The Influence of Teacher Preparation on Student Achievement and the Application of National Standards by Teachers of Mathematics in Urban Secondary Schools
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2007
The Influence of Teacher Preparation on Student Achievement and the Application of National Standards by Teachers of Mathematics in Urban Secondary Schools
The influence of traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs on student achievement and instruction in high-need urban secondary schools was investigated through a mixed-method comparative design. Three research questions were addressed: (a) Does the type of teacher training influence the academic achievement of students in mathematics? (b) Does teacher preparation influence the implementation of the process standards set forth by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics? (c) Does the frequency with which teachers use process and content standards influence student achievement? Data from the standardized state test and district level quarterly assessments revealed a significant difference favoring the alternative preparation teachers on two measures of student achievement as well as the use of standard-driven instructional strategies. The findings suggest that alternative teacher preparation programs are a viable avenue to explore in meeting the needs of public schools for providing qualified teachers in mathematics classrooms at the middle and high school levels.
Blair, J., Hoff, D., Keller, B., & Manzo, K. (2002). Teacher distribution hurts poor schools. Education Week, 21(25), 6.
2.
Bol, L. ( 2004). Teachers' assessment practices in a high-stakes testing environment. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(2), 162-181.
3.
Bol, L., Ross, S.M., Nunnery, J.A., & Alberg, M. (2001). A comparison of teachers' assessment practices in school restructuring models by year of implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7(4), 407-423.
4.
Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.H., & Vigdor, J. (2002). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Atlanta, GA: American Economic Association.
5.
Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education. ( 2002). Mathematics standards of learning curriculum framework: Algebra I. Retrieved February 1, 2004, from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/vdoe/instruction/math/math_framework.html
6.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How can we ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. National Commission on Teaching in America's Future. New York: DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund.
7.
Educational Testing Service. (2000). Pathwise Induction Program. Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://www.ets.org
8.
Feistritzer, C.E. (2001, May 22). Alternative routes to teaching (Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations). Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.ncei.com/Testimony010521.htm
9.
Feistritzer, C.E. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
10.
Haberman, M. (1991). The dimensions of excellence in teacher education . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Governmental Affairs.
11.
Haycock, K., (2004). The elephant in the living room. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 229-263). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
Howard, T. (2003). Who receives the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S. teacher shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 142-160.
13.
Ingersoll, R.M. (1998, June). The problem of out of field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan,79(10), 773-776.
14.
Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). The problem of under qualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
15.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. School Administrator, 59(3), 42-43.
16.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. (2002). The effectiveness of Teach for America and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved November 28, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37
17.
Linn, R., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
18.
McCaffrey, D.F., Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics . Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 493-517.
19.
Merlino, F., & Wolff, E. (2001). Assessing the costs/benefits of an NSF standards-based secondary mathematics curriculum on student achievement. Philadelphia: The Greater Philadelphia Secondary Mathematics Project.
20.
Miller, J., McKenna, M., & McKenna, B. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 165-176.
21.
National Association of Educational Progress. ( 1998). Reading report card for the nation and states. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principals and standards for school mathematics. Portland, OR: Graphics Arts Center.
23.
Natriello, G., & Zumwalt, K. (1993). New teachers for urban schools? The contribution of the provisional teacher program in New Jersey. Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 49-62.
24.
National Center for Educational Statistics. ( 1997). Projections to 2007. Washington, DC : Author.
25.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
26.
Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher , 31(1), 13-25.
27.
Spillane, J., & Zeuli, J. (1999). Mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-28.
28.
Stoddart, T. (1993). Who is prepared to teach in urban schools?Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 29-48.
29.
Swafford, J. (2003). Reaction to high school curriculum projects research . In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics currricula (pp. 457-468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Turner, S. (1999). IMP students score higher than their peers on SAT-9. Sausalito, CA: Interactive Mathematics Program.
31.
U.S. Congress. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.nochildlefbehind.gov
32.
Wilson, B.L., & Corbett, H.D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and teachers they want. Albany, NY: SUNY Press .
33.
Wlodkowski, R.J., & Ginsberg, M.B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Saunders, W.L. (1997). Teachers and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation . Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
