Maryland Teachers - who is doing NBPTS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy cow, I googled and it looks like Montgomery Co. even adds a larger pay boost for NBCTs in low achieving schools. I hope that attracts more teachers to Title I.

This is true across the state but there are state designated schools (including almost all of Baltimore city and next to no schools in MoCo) and locally designated schools which MCPS had not named yet. Which is a shame, because that could help principals in staffing some schools.

MCPS NBCTs will go up $7k this year after losing their previous stipend and adding on the new pay increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My school district is now raising the salary for NBCTs by $13,000 every year (pensionable- not a stipend) apparently, and $10,000 of that will come from the state so in theory, it might actually be funded. In prior years I think there was just a stipend and it was much less. So that makes jumping through this hoop a lot harder to pass up.

What district is this?

PGCPS. I should add, that is in our proposed new contract but we are still in the process of agreeing to it (or ratifying it, or whatever the term is here).

The $10,000 from the state is guaranteed but the other $3,000 from the county school district is still up for discussion.

[Anonymous]

OP back again. I am deep in the weeds on Component 4. What a convoluted, contrived piece of bulls4it garbage this is. Completely annoying. This is waste of time. But I'll do it if it will get me my bonus, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP back again. I am deep in the weeds on Component 4. What a convoluted, contrived piece of bulls4it garbage this is. Completely annoying. This is waste of time. But I'll do it if it will get me my bonus, I guess.

Preach. You can see why people are disgusted with the process. On the other hand, if you do it, then you get a lot more money so it is totally worth the hooey.

[Anonymous]

For those that don’t know getting national board certified is a ton of work. Think two to three years plus having to retake some of the components adding an additional year or two.

Each component feels like at least a full grad course in terms of time and effort. And you have to go through it again to recertify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did NBPTS in 2000 when there were 6 entries to the Portfolio plus the assessment center part, and you had to do it all in one year.

I still have my original portfolio. The entries were

1) Assessment of Progress
2) Planning
3) Scaffolding Learning (video)
4) Facilitating Interactions- Small Groups (video)
5) Documented Accomplishments/Collaboration in the Professional Community
6) Documents Accomplishments/Outreach to Families

I'm wondering if the fact that there are only three components instead of six means more is expected of each component? Or if it means the workload is now reduced.

I just did this last year. There are 4 components now - 3 prepared by date/writing, and one assessment center which included content knowledge and writing (Component 1). From your list #3 and #4 are combined as Component 3 (with 2 videos but not specified the way you described). Component 2 is still planning. Component 4 is a combination of 1, 5, and 6 and was just terrible because the instructions are both vague and confusing in wording. It is clear that they combined things together, but didn't really streamline it all. Far too many questions for the allowed space to answer. Told it was best if somehow all three parts related to each other, but also okay to be independent. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP back again. I am deep in the weeds on Component 4. What a convoluted, contrived piece of bulls4it garbage this is. Completely annoying. This is waste of time. But I'll do it if it will get me my bonus, I guess.

Preach. You can see why people are disgusted with the process. On the other hand, if you do it, then you get a lot more money so it is totally worth the hooey.

Ugh, yes. Did all 4 last year and Component 4 was the worst. It's clear that it was a combination of multiple separate components (see PP). I could see that the underlying concepts and purpose were worthy of documenting and describing, but the actual questions and specifications are just terrible. Based on the total scoring breakdown, I decided that a 2 was just fine, and just stopped overthinking it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did NBPTS in 2000 when there were 6 entries to the Portfolio plus the assessment center part, and you had to do it all in one year.

I still have my original portfolio. The entries were

1) Assessment of Progress
2) Planning
3) Scaffolding Learning (video)
4) Facilitating Interactions- Small Groups (video)
5) Documented Accomplishments/Collaboration in the Professional Community
6) Documents Accomplishments/Outreach to Families

I'm wondering if the fact that there are only three components instead of six means more is expected of each component? Or if it means the workload is now reduced.

I just did this last year. There are 4 components now - 3 prepared by date/writing, and one assessment center which included content knowledge and writing (Component 1). From your list #3 and #4 are combined as Component 3 (with 2 videos but not specified the way you described). Component 2 is still planning. Component 4 is a combination of 1, 5, and 6 and was just terrible because the instructions are both vague and confusing in wording. It is clear that they combined things together, but didn't really streamline it all. Far too many questions for the allowed space to answer. Told it was best if somehow all three parts related to each other, but also okay to be independent. Ugh.

Yes! For my certification area, what is now called Component 2: Differentiation in Instruction seems to a merging of the earlier entries 1 and 2 (Assessment and Planning). But it put together in a way that just doesn't make as much sense. The component is supposed to be about instruction and planning but the only evidence you submit is the assessment.

Component 4 is just a hot mess. Anything that needs pages and pages of explanation to be understood needs to be scrapped and rewritten.

I went to the basement to haul out my old portfolio to see what I submitted 20 years ago. It was a lot of writing, but it made much more sense.

[Anonymous]

What's killing me is that the requirements are so contrived. You basically have to decide ahead of time what your conclusions will be, then plan your unit so you will be able to come up with the evidence to support your conclusions. I could understand if people write the whole component ahead of time, and then just go back to cherry pick some student work samples that meet the requirements. It'd be a lot easier that way.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Any teachers still in the midst of this?

