Effects of National Board for Professional Teaching, Dissertation Example

Review of Related Literature

It was in 1986 when the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy saw a need to create a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The primary vision for this NBPTS was so that teachers who are certified by the board could be instruments to take a step forward and become promoters of what was believed to be teaching expertise. Since the 1980s, teaching standards and the American culture has changed drastically. Though there is significantly growing evidence that the quality of teaching does play a central role in determining general student achievement, measuring the quality of individual teachers and rewarding them according to standards of superiority as determined by the board is quite difficult. The process of this certification includes teachers to pass certain tests to measure their teaching skills and determine if they have what it takes to be able to teach effectively. There is very little, or hardly any, empirical evidence that directly states any of these regulations can effectively determine which teachers are high quality educators. In addition to this, there is an interest in the study of measuring the quality of existing teachers, weather from low-income environments or not, to develop a pay system that can link the teacher’s compensation to their performance.

The heated debate whether teacher quality can be measured has been traced back since the genesis of the NBPTS and this can be seen linking both education and the economy. Federal funds are being used for these certifications, yet the money spent has not proven its worth. This literature review aims to collaborate previous studies relating student achievement and teachers who are NBPTS certified. There are no significant correlations seen between student achievement within classrooms who are taught by NBPTS certified teachers. There are a number of quantitative studies that examined specific institutions and have used data collection and data analysis techniques to determine teacher effectiveness. There are numerous teacher studies that have been drawn from varying quality and sizes. From these non-linear correlations, variable categories can be determined and effectively track student performance and its relationship with results in individual teachers. The data being observed includes standardized tests which are being used as precursors to judge the NBPTS.

There are a lot of factors to consider when desiring to measure teacher effectiveness and student achievement. The educational organization or institution should also go under scrutiny, determining if working conditions are satisfactory. Students also play a role in this measurement, as not all students are equal in terms of achievement. This research takes in to consideration classrooms that value inclusion for students who might have special needs and also students from low-income environments. A number of arguments have been expressed over the years in favor of deregulating teaching. This argument claims that the teacher certification system is broken and the requirements that are imposed are highly burdensome.

“States should insist on subject knowledge but otherwise open up entry into teaching. Let the market generate both quality and quantity. Decentralize personnel decisions to individual schools and empower them to pay teachers what they’re worth. Then hold schools accountable for their results, with teacher performance judged by what students learn.”(Qtd. Finn, 1999).

This problem has become even more relevant as the US’s economy has begun to suffer. Just a few weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans were in gridlock, as Republicans refused to allow the Democrats to raise America’s debt ceiling without making any cuts to spending. Now that the Democrats have agreed to make spending cuts, programs that cannot prove themselves worthwhile may be cut or eliminated.

States are facing similar budget decisions. Indeed, in 2008, Kitty J. Boitnott, President of the Virginia Education Association, warned that Virginia’s governor had to make difficult decisions in sparing elementary and secondary school from budget cuts. But, she said, the association had been warned that the programs might be “on the chopping block” in the next two years (Boitnott, 2008).  States like Colorado, which have balanced budget amendments, cannot afford to invest in new programs unless they cut some of their current programs. If providing funds for NBPTS is an effective way to meet educational goals, then it might be well worth investing in. However, if it is not, States like Colorado might want to consider investing in alternatives instead.

Both federal and state governments, then, are facing tough choices when it comes to budget cuts. Many are feeling increased pressure non-essential programs. The State of New Hampshire, for instance, is among the states which are already cutting their education budgets. According to the AP’s Kathy McCormack:

“The state budget cut aid to the university system almost in half, resulting in higher tuition and layoffs.”

Other states, including Texas have to cut their budgets as well. According to Rita Haecker:

“As Texas children begin a new school year this month, some teachers who greeted them last year will be missing, victims of the deep budget cuts that our state leadership has inflicted on the public schools.” (Haecker, 2011)

But even as some are considering spending cuts, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan suggested that America begin following the example of nations that perform better academically, and recruit teachers from the “top thirds of their college classes.” Duncan’s idea would require a good deal of funding. Average starting salaries for teachers, in Duncan’s plan, would have to be raised from $30,000 a year to $60,000. Yet, some argued that such an expense would be prohibitive. The modest salary increases included in the NBPTS pale in comparison to these proposals and might be more palatable in light of them.

