Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine the proliferation of alternative certification pathways through an analysis of the role and history of teacher certification and supply followed by a synthesis of national, regional, and state research studies on alternative routes to certification programs and a review of studies conducted on well-known national teacher training programs. Conclusions of the alternative certification pathway research are outlined.
Historically, teacher preparation programs, offered through institutions of higher education, have been the single largest supplier of teacher candidates into the field of education. State regulated teacher preparation programs have been essential in filling the need for teachers. Each state has assumed responsibility and decision-making power over public education and consequently, the preparation of public education teachers. States decide on the organizational structure, funding sources and amounts, and professional licensure requirements. As states seized this authority, profound differences in educational structures and governances became apparent. With authority over teacher licensure, states have been able to establish policies and regulations governing eligibility to teach in public education. Teacher licensure, also known as certification and credentialing, is regulated by state legislatures and boards of education. Certification requirements differ in the amount and substance of coursework requisites, quantity of field experience obligations, and length of time spent student teaching (Townsend & Bates, 2007). Just as each state has its own requirements for certification, so also does it have its own processes for approving colleges and universities to offer teacher certification programs and award institutional recommendations (Brown, 2006). During the 1980s and 1990s, a variety of teacher certification examinations was employed in almost all states—each unique in the knowledge and skills assessed. The certification examinations were so dissimilar that the National Research Council (2001) could not generalize to any specific knowledge or skills required of prospective teachers. States have considerable variations among their certification requirements and although efforts have been to nationalize the process by groups such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, no substantial progress has been made.
State certification departments function autonomously with only minimal federal involvement (Feistritzer & Haar, 2006). Federal interest is found in the form of annually published reports that serve to collect and distribute information useful to states in improving education. According to Feistritzer and Haar (2006), annual reports, which continue today despite numerous name changes, began in 1870 with the Annual Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Education (1870-1917) followed by the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States (1918-1962) and the Digest of Education Statistics (1963-present). Congress founded the National Center for Education Statistics in 1969 to serve as the “primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the United States and other nations” (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d., para. 4). The National Center for Education Statistics has functioned within the U.S. Department of Education since its inception in