USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00440
usfldc handle - e11.440
System ID:
SFS0024511:00439


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20059999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00440
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 13, no. 18 (March 03, 2005).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c March 03, 2005
505
Sharing the wealth : national board certified teachers and the students who need them most / Daniel C. Humphrey, Julia E. Koppich [and] Heather J. Hough.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.440



PAGE 1

E DUCATION P OLICY A NALYSIS A RCHIVES A peer reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Sherman Dorn College of Education University of South Florida Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Policy Analysis Archives EPAA is published jointly by the Colleges of Education at Arizona State University and the University of South Florida. Articles are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). Volume 13 Number 1 8 March 3 2005 ISSN 1068 2341 Sharing t he Wealth: National Board Certified Teachers a nd t he Students Who Need Them Most Daniel C. Humphrey SRI International Julia E. Koppich J. Koppich & Associates Heather J. Houg h SRI International Citation: Humphrey, D. C., Koppich, J. E. & Hough, H. J. (2005, March 3 ). Sharing the w ealth: National Board Certified Teachers and the s tudents w ho n eed t hem m ost. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (18 ). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n18 /. Abstract It is a commonly understood problem in education that many highly qualified teachers tend to gravitate toward higher performing schools, including schools with lower minority enrollments and lower incidence of po verty. This article explores the distribution of a subset of teachers, namely, those who are National Board Certified. To what extent do these teachers assignment choices mirror the pattern of their non Board Certified colleagues and to what extent are th ey different? Part of a larger study of Board Certified Teachers in lower performing schools, the article examines the distribution of NBCTs in the six states with the largest number of them California, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina. The research finds that, with the exception of California, Board Certified Teachers are not equitably distributed across schools that serve different populations of students. In five of the six states examined, poor, minority, and lower performi ng students are far less likely to benefit from the teaching of an NBCT than are their more

PAGE 2

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 2 affluent, majority, higher performing peers. The article explores some possible explanations for the California distribution pattern as well as the kinds of incenti ves provided across the states for teachers to seek Board Certification and for those who earn it. The authors conclude with a rationale and a set of policy suggestions for realigning the distribution of NBCTs. Introduction When the National Board for Prof essional Teaching Standards was launched in 1987, it represented the cutting edge of the teacher quality movement. Created as an outgrowth of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, the National Board was established to create rigorous standards for what, in now familiar National Board vernacular, accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. A voluntary system, the National Board certifies teachers who meet these standards. State certification represents the floor, a set of minimum lic ensing requirements. National Board Certification is designed to reflect a substantially higher level of professional achievement. In effect, National Board Certification is meant to bring teaching more in line with other professions in which state licen sing boards set minimum standards and the profession sets standards for advanced certification to identify accomplished practice. In the span of a decade and a half, promoting the National Board has become a significant state and local policy strategy to i mprove teaching. Policy makers and educators across the nation have adopted National Board Certification as a proxy for accomplished teaching. As of March 2004 all 50 states and approximately 5 38 school districts offered financial incentives for teacher s to pursue National Board Certification and additional kinds of incentives, including salary bonuses, for those who earn it (NBPTS, 2004 a ) The National Board also represents a substantial fiscal commitment. Over the years, the federal government, states local school districts, and philanthropic foundations have invested well over $200 million to develop and implement the National Board (Tea cher Quality Bulletin, 2003). 1 As larger numbers of teachers have earned Board Certification the total stood at mo re than 32,000 as of November 2003 and the dollar commitment to fuller implementation has grown, some policy makers have begun to wonder whether results justify the price tag. For example, Californias budget crisis, and the need to select among competing fiscal priorities, caused that state to eliminate the $10,000 bonus it awarded to all teachers who earned National Board Certification. Although California has thus far maintained a $20,000 award for National Board Certified Teachers ( NBCTs ) working in l ow performing schools, other states are reconsidering their investments. 2 Georgia, which has offered a 10 percent salary bonus to every teacher in that state who earns National Board Certification, is considering scaling back this incentive since the cost has tripled from one fiscal year to the next (Sack, 2003). As policy makers consider investments in the National Board Certification process, questions about the impact of these investments on student achievement naturally arise. Early indications sugges ted that NBCTs contribute to student learning (Bond, 2000). A new study 1 This estimate includes $74 million in reimbursement of application fees of successful candidates and $130 million from the U.S. Department of Education but does not include funds from philan thropic foundations. The Bush administration recently announced that it is eliminating federal funding for the National Board. 2 California defines low performing schools as those scoring in the bottom 50 percent on state tests.

PAGE 3

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 3 using North Carolina data found that National Board Certified T eachers are more successful at raising student achievement than teachers who applied but did not earn certification par ticularly among teachers of low income students (Goldhaber and Anthony, 2004). In addition, a recent study on the impact of National Board Certified Teachers on student achievement in 14 Arizona school districts argued that the students of National Board Certified Teachers had greater gain scores than students of teachers without certification (Vandevoort, Amrein Beardsley, & Berliner, 2004). However, additional definitive research is still under way and we suspect it will be many years before the resear ch community sorts out the effects of NBCTs from the effects of other factors that influence student achievement. Meanwhile, policy makers are shaping policy regarding NBCTs. Without diminishing the importance of the student achievement aspect, this paper addresses an equally important question for policy makers: w hat is the distribution of NBCTs across schools that serve different populations of students? In other words, we examine to what extent NBCTs are found in higher performing, typically more afflu ent schools and to what extent they are found in lower performing, often economically poorer schools. 3 We believe that this is a critical issue for policy makers as they consider their investments in the National Board Certification process. More than 35 years ago, the political scientist David Easton defined politics as the authoritative allocation of [societal] values (Easton, 1965). If state and local policies about NBCTs, which influence where they teach and why, are values made real, then an exami nation of these policies should reveal something about our collective beliefs about which students ought to have access to the most highly recognized teachers The next section of this paper addresses the National Board Certification as a school improvemen t strategy. Subsequent sections take up the issues of teacher distribution generally, the distribution of National Board Certified Teachers specifically, and policies that influence teacher assignment decisions. The paper concludes with a set of policy i mplications and actions for states, school districts, and the National Board itself to consider. National Board Certification and Education Improvement National Board Certification a centerpiece of nationwide efforts to boost the profile of high quality t eaching, reflects a major policy emphasis on improving teaching as central to improving student learning. Research about the impact of effective teaching has reinforced what common sense would suggest : t eaching matters. Study after study confirms that st udents who have high quality teachers post significant and lasting achievement gains. Those with less effective teachers play a constant, and often losing, game of academic catch up (Koppich, 2001). In a Texas study, for example, nearly half the differen ce in test scores between white and African American students was attributable to variation in teacher quality (Ferguson, 1991). A study by Hanushek and his colleagues revealed that the most effective teachers were able to boost their students learning a full grade level more than did less effective teachers. Replacing an average teacher with an excellent one, according to this study, nearly erased the gap in mathematics performance between students from low income and high income households. (The Teachi ng Commission 2004) 3 This article is part o f a study, The Impact of National Board Certified Teachers on Low Performing Schools, funded by Atlantic Philanthropies and is a cooperative effort of SRI International, WestEd, the Southeast Center for Teacher Quality, and J. Koppich & Associates.

PAGE 4

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 4 Research on value added assessment, which attempts to distinguish teachers contributions to student learning from other contributing or distracting factors further reinforces that the quality of teaching makes a difference in levels of student learning. A series of Tennessee studies revealed that excellent teachers produce greater learning gains regardless of the academic starting points of their students. 4 The conclusion seems inescapable. In the words of the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (1996) What teachers know and can do makes the crucial difference in what children learn. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards finds its foundation in this conclusion. The National Board was developed as a central component of what was described as a new framework for teaching, a system in which school districts can offer the pay, autonomy, and career opportunities necessary to attract to teaching highly qualified people who would otherwise take up oth er professional careers. In return, teachers would agree to higher standards for themselves and real accountability for student performance (Carnegie, 198 6 ). Findings about effective teaching were used by the National Board to design research based core propositions for the occupation. T hese hold that: Teachers are committed to students and their learning. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learn ing. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. Teachers are members of learning communities. National Board Certification is not achieved by means of a classic paper and pencil exam, nor does the process assess just a si ngle dimension of teaching. Board Certification assesses teachers subject matter knowledge, a critical component of effective teaching. In addition, Board candidates must prepare a professional portfolio. Requiring as much as 300 hours of work to assem ble, the portfolio includes a videotaped exemplar of the candidates teaching and an explanation of his or her instructional choices as well as multiple samples of student work, a description of the way in which the work was analyzed, actions taken to rem ediate students academic deficiencies, and a review of students subsequent progress. In sum, National Board Certification is designed to appraise multiple dimensions of effective teaching, ranging from teachers knowledge of the disciplines they teach t o their ability to diagnose and treat students learning needs. Teachers who meet the National Boards professional standards generally are considered to be valuable members of their school communit ies But where NBCTs teach is an important question for policy makers on two related dimensions: distribution of teaching expertise and distribution of resources. We turn first to an examination of the distribution of well qualified teachers generally, and then take a closer look at the kinds of schools in wh ich NBCTs are most likely to be found. 4 The Tennessee value added research was conducted by Dr. William Sanders. Other studies see, for example, Kupermintz (2003) suggest that value added needs further refinement. But we believe the results are substantial enough that they cannot be ignored.