On the other hand, if National Board Certification does, indeed, produce more qualified teachers and the program were to be cut because of a lack of justification, great harm might be done to students and schools. If, on the other hand, the difference between NBCTs and non-NBCTs is only negligible, then it might be wise for the government to consider cutting its funding for certification. This is especially true when states are considering layoffs and tuition hikes, funding for programs that may or may not be effective, the livelihoods of those who are already employed should probably come first. Furthermore, if state and federal funds are to be used for such a program, it becomes more imperative to make sure that the program works. If the state and federal governments cut funds from certification programs, they will have more money to spend on other programs.

Indeed, the Oklahoma State Board of Education recently cut funding for National Board of Professional Teaching Standards stipends, drawing criticism from community members who believed that NBPTS certified teachers helped students make more academic gains than non-board-certified teachers. Yet teachers who still wish to opt into the program can still do so at their own expense. (Hampton, 2011)

On the other hand, teachers who are putting themselves through college are often pressed for cash.  McCormack quotes one student as saying:

“I’ve got to come up with extra money for college when it was a struggle before that.” (McCormack, 2011) Other students are not quite so passive.

The Daily Texan, for instance, reports that students have begun protesting against budget cuts. Indeed, it writes the following:

“We’ve been against all budget cuts on campus because we don’t have to take this,” Villaseñor said. “The Legislature has continued to reduce our funding, and students are the ones who have to pay the costs with higher tuition.” (Torrey, 2011)

Taking away federal and state funding incentives is likely to stir up students and community members such as these. Yet, perhaps the greater harm is that it might dramatically decrease the number of certified teachers practicing in the public school system.

Another consideration states have to make when considering whether or not they ought to continue to fund programs such as NBTPS stipends is how such a move will affect them competitively. If teachers with NBTPS certifications consistently perform better and help students score more highly on tests, then a state that sponsors certification programs may end up being more competitive than a state that does not. If NBTPS certifications lead to increased achievement, states may want to think twice about discontinuing them while their rivals continue to invest in such programs.

Furthermore, parents are beginning to look more toward private schools for their children’s education when they become disappointed with federal schools. One of the reason parents sometimes value private school is that private schools often offer high quality teachers who give children personalized instructions. If NBTPS certification helps promote a higher quality of learning, then it might give public school teachers an edge over private competition as well.

At the same time, teachers in some areas are becoming discouraged. Indeed, Chicago radio station WBEZ 91.5 says the following:

“As students prepare to begin another school year, their teachers are hopping mad. They’re facing layoffs and deep budget cuts and many say they’re tired of being blamed unfairly for just about everything that’s wrong in public education. They’re so mad that many are bypassing their unions and mounting a campaign of their own to restore the public’s faith in their profession.” (Sanchez, 2011)

Even some Hollywood celebrities have noticed the blight of teachers. Matt Damon, for instance, campaigning against today’s education reform, said the following:

“I don’t know where I would be today if my teachers’ job security was based on how I performed on some standardized test. If their very survival as teachers was based [not] on whether I actually fell in love with the process of learning, but rather if I could fill in the right bubble on a test.”

National board certifications can help with this problem in two ways. First, because they reward teachers for excellence and celebrate teacher accomplishments, rather than adding to the “beating down” of educational professionals. Second, NBPTS focuses on professional development, rather than simply on test bubbles.

Furthermore, some young people who would like to serve as teachers have begun eyeing the profession with worry. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “Many bright and committed young people are attracted to teaching, but surveys show they are reluctant to enter the field for the long-haul. They see it as low-paying and low-prestige.” (Ni, 2011) The financial incentives provided by NBPTS certification might help keep young people interested in teaching as a profession when they would otherwise shy away from it. On the other hand, because certification has become so popular and unemployment is so high, allowing so many teachers to earn certification may dilute its value.

Because of these and other factors, it is extremely important for principals, administrators and teachers to know exactly how much of a difference board certification makes.  There are sometimes added costs to certification that go beyond the original $2,500. For instance, in Miami-Dade county, The United Teachers of Dade, the National Board of Certified Teachers of Miami-Dade, The Education Fund and United Healthcare sponsored a banquet at the Radisson, in honor of those who earned their certificates. Furthermore, in Miami-Dade, certified teachers earn annual salary bonuses worth up to 10% of their salaries. (Targeted News Service, 2007).

Furthermore, if certification is not as effective as many states hope, principals and administrators ought to be aware of its failures, so that they can be sure to invest energy in measures that do work. On the other hand, if certification does prove to improve student achievement, schools might want to put up more of a fight against spending cuts. Principals and administrators ought to know exactly how effective certification is, so that they can invest time and energy in such certifications, if, indeed, they lead to progress and achievement.

