Has anyone been successful in requesting a score verification and getting their scores raised? I only got a 2.25 on comp 3 and after comparing the feedback to my paper I feel underscored. Thanks!
On 12/22/16, Adam wrote: > Has anyone been successful in requesting a score > verification and getting their scores raised? I only got a > 2.25 on comp 3 and after comparing the feedback to my paper > I feel underscored. Thanks!
There are 3 places in C3 where you write about the class in the video:
1) In the Writing About Planning section,the first two bullets are about the class in general, so the info you write for each video could be the same , or nearly so. The other bullets, though (goals, rationales etc.) would differ for each video because the lessons are different.
2) The Instructional Context Sheet would likely contain the same basic info for each video because the class you're using is the same.
3) The Instructional Planning Form would contain different information for each video because the lessons are different.
I hope this helps you!
On 12/19/16, MCole wrote: > I am working on Component 3 (Social Studies) and the > 2 page description of the instructional materials. Each > video has to have this. If I filmed the same class for > both videos, how much of the description can be the > same? Some questions are more general to the class- > like instructional challenges, social and physical > context. Can my answers to these questions be the > same for both videos? > > Thanks in advance!
On 12/20/16, What Works wrote: > Hello MCole, > > There are 3 places in C3 where you write about the class > in the video: > > 1) In the Writing About Planning section,the first two > bullets are about the class in general, so the info you > write for each video could be the same , or nearly so. > The other bullets, though (goals, rationales etc.) would > differ for each video because the lessons are different. > > 2) The Instructional Context Sheet would likely contain > the same basic info for each video because the class > you're using is the same. > > 3) The Instructional Planning Form would contain different > information for each video because the lessons are > different. > > I hope this helps you! > > > On 12/19/16, MCole wrote: >> I am working on Component 3 (Social Studies) and the >> 2 page description of the instructional materials. Each >> video has to have this. If I filmed the same class for >> both videos, how much of the description can be the >> same? Some questions are more general to the class- >> like instructional challenges, social and physical >> context. Can my answers to these questions be the >> same for both videos? >> >> Thanks in advance!
...See MoreWhat supports are available for help with Component 3 & 4?
I am really discouraged by my portfolio scores and have little support with so few fellow counselors going through this process. I have completed 1,2,and 3 with the following scores
Component 1 - Ex 1 - 3 Ex 2 - 2 Ex 3 - 3 SRI - 3.613
Component 2 - 2
Component 3 - 2.125
I did not have anyone to read through my portfolio responses before submitting but clearly I am not writing enough to show the work I am doing. I am wondering if the SEL lesson topics I chose don't lend themselves well to showing student's learning (negative self-talk to positive self-talk or understanding the relationship between thoughts, feelings, behavior). I am discouraged about the lack of support for counselors, given that our "lessons" are not always easily assessed. I am actually a Nationally Certified Counselor already, but the NBCT doesn't recognize this certification for counselors and instead have created their own that feels like it aligns more to teachers than counselors. Any ideas for supporting counselors in the portfolio section would be greatly appreciated. I will likely pay to re-do #3 and am deciding if I will do it this year or next.
MaryOn 12/12/16, WA Counselor wrote: > What supports are available for help with Component 3 & 4? > > I am really discouraged by my portfolio scores and have > little support with so few fellow counselors going through > this process. > I have completed 1,2,and 3 with the following scores > > Component 1 - Ex 1 - 3 > Ex 2...See MoreOn 12/12/16, WA Counselor wrote: > What supports are available for help with Component 3 & 4? > > I am really discouraged by my portfolio scores and have > little support with so few fellow counselors going through > this process. > I have completed 1,2,and 3 with the following scores > > Component 1 - Ex 1 - 3 > Ex 2 - 2 > Ex 3 - 3 > SRI - 3.613 > I had the same problem when I went through the process a few years ago. I was difficult finding counselors who had gone through the process. But there were a few counselors in my district that had certified and they gave me a lot of help such as reading my entries and offering advice and suggestions. I also was able to attend a free National Board workshop which was sponsored by my state's (NC)educator association. Hope this helps. > Component 2 - 2 > > Component 3 - 2.125 > > I did not have anyone to read through my portfolio > responses before submitting but clearly I am not writing > enough to show the work I am doing. I am wondering if the > SEL lesson topics I chose don't lend themselves well to > showing student's learning (negative self-talk to positive > self-talk or understanding the relationship between > thoughts, feelings, behavior). I am discouraged about the > lack of support for counselors, given that our "lessons" > are not always easily assessed. I am actually a Nationally > Certified Counselor already, but the NBCT doesn't recognize > this certification for counselors and instead have created > their own that feels like it aligns more to teachers than > counselors. Any ideas for supporting counselors in the > portfolio section would be greatly appreciated. I will > likely pay to re-do #3 and am deciding if I will do it this > year or next.
