Articles I s Board Certification Necessary for School Health Educators? Michael J. Cleary
ABSTRACT: Voluntary certifiation through the National Board of Professional Teaching Stanhrds current& is being promoted as a mechanism for achieving higher quality instruction in the nation’s schools as well as raising the prestige of the teaching profession, This article examines controversies surrounding this movement, including.the Board’s decision that a teacher’s eligibility to be “board certified” in school health does not depend on prior completion of a health education major. The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards believes their assessment approach will be superior to current quality controls. An analysis of existing certification. accreditation, and external review mechanisms, however, does not support this view. Policy formation strategies to ensure continued viability of Certified Health Education Specialist certi$cation mechanisms are offered. (J Sch Health. 1992;62(4): 121-125)
F
uture historians studying school reform in the 1990s might label this period the “nationalism decade” when a national curriculum’ based on a national examination’ was prescribed as a cure for what ailed public education. Today, this movement shows no signs of abating as the desire to improve education now encompasses the notion of national teaching standards. Creation of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) - a Carnegie Corporation-initiated group funded by private and public sources and governed by teachers, teacher educators, business people, and state and local government officials - soon will offer teachers the opportunity to voluntarily acquire national certification attesting to highly accomplished practice. Accordingly, NBPTS will structure its certificates and associated assessment approaches under the following assumptions:’ All teachers should possess a core of professional knowledge and skills regardless of whom they teach or what they teach. Teachers should have knowledge and skills specific to the developmental stages of the children under their care. Teachers in each subject area should command a core of subject- and discipline-specificknowledge. Teachers should demonstrate depth as well as breadth of knowledge in the disciplines they teach, as well as’skill in conveying that knowledge to their students. These assumptions should sound familiar to school health faculty. They undergird almost every U.S. teacher education program. An unstated but nevertheless apparent assumption suggests existing review systems to determine who can and cannot teach are ineffective and that the National Board will be an improvement.
. . .
Michael J. Cleary, EdD. CHES, Associate Professor and Coordinator, Health Education Programs, Dept. of Allied Health, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057-1326. This article was submitred January 21.1992, and acceptedfor publication March 2, 1992.
Particularly disturbing is the Board’s contention that national certification would not be contingent on completion of an undergraduate major in education but would be based on performance on several assessment instruments currently under development.‘ Likewise, national certification in school health conceivably could be granted to individuals who have not even completed an academic major in health education. Because many of the questions raised by the prospect of a general national certification process center around issues of quality control in teacher selection, the next section examines existing review mechanisms. TEACHER CE RTIFlCATlON Teacher certification is a process of legal sanction, authorizing the holder of a credential to perform specific services in the public schools of the state.’ Inherent in this definition is the assumption that persons who become certified are more competent to teach than those not certified. Persons applying for a traditional teaching certificate must complete a teacher education program which meets requirements for state certification as currently determined by individual state boards of education and professional standards and practices commissions. Research on certification and teaching effectiveness conclude repeatedly that formal teacher education results in more highly rated teachers that ’ foster better student learnix~g.~-~ In their research review, Evertson et allo wrote: . . . the available research suggests that among students who become teachers, those enrolled in formal presentice preparation programs are more likely to be effective than those who do not have such training . . . almost all well-planned and executed efforts within teacher preparation programs to teach students specific knowledge or skill seem to succeed. . . Moore’s’I national survey of principals and experienced teachers concluded that today’s new teachers are even
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
121
better prepared than their predecessors to meet the demands of teaching today’s students. Assertions by NBPTS that alternatively certified teachers would be eligible for “board certification” also may run contrary to the well-documented difficulties these candidates (and their students) experience, particularly in the early stages of their teaching ~areers.’~-’~ In contrast to what is already known about the effectiveness of teacher education, not until 1993 will the first standards assessment instruments be implemented by NBPTS. Whether or not these assessments will significantly enhance teacher performance or prestige will take considerably longer to determine.
LIC E NSURE EXAMlNATIONS Establishment of licensure test requirements by the state creates an additional layer of quality control on teacher education programs. Though preparation programs may be completed successfully, entry into teaching remains dependent on meeting test requirements of the licensing board. Several states, for example, require applicants for teaching certificates to successfully complete various portions of the National Teacher Examination (NTE). Pass rates on the NTE and other licensing examinations range from 69% to 97%, indicating licensure test requirements screen many teacher education graduates from entering the profession.’’ In addition, most licensing examinations, including NTE, test professional and specialty knowledge, the same areas as the National Board’s proposed assessments. Further, redesign of the NTE by the Educational Service, due in 1992, will move toward an emphasis on assessment approaches. l 6 The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards also seems to assume that quality controls beyond the entry-level of state licensure are nonexistent and that national certification will ensure continued highly accomplished practi~e.~’On-going education however is the norm, not the exception for today’s teacher. Campbell” wrote: In most states, a structured system of requirements is in place calling for continual professional development, including college courses and inservice as well as teacher enhancement programs which allow teachers up to two weeks excused from their teaching duties to participate in workshops and seminars. In short, in order to maintain their certification, most teachers must anticipate taking courses continually, earning inservice credits, and being observed and evaluated. From initial certification and licensure examinations through mandates for continued professional study, states currently exert considerable influence over quality of the teaching force. As comprehensive as these mechanisms are, they are not the only means by which teacher education programs and their graduates are reviewed. Accreditation bodies from professional organizations, which play key roles in this area, are examined in the next section.