PAGE 5

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 5 The Teacher Distribution Dilemma We know from previous research that high caliber teachers often are in short supply in low performing schools. For example, secondary students in low performing schools are twice as l ikely as those in high performing schools to be taught by teachers who are not certified in the subjects they are teaching. Half of middle school students and one third of high school students in high poverty (and typically low performing) schools are in at least one class taught by a teacher who did not complete even a college minor in the subject ( Education Week 200 3 ). Research also has demonstrated that experience leads to greater teaching proficiency (Wilson, Floden & Ferrini Mundy 2001). We know, however, that teachers in high poverty, high minority schools are likely to have less teaching experience than their colleagues in low poverty, higher performing schools. As Education Week reported in Quality Counts 200 3 For states to end the achieveme nt gap between minority and non minority students and those from rich and poor families, they must first end the teacher gap: the dearth of well qualified teachers for those who need them most. This is not to suggest that excellent teachers cannot be found in low performing schools. They can be and are. But the relative lack of highly qualified teachers in these teaching circumstances has long been apparent. This situation results from a confluence of factors, including substandard working condition s, a paucity of incentives (including financial incentives) for high quality teachers to choose difficult teaching environments, long standing policies and practices related to teacher transfer and assignment, and the culture of teaching itself. Although i t is not entirely clear what factors attract or keep high caliber teachers at certain schools, research suggests that working conditions play an essential role. An analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data by Education Week found that teache rs in high poverty and high minority schools report much more difficult working conditions higher transiency and turnover rates among students, teachers, and administrators; fewer available resources; less well maintained facilities; a less collaborative school culture; and more difficult community and parent circumstances ( Education Week 200 3 ) These conditions contribute to heightened concern among teachers in low performing schools about being able to demonstrate excellence (Public Agenda, 2003). Lac k of financial incentives also affects teacher assignments. Most teachers continue to be paid on the standard single salary schedule. Compensation rises with years of experience and college credits accrued. This salary construct typically grants no spec ial economic benefits to teachers willing to tackle the toughest assignments. Districts are left with little means financially to lure particularly well qualified teachers to struggling schools. This situation gives rise to a significant corollary to the skewed distribution of expert teachers, namely, the maldistrib u tion of resources. L ess experienced, often less well qualified, and lower paid teachers are concentrated in lower performing schools, and these schools find themselves with a reduced level of absolute resources compared with higher performing schools with more experienced, better paid teachers (Roza & Hill, 2004 ). A third challenge to attracting highly qualified teachers to low performing schools and retaining them there is created by long sta nding policy and practice related to teacher transfer and assignment. For example, transfer policies in a number of districts allow teachers who may initially find themselves assigned to low performing schools to move to greener school pastures once they have accrued a modest amount of seniority. In the absence of incentives to remain in

PAGE 6

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 6 these challenging work environments, many take that opportunity, only to be replaced at low performing schools by their less experienced colleagues. St ill other policies hamper inter district transfers even among teachers who might consider moving to low performing schools, albeit in a different district. For example, leaving one district for another, even for one with a similar or higher pay structure, may require a teac her to take a pay cut when local or state policy caps an interdistrict transfers placement on the salary schedule. Finally, there is the culture of the profession itself. Teaching ascribes greater prestige to those who teach in higher performing schools. In other words, ones professional status is often a function of how elite ones students are ( Haycock 2000). Those who teach in low performing schools are neither lauded nor applauded for the challenges they have assumed. On the contrary, teachers in low performing schools often feel stigmatized by low expectations for themselves and their students (Public Agenda, 2003). Attracting high quality teachers to low performing schools is only half the dilemma. Retaining them at these schools can also be pr oblematic. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), teachers in schools with minority enrollments of 50 percent or more transfer at twice the rate of teachers in schools with fewer minority students Moreover, when teac hers transfer to different schools, even within urban districts, they tend to seek schools with higher student achievement, fewer black or Hispanic students, and fewer students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (Hanushek, 2001). If the dist ribution of teachers in the general teaching population, then, is tilted toward concentrating more experienced, better qualified educators in higher performing schools, does this same pattern obtain for NBCTs? Are they, too, more likely to be found in high er performing than in lower performing schools? We turn now to an examination of the kinds of schools in which NBCTs teach. Where Do NBCTs Teach? Since the first teacher s earned National Board Certification in 1993, more than 30,000 teachers have joined t heir ranks in every state. Beyond these figures, what is known about where NBCTs teach? At least one early study from North Carolina suggested that NBCTs are rather scarce in low performing, low income schools with high concentrations of mi nority student s (Goldhaber, 2003 ). T o answer the question about NBCT distribution more completely, we examined the assignments of Board Certified teachers by school type in the six states with the largest number of NBCTs California, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina. These states represent more than 65 p ercent of all NBCTs nationwide (NBPTS, 2004b). We limited our analysis to N BC Ts who have earned certification since 1998 5 Figure 1 displays the number of teachers certified by the National Board since 1998 in each of the six states we examined. 5 In our efforts to verify the location of NBCTs, we found that information from the National Boards database was often inaccurate. As a result, we believe that a more accurate analysis is done with the cohort of NBCTs since 1998. These NBCTs represent 58% of the total nationwide.

PAGE 7

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 17 Humphrey et al. 7 Figure 1. NBCTs since 1998 by State 5,704 4,487 3,056 2,261 1,731 1,567 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 North Carolina Florida South Carolina California Ohio Mississippi Number of NBCTs Source: NBPTS (200 4 ) ; SRI a nalysis It is worth noting that our analysis includes only NBCTs who are teaching in schools and only those teachers who ear ned certification since 1998. Thus, the total number of NBCTs in each state actually is higher, but the limits of the data required us to make some choices. For example, 2 644 teachers in California have earned certification, but only 2 292 have been cer tified since 1998 and only 2 261 of those are working in school s We began our analysis by looking at the overall distribution of NBCTs by school type in our six states. Specifically, we were interested in the percentage of NBCTs working in schools servin g high poverty students, high concentrations of minority students, and low performing students. Figure 2 illustrates the percentages of NBCTs who tea ch in these high need schools.

PAGE 8

Figure 2. NBCTs Working in High Minority High Poverty and Low Performin g Schools 16 12 19 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Percentage of NBCTs Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI a nalysis Of the 18, 806 NBCTs in our analysis who earned certification since 1998, 2,2 97 or 12%, teach in schools with 75% o r more students eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Similarly, 3,0 76 NBCTs, or 16% of the total, teach in schools serving 75% or more minority students. Finally, 3, 521 NBCTs, or 19 %, work in low performing schools. 6 Despite the fact that NBCTs are found in these high need schools, they are not well represented in these schools in five of our six states. For example, with the exception of California, NBCTs are underrepresented in schools with high concentrations of minority students. Figure 3 comp ares the percentage s of NBCTs in schools with at least 75 percent minority students with the respective statewide percentage s of teachers in these schools. 6 We define low performing schools as those with state test scores in the bottom three deciles for two of the three years beginning in the 2000 2001 school year. We acknowledge that this definition does not actually allow for compar isons between schools in different states because state assessment systems differ. However, we argue that the bottom 30% of schools in a state is a reasonable proxy for low performance. In addition, defining low performing schools as those that fall int o the bottom three deciles for two out of three years allows us to include schools that may have been improving, in part, because of the presence of NBCTs. = 75% Minority Low Performing = 75% Poverty

PAGE 9

9 Figure 3. P roportions of NBCTs and All Teachers in High Minority Schools 58 9 22 32 13 11 18 8 17 6 16 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 California Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Percentage NBCTs All Teachers in State Source: NBPTS (200 4 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis As Figure 3 illustrates, NBCTs are underrepresented in schools with high concentrations of minority students in five of the six states. California is the exception. In California, a higher proportion of NBCTs work in scho ols with high concentration s of minority students compared with the states average for all teachers If we look at the distribution of NBCTs in high poverty schools (schools with 75 percent or more of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch), we see a similar pattern. With the exception of California, NBCTs are underrepresented in high poverty schools. Figure 4 displays the percentage of NBCTs in high poverty schools compared with the state averages.

PAGE 10

10 Figure 4 Percentage of NBCTs a nd All Teachers in High Poverty Schools 36 11 6 6 10 34 11 10 18 17 27 18 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 California Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Percentage NBCTs All Teachers in State Source : NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis As is the case with schools with high concentrations of minority students, NBCTs are underrepresented in high poverty schools in five of the six states. In other w ords, NBCTs are less likely to teach in these high need schools than the average of all teachers in the states California again is the exception. Unlike the other five states, NBCTs in California are overrepresented in high poverty schools. If we examin e the data for low performing schools, the same pattern continues. Figure 5 displays the percentage of NBCTs and all teachers in low performing schools Figure 5. Percentage of NBCTs and A ll Teachers Teaching in Low Performing Schools 40 16 11 20 14 25 26 26 25 17 27 33 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 California Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Percentage NBCTs All Teachers in State Source: CDE (2004 ), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI a nalysis.

PAGE 11

11 Figure 5 shows that NBCTs are underrepresented in low performing schools in five out of the six states. Again, California stands out as the except ion. If we examine the distribution of NBCTs in schools at the other end of the spectrum (those schools in the top three deciles of student achievement), we see that NBCTs are overrepresented in high performing schools in each state except California. Fi gure 6 compares the percentage s of NBCTs teaching in high and low performing schools. 7 Figure 6. Percent of NBCTs in High and Low Performing Schools 40 16 11 17 20 14 28 43 44 40 34 41 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 California Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Percentage NBCTs in Low-Performing Schools NBCTs in High-Performing Schools Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCD E (2004); SRI a nalysis. As Figure 6 illustrates, there are lower percentages of NBCTs in low performing schools than in high performing schools except in California. What I s Behind the California Difference? So what causes California to be different from the other five states? If we look more closely at the distribution of NBCTs in California, we can begin to see the answer. The difference is Los Angeles. Figure 7 compares the number of NBCTs in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) with the n umber of NBCTs in the rest of California (excluding LAUSD ), focusing on NBCTs working in high minority, high poverty, and low performing schools. 7 We define high performing schools as those with test scores in the top three deciles of performa nce of the state for two of the three years beginning with the 2000 2001 school year.

PAGE 12

12 Figure 7. Number of NBCTs in Various Types of Schools in California and Los Angeles 549 555 763 348 247 542 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 High-Minority Schools High-Poverty Schools Low-Performing Schools Number of NBCTs Los Angeles California (Excluding Los Angeles) Source: CDE (2004), NBP TS (2004 c ) NCES (200 4 ) ; SRI a nalysis Los Angeles has 909 of the 2,261 NBCTs in the state As Figure 7 shows, large numbers of these Los Angeles teachers teach in schools with high concentrations of poor, minority, and low performing students. Indeed, wh en Los Angeles and California without Los Angeles are compared with our other five states in terms of the percentage of NBCTs teaching in low performing schools, Los Angeles stands out as the e xception In addition, the gap between all teachers in low per forming schools and National Board Certified Teachers in low performing schools is smaller in Los Angeles and California (without Los Angeles) than it is in the other states. Figure 8 illustrates these two point s Figure 8. Percent of NBCTs in Low Perform ing Schools in Los Angeles & Six States 60 11 20 14 25 25 17 16 26 28 26 27 26 65 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Los Angeles CA (excluding LA) Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Percentage NBCTs All Teachers in City/State Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI a nalysis.

