videotaping, portfolio writing, and reviewing student work. In October the program convenes a gathering called “Waiting to Exhale” for candidates who have completed the process but have not yet learned their scores. It also holds a celebration for those who achieve certification. Beyond formal workshops, the support program’s website lists NBCTs in the area who can serve as mentors. Staff encourages candidates to find a mentor in the same certificate area and to contact this individual for help. Mentors work informally with the candidates and design their own meeting schedule. Most mentors work with one to three candidates each year. Florida NBCTs who spend 100 hours per year mentoring candidates are eligible for a stipend of 10 percent of the average state teacher salary, which in 2002–03 amounted to $3,927. The mentors keep logs that are submitted to the state for review. The program provides a mentoring workshop for interested NBCTs, but training is not required to serve as a mentor or to receive the state stipend. Mentors can also attend state and national NBPTS conferences. The program staff consists of a part-time program director and some clerical support from the UTD office. More than 400 eligible mentors are in the area, but the program does not track how many participate because their stipends come directly from the state. The program supports candidates at all points in the process, including precandidates and advanced candidates. The one-week workshop provided through the Teacher Education Center serves as the precandidate component of the program. The support provided to advanced candidates does not differ significantly from that provided to other candidates. Advanced candidates continue to work with mentors of their choosing and may attend the seminars and workshops held throughout the year.

Program Financing Funding for the candidate support program comes from UTD dues; Florida Education Association, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers dollars; and local education fund donations. These funds support the part-time (25 percent) program director and materials and equipment. The Miami-Dade school district provides in-kind donations of meeting space and video equipment for the teachers.

State and Local Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives Florida provides a supportive environment for the National Board Certification process. It has a high number of NBCTs when compared nationally and offers significant incentives to encourage teachers to participate. The state pays 90 percent of the application fee and supports an annual salary stipend of 10 percent of the average teacher salary for NBCTs who mentor other teachers through the process. The Miami-Dade local school district also provides an additional one-time stipend of $7,500.

Mississippi Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project Program Development and Structure The Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project is one of six World Class Teaching Program sites supported by Mississippi and is devoted to providing candidate support for National

149

Board Certification. The program is located at the University of Southern Mississippi– Gulf Coast in Long Beach and operates under the organizational umbrella of the Gulf Coast Education Initiative Consortium (GCEIC), a partnership among the 18 local school districts. GCEIC was originally formed at the urging of the local business community, including Stennis Space Center, which saw the consortium as a way to improve the quality of education and workforce preparation in the region. GCEIC provides a forum for collaboration on education issues, coordinates and provides professional development offerings to the districts, and advises and provides training on the use of technology. In 1998 the consortium worked with the university and a local NBCT, Senita Walker, on the design and operating components of the candidate support program, and it now administers the support program as a special program. Walker was the founding director of the program. The current director, Martha Hart, was hired in 2003 to replace her when Walker left to pursue other NBPTS-related activities. The Gulf Coast site of the World Class Teaching Program serves the largest number of candidates in the state. Over time the program has grown to serve 150 candidates a year in its standards study classes, which typically results in 70 candidates completing the process each year. Although the area is relatively rural, it is not considered a highneed region of the state. As a result, fewer funds are targeted to this program than to the other sites. Participating teachers have diverse backgrounds in terms of age, race, gender, experience, and school setting. At least one district in the area provides its own NBC candidate support program; candidates can take advantage of both programs. The Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project strives to provide information and support to teachers interested in National Board Certification. It works to make the pursuit of this certification a professional growth experience. In addition, the program director and those involved facilitate leadership opportunities for outstanding NBCTs.

Program Activities and Staff To achieve its goals, the program begins with a four-day standards study course to prepare teachers for the NBC process and connect the standards to their classroom practice. In addition to introducing teachers to the various components of the process, teachers study the standards for their particular certificate. 3 To be eligible for mentoring sessions in the succeeding year, candidates must participate in the four-day course. Participants are charged $50 for the course and also receive two continuing education units. After completing the standards study course, candidates are divided into mentoring groups organized by certificate area. The program offers 10 group mentoring sessions, each lasting two and one-half hours, from September through April. Each of the first four meetings focuses on a particular portfolio entry; after the fourth meeting, the topic depends more on group needs and each mentor organizes the sessions in his or her own way. The candidates meet in their certificate area groups; on average, eight candidates are assigned to each mentor, but some certificate area groups are much smaller because fewer candidates are pursuing that certificate. These mentoring groups offer an opportunity for feedback, peer collaboration and support, and professional discussions of the standards. The final mentoring session focuses on preparing for the assessment center; for this session all candidates initially meet as a large group to

150

discuss general strategies for the assessment center and then break into smaller certificate-specific groups with additional mentors. In 2002–03 the program also offered 10 three-hour Saturday sessions. Large group workshops focused less on tasks specific to National Board Certification and more on general teaching skills that candidates could use during the process, such as teaching science with the inquiry method, integrating arts in the curriculum, or analyzing student work. These sessions were conceptualized as professional cooperative learning opportunities and were open to all teachers as well as NBC candidates. Surveying GCEIC superintendents about their needs helped develop topics for the sessions. The program has traditionally organized a celebration each year for candidates once their portfolio is completed and a pinning ceremony for teachers who are certified. Beyond the formal meetings, group members exchange information during small group sessions and often choose to meet more often than the monthly meetings. Mentors also provide feedback and assistance beyond the group meetings. They will read portions of an entry as requested and will read a “final” entry one time. The feedback between candidates and mentors is designed as a professional conversation to help the candidates reflect on their progress. The program has only a few precandidates, but if teachers opt to stretch the process over more than one year, they are placed in groups with other candidates and advanced candidates. Advanced candidates receive one-on-one counseling with the program director to decide which entries to resubmit and where to focus their efforts. Advanced candidates are then folded back into the small mentoring groups with one-on-one assistance as needed. The candidate support program has a full-time director, a part-time administrative staff person, and a small proportion of the GCEIC executive director’s time. Eight mentors work with candidates in small groups, and an additional 12 mentors assist with the assessment center preparation. Mentors are paid $100 per mentoring session. The director chooses the mentors, who are all NBCTs and receive training from the director or through a statewide facilitator training session. As a follow-up to the training, mentors are supervised during the small group mentoring sessions. Mentors work in their certificate area unless the group is too small, in which case they may work with candidates outside their area. In addition, the program offers mentor training to any NBCT who is interested, even if he or she is not formally involved in the program. The Gulf Coast Master Teacher Project is also involved in outreach efforts in the area. The director devotes some of her time to promoting the National Board Certification process in the 18 school districts comprising the GCEIC. The program provides schoolsite workshops as well as individual consultations with teachers considering the process.

Program Financing The Mississippi Department of Education funds the program’s $69,000 budget, which is used primarily to cover the director’s salary and fringe benefits and make payments to the mentors. GCEIC supplements the state grant with a small amount of funding, chiefly to supplement the director’s salary, and the university contributes office and classroom meeting space. Formed with seed money from Stennis Space Center, the consortium is now supported by state grants for the delivery of professional development and an endowment composed of dues from the school districts that are then matched by a 151

foundation grant. GCEIC also receives in-kind contributions from the business community, such as donated office equipment and equipment maintenance and free newspaper printing, which help subsidize the costs of the candidate support program. The program also benefits from several other partnerships. In 2002–03 it received a grant from the Mississippi Power Education Foundation to fund the 10 Saturday workshops that were offered. In addition, Stennis Space Center remains involved and provides a printer, the cost of printing program surveys, the use of a faculty member to teach videotaping techniques, and continuing education credits through its education division.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives The state provides funding that pays the entire $2,300 application fee for all candidates who complete the NBC process. The director allocates these state subsidy funds among initial and advanced candidates to subsidize the initial $2,300 fee and $300 per-entry retake fee. Mississippi provides NBCTs with a $6,000 annual stipend for the life of the certificate. The number of release days available to candidates in the area served by the program varies by district. Although the state recently added sites to its World Class Teaching Program, in 2004 it cut the Gulf Coast program’s budget from $69,000 to $25,000. The program has since instituted fees to keep the operation running.

North Carolina A&T: North Carolina A&T State University National Board Support Program Program Development and Structure North Carolina A&T State University began its National Board Certification candidate support program in 2000. The program was originally developed by two NBCTs who were participating in a federal Coach 2 Coach program and who approached North Carolina A&T with a proposal to offer support to candidates. The university agreed to sponsor the program. It did so independently for the first two years, and then in 2002, it entered into a collaboration with the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. The support program serves an average of 8 to 12 candidates per year. The candidates are drawn primarily from Guilford County, but they also come from other nearby counties, including Alamance and Rockingham. As a result of this geographical distribution, the program works with teachers from many different schools, including rural, urban, suburban, and high- and low-poverty schools. Although North Carolina A&T is a historically black university, the program does not specifically target minority candidates, and most of the candidates the program serves are white. The program aims to provide support and a networking system for NBC candidates. In addition, the university has begun to incorporate NBPTS standards into its teacher preparation program and to structure its master’s program to prepare teachers for National Board Certification.