NATIONA 1 ACC RE DlTAT1ON (NCATE) The National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is a specialized accrediting body
122
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
for U.S. teacher education program^.^^ Under recently adopted new standards,20 NCATE is shaping contemporary teacher education curricula. Burch2’stated: The redesign of NCATE was fully intended to achieve a national evaluation, based on standards of performance which are agreed upon and acclaimed by professionals as representing high quality. The redesign efforts spanned nearly a decade, and the ultimately derived standards and criteria were developed through participation and consensusfrom all of the shareholders in the professional community for teacher education. Institutions which have presented themselves for evaluation under these new standards have reported considerable changes in their elementary and secondary preparation programs.z’ The most significant of these changes result from efforts to address the “knowledge base” ~tandard.’~ Program models subsequently must demonstrate how “essential knowledge, established and current research findings, and sound professional practice” are articulated throughout the curriculum.2o Further articulation of the knowledge base standard ultimately will result in improved and even more meaningful types of teacher assessment.” Besides affecting the professional unit as a whole, NCATE directly influences the quality of school health education programs. NCATE, for example, contracts with the Association for the Advancement of Health Education (AAHE) to review a health education department’s folio based on the Role Delineation Curriculum Project Framework.” Syllabi of required courses in the school health major area of certification must describe clearly how competencies of the generic health educator are met through stated course objectives and learning activities. In summary, credible assessment of teacher preparation is occurring within existing certification, licensing, and specialized accreditation structures. Universitywide accreditation mechanisms such as Middle States and the North Central Associations, as well as various levels of each university’s internal curricular processes were not mentioned here, though these too serve review functions.
OPPOSITION T O NATIONAL CERTIFICATION National teacher certification is not without its critics. The cost of developing national teaching certification guidelines presents a major concern. The 64-member National Board currently is funded by a Carnegie Corporation grant of $1 million a year for five years to launch the project. A bill in Congress still is requesting more than $25 million dollars over three years to pay just the federal hare.'^ Estimated full cost is now more than $70 million.z4These funds inevitably will draw resources from other projects and needs for schools and teachers. I’ The ethical question also exists of using public funds to support the goals of the National Board. Heslopz4wrote. If teachers set the precedent of having the federal government underwrite a totally undefined research project to establish standardsfor sorting out the elite members of their numerous ranks, why should not other vocations line up for the
same benefits? Because one goal of the National Board is to issue a certificate attesting to highly accomplished teaching,I7a major concern is the legitimate evaluation of experienced teachers. The common approach is to identify a desirable teaching competency, such as subject matter knowledge or lesson planning, then choose or develop an appropriate assessment instrument such as a standardized paper and pencil test. Passing scores are based on a predetermined level of mastery. Competency testing, however, is currently under intense criticism. No state has enacted an inservice teacher competency testing law since 1985. In Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas, more than $9 million of school funds were spent on competency tests which more than 99% of teachers passed. Texas responded by repealing part of its competency tests admitting it was a waste of money.zJ Florida’s experience with inservice competency testing threatened to exacerbate the existing shortage of minority teachers.z6 To counter these weaknesses, the National Board proposed developing new forms of teacher assessments expected to include a structured portfolio composed of colleagues’ comments, samples of student work, and videotapes of classroom instr~ction.’~J~ Strengths of such an approach is that the evaluation of actual teaching or performance on a simulation is a more valid measure of teaching effectiveness than standardized paper and pencil tests. Unlike multiple choice tests however, evaluation of portfolios would require extensive time, trained assessors, and involve considerable expense. Fair assessments can be made only if each candidate is assessed by the same standards and under similar conditions. On-the-job conditions, however, vary too widely while use of structured portfolios runs too great a risk of emphasizing packaging over substance. Other criticisms of portfolio assessments involve the validity of the simulation exercises. Though simulation approximates the actual classroom, it is not equal to it. Even when school-aged children were brought together for planned mini-lessons, the dynamics were less than realistic.” In addition, the process of breaking the teaching process down into separate components for assessment also has drawn criticism.’* Further, if job security is threatened, or salary increments are at stake, portfolios run the risk of being falsified. Finally, the question remains of whether or not national certification in and of itself will add anything substantial to the National Board’s quest for greater prestige for the teaching profession. In a recent poll of 13,500 teachers, more than half said morale has substantially declined in the past five years and 70% gave the national reform effort a grade of “C” or less. They also see political interference on the rise.z9How these teachers would view yet another certification has not been investigated but considering the massive precertification requirements imposed during the 1980s, teachers inevitably will reach a point where they feel overwhelmed and exhausted by it all.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION Though the preceding sections described several