PAGE 13

13 As Figure 8 illustrates, Los Angeles has a higher percentage of NBCTs teaching in low per forming schools when compared with the six states. Of course, Los Angeles has a higher proportion of low performing schools than the six states. B y our definition of low performing as those schools in the bottom three deciles in two out of three years, 4 8 % of Los Angeles schools are considered low performing. By contrast, 22.9 % of schools in California excluding LA, 2 3.4 % of Florida schools, 2 5.2 % of Mississippi schools, 2 7.4 % of North Carolina schools, 23. 5 % of Ohio schools, and 2 6 .1% of South Carolina schools are low performing. Figure 8 also points to a narrower gap in California and Los Angeles compared with other states in the percentage of Nation al Board Certified T eachers and their non Board certified colleagues working in low performing schools. This difference may be partly attributable to the large financial incentives availab le to National Board Certified T eachers working in low performing schools in California, which we discuss later. We also surmise that the intensive support programs for Na tional Board candidates in Los Angeles account for some of the narrower gap. However, it may simply be that the narrower gap is a function of the large number of low performing schools in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Compared with Dade County As an additi onal point of comparison, we explored whether the Los Angeles phenomenon is a big city phenomenon. Could it be that other urban cores that look like Los Angeles display similar NBCT distribution patterns? W e reviewed NBCT data from Dade County (Miami) Florida, a district with demographics similar to those of Los Angeles. Interestingly, the data show that although both Los Angeles and Dade County have significant percentages of NBCTs working in low performing schools, NBCTs are better represented in Lo s Angeles than in Dade County. Figure 9 illustrates this point. Figure 9. Percentage of NBCTs and All Teachers in Low Performing Schools: Los Angeles and Dade County 60 40 65 52 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Los Angeles Dade County Percentage NBCTs in District in Low-Performing Schools All Teachers in District in Low-Performing Schools Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis

PAGE 14

14 After noti ng the difference between the proportions of NBCTs in th e two urban districts, we examined the proportions of NBCTs at each decile compared with the distribution of all teachers in both districts by decile. Figure s 10 and 11 s how the result. 8 Figure 10. Distribution of NBCTs and A ll Teachers in the L os A ngeles U nified S chool District, by 2003 School Performance 12 9 4 4 16 14 3 4 4 13 14 26 29 2 3 3 4 6 5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 API Score Percent of Teachers Los Angeles NBCTs All Los Angeles Teachers Source: CDE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis Figure 11. Distri b ution of NBCTs and All Teachers in Dade County by School Perf ormance 13 5 8 7 7 16 7 9 12 13 14 11 19 13 12 12 6 5 4 3 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deciles of Performance Percent Dade NBCTs All Dade Teachers Source: FDOE (2004), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis. 8 Only schools with test scores for the 2002 2003 school year are represented in Exhibits 10 and 11; thus, the numbers do not add to 100. 7.9% of teachers in Los Angele s and 3.0% of teachers in Dade County taught in schools that did not report test scores in 2002 2003.

PAGE 15

15 In Los Angeles, NBCTs are slightly underrepresented in the bottom two deciles of performance, but overall Los Angeles appears to have a more equitable distribution of NBCTs than does Dade County. Dade County does have a large number of NBCTs in its lowest performing schools, but its NBCTs are underrepresented in the bottom two deciles of performance. Los Angeles s Equity Gap Despite the appearance of an equitable distribution of NB CTs in Los Angeles, a second look uncovers an important equity gap. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is organized into 11 subdistricts; NBCTs are not distributed in proportion to their performance levels across these subdistricts. Although eac h district contains low performing schools, District I, which encompasses South Central Los Angeles, has the highest concentration of low performing schools and poverty. Table 1 shows the difference between District I and the rest of the Los Angeles sub districts in terms of the percentage of NBCTs in the subdistrict, the percentage of schools that are in the bottom three deciles, and the percentage of schools in the bottom decile. Table 1 Distribution of NBCTs in Los Angeles Unified School District Subdi stricts Subdistrict Characteristics Subdistrict Percentage of Low Performing Schools Percentage of Schools with API 1 in 2003 Percentage of L os A ngeles NBCTs in Subdistrict A 26.1 4.3 10.8 B 51.5 14.7 12.2 C 28.8 2.7 8.8 D 18.4 5.3 12.3 E 38.7 11.3 9.9 F 59.3 29.6 8.0 G 71.2 38.5 8.8 H 81.1 43.4 10.0 I 82.2 57.8 3.4 J 86.5 29.7 7.4 K 35.7 4.3 8.4 Source: CDE (2004), LAUSD (200 4 ), NBPTS (2004 c ), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis Although Los Angeles has a reasonable distribution of NBCTs overall, it s lowest performing subdistrict lags behind the other subdistricts in terms of the percentage of NBCTs.

PAGE 16

16 Summing Up the Distribution of NBCTs These analyses lead to several conclusions. First, NBCTs are not equitably distributed across schools that serve different populations of students. In the six states with the largest number s of NBCTs, poor, minority, and low performing students are far less likely than their more affluent, majority, higher performing peers to benefit from the teaching of an NBCT. T he significant exception to this pattern appears to be Los Angeles. The Los Angeles example suggests that it is possible to ensure a more equitable distribution of NBCTs. Although a close look at Los Angeles reveals remaining inequities, the district has succeeded in giving most of its lowest performing students an equal chance to be taught by an NBCT. How do districts and state s encourage teachers to become National Board Certified and are incentives targeted to particular kinds of schools or categori es of teachers? We turn next to an examination of this issue. Incentives and the Distribution of NBCTs Incentives related to National Board Certification fall into three categories: ( 1) incentives for becoming a candidate for National Board Certification ( 2) incentives for earning National Board Certification and ( 3) incentives for becoming National Board Certified and teaching in a low performing school. A review of available data shows that 31 states encourage teachers to pursue Board Certification by offering fee support. Because the c ertification process costs each candidate $2 300, funds to offset this expense can ser ve as a considerable inducement (NBPTS, 2004a). Thirty two states provide incentives in the form of salary supplements to teachers who earn Board Certification. These additional dollars most often are available to any NBCT regardless of teaching assignment. Los Angeles, for example, provides a 15 percent salary boost to teachers who become Board Certified and then agree to fulfill add itional district determined responsibilities. A number of states also provide full or partial license reciprocity on the basis of National Board status and 28 use National Board status as a proxy for full or partial license renewal. In addition to state incentives for pursuing or earning Board Certification, more than 500 school districts provide incentives in the form of fee support and/or salary increases. Local incentives are often added to state incentives. The third category is by far the most slend er. With the exception of the substantial California incentive and a $1 500 annual bonus in Columbus, Ohio for National Board Certified Teachers who agree to be placed in challenging schools no state or local incentives are aimed at linking NBCTs and lo w performing schools. Thus, although existing incentives are likely to have helped boost the overall number of NBCTs nationally, few have been designed to increase the number of NBCTs in schools that are most in need of outstanding teachers. Given the s ignificant policy initiatives for NBCTs in California, it is useful to review the scale of the incentives in that state. In 1998, California enacted a policy to pay any teacher who earned Board Certification a one time $10,000 bonus. In July 200 0 the st ate adopted a policy that awarded Board Certified Teachers who teach in low performing schools (those below the 50th percentile on the API ) a bonus of $20,000 over a period of four years. This program represents a deliberate policy strategy to encourage t he redistribution of accomplished teachers. Recently, the state ended the $10,000 bonus for all NBCTs but retained the more targeted $20,000 award ( California Education Code 2004).

PAGE 17

17 Unfortunately, the data currently available do not allow us to address some key questions of great concern to policy makers. First, we can not determine what role the incentives play in encouraging teachers to apply for National Board Certification. Second, we can not determine whether incentives designed to encourage NBCTs t o work in low performing schools actually result in the movement of accomplished teachers. We are currently conducting a survey of NBCTs that should help answer some of these questions. However, anecdotal evidence from California, North Carolina, and Ohi o suggests that the financial incentives are important inducements for prospective NBCTs. On the other hand, Californias targeted incentive for NBCTs to work in low performing schools may not be targeted enough to persuade accomplished teachers to reloc ate to the neediest schools. Part of the problem may be that since the state defines as low performing all schools below the 50th percentile on the API teachers in urban districts have no incentive to transfer to the neediest schools in the lowest decile s. For example, under Californias definition of low performing, more than 7 0 % of teachers in Los Angeles qualify as working in low performing schools and are eligible for the state bonus. At the same time, we do not know whether financial incentives alo ne are enough to entice accomplished teachers to move to the more challenging schools. If NBCTs from the case study schools that are part of our larger research study are any indication, proximity to home, decent working conditions, a strong and supportiv e principal, and collegial relationships are important assignment considerations for accomplished teachers. Targeted Candidate Support What is clear from our case studies, and what we suspect survey data will confirm, is that professional support (in the form of coaching, working with other candidates, release time, and principal support) for National Board candidates also serves as an important incentive. I f Los Angeles is any indication providing targeted support for National Board candidates alre ady working in low performing schools appears to have a salutary effect on the distribution of NBCTs. LAUSD teachers interested in pursuing Board Certification have two major support programs available to them. One is run jointly by the United Teachers L os Angeles (UTLA), the local teachers union, and the district The other operates under the auspices of the University of California at Los Angeles. Both programs make an effort to recruit to the Board Certification process teachers who are already teac hing in low performing schools and want to remain there. In other words, these programs substantially focus their efforts on increasing the capacity of teachers in low performing schools to earn Board Certification. These programs appear to increase the n umber of NBCTs in low performing schools in the district, in part by achieving a high pass rate of teachers in these schools. As Figure 1 2 illustrates, higher percentages of Los Angeles teachers than of teachers in the rest of the state successfully compl ete the National Board Certification process.