Progression of Technology

When it comes to student achievement, there are certain variables to consider. Because of the new age world we live in, technology is something that we cannot ignore. This is something that takes its place everywhere from education to medicine. The NBPTS has only recently acknowledged the need to boost teacher competency in terms of technology and integrating it to education. This is something that could greatly affect student achievement or underachievement. Additionally, classrooms that do not have access to these new technologies may not have equal opportunities as those who are. Furthermore, teachers who were certified in the past who are not too familiar with modern gadgets or new developed mediums to teach might be hindering their students from advancing in the world of education through technology.

Technology progression affected and changed civilization and culture for the entire universe. In accumulation, the minority of individuals would dispute the consciousness that technology has eased individuals’ workloads and the resource is critical to achievement in any organization. Experts anticipate that by Year 2010, all occupations will involve the use of computers on a daily basis (Robyler, 2003). We have surpassed that year, and the achievement of academic institutions would rely on such technology and its availability. Even though not all occupations to date involve computer based technology, it does not mean that technology is not moving at a lightning speed. This fast-paced technology is ideally designed to ease the workload of people, and for organizations and individuals to be more productive, by making tasks simpler and a click-of-the-button-away.

Federal and state programs, in addition to matching grant organizations, have invested thousands of dollars to equip the site school with the necessary resources to prepare both students and educators for the digital age. This is because technology integrated learning environments are supposed to enhance the learning experience in many ways and it is recognized by the federal and state educational systems.

Despite these resources, it was reported in a National Study of School Evaluation (2006) survey that, on average, only 5% of faculty were comfortable with technology. These numbers indicated a discontinuity between the acquisition and use of new classroom technology. Most organizations trained their staff on the use of new technology. However, many times, this training was ineffective (Trucano, 2005).

These ineffective results are consistent with the situation in the targeted elementary school, according to interviews with the county coordinator of technology services, the local school technology coordinator, and cadre. Although best efforts had been made to provide equipment and to train educators, there was a general consensus in the technology cadre that the current system did not have an effectiveness measure.

The development of citizens who are prepared to be active and engaged in their communities, both local and global, and the development of individuals who have a strong sense of their personal identity are significant goals in education (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Technology would make these goals easier as well as faster to reach. With the ease of communication through the internet, people globally are more connected and can interact, transact and communicate much easier, no matter where they are in the globe.

Organizations that are aware of the developments of technology and how it is coming about in a fast-paced manner will be terrified by the whole idea of the accelerated growth in this aspect, fearing that they will not be able to keep up with the times; however, they are more likely to succeed than those who remain blind to the subject and have not accepted that technology will be continuing its rapid development (More, 2001).

Because school administrators and the Local Education Agency know the actual value of the changes and accompanying professional development that they introduce, they must ensure that an effective, efficient evaluation program is in place Tenbusch (2002) reported that preparing technology-proficient educators to meet the requirements for teaching students in the 21st century is a critical challenge to the nation’s academic institutions.

Technology Integration

Any school’s long-term survival depends on the achievement of mission goals, one of which is to encourage learning that is relevant and authentic through the use of technology (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). A school that fails to meet its goals risks being placed on academic deficiency lists, and losing its funding and other reprisals. It is, therefore, important for school administrators to ensure that staff and faculty are well equipped and well trained to perform their tasks and contribute to the educational goals of the organization (Laird, Holton, & Naquin, 2000). There are certain problems within schools when it comes to the integration of technology. Usually, this problem goes hand-in-hand with any staff’s inexperience with new technology (Chia-jung Maigo & Mei-yan, 2010). Computers (Archer, 2000; Kulik, 2002; Waxman, Connell, & Gray, 2002) can raise student achievement and even improve a school’s climate. To be able for this to succeed, there is a need for teachers to be competent in teaching with the use of new technological developments.

According to Jacobsen (2002), classroom teachers are at forehand to student success with technology usage. It is of urgency that teachers are knowledgeable of technology and are provided with ongoing professional development (Quinney, Smith & Galbraith, 2010). Students come and students go and these teachers are responsible for educating all generations of students (Fulton, 2003).

“What is most critical for the integration of technology into a classroom environment for the purposes of better educating students and equipping them with needed insights for their academic and professional careers is a fundamental redefinition of the role and mindset of the teacher” (Evripiotis & Orfanos, 2010).