problems relative to all teachers regarding national certification, school health educators in particular have additional concerns which must be addressed. For example, how will the proposed National Board certification interface with existing national certification mechanisms available through the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing?’O Will possession of the Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES) certificate be recognized as the equivalent of Board certification or as something more? In light of the National Board’s decision that a major in health education is not necessary for certification, can the school health professions ethically endorse its validity? Recent observations on the changing nature of school^,^' studies cited earlier on existing review mechanisms, and additional evidence presented here currently favor the efforts of the National Commission (NCHEC) over the NBPTS in the quest for increased prestige and professionalism through quality control. NBPTS-derived standards, for example, will assess the rather narrow domains of subject matter knowledge and development level of students.” Today’s youth, however, have an increased need for personal care and attention apart from subject matter.” Unfortunately, the critical ancillary skillsz2 of the “generic” health educator do not figure prominently in the National Board’s assessment plans. The Board also does not specify how its portfolios and simulation exercises will have to be adapted to meaningfully assess the new roles of teachers in restructured school^.^^^^^ How would school health educators, for example, be given proper credit for their team-building efforts that resulted in development of an interdisciplinary health education curriculum for this new learning environment? Such crucial “behind the scenes” planning, coordinating, and advocacy would never be fairly measured. Apparently, the National Board still views the school health educator’s role along traditional narrow dimensions. A related concern coalesces around the Board’s assumption that an education degree is not necessary for national certification.‘ The assessments will therefore, regardless of their sophistication, be more reflective of technical training as opposed to a professional education. Knowledge of Dewey, Montessouri, Horace Mann, and the history and aims of the American school system is apparently less important than “performance” outcomes. Specific to health education, the Board’s assessment would not measure an understanding of the history of the profession, the influence of Oberteuffer, Creswell, Sliepcevich, or Derryberry. Though an appreciation of health education’s historical ethical dilemmas directly influences many present actions, this knowledge also is beyond the purview of the “snapshot” nature of the Board’s proposed assessment instruments. Fortunately, the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, unlike the National Board, recognized the importance of a major in health education in its deliberations on the academic qualifications of those currently seeking CHES tatu us.'^ In addition, the Frameworkzzthat undergirds contemporary health education programs is sufficiently broad in its approach to professional preparation as well as being competency-
Journal of School Health * April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4 * 123
based. Further, the Framework is linked directly to existing quality controls of state certification and licensure. Finally, specialized NCATE accreditation through the Association for the Advancement of Health Education, is possible only through submission of program folios that clearly reflect Framework competencies. In summary, it appears that current National Commission certification protocols are inherently more scientific and discerning than assessment proposals forwarded by the National Board. TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Though seriously flawed, voluntary national certification of teachers is a real possibility. Carnegie-funded research into new forms of assessment related to the objectives of the National Board currently is proceeding. The two major teacher’s unions, together with NCATE, also endorse certain aspects of the movement.16 Emergence of a National Board does not, however, have to compromise existing national certification (NCHEC) initiatives. By using existing linkages with established national education organizations, objectives of the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing can be secured and perhaps expanded. Recommendation One: Recruit national qualitycontrol organizations such as NCA TE to advocate the goals of the National Commission. Illumination and articulation of the knowledge bases for teacher education as addressed through NCATE standards, ultimately will result in improved and more meaningful types of Likewise, NCATE’s standards for health education (through AAHE) are not ony influencing contemporary school health preparation programs, but are presenting the challenge and opportunity to accomplish more creditable program assessment within the Framework. Specifically, NCATE should formally request that NBPTS recognize the National Commission as the national certifying body for school health educators. In addition, a portion of the National Board’s assessment development monies should be funnelled to the National Commission to enhance the quality of the current CHES examination. As Green” indicated, the test is good but far from perfect. The assessment approach advocated by the National Board should be seriously considered for incorporation by the Professional Examination Service. Recommendation Two: Use national health professional organizations to advocate the goals of the National Commission directly to the teachers ’ unions. Today, professional organizations in all subject areas have greater influence on educational policy than in the past.l Without specific endorsements from the American School Health Association as well as AAHE, it would be difficult for the teachers’ unions (whose presidents both sit on the Board of Directors of the National Board) to convince administrators, teachers, and parents of the legitimacy of proposed national certification mechanisms. As political as well as professional entities, the NEA and AFT would not welcome adverse publicity regarding their involvement with the National Board. Together, leaders of NCATE and both teachers unions should request that the National Board formally
124
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