I’m deep in the weeds of component 4.

Not finding this process useful at ALL. I’m having to take a perfectly normal unit and contort it all to heck to get in the required proof. It’s possible, but is sure isn’t good teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Any teachers still in the midst of this?

I’m deep in the weeds of component 4.

Not finding this process useful at ALL. I’m having to take a perfectly normal unit and contort it all to heck to get in the required proof. It’s possible, but is sure isn’t good teaching.

Ha, I see I also thought I was "deep in the weeds" two months ago. I guess I got out of the weeds for a while...

Well, I'm spending this long weekend trying to get the whole component written. Wish me luck!

This is what I need to do for Component 4 (Part 1 and 2 -- There are two more Parts to Component 4 I will write up next weekend. This is for a first grade class)



Effectively and appropriately gather information on my class from past test data, former or current teachers and school staff, family members, others who know the students;

Insightfully evaluate that information and determine the relative importance of it;

Use in-depth knowledge gained from that information plus my knowledge of the students current curriculum needs to plan a unit of instruction where the unit objectives, instruction and assessments are clearly and strongly related to the information I gained about the students;

Show evidence that the instruction and assessments I plan are both effective and fair (consistent, accurate);

Administer a formative assessment to the students; make sure that the formative assessment is related to something I learned about the students in my data gathering and that it is clearly related to the unit objectives; identify modifications to the assessment based on information I learned about the students in my data gathering (learning modality, social and emotional growth, abilities and interests, etc.)

Use information from the formative assessment and information from the data gathering to evaluate student progress in relation to my unit objectives;

Identify trends based on results of the formative assessment and skillfully apply that knowledge to modify both the instructional plan and the summative assessment;

Provide feedback on the formative assessment that allows students to use the assessment as a tool to improve their performance.

Create student self assessments on the targeted learning objective that encourages, guides and supports students to take ownership of their learning process; provide three examples of these self assessments by the students;

Create or administer a summative assessment for the same group of students; identify modifications to the assessment based on information I learned about the students in my data gathering (learning modality, social and emotional growth, abilities and interests, etc.);

Analyze the results of the summative assessment and my knowledge of students I gathered at the start and apply that knowledge to future instruction. Describe how it will change future instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Any teachers still in the midst of this?

I’m deep in the weeds of component 4.

Not finding this process useful at ALL. I’m having to take a perfectly normal unit and contort it all to heck to get in the required proof. It’s possible, but is sure isn’t good teaching.

'

Same. I earned my certification but I found the entire process completely contrived and not at all beneficial to my teaching practice. Fortunately I don't think I harmed the education of any children but if NBPTS thinks their process is 'best practices' then they are idiots.

[Anonymous]

I was planning to start this year but realized I need to submit at least one component this year if I got the MCPS scholarship. I am teaching a new course so it seemed a bad idea workload wise. I plan to apply for the scholarship in the spring, do jump start, and work on components next year. I am worried that my curriculum is not a good fit. It’s a very technical STEM course designed around prep for career exams. Not a lot of leeway with assessments. I can even edit the pdfs and presentations easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Any teachers still in the midst of this?

I’m deep in the weeds of component 4.

Not finding this process useful at ALL. I’m having to take a perfectly normal unit and contort it all to heck to get in the required proof. It’s possible, but is sure isn’t good teaching.

Ha, I see I also thought I was "deep in the weeds" two months ago. I guess I got out of the weeds for a while...

Well, I'm spending this long weekend trying to get the whole component written. Wish me luck!

This is what I need to do for Component 4 (Part 1 and 2 -- There are two more Parts to Component 4 I will write up next weekend. This is for a first grade class)



Effectively and appropriately gather information on my class from past test data, former or current teachers and school staff, family members, others who know the students;

Insightfully evaluate that information and determine the relative importance of it;

Use in-depth knowledge gained from that information plus my knowledge of the students current curriculum needs to plan a unit of instruction where the unit objectives, instruction and assessments are clearly and strongly related to the information I gained about the students;

Show evidence that the instruction and assessments I plan are both effective and fair (consistent, accurate);

Administer a formative assessment to the students; make sure that the formative assessment is related to something I learned about the students in my data gathering and that it is clearly related to the unit objectives; identify modifications to the assessment based on information I learned about the students in my data gathering (learning modality, social and emotional growth, abilities and interests, etc.)

Use information from the formative assessment and information from the data gathering to evaluate student progress in relation to my unit objectives;

Identify trends based on results of the formative assessment and skillfully apply that knowledge to modify both the instructional plan and the summative assessment;

Provide feedback on the formative assessment that allows students to use the assessment as a tool to improve their performance.

Create student self assessments on the targeted learning objective that encourages, guides and supports students to take ownership of their learning process; provide three examples of these self assessments by the students;

Create or administer a summative assessment for the same group of students; identify modifications to the assessment based on information I learned about the students in my data gathering (learning modality, social and emotional growth, abilities and interests, etc.);

Analyze the results of the summative assessment and my knowledge of students I gathered at the start and apply that knowledge to future instruction. Describe how it will change future instruction.

This sounds absolutely nuts

[Anonymous]

Hardly a surprise that public education in the US is going to hell in a hand basket given stupid initiatives like this one