Technology integration is something that the NBPTS has only recently considered. Just this year, there was a conference regarding technology and the multitude of approaches using tools to help educate children of the 21^st Century.

The teacher or instructor should be readily equipped with the right knowledge and teaching equipment to prepare them for integrating technology in to the classroom. If a teacher or instructor is not open to the idea of technology being used in the classroom to better the learning environment, progression in this area may become stagnant. Each teacher has a personal and unique teaching style, and, in integrating technologies into a classroom, their needs to be room enough in the delivery of technologies to allow for these core strengths of teachers to come through (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000). Teachers need to be able to prepare themselves adequately for the new teaching styles and methods for technology to be properly accepted in the classroom. Clearly technology for technology’s sake is not the answer but, taking a process-centric view to ways that technologies could be used to strengthen a teacher’s teaching style, was needed (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000). There may be resistance towards teacher’s attitudes with schools using technology for instruction, and it is not only in age or generational divide. Most teachers would have to re-learn some teaching methods to be able to keep up themselves with technology, and it would require them to adjust to some styles in giving instruction. For those who are more comfortable with the less new-aged approach in teaching, this would create a difficult transaction.

Technological development does not necessarily work for all faculties because they do not understand how to use the technology. Without a vision of what technology can do for teachers by making their job easier, faculty cited time constraints and the lack of training as the reasons they resisted technology. Ironically, the availability of high-quality training can interfere with an effective technology usage program because simply having more and better technology does not guarantee the best technology program. What does make such a program is the ability to provide intensive training for the teachers (Brooks, 2000).

Education for the 21st century comes with it a multitude of new problems; as well as “new innovation, new debates, new political advocates, and new scientific and pedagogical developments. One very important issue is sure to be that of curriculum innovation in learning and technology with respect to teacher attitudes.” (Qtd. Dyche, 2002).

However, before there can exist any intelligent discussion with regard to this issue, one must first garner an understanding as to what constitutes being a teacher in the 21st century as well as the importance of cultural diversity and cultural responsive teaching. Only then can one truly appreciate the coming innovative learning and technology advancement and its impact of and upon teacher attitudes (Dyche, 2002).

Professional Commitment

To assume the professional role of being a competent and culturally responsive teacher in computer-assisted learning, the individual must have a well-defined technology teaching commitment. That commitment is best described in terms of the following principles that encourage responsive teaching in terms of being a technological renaissance educator (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). The first principle is the teacher is the learning facilitator and guide. Second, student-centered hands-on cyber learning exceed rote instruction. Third, instruction is culturally mediated. Fourth, reshaping the curriculum with technology is essential to include all new pedagogical developments. Fifth, diverse communication technological systems must be augmented and mastered. And, finally, positive attitudes toward change, technology, and learning must be present all times and encouraged.

Most of the teachers used computers exclusively for record keeping and not for teaching. According to Solmon and Wiederhorn (2000), the typical teacher skill level in technology in the classroom in the state is 0.9%. The percent of teacher skill level is rated at 4% or 5% on a scale, in which 1% is beginner and 5% is advanced (Solomon & Wiederhorn). The teachers in this state rank below average in using technology in the classroom.

Educators must take a decisive step in permeating technology into the schools as well as their determination for student success.

“As a classroom tool, the computer has captured the attention of the education community” (Bauer & Kenton, 2005).

This versatile instrument can store, manipulate, and retrieve information, and has the capability of engaging students in instructional activities to increase their learning and of helping them solve complex problems to enhance their cognitive skills (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Russell, 2005). The use of technology in the classroom provides students with higher achievement scores and a more competitive venue in the ever-changing global arena. The intent of this study was to increase the faculty’s and staff’s usage of technology in a manner that in turn would maximize student use and, consequently, lead to higher student achievement.

Various studies conducted by administrators in this elementary school revealed that the staff was not well trained to use these tools. Most of the faculty and staff simply were not computer literate. This situation concerned the administration because, without a certain degree of familiarity with these tools, teachers were not able to provide the same level of services as provided by the teaching staff of better-equipped schools Quinney, Smith & Galbraith, 2010). With the rise in demand and implementation comes an increase in the need to evaluate the effectiveness of technology in education (Owston, 2001).