designate the National Commission as its certifying body in matters of health education. Such a movement, of course, would mean that health educators seeking national certification would have to complete an academic major in school health - a certification requirement that National Board policy does not currently mandate.4 To counter such criticism, it should be pointed out that school health education is unique because the National Commission predates the National Board by more than 10 years. Formal recognition of CHES status by the private sector also attests to the growing influence of the National Commission. 3 4 CONCLUSION In moving directly to performance assessments rather than traditional multiple choice testing, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards demonstrates considerable integrity by recognizing the scientific and equity problems inherent in the latter approach. Assessment reforms in school health education, however, should first build on relevant review mechanisms already in place. As currently envisioned, National Board assessments appear to be grafted onto the quality control process rather than rooted in its several layers. State certification and accreditation experiences gives evidence of how health education preparation programs can be improved when professionals have confidence in the review processes. Along with continued improvement of health education through existing quality controls, health education officials must advocate against duplicative practices of the National Board when national certification is at stake. Many health educators already are aware of national certification requirements through the National Commission. Their commitment to the assessment efforts of the National Board would certainly decline in the face of this realization. In fact, confidence in both certification processes would be adversely affected. Nobody knows better than the classroom teacher that time lost in repetitious effort is time taken away from actual work on the curriculum and contact with students. By ignoring legitimate certifying bodies and their related financial costs, assessments imposed by the National Board could actually reduce the quality of school health education while claiming to improve it. References 1. Smith MS, O’Day J, Cohen DK. National curriculum, American style. What might it look like? A m Educ. 1990;14(4):l0-17. 2. O’Neil J. Drive for national standards picking up steam. Educ Leader. 1991 ;48(5):4-8. 3. Toward High and Rigorous Standardsf o r the Teaching Profession: Initial policies and procedures of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Standards: June 1991. 4. Bradley A. Teaching board says professional degree is not requirement. Educ Week. Aug 2, 1989:1.26. 5. Kinney L. Certification in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 1964. 6. Westerman JE. Minimum state teacher certification standards and their relationship to effective teaching. Act Teach Educ. 1989;11(2):25-32. 7. Ashton P. Crocker L, Olejnik S. Does Teacher Education Make a Diyference? A literature review and planning study. Tallahasse, Fla: Institute on Student Assessment and Evaluation,
Florida Dept of Education; 1986. 8. Rossmiller RA, Frohreich, LE. Research Utilization in Schools and Classrooms: Final report. Madison, Wis: Wisconsin Center for Education Research; 1986. 9. Guyton E, Farokhi D. Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. J Teach Educ. 1987;38(5):3442. 10. Evertson C, Hawley W. Zlotnick M. Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education. J Teach Educ. 1985;36(3):2-12. 11. School administrators report new teachers are better prepared than predecessors. AACTE Briefs. 1991;12(l0):1,8. 12. Livingston C, Borko H. Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. J Teach Educ. 1989;40(4):36-42. 13. McDiamid GW, Wilson SM. An exploration of the subject matter knowledge of alternate route teachers: Can we assume they know their subject? J Teach Educ. 1991;42(2):93-103, 14. Smith JM. The alternate route: Flaws in the New Jersey plan. Educ Leader. 1991;49(3):32-36. IS. Rudner LM, Eissenberg TE. State Testing of Teachers: The 1989 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, digest EDO-7M-89-10, 1989. 16. Beudry ML. Post-Carnegie developments affecting teacher education: The struggle for professionalism. J Teach Educ. 1990; 41 (1):63-70. 17. Laws BB. Why teachers must play a role in setting national standards. Educ Leader. 1991;49(3):37-38. 18. Campbell D. Theory into practice. In: Butzow JW, ed. Toward a Model of Post-Baccalaureate Teacher Education. Harrisburg, Pa: Pennsylvania Academy for the Profession of Teaching monograph; 1990. 19. Standards. Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Units. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; 1987. 20. NCATE Redesign. Washington, DC: National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education; 1985. 21. Burch BG. A Brief Review of NCATE Standards as Shapers of Teacher Education Curriculum. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; 1991; Atlanta, Ga. 22. Framework for the Development of Competency-Based Curricula for Entry Level Health Educators. New York., NY: National Task Force in the Preparation and Practice of Health Educators, lnc; National Center for Health Education; 1985. 23. Cavazos opposes federal funds for teaching standards. Educ Rep. July 31, 1989:4. 24. Helslop A. No federal funding for standards boards. Educ Week. Nov 2, 1988:28. 25. Needham NR. The fad that failed. NEA Today. May 1987:3. 26. Smith GP, Miller MC, Joy J. A case study of the impact of performance-based testing on the supply of minority teachers. J Teach EdUC. 1988;39(4):45-53. 27. Olsen L. Capturing teaching’s essence: Stanford team tests new methods. Educ Week. June 8 , 1988:1,21. 28. Loacker G, Campbell L, O’Brian K. Assessment in higher education: To serve the learner. In: Adelman C, ed: Assessment in Higher Education: Issues and contexts. Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, US Dept of Education; 1986. 29. Olson L. Poll indicates teacher job satisfaction coexists with deep concerns. Educ Week. Dec 14, 1988:s 30. Renewal and Recertification Procedures f o r Certified Health Education Specialists. New York, NY: National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc.; 1991. 31. Cleary MJ, Gobble D. The changing nature of public schools: Implications for teacher preparation. J Sch Health. 1990;60(2):53-55. 32. Murphy J. Helping teachers prepare to work in restructured schools. J Teach Educ. 1990;41(4):51-56. 33.Cleary MJ. Restructured schools: Challenges and opportunity for school health education. J Sch Health. 1991;61(4):172-175. 34. Green LW. Letter to the editor. Health Educ Q. 1991;18(4): 525-527.
SEXUALITY EDUCATIONWITHINCOMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION lhiscomprehensive guide assists educators, school administrators and health personnel in planning and implementing a successful sexuality education program for students in K-12.Throughout, ten author/educators encourage a broad, positive approach that places human sexuality within the context of related life events. Sectiononeoffer: steps for implementation and evaluation techniques to improve communication discussion of opposition to sexuality education Section two is divided by grade led, presenting: studentcharacteristics 0 concepts teachingsuggestions 0 activities responses to common student questions A special appendix focuses on sexually transmitted diseases with suggestions on community involvement and prevention strategies. Sexuality Education Within Comprehensive School Health Education is $10.25 for ASHA members and $11.95 for nonmembers, and is available from the: American School Health Association 7263 State Route 43 I P.O.Box 708 Kent, OH 44240 21~i7ai6oi
Add $3.00 shipping/handling, make check payable to ASHA, and include shipping address.
