ERIC Identifier: ED304444 Publication Date: 1988-00-00
Author: Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. ERIC Digest
The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy recommended the creation of a
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) to address the need
for uniform teaching criteria and improved methods of assessment for gauging how
well such standards are met. The Forum hopes to do for teaching what the
Carnegie Corporation did for medical standards and prestige through the Flexner
Report (1910). That report made specific recommendations for improving the
quality of medical education and provided the impetus for revolutionary advances
in the training of physicians.
While not everyone would agree that teaching is like practicing medicine
(Haberman, 1986, pp. 719-722), many seem to agree with the Forum's major report,
"A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century," that teaching needs to be
improved (Carnegie Forum, 1986). The Forum's answer to the problem was to launch
the NBPTS, a private, nonprofit body, with Carnegie Corporation funding of five
million dollars over a five-year period (Report on Education Research, 1988, p.
5). The Board has 63 members including teachers (the majority), school
administrators, local board members, governors (past and present), teacher
educators, children's advocates, and business leaders (National Governors'
Association, 1988, p. 1). The Board, which was established in May 1987, expects
to issue its first teacher certificates in 1993 (National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, 1988, p. 2).
The Board's present agenda concerns the formulation of policy and resolution
of the following questions:
What will certification represent?
How should certification be structured?
What skill levels should certification signify?
What type and combination of tests should be used for assessment?
What is the connection between board certification and teacher education?
How can consistent national assessment procedures be maintained? (National
Governors' Association, 1988, pp. 2-4).
WHY IS A BOARD NECESSARY?
A nationally recognized board is
expected to have the authority and support to take steps to upgrade the quality
of teaching and public education. This is necessary to increase public
confidence in teachers and to win support for higher pay (Caldwell, 1986, p. 1).
A national certification board would also raise the status of teachers and
support their efforts to develop professionally (NBPTS, 1988, p. 3). National
certification would also help schools to attract and retain an adequate supply
of highly trained teachers who will be needed to assume new roles and
responsibilities in restructured schools (Carnegie Forum, 1986, p. 41).
The efficiencies involved in national certification are also compelling
arguments in its favor. A national effort would bring economies of scale to the
costly, time-consuming process of developing, administering, and updating
assessment procedures. Furthermore, a national system would facilitate the
geographic mobility of teachers by eliminating the need for them to satisfy
different state requirements (Shulman & Sykes, 1986, p. 24).
The political realities facing educators present, for some, the most
compelling reason for enacting national certification. The reams of national
reform reports by private groups, and the readiness of legislatures to pass laws
governing education are a continuing sign of low public confidence in the
profession. Such interference is likely to continue until significant changes
are made in teacher training and certification. Teacher response to the Carnegie
formulation has been mixed, however. Some suspect that the business community
heavily influenced the Forum's report. Others object that teacher-educators are
under-represented on the Board. Still others oppose the Forum's recommendations
that teacher-education programs be extended a fifth year. Other criticisms
target national certification as an infringement of states' rights in licensing
educators; as an additional hurdle that might discourage minorities from
teaching; or as an uncertain attempt to measure and predict successful teaching
by assessment (Kowalski, 1988, pp. 3-5).
It is clear, however, that unless the education community offers a superior
alternative, its resistance to the Carnegie formula will be seen as a desire to
evade scrutiny and an admission that education has no distinct body of
knowledge. The result may be the elimination of schools of education, and an
increase in attempts by external groups to influence pedagogy, further
diminishing the role of teachers in their own profession (Kowalski, 1988, pp
HOW WILL THE BOARD ACHIEVE ITS GOALS?
The Board hopes to
accomplish its agenda by offering professional certification to teachers who
qualify under its new standards and methods of assessment. National Board
certification will be different from state licensing or certification. A state's
license, required to teach within its jurisdiction, merely indicates that a
licensee satisfies a minimum level of requirements, generally equivalent to
entry-level ability. National certification, on the other hand, would be
voluntary, and would signify achievement of a higher level of competence, based
on criteria set by the profession (Shulman & Sykes, 1986, pp. ii, 25-26).