As education proceeds into the 21st century, new challenges and problems are coming to the scene that will affect both the student and the teacher. With new forms of technology rapidly being developed, there exists the possibility that new information delivery systems will supercede the capability of the teacher to deliver timely and relevant information to students; there is also danger of students being unable to integrate all that has been immediately conveyed by technological delivery systems (Quinney, Smith & Galbraith, 2010). In an attempt to understand the magnitude of this issue, there was a significant need to research the effective use of technology in the classroom as to its worth from the perspective of both teacher and student (Cornell, et. al, 2011)

Cornell, Eining and Jen-Hwa (2011) have exalted the benefits of new technology in helping teachers teach and students learn (Kereluik, Mishira & Koehlr, 2011). For the teacher, technological advances have increased the amount of available learning resource support, empowered the teacher to facilitate learning at a higher rate of speed, and assisted the teacher in organizing and developing of learning materials. With advances in technology, the teacher has been placed in a milieu that now fosters innovation, creativity, and spontaneity. For the student, the benefits are immense as well.

Teaching mechanisms that are digital by design and used for teaching or learning are only as good as the person who uses them. Machines should never replace the human element that must accompany problem-solving experiences or the presentation of new information. The technological geniuses of the digital world have yet to confer on a computer a human soul.

For this to become successful within schools, and boost student achievement, teachers should be committed to learn about new technologies offered and integrate these in their teaching methods. It has been proven that student achievements are seen in classrooms that utilize technology in their curriculums. This is because students are more inclined to learn where computers and the like are present. Teaching, as well as technology, is ever-changing. Unfortunately, the Board has only recently taken action regarding this issue. If student achievement is needed to be linked to the NBPTS, then the NBPTS should very well make more of an effort integrating technology in their certification programs.

Children With Special Needs and Classroom Inclusion

Children with special needs are present in the American education system. These children require teachers who are more capable of teaching to them according to their needs. Because of inclusion, children with special needs are allowed in to the same classrooms as regular students. Taking this in to consideration, student achievement within classrooms that observe inclusion are not in the same field. Inclusion does not cover only children with special education needs. It is a universal right of every human being, irrespective of their gender, sex, race, disability, medical needs and any other condition that affects their ability to be completely integrated into society.  It focuses on giving people equal access to education and other opportunities that are available for them to make use of in their communities.  It stands clearly against discrimination and can help children and adults alike improve their confidence and lifestyle by enforcing an early and optimal integration into the educational system as well as the community (Devon County Council, N.d).

In order for inclusion to be successful, Scott et al. (1998) argue that there’s a need to implement planned and structured preparatory approaches. Scott et al. (1998) also suggested that when the necessary systems of support are in place, teachers become more inclined to make the adaptations they need to make to ensure students achieve their learning outcomes. Given this, teachers should be made more aware of this type of curriculum, being equipped with more skills and abilities to be able to cater to the needs of children with special needs.

Research also reveal that in order to arrive at a successful model of inclusion, school head teachers, special education directors, parents and members of the community must come together and work towards the uniform goal of equality within the classrooms (Walther-Thomas, 1997). Walther-Thomas (1997) argues that forming a team of teachers from different disciplines promotes team working with the same students. The teams are thus equipped with the flexibility and independence they need to provide an effective learning environment for every student. Walther-Thomas (1997) also points out that Middle School Teachers agree that teaming offers them the best chances to improve student learning.

One of the nation’s most outstanding teachers, who specializes in high school science recounts (Finn, 1999):

“The [NBCT] process pushed me to teach special needs students in ways that I had not. The portfolio process pushed me to analyze and design lessons to help these students make progress. The video analysis of my teaching was an incredible and humbling tool. I learned how to more carefully rethink how I presented lessons and ask my students more powerful questions. I learned a great deal about differences in my teaching of chemistry in first and third periods. It was very dramatic — like night and day!”

Although, further research regarding the NBPTS and children with special needs is not firmly established, it is seen that there should be ways to encourage teachers to aim for a higher standard of teaching. There are certain gaps in education that should be filled, which is the responsibility of teachers. The Board should make a greater effort to see to it that these gaps are closed.

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs

The relationship of NBPTS certified teachers to low-income students is also worth considering. Currently, most NBPTS teachers teach outside high needs areas. According to Dagenhart et al., out of 252 respondents, only 23% of teachers in low income schools reported that they were board certified. This is relevant for two reasons. First, if NBCTs are more effective at teaching and at increasing student achievement, low-income schools will suffer if the majority of their teachers are not certified.