I teach 1st grade and am a little confused on what work samples to submit for Component 2. I took a writing sample at the beginning of the year where students had to write about the coolest place that they have ever visited. I am wondering if it's okay if my next sample is an opinion piece (we are currently writing about if they like first grade and why/why not). Then for the last writing piece I was thinking of switching it up and having them research a topic and write an informational piece. Do you think that the topics vary enough? I know the directions seem to imply that they want samples of different types of writing. We really don't teach poetry in our current curriculum, but I could have them write a narrative for one of their samples if two opinion pieces is not varied enough. Please let me know what you think:) Thank you!!!
Hello! I have completed Components 1 - 3 and am gearing up for Component 4. Are there any other AYA Math people out there that are interested in chatting about this?
I have felt a little overwhelmed by the whole component and while I think I'm finally starting to process what they're asking for, I'd love to bounce ideas off someone else.
Paige, I am also on Component 4 for AYA Math this year. Honestly, I haven't looked at it much yet because I was waiting for Component 3 scores to come out, but I'm ready to get busy now. I would love to chat with you. My email address is melodie.[email removed].
I'm looking for support from others working towards CTE certification. I just finished my C1 and working on C2, C3, and C4 now. Would love to find someone to bounce ideas and questions off of!
if so, email is: susanstrickline at Yahoo com (just put it all together :) )
I would love to brainstorm with anyone teaching severe/profound students on the completion of Component 4. Can't imagine how challenging this will be trying to create student self assessments.
On 12/07/16, Marianna wrote: > I would love to brainstorm with you! > > Shall we start a new group somehow? > Someone mentioned a Yahoo group. Does anyone have the link? > > > On 12/02/16, lmharris68 wrote: >> I would love to brainstorm with anyone teaching >> severe/profound students on the completion of Component >> 4. Can't imagine how challenging this will be trying to >> create student self assessments.
mickey191179On 12/02/16, What Works wrote: > Hello Imharris68. You definitely have a challenge. I see > two possibilities: 1) using assessments you already are > familiar with and use; or 2) thinking outside the box. > > Let me ask you...what kinds of assessments do you > already do with your students? I'm wondering about > things such as ...See MoreOn 12/02/16, What Works wrote: > Hello Imharris68. You definitely have a challenge. I see > two possibilities: 1) using assessments you already are > familiar with and use; or 2) thinking outside the box. > > Let me ask you...what kinds of assessments do you > already do with your students? I'm wondering about > things such as observations, checklists, rubrics where > you rank the ability to do a skill on a continuum...those > kinds of things. Likely not a paper/pencil assessment. > > Are there any standardized types of assessments you do > go measure cognitive learning? Do you do any kinds of > pre/post testing? If so, could you consider doing a > pretest (to ascertain a student's starting point), then a > formative assessment (could be the same as the pretest) > along the way, and finish with a posttest at the end? > > Thinking outside the box a bit...journal entries, dictation > of a response to a question, responses to pictures, etc.? > > Let's say you are doing a science unit about the moon. > Could your student dictate to you draw a picture of "what > he knows about the moon" at the beginning (pretest), > then another picture after some instruction (formative), > then at the end (summative)? Or could he be shown > some pictures that he would use as responses to > questions about the moon ( Which picture shows a full > moon? Why does the moon "shine"?) etc. > > What about a collage about a topic at 3 distinct points > within a unit? > > Not knowing your students, I don't know if those > concepts may be too difficult, but I use them as an > illustration of some types of assessments you might think > about. Modification might be needed, but they might > spark an idea you hadn't thought of. > > Good Luck! > > > > > On 12/02/16, lmharris68 wrote: >> I would love to brainstorm with anyone teaching >> severe/profound students on the completion of > Component >> 4. Can't imagine how challenging this will be trying to >> create student self assessments. I need ideas as well for Exceptional Needs Component 4. I teach Multiple Disabilities/Severe and Profound and would love any ideas of how to get started. My students are picture oriented and do not have the ability to write. They have lots of fine motor issues and are nonverbal. If you have any ideas let me know.