PAGE 18

18 Figure 12. Pass Rates in L os A ngeles and the R est of California 29 35 38 37 32 41 31 50 64 50 20 32 33 35 35 35 44 52 30 23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 API 1 API 2 API 3 API 4 API 5 API 6 API 7 API 8 API 9 API 10 Pass Rate (Percent) Los Angeles California (excluding Los Angeles) Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), NBPTS (2003), NCES (200 4 ); SRI a nalysis The high pass rates of Los Angeles teachers suggest that th e support programs make a significant difference for National Board candidates, particularly for those in low performing schools. Of course, the high pass rate may be partly a result of the support programs counseling out candidates least likely to pass. Unfortunately, funding for the support programs serving LAUSD teachers may be ending with the districts next round of budget cuts. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles experience is instructive. Overall, the mix of supports and fi nancial incentives availabl e to teachers in Los Angeles appears to point to a potential means for beginning to resolve the maldistribution of NBCTs in low performing schools. Incentives and the Transfer of NBCTs to Low performing Schools In examining incentives to obtain National B oard Certification it is important to differentiate among various types of strategies that are intended to serve different purposes. One strategy identifies and supports prospective NBCTs already working in low performing schools. The support programs f or National Board candidates in Los Angeles are example s of this approach. Perhaps the more challenging strategy, however, is to devise incentives to lure NBCTs to low performing schools and encourage them to remain there. The California example suggest s that money by itself may not be an adequate inducement to encourage large numbers of high quality teachers to move from higher performing to low performing schools. Support clearly is important. But, as we suggested earlier in the paper, so are working conditions. And working conditions are generally less favorable in low performing than in higher performing schools.

PAGE 19

19 Realigning NBCT Distribution National Board Certified T eachers have been designated as accomplished. Policy makers across the nation have determined that NBCTs ought to be a central part of any strategy to improve student achievement. But as data from our six states show, NBCTs are found disproportionately in higher performing, not lower performing schools, thus blunting their potentia l impact. To be sure, the maldistribution of NBCTs is only one aspect of the larger problem of the skewed distribution of well qualified teachers and the resulting inequitable distribution of resources among schools. But as policy makers craft policies d esigned to reward teachers who earn National Board Certification, they need to be careful not to craft policies that make the distribution of resources even more inequitable The solution to attracting the best teachers to the most challenging schools wou ld seem to lie in designing an appropriate package of incentives as well as in taking steps to make these schools more attractive places for highly skilled teachers to teach. Unfortunately, most current incentive s to become NBCTs seem to be doing little to realign the distribution of excellent teachers. Rethinking Policy to Reshape Distribution If as a nation we are truly committed to ensuring that all students achieve at high levels, then we must devise policies that will encourage the most highly ski lled teachers to teach the most vulnerable students. Toward that end, it may be time to rethink incentive policies regarding NBCTs. This shift in approach will require the active participation of the National Board, of states, and of local school distric ts. What Can The National Board Do? When the National Board was in its formative years, the organization was faced with a long agenda of crucial and challenging tasks. Standards of accomplished practice needed to be developed for various fields and acade mic disciplines. In all, the Board now offers certification in 27 fields geared to subject matter and students developmental levels. The decision was made early that assessments to gauge National Board Certification candidates achievement of these stan dards would be based on performance. Thus, the Board set about designing valid and reliable assessments that would require candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in a variety of ways. Preliminary assessments were tested and retested to ensur e that, to the extent possible, they were free from items or tasks that would disadvantage candidates on the basis of their race or teaching assignment. In addition, the Board needed to build a constituency for support. Advanced certification for teaching was an entirely new concept. National Board officials were mindful that the fledgling organization would not survive long without a broad based consensus about the credibility and significance of its work. The Board undertook a deliberate strategy to pe rsuade states and districts to give National Board Certification policy standing through fee supports and salary incentives. The effort was targeted to securing advantages for teachers generally to pursue National Board Certification Early leaders of the National Board were aware of the likely maldistribution of NBCTs, but they viewed address ing the problem as a state and district responsibility As this paper has demonstrated, little action has been taken on this front. National Board Certified Teacher s remain concentrated in higher performing schools. The t ime may now have come for the

PAGE 20

20 National Board to take bolder steps, to begin to promote more targeted policies such as those aimed at ameliorating NBCT distribution inequities highlighted in this pap er. Although the National Board itself has no direct authority to impose policy actions, it can use its considerable influence energy and resources to encourage states and school districts to act in three areas : (1) to create greater equity in working co ndition s between high and low performing school s (2) to increase financial incentives and supports for teachers who work in low performing schools to seek National Board Certification (3) and to increase targeted financial incentives to encourage teache rs who hold National Board Certification to select low performing schools. This approach, advocating policies directed at reconfiguring the distribution of NBCTs, would take the National Board down a new and different policy direction However, by remai ning silent, the National Board gives its tacit approval to the continuing maldistribution of teachers. Speaking out seems a risk worth taking. What Can States Do? State policy can have a powerful influence on the distribution of National Board Certified Teachers, and therefore on resource allocation. State s can and should enact policies that are designed to encourage National Board Certified Teachers to choose low performing schools and to grow National Board Certified Teachers in low performing schools States can both target candidate support programs to teachers who want to teach in low performing schools and dedicate a designated percentage of fee support dollars to such teachers. Where state policy creates barriers to interdistrict transfers by cap ping placement on salary schedules, such policies can be eliminated for National Board Certified T eachers who agree to teach in low performing schools. And states can expand credential portability by issuing licenses for NBCTs who transfer from another st ate to low performing schools. Moreover, although money alone may not be the single deciding factor in National Board Certified Teachers assignment preferences, fiscal incentives certainly provide a welcome and important boost. States should consider fin ancial remuneration as part of a comprehensive package of incentives and supports. Failure to act only perpetuates serious inequities in resource allocation. What Can Districts Do? Districts hold the greatest sway over local barriers to NBCTs choosing lo w performing schools. In the more than 30 states in which teachers working conditions are substantially shaped through the process of collective bargaining, the local teachers union must play an active role in solving the NBCT maldistribution dilemma. Unions must be encouraged to negotiate new compensation structures and transfer and assignment procedures that encourage Board Certified Teachers to choose the most challenging schools. All districts, whether subject to collective bargaining or not, can r ededicate their efforts, and redirect some of their resources, to rectifying disparities in working condition s between high and low performing schools. They can develop and implement targeted support programs for National Board candidates who already tea ch in low performing schools, and they can structure compensation so that NBCTs who agree to accept assignments in low performing schools receive a salary boost.

PAGE 21

21 A Collective Effort Making low perform ing schools more desirable work places for accomplished teachers will require the combined efforts of the National Board, of states, and of school districts. In addition to the kinds of supports and incentives we have suggested in this paper, there also needs to be a collective effort to change the pervasive occupational norm that relegates those who choose to teach in low performing schools to lower professional status. If we are to succeed in providing the students in greatest need with the most expert teachers, it must become a badge of professional honor to teach in schools in the most desperate academic straits.

PAGE 22

22 R eferences Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., and Hattie, J. (2000). The Certification System of the National Board for Professional Teachin g Standards: A Construct and Consequential Validity St udy Greensboro, NC: Center for the Educational Research and Evaluation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. California Department of Education (CDE). (2004). 2003 Base API Data File, 2002 Base API Data File, 2001 Base API Data File Avai lable from California Department of Education Web site, http://api.cde.ca.gov/datafiles.html California Education Code (2004). 44399. Available from the California Codes Web site, www.leginfo.ca.gov Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986) A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21 st Century New York: Author. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analys is of political l ife New York: Wiley and Sons. Education Week Quality Counts 2003 (2003). If I cant learn from youEnsuring a Highly Qualified Teacher for Every Classroom. Washington, DC: Author. Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: N ew e videnc e of how and why money matters Harvard Journal on Legislation 28 475. Florida Department of Education (FDOE). (2004). [School scores for all curriculum groups: Reading and Math scores for grades 4, 5, 8, and 10, in 2001, 2002, and 2003]. Ava ilable f r o m Florida Department of Education Web site, http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/fcinfopg.htm Goldhaber, D., Perry, D., and Anthony E. (2003 ) NBPTS Certification: Who a pplies and w hat f acto rs are a ssociated with s uccess? Retrieved June 2004 from http://www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSA_S5_2_03.pdf Goldhaber D. and Anthony E. (2004) Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? Retrieved June 2004 from http://www.urban.org/Uploa dedPDF/410958_NBPTSOutcomes.pdf Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F. and Rivkin, S. G. (2001, November) Why public schools lose teachers ( Working paper 8599 ) Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. w w w.nber.org/papers/w8599 Haycock, K (1998) Good teaching mattersa l ot Santa Cruz, CA : The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Haycock, K. (2000, Spring) Honor in the Boxcar: Equalizing Teacher Quality. Thinking K 16 Washington, DC : Education Trust Kain, J. F. & Singleton, K. ( 1996, May/June ) Equality of educational o pportunity revisited. New England Economic Review 111 114.

