National Board Certification Of Teachers:
Does It Make A Difference In The Utilization Of Best Practices?
Sue Hollandsworth
Calvin F. Meyer
MarshallUniversityGraduateCollege
Introduction
The education of children in America has been the cause of much debate and conflict. At the center of this debate is the need for quality teachers. The educational reform movements of the twentieth century have centered upon the need for quality teachers based upon research which demonstrates the effects of a quality teacher on student achievement (Busatto, 2004; Fallon, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Mendro & Bembry, 2000).
This emphasis on quality teaching led to the formation of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in 1987 (NBPTS, 2004). The mission of this organization is to advance the quality of teaching and learning by recognizing accomplished teaching (NBPTS, n.d.). In order to do this, NBPTS defined what an accomplished teacher should know and be able to do and formed their research-based core propositions. From these core propositions the NBPTS developed standards that describe “the highest level of teaching in different disciplines” (NBPTS, 2004, p.1). These standards form the basis of the assessment for teachers applying for certification.
Although the certification process includes standards-based performance assessments, specific classroom practices are not directly addressed in the national certification process (Berg, 2003). The NBPTS recognizes best teaching practices and acknowledges that National Board Certified Teachers (NBCT) should model these practices (Hamsa, 1998). Embedded in the standards for each certification level are practices that NBCTs are expected to exhibit in their portfolio entries.
The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the classroom practices of teachers in West Virginia, those with National Board Certification and those who have not gone through the certification process, but are considered to be highly qualified.
Educational Reform
Public concern about the state of education rose sharply in 1983 following the report, A Nation at Risk. A wave of reforms immediately followed the report concentrating on tightening standards and increasing accountability, top-down reforms that ignored classroom teachers as a component (Hill, 1990). Boyer (1995) stated that excellence in education means excellence in teaching since teachers are the ones that meet with children every day. The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession recommended the establishment of a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) “that would establish high standards for what teachers need to know and be able to do and to certify those teachers who meet those standards” (Harman, 2001, p. 1).
No Child Left Behind legislation intended to provide all children with access to high-quality education. The major focuses of this legislation are reading, high-quality teachers and instruction, and ensuring that all children learn English (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Highly qualified and well-trained teachers are mandated under this law (Sclafani, 2002). This mandate comes partially as a result of research that traced the performance of a student through the grades and concluded that teachers make a difference in achievement (Archer, 1998; Fallon, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Mendro & Bembry, 2000).
Quality Teaching
Since quality teaching is one of the most important factors in student performance it follows that there is a need to identify quality teaching and teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1997; DeLeon, 2003; Goldhaber, 2002; NCTAF, 1996; Stronge, 1997). The question of what makes an effective or quality teacher is difficult since the findings are mixed. Some studies suggest the difference is the teacher’s verbal ability while others suggest it is the coursework they have completed (Ashton & Crocker, 1987; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Evertson, Hawley, & Zlotnik, 1985). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has tried to answer the problem of identification of high quality teachers.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
The NBPTS is an organization run by teachers and is meant to improve teaching and to recognize advanced practices. Accomplished teachers can achieve national certification through a process of performance-based assessments and a series of written exercises. The National Board’s standards are based on research that recognizes sound educational practices resulting in improved student achievement (NBPTS, 2002).
The standards developed by the NBPTS (2000) are based on five core propositions: (a) teachers are committed to students and their learning, (b) teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to children, (c) teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning, (d) teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience, and (e) teachers are members of learning communities (pp.3-4). Acquiring NBPTS certification is a voluntary process that provides teachers a way to attain an achievement level that can make a difference in classrooms and careers (Helms, 2001). It is a course of action developed by teachers for teachers and takes at least one year and approximately $2500 for a teacher to complete.
Through the process of national certification teachers often need to change their practices to encourage higher level thinking skills and student-centered approaches and may be called upon to make changes in their fundamental beliefs (Crawford, Hjelm, & Mohor, 2003; Kimball, 2001). Berg (2003) maintained that National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) are better for students, well-trained, able to change the culture of mediocrity, and their research-based practices increase the quality of learning experiences for children.
Although there is widespread agreement among some researchers on the effects of a National Board Certified teacher on student achievement, there is also a growing consensus that these teachers are not more effective than those without the certification (Archer, 2002; Podgursky, 2001).