152

Program Activities and Staff The North Carolina A&T program offers four large group workshops for precandidates and candidates. The first of these is aimed at teachers before they apply for candidacy and is focused on providing tips for what to accomplish over the summer. The other three workshops focus on various topics of interest to candidates, including: • reflective writing; • the assessment center; and • NBPTS standards. In addition to the large group meetings, the support program offers twice-monthly small group sessions beginning in October and continuing through May. Each session is open to any candidate in the area. Three NBCTs attend each of the meetings to serve as mentors. Candidates are not required to attend the sessions, and the candidates are not assigned to a particular mentor for the duration of the process. Over time candidates and mentors tend to group themselves by certificate area when possible, with an average ratio of 4 candidates to 1 mentor. The mentors assist candidates informally during these sessions by reading portfolio entries and viewing video submissions. These small group meetings are not organized around particular themes but are directed by the needs of the candidates who attend the sessions. With such small numbers, candidates are frequently mentored by NBCTs certified in a different area who provide general feedback on the process, including writing and videotaping. The mentors also answer candidates’ questions and support them via e-mail or telephone. Both precandidates and advanced candidates also are invited to attend the workshops and small group sessions. Precandidates and advanced candidates are supported in the same way as other candidates. The program has at times served as a liaison between the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the local education agencies with regard to National Board Certification. In that capacity, the program has kept the school systems abreast of the latest information from Raleigh. The North Carolina A&T program is not involved in other significant outreach efforts involving NBPTS at the school, state, or national level. Originally the Coach 2 Coach program provided funding for two teachers working to coordinate the program. In 2002–03, however, the Coach 2 Coach program ended. The candidate support program has had no full-time staff members since then, though the university contributes some time from a clinical faculty member to help coordinate the program. In addition, three NBCTs serve as mentors for the program. These individuals do not receive any additional formal or informal training through the program to prepare them for their role as mentors.

Program Financing The relatively few financial costs associated with the program are paid by North Carolina A&T State University and the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. The mentors in the program were paid a stipend of $50 per session in 2002–03. The amount of mentor stipends depends on the resources available to North Carolina A&T University each year. The 2002–03 budget of $4,800 included mentor stipends, a portion of the clinical faculty member’s salary, and some workshop expenses. North Carolina A&T provides meeting space, pays part of the mentor stipends, and provides a clinical faculty member

153

to help coordinate the program. The University of North Carolina–Greensboro also contributes funds for the mentor stipends. In 2002–03 the universities were using funds from a state program called USTEP, which encourages teacher education programs to collaborate with local school systems to support the NBC candidate support program.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives North Carolina encourages teachers to apply for candidacy by paying the full application fee and requiring districts to give teachers three release days to work on their portfolios. In addition, if a teacher successfully completes the process, North Carolina offers an annual stipend equal to 12 percent of the teacher’s salary for the 10-year life of the certificate. There are no additional district incentives in the area served by the program. At the time of the study, the North Carolina A&T candidate support program had not experienced significant growth in its three-year history, but it has since expanded and implemented other changes. After an application drive, the program increased in size to 55 candidates. Mentors now are paired with candidates and are trained by NBPTS. The program charges $5 or $10 per session, and each session begins with information for the entire group before candidates are divided into smaller groups by certificate area. Mentors also help candidates pack their portfolio boxes.

San Antonio: Accomplished Teaching Initiative Program Development and Structure The Accomplished Teaching Initiative in Texas’ San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) began in 1997–98. The program, which was designed and initiated by teachers, provides a comprehensive support program for teachers in the district as well as technical assistance to other districts and support programs in the state. In 1996 John Guardia—a SAISD teacher, current program director, and former board member of NBPTS—spent one year garnering support for a National Board Certification candiate support program from the district administration, the local board of education, and the local teacher organizations. One year later, funding was secured from the Dewitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund—now the Wallace Foundation—to support a program focused on recruiting minority teachers to the process. The foundation funding ended in 2002, and now the district bears the entire cost of the program. The candidate support program works exclusively with teachers in SAISD, a primarily urban, high-poverty district with some suburban schools. Over time the program has consistently supported a small number of candidates, ranging from 8 to 20 each year. Given the district’s demographics and the program’s original mandate to focus on recruiting minority teachers to the process, a relatively high proportion of both Latino and African American teachers participate in the program. Among the program’s goals are to: • recruit NBC candidates from the school district’s 93 campuses, particularly minority candidates; • heighten awareness about National Board Certification among the education community and policymakers in the state; • help other districts in the state start NBC candidate support programs; and

154



improve education for all children by encouraging teachers to incorporate NBPTS standards into their teaching.

Program Activities and Staff The program design encourages candidates to view the NBC process as a two- to threeyear commitment. Significant emphasis is placed on the importance of the precandidate year, which is mandatory except in special circumstances. Typically only candidates who have experience as NBPTS assessors, who are members of an NBPTS Standards Committee, or who have a recommendation from their principal may skip the precandidate year. Staff of the Accomplished Teaching Initiative includes a program director, who is employed by the district to work on various projects including National Board Certification support, and one clerical staff member, who works part time. In addition, the three facilitators in the program are NBCTs, and each attended a National Board Facilitator’s Institute. The support program was initially designed to have one facilitator for the precandidates, one for the candidates, and one for the advanced candidates, with the facilitators following the cohort through the process. In practice, the cohorts shift significantly, so there are three facilitators available to all the candidates. The candidates may choose to work with one facilitator or all three according to their personal preferences and schedule. The program director recruits candidates for the program in different ways. The program director and one facilitator hold five general information sessions each year that are open to all teachers and held at schools throughout the district. The program director also makes presentations at school faculty meetings upon request and sends an informational video to every principal in the district. Significant effort is expended to develop recruitment materials, including brochures and the information videos for principals and other district administrators. The program is centered around 10 monthly large group sessions, which are held at the same time and place for precandidates, candidates, and advanced candidates. The themes vary for the different levels of candidates, and the activities and conversations between facilitators and candidates are tailored to meet their different needs. The facilitators guide the candidates through various activities at each of the large group meetings. The themes build on one another and are integrated with the deadlines inherent in the NBC process. The large group session topics for candidates in 2002–03 included these. • August—Getting Started (organization, timelines) • September—Hit the Ground Running (writing review, action plans, forms) • October—Review the Standards • November—What’s in the Box? • December—Studying the Entry (requirements, making good choices) • January—Videotaping, Collaboration, and Feedback • February—Burning Questions • March—Packing the Box • April—Assessment Center • May—Closure

155

Candidates use their draft entries and videotapes as subjects for discussion during these sessions. Sessions for precandidates center around assignments to read selected texts, keep reflective logs, videotape their teaching, and complete other written products. In addition to the large group meetings, candidates participate in small group sessions with facilitators. The teachers determine session dates, times, locations, and activities. Because of the program’s size, the candidates are not assigned to specific facilitators and are not officially grouped according to certificate area. During the small group sessions, facilitators and candidates discuss standards, read portfolio entries, and view videotapes. They also provide emotional and psychological support to one another. Other NBCTs in the program do not participate in group meetings but provide feedback for candidates on their written portfolio entries. Advanced candidates may participate in the large group meetings, but they primarily work with the facilitators on revising their entries. The support is individualized, and advanced candidates often have access to editors at this point in the process. The candidate support program in San Antonio is unique among the programs included in The Finance Project’s research study because of the additional support and incentives it provides. Besides the large group and small group sessions, various other supports are made available to candidates, including all videotaping equipment, an individual to conduct the videotaping, and child care during meetings. In addition, three recognition and celebration events are held throughout the year—a kickoff dinner, a winter celebration, and a culmination celebration. Each of these is attended by candidates, mentors, district leaders, and community partners. The program staff is also active in fulfilling the program’s goal to spread information and knowledge about the NBC process throughout the state. The program director provides information about the process to other school districts in Texas and has helped some of them begin their own support programs. He also works to raise awareness of the process at both the local and state levels, including advocating for new incentives and developing partnerships that integrate National Board Certification into teacher education programs. For example, the program has partnered with the University of Texas–San Antonio in the past, and another local school district, Northeast Independent School District, has recently partnered with Trinity University. The program also holds seminars on NBPTS standards at other district conferences.

Program Financing After the initial Dewitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund grant funding expired, SAISD continued to fund the candidate support program at its current level of $50,000. The funds come from local and federal sources and cover the salaries of the program director and clerical personnel, three $1,500 facilitator stipends, equipment, and materials. Although the program has sought other partnerships, it continues to be supported almost entirely by the school district. A partnership with the Firstmart Credit Union pays for catering at program meetings, but all other expenses are paid by or provided in-kind by the district.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives Texas is among the few states that do not recognize National Board Certification. No incentives are provided for certified teachers, and no efforts are made to integrate the process into state education policy. As a result, any incentives or support for the process 156

come at the local level. SAISD encourages participation in the program by paying the entire application fee, providing three release days during the candidate year and two during the advanced candidate year, paying for up to two retakes, and offering a $4,000 award upon certification.