PAGE 23

23 Koppich, J. (2001). Investing in t eaching Washington, D C : National Alliance of Business. Kup ermintz H. (2003). Teacher e ffects and t eacher e ffectiveness: A v alidity i nvestigation of the T ennessee v alue a dded a ssessment s ystem. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25 (3), 287 298. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). (200 4 ). [Tab delimited list of LAUSD Schools (K 12 only)] Retrieved March 2004 from http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/bulletins/lausdk12.tab Mississippi Department of Education (MDE). (200 4). [ Mississippi Curriculum Test scores and Subject Area Testing Program scores for 2001 2003 : MCT 03.CDF, MCT 02.CDF, MCT 01.CDF, SATP 03.CDF, SATP 02.CDF, SATP 01.CDF] Available from the Mississippi Department f Education Web site, ftp://research.mde.k12.ms.us/pub/Cdf/ National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2000). A Distinction that Matters: Why National Teacher Certification Makes a Difference Washington, DC: Author. Nat ional Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2003). [2001 2002 National Board candidates, demographics, and pass rates]. Unpublished raw data. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2004 a ). State and Local Support Ince ntives Retrieved March 2004 from www.nbpts.org/about/state.cfm National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2004 b ). Top ten states by total NBCTs Retrieved March 2004 from www.nbpts.org/nbct/nbctdir_topten_total.cfm National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2004 c ). [Contact and demographic d atabase of National Board Certified Teachers certified 1998 2003] Unpublished raw data. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1998). The condition of education Cited in Haycock, K. (2000, Spring). No more settling for less. Thinking K 16 Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust. National Cen ter for Education Statistics (NCES). (200 4 ). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Data: 2001 2002 Available from the National Center for Education Statistics website, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp National Commission on Teaching and Americ as Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future New York: Author. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) (2004). [ The ABCs of Public Education: S chool Performance Composite for 2001 2003 ] Available from the Nort h Carolina Department of Public Instruction Web site, http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/

PAGE 24

24 Ohio Department of Education (ODE). (2004). School years 2002 2003, School Data, Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic Performance Levels [data file] Available from the Ohio Department of Education Web site, http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/Downloads.asp Public Agenda (2003). Stand By Me New York: Author. Roza, M. & Hill, P. (2004) How within distric t spending inequities help some s chools to f ail In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Sack, Joetta L. ( 2003, November ) Board s tamp for t eachers r aising f lags Education Week XXIII ( 11 ). South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE). (2004). [ Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) and Exit Exam scores for 2001 2003 ] Available from the South Carolina Department of Education Web site, http://www.myscschools.com/tracks/testscores/ Teacher Quality Bulletin. (2003, December). NBPTS Continues to Grow 4 (42). The Teaching Commission (2004). Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action New York: Author Vandervoort, L., Amrein Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. (2004 September ). National board certified teachers and their students achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12(46). Available from EPAA Web site, http:/?epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n46/. Wilson, S., Floden, E., an d Ferrini Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher p reparation r esearch: Current k nowledge, g aps, and r ecommendations Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. About the Authors Daniel C. Humphrey is the Associate Director of the Center for Education Policy at SRI International. Dr. Humphreys work is focused on teacher development and education policy. Julia E. Koppich is an education consultant based in San Francisco. Dr. Koppichs research includes a broad range of edu cation policy issues including teacher unions and teacher professionalism. Heather J. Hough is a Research Analyst in the Center for Education Policy at SRI International. Ms. Houghs research interests include teacher development and teacher quality.

PAGE 25

25 Appendix This appendix details the database of National Board Certified Teachers (NBCT), the creation of the Performance Index (PI), and data analysis methods used in the paper, Sharing the Wealth: National Board Certified Teachers and the Schools that Ne ed Them Most. Overview of Analysis and Methods We began this analysis with a database of NBCTs in six states: California, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina, which together represent more than 65 percent of all NBCTs nationwide (NBPTS, 2004b). In order to analyze the school placement of these NBCTs and the placements of all teachers in the state for comparison, we first needed to categorize schools based on student performance and school characteristics. The differences in test ing and accountability policies across the states made it impossible for us to directly equate tests and student achievement. Instead, we assigned a Performance Index score to all schools with measures of student performance already collected by state acc ountability systems. The Performance Index score compares schools with similar grade configurations and identifies them in deciles, with PI1 schools in the bottom 10% of performance and PI10 schools in the highest 10%. In some cases, we used NCES Public El ementary/Secondary School Universe Data: 2001 2002 (NCES) to compare schools of similar levels for the creation of the PI. In other cases, we relied solely on state data. The specific calculations of the Performance Index were different in each state, base d on the respective states testing system and available data, and those methods are discussed in detail below. After creating the PI in each state, we merged the state files with NCES data. We used this method because 1) the data files provided by the st ates were not always comprehensive, and we needed a complete list of schools for the NBCT and whole state analyses; and 2) we needed additional school indicators, such student characteristics and number of teachers in each school, for our analysis of teach er distribution. There were some schools in the NCES database that were not in the state accountability data, either because the school was not in existence in 2001 2002 or the school did not test at the grade level used to create the Performance Index. S imilarly, there were some schools on the state lists that did not appear in the NCES database. The comparability of NCES data and state data is detailed in Tables 2 A 6 A 9 A 12 A and 16 A We used the NCES data for all school counts and analyses rather th an the state level data, for consistency across states. After the state data was merged with NCES, we defined a school as low performing if it fell in the bottom three deciles of the Performance Index for at least two of the past three years (2003, 2002, 2001). Schools with fewer than three years of data were included in our analysis, but by default are considered Non Low Performing. Table 1 A shows how many schools had a Performance Index score in at least two of three years, and thus had sufficient data to be defined as low performing.

PAGE 26

26 Table 1 A Number of Schools in Each State with Enough Data to Calculate School Performance State Schools with fewer than two years of data Schools with two or more years of data Percent of schools with two or more years of data Total schools in state California 1,394 7,522 84.4% 8,916 Florida 665 2,754 80.5% 3,419 Mississippi 190 847 81.7% 1,037 North Carolina 206 2,028 90.8% 2,234 Ohio 735 3,177 81.2% 3,912 South Carolina 129 1,016 88.7% 1,145 T otal 3,319 17,344 83.9% 20,663 Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NCES (2004), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI analysis. With complete databases of NBCTs and all teachers in each state, combined with the Performance Index and scho ol demographic information, we completed our analysis of teacher and NBCT distribution. The results of this analysis are detailed in Tables 21 A 29 A Database of National Board Certified Teachers The database of National Board Certified Teachers, which is t he foundation of this analysis, was first developed using information furnished by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). After the administration of our NBCT survey, which is part of our larger study of NBCTs in low performing sch ools, follow up was conducted and updated information was received about the school assignment of some NBCTs in the survey sample. The database used in this analysis is a combination of the data provided by the NBPTS and information obtained though the res earch teams survey administration through March 2004. All of our analyses on NBCT distribution include only NBCTs who are teaching in schools and only those teachers who earned certification since 1998. Thus, the total number of NBCTs reported by the NB PTS may be higher than the numbers reported in analysis. For example, per NBPTS, 2,644 teachers in California have earned certification, but only 2,292 have been certified since 1998 and only 2,261 of those are working in schools. Creation of the Performan ce Index As discussed above, the creation of the Performance Index was different in each state. The sections below detail how the PI was created in each of the six states used in analysis: California, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and South C arolina.

PAGE 27

27 California In California, the creation of the Performance Index was relatively straightforward. The states Academic Performance Index (API) compares schools at the same level (roughly elementary, middle, high school) in the state and ranks them by decile. For this study, any school with an API score of 1, 2, or 3 in two of three years was considered low performing. The state API data was merged with NCES 2001 2002 data for the analysis of NBCTs and California teacher distribution (Table 2 A shows comparability of NCES and state data, and Table 22 shows the results of the distribution analyses). Table 2 A Comparability of NCES and California State Data 2003 2002 2001 In NCES, but not state data 193 30 1,439 In state data, but not NCES 9 153 7 15 In both databases 8,723 8,886 7,477 Source : CDE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. Table 3 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES 10 ) that were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 4 A shows the percent of sc hools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. 9 Only those schools with API scores are included in the counts. Note that the 2001 API contained far fewer schools than either the 2003 or the 2002 stat e data files (7,493 schools in 2001, 8,733 schools in 2002, and 8,966 schools in 2003). 10 NCES defines school level in the following way: (1) Primary (low graded = PK through 03; high grade = PK through 08), (2) Middle (low grade = 04 through 07; high grad e = 04 through 09), (3) High (low grade = 07 through 12; high grade = 12 only), and (4) Other (any other configuration not falling within the above three categories, including ungraded).

PAGE 28

28 Table 3 A Percent of California Schools in Each Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, by School Level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A* Total Elementary School 9.5 9.4 9.5 9.8 9.2 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.3 9.6 4.3 5,494 Middle School 9.8 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.0 9.5 9.5 4.7 1,282 High School 6.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.4 5.1 47.5 1,70 8 Other 8.3 2.3 2.1 3.0 4.2 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.6 71.5 432 Total 8.8 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.4 15.9 8,916 Source: CDE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. N/A (No PI score is associated with school) Table 4 A Percent of California Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level School Level Total Schools LPS Percent Elementary School 5,494 1,534 27.9% Middle School 1,282 368 28.7% High School 1,708 282 16.5% Other 432 27 6.3% Total 8,916 2,211 24.8% Source: CDE (2 004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. Florida Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) includes assessments in reading and mathematics, which are administered to all students in Grades 3 10 each year, and a writing and science exam, which is given in gra des 4, 5, 8, and 10. The state assigns students to one of five categories based on their performance, defining levels 3 and above as proficient for each grade level. In order to develop the Performance Index for Florida, we created a composite score of t he percent of students failing to meet proficiency in reading and math (levels 1 and 2). Schools with the lowest percentages of students in levels 1 and 2 were assigned the highest Performance Index score (10).

PAGE 29

29 Achievement data for 2001 was only available on the states website for 4 th grade (reading), 5 th grade (math), and 8 th and 10 th grade reading and math. To be consistent in the calculation for each year, we used rankings only for those grades and subjects in 2001, 2002, and 2003. In order to compare schools with like scores, in creating the Performance Index, we only compared schools in which students had taken the same tests. Because of the limited 2001 data, we were only able to include schools in our analysis that had 4 th 5 th 8 th or 10 th grade, which excluded some schools that did not fall into those categories. Table 5 A shows the test configurations and the number of schools that fall into each category. Table 5 A Florida Schools, by 2003 Test Configurations 11 Test data available Number of schoo ls 4 th and 5 th grade 1,686 4 th 5 th and 8 th grade 83 4 th 5 th 8 th and 10 th grade 89 8 th grade only 524 8 th and 10 th grade 167 10 th grade only 434 Total 2,983 Source: FDOE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. To determine how many students did not meet the standards in a school, we created a weighted average across grades. Using the percentages of students scoring a 1 or 2 on the FCAT reading and math tests in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10, we determined how many total students in the school faile d to meet proficiency. We only included in the denominator students who were counted as taking the test for a given grade level. Below is an example of the way that scores were weighted in schools with scores at multiple grades (the same weighting procedur e was used to create average scores combining reading and math): (% students Grade 1 )*(# students Grade 1 ) + (% students Grade 2 )*(# students Grade 2 ) (# students Grade 1 ) + (# students Grade 2 ) After the Performance Index was calculated for each year, the da ta was merged with NCES data for analysis (Table 6 A shows comparability of NCES and state data). 11 There were only 2,983 schools in the FDOEs 2003 data for grades 4 5, 8, and 10. Per NCES, there are 3,419 schools in the state. The difference is largely because we were only able to include schools which tested in 4 th 5 th 8 th or 10 th grade. See Table 6 for details on the comparability of NCES and state data.

