This article extends prior research seeking to identify preparation features related to better workforce outcomes. To our knowledge, it is the first to link many dimensions of preparation to graduates’ first-year observation ratings. It follows 305 preservice teachers (PSTs) who student taught in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) in 2014–2015 and were subsequently hired in CPS in 2015–2016. PSTs received stronger observation ratings when their CTs had stronger observation ratings themselves, their CTs reported providing stronger coaching in specific areas, they gained employment in their field placement schools, and they student taught in self-contained elementary classrooms. Finally, we tested whether these same preparation features were associated with two other outcomes—(a) how well prepared PSTs felt after student-teaching and (b) how well prepared their CTs felt their PSTs were—and found they were not. We discuss implications for using workforce and survey-based outcomes to identify promising forms of preparation.
BastianK. C.PattersonK. M.PanY. (2018). Evaluating teacher preparation programs with teacher evaluation ratings: Implications for program accountability and improvement. Journal of Teacher Education, 69, 429–447.
2.
BoydD.GrossmanP.HammernessK.LankfordH.LoebS.McDonaldM.ReiningerM.RonfeldtM.WyckoffJ. (2008). Surveying the landscape of teacher education in New York City: Constrained variation and the challenges of innovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319–343.
3.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237370935312
4.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
5.
CampbellS.RonfeldtM. (2018). Observational evaluations of teachers: Measuring more than we bargained for?American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1233–1267.
6.
ConstantineJ.PlayerD.SilvaT.HallgrenK.GriderM.DekeJ. (2009). An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification (Final report, NCEE 2009-4043). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
7.
Darling-HammondL.ChungR.FrelowF. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.
8.
Darling-HammondL.HoltzmanD. J.GatlinS. J.Vasquez HeiligJ. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1–51.
9.
DunningD.JohnsonK.EhrlingerJ.KrugerJ. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own competence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87.
10.
FenstermacherG.RichardsonV. (2005). On making determinations of quality teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.
11.
GlazermanS.MayerD.DeckerP. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 75–96.
12.
GlennW. J. (2006). Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effective cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 85–95.
13.
GoldhaberD.KriegJ.TheobaldR. (2017). Does the match matter? Exploring whether student teaching experiences affect teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 54(2), 325–359.
GoldhaberD.LiddleS.TheobaldR. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29–44.
16.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 73–112.
17.
HenryG. T.PurtellK. M.BastianK. C.FortnerC. K.ThompsonC. L.CampbellS. L.PattersonK. M. (2014). The effects of teacher entry portals on student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 7–23.
18.
HillH. C.KapitulaL.UmlandK. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.
KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM.EhlertM. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs?Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 508–534.
21.
MasterB.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2017). More than content: The persistent cross-subject effects of English Language Arts Teachers’ Instruction. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 429–447.
22.
MatskoK. K.RonfeldtM.Greene NolanH. (under review). How different are they? Comparing preparation offered by traditional, alternative, and residency pathways.
23.
MatskoK. K.RonfeldtM.Greene NolanH.KlugmanJ.ReiningerM.BrockmanS. L. (2018). Cooperating teacher as model and coach: What leads to student teachers’ perceptions of preparedness?Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 41–62.
24.
MullmanH.RonfeldtM. (under review). Walking around the puddles: The landscape of clinical preparation in Tennessee.
25.
OstB. (2014). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general human capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 127–151.
26.
RonfeldtM. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 3–26.
27.
RonfeldtM. (2015). Field placement schools and instructional effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 304–320.
28.
RonfeldtM.BrockmanS. L.CampbellS. L. (2018). Does cooperating teachers’ instructional effectiveness improve preservice teachers’ future performance?Educational Researcher, 47(7), 405–418.
29.
RonfeldtM.CampbellS. (2016). Evaluating teacher preparation using graduates’ observational ratings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 603–625.
30.
RonfeldtM.ReiningerM. (2012). More or better student teaching?Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106.
31.
RonfeldtM.ReiningerM.KwokA. (2013). Recruitment or preparation? Investigating the effects of teacher characteristics and student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 319–337.
32.
RonfeldtM.SchwartzN.JacobB. (2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–46.
33.
RozelleJ. J.WilsonS. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How cooperating teachers’ beliefs and practices shape student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1196–1205.
34.
SartainL.StoelingaS. R.BrownE. R.LuppescuS.MatskoK. K.MillerF. K.DurwoodC. E.JiangJ. Y.GlazerD. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation (Research report). Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2018-10/Teacher%20Eval%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
35.
SchwilleS. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education, 115(1), 139–167.
36.
ShulmanL. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
37.
ShulmanL. (2004). The paradox of teacher assessment. In WilsonS. M. (Ed.), The wisdom of practice (pp. 335–349). Jossey-Bass.
38.
SteinbergM. P.GarrettR. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 293–317.
von HippelP. T.BellowsL.OsborneC.LincoveJ. A.MillsN. (2016). Teacher quality differences between teacher preparation programs: How big? How reliable? Which programs are different?Economics of Education Review, 53, 31–45.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