San Diego County: Accomplished Teacher Support Provider Network Program Development and Structure The Accomplished Teacher Support Provider Network (AT*SPN) operates in San Diego County, California. AT*SPN is an NBCT-designed and -driven effort. It works to provide information on National Board Certification, assistance with application procedures, support for precandidates and active candidates, and leadership opportunities for NBCTs. Started in 1996 by five NBCTs, it initially involved 23 NBCTs who supported three to eight candidates in each of a few districts. Since then it has grown to serve between 160 and 200 candidates per year who have come from 24 of the 42 districts in the county. The program serves teachers from a large geographic area with rural, urban, and suburban school districts as well as high- and low-poverty schools. Several school districts in the county, including San Diego Unified School District, operate their own support programs for candidates in their district, and candidates may choose to receive support from both programs. AT*SPN’s mission is to improve student learning by increasing the quality of teaching through teacher participation in the NBC process. AT*SPN also promotes the integration of NBPTS’ standards and core propositions into pre-service, postgraduate, district, and site professional development programs. Another central part of the AT*SPN mission is sustaining the level of accomplishment identified through National Board Certification through colleagueship that provides and supports continuous learning. 4 The program seeks to increase the number of NBCTs in San Diego County. According to program materials, AT*SPN anticipates that in the near future, each of the 42 districts will be represented with at least one NBCT. 5 AT*SPN also strives to develop accomplished teaching partnerships and programs, and it has worked to bring local universities as well as other community and business partners into the network. A key program focus is to provide professional and leadership opportunities for NBCTs countywide that include mentoring National Board Certification candidates and other activities. In 2002–03 coordination of the program was housed at the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE), a county-wide agency that provides support to the 42 school districts in the county. Since 2002 the program has used a regional organizational strategy to provide services as close as possible to the participating candidates and to better understand, customize, and deliver support services that parallel candidate and district needs and schedules. Facilitators are assigned to SDCOE headquarters and each of five regions—North, South, Central and Imperial, East, and Coastal. A contact or liaison for each school district also is identified with the goal of improving the quality of resources, presentations, support materials, and ongoing communication.

157

Program Activities and Staff The one full-time staff of AT*SPN is the program coordinator, Rae Adams, an NBCT on loan from the Poway Unified School District. The five regional facilitators, all NBCTs, are paid a stipend to coordinate and offer monthly support sessions as well as to assist in reading and offering feedback on written commentaries. These facilitators often rely on other volunteer NBCTs to help with mentoring and feedback for candidates. The dates, topics, locations, and organization of the support meetings are at the discretion of the regional facilitators. For example, the meetings for 2002–03 scheduled in one part of the county included a general orientation in October and a celebration in April, one on Writing and Videotaping Your Accomplishments, one on Preparing for the Assessment Center, and two for Peer Review and Editing. Seventeen meeting dates were planned in another region of the county, with one set aside for a packing party. Candidates, including first-time and advanced candidates, are encouraged to select the dates, times, and places that best meet their needs and to attend any or all sessions as desired. In 2002 AT*SPN had recently developed a precandidate course to be offered for the first time through the University of San Diego in the 2003 winter semester. The one-semester course was offered in nine sessions each lasting three to three and one-half hours. It aims to provide beginning or experienced teachers or other participants with an overview of the NBPTS standards, in-depth study and application of the certification standards, and the opportunity to develop a framework for completing the requirements for National Board Certification, if and when candidacy is established. Topics covered include quality teaching, use of the standards, portfolio and assessment center requirements, documentation of accomplishments, and collection of evidence of student learning. 6 The AT*SPN program coordinator is the lead instructor and is assisted by other local NBCTs. The course costs $250, and participants earn two semester units of graduate-level extension credit. This course is now offered through National University. AT*SPN also organizes meetings for the regional cohort facilitators and the district liaisons. In 2002–03 six three-hour meetings were held for the regional facilitators to solve problems and share ideas, materials, approaches, and coaching tips. Sessions covered these topics. • Writing About and Videotaping Teaching and Learning • Peer Review, Editing, and Feedback (two sessions) • Gathering and Organizing Documentation of Accomplishments • Preparing for the Assessment Center • Celebrating Accomplishments Three meetings each lasting three and one-half hours were held for district liaisons to provide district updates and networking opportunities. AT*SPN also hosts or publicizes a NBCT conference, an AT*SPN reception, and other professional gatherings.

Program Financing AT*SPN receives $10,000 from a California Department of Education grant that pays for facilitator stipends and refreshments for network events. The regional facilitators each receive an annual stipend of $2,000, though one facilitator who travels long distances also receives some travel reimbursement. The program coordinator’s salary is paid by

158

the Poway School District from which she is on loan, by the University of San Diego for teaching the precandidate class, and with funds from NBPTS. The San Diego County Office of Education provides office space, meeting space, clerical support, and other inkind support, including access to telephone, computer, and copy machine services. Eight universities in the area help pay for events and receptions and contribute supporting adjunct faculty. Support sessions are free of charge to participants. Replacement funds for the $10,000 state grant have not been secured beyond 2002–03.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives In the study year, 2002–03, the state provided a $10,000 stipend to each NBCT. NBCTs teaching in low-performing schools received an additional $20,000 stipend paid over four years. The provision of a $10,000 stipend for all NBCTs has since been removed from the state budget. California also pays $1,000 toward candidates’ $2,300 National Board Certification application fee. District incentives vary among the 42 districts in San Diego County. For example, according to the program coordinator, in 2002–03 most of the 42 districts did not pay any part of the application fee, but several paid part of the fee and four paid the full fee or all but $300. The superintendent of SDCOE recently proclaimed support for National Board Certification and set a goal of one NBCT in every district. The state also supports the integration of NBPTS standards into the state education system by closely aligning the standards with its new teacher induction program, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment. California hopes that introducing new teachers to these standards early in their careers will help classroom instruction and make National Board Certification a natural next step. In 2003–04 the program coordinator moved to National University, where she now holds a faculty position and continues to coordinate AT*SPN.

Stanford: Stanford University National Board Resource Center Program Development and Structure The National Board Resource Center (NBRC) is housed within the Stanford University School of Education (SUSE) and has been in operation since fall 1998. NBRC offers a National Board candidate support program in addition to conducting other NBPTSrelated activities, including performing research, hosting networks of local NBCTs and NBC candidate support providers, and providing information and technical assistance to schools, school districts, and others about National Board Certification and candidate support programs. The candidate support program was designed and developed by the current coordinator, Misty Sato, under the guidance of Professor Linda Darling-Hammond. The program serves teachers primarily from urban and suburban districts in the greater San Francisco Bay Area within 90 miles from Stanford University. However, some candidates travel from other locations in California that are considerably farther away. Minorities represent about 10 percent of the teachers in the support program. The program has grown over time, and in 2002–03 approximately 100 candidates participated in the program. 159

The program’s goals are to support candidates by providing guidance about the NBC process and establishing a place for professional communities of teachers to develop and thrive. In addition, the candidate support program and the related activities of NBRC help build awareness of NBPTS in the region and help foster partnerships with local organizations and education institutions on standards-based professional development.

Program Activities and Staff To recruit candidates for the candidate support program, NBRC offers on-site informational meetings about the National Board Certification process to groups of teachers and holds school-site sessions upon request. The center also hosts three daylong informational sessions for potential candidates throughout the year and maintains a website with relevant information. The candidate support program consists of a series of 10 monthly three-hour meetings, held on Saturday mornings from September through June. After a catered breakfast, the first hour is spent in a whole-group session; the other two hours are spent in small groups organized by certificate area. The meeting topics are organized around the portfolio development and assessment center requirements, focusing first on accomplishing each of the four portfolio entries and last on preparing for the assessment center. The program therefore establishes a timeline that helps candidates work through the portfolio development process, beginning in the fall through taking the assessment center in the spring. Program staff consists of a program coordinator, two part-time doctoral or postdoctoral students, and limited amounts of university administrative staff time. It also includes 22 program support providers. In the large group portion of the meetings, program staff provides information and encouragement to all candidates as well as opportunities for group discussion of teaching and analysis using the NBPTS standards. The general session topics for 2002–03 included these. • Analyzing Classroom Practice Using the National Board Teaching Standards • Videotaping Your Classroom • Writing in the Portfolio • Making Good Choices • Understanding the Scoring Rubrics and Scoring Process • Checking In and Reevaluating Timelines • What to Expect at the Assessment Center • Concentration on Portfolio Development (three sessions) • Assessment Center Study Groups • Celebrating Completion of the Process For the small groups, the program assigns six to eight candidates to one or two support providers based on their certificate area, though groups may have as many as 10 candidates or be composed of teachers pursuing different certificate areas that have few candidates attempting them. The small groups may consist of precandidates, candidates, and advanced candidates. In the small groups, support providers lead candidates in sharing and discussing examples of classroom videotapes and written entries and related activities, such as studying for the assessment center. Group members also engage in professional exchanges and provide one another with emotional and psychological support. The members of the small groups may choose to

160

meet more often, and this time can vary during the candidacy process from a few hours to weekly meetings. Writing assistance is available upon request from one of the staff members. The program encourages teachers to think about National Board Certification as a multiyear professional development process. Precandidates participate in all facets of the program, including small group sessions, alongside candidates who are attempting certification that year. Advanced candidates participate in a small group with the program coordinator for two or three sessions before they are folded back into the certificate area groups. They also receive some tailored one-on-one counseling and mentoring from the program coordinator as they decide which entries to retake. Of the 22 mentors in the program, most are NBCTs and a few are advanced candidates. Mentors and program staff meet over lunch after each of the support meetings for one and one-half hours to debrief about their sessions and share and discuss strategies for mentoring and supporting candidates. In its additional role as a National Board Resource Center, the candidate support program is involved in conducting research and providing information, outreach, and technical assistance to other programs. Program staff provide information to teachers, organizations, and school districts about NBPTS standards and the certification process; help districts and others develop candidate support programs; facilitate efforts to develop policies that encourage, integrate, and reward National Board Certification; and conduct research relevant to National Board Certification. Since 2002 the candidate support program has worked to shift the focus of its large group meetings away from specific strategies to help teachers succeed in National Board Certification and toward instruction on more comprehensive teaching strategies. Examples of session topics include How to Know Students Better; Parent and Community Partnerships; and Equity, Fairness, and Diversity in the Classroom.