Don't be discouraged. What Works has a book coming out that would help you on C3 and C4. Ask her in a thread the name of it!
It will change you and help you through this process:)
Good Luck!
On 12/12/16, What Works wrote: > WA Counselor, you have a wild mix of scores! C1 scores > are excellent and because it's weighted heavily, you'll > garner a lot of points here. Component 3, also heavily > weighted, also has a great score. C2 is your albatross at > the moment. I have to be honest and say that you should > keep in the back of your mind that you MIGHT need to do > it over to get all the points (unknown at this time) > you'll need to certify. But if you score well on C4, that > might not be necessary...they might all average out just > fine. If you were in my cohort, I'd advise you to work > like the devil on C4 and see what your scores are next > year. Then if you're shy a few points (because of the > 1.75), you can do it over and devote plenty of time to > doing it. You're a much "smarter" candidate than you were > when you did C2 and chances are strong that you'd score > much higher the second time around. GOOD LUCK! > > > > On 12/12/16, What Works wrote: >> On 12/12/16, WA Counselor wrote: >>> On 12/09/16, NC SC wrote: >>>> Hello What Works!! >>>> >>>> Scores are posted! I'm the school counselor in NC:) >>>> >>>> I'd love your feedback:) >>>> >>>> For component 3 I got a 3.625 !!! I can't believe it! >>> I've >>>> really grown from Component 2 thanks to many mentors >> and >>>> your book. >>>> >>>> So here is what I have so far: >>>> >>>> Component 1: Exercise 1: 4.0 Exercise 2: 3.0 Exercise >>>> 3: 3.0 constructed response: 3.506 >>>> >>>> Component 2: 1.75 >>>> >>>> Component 3: 3.625 >>>> >>>> So would you say I'm still in the fight to possibly >>>> pass >>> the >>>> first go round next year? >>>> >>>> Thank YOU:) >>> >>> I also am a school counselor but my score on Component >> 3 >>> was barely better than 2 (#2 - 2.0 #3 - 2.125) Can you >>> tell me what book? I am having trouble finding mentors >>> specifically to counseling and am feeling discouraged >>> :(
On 12/12/16, NC SC wrote: > 12/12/16 WA Counselor! > > Don't be discouraged. What Works has a book coming out > that would help you on C3 and C4. Ask her in a thread the > name of it! > > It will change you and help you through this process:) > > Good Luck! > > On 12/12/16, What Works wrote: >> WA Counselor, you have a wild mix of scores! C1 scores >> are excellent and because it's weighted heavily, you'll >> garner a lot of points here. Component 3, also heavily >> weighted, also has a great score. C2 is your albatross at >> the moment. I have to be honest and say that you should >> keep in the back of your mind that you MIGHT need to do >> it over to get all the points (unknown at this time) >> you'll need to certify. But if you score well on C4, that >> might not be necessary...they might all average out just >> fine. If you were in my cohort, I'd advise you to work >> like the devil on C4 and see what your scores are next >> year. Then if you're shy a few points (because of the >> 1.75), you can do it over and devote plenty of time to >> doing it. You're a much "smarter" candidate than you were >> when you did C2 and chances are strong that you'd score >> much higher the second time around. GOOD LUCK! >> >> >> >> On 12/12/16, What Works wrote: >>> On 12/12/16, WA Counselor wrote: >>>> On 12/09/16, NC SC wrote: >>>>> Hello What Works!! >>>>> >>>>> Scores are posted! I'm the school counselor in NC:) >>>>> >>>>> I'd love your feedback:) >>>>> >>>>> For component 3 I got a 3.625 !!! I can't believe it! >>>> I've >>>>> really grown from Component 2 thanks to many mentors >>> and >>>>> your book. >>>>> >>>>> So here is what I have so far: >>>>> >>>>> Component 1: Exercise 1: 4.0 Exercise 2: 3.0 Exercise >>>>> 3: 3.0 constructed response: 3.506 >>>>> >>>>> Component 2: 1.75 >>>>> >>>>> Component 3: 3.625 >>>>> >>>>> So would you say I'm still in the fight to possibly >>>>> pass >>>> the >>>>> first go round next year? >>>>> >>>>> Thank YOU:) >>>> >>>> I also am a school counselor but my score on Component >>> 3 >>>> was barely better than 2 (#2 - 2.0 #3 - 2.125) Can you >>>> tell me what book? I am having trouble finding mentors >>>> specifically to counseling and am feeling discouraged >>>> :(