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Voi. 62, No. 4
125
ABSTRACT: Voluntary certifiation through the National Board of Professional Teaching Stanhrds current& is being promoted as a mechanism for achieving higher quality instruction in the nation’s schools as well as raising the prestige of the teaching profession, This article examines controversies surrounding this movement, including.the Board’s decision that a teacher’s eligibility to be “board certified” in school health does not depend on prior completion of a health education major. The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards believes their assessment approach will be superior to current quality controls. An analysis of existing certification. accreditation, and external review mechanisms, however, does not support this view. Policy formation strategies to ensure continued viability of Certified Health Education Specialist certi$cation mechanisms are offered. (J Sch Health. 1992;62(4): 121-125)
F
uture historians studying school reform in the 1990s might label this period the “nationalism decade” when a national curriculum’ based on a national examination’ was prescribed as a cure for what ailed public education. Today, this movement shows no signs of abating as the desire to improve education now encompasses the notion of national teaching standards. Creation of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) - a Carnegie Corporation-initiated group funded by private and public sources and governed by teachers, teacher educators, business people, and state and local government officials - soon will offer teachers the opportunity to voluntarily acquire national certification attesting to highly accomplished practice. Accordingly, NBPTS will structure its certificates and associated assessment approaches under the following assumptions:’ All teachers should possess a core of professional knowledge and skills regardless of whom they teach or what they teach. Teachers should have knowledge and skills specific to the developmental stages of the children under their care. Teachers in each subject area should command a core of subject- and discipline-specificknowledge. Teachers should demonstrate depth as well as breadth of knowledge in the disciplines they teach, as well as’skill in conveying that knowledge to their students. These assumptions should sound familiar to school health faculty. They undergird almost every U.S. teacher education program. An unstated but nevertheless apparent assumption suggests existing review systems to determine who can and cannot teach are ineffective and that the National Board will be an improvement.
. . .
Michael J. Cleary, EdD. CHES, Associate Professor and Coordinator, Health Education Programs, Dept. of Allied Health, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057-1326. This article was submitred January 21.1992, and acceptedfor publication March 2, 1992.
Particularly disturbing is the Board’s contention that national certification would not be contingent on completion of an undergraduate major in education but would be based on performance on several assessment instruments currently under development.‘ Likewise, national certification in school health conceivably could be granted to individuals who have not even completed an academic major in health education. Because many of the questions raised by the prospect of a general national certification process center around issues of quality control in teacher selection, the next section examines existing review mechanisms. TEACHER CE RTIFlCATlON Teacher certification is a process of legal sanction, authorizing the holder of a credential to perform specific services in the public schools of the state.’ Inherent in this definition is the assumption that persons who become certified are more competent to teach than those not certified. Persons applying for a traditional teaching certificate must complete a teacher education program which meets requirements for state certification as currently determined by individual state boards of education and professional standards and practices commissions. Research on certification and teaching effectiveness conclude repeatedly that formal teacher education results in more highly rated teachers that ’ foster better student learnix~g.~-~ In their research review, Evertson et allo wrote: . . . the available research suggests that among students who become teachers, those enrolled in formal presentice preparation programs are more likely to be effective than those who do not have such training . . . almost all well-planned and executed efforts within teacher preparation programs to teach students specific knowledge or skill seem to succeed. . . Moore’s’I national survey of principals and experienced teachers concluded that today’s new teachers are even
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
121
better prepared than their predecessors to meet the demands of teaching today’s students. Assertions by NBPTS that alternatively certified teachers would be eligible for “board certification” also may run contrary to the well-documented difficulties these candidates (and their students) experience, particularly in the early stages of their teaching ~areers.’~-’~ In contrast to what is already known about the effectiveness of teacher education, not until 1993 will the first standards assessment instruments be implemented by NBPTS. Whether or not these assessments will significantly enhance teacher performance or prestige will take considerably longer to determine.
LIC E NSURE EXAMlNATIONS Establishment of licensure test requirements by the state creates an additional layer of quality control on teacher education programs. Though preparation programs may be completed successfully, entry into teaching remains dependent on meeting test requirements of the licensing board. Several states, for example, require applicants for teaching certificates to successfully complete various portions of the National Teacher Examination (NTE). Pass rates on the NTE and other licensing examinations range from 69% to 97%, indicating licensure test requirements screen many teacher education graduates from entering the profession.’’ In addition, most licensing examinations, including NTE, test professional and specialty knowledge, the same areas as the National Board’s proposed assessments. Further, redesign of the NTE by the Educational Service, due in 1992, will move toward an emphasis on assessment approaches. l 6 The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards also seems to assume that quality controls beyond the entry-level of state licensure are nonexistent and that national certification will ensure continued highly accomplished practi~e.~’On-going education however is the norm, not the exception for today’s teacher. Campbell” wrote: In most states, a structured system of requirements is in place calling for continual professional development, including college courses and inservice as well as teacher enhancement programs which allow teachers up to two weeks excused from their teaching duties to participate in workshops and seminars. In short, in order to maintain their certification, most teachers must anticipate taking courses continually, earning inservice credits, and being observed and evaluated. From initial certification and licensure examinations through mandates for continued professional study, states currently exert considerable influence over quality of the teaching force. As comprehensive as these mechanisms are, they are not the only means by which teacher education programs and their graduates are reviewed. Accreditation bodies from professional organizations, which play key roles in this area, are examined in the next section.