PAGE 30

30 Table 6 A Comparability of NCES and Florida State Data 2003 2002 2001 In NCES, but not state data 544 367 588 In state data, but not NCES 12 80 11 12 In bo th databases 2,875 3,052 2,831 Source: FDOE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. Table 7 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES) that were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 8 shows the percent of schools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. Table 7 A Percent of Florida Schools in Each Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, by School Level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A* Total Elementary School 8.8 9 .2 9.0 9.2 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.6 7.6 1,780 Middle School 7.5 10.3 10.5 9.9 9.5 10.1 9.5 10.5 10.1 9.9 1.8 493 High School 4.4 6.4 8.0 8.5 8.3 10.1 9.2 10.1 9.4 9.6 13.8 426 Other 7.6 5.4 3.5 3.2 3.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 64.9 720 Total 7.8 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.0 8.1 19.6 3,419 Source: FDOE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. N/A (No PI score is associated with school) 12 Only those schools with FCAT scores are included in the counts.

PAGE 31

31 Table 8 A Perc ent of Florida Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level School Level Total Schools LPS Percent Elementary School 1,780 472 26.5% Middle School 493 136 27.6% High School 426 83 19.5% Other 720 108 15.0% Total 3,419 799 23.4% So urce: FDOE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis Mississippi The Mississippi assessment program consists of the Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) in reading, language, and mathematics in grades 2 8; a writing assessment in grades 4 and 7; a norm referenced t est (TerraNova) in reading/language arts and mathematics in grade 6; and the Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) in high school for Algebra I, Biology I, US History, and English II. In 2003, there were 213 schools that had both SATP scores and MCT scores. Since the data from the two tests is not comparable, we chose to use the NCES definitions of school level to determine which test would be used for the creation of the Performance Index. In 2003, 180 of the Mississippi schools with SATP scores in English and Algebra were defined as high schools by NCES. For these schools, the SATP was used to create the Performance Index. We used the MCT for the remaining 676 schools with available test data. Note that there are 1,037 schools in Mississippi per NCES. Table 9 A details the comparability of NCES and state data. On the MCT, the state assigns students to one of four categories based on their performance. Students in the lowest level of achievement demonstrate minimal proficiency. For non high schools with MC T scores, the Performance Index was created by calculating a weighted average across grades based on the percentage of students that scored minimal on math and reading standards in grades 2 8. Using these percentages, we determined how many total student s in the school failed to meet standards, and then created the Performance Index, assigning schools with the highest percentages of students at minimal proficiency the lowest Performance Index score (1). Below is an example of the way that scores were we ighted in schools with scores at multiple grades (the same weighting procedure

PAGE 32

32 was used to create average scores combining reading and math): (% students Grade 1 )*(# students Grade 1 ) + (% students Grade 2 )*(# students Grade 2 ) (# students Grade 1 ) + (# studen ts Grade 2 ) The SATP only reported percent passing in 2003 and 2002, so we created a composite of the mean scores in English and Algebra to create the Performance Index. Schools with the highest composite mean score were assigned the highest Performance I ndex score (10). Below is an example of the way that the composite scores were created for the SATP: (Mean Algebra)*(# Algebra Scores) + (Mean English)*(# English Scores) (# Algebra Scores) + (# English Scores) After the Performance Index was calculated for each year, the data was merged with NCES 2001 2002 data for the analysis of NBCT and Mississippi teacher distribution (Table 9 A shows the comparability of NCES and state data). Table 9 A Comparability of NCES and Mississippi State Data 2003 2002 2001 In NCES, but not state data 191 186 188 In state data, but not NCES 13 10 4 4 In both databases 846 851 849 Source: MDE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. Table 10 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES) tha t were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 11 A shows the percent of schools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. 13 Only those schools with MCT or SATP scores are included in the counts.

PAGE 33

33 T able 10 A Percent of Mississippi Schools in E ach Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, by School Level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A* Total Element ary School 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 441 Middle School 9.3 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9. 8 9.8 9.8 9.8 2.2 183 High School 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.2 34.9 275 Other 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.3 4.3 5.8 5.1 5.1 3.6 2.9 53.6 138 Total 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 18.8 1,037 Source: MDE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analys is. N/A (No PI score is associated with school) Table 11 A Percent of Mississippi Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level School Level Total School s LPS Percent Elementary School 441 128 29.0% Middle School 183 54 29.5% High School 275 59 21.5% Other 138 20 14.5% Total 1,037 261 25.2% Source: MDE (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis North Carolina In North Carolina, we used the states Performance Composite to create the Performance Index. This metric reflects the percentage o f students in a school that achieve grade level proficiency, defined as a score of 3 out of 4 on 3 rd through 8 th End of Grade tests, or proficient on high school End of Course tests. In order to ensure that we compared similar schools in creating the P erformance Index, we used the NCES grade level definition and grouped elementary, middle, high schools, and other schools into deciles. After the Performance Index was calculated for each year, the data was merged with NCES 2001 2002 data for the analysi s of NBCT and North Carolina teacher distribution (Table 12 A shows comparability of NCES and state data).

PAGE 34

34 Table 12 A Comparability of NCES and North Carolina State Data 2003 2002 2001 In NCES, but not state data 148 240 240 In state data, but not NC ES 14 57 3 3 In both databases 2,086 1,994 1,994 Source: NCES (2004), NCPDI (2004); SRI analysis Table 13 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES) that were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 14 A shows the p ercent of schools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. Table 13 A Percent of North Carolina Schools in Each Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, by School level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A Total Elementary School 9.4 9.3 10.0 9.3 9.3 9.9 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.7 4.8 1,316 Middle School 10.3 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.6 10.3 9.2 10.3 9.6 9.2 2.0 456 High School 9.7 9.5 9.5 10.3 9.7 10.6 9.2 9.5 9.7 8.3 4.0 349 Other 3.5 8.8 8.8 8.0 8.0 7.1 8.8 7.1 7.1 6.2 26.5 113 Total 9.4 9.4 9.8 9.4 9.4 9.9 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.2 5.2 2,234 Source: NCES (2004), NCPDI (2004); SRI analysis. N/A (N o PI score is associated with school) 14 Only those schools with a North Carolina state performance composite are included in the counts.

PAGE 35

35 Table 14 A Percent of North Carolina Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level School Level Total Schoo ls LPS Percent Elementary School 1,316 371 28.2% Middle School 456 132 28.9% High School 349 94 26.9% Other 113 15 13.3% Total 2234 612 27.4% Source: NCES (2004), NCPDI (2004); SRI analysis. Ohio From 2001 to 2003, the state of Ohio only tested students in grades 4, 6, and 9. In each of the states grade level achievement tests, Ohio repor ts the percentage of students in each grade and subject who demonstrated proficiency on the standards. In order to create the Performance Index, we only compared schools in which students had taken the same tests. Table 15 A shows the test configurations a nd the number of schools that fall into each category. We computed the Performance Index score for each school by taking a simple average of the percent who demonstrated proficiency in reading and math in each of the tested grades (the scores could not be weighted, because the state did not provide the numb er of students taking each test )

PAGE 36

36 Table 15 A Ohio Schools, by 2003 Test Configurations 15 Grade Levels Number of Schools Percent at which a school is in the bottom three deciles 4 th grade only 1,230 55.2 5% passing and below 6 th grade only 494 52.45% passing and below 9 th grade only 703 78.85% passing and below 4 th and 6 th grade 796 48.85% passing and below 4 th 6 th and 9 th grade 16 21 46.13% passing and below Total 3,244 --Source: ODE (2004); SRI analysis. After the Performance Index was calculated for each year, the data was merged with NCES 2001 2002 data for the analysis of NBCT and Ohio teacher distribution (Table 16 A shows comparability of NCES and state data, and Table 26 A shows the res ults of the distribution analyses). Table 16 A Comparability of NCES and Ohio State Data 2003 2002 2001 In NCES, but not state data 282 282 282 In state data, but not NCES 17 71 27 0 In both databases 3,630 3,630 3,630 Source: NCES (2004), ODE (2004); SRI analysis Table 17 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES) that were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 18 A shows the percent of schools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. Table 17 A Percent of Ohio Schools in Each Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, 15 There were only 3,244 s chools in the ODEs 2003 data for grades 4, 6, and 9. Per NCES, there are 3,912 schools in the state. The difference is largely because we were only able to include schools which tested in 4 th 6 th or 9 th grade. See Table 6 for details on the comparabilit y of NCES and state data. 16 Note that there are some schools in this category that have 6 th and 9 th grades and other that have all three testing levels. There were so few schools in this category that it made sense to consolidate the two. 17 Only those scho ols Ohio state with assessment scores are included in the counts. The state data retrieved from the website contained all three years in one file.

