Characteristics of Effective Alternative Teacher Certification Programs

Abstract

Background

Alternative certification plays a central role in the production of new teachers in many states, yet little is known about the characteristics of an effective program. Given that the variation within programs is as great as the variation between programs, the common methodology of comparing programs is unable to discern the qualities of programs with positive teacher outcomes.

Focus of Study

This paper is based on an analysis of seven alternative certification programs to determine the characteristics of effective programs. It presents findings from an analysis designed to shed light on the effects of personal, program, and contextual inputs on teaching outcomes. To account for within-program variation, the analysis clusters individuals across programs based on common background characteristics, program experiences, and school contexts.

Research Design

We employed multiple data collection activities at both the program and participant levels. We conducted case studies of seven alternative certification programs, including multiple interviews with key personnel and document reviews. We surveyed program participants twice—once at the beginning of their participation in the program, and again at the end of their first year of teaching. We also observed a sample of participants teaching and interviewed them both at the beginning and end of their first year of teaching.

Findings

We found that each program, personal, or contextual element analyzed impacted various outcomes differently, and each contributed to the development of skilled, confident teachers. The element with the strongest effect on all measured outcomes, however, was school context.

Conclusions

Overall, findings suggest that an effective alternative certification program places candidates in schools with strong leadership, a collegial atmosphere, and adequate materials. Effective programs select well-educated individuals or work to strengthen subject-matter knowledge, and recognize that previous classroom experience is an asset. Effective programs provide carefully constructed and timely coursework tailored to candidates’ backgrounds and school contexts. And, effective programs provide trained mentors who have the time and resources to plan lessons with candidates, share curricula, demonstrate lessons, and provide feedback after frequent classroom observations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ball

D. L.

, and Bass

(2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In Davis

, and Simmt

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, (pp. 3—14). Canada: CMESG/GCEDM.

Ball

D. L.

, Hill

H. C

, and Bass

(2005). Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, Fall 2005, 14—46.

Ballou

, and Podgursky

(1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Barron's Educational Services, Inc. Profiles of American colleges, 25th Edition. (2002). Hauppauge, NY:Author.

Darling-Hammond

(1994). Who will speak for the children? How Teach For America hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21—34.

Darling-Hammond

, Chung

, Frelow

, and Fischer

(2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286—302.

Darling-Hammond

, Holtzman

D. J.

, Gatlin

S. J.

, and Heilig

J. V.

(2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach For America, and teacher effectiveness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Decker

P. T.

, Mayer

D. P.

, and Glazerman

(2004). The effects of Teach For America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Dial

, and Stevens

C. J.

(1993). Introduction: The context of alternative teacher certification. Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 4—17.

10.

Feistritzer

(2005). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

11.

Goldhaber

D. D.

, and Brewer

D. J.

(2000). Does teacher certification matter?: High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129—146.

12.

Haberman

(1999). Increasing the number of high-quality African American teachers in urban schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 208—212.

13.

Hill

, Rowan

, and Ball

D. L.

(2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371—406.

14.

Hill

, Schilling

, and Ball

D. L.

(2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11—30.

15.

, and Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria in fix indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1—55. Also cited in Mplus for Windows: An Introduction. Retrieved November10, 2004, from http://www.utexas.edu/its/rc/tutorials/stat/mplus/

16.

Humphrey

D. C.

, and Wechsler

M. E.

(2005). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 9/2/05. Available at http://www.tcrecord.org (ID Number 12145).

17.

Humphrey

D. C.

, Wechsler

, Bosetti

, Wayne

, and Adelman

(2002). Alternative certification: Design for a national study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

18.

Hutton

J. B.

, Lutz

F. W.

, and Williamson

J. L.

(1990). Characteristics, attitudes, and performances of alternative certification interns. Education Research Quarterly, 14(1), 38—48.

19.

Laczko-Kerr

(2002, April). The effects of teacher certification on student achievement: An analysis of Stanford Nine achievement for students with emergency and standard certified teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

20.

Lopez

, Lash

, Schaffner

, Shields

, and Wagner

(2004). Review of research on the impact of beginning teacher induction on teacher quality and retention. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

21.

Miller

J. W.

, McKenna

M. C.

, and McKenna

B. A.

(1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 165—176.

22.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2001). Facts to consider about Teach For America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. A bulletin from Focus on Teaching Quality (The electronic newsletter of NCTAF) August, 2001. Retrieved on (insert date) at http://www.nctaf.org/publications/FocusBulletin_Aug2001.htm

23.

Teachers held up by state's logjam. (2004, October 5). Newark Star-Ledger.

24.

Paccione

A. V.

, McWhorter

B. A.

, and Richburg

R. W.

(2000). Effective teacher preparation for nontraditional candidates. In McIntyre

D.J.

, and Byrd

S.M.

(Eds.), Research on effective models for teacher education: Teacher education yearbook VIII (pp. 111—126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

25.

Phelps

(2005). Just knowing how to read isn't enough! What teachers need to know about the content of reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.

26.

Phelps

, and Schilling

(2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105, 31—48.

27.

Raymond

, Fletcher

S. H.

, and Luque

(2001). Teach For America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: CREDO, Hoover Institution. Retrieved on May 10, 2002, from http://credo.stanford.edu/html/publications.html.

28.

Stafford

, and Barrow

(1994). Houston's alternative certification program. Educational Forum, 58(2), 193—200.

29.

Stoddart

(1990). Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting and preparing teachers for an urban context. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 84—122.

30.

Tschannen-Moran

, Hoy

A. W.

, and Hoy

W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202—248.

31.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2004). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's third annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.

32.

Viadero

(2004). Study finds benefits in Teach For America. Education Week, 23(40), 1, 26.

33.

Wayne

A. J.

, and Youngs

(2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89—122.

34.

Wilson

S. M.

, Floden

R. E.

, and Ferrini-Mundy

(February, 2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

35.

Wise

(1994). Choosing between professionalism and amateurism. The Educational Forum, 58(2), 139—146.