Program Financing The budget for the program in 2002–03 was $63,000, primarily including mentor stipends, expenditures for some staff, and facilities, catering, and materials for meetings. The program receives funding from a Hewlett Foundation grant to support the infrastructure of the teaching profession in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as resources from Stanford University for items such as staff and facilities and equipment usage. Mentors are paid a $2,000 stipend for the year, which covers 45 hours of program meetings as well as time spent with candidates outside formal meetings.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives State incentives for candidates participating in this program are the same as those for the program in San Diego County. Likewise, district incentives, including the provision of district candidate support programs and release days, vary among the more than 100 districts in the program area. Candidates can choose to receive continuing education credits for participating in the program for a fee of $60. Such continuing education credits often contribute toward professional development credit, depending on district policies. Up to 10 quarter units are awarded based on the number of support sessions attended, hours spent in small group independent meetings, and number of portfolio entries submitted to NBPTS.

161

Winston-Salem: Winston-Salem Forsyth County National Board Support Program Program Development and Structure The support system available for teachers pursuing National Board Certification in Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools and nearby districts in North Carolina is different from many of the other models examined in The Finance Project’s research study. In 1995 Joan Celestino, a recent NBCT, offered to help four local teachers who were pursuing National Board Certification. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of teachers attempting National Board Certification in the area increased significantly and, in turn, Joan Celestino supported more and more candidates—approximately 60 candidates by 2000. In 2000 several other NBCTs began to help Celestino as facilitators, and eventually in fall 2002, she held a NBPTS Facilitator’s Institute in the area and 25 more facilitators were trained. In 2002 this program served approximately 60 candidates, of whom 15 to 20 were advanced candidates. According to the director, precandidates are “pretty rare,” but the program tries to match them up with other teachers going through the process. About 80 percent of the candidates served by the program work in the Winston-Salem Forsyth County school district, but there are no official boundaries and many teachers who receive assistance from the facilitators travel a long way. Minorities represent a relatively small percentage of the teachers in the program, in part because a local state university has taken on the facilitation of African American candidates. The program aims to provide accurate, up-to-date information about National Board Certification and its benefits in North Carolina, specific candidate information throughout the process, and a trained facilitator who will read and discuss individual entries with candidates. According to the program director, the program is built on volunteerism. Teachers help teachers to produce a learning community designed to improve the profession and the quality of teaching in the district and state. 7

Program Activities and Staff The program has no paid staff. Celestino coordinates the program, and Roya Leiphart, another local NBCT, matches candidates with facilitators and serves as a facilitator herself. Twenty-five additional volunteer facilitators provide support to candidates. Each facilitator in Forsyth County attended the National Board Facilitator’s Institute II and a preparatory course taught to cover information in the National Board Facilitator’s Institute I course. Each trained facilitator agrees to help at least one to two candidates. In 2002– 03 mentors typically worked with three to four candidates individually, though the program director and assistant director mentored 10 and 13, respectively. Joan Celestino and several other NBCTs provide three information and recruiting sessions in the school district during May and June, before the candidacy process begins. They also lead three large group meetings during the year that are applicable for all candidates. Each session focuses on a different theme: • documenting accomplishments; • videotaping; and • writing portfolio entries.

162

Most of the support provided to candidates occurs on a one-on-one basis with the facilitators. The program matches candidates with a trained facilitator to read and provide feedback on entries and provide personal support and encouragement. The candidates and facilitators are generally matched according to certificate area. Although the facilitator’s support is tailored to each candidate, the program recommends that the facilitator meet with the candidate two times per portfolio entry. Candidates sometimes also choose to meet in small groups on their own and may invite a facilitator to join them, but the program does not take organizational responsibility for these informal gatherings. There are no requirements for candidates to participate in offerings, and candidates are encouraged to use the services they believe will be most useful to them. It is rare for the program to serve precandidates, but when it does, staff tries to match them with people going through the process. The needs of advanced candidates are met in a similar individualized fashion and many work closely with the program director. On behalf of her program, Joan Celestino also attends multiple conferences and network meetings across North Carolina and the nation to speak on her experiences as a trainer of facilitators and as a facilitator in Winston-Salem Forsyth County. Using her program as a model, Celestino is involved in significant outreach efforts to other programs and facilitators around the state.

Program Financing Joan Celestino’s close working relationship with her local school district has led school officials to refer all candidates to her for support. Although the district does not provide a level of ongoing financial support, it contributes resources to the program by supporting some photocopying, providing meeting space, and in fall 2002, paying $5,000 for the National Board Facilitator’s Institute. The district also provides some staff assistance with transferring videotapes for entries and troubleshooting videotape difficulties. Beyond these contributions this candidate support program operates largely on in-kind donations of time and other resources from the mentors.

State and District Policy Environment and Fiscal Incentives State fiscal incentives are the same as those listed for the North Carolina A&T program. There are no additional financial incentives for National Board Certification in the Winston-Salem Forsyth County School District, though NBC applicants get preference in receiving district-issued laptop computers. However, the district has developed a local board certification based on the National Board Certification process that is intended to help recruit and prepare teachers to undertake National Board Certification. Successful participants in this program receive a $500 annual stipend. The district superintendent has provided some monetary support for the candidate support program upon request, such as paying for a National Board Facilitator’s Institute and NBCTs’ participation in conferences. Additional support for candidates or the candidate support program is at the discretion of each principal. 1

”Pathways to World Class Teaching: Network of Board Certified Teachers of Southwest Ohio, an undated proposal from the Cincinnati candidate support program to the state. 2 Mayerson Academy for Human Resource Development, “Pathways to World Class Teaching: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Support Program 2001—2002” (Cincinnati, Ohio: Mayerson Academy for Human Resource Development, n.d.).

163

3

Gulf Coast Master Teacher Mentoring Project, Gulf Coast Education Initiative, University of Southern Mississipi–Gulf Coast, “Making the Pieces Fit: National Board Certification ‘Prep’ Courses” (Long Beach, Miss.: Gulf Coast Master Teacher Mentoring Project, Gulf Coast Education Initiative, University of Southern Mississippi–Gulf Coast, n.d.). 4 San Diego County Office of Education, “A*ccomplished T*eachers S*upport P*roviders N*etwork”(San Diego, Calif.: San Diego County Office of Education, n.d.); and “Questionnaire to Collect Descriptive Information on National Board Certification Support Programs,” as completed by Rae Adams. 5 San Diego County Office of Education, “What is AT*SPN?” (San Diego, Calif.: San Diego County Office of Education, n.d.); and San Diego County Office of Education, Accomplished Teachers Support Providers Network: A Countywide Collaborative Encouraging and Supporting San Diego County Teachers Through the National Board Certification Process (San Diego, Calif.: San Diego County Office of Education, 2002–2003). 6 University of San Diego, Division of Continuing Education, “National Board Pre-candidate Institute” (San Diego, Calif.: Division of Continuing Education, University of San Diego, 2003). 7 “Questionnaire to Collect Descriptive Information on National Board Certification Support Programs,” as completed by Joan Celestino.

164

Appendix B.2 : Number of National Board Certified Teachers by State, 2003 State

Number of NBCTs

Total Number of Teachers

Other or Unknown 19 N/A Alaska 39 8,026 Alabama 634 46,796 Arkansas 179 33,079 Arizona 188 46,015 California 2,645 304,296 Colorado 175 44,182 Connecticut 90 41,773 District of Columbia 11 4,951 Delaware 208 7,571 Florida 4,935 134,684 Georgia 1,327 92,732 Hawaii 59 11,007 Iowa 422 34,906 Idaho 312 13,854 Illinois 823 129,600 Indiana 107 59,658 Kansas 146 33,084 Kentucky 540 40,375 Louisiana 338 49,980 Massachusetts 407 68,942 Maryland 343 53,774 Maine 49 16,741 Michigan 152 98,849 Minnesota 261 53,081 Missouri 198 65,240 Mississippi 1,764 31,213 Montana 35 10,408 North Carolina 6,636 85,684 North Dakota 17 8,035 Nebraska 36 21,083 New Hampshire 7 14,677 New Jersey 67 103,611 New Mexico 121 2,823 Nevada 151 19,276 New York 396 209,128 Ohio 2,175 122,115 Oklahoma 856 41,632 Oregon 102 28,402 Pennsylvania 126 118,470 Rhode Island 141 11,103 South Carolina 3,228 46,616 South Dakota 19 9,370 Tennessee 91 58,357 Texas 144 282,846 Utah 53 22,211 Virginia 550 89,314 Vermont 67 8,554 Washington 344 52,534 Wisconsin 197 60,918 West Virginia 152 20,139 Wyoming 49 7,026 TOTAL 32,131 2,997,741 Note: N/A means not applicable Source: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NBCTs as a Percentage of Total Number of Teachers N/A .49 1.35 .54 .41 .87 .40 .22 .22 2.75 3.66 1.43 .54 1.21 2.25 .64 .18 .44 1.34 .68 .59 .64 .29 .15 .49 .30 5.65 .34 7.74 .21 .17 .05 .06 .55 .78 .19 1.78 2.06 .36 .11 1.27 6.92 .20 .16 .05 .24 .62 .78 .65 .32 .75 .70 1.07