Classroom Practices
Along with the difficulty in defining quality teaching is the difficulty in defining best classroom practices. Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005) concluded that “quality teaching, it appears, is about more than whether something is taught. It is also about how it is taught” (p. 189). The skills needed for today’s world cannot be attained through passive, rote learning; students must be challenged (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Stronge, 1997; Toch & Daniel, 1996). Extensive research has been done on instructional strategies and classroom practices that create a more effective classroom (Berends, 2004; Fullan & Rolheiser, 2002; Minner, 2001; Walberg & Paik, 2004; Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998).
Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (1998) took much of this research as well as the standards of the content oriented professional organizations and synthesized it to develop a list of best classroom practices. The organizations involved in the research included the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Council for the Social Studies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the International Reading Association. Thirteen interlocking principles were developed as a result of this research: effective teachers use practices that are (a) student-centered, (b) experiential, (c) holistic, (d) authentic, (e) expressive, (f) reflective, (g) social, (h) collaborative, (i) democratic, (j) cognitive, (k) developmental, (l) constructivist, and (m) challenging.
Problem
Research has shown that student achievement is linked to teacher quality. The educational reform movement has emphasized teacher quality in the past and continues to do so with the No Child Left Behind legislation which requires a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. To be considered highly qualified as an experienced teacher in West Virginia one must have one of the following: (a) a rating of “meets standards” or higher on Section I of the Teacher Evaluation Form, (b) have a minimum of 21 hours of coursework in a single content area toward a degree, (c) have a master’s degree or doctorate in the content area, or (d) be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (WVBE Policy 5202 as defined in §126-136-8). Because the determination of highly qualified can be based solely upon National Board Certification, it is important to demonstrate that the classroom practices of teachers who successfully complete the certification process are different from teachers who have not completed the process.
Is National Board Certification truly indicative of a highly qualified teacher as demonstrated by their classroom practices? If student achievement is higher in classes taught by National Board Certified Teachers, as evidenced by some of the literature, is it because best practices are in evidence more than in classrooms of those teachers who have not completed the National Board process? The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the classroom practices of 10 teachers in West Virginia, five with National Board Certification and five who had not gone through the certification process, but are considered to be highly qualified.
Research Design
This study was a multi-site, qualitative descriptive and evaluative case study. It incorporated observations, interviews, and a checklist to generate qualitative and quantitative data analysis. This study focused on classroom practices of 10 teachers to discover any relationship between the National Board Certification process and these practices.
This study was limited by the fact that only 10 classrooms were observed, five with National Board Certified Teachers and five of teachers without national certification. These 10 classrooms included only first and second grades in West Virginia. This gave a picture of 10 first and second grade classrooms, but did not allow for generalization into all classrooms in West Virginia. Grades one and two were chosen due to the similarities of the content standards and objectives, the similar developmental levels of the students, and the NBPTS certification area of Early Childhood Generalist. With the small number involved one or two teachers in each group could have an impact on the findings.
Population and Sample
There were two populations for this study: a) West Virginia teachers in grades one and two classrooms that have National Board Certification and b) West Virginia teachers in grades one and two classrooms who had not applied for the certification. The populations were limited to these two grade levels since there is a general similarity among these age groups and both are covered under the Early Childhood Generalist certification for NBPTS. The population of National Board Certified teachers, who agreed to participate in the study, was divided into counties and one teacher was randomly selected from each county. A sample of five teachers was randomly drawn from this NBCT population to represent five different counties.
Participants from the population who had not applied for national certification were chosen as a matched sample to correspond with the NBCT sample as closely as possible as to grade assignment, experience, and county as responded by teachers. This sample was chosen by identifying teachers from the counties of the selected NBCT participants. This type sample was used to establish the comparisons necessary to the study.
Data Collection
A personally addressed letter was sent to each grades one and two teacher in West Virginia detailing this study and asking for their participation. The letter provided information on the purpose of the study and the procedures for gathering data. A response form was included in the mailing which included the participant’s name, email or postal address, grade level, years of experience, school name, county, whether they had applied for national certification, national certification status, and highly qualified status. By completing and returning this response form, teachers demonstrated their willingness to participate in the study. These response forms were used for sampling purposes and for future contact with the participants.