PAGE 37

37 by School Level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A Total Elementary School 8.3 8.7 8.6 8.9 8.5 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.7 13.6 2,175 Middle School 6.3 6.8 8.3 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.9 7.5 7.4 8.1 25.6 731 High School 7.1 8.3 8.8 8.8 8.7 9.1 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.1 14.1 761 Other 13.1 3.7 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.1 2.0 60.8 245 Total 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 18.9 3,912 Source: NCES (2004), ODE (2004); SRI analysis. N/A (No PI score is associated with school) Table 18 A Percent of Ohio Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level School Level Total Schools LPS Pe rcent Elementary School 2,175 552 25.4% Middle School 731 144 19.7% High School 761 183 24.0% Other 245 39 15.9% Total 3,912 918 23.5% Source: NCES (2004), ODE (2004); SRI analysis. South Carolina The Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) are administered in mathematics and English language arts to South Carolina students in grades 3 through 8. According to the state, a student who performs at the below basic level on the PACT has not met minimum expectations for student performanc e based on the state curriculum standards. South Carolina tests high school students using the Exit Exam. The state performance data was available on the website by grade level, with no comprehensive list of schools. In order to combine the scores from al l schools, we merged the SC data with NCES data to create the Performance Index. There were a few schools that had both Exit Exam and PACT scores (only 22 schools in 2001). To create the Performance Index, we used the Exit Exam for all schools identified by NCES as high schools, and used the PACT scores for all others. Using the high school Exit Exam, we ranked the

PAGE 38

38 schools in deciles, assigning the highest Performance Index scores to schools with the highest pass rates. For non high schools with PACT sco res, we calculated the Performance Index by creating a weighted average across grades based on the percentage of students that scored below basic on math and reading standards in grades 3 through 8. Using these percentages, we determined how many total s tudents in the school failed to meet proficiency, and then created the Performance Index, assigning schools with the highest percentages of students at below basic the lowest Performance Index score (1). Below is an example of the way that scores were we ighted in schools with scores at multiple grades (the same weighting procedure was used to create average scores combining reading and math): (% students Grade 1 )*(# students Grade 1 ) + (% students Grade 2 )*(# students Grade 2 ) (# students Grade 1 ) + (# studen ts Grade 2 ) Table 19 A below shows the number of schools in each school level (as defined by NCES) that were assigned to each decile in 2003. Table 20 A shows the percent of schools defined as low performing (scoring in the bottom three deciles of student performance in two of three years), by school level. Table 19 A Percent of South Carolina Schools in Each Decile in the 2003 Performance Index, by School Level 2003 Performance Index N School Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A* Total Elementary S chool 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.4 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.4 9.0 9.2 7.6 619 Middle School 9.8 10.2 10.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.4 10.2 9.8 1.6 256 High School 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.3 25.4 248 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 22 Total 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.7 11.9 1,145 Source: NCES (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI analysis. N/A (No PI score is associated with school)

PAGE 39

39 Table 20 A Percent of South Carolina Schools Defined as Low Performing, by School Level Level (NCES) Total Schools LPS Percent Elementary School 619 173 27.9% Middle School 256 74 28.9% High School 248 50 20.2% Other 22 2 9.1% Total 1145 299 26.1 % Source: NCES (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI analysis. Results of Analyses This section will cover the results of the distribution analysis using the Performance Indices in each state, as well as the additional analysis completed on NBCT subdistrict distribution and NBCT pass rates in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Results of Teacher Distributio n Analysis For the analyses of teacher and NBCT distribution, we chose to categorize schools in the following ways: Schools with 75% or more minority students as defined by NCES Schools with 75% or more students eligible for free or reduced priced lunc h as defined by NCES Low Performing Schools schools with a PI score of 1 3 in two of three years (calculation of PI defined in detail above) High Performing Schools schools with a PI score of 8 10 in two of three years (calculation of PI defined in de tail above) 2003 PI schools with 2003 PI scores After these variables were created, we calculated the number of schools in each category (Table A 21) and the number of teachers and NBCTs teaching in each type of school in each state (Tables 22 A 27 A ). No te that in all states, we ranked schools based on their performance, which means that roughly 10% of schools with available test scores are in each decile in each year. In subsequent analyses, we report the number of teachers in each state who teach in suc h schools. If a state has uneven staffing distributions, schools in each decile could have far fewer or far more than 10% of teachers.

PAGE 40

Table 21 A Distribution of Schools in All Six States California Florida Mississippi North Carolina Ohio South Carolin a # % # % # % # % # % # % Total Number of Schools 8,916 3,419 1,037 2,234 3,912 1,145 Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 2,139 24.0 630 18.4 354 34.1 312 14.0 398 10.2 248 21.7 Schools wit h 75% or more minority students 3,407 38.2 736 21.5 330 31.8 340 15.2 381 9.7 229 20.0 Low performing schools 2,211 24.8 799 23.4 261 25.2 612 27.4 918 23.5 299 26.1 High performing schools 2,224 24.9 811 23.7 249 24.0 609 27.3 927 23.7 29 0 25.3 PI 1 schools (2003) 788 8.8 268 7.8 84 8.1 209 9.4 313 8.0 101 8.8 PI 2 schools (2003) 732 8.2 281 8.2 85 8.2 210 9.4 312 8.0 102 8.9 PI 3 schools (2003) 743 8.3 273 8.0 85 8.2 219 9.8 320 8.2 102 8.9 PI 4 schools (2003) 763 8.6 273 8.0 84 8.1 211 9.4 321 8.2 101 8.8 PI 5 schools (2003) 730 8.2 270 7.9 84 8.1 210 9.4 311 7.9 101 8.8 PI 6 schools (2003) 767 8.6 278 8.1 86 8.3 222 9.9 321 8.2 100 8.7 PI 7 schools (2003) 745 8.4 274 8.0 85 8.2 211 9.4 318 8.1 10 1 8.8 PI 8 schools (2003) 751 8.4 279 8.2 85 8.2 211 9.4 317 8.1 101 8.8 PI 9 schools (2003) 734 8.2 275 8.0 83 8.0 210 9.4 318 8.1 100 8.7 PI 10 schools (2003) 745 8.4 277 8.1 81 7.8 205 9.2 322 8.2 100 8.7 Number of schools with no PI scores Associated (2003) 1,418 15.9 671 19.6 195 18.8 116 5.2 739 18.9 136 11.9 Source: CDE (2004), FDOE (2004), MDE (2004), NCES (2004), NCDPI (2004), ODE (2004), SCDE (2004); SRI analysis. A 40

PAGE 41

41 Table 22 A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teach ers in California NBCTs All California Teachers NBCTs Excluding LAUSD* All Cal f. Teachers ( E xcluding LAUSD) NBCTs in LAUSD All T eachers in LAUSD # % # % # % # % # % # % Total Teachers 2,261 292,821.8 1,352 257,438.2 909 35,383.6 Teacher s in Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free & Reduced Price Lunch 802 35.5 77,841.1 26.6 247 18.3 55,231.8 21.5 555 61.1 22,609.3 63.9 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 1,305 57.7 132,138.9 45.1 542 40.1 101,443.2 39 .4 763 83.9 30,695.7 86.8 Teachers in low performing schools 897 39.7 96,305.7 32.9 348 25.7 73,204.9 28.4 549 60.4 23,100.8 65.3 Teachers in high performing schools 633 28.0 74,170.1 25.3 525 38.8 71,629.0 27.8 108 11.9 2,541.1 7.2 Teachers in P I 1 schools (2003) 336 14.9 33,524.3 11.4 104 7.7 23,331.1 9.1 232 25.5 10,193.2 28.8 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 267 11.8 31,690.7 10.8 139 10.3 25,880.1 10.1 128 14.1 5,810.6 16.4 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 228 10.1 29,670.9 10.1 112 8 .3 24,668.7 9.6 116 12.8 5,002.2 14.1 Teachers in PI 4 schools (2003) 215 9.5 29,027.4 9.9 107 7.9 25,435.2 9.9 108 11.9 3,592.2 10.2 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 143 6.3 24,952.3 8.5 110 8.1 23,319.5 9.1 33 3.6 1,632.8 4.6 Teachers in PI 6 sc hools (2003) 191 8.4 27,222.7 9.3 112 8.3 25,086.0 9.7 79 8.7 2,136.7 6.0 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 143 6.3 24,517.7 8.4 108 8.0 23,078.7 9.0 35 3.9 1,439.0 4.1 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 124 5.5 24,605.3 8.4 93 6.9 23,576.5 9.2 31 3. 4 1,028.8 2.9 Teachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 200 8.8 25,000.3 8.5 160 11.8 24,020.6 9.3 40 4.4 979.7 2.8 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 312 13.8 25,084.1 8.6 272 20.1 24,314.5 9.4 40 4.4 769.6 2.2 Number of Teachers with no PI Associated (2003) 102 4.5 17,526.1 6.0 35 2.6 14,727.3 5.7 67 7.4 2,798.8 7.9 Source: CDE (2004), NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c); SRI analysis. LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District A 41

PAGE 42

42 Table 23 A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teachers in Florida NBCTs Florida Teachers NBCTs Excluding Dade* FL T eachers E xcluding Dade NBCTs in Dade All Teachers in D ade # % # % # % # % # % # % Total Teachers 4,487 138,473.0 3,899 119,207.0 588 19,266.0 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more students eligi ble for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 492 11.0 23,231.0 16.8 294 7.5 14,970.0 12.6 198 33.7 8,261.0 42.9 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 766 17.1 30,943.0 22.3 280 7.2 14,132.0 11.9 486 82.7 16,811.0 87.3 Teachers in low perfo rming schools 721 16.1 33,999.0 24.6 487 12.5 24,042.0 20.2 234 39.8 9,957.0 51.7 Teachers in high performing schools 1,928 43.0 41,848.0 30.2 1,779 45.6 39,292.0 33.0 149 25.3 2,556.0 13.3 Teachers in PI 1 schools (2003) 157 3.5 8,376.0 6.0 89 2 .3 5,254.0 4.4 68 11.6 3,122.0 16.2 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 266 5.9 12,597.0 9.1 191 4.9 8,922.0 7.5 75 12.8 3,675.0 19.1 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 334 7.4 13,364.0 9.7 250 6.4 10,856.0 9.1 84 14.3 2,508.0 13.0 Teachers in PI 4 scho ols (2003) 335 7.5 13,582.0 9.8 259 6.6 11,328.0 9.5 76 12.9 2,254.0 11.7 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 412 9.2 13,219.0 9.5 347 8.9 10,933.0 9.2 65 11.1 2,286.0 11.9 Teachers in PI 6 schools (2003) 434 9.7 13,676.0 9.9 402 10.3 12,289.0 10.3 32 5.4 1,387.0 7.2 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 483 10.8 14,235.0 10.3 437 11.2 13,043.0 10.9 46 7.8 1,192.0 6.2 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 578 12.9 14,980.0 10.8 540 13.8 14,108.0 11.8 38 6.5 872.0 4.5 Teachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 663 14.8 14,184.0 10.2 609 15.6 13,338.0 11.2 54 9.2 846.0 4.4 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 705 15.7 13,032.0 9.4 662 17.0 12,486.0 10.5 43 7.3 546.0 2.8 Number of Teachers with no PI Associated (2003) 120 2.7 7,228.0 5.2 113 2.9 6,650.0 5.6 7 1 .2 578.0 3.0 Source: FDOE (2004), NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c); SRI analysis. Dade (Dade County School District) A 42

PAGE 43

43 Table 24A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teachers in Mississippi NBCTs Mississippi Teachers # % # % Total Teachers 1,567 3 1,126.6 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 279 17.8 10,720.2 34.4 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 248 15.8 9,992.4 32.1 Teachers in low performing schools 167 10.7 8,178 .6 26.3 Teachers in high performing schools 691 44.1 9,290.7 29.8 Teachers in PI 1 schools (2003) 39 2.5 2,744.8 8.8 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 48 3.1 2,604.8 8.4 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 69 4.4 2,764.2 8.9 Teachers in PI 4 schools (2003) 90 5.7 2,717.8 8.7 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 173 11.0 2,719.6 8.7 Teachers in PI 6 schools (2003) 160 10.2 3,067.4 9.9 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 166 10.6 2,982.9 9.6 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 220 14.0 3,391.0 10.9 T eachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 238 15.2 3,118.8 10.0 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 232 14.8 2,785.3 8.9 Number of Teachers with no PI Associated (2003) 132 8.4 2,230.0 7.2 Source: MDE (2004), NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c); SRI analysis.