On the other hand, if few NBCTs work at low-income schools, then non-certified teachers must be administering low-income classes. This may account for the difference in student test scores, rather than the certification itself. If the cause of the differences in student performance actually has more to do with poverty than certification, it may have great impact on the current debate over certification and standards.

Advanced Placement (AP) Programs are designed to enhance talented individuals’ education (VanTassel-Baska, 2001). It is created as a pathway into promoting academic talent for students in high school. AP was developed in 1957 and was made for high school students to earn more credit towards college-level coursework (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009). The College Board creates a standardized curriculum to serve teachers as a guide in preparing students for the national AP examinations which occur once a year, during May. Colleges and Universities usually look favorably on students who have taken up AP programs (Klopfenstein, 2003a). AP course-taking has been speculated to result in early college success for those students involved in it. There has been great pressure over many students to take part in Advanced Placement Programs to increase their chances of admission in a college or university. According to Klopfenstein (2009) the College Board provides numerous studies concluding that passing AP exam scores is a strong indicator of college success.

The AP program has been increasing in students due to the competitiveness in college admissions (Klopfenstein, 2003a). However, even with this growth, minorities still face unequal opportunities in participating in AP Programs. Minorities remain underrepresented in AP programs (Ndura, et. al., 2003). This puts speculation on the underachievement of minorities. Studies have shown that Black and Hispanic students’ enrollment in AP classes are only at half the rate of white students (Klopfenstein, 2003b). The rates for enrolling in AP classes has increased by almost 400 per cent over the past two years for white students, yet remained alarmingly low for minority students. Schools of higher socio-economic levels are more accommodating to making their AP programs of higher standards for their students (Ndura, et al., 2003).

There have been large changes in terms of demographics in American cities. These changes include growing diversity and increasing numbers of immigrants. Unfortunately, these changes have created a significant impact on learning opportunities for students from urban environments (Kyberg, et al., 2007). Minorities face unequal opportunities as compared to white students. There have been studies showing that the educational system remains unequal due to the segregation of race and income (Kyberg, et al., 2007). These unequal educational opportunities come out as a “rich versus poor” issue. This has come to be of socio-economic reasons, relating to the status of the students’ parents (Ndura, et al., 2003). Because of the lack of resources and adequate number of staff, many minority children are alternatively taught by under-qualified teachers in smaller settings with an unequal students-teacher ratio (Kyberg, et al., 2007).  Because of the extensive rates in poverty among urban environments minorities have no choice but to part-take in high schools which are large in population and extremely impersonal.

Students from diverse cultural backgrounds, as compared to those students from socio-economically well-off schools experience a disadvantage and are very under-represented in Advanced Placement programs (Kyberg, 2007). There has been a link found in the underachievement of minority students and their economic status. Low-income students may be pressured to work and carry on familial responsibilities while attending school (Klopfenstein, 2003b). Besides lack of available courses and lack of preparation on the part of the school, students do not have the time nor the economic means to participate in the AP programs. Although there is no cost to participate in an Advanced Placement program, there is a fee should the student choose to take the exam (Kyberg, 2007). Because of factors such as economic resources and lack of institutional preparedness, the likeliness of a students participating in an advanced curriculum such as the Advanced Placement Program are low (Kloptenstein, 2003b).

This underrepresentation of minorities being able to take part in Advanced Placement programs puts students of Hispanic and African American backgrounds from urban environments at an unequal position in terms of success in college or even entering college. This issue of access, participation and achievement must be investigated further and action must be taken for minority students’ opportunities to develop (Ndura, et al., 2003). This unequal access puts students at a loss when it comes to college opportunities.

There is a direct social and economic relation to the lack of participation from minority students in Advanced Placement classes. There are also demographic shifts in urban environments directly causing the underrepresentation of minorities in Advanced Placement classes. These two factors result to the unequal opportunities minorities may face in terms of college admissions or even college success. This shows that student underachievement is not determined by the NBPTS, but by socio-economic reasons. Because of the correlation found in these two variables, teacher quality cannot be the sole link to students

Achievement Gap

There is an observed disparity in education seen in the United States known as the achievement gap. This is when the performance between groups of students is measured. These groups are categorized according to race, gender and their socioeconomic status. There is an array of factors causing this gap, mostly seen in low-income environments where students who are not in good socioeconomic status are deprived of certain opportunities that middle-class children might have.