The NB has been up-front about the fact that it would be 2017 before all the scoring information would come to fruition, but I understand that until one is actually a candidate, it's hard to understand the impact of having to wait so long. However, it's just a fact of the situation so we have to live with it for now.
That said, here is some information that may help you get a realistic idea of how you're progressing (including a little history some posts have asked for):
1. In the old process the "cut score" (minimum needed to certify) was 275. There were 10 parts to the old process, so one needed an AVERAGE of 2.75 on each Entry to certify. AVERAGE means that lower scores could be pulled up by higher scores. I believe that will be the case for this NEW PROCESS also.
2. Assessors I know ( I am NOT an assessor), say they THINK that the final cut score will be close to that same number...but THEY CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE. That's why we suggest that 2.75 will LIKELY be a "safe" score and not need to be retaken.
3. The main issue for candidates is when scores fall in the 2.0-2.5 range (maybe even as low as 1.8). This is a "gray area" of sorts - not really low, yet don't reach that benchmark of 2.75. It's hard to know now whether those will need to be retaken or not.
A lot depends on whether some higher scores are achieved and also the WEIGHT of the particular components. We know the weights now, but don't know yet, how the score will translate into points.
In general, in the past, candidates sometimes didn't need to redo a 2.5 component if they had several higher scores. If Components with lesser weights (C 2 and 4) gets lower scores, it isn't as damaging as if the Components with more weight (C 1 and 3) get lower scores.
3. If you score BELOW 1.75 you can plan to do that component over.
4. The advice I and my fellow CSPs in our cohort are giving concerning scores in that gray area and retakes is to wait until after the cut score comes out next year. That way you can actually KNOW where each component stands in relation to the total points needed.
We are advising to work super hard on THIS YEAR'S components to get as high a score next year as possible.
You are a smarter candidate now than you were last year at this time. Many candidates find that whichever Component they worked on first, scored lower than the one(s) that came after. That's because you start from scratch on the first one, but then put your experience to use on subsequent components. This is true for retakes too. Candidates almost always score higher on the retake than the original effort.
With retakes, when the time comes, you want to choose the component that will 1) give you the most bang for your buck (if there is more than 1 to redo); and 2) choose the component you feel you could improve on the most. Although candidates are allowed by the NB to redo ANY component, it's more realistic to think there will be more improvement shown by retaking a component with a lower score than one that scores 2.75 or higher.
I give you this information as food for thought. Again, I recommend waiting until next year to retake anything with the possible exception of Component 1. Because it takes less prep time, it's feasible to retake it whenever you're ready.
All that said, YOU ARE THE BOSS OF YOU! You know your own situation better than me - I don't know it at all. So you are in charge of your own decisions.