National certification will be awarded to candidates who pass a series of
assessments. The Forum has recommended a three-stage assessment procedure that
includes written tests and long-term observation of a teacher's classroom
performance (Caldwell, 1986, pp. 45-46). The Carnegie Corporation has funded
research and development of alternative methods of assessment since 1986, and a
number of prototypes have already been developed and field-tested (Haertal,
1987, p. 23). The Board will consider these and other efforts in shaping its
final assessment product.
The Forum's recommendations are not binding on the Board. Many decisions,
therefore, have yet to be made concerning policies and procedures, e.g., who is
eligible to sit for Board exams. The task force recommends the exams be open to
all college graduates, but many teacher educators want education training to be
a prerequisite (Evangelauf, 1987, p. A50).
The Board must also determine whether to offer basic or advanced certificates
or both, and for how long--limited, renewable periods or a lifetime (Evangelauf,
1987). Other unresolved questions include which fields to offer certification
in; how to fund the assessment and certification process; how to provide
remedial assistance for teachers who fail an assessment; and whom to allow
access to individual assessment data (Caldwell, 1986, p. 43).
WHAT IMPACT DOES THE BOARD EXPECT TO MAKE?
The policies of
a national board, however voluntary, will broadly influence all levels of
education, affecting teachers, administrators, teacher educators, and boards of
education (Caldwell, 1986, p. 48). In addition, national standards will reshape
the teaching profession and teacher training, providing support remains strong
and progress uninterrupted. Colleges can be expected to revamp their teacher
education programs to comply with the new criterion. And states could adopt
national standards for state licensing and certification procedures, or even
waive license requirements for those already board-certified (Evangelauf, 1987,
The Board has already been endorsed by a number of organizations, including
two major teachers unions (the National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers), the National Governors' Association, and the Education
Commission of the States. However, due to the slow pace of change and the need
for two million working teachers to adjust to the new system, observers do not
expect to see dramatic changes in teaching for another decade (Evangelauf,
Many of the following references--those
identified with an ED or EJ number have been abstracted and are in the ERIC data
base. The journal articles should be available at most research libraries. The
documents (citations with an ED number) are available on microfiche in ERIC
microfiche collections at more than 700 locations. Documents also can be ordered
through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Call (800) 227-3742 for price
and order information. For a list of ERIC collections in your area or for
information on submitting documents to ERIC, contact the ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teacher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036, (202)
Bureau of Educational Research, University of Virginia, pp. 1, 43, 45-46, 48.
ED 275 647.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). "A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21st century." Washington, D.C.: The Task Force on Teaching as
a Profession. ED 268 120.
Evangelauf, Jean. (1987, September 2). "School-reform drive spotlights
colleges' education of teachers." THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. p. A50. EJ
Flexner, Abraham. (191O). "Medical education in the United States and Canada,
A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching." Reproduced
in 1960. New York: Carnegie Foundation.
Haberman, Martin. (1986). "Licensing teachers: Lessons from other
professions." PHI DELTA KAPPAN, 67, pp. 719-722.
Haertal, Edward H. (1987, Spring). "Toward a National Board of Teaching
Standards: The Stanford Teacher Assessment Project." EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT:
ISSUES AND PRACTICES, p. 23.
Kowalski, Theodore J. (1988, Spring). "One case for national certification of
teachers." THE TEACHER EDUCATOR, 23, (4), pp. 3-4, 7-9.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1988). Institutional
mission. Washington, D.C.: Author, p. 2.
National Governors' Association. (1988). "Getting ready for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards." Washington, D.C.: Center for Policy
Research, pp. 1-4.
Report on Education Research. (l988, February 24). Alexandria, VA: Capitol
Publications, Inc., p. 5.
Shulman, Lee S. & Sykes, Gary. (l986). "A national board for teaching? In
search of a bold standard." Paper prepared for the Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, pp. ii, 24-26.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.