165

Appendix C: Supplementary Information Related to Candidate Performance on the Certification Assessment

167

168

Appendix C.1 Average Scores by Assessment Subpart for Study Sample Test Subpart All Parts Classroom-based Portfolio Entries (Entries 1–3) Documented Accomplishments Portfolio Entry (Entry 4)

Assessment Center Entries (Entries 5–10)

Average Score on Assessment Subpart Not applicable 2.66

Section of Test Overall Assessment Portfolio Entry 1 Portfolio Entry 2 Portfolio Entry 3 Portfolio Entry 4

2.57

2.31

Assessment Center Exercise 1 Assessment Center Exercise 2 Assessment Center Exercise 3 Assessment Center Exercise 4 Assessment Center Exercise 5 Assessment Center Exercise 6

Average Score

Standard Deviation

263.0 2.67 2.73 2.59

40.9 0.71 0.69 0.69

2.57

0.71

2.42

0.80

2.34

0.81

2.32

0.77

2.23

0.80

2.39

0.75

2.17

0.79

169

Appendix C.2 Average Scores on NBPTS Certification Assessment for All Candidates, Assessment Years 2002–03 and 2003–04 Entries 1–3 Standard NBPTS Certificate Deviation N Mean Early Adolescence through Young Adult–Career and Technology 1019 2.78 0.52 Early Childhood through Young Adult–Exceptional Needs Specialist 2147 2.65 0.52 Early and Middle Childhood–English as a New Language 226 2.54 0.55 Early Childhood through Young Adult–Library Media 754 2.73 0.49 Early Adolescence and Young Adult–Physical Education 229 2.66 0.61 Early and Middle Childhood–Art 260 2.55 0.53 Early Adolescence–Math 993 2.46 0.55 Early Adolescence and Young Adult–English as a New Language 110 2.55 0.52 Early Adolescence and Young Adult–Art 319 2.61 0.49 Early Adolescence–Science 689 2.63 0.53 Adolescence and Young Adult–Science 689 2.63 0.53 Early Adolescence and Young Adult–Music 351 2.56 0.56 Early Adolescence–Social Studies/History 449 2.67 0.52 Early and Middle Childhood–World Language other than English 28 2.73 0.56 Early and Middle Childhood–Music 346 2.66 0.54 Middle Childhood–Generalist 4341 2.55 0.52 Adolescence and Young Adult–English Language Arts 1272 2.65 0.50 Early Adolescence–Generalist 70 2.68 0.57 Early Adolescence–English Language Arts 1235 2.50 0.56 Early Adolescence and Young Adult–World Language other than English 436 2.55 0.58 Early and Middle Childhood–Literacy: Reading-Language Arts 640 2.62 0.51 Early Childhood–Generalist 4483 2.41 0.47 Early and Middle Childhood–Physical Education 230 2.44 0.59 Adolescence and Young Adult–Math 725 2.59 0.52 Adolescence and Young Adult–Social Studies/History 674 2.57 0.50 Early Childhood through Young Adulthood–School Counseling 845 2.42 0.51 All Candidates* 23560 2.56 Note: *Total number of observations and weighted means calculated by The Finance Project. Source: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Entry 4 N Mean 1043 2.21 2191 2.55 238 2.26 769 2.51 237 2.79 266 2.15 1013 2.39 113 2.75 325 2.38 702 2.62 950 2.59 365 2.47 455 2.55 29 2.46 358 2.78 4421 2.44 1308 2.56 71 2.89 1267 2.57 478 2.61 650 2.51 4568 2.57 233 2.61 739 2.68 692 2.58 873 2.47 24354 2.52

Entries 5 Standard Deviation 0.76 0.70 0.81 0.66 0.75 0.81 0.63 0.68 0.90 0.60 0.65 0.76 0.65 0.82 0.83 0.61 0.71 0.63 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.59 0.71 0.65 0.71 0.66

N Mean 1019 2.19 2147 2.23 226 2.15 754 2.37 229 2.30 260 2.21 993 2.16 110 2.25 319 2.34 689 2.38 689 2.38 351 2.33 449 2.44 28 2.50 346 2.44 4341 2.38 1272 2.49 70 2.53 1235 2.41 436 2.51 640 2.61 4483 2.40 230 2.44 725 2.75 674 2.74 845 2.63 23560 2.40

5–10 Standard Deviation 0.46 0.39 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.42 0.68 0.47 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.41 0.36 0.43 0.42 0.44 0.49 0.36 0.35 0.47 0.69 0.43 0.37

170

Appendix C.3 Average Assessment Scores by Candidate Characteristics for Study Sample

Full Sample Race/Ethnicity* Asian (n=10) White (n=220) Hispanic (n=145) Black (n=48) School Poverty Level** Low Poverty (n=57) High Poverty (n=238)

Average Total Score (scaled)

Average Score Entries 1–3 (raw)

Average Score Entry 4 (raw)

Average Score Entries 5– 10 (raw)

263.0

2.66

2.57

2.31

288.0 276.4 254.0 222.2

2.90 2.79 2.57 2.36

2.60 2.69 2.48 2.20

2.64 2.46 2.22 1.77

284.3

2.84

2.74

2.58

258.4

2.64

2.55

2.22

Notes: * The disaggregation of data by race/ethnicity excludes a total of 15 candidates in our sample whose race/ethnicity was coded as American Indian or Pacific Islander or was not coded. ** Low poverty means teachers from schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students receive free and reduced-priced meals. High poverty means teachers from schools where 50 percent or more of the students receive free and reduced-priced meals.

171

Appendix C.4 Total and Disaggregated Assessment Scores of All Candidates in Study Sample by Support Program Site Support Program Site

Average Total Score (scaled)

Average Score Entries 1–3 (raw)

Average Score Entry 4 (raw)

Average Score Entries 5–10 (raw)

Site 1 (n=25) Site 2 (n=69) Site 3 (n=36) Site 4 (n=5) Site 5 (n=29) Site 6 (n=27) Site 7 (n=247)

285.2 285.1 271.8 267.6 264.6 258.7 253.6

2.86 2.80 2.77 2.76 2.58 2.65 2.59

2.73 2.72 2.87 2.98 2.77 2.40 2.45

2.58 2.65 2.30 2.18 2.38 2.27 2.19

All Sites

263.0

2.66

2.57

2.31

172

Appendix C.5 Correlations of Candidate Characteristics with Certification Assessment Performance for Study Sample Characteristic Race/Ethnicity* White (n=220) Asian (n=10) Hispanic (n=145) Black (n=48) School Poverty Level** Low Poverty (n=57) High Poverty (n=238) Other Characteristics Master’s Degree (n=298) Age (n=438) Male (n=59)

Correlation With Total Score

Correlation With Certification Achievement

.3281 .0933 -.1553 -.3505

.2917 .0233 -.2118 -.2275

.2008 -.1249

.2031 -.1026

.0213 -.0686 -.1323

.0342 -.0130 -.0954

Notes: * The disaggregation of data by race/ethnicity excludes a total of 15 candidates in our sample whose race/ethnicity was coded as American Indian or Pacific Islander or was not coded. ** Low poverty means teachers from schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students receive free and reducedpriced meals. High poverty means teachers from schools where 50 percent or more of the students receive free and reduced-priced meals.

173

Appendix D: Detail on Methods and Analysis for Estimating Costs

175

176

Appendix D.1: Decision Rules for National Board Certification Professional Development Model Cost Templates 1.

Take averages for “amounts” of resources (e.g., time devoted to various portfolio development activities and number of people involved in a particular activity when presented as a range).

2.

Enter travel and transportation information as round-trip distance and time.

3.

Use only “totals” for portfolio development activities outside formal group meetings. (Including costs of specific activities would double count.)

4.

Substitute teacher time should offset something else, usually teacher time, to avoid double counting. The same is true for stipends. These contributions should appear in the distribution of the cost (e.g., districts or schools pay for substitute teacher time and grants provide stipends), but they should not add to the total cost.

5.

Substitute teachers should be assumed to earn a standard teacher hourly wage of $35 and teach for six hours per day.

6.

Training costs should include only training activities that occurred in the 2002–03 school year. Furthermore, to be included in the analysis, training activities must be required, offered, or supported by the program.

7.

Standard values should be used throughout the template. (This means everything that is in the standard values table.) In addition, the following inputs/ingredients should be standardized across programs: -

-

Infrastructure, including office space, office furnishings, and services (e.g., landline telephone and networking); candidate time for portfolio development (median hours=357, based on three candidates each from Mississippi Gulf Coast and Stanford, two candidates from San Antonio, and the project director from Winston Salem); candidate out-of-pocket costs of portfolio development (e.g., supplies and video equipment); and mentor out-of-pocket costs for supplies ($40).

8.

Travel costs should not be standardized across templates.

9.

Remove the following infrastructure items from the template: library, accounting and payroll, insurance and legal, and cleaning.

10.

Five years should be used for the lifespan of office equipment; 10 years should be used for office furniture.

177

11.

The term “mentors” should be used throughout the templates to identify mentor/facilitators, support providers, etc.

12.

Equipment costs (LCD, overhead projector, and TV/VCR) should be calculated in terms of the time used, not ownership.

13.