Anyway, I hope this helps explain some of the issues you're facing.
JDOn 12/10/16, What Works wrote: > Yes,it is hard not to know what the final "cut score" will > be or exactly how many points each Component is > worth etc. It makes some decisions, especially about > retakes difficult. However, if you ever took a statistics > course, you know that figures such as that can't be > ascertain...See MoreOn 12/10/16, What Works wrote: > Yes,it is hard not to know what the final "cut score" will > be or exactly how many points each Component is > worth etc. It makes some decisions, especially about > retakes difficult. However, if you ever took a statistics > course, you know that figures such as that can't be > ascertained until ALL the evidence and data is in. And > that won't happen until a group completes Component 4 > and it's scored next year. It's frustrating for sure, but > statistically it just can't be done before then. > > The NB has been up-front about the fact that it would be > 2017 before all the scoring information would come to > fruition, but I understand that until one is actually a > candidate, it's hard to understand the impact of having > to wait so long. However, it's just a fact of the situation > so we have to live with it for now. > > That said, here is some information that may help you > get a realistic idea of how you're progressing (including > a little history some posts have asked for): > > 1. In the old process the "cut score" (minimum needed > to certify) was 275. There were 10 parts to the old > process, so one needed an AVERAGE of 2.75 on each > Entry to certify. AVERAGE means that lower scores > could be pulled up by higher scores. I believe that will > be the case for this NEW PROCESS also. > > 2. Assessors I know ( I am NOT an assessor), say they > THINK that the final cut score will be close to that same > number...but THEY CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE. That's > why we suggest that 2.75 will LIKELY be a "safe" score > and not need to be retaken. > > 3. The main issue for candidates is when scores fall in > the 2.0-2.5 range (maybe even as low as 1.8). This is a > "gray area" of sorts - not really low, yet don't reach that > benchmark of 2.75. It's hard to know now whether those > will need to be retaken or not. > > A lot depends on whether some higher scores are > achieved and also the WEIGHT of the particular > components. We know the weights now, but don't know > yet, how the score will translate into points. > > In general, in the past, candidates sometimes didn't > need to redo a 2.5 component if they had several higher > scores. If Components with lesser weights (C 2 and 4) > gets lower scores, it isn't as damaging as if the > Components with more weight (C 1 and 3) get lower > scores. > > 3. If you score BELOW 1.75 you can plan to do that > component over. > > 4. The advice I and my fellow CSPs in our cohort are > giving concerning scores in that gray area and retakes is > to wait until after the cut score comes out next year. > That way you can actually KNOW where each > component stands in relation to the total points needed. > > We are advising to work super hard on THIS YEAR'S > components to get as high a score next year as > possible. > > You are a smarter candidate now than you were last year > at this time. Many candidates find that whichever > Component they worked on first, scored lower than the > one(s) that came after. That's because you start from > scratch on the first one, but then put your experience to > use on subsequent components. This is true for retakes > too. Candidates almost always score higher on the > retake than the original effort. > > With retakes, when the time comes, you want to choose > the component that will 1) give you the most bang for > your buck (if there is more than 1 to redo); and 2) > choose the component you feel you could improve on > the most. Although candidates are allowed by the NB to > redo ANY component, it's more realistic to think there > will be more improvement shown by retaking a > component with a lower score than one that scores 2.75 > or higher. > > I give you this information as food for thought. Again, I > recommend waiting until next year to retake anything > with the possible exception of Component 1. Because it > takes less prep time, it's feasible to retake it whenever > you're ready. > > All that said, YOU ARE THE BOSS OF YOU! You know > your own situation better than me - I don't know it at all. > So you are in charge of your own decisions. > > Anyway, I hope this helps explain some of the issues > you're facing.
This is the most thorough analysis I have found of the whole situation, so thank you. I got my first scores yesterday (Component 1 average: 3.363; Component 2: 3.0). Based on what you have written, I think I am well on my way to passing if I get similar results on Components 3 & 4. Does that sound right to you? I understand the unknowns.