Building and county level administrators were notified at this time to request permission to conduct the research in the schools. Those selected for the study were notified about the scheduled observations and interviews. Teachers not selected to participate in the study were also notified.
The 10 respondents chosen represented five counties, two per county with each county in a different Regional Education Service Agency (RESA) in West Virginia. Six participants had 24 years or more teaching experience and four had 12 to 18 years experience. Teaching experience at their present level ranged from 1 to 20 years. Nine participants had a master’s degree, seven in elementary education and two in related areas. According to West Virginia Department of Education guidelines all were considered highly qualified.
Once the sample was determined and the schedule for observations completed, the researcher began the observations. Each participant was observed for four consecutive days. While observing the teacher, the researcher documented the use of best classroom practices using field notes to document the practices and the context in which they occurred. This included, but was not limited to, the subject being taught, room arrangement, assignments and or activities, and student groupings. The researcher collected artifacts during the observation including, but not limited to lesson plans, assignments, worksheets, assessments, and classroom diagrams or photos.
On the fourth day, the researcher interviewed the teacher. The interview questions were based on the observations, but centered on why certain practices were used. Specific questions were used to begin the interview (see Appendix G) and others were developed as the interview progressed. The interviews were recorded and transcribed by the researcher. At the end of each teacher’s observation and interview the researcher had field notes, a variety of artifacts, and interview transcriptions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis included data interpretation. Data from the interviews, observation checklist, and observation field notes were used to develop a qualitative descriptive account of the findings. Emerging themes were explored and an interpretation of the findings was related to the literature and the idea of best classroom practices.
The initial step in analysis was reading the field notes each day and listening to and transcribing the interview each week. During this procedure notes were kept on tentative ideas about categories and relationships. This was an ongoing process that lasted throughout the 10 week observation period.
Themes for this study included the specific classroom practices observed such as collaborative, experiential, or holistic activities. Themes also included the contexts in which these practices took place, for instance during reading class. Other categories dealt with the sequence of activities occurring in the classroom or the rationale for using a specific activity. Themes that emerged from the review of the field notes included the manner in which teachers handled transitions, the role of research in teaching practices, and modeling and scaffolding.
Are classroom practices of teachers with National Board Certification different from those without certification?
Data on each of the 13 best practices identified by the research of Zemelman, Daniels and Hyde (1998) were gathered and reviewed to determine how they were used in the classrooms of 10 teachers, five NBCTs and five who had not participated in the process. Three categories were developed to categorize the verification of classroom practices in the observations. The categories were consistent evidence, evidence, and slight evidence. Consistent evidence required the practice to be observed at least three of the four days. Evidence required the practice to be observed two to three days and slight evidence meant it was observed at least once.
Analysis of the results provided evidence that in eight of the 13 practices there was a discernible difference between the two groups of teachers. In three practices there was a minor difference between the two groups while in two areas there was a negligible difference between the two groups. In 11 of the 13 practices the NBCTs were more consistent in their use of the best practices.
Best practices with discernible differences. A discernible difference occurred in the following practices: student-centered, experiential, holistic, authentic, reflective, social, cognitive, developmental, and challenging. Despite the fact that all 10 teachers stated their belief about the need for a student-centered classroom only seven teachers actually practiced this. The five NBCTs included student-centered activities on a consistent basis. None of the Non-Board Certified teachers consistently provided student-centered activities. Two of these teachers did provide an opportunity for students to choose a book to read or a topic for writing.
Each of the teachers referred to the importance of manipulatives and hands-on learning for children. All five NBCTs used active, hands-on practices on a daily basis. Only three of the Non-Board Certified teachers used these practices consistently in their classrooms. Two provided limited access to manipulatives and provided only minimal opportunities for experiential learning during the observations.
Only one teacher mentioned holistic practice specifically, but the practice was in evidence in all five of the NBCTs’ classrooms consistently. Instruction integrated several subjects rather than each treated as a separate entity. Two of the Non-Board Certified teachers demonstrated the holistic practice consistently while the evidence in another class was due to a holiday theme during the observation. Two of the Non-Board Certified teachers showed no evidence of holistic practice.