For distribution of the costs associated with policy relevant factors (e.g., release days and application fee), only include policies that apply uniformly across programs. This helps deal with the variability in provisions across National Board Certification® candidates within a single program. Although this approach overstates the cost to candidates, because nonuniform contributions are made by different sources, the discussion in the text addresses the ways that districts and schools could offset these time costs to candidates. Relevant policies for the study sites are these. • • • •

Stanford program: State-level policies─California offers no release days (school or district may provide) and provides $1,000 toward application fee. Winston-Salem: State-level policies─North Carolina provides up to three state-paid release days and pays application fee up front. Mississippi Gulf Coast: State-level policies─Mississippi provides no release days, though some districts provide release days, and state pays application fee once program is completed. San Antonio: State- and district-level policies─Texas provides no release days, though some districts provide release days. District covers application fee.

178

Appendix D.2: Standardized Out-of-Pocket Costs for Candidates Standardized out-of-pocket costs total $350 (rounded) per candidate and include these items. Office supplies: $95.00 (rounded) Diskettes=$4.40 Box of file folders=$8.00 Plastic file=$15.00 One-half case of paper=$27.00 Postage=$31.00 Miscellaneous=$10.00 Video equipment: $50.00 10 hours (2 x 5 hours) at $5.00 per hour Videotapes: $13.50 3 tapes at $4.50 per tape Copying: $27.00 300 pages x $.09 per page Printing: $96.00 3 cartridges x $32.00 per cartridge TV/VCR: $70.00 10 hours (2 x 5 hours) at $7.00 per hour

179

Appendix D.3: Standardized Out-of-Pocket Costs for Mentors Standardized out-of-pocket costs for supplies total $40 per mentor and include these items. • • • • • • • •

Postage Telephone calls Copies Paper and ink Transparencies Use of home computer Prizes/gifts E-mail

180

Appendix D.4: Standard Values Used in the National Board Certification Professional Development Model Cost Analysis Resource

Standard Value ($)

Data Source

Personnel Resources—annual salary plus benefits 1 (hourly wage in parentheses) 2 Program director - Teacher 3 - Union - District - Postsecondary institution

$52,524 (35/hr) 91,850 (46/hr) 92,925 (46/hr) 82,575 (41/hr)

Clerical staff

33,917 (17/hr)

National Center for Education Statistics (2000) Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002) Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002) Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002) Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002)

University faculty (education)

66,975 (33/hr)

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000)

School principal 4

83,139 (42/hr)

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002)

District superintendent

152,500 (76/hr)

Educational Research Service (2001–02)

School teacher 5

52,524 (35/hr)

Graduate assistant 6

25,160 (35/hr)

National Center for Education Statistics (2000) Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002)

Student

5.15/hr

Department of Labor (2003)

Nonpersonnel Resources Equipment Office space

$1,500

Group meeting room rental

50/hr

Office furniture—desk, 2 chairs, file cabinet, bookshelves Computer—laptop

600

Average of leading vendors

1,285

Average of leading vendors

Computer—desktop

900

Average of leading vendors

Copy machine

800

Average of leading vendors

Fax machine

200

Average of leading vendors

Telephone

25

Average of leading vendors

Cell phone

20

Average of leading vendors

Printer—inkjet

135

Average of leading vendors

Printer—laser

320

Average of leading vendors

181

Resource

Standard Value ($)

Data Source

Ink cartridge

32

Average of leading vendors

Videotape

4.50

Average of leading vendors

Candidates’ office supplies— diskettes, file folders, plastic file, half case of paper, postage Video camera—rental

95

Average of leading vendors

38/day, 5/hr

Average of leading vendors

TV/VCR—rental

56/day, 7/hour

Average of leading vendors

Digital Camera—rental

49/day, 6/hr

Average of leading vendors

LCD projector—rental

66/day, 8/hour

Average of leading vendors

Computer—rental

21/day, 3/hour

Average of leading vendors

Overhead projector/screen— rental Microphone/speaker—rental

47/day, 6/hour

Average of leading vendors

52/day, 7/hour

Average of leading vendors

Postage

.37/letter

U.S. Postal Service

Copying

.09/page

Average of leading vendors

Telephone—landline

20/month, .10/minute

Average of leading vendors

Telephone—cellular

35/month

Average of leading vendors

Network charges

58/month

Average of leading vendors

Website

20/month

Average of leading vendors

Flight

386 round trip

Average (Orbitz)

Lodging

110/night

U.S. Government rates

Food per diem - breakfast - lunch - dinner Mileage reimbursement

38/day 8/day 9/day 21/day .38/mile

U.S. Government rates

Services

Travel

U.S. Government rates

1

Benefits are estimated at 25 percent of annual salary figures (National Center for Education Statistics 2004; and Common Core of Data, 2000-01). 2 Hourly wages are calculated by dividing salary and benefits by 2000 hours. The only exceptions are teachers whose hourly wages are calculated by dividing annual salary and benefits by 1,520 hours (190 days and 8 hours per day) and graduate assistants whose hourly wages are calculated by dividing annual salary and benefits by 720 (36 weeks and 20 hours per week).

182

3

Weighted average of teacher salaries among those with four or more years of experience. Average salary, weighted by number of elementary, middle, and high schools. 5 Weighted average of teacher salaries among those with four or more years of experience. 6 Graduate assistant compensation includes salary, tuition, and benefits, so we did not add an additional 25 percent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics figure. 4

183

Appendix D.5: Cost of National Board Certification Professional Development Model by Candidate Support Program Site

184

MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST Standardized Template COMPONENTS AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & INFRASTRUCTURE Personnel

Facilities, materials, and equipment

INGREDIENTS Amount (natural units)

Program director Clerical Executive director Office Office furniture Computer Printer Cell phone Telephone Office supplies Postage Copying Telephone charges Telephone usage Voice mail charges Cell phone charges Network services Website

Travel and transportation

National meeting

State meetings

1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE

TOTAL ANNUAL COST # Units Unit Value Period ($) (years)

0.25 admin

Shared (%prog.)

Annual Cost ($)

82,575 33,917 82,575

1 1 1

$ 0.075 $ 0.075 $

20,643 2,544 6,193

1,500 600 1,285 900 135 320 20 25

0.5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

750 60 257 180 27 64 4 5 200 600 600 240 144 144 420 696 240

Government trict/Consort School

State

$

18,393

$ $

10 257

1 shared office 1 set labtop desktop inkjet laser 1 1 $200 $600 $50/month service charges 120 minutes/mth monthly charge cell charge monthly charge 1 site

12 months 600 12 months 20/mth 12 months .10/minute 12 months 12/month 12 months 35/month 12 months 58/month 12 months 20/month

1 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 round trip flight 1 night 2 days per diem 1 registration fee

386/flight 110/night 38/day $100

1 1 1 1

$ $ $ $

386 110 76 100

$ $ $ $

386 110 76 100

1 1

$ $

878 63

$ $

878 63

4,129 $

3,679

driving distance lunch per diem

7 trips/yr 7 trips/yr

.38/mile 9/day

Program director

0.05

82,575

1 300/year

$8/hour

Union

DISTRIBUTION OF COST Grant School Teacher Principal Candidates

Other Staff Time

$ 1,693 $ 1,908 $ 4,645 $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

University USM

Program Director

Volunteers

Business/ Community Consortium Group(s)

$ $ $

557 636 1,548

$ $ $

180 7 16

750 50

20 48 $ $

4 5

$

696

200 600 600 240 144 144 420 $

240

$

339

$

111

$ $

32 75

$

24

$

669

INFORMATION/RECRUITMENT Adminstrative staff time

School meetings USM meetings

Facilities, materials and equipment

School meetings LCD projector 4 hours (1hr x 4mtg) Printing brochures Travel and transportation - administrato School meeting driving distance 200 miles (50m x 4 mtg) travel time captured in admin time USM meetings driving distance 0 travel time 0 GROUP MEETINGS Candidates' time

1 1

.38/mile

$ 0.33 $

32 99

$

76

Standards study Mentoring sessions Assessment meetings Saturday sessions

22 hrs (4 days) 25 hrs (10 x 2.5 hrs) 6 hrs (1 x 6 hrs) 30 hrs (10 x 3 hrs)

150 candidates 70 candidates 70 candidates 20 candidates

35/hr 35/hr 35/hr 35/hr

1 1 1 1

$ 115,500 $ 61,250 $ 14,700 $ 21,000

Standards study Mentoring meetings Assessment meetings Saturday sessions

8 hrs (4 x 2 hrs) 25 hrs (10 x 2.5 hrs) 6 hrs (1 x 6 hrs) 30 hrs (10 x 3 hrs)

1 mentor 8 mentors 20 mentors 2 mentors

35/hr 35/hr 35/hr 35/hr

1 1 1 1

$ $ $ $

Administrative staff time

Standards study Mentoring meetings Assessment meetings Saturday sessions

Program director

0.3

82,575

Facilities, materials, and equipment

Standards study 66 hrs (22 hrs x 3) 66 hrs (22 hrs x 3) 66 hrs (22 hrs x 3) 66 hrs (22 hrs x 3)