Studies show that within the United States, that there are students within certain racial and ethnic groups who do not perform as well when it comes to standardized tests. Even with teachers who are in low-income environments, teaching to students for socioeconomically deprived environments are not showing the same signs of success as, let’s say, the middle-class white student. There are said efforts within the National Board to close these gaps, yet the rates of juvenile delinquency, truancy and student underachievement is still greatly increasing.

There have been efforts in closing the gap and improving the overall quality of teaching. The NBPTS has also recognized this need within the educational system. It has been seen in recent years that there are trends also in terms of the credited teachers in regards to their race. Steele (1998) conducted a study regarding African American teachers and their fear of failure, resulting in the dissidence of pursuing accreditation from the NBPTS.

“In his study of African American and Latino college students, Steele (1998) found that these students often failed to perform equally to their White peers, not because of  preparation or ability, but because of the threat of stereotypes about their capacity to succeed.  A recent study of National Board candidates found no significant differences between the preparation and  ability of African American and White candidates, which may offer greater credence to Steele’s stereotype threat, and suggest that it may very well play a part in the disparate outcomes for African American candidates.”

The study concludes that there is a need for awareness within the National Board to address the problem of the achievement gap, not only with students, but with teachers as well. It is the attitude of teachers that can shape or influence a student’s achievement. There is a need for a more supportive structure to improve the certification rates of the NBPTS as well as to take in to account the number of teachers who are not taking the opportunity.

There are a number of dimensions to measure teaching quality. Very little evidence supports the theory that the NBPTS improves the rates of student achievement. Long term outcomes, in regards to improving student performance, is difficult to measure through state tests. The incentives for the program are increasing, and there is a growing number of teachers applying for the certification. It was during the year 2002 when the NBPTS supported numerous studies regarding the impact of the Board on student achievement. Results showed that there is very little empirical evidence that that supports the standardized tests.

Adversely, a study conducted by Goldhaber and Anthony (2004) shows that students under NBPTS-certified teachers exceed performance levels of those who are learning under teachers who are not NBPTS certified. According to Goldhaber and Anthony (2004):

“For math, newly-NBPTS-certified teachers are estimated to be more effective than the average non-applicant teacher, but after the first year of certification they appear to be less effective than the average non-applicant teacher.”

Of course, this study was conducted back in the school year 1998/99. There are a lot of factors that have not been taken in to account in terms of this study (Harris & Sass, 2006a). With the increasing number of students with special needs entering the classrooms, teaching has undergone a need for a reform. The NBPTS has only recently acknowledged the need for teachers to be equipped with the knowledge and expertise to be able to teach in integrated classrooms. Although, there are cases where the Board has recognized teacher achievement in terms of teaching to students with special needs. Though, this does not mean that the education gap between those who have special needs and those who do not is closed.

The education and achievement gap between students that are socioeconomically poor and those who are not is still rampant. The measurement of student achievement cannot be solely based on the NBPTS, and if it were, studies show that the Board needs to make more effort in integrating programs for teachers in low-income environments. Additionally, the need for a technological reform within schools is seen (Harris & Sass, 2006b). However, not all schools are equal when it comes to the availability of new gadgets and learning tools. For the effectiveness of the NBPTS to be placed in full throttle, the issues that the academic world should be first addressed and not generalized. Efforts to achieve equality within the educational system may end up in vain. It would be best to tackle the problems according to the areas they are seen in. There is no evidence seen that the Board is making extreme efforts in seeing all of these through.

References

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t          happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546.

Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Journal of Computers & Education, 39, 395-414.

Boitnott, K. J. (2008). Statement on Budget from VEA President Kitty J. Boitnott, Ph.D, NBCT. US Fed News Service, Including State News.

Brooks, S. (2000). Taking the lead. Technology and Learning, 21, 26-34.

Cornell, R. M., Eining, M. M., & Paul Jen-Hwa, H. (2011). The Effects of Process Accountability on Individuals’ Use of a Familiar Technology. Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 109-128. doi:10.2308/jis.2011.25.1.109

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.

Devon County Council. (N.d). What is Inclusion? Retrieved from Devon County Council: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/childrenfamilies/cwan/discplus/early

Dyche, J. (2002). The CRM handbook. Boston: Addison-Wesley Pearson Education.

Evripiotis, M., & Orfanos, V. (2010).

The contemporary information technologies in the service of the primary and secondary education: the case of greece. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 2360-86. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Fallows, S., & Bhanot, R. (2002). Educational development through information and communications technology. London: Kogan Page.

