Addressing Your Scoring Questions/Concerns

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

NBPTS

MEMBERS

145 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

NBPTS Chatboard

Addressing Your Scoring Questions/Concerns

by What Works

Dec 10, 2016

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...See More

Comment

(2)

report post

JD 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 > 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.

Dec 12, 2016

report post

What Works JD, the scores you posted should give you every right to believe you'll certify if you continue to score well. BEST WISHES!

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...See MoreJD, the scores you posted should give you every right to believe you'll certify if you continue to score well. BEST WISHES!

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.

Dec 12, 2016

report post