1 1 1 1

50/hr 7/hr 6/hr 8/hr

Mentors/facilitators' time

school library TV/VCR Overhead projector/screen LCD projector Mentoring meetings

1 1 1 1

$ $ $ $

280 7,000 4,200 2,100

$

76

$ $

1,160 1,000

24,773 $

22,073

3,300 462 396 528

$ $ $ $

115,500 61,250 14,700 21,000

$

5,840

$

280

$

3,200

$ 2,100 $ 2,031

$ 3,300 $ 462 $ 396 $

528

COMPONENTS AND SERVICES

INGREDIENTS Amount (natural units) Classrooms 130 hrs (5 hrs x 26wks) TV/VCR 130 hrs (5 hrs x 26wks) Overhead projector/screen 130 hrs (5 hrs x 26wks)

Travel and transportation-admin

Pinning celebration

Catering

Annual Cost ($) $ 13,000 $ 1,820 $ 1,560

Government trict/Consort School

State

University USM $ 13,000 $ 1,820 $ 1,560

DISTRIBUTION OF COST Grant School Teacher Principal Candidates

Union

Other Staff Time

Assessment meeting Large classrooms Small classrooms

6 hrs (1 x 6 hrs) 6 hrs (1 x 6 hrs)

2 6

50/hr 50/hr

1 1

$ $

600 1,800

Saturday sessions School library TV/VCR Overhead projector/screen

30 hrs (10 x 3 hrs) 30 hrs (10 x 3 hrs) 30 hrs (10 x 3 hrs)

1 1 1

50/hr 7/hr 6/hr

1 1 1

$ $ $

1,500 210 180

188 miles (47mx4mtgs) 5.13hr (77min x 4 mtgs)

150 candidates 150 candidates

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

10,716 26,950

$ $

10,716 26,950

200 miles (20m x 10mtg) 6.67 hr (40min x 10mtg)

70 candidates 70 candidates

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

5,320 16,341

$ $

5,320 16,341

20 miles 0.67 hours

70 candidates 70 candidates

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

532 1,642

$ $

532 1,642

200 miles (20m x 10mtg) 6.67 hr (40min x 10mtg)

20 candidates 20 candidates

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

1,520 4,669

$ $

1,520 4,669

188 miles (47mx4mtgs) 5.13hr (77min x 4 mtgs)

1 mentor 1 mentor

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

71 180

$ $

71 180

200 miles (20m x 10mtg) 6.67 hr (40min x 10mtg)

8 mentors 8 mentors

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

608 1,868

$ $

608 1,868

20 miles RT .67 hours RT

20 mentors 20 mentors

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

152 469

$ $

152 469

200 miles (20m x 10mtg) 6.67 hr (40min x 10mtg)

2 mentor 2 mentors

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

152 467

$

152

600 miles (12 x 50 m RT) captured in admin time held at USM 0 0

1 admin

.38/mile

1 1

$

228

$

228

40 miles (1 x 40 m RT) captured in admin time held at Schools 980 miles (98 x10mtgs) captured in admin time

1 admin

.38/mile

1

$

15

$

15

1 admin

.38/mile

1 1

$

372

$

372

2058 miles (98x21mtg) captured in admin time

1 admin

.38/mile

1

$

782

$

782

3 hours 3 hours captured in admin time 1 1 $10/pin

53 candidates 8 mentors

35/hr 35/hr

1 1

$ $

5,565 840

$

840

3 hrs 3 hrs 53 pins

50/hr 7/hr $530

1 1 1

$ $ $

150 21 530

1 1 1 1

$ $ $ $

400 630 400 100

$

127,575

Travel and transportation - candidates Standards study -driving distance -travel time Mentoring meetings -driving distance -travel time Assessment meeting -driving distance -travel time Saturday sessions -driving distance -travel time Travel and transportation - mentors

TOTAL ANNUAL COST # Units Unit Value Period Shared ($) (years) (%prog.) 2 50/hr 1 2 7/hr 1 2 6/hr 1

Standards study -driving distance -travel time Mentoring meetings -driving distance -travel time Assessment meeting -driving distance -travel time Saturday sessions -driving distance -travel time Standards study -driving distance -travel time Mentoring meetings -driving distance -travel time Assessment meeting -driving distance -travel time Saturday sessions -driving distance -travel time One-on-one consultations -driving distance -travel time Candidate time Mentors time Admin time Auditorium Microphone Pins Standards study Assessment meetings Saturday sessions Pinning ceremony

$400 box lunch $400 $100

70 people

9/day

PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF FORMAL MEETINGS Candidates' time Total prep time

357 hours

70 candidates

35/hr

1

$ 874,650

Mentors/facilitators' time

405 hrs/yr

9 mentors

35/hr

1

$ 127,575

Total time

$ 600 $ 1,800

$ 1,500 $ 210 $ 180

$

467

$

$ $

5,565

150 21

$

$

530

$ $

400 630

$

100

$

874,650

400

Program Director

Volunteers

Business/ Community Consortium Group(s)

COMPONENTS AND SERVICES

INGREDIENTS Amount (natural units)

Admin. time

One-on-one consultations

Facilities, materials, and equipment

TOTAL ANNUAL COST # Units Unit Value Period ($) (years)

Shared (%prog.)

Annual Cost ($)

State

DISTRIBUTION OF COST Grant School Teacher Principal Candidates

Union

0.3

82,575

1

$

24,773

Video equipment Video tapes Copying Printing Office supplies TV/VCR Mentoring supplies

10 hrs/yr (2 hrs x 5) 3 tapes 300 pages 3 cartidges 1 set 10 hrs/yr 1 set

70 candidates 70 candidates 70 candidates 70 candidates 70 candidates 70 canidates 9 mentors

5/hr 4.5 0.09 32 $95 $7/hr $40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,500 945 1,890 6,720 6,650 4,900 360

$ $ $ $ $ $

Travel and transportation - candidates Assessment center -driving distance -travel time

120 miles 2.08 hr

70 candidates 70 candidates

.38/mile 35/hr

1 1

$ $

3,192 5,104

$ $

$

4,129

1

$ 161,000

$ 161,000

$

$

Administrative time

APPLICATION FEE

NBPTS fee

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, & DISSEMINATION

Administrative time

Program director $2,300 Program director

0.05 70 candidates 0.05

82,575 $2,300 82,575

4,129

22,073

University USM

Program director

MENTOR TRAINING

$

Government trict/Consort School

Other Staff Time

3,679

3,679

Volunteers

$ 2,031

Business/ Community Consortium Group(s) $

669

3,500 945 1,890 6,720 6,650 4,900 $

$

Program Director

360

3,192 5,104

$

339

$

111

$

339

$

111

$ $

4,639 66

FUTURE SALARY OBLIGATIONS TOTAL COST AVERAGE COST PER CANDIDATE

$1,627,326 $ 23,248

The candidates pay a fee of $50 to attend the Standards Study. This fee helps to cover the costs of the ceremonies ($1910) and the stipend for additional mentors ($5590). A grant of $4000 was received to cover the costs of the Saturday Sessions (e.g. mentor time and food). The mentor stipend totaled $8,000. $7000 was applied to the mentors' time spent in mentoring meetings - $1,160 from state, and $5,840 from candidates' standard studies fee. $1,000 was applied to the assessment meetings and all from the state. Distribution of admin time: 25% admin, 5% information and recruitment, 30% group meetings, 30% portfolio development, 5% mentor training, 5% RD&D

$ 242,437 $ 3,463

$ 14,268 $ 204

$ 6,048 $ 86

$ 20,456 $ 292

$ $

-

$ 2,967 $ 42

$ $

-

$ 1,200,756 $ 17,154

$ $

135,755 1,939

$ $

-

$ $

-

$ $

-

Appendix E: Summary of Cost Studies Identified in Literature Review

197

198

Appendix E.1: District-Sponsored Professional Development General Description Aurora Public Schools -Professional Development (PD) initiatives are organized district-wide. -PD activities include mentoring, coaching, courses, PD school, and facilitators’ training. New York City Community District Number 2 -PD focus is deliberate, comprehensive, and systematic. -PD activities include PD laboratory, distinguished teacher model, instructional consulting, intervisitation and peer networking, aspiring leaders program, oversight, and principal site visit. Study of professional development in 16 school districts -PD within districts contains a wide variety of activities.

Description of Costs -Costs include total district costs spent on PD.

Costs Critique Total amount spent by district -Costs include total district on PD=$5,797,592. costs on PD. -There is no specific Total percentage of district’s program module. operating budget spent on PD=2.7%.

Citation Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

-Costs include total district costs spent on PD.

Total district costs=$8,376,455.

-Costs per teacher are not given. -Many PD activities are included, but there is no specific protocol for the module.

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

-Costs include in-service training days, nondistrict and district conferences/workshops, university/college coursework, district PD offices, temporary reassignment, and sabbaticals.

Percentage of district’s net operating expenditure on PD=3.6%.

-Combination of types of PD. -Most PD activities are not specific programs with specified duration. -Costs are expressed only as percentages, making it difficult to compare costs with the cost of the National Board Certification professional development model

Education Commission of the States. Investing in Teacher Professional Development: A Look at 16 School Districts. Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 1997.

Percentage of net operating expenditures of average teacher salary and benefits=6.8%.

199

General Description Study of professional development in Cincinnati Public Schools -PD focus is individual teacher professional career growth and school-based, school-wide PD. -Some schools use comprehensive school reform models. -PD includes Mayerson Academy and teacher coaching and instructional support at school sites.

National study using U.S. Census Bureau data to determine professional development expenditure across states -Focus is on PD expenditure patterns. -Years of study are 1991– 92, 1994–95, and 1997–98.

Description of Costs -Costs include budget for PD in the district.