Haecker, R. (2011). Despite cuts, teachers will deliver highest quality. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from The Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7693937.html

Finn, C. & Wilcox, D. (1999, August 9). Board games: Failure of National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to accomplish objective of improving quality of teaching in the US. National Review. Retrieved 2011 from http://www.fordhamfoundation.org/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=161

Goldhaber, D. &Anthony, E.(2004). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Process: Who Applies and What Factors Are Associated with NBPTS Certification?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(4):259-280

Fulton, K. (2003). A framework for considering technology’s effectiveness.

Hampton, L. (2011, August 10). Why Oklahoma State Board of Education made the wrong choices. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from NewsOk (The Oklahoman Online): http://newsok.com/why-oklahoma-state-board-of-education-made-the-wrong- choices/article/3593038

Harris, D. & Sass, T.R. (2006a). The Effects of Teacher Training on Teacher ValueAdded. Florida State University. Unpublished.

Harris, D. Sass, T.R. (2006b.) Value-Added Models and the Measurement of Teacher Quality. Florida State University. Unpublished.

Humphrey, D.C., Koppich, J.E., & Hough, H.J.(2005). Sharing the Wealth: National Board Certified Teachers and the Schools that Need Them Most.  Education Policy Analysis Archives: 13(18).

International society for technology in education. (2010). Eugene OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Jacobsen, D. M. (2002, April). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged         student learning and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at   AERA 2001: What we know and how we know it, the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

KERELUIK, K., MISHRA, P., & KOEHLER, M. J. (2011). On Learning to Subvert Signs: Literacy, Technology and the TPACK Framework. California Reader, 44(2), 12-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Klopfenstein, K. (2003a). Advanced placement: do minorities have equal opportunity?. Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115-131.

Klopfenstein, K. (2003b). Recommendations for maintaining the quality of advanced placement           programs. American Secondary Education, 32(1),

Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M.K. (2009). The link between advanced placement experiences and college success. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3).

Koppich, J. E., Humphrey, D.C, & Hough. H.J. (2006). Making Use of What Teachers Know and Can Do: Policy, Practice, and National Board Certification. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Kyburg, R.M., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C.M. (2007). Advanced placement and International Baccalaureate Programs: Optimal learning environments for talented minorities. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(2), 172-215.

Kyburg, R.M. (2007). Minority student voices: advanced placement and international baccalaureate students speak out. American Research Association,

McColskey, W. & Stronge, J.H. (2006). A Comparison of National Board Certified Teachers and non-National Board Certified Teachers: Is there a difference in teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Prepared for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

McCormack, K. (2011, August 10). No Jobs Fair’ rally in NH protests budget cuts. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from Boston.com: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/08/10/nh_labor_group_            hosts_no_jobs_fair/

More, M. (2001). Taking advantage of technological acceleration. National Study of School Evaluation. (2006). Technology survey.

Newby, T., Stepich, D., & Russell, J. (2005). Instructional technology for teaching and learning:           Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Ni, K. (2011, July 31). Education Head Wants Prestige for Teachers. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from The Epoch Times: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/education-head-wants-prestige-for-teachers-59771.html

Ndura, E., Robinson, M., & Ochs, G. (2003). Minority students in high school advanced placement courses: opportunity and equity denied. American Secondary Education, 32(1).

Owston, R. D. (2001). Lessons learned. Three case studies of ICT in teaching and their implication for practice

Quinney, K. L., Smith, S. D., & Galbraith, Q. (2010). Bridging the Gap: Self-Directed Staff Technology Training. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(4), 205-213. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Sanchez, C. (2011, August 10). Teachers feeling ‘beat down’ as school year starts . Retrieved August 12, 2011, from WBEZ Online: http://www.wbez.org/story/2011-08-10/teachers-feeling-beat-down-school-year-starts-90388

Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19 (2), 106-119.

Steele, C.M. (1998) “Stereotyping and Its Threat Are Real” American  Psychologist, 53, 680-681

Solmon, L., & Wiederhorn, J. (2000, May). Progress of technology in the schools: 1999 report. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation

Torrey, A. (2011, August 11). Student-run group continues fight against budget cuts. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from The Daily Texan: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2011/08/11/student-run-group-continues-fight-against-budget-cuts

Tenbusch, J. P. (2002). Keeping students honest in electronic age. Online electronic school.

Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in Education. Washington, DC: infoDev/World Bank.

Targeted News Service. (2007, February 16). Miami-dade county public schools honors its national board certified teachers.Targeted News Service.

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools, Columbus:            National Middle School Association, 487-521.