On 12/12/16, JD wrote: > On 12/10/16, What Works wrote: >> Yes,it is hard not to know what the final "cut score" > will >> be or exactly how many points each Component is >> worth etc. It makes some decisions, especially about >> retakes difficult. However, if you ever took a statistics >> course, you know that figures such as that can't be >> ascertained until ALL the evidence and data is in. And >> that won't happen until a group completes Component 4 >> and it's scored next year. It's frustrating for sure, but >> statistically it just can't be done before then. >> >> The NB has been up-front about the fact that it would be >> 2017 before all the scoring information would come to >> fruition, but I understand that until one is actually a >> candidate, it's hard to understand the impact of having >> to wait so long. However, it's just a fact of the > situation >> so we have to live with it for now. >> >> That said, here is some information that may help you >> get a realistic idea of how you're progressing (including >> a little history some posts have asked for): >> >> 1. In the old process the "cut score" (minimum needed >> to certify) was 275. There were 10 parts to the old >> process, so one needed an AVERAGE of 2.75 on each >> Entry to certify. AVERAGE means that lower scores >> could be pulled up by higher scores. I believe that will >> be the case for this NEW PROCESS also. >> >> 2. Assessors I know ( I am NOT an assessor), say they >> THINK that the final cut score will be close to that same >> number...but THEY CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE. That's >> why we suggest that 2.75 will LIKELY be a "safe" score >> and not need to be retaken. >> >> 3. The main issue for candidates is when scores fall in >> the 2.0-2.5 range (maybe even as low as 1.8). This is a >> "gray area" of sorts - not really low, yet don't reach > that >> benchmark of 2.75. It's hard to know now whether those >> will need to be retaken or not. >> >> A lot depends on whether some higher scores are >> achieved and also the WEIGHT of the particular >> components. We know the weights now, but don't know >> yet, how the score will translate into points. >> >> In general, in the past, candidates sometimes didn't >> need to redo a 2.5 component if they had several higher >> scores. If Components with lesser weights (C 2 and 4) >> gets lower scores, it isn't as damaging as if the >> Components with more weight (C 1 and 3) get lower >> scores. >> >> 3. If you score BELOW 1.75 you can plan to do that >> component over. >> >> 4. The advice I and my fellow CSPs in our cohort are >> giving concerning scores in that gray area and retakes is >> to wait until after the cut score comes out next year. >> That way you can actually KNOW where each >> component stands in relation to the total points needed. >> >> We are advising to work super hard on THIS YEAR'S >> components to get as high a score next year as >> possible. >> >> You are a smarter candidate now than you were last year >> at this time. Many candidates find that whichever >> Component they worked on first, scored lower than the >> one(s) that came after. That's because you start from >> scratch on the first one, but then put your experience to >> use on subsequent components. This is true for retakes >> too. Candidates almost always score higher on the >> retake than the original effort. >> >> With retakes, when the time comes, you want to choose >> the component that will 1) give you the most bang for >> your buck (if there is more than 1 to redo); and 2) >> choose the component you feel you could improve on >> the most. Although candidates are allowed by the NB to >> redo ANY component, it's more realistic to think there >> will be more improvement shown by retaking a >> component with a lower score than one that scores 2.75 >> or higher. >> >> I give you this information as food for thought. Again, I >> recommend waiting until next year to retake anything >> with the possible exception of Component 1. Because it >> takes less prep time, it's feasible to retake it whenever >> you're ready. >> >> All that said, YOU ARE THE BOSS OF YOU! You know >> your own situation better than me - I don't know it at > all. >> So you are in charge of your own decisions. >> >> Anyway, I hope this helps explain some of the issues >> you're facing. > > This is the most thorough analysis I have found of the > whole situation, so thank you. I got my first scores > yesterday (Component 1 average: 3.363; Component 2: 3.0). > Based on what you have written, I think I am well on my way > to passing if I get similar results on Components 3 & 4. > Does that sound right to you? I understand the unknowns.