Although only three teachers mentioned authentic instruction during interviews there was some evidence of it in all 10 classrooms. The five NBCTs involved students in activities related to their lives on a regular basis especially during class discussions. Only two of the Non-Board Certified teachers manifested this practice in their classrooms. Three teachers made only passing references in class about how a topic might be related to the students’ experiences.
No teacher referred to student reflection; however all five NBCTs used the practice consistently in their classrooms. Only one of the Non-Board Certified teachers demonstrated its use on a regular basis with four of them showing little or no evidence of student reflection in their classrooms.
All five NBCTs recognized the need for social interaction and provided opportunities for students to discuss ideas with their peers. The five Non-Board Certified teachers demonstrated a variety of opinions on social interaction. Two provided opportunities similar to the NBCTs. Three restricted student discussion and interaction despite the fact that one had stated she realized the need for students to be social.
Cognitive practices emphasizing higher order thinking skills were evident in all five NBCTs’ classrooms. Each had planned activities that required her students to think and not respond with rote memory information. Only one of the Non-Board Certified teachers provided this type activity for her students. Three teachers did use some higher order questions, but without any consistency, and one only provided minimal opportunities for students to think for themselves.
While all 10 teachers used the most basic developmental practice of keeping lessons short in their classrooms, only six of them demonstrated an understanding of developmentally appropriate instruction. All five NBCTs demonstrated this understanding, but only one of them included a focus on differentiated work for individual students. One of the Non-Board Certified teachers demonstrated an understanding equal to the NBCTs’ understanding using similar techniques while two showed some understanding. Two of them only had short lessons as evidence of developmentally appropriate practices.
A challenging environment was only in evidence in three of the NBCTs’ classrooms where students had opportunities to investigate beyond the Content Standards. All five placed an emphasis on student responsibility as did all five of the Non-Board Certified teachers. There was no evidence of intellectual challenge in the classrooms of the non-certified teachers.
Best practices with minor differences. A minor difference was evident in the practices of expressive and collaborative instruction. Although only one teacher expressed the need for students to have opportunities for expression in a variety of ways, the practice was evident in nine of the 10 classrooms. All five NBCTS incorporated expressive practices into classroom activities on a daily basis. Four of the Non-Board Certified teachers also provided opportunities with three of them doing it consistently and one occasionally.
Seven teachers said that collaborative practices were important in their classrooms, but only three teachers, two NBCTs and one Non-Board Certified, demonstrated practices that fit a strict interpretation of collaboration. Three other NBCTs and two other Non-Board Certified teachers incorporated limited collaborative practices into their instruction.
Best practices with negligible differences. There was little clear difference in democratic and constructivist practices in the 10 classrooms. A democratic classroom involves students in making choices and showing respect and all 10 teachers stressed the importance of respect for self and others in their classrooms. Student choice was evident in nine of the rooms on a consistent basis absent in one Non-Board Certified teacher’s room. Two NBCTs allowed student input when developing classroom rules and one Non-Board Certified teacher developed the rules but allowed students to comment on them. All other classrooms had teacher developed rules with no student input.
Active engagement was evident in all five NBCTs’ classrooms and in three of the Non-Board Certified teachers’ classrooms; however, actual construction of knowledge or application of knowledge to a new situation was not apparent in any classroom. Three teachers, two NBCTs and one Non-Board Certified teacher, demonstrated a better understanding of constructivism, but were still in control of content and activities.
Emergent themes. Emergent themes were based on topics that emerged from the analysis of the descriptive narratives and included scaffolding, research, teacher reflection, modeling, and physical setting. Scaffolding used as an individual or small group accommodation for students was apparent in the five NBCTs’ classrooms. It was not evident in the Non-Board Certified teachers’ classrooms. Students received similar help regardless of ability or need.
There was a difference between the groups in respect to the role of research in their classroom decisions. Three NBCTs and two Non-Board Certified teachers considered research as an influence on their teaching practices. However, all five NBCTs were using practices based upon research while only two of the Non-Board Certified teachers actually used the practices they referred to during interviews.
Teacher reflection played a role in the teaching practices of three of the NBCTs and none of the Non-Board Certified teachers. Each of the NBCTs mentioned that reflection was emphasized in the certification process. The teachers who had not gone through the process did not refer to teacher reflection.