PAGE 44

44 Table 2 5 A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teachers in North Carolina NBCTs North Carolina Teachers # % # % Total Teachers 5,704 88,123.0 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 331 5.8 9,372.0 10.6 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 354 6.2 11,260.0 12.8 Teachers in low performing schools 947 16.6 23,372.0 26.5 Teachers in high performing schools 2,257 39.6 26,165.0 29.7 Teachers in PI 1 schools (2003) 198 3.5 6, 816.0 7.7 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 304 5.3 8,160.0 9.3 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 441 7.7 8,351.0 9.5 Teachers in PI 4 schools (2003) 515 9.0 8,572.0 9.7 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 521 9.1 8,741.0 9.9 Teachers in PI 6 schools (2003) 633 11.1 9,329.0 10.6 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 648 11.4 8,969.0 10.2 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 660 11.6 8,904.0 10.1 Teachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 736 12.9 9,235.0 10.5 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 855 15.0 8,324.0 9 .4 Number of Teachers with no PI Associated (2003) 193 3.4 2,722.0 3.1 Source: NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c), NCDPI (2004); SRI analysis.

PAGE 45

45 Table 26 A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teachers in Ohio NBCTs Ohio Teachers # % # % Total Teachers 1731 112,850.2 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 98 5.7 11,237.1 10.0 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 137 7.9 11,974.3 10.6 Teachers in low performing schools 353 20.4 29,648.4 26.3 Teachers in high performing schools 582 33.6 29,134.7 25.8 Teachers in PI 1 schools (2003) 109 6.3 9,885.9 8.8 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 120 6.9 10,292.4 9.1 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 137 7.9 9,182.4 8.1 Teacher s in PI 4 schools (2003) 106 6.1 9,267.2 8.2 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 131 7.6 8,748.3 7.8 Teachers in PI 6 schools (2003) 137 7.9 8,975.1 8.0 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 138 8.0 9,316.0 8.3 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 141 8.1 9 ,684.5 8.6 Teachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 199 11.5 10,044.2 8.9 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 255 14.7 9,966.1 8.8 Number of Teachers with no PI Associated (2003) 258 14.9 17,488.1 15.5 Source: NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c), ODE (2004); SRI anal ysis.

PAGE 46

46 Table 27 A National Board Certified Teachers and All Teachers in South Carolina NBCTs South Carolina Teachers # % # % Total Teachers 3,056 45,897.8 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch 29 5 9.7 8,190.4 17.8 Teachers in Schools with 75% or more minority students 266 8.7 80,51.5 17.5 Teachers in low performing schools 436 14.3 11,519.6 25.1 Teachers in high performing schools 1,266 41.4 13,683.1 29.8 Teachers in PI 1 schools (2003) 102 3. 3 3,695.2 8.1 Teachers in PI 2 schools (2003) 156 5.1 3,996.7 8.7 Teachers in PI 3 schools (2003) 213 7.0 3,915.9 8.5 Teachers in PI 4 schools (2003) 289 9.5 4,535.7 9.9 Teachers in PI 5 schools (2003) 269 8.8 4,182.1 9.1 Teachers in PI 6 schools (200 3) 342 11.2 4,800.1 10.5 Teachers in PI 7 schools (2003) 331 10.8 4,410.8 9.6 Teachers in PI 8 schools (2003) 396 13.0 4,665.3 10.2 Teachers in PI 9 schools (2003) 299 9.8 4,647.2 10.1 Teachers in PI 10 schools (2003) 493 16.1 4,360.6 9.5 Number of Te achers with no PI Associated (2003) 166 5.4 2,688.2 5.9 Source: NCES (2004), NBPTS (2004c), SCDE (2004); SRI analysis.

PAGE 47

Analysis of NBCTs in Los Angeles Subdistricts In order to compare the number of NBCTs in each of the 11 subdistricts, we used the NCE S data and merged in LAUSD files that contained sub district identifiers for each school. This NCES data, rather than the district files, was used to generate the following counts: Table 28 A Distribution of Schools in Los Angeles Subdistricts NBCTs Total Teachers Schools with API 1 in 2003 Low Performing Schools Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Minority Students Total Students Total Schools Sub district # % # % # % # % # % # % # # A 98 10.8 3,289.8 9.3 3 4.3 18 26.1 37,236 51.8 53,496 74.4 71,94 6 69 B 111 12.2 3,941.0 11.1 10 14.7 35 51.5 64,365 81.1 71,650 90.3 79,348 68 C 80 8.8 3,419.5 9.7 2 2.7 21 28.8 45,188 63.3 54,044 75.7 71,374 73 D 112 12.3 2,841.3 8.0 4 5.3 14 18.4 27,432 47.1 45,549 78.2 58,268 76 E 90 9.9 3,413.5 9.6 7 11.3 24 38 .7 54,167 77.0 64,533 91.8 70,313 62 F 73 8.0 3,100.4 8.8 16 29.6 32 59.3 51,588 81.9 61,655 97.8 63,022 54 G 80 8.8 2,957.3 8.4 20 38.5 37 71.2 48,273 80.2 59,993 99.6 60,222 52 H 91 10.0 3,389.0 9.6 23 43.4 43 81.1 60,903 86.2 70,504 99.8 70,627 53 I 31 3.4 2,634.7 7.4 26 57.8 37 82.2 45,547 82.7 55,049 99.9 55,097 45 J 67 7.4 2,976.6 8.4 11 29.7 32 86.5 54,854 86.9 62,701 99.3 63,113 37 K 76 8.4 3,319.8 9.4 3 4.3 25 35.7 44,915 65.6 62,254 90.9 68,495 70 No district 0 0.0 100.7 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 415 12.8 2,884 89.2 3,233 4 Total 909 100.0 35,383.6 100.0 125 18.9 318 48.0 534,883 72.8 664,312 90.4 735,058 663 Source: CDE (2004), LAUSD (2004), NCES (2004); SRI analysis. A 47

PAGE 48

48 Analysis of NB Candidate Pass Rates in California In order to compare the number o f NBCTs at each API level, we use d a database of 2001 2002 NBCTs (which was provided to SRI as part of the SRI study, Exploring the Differences in Minority and Majority Teachers' Decisions about and Preparation for NBPTS Certification ), and used the NCES i dentifiers within to link each National Board Candidates school to the 2001 2002 California API scores. On the file provided by NBPTS, there were three categories of certification status: Not achieved, Achieved, and blank. Blank records indicate that the candidate is still in the certification process (has not yet completed the requirements). For the purposes of our analyses, we include both blank and Not Achieved in the denominator when calculating pass rates. Table 29 A shows the total number of teachers attempting certification in 2001 2002, as well as the percentage of teachers in each certification status category. Table 29 A Pass Rates of National Board Candidates in Los Angeles and the Rest of California Los Angeles Candidates California Candidates (E xcluding LA) API score % Achieved % Not Achieved % Blank Total # % Achieved % Not Achieved % Blank Total # 1 29.1 52.5 18.4 158 23.4 58.4 18.2 154 2 35.2 52.3 12.5 128 20.4 58.3 21.3 211 3 37.6 50.6 11.8 85 31.8 48.8 19.4 129 4 37.0 48.1 14.8 54 30.0 45.5 24.5 110 5 32.3 58.1 9.7 31 32.8 52.7 14.5 131 6 40.7 44.4 14.8 27 35.3 52.9 11.8 102 7 30.8 61.5 7.7 13 35.2 49.1 15.7 108 8 50.0 30.0 20.0 10 35.2 45.7 19.0 105 9 63.6 27.3 9.1 11 44.2 45.3 10.5 86 10 50.0 40.0 10.0 10 51.8 37.1 11.2 170 No A PI Score 44.4 44.4 11.1 27 34.5 44.8 20.7 58 Total 35.6 50.4 14.1 554 33.2 49.7 17.1 1364 Source: CDE (2004), NBPTS (2003), NCES (2004); SRI analysis.

PAGE 49

49 Education Policy Analysis Archives http://epaa.asu.edu Editor: Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Production Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Sherman Dorn, epaa editor@shermando rn .com EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling Hammond Stanford University Mark E. Fetler California Commiss ion on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Gene V Glass Arizon a State University Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute of Technology Patricia Fey J arvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of Californi a, Berkeley Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven Western Michigan Univers ity Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky Universi ty of British Columbia

PAGE 50

50 Archivos Analticos de Polticas Educativas Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman & Pablo Gentili Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998 2003) Robe rto Rodrguez Gmez Editorial Board Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana Xochimilco Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Teresa Bracho Cen tro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Ursula Casanova Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, Arizona Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Walter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Pia Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, Califor nia Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Educacin Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Iolanda de Oliveira Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Grover Pango Foro Latinoamericano de Polticas Edu cativas, Per Vanilda Paiva Universidade Estadual d o Rio d e Janeiro, Brasil Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Romualdo Por tella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky Ontario I nstitute for Studies in Education, Canada Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Daniel Suarez Lab oratorio de Politicas Publicas Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona Lisboa, Carlos A. Torres UCLA Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 13issue 18series Year mods:caption 20052005Month March3Day 33mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2005-03-03