Costs Planned spending on PD by district in 2001=$3,900 per teacher. Total spent by district=$10.1 million.

Critique -It is unclear whether planned amount was actually spent. -There is no overarching district strategy.

Citation Miles, K. H. Getting to the Heart of School Improvement: Integrating Professional Development Spending in the Cincinnati Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Network, May 2001.

-Costs per teacher are not available. -Study does not specify what type of PD is included.

Killeen, K. M., D. H. Monk, and M. L. Plecki. “School District Spending on Professional Development: Insights Available from National Data (1992–1998).” Journal of Education Finance 28 (summer 2002): 25–50.

Percentage of district’s total budget spent on PD=2.5%. Amount spent on the following PD: Mayerson Academy (14%); teacher coaching and instructional support at school sites (60%); and teacher induction, career growth, and leadership (26%). National averages=$198 per pupil; 3% of total general expenditures. Ranges=$95 per pupil to $877 per pupil; 1.34% to 8.78%. Urban average=$258 per pupil. Suburban average=$230 per pupil. Rural average=$171 per pupil.

200

General Description Study of professional development in California at the district level -PD includes university, district, and school conferences.

Description of Costs -Costs include participants’ time and money, reduced instructional time, future salary obligations, substitutes, leader time, stipends, and facilities.

Costs $1,715.31 (without semester unit credits) $4,379.05 (with semester unit credits) Unit=Dollars per teacher (total number of teachers)

Critique -Study is dated. -PD has no specific duration. -Cost is to taxpayer and participant.

Study examining standards-based reform within Boston Public Schools -Focus of study is PD spending by district and district’s PD activities. -Year of study is 1998–99. -Study includes funding sources.

-Costs do not include salary increases, private funding, cost of common planning time (elementary school teachers), or cost of administrative periods (middle and high school teachers). -Costs do include 2 days of additional salary payment for teachers and all funding sources (corporations, nonprofit organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies, etc.).

Total district spending on PD for teachers, principals, and headmasters=$23.5 million.

-Costs include principal PD. -There is no central strategy, just many one-time workshops. -There is no module.

Percentage of district’s budget spent on PD=4%. Dollars per teacher and principal=$4,894.

Citation Little et al. Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987. Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools. Professional Development Spending in the Boston Public Schools. Boston, Mass.: Boston Plan for Excellence and Boston Public Schools, December 1999.

201

General Description Case studies of professional development in 4 districts -Districts have large and small schools. -Reform is teachercentered. -PD focus is to improve teachers’ performance within schools.

Description of Costs -Costs include support from staff development office (if applicable), district, school, and outside as well as teachers’ unreimbursed contributions.

Study of a district intern program that prepares teachers to teach in urban context

-Costs include mentor costs.

Costs Total Budgets: $2.0 million, $3.7 million, $7.0 million, and $14.5 million. Cost per teacher (classroom teachers): $1,755, $2,706, $3,528, and $3,529. Cost per student: $70, $116, $148, and $212.

Mentor stipend=$4,000 per mentor. District cost for substitutes and training=$2,000 per mentor.

Critique -Costs do not include future salary obligations. -Costs are estimates only; authors stress this several times. -There is no specific duration to the PD and no specific program requirements.

Citation Miller, B., B. Lord, and J. Dorney. Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, 1994.

-Study discusses costs of paying mentors only. -There is no mention of cost per participant.

Stoddart, T. “Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an Urban Context.” Peabody Journal of Education 67, no. 3 (1990): 84–122.

202

Appendix E. 2: Comprehensive School Reform Models General Description Success for All -This comprehensive school reform is reading-focused. -Program provides a specific school organization, curriculum, teaching materials, and techniques for literacy instruction.

Description of Costs -Year 1 costs include training and implementation visits, reporting, telephone assistance, materials, and training conference registration. -Year 2 and Year 3 costs decrease because fewer training days are required.

Costs Year 1: $80,000 per school. Year 2: $28,000 per school. Year 3: $24,000 per school. Total: $132,000 per school.

Critique -Costs per teacher are not given. -Costs do not include teacher time and substitute teacher costs.

(Estimates based on average elementary school of 500 students.) Development of weeklong sessions=$75,000.

Texas Teachers Empowered for Achievement in Mathematics & Science

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

Delivery of materials=$300 per teacher.

Study examining several comprehensive school reform plans and estimating various costs

-Costs include ongoing operational costs and transitional costs.

Study comparing the costs of three comprehensive school reform models: Success for All (SFA), Accelerated Schools (AS), and School Development Programs (SDP)

-Costs include training and staff development associated with program implementation.

Citation Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

Fee to attend Leaders’ Program=$300 per teacher. Average of school-provided professional development and training=$60,000. SFA: $1,826 per teacher; $522–$1,293 per student; total budget=$66,000–$116,500. AS: $1,640 per teacher; $96– $532 per student; total budget=$48,000–$116,000. SDP: $1,810 per teacher; $206–$556 per student; total budget=$52,800–$128,150.

-Study does not provide costs per teacher. -Study does not specify what costs are included.

Odden, A. “The Costs of Sustaining Educational Change Through Comprehensive School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 81, no. 6 (2000): 433–38. Rice, J. K. “Meeting the Educational Needs of At-risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models.” Educational Evaluation and Policy 16, no. 1 (1994): 1–19.

(High and low estimates were averaged and divided by 50 teachers―based on assumption.)

203

Appendix E.3: Master’s Degree Programs General Description Study examining the costs of a master’s degree (36 credits) in Virginia and comparing full-time, nighttime, and summertime enrollment. -Full-time enrollment lasts for 2 years, while nighttime and summertime enrollment lasts for 5 years.

Cost Description -Costs per teacher include tuition, books, travel, and foregone earnings. -Costs for state include teacher costs, salary obligations, and state subsidy to higher education. -Study groups costs into who bears them: teacher, school district, and/or state government.

Costs $42,428 per teacher (full time); $16,810 per teacher (night); and $25,498 per teacher (summer).

Critique -Study is dated. -Study does not include teacher time or future salary obligations within the cost per teacher.

Citation Knapp et al. “Should a Master’s Degree Be Required of All Teachers?” Journal of Teacher Education 41, no. 2 (1990): 27–37.

Additional salary obligations=$1,309 per teacher. State costs (in millions): -Transition: $671 (full time); $267 (night); and $339 (summer). -Annual costs: $153 (full time); $64 (night); and $93 (summer).

204

Appendix E.4: Induction Programs General Description Beginning Educator Support and Training -This induction program in Connecticut uses a performance assessment tool to enable new teachers to achieve credentials. -The induction process has two parts: a portfolio assessment model and testing in content area.

Cost Description -Costs include professional development support for districts (substitutes), seminars for both beginning teachers and mentors, administrative costs, program development and revision, and costs for the scoring process.

Costs Cost per teacher=$1,384.

Critique

Citation Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

205

Appendix E. 5: Privately Marketed Professional Development Alternatives General Description Academy for Mathematics and Science

Cost Description

Costs Yearly costs per teacher=$4,000. Average total cost per teacher=$14,000.

The Leadership Institute (St. Paul [Minn.] Public Schools) -Professional development (PD) for aspiring principals (includes business leaders, assistant principals, etc.).

-Costs do not include school district contributions or participant time and costs.

District contribution: $9,643 per participant.

Critique

Citation Allen, E. E., and L. Lederman. “Lessons Learned: The Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science.” Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2 (1998): 158–64. Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

206

National Writing Project -Focus is on improving the teaching of writing and improving the learning in the nation’s schools. -PD includes summer institute, in-service programs, and continuity programs. The Principals Center ACP=Art and Craft of the Principalship; LEV=Leadership: An Evolving Vision; and FOA=Focus on Accountability.

-Costs described are total project budgets.

Range of project budgets=$60,000–$1 million.

-Study does not provide costs per teacher. -PD is a mix of summer institute, in-service programs, and continuity programs.

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

-Costs include program costs.

$1,895 per principal (ACP, LEV—10 days) $1,750 per principal (FOA—5 days) Several professional development opportunities are offered during the school year; costs range from $20 to $535.

-PD is for principals, not teachers.

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

-There is a very specific program/module during summer institutes. -Costs do not include principal time.

207

Appendix E.6: Other Professional Development Programs General Description Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants -Federal grant for the professional development (PD) of teachers.

Cost Description -Costs are discussed solely as money received from grant.

Costs

Critique -Costs do not specify what money was used for.

Long Beach Education Partnership -Collaborative partnership between Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) and Long Beach Community College [in California]. -Focus is on academic content standards, learning methodology, and assessment. Making Middle Grades Matter -A consortium of 13 states and 40 schools runs the program. -The program is a comprehensive reform program. Southern Maine Partnership -A nonprofit school districtuniversity collaboration runs the program. -The collaboration includes 34 districts and 3 higher education institutions.

-Costs include grant contribution and LBUSD contribution for salaries and benefits.

Grant=$4 million.

-Costs per teacher are not provided. -It is unclear whether this is the total amount spent on PD.

-Costs do not include inkind contribution from the University of Southern Maine.

LBUSD contribution=$100,000.

Citation Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001. Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

Total grant contribution=$363,000.

-State and school spending amounts on PD are not given.

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

Total budget=$900,000.

-The budget for this program cannot be compared with the budget of other PD programs because of lack of detail.

Cohen et al. Profiles of Selected Promising Professional Development Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2001.

208