Teacher modeling was evident in four of the NBCTs’ classrooms on a regular basis. Only two of the Non-Board Certified teachers consistently used modeling as an instructional strategy.
There was only a small difference in the physical setting of the classrooms which included placement of student and teacher desks and greeting students each morning. One teacher placed students in groups because she was told to do so and one teacher did not use groups at all. In three of the Non-Board Certified classrooms the teachers’ desks appeared to be the focus of activity.
Is National Board Certification indicative of a highly qualified teacher as demonstrated by their classroom practices?
Analysis of the data showed that NBCTs used the 13 best practices consistently in their classrooms. They also used modeling, personal reflection and scaffolding as instructional strategies. The data confirms that National Board Certified Teachers used research-based practices indicative of highly qualified teachers. They put theory into practice in their classrooms.
Implications
Professional development is a requirement for every teacher in public schools across the country and the National Board Certification process is intended to be a form of professional development for teachers. This study has shown that it was indeed a path for professional growth and development for five teachers in West Virginia. However, one of the non-certified teachers had pursued several opportunities for professional development through her county system and demonstrated consistent evidence of nine of the 13 practices and evidence of the other four. This was only slightly less than the five NBCTs in the study. This implies that professional development on these 13 best practices could be offered in a different manner. Bullough, Burbank, Gess-Newsome, Kaucheck, and Kennedy (1998) presented a similar argument in their research stating that if the NBPTS certification process is for professional development then there are less expensive ways of doing it.
This professional development would require the support of the administrations in each county especially in leading personnel to an awareness of the best practices prior to offering them as professional development. Counties need information on the National Board process, the embedded practices in each standard, and the research on best practices for effective teachers. Once awareness is ascertained the counties can proceed with plans for professional development that would provide teachers with the information to be effective teachers who know, understand and use these best practices.
This leads to the proposed legislation in West Virginia that would allow professional development in lieu of semester hours for certificate renewal. If West Virginia is going to replace semester hours with professional development it must be on a level equal to that of the National Board Certification process to produce effective teachers. A professional development program based upon the embedded practices of the NBPTS Standards and the research by Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (1998) would provide teachers with research based practices to use in their classrooms and assist in developing more highly qualified and effective teachers. Once again, this can only occur if the administrations in each county are willing to provide the time and money necessary for teachers to internalize these practices. Then it will require follow-up with observations to see that the practices are being implemented and further opportunities to reflect and review how the practices are working in the classrooms.
As the latest in a long line of educational reform movements, No Child Left Behind legislation has affected all areas of the education process. One of the main elements of this legislation is the assurance that there will be a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Teachers who achieve certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards automatically meet the definition of highly qualified as defined by state guidelines. This study highlighted the differences between teachers with the certification and those without and with only one exception, it demonstrated that satisfactory evaluations were not the equivalent of National Board Certification for the designation of a highly qualified teacher. This study provided evidence that NBCTs are highly qualified. The evidence provided for teachers without the certification leads to the question of whether or not they are actually highly qualified or only judged so due to the minimal definition West Virginia and other states use under the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation or HOUSSE plan. This definition of highly qualified needs to be revisited by West Virginia and other states so that teachers earn the designation of highly qualified through evidence of their classroom practices.
This study has implications for teacher education programs as well. The extensive research completed by Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (1998) in developing a list of best practices and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the creation of their standards and embedded practices should be utilized in teacher education programs. If the goal is to have highly qualified teachers and these are the practices that are most effective in the classroom, and National Board Certified Teachers use these practices more consistently than do others, then it follows that new teachers should understand and be able to use these practices in their classrooms. It is the responsibility of teacher education institutions to provide the knowledge and importance of these best practices in their teacher education programs. Alignment of the NBPTS Standards and best practices with the requirements of the teacher education program would benefit all students.
References
Archer, J. (1998). Students’ fortunes rest with assigned teacher. Education Week, 17(23), 3.
Ashton, P., & Crocker, L. (1987, May-June). Systematic study of planned variations: The essential focus of teacher education
reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 2-8.
Berends, M. (2004). In the wake of A Nation at Risk: New American schools’ private sector school reform initiative.
Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 130-163.
Berg, J.H. (2003). Improving the quality of teaching through National Board Certification: Theory into practice. Norwood, MA:
Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Bond, L., Smith, T.W., & Baker, W.K. (2000). Construct validity study of the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 449144)
Bullough, Jr., R.V., Burbank, M., Gess-Newsome, J., Kauchak, D., & Kennedy, C. (1998). “What matters most: Teaching for America’s future?” A faculty response to the report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(1), 7-32.
Busatto, S. (2004). What’s making the difference in achieving outstanding primary school learning outcomes in numeracy?
Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 9(4), 24-26.
Crawford, S., Hjelm, B., & Mohor, A. (2003). Will National Board Certification of physical educators improve the quality of
teaching? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 74 (2), 18-20.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). School reform at the crossroads: Confronting the central issues of teaching. Educational Policy,
11(2), 151-166.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study
of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
DeLeon, A.G. (2003). After 20 years of educational reform, progress, but plenty of unfinished business. Carnegie Results, 1(3).
Retrieved from http://www.carnegie.org/results/03/index.html
Evertson, C., Hawley, W., & Zlotnik, M. (1985). Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 2-12.
Fallon, D. (2003, November). The critical value of instruction: Teachers for a new era. Paper presented at the Education
Commission of the States, Fall Steering Committee Meeting, Richmond, VA.
Fenstermacher, G.D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record,
107(1), 186-213.
Fullan, M., & Rolheiser, C. (2002, June). Breaking through change barriers. Retrieved April 8, 2004, from
http://www.cdl.org/resources/reading_room/print/compare_best.html
Goldhaber, D. (2002, spring). The mystery of good teaching [Electronic Version]. Education Next. Retrieved August 25, 2004,
from http://www.educationnext.org/20021/50.html
Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? Retrieved August 25, 2004, from
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410958
Hamsa, I.S. (1998). The role of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Education, 118(3), 452-459.
Harman, A.E. (2001). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ National Teaching Certification. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED460126)
Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Good teaching matters. Thinking K -16 [Electronic Version], 3(2). Retrieved September 23, 2004,
from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdon/yres/0279CB4F-B729-4260-AB6E-359FD3C374A7/0/k16_summer98.pdf
Helms, R.G. (2001). NBPTS: The highest form of certification. Kappa Delti Pi Record, 38(1), 20-23.
Hill D. (1990). What has the 1980s reform movement accomplished? Education Digest, 55(6), 3-6.
Kimball, S.M. (2001). Innovations in teacher evaluation: Case studies of two school districts with teacher evaluation systems
based on the framework for teaching. Pro Quest Company, AWB,K4915748. (UMI No. 3033269).
Mendro, R., & Bembry, K. (2000, April). School evaluation: A change in perspective. Paper presented at the Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Minner, S. (2001). Our own worst enemy. Education Week, 20(38), 33.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2000). About National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Retrieved September 7, 2004, from http://www.nbpts.org/about/coreprops.cfm
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). Moving education forward through National Board Certification
[Brochure]. Arlington, VA.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2004). Questions and answers about National Board Certification.
Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www.nbpts.org/events/qabrochure.cfm
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). Why America needs National Board Certified Teachers.
Retrieved September 7, 2004, from http://www.nbpts.org/edreform/why.cfm
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.
Retrieved November 17, 2004, from http://www.nctaf.org/article/?c=4&sc=42
Podgursky, M. (2001). Defrocking the National Board. Education Next, 2, 79-82.
Sclafani, S. (2002). No child left behind. Issues in Science and Technology, 19(2), 43-47.
Stronge, J.H. (Ed.). (1997). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Publications, Inc.
Toch, T., & Daniel, M. (1996). Schools that work. U.S. News and World Report, 121(14), 58-64.
United States Department of Education. (2002). Strategic Plan. Washington, DC.
Vandervoort, L.G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D.C. (2004). National Board Certified teachers and their students’
achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46). Retrieved November 3, 2004, from
http://epaa.asy.edu/epaa/v12n46/
Walberg, H.J., & Paik, S.J. (2004). Effective general practices. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student
achievement (3rd ed., pp. 25-38). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5202. (2002). Highly Qualified Teacher.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practices: New standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. |
