This commentary is in response to Thirunarayanan’s (2004) misleading and alarmist commentary recently published by Teachers College Record.  Accusing the National Board process of being “a billion dollar hoax,” the author succeeds not in deconstructing the National Board as intended, but rather, in illustrating that elitism and condescension are alive and well at the university level.

 

Clearly, Thirunarayanan has never before worked with National Board candidates.  If he had, he would never have written such a dangerous piece, with opinions masked as evidence.  Evidence.  This is the cornerstone of the National Board process.  While it is true that the National Board standards do address teaching and learning issues that all teachers – including entry level teachers – should strive to include in their pedagogy, it is National Board teachers who must prove with a significant amount of evidence that they are highly accomplished in these standards.

 

THE AUTHOR’S CRITICISMS ARE “BELOW STANDARD”

 

Thirunarayanan’s own commentary – published in a highly respected journal – would not pass the National Board standards.  For example, Thirunarayanan says he “will provide evidence to show that despite claims to the contrary, [the National Board standards] are closer to entry level standards for teachers” and that National Board certified teachers are undeserving of any benefits they receive for achieving certification.  However, these platitudes are never backed up with clear and convincing evidence.  To his first point that the standards are low-level, Thirunarayanan never mentions how candidate portfolios are assessed and that candidates need to provide extensive documentation (through narrative and artifacts) that they have reached these standards at a highly accomplished level.  In essence, Thirunarayanan criticizes the National Board assessment process without mentioning it – weak evidence.  Further, comments like “I am sure that a closer look at other content areas will reveal similar low content standards” would never pass through the first draft of a National Board candidate’s portfolio.  National Board candidates can’t be “sure” of their impact on student learning – they must prove it.

 

There is even less evidence for Thirunarayanan’s second point – that National Board certified teachers are undeserving of any increase in pay or other career advancement opportunities.  To prove this in a clear and convincing way, Thirunarayanan would need to provide evidence that National Board certified teachers are no better than other teachers in taking on leadership roles, communicating with parents, seeking out teacher learning opportunities, engaging students of a wide range of abilities and needs, integrating curriculum, assessing in formative ways, and overall, positively impacting student learning.  There is no evidence for any of these inferences.  The claim that National Board certified teachers are undeserving is entirely unsubstantiated.

 

LAVISH LIVING?

 

I work with teachers seeking National Board certification and with National Board certified teachers.  There is nothing “lavish” about their lifestyle, and “humongous pay raises” are not the primary incentive.  In fact, in some states, there is no pay raise.  In my state of Washington, the legislature has set aside an additional $3,500 per year for National Board certified teachers.  But teachers know this money must be approved every year by the legislature and that it might not be there the next.  In any case, there is nothing lavish about an additional $3,500 per year to do the tough work of teaching at a high level amidst conflicting and competing demands from parents, administrators, districts, and federal and state governments.

 

No, there is nothing glamorous or lavish about K-12 teaching as an enterprise – but National Board certified teachers have proved that they persevere through multiple obstacles and constraints to make their schools and classrooms better places for students.  In a process that lasts one to three years (depending on the National Board candidate) these teachers systematically document their impact on student learning.  To prove they are accomplished teachers, they include student work samples, classroom artifacts, correspondences with parents, verification from administrators, and two 15-minute video clips.  These are compiled in four portfolios, which correspond to the different standards for the many levels and subjects teachers teach.

 

These performance-based portfolios are then assessed by a national panel of trained assessors.  The evidence for accomplished teaching must be “clear, consistent, and convincing.”  The “grade” teachers receive on these portfolios makes up 60% of their overall National Board score.  The remaining 40% is from timed tests National Board  candidates take at assessment centers, measuring their knowledge of content and pedagogy.  More than half of all teachers who go through the certification process do not certify on their first attempt.

 

ULTIMATELY, AN ACADEMIA BIAS

 

At the end of Thirunarayanan’s commentary, we see the motivating force behind the deceptive accusations: an academia bias.  This is not to be confused with an “academic bias,” which would suggest a proclivity towards the scholarly.  There is no way Thirunarayanan could base his commentary on academic bias, because the pursuits of National Board candidates are quite scholarly – involving intellectual investigation into the practice and impact of various teaching approaches on diverse student learners.  No, Thirunarayanan is guilty of old-fashioned academia-bias against teachers.

 

Thirunarayanan concludes that the “minimum” national standards for teachers should consist of: an earned doctorate, scholarly publications in education journals, and scholarly publications in content-specific journals.  In essence, Thirunarayanan is asking for company in academia where these are common criteria to be hired by the majority of university schools of education – for a tenure-track position.

 

Why would someone want K-12 teachers to hold the same educational capital and credentials as academics?  A doctorate most certainly does not indicate that one is a better teacher.  The process of publishing in a scholarly journal is one very different from engaging ninth graders in Romeo and Juliet, or integrating math and science seamlessly in a second grade classroom. 

 

Thirunarayanan’s bile seems to be centered on the issue of money.  He claims that school districts “spend a lot of money,” including those in his state of Florida which has “appropriated $69 million” for National Board certified teachers in “humongous pay raises.”  But Thirunarayanan makes these accusations from the perch of a university where as an Associate Professor he makes top-dollar statewide (Fogg, 2003).  If we follow the author’s argument of demanding return on investment dollars, the taxpayers of Florida might ask for clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of how Thirunarayanan’s research in science education has impacted the practice of teachers and K-12 students.  And they might do a dollar-for-dollar comparison of Thirunarayanan’s work and, say, a National Board certified teacher teaching eighth grade science in Miami, comparing teaching accomplishments and impact on students.

 

Thirunarayanan’s essay conjures up culturally-embedded stereotypes of teachers as lazy, weak-minded and un-professional.  But like many stereotypes, these images of teachers are based in ignorance of reality and experience.

 

CONCLUSION: NO NATIONAL STANDARD IS PERFECT

 

In refuting Thirunarayanan’s claims, I do not mean to infer that the National Board process is flawless.  Through my work with two cohorts of teachers seeking National Board certification, I have several concerns, such as what gets counted as “evidence” and whether assessor-bias can really be eradicated during assessor-training.

 

But these concerns are not unusual for a new, performance-based assessment system, and the benefits of the National Board process far outweigh the drawbacks.  Whether teachers certify or not, the process of systematically collecting evidence of impact on student learning in and of itself often furthers teacher development.  If accomplished teachers can then demonstrate that they have developed the repertoire of approaches and dispositions towards students at a higher level than most, then I contend that they deserve an “incentive” or two: a couple of thousand dollars more, opportunities to mentor other teachers, the option to teach in a different state, a chance to celebrate their hard work.

 

Many a dissertation has sat on a shelf, marking nothing more than a hard copy of a doctoral degree.  It is the rare scholarly journal article that finds its implications for practice actually manifested at the school and classroom level.  Let us not disparage, then, but celebrate the work of teachers who meet daily the complex challenges of promoting student learning in today’s world.  And let us formally praise the most accomplished among them, through such ambitious processes as the National Board.

 

REFERENCES

 

Fogg, Piper.  (2003, April 18).  Faculty pay inches upward.  The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(32), A14.  Database, Table of Salaries at Institutions in Florida.  Available online at:  http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i32/32a01401.htm

 

Thirunarayanan, M.O.  (2004).  National Board certification for teachers: A billion dollar hoax.  Teachers College Record. Available on line at: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11266