NATIONA 1 ACC RE DlTAT1ON (NCATE) The National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is a specialized accrediting body
122
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
for U.S. teacher education program^.^^ Under recently adopted new standards,20 NCATE is shaping contemporary teacher education curricula. Burch2’stated: The redesign of NCATE was fully intended to achieve a national evaluation, based on standards of performance which are agreed upon and acclaimed by professionals as representing high quality. The redesign efforts spanned nearly a decade, and the ultimately derived standards and criteria were developed through participation and consensusfrom all of the shareholders in the professional community for teacher education. Institutions which have presented themselves for evaluation under these new standards have reported considerable changes in their elementary and secondary preparation programs.z’ The most significant of these changes result from efforts to address the “knowledge base” ~tandard.’~ Program models subsequently must demonstrate how “essential knowledge, established and current research findings, and sound professional practice” are articulated throughout the curriculum.2o Further articulation of the knowledge base standard ultimately will result in improved and even more meaningful types of teacher assessment.” Besides affecting the professional unit as a whole, NCATE directly influences the quality of school health education programs. NCATE, for example, contracts with the Association for the Advancement of Health Education (AAHE) to review a health education department’s folio based on the Role Delineation Curriculum Project Framework.” Syllabi of required courses in the school health major area of certification must describe clearly how competencies of the generic health educator are met through stated course objectives and learning activities. In summary, credible assessment of teacher preparation is occurring within existing certification, licensing, and specialized accreditation structures. Universitywide accreditation mechanisms such as Middle States and the North Central Associations, as well as various levels of each university’s internal curricular processes were not mentioned here, though these too serve review functions.
OPPOSITION T O NATIONAL CERTIFICATION National teacher certification is not without its critics. The cost of developing national teaching certification guidelines presents a major concern. The 64-member National Board currently is funded by a Carnegie Corporation grant of $1 million a year for five years to launch the project. A bill in Congress still is requesting more than $25 million dollars over three years to pay just the federal hare.'^ Estimated full cost is now more than $70 million.z4These funds inevitably will draw resources from other projects and needs for schools and teachers. I’ The ethical question also exists of using public funds to support the goals of the National Board. Heslopz4wrote. If teachers set the precedent of having the federal government underwrite a totally undefined research project to establish standardsfor sorting out the elite members of their numerous ranks, why should not other vocations line up for the
same benefits? Because one goal of the National Board is to issue a certificate attesting to highly accomplished teaching,I7a major concern is the legitimate evaluation of experienced teachers. The common approach is to identify a desirable teaching competency, such as subject matter knowledge or lesson planning, then choose or develop an appropriate assessment instrument such as a standardized paper and pencil test. Passing scores are based on a predetermined level of mastery. Competency testing, however, is currently under intense criticism. No state has enacted an inservice teacher competency testing law since 1985. In Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas, more than $9 million of school funds were spent on competency tests which more than 99% of teachers passed. Texas responded by repealing part of its competency tests admitting it was a waste of money.zJ Florida’s experience with inservice competency testing threatened to exacerbate the existing shortage of minority teachers.z6 To counter these weaknesses, the National Board proposed developing new forms of teacher assessments expected to include a structured portfolio composed of colleagues’ comments, samples of student work, and videotapes of classroom instr~ction.’~J~ Strengths of such an approach is that the evaluation of actual teaching or performance on a simulation is a more valid measure of teaching effectiveness than standardized paper and pencil tests. Unlike multiple choice tests however, evaluation of portfolios would require extensive time, trained assessors, and involve considerable expense. Fair assessments can be made only if each candidate is assessed by the same standards and under similar conditions. On-the-job conditions, however, vary too widely while use of structured portfolios runs too great a risk of emphasizing packaging over substance. Other criticisms of portfolio assessments involve the validity of the simulation exercises. Though simulation approximates the actual classroom, it is not equal to it. Even when school-aged children were brought together for planned mini-lessons, the dynamics were less than realistic.” In addition, the process of breaking the teaching process down into separate components for assessment also has drawn criticism.’* Further, if job security is threatened, or salary increments are at stake, portfolios run the risk of being falsified. Finally, the question remains of whether or not national certification in and of itself will add anything substantial to the National Board’s quest for greater prestige for the teaching profession. In a recent poll of 13,500 teachers, more than half said morale has substantially declined in the past five years and 70% gave the national reform effort a grade of “C” or less. They also see political interference on the rise.z9How these teachers would view yet another certification has not been investigated but considering the massive precertification requirements imposed during the 1980s, teachers inevitably will reach a point where they feel overwhelmed and exhausted by it all.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION Though the preceding sections described several
problems relative to all teachers regarding national certification, school health educators in particular have additional concerns which must be addressed. For example, how will the proposed National Board certification interface with existing national certification mechanisms available through the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing?’O Will possession of the Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES) certificate be recognized as the equivalent of Board certification or as something more? In light of the National Board’s decision that a major in health education is not necessary for certification, can the school health professions ethically endorse its validity? Recent observations on the changing nature of school^,^' studies cited earlier on existing review mechanisms, and additional evidence presented here currently favor the efforts of the National Commission (NCHEC) over the NBPTS in the quest for increased prestige and professionalism through quality control. NBPTS-derived standards, for example, will assess the rather narrow domains of subject matter knowledge and development level of students.” Today’s youth, however, have an increased need for personal care and attention apart from subject matter.” Unfortunately, the critical ancillary skillsz2 of the “generic” health educator do not figure prominently in the National Board’s assessment plans. The Board also does not specify how its portfolios and simulation exercises will have to be adapted to meaningfully assess the new roles of teachers in restructured school^.^^^^^ How would school health educators, for example, be given proper credit for their team-building efforts that resulted in development of an interdisciplinary health education curriculum for this new learning environment? Such crucial “behind the scenes” planning, coordinating, and advocacy would never be fairly measured. Apparently, the National Board still views the school health educator’s role along traditional narrow dimensions. A related concern coalesces around the Board’s assumption that an education degree is not necessary for national certification.‘ The assessments will therefore, regardless of their sophistication, be more reflective of technical training as opposed to a professional education. Knowledge of Dewey, Montessouri, Horace Mann, and the history and aims of the American school system is apparently less important than “performance” outcomes. Specific to health education, the Board’s assessment would not measure an understanding of the history of the profession, the influence of Oberteuffer, Creswell, Sliepcevich, or Derryberry. Though an appreciation of health education’s historical ethical dilemmas directly influences many present actions, this knowledge also is beyond the purview of the “snapshot” nature of the Board’s proposed assessment instruments. Fortunately, the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, unlike the National Board, recognized the importance of a major in health education in its deliberations on the academic qualifications of those currently seeking CHES tatu us.'^ In addition, the Frameworkzzthat undergirds contemporary health education programs is sufficiently broad in its approach to professional preparation as well as being competency-
Journal of School Health * April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4 * 123
based. Further, the Framework is linked directly to existing quality controls of state certification and licensure. Finally, specialized NCATE accreditation through the Association for the Advancement of Health Education, is possible only through submission of program folios that clearly reflect Framework competencies. In summary, it appears that current National Commission certification protocols are inherently more scientific and discerning than assessment proposals forwarded by the National Board. TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Though seriously flawed, voluntary national certification of teachers is a real possibility. Carnegie-funded research into new forms of assessment related to the objectives of the National Board currently is proceeding. The two major teacher’s unions, together with NCATE, also endorse certain aspects of the movement.16 Emergence of a National Board does not, however, have to compromise existing national certification (NCHEC) initiatives. By using existing linkages with established national education organizations, objectives of the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing can be secured and perhaps expanded. Recommendation One: Recruit national qualitycontrol organizations such as NCA TE to advocate the goals of the National Commission. Illumination and articulation of the knowledge bases for teacher education as addressed through NCATE standards, ultimately will result in improved and more meaningful types of Likewise, NCATE’s standards for health education (through AAHE) are not ony influencing contemporary school health preparation programs, but are presenting the challenge and opportunity to accomplish more creditable program assessment within the Framework. Specifically, NCATE should formally request that NBPTS recognize the National Commission as the national certifying body for school health educators. In addition, a portion of the National Board’s assessment development monies should be funnelled to the National Commission to enhance the quality of the current CHES examination. As Green” indicated, the test is good but far from perfect. The assessment approach advocated by the National Board should be seriously considered for incorporation by the Professional Examination Service. Recommendation Two: Use national health professional organizations to advocate the goals of the National Commission directly to the teachers ’ unions. Today, professional organizations in all subject areas have greater influence on educational policy than in the past.l Without specific endorsements from the American School Health Association as well as AAHE, it would be difficult for the teachers’ unions (whose presidents both sit on the Board of Directors of the National Board) to convince administrators, teachers, and parents of the legitimacy of proposed national certification mechanisms. As political as well as professional entities, the NEA and AFT would not welcome adverse publicity regarding their involvement with the National Board. Together, leaders of NCATE and both teachers unions should request that the National Board formally
124
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Vol. 62, No. 4
designate the National Commission as its certifying body in matters of health education. Such a movement, of course, would mean that health educators seeking national certification would have to complete an academic major in school health - a certification requirement that National Board policy does not currently mandate.4 To counter such criticism, it should be pointed out that school health education is unique because the National Commission predates the National Board by more than 10 years. Formal recognition of CHES status by the private sector also attests to the growing influence of the National Commission. 3 4 CONCLUSION In moving directly to performance assessments rather than traditional multiple choice testing, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards demonstrates considerable integrity by recognizing the scientific and equity problems inherent in the latter approach. Assessment reforms in school health education, however, should first build on relevant review mechanisms already in place. As currently envisioned, National Board assessments appear to be grafted onto the quality control process rather than rooted in its several layers. State certification and accreditation experiences gives evidence of how health education preparation programs can be improved when professionals have confidence in the review processes. Along with continued improvement of health education through existing quality controls, health education officials must advocate against duplicative practices of the National Board when national certification is at stake. Many health educators already are aware of national certification requirements through the National Commission. Their commitment to the assessment efforts of the National Board would certainly decline in the face of this realization. In fact, confidence in both certification processes would be adversely affected. Nobody knows better than the classroom teacher that time lost in repetitious effort is time taken away from actual work on the curriculum and contact with students. By ignoring legitimate certifying bodies and their related financial costs, assessments imposed by the National Board could actually reduce the quality of school health education while claiming to improve it. References 1. Smith MS, O’Day J, Cohen DK. National curriculum, American style. What might it look like? A m Educ. 1990;14(4):l0-17. 2. O’Neil J. Drive for national standards picking up steam. Educ Leader. 1991 ;48(5):4-8. 3. Toward High and Rigorous Standardsf o r the Teaching Profession: Initial policies and procedures of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Standards: June 1991. 4. Bradley A. Teaching board says professional degree is not requirement. Educ Week. Aug 2, 1989:1.26. 5. Kinney L. Certification in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 1964. 6. Westerman JE. Minimum state teacher certification standards and their relationship to effective teaching. Act Teach Educ. 1989;11(2):25-32. 7. Ashton P. Crocker L, Olejnik S. Does Teacher Education Make a Diyference? A literature review and planning study. Tallahasse, Fla: Institute on Student Assessment and Evaluation,
Florida Dept of Education; 1986. 8. Rossmiller RA, Frohreich, LE. Research Utilization in Schools and Classrooms: Final report. Madison, Wis: Wisconsin Center for Education Research; 1986. 9. Guyton E, Farokhi D. Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. J Teach Educ. 1987;38(5):3442. 10. Evertson C, Hawley W. Zlotnick M. Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education. J Teach Educ. 1985;36(3):2-12. 11. School administrators report new teachers are better prepared than predecessors. AACTE Briefs. 1991;12(l0):1,8. 12. Livingston C, Borko H. Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. J Teach Educ. 1989;40(4):36-42. 13. McDiamid GW, Wilson SM. An exploration of the subject matter knowledge of alternate route teachers: Can we assume they know their subject? J Teach Educ. 1991;42(2):93-103, 14. Smith JM. The alternate route: Flaws in the New Jersey plan. Educ Leader. 1991;49(3):32-36. IS. Rudner LM, Eissenberg TE. State Testing of Teachers: The 1989 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, digest EDO-7M-89-10, 1989. 16. Beudry ML. Post-Carnegie developments affecting teacher education: The struggle for professionalism. J Teach Educ. 1990; 41 (1):63-70. 17. Laws BB. Why teachers must play a role in setting national standards. Educ Leader. 1991;49(3):37-38. 18. Campbell D. Theory into practice. In: Butzow JW, ed. Toward a Model of Post-Baccalaureate Teacher Education. Harrisburg, Pa: Pennsylvania Academy for the Profession of Teaching monograph; 1990. 19. Standards. Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Units. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; 1987. 20. NCATE Redesign. Washington, DC: National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education; 1985. 21. Burch BG. A Brief Review of NCATE Standards as Shapers of Teacher Education Curriculum. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; 1991; Atlanta, Ga. 22. Framework for the Development of Competency-Based Curricula for Entry Level Health Educators. New York., NY: National Task Force in the Preparation and Practice of Health Educators, lnc; National Center for Health Education; 1985. 23. Cavazos opposes federal funds for teaching standards. Educ Rep. July 31, 1989:4. 24. Helslop A. No federal funding for standards boards. Educ Week. Nov 2, 1988:28. 25. Needham NR. The fad that failed. NEA Today. May 1987:3. 26. Smith GP, Miller MC, Joy J. A case study of the impact of performance-based testing on the supply of minority teachers. J Teach EdUC. 1988;39(4):45-53. 27. Olsen L. Capturing teaching’s essence: Stanford team tests new methods. Educ Week. June 8 , 1988:1,21. 28. Loacker G, Campbell L, O’Brian K. Assessment in higher education: To serve the learner. In: Adelman C, ed: Assessment in Higher Education: Issues and contexts. Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, US Dept of Education; 1986. 29. Olson L. Poll indicates teacher job satisfaction coexists with deep concerns. Educ Week. Dec 14, 1988:s 30. Renewal and Recertification Procedures f o r Certified Health Education Specialists. New York, NY: National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc.; 1991. 31. Cleary MJ, Gobble D. The changing nature of public schools: Implications for teacher preparation. J Sch Health. 1990;60(2):53-55. 32. Murphy J. Helping teachers prepare to work in restructured schools. J Teach Educ. 1990;41(4):51-56. 33.Cleary MJ. Restructured schools: Challenges and opportunity for school health education. J Sch Health. 1991;61(4):172-175. 34. Green LW. Letter to the editor. Health Educ Q. 1991;18(4): 525-527.
SEXUALITY EDUCATIONWITHINCOMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION lhiscomprehensive guide assists educators, school administrators and health personnel in planning and implementing a successful sexuality education program for students in K-12.Throughout, ten author/educators encourage a broad, positive approach that places human sexuality within the context of related life events. Sectiononeoffer: steps for implementation and evaluation techniques to improve communication discussion of opposition to sexuality education Section two is divided by grade led, presenting: studentcharacteristics 0 concepts teachingsuggestions 0 activities responses to common student questions A special appendix focuses on sexually transmitted diseases with suggestions on community involvement and prevention strategies. Sexuality Education Within Comprehensive School Health Education is $10.25 for ASHA members and $11.95 for nonmembers, and is available from the: American School Health Association 7263 State Route 43 I P.O.Box 708 Kent, OH 44240 21~i7ai6oi
Add $3.00 shipping/handling, make check payable to ASHA, and include shipping address.
Journal of School Health
April 1992, Voi. 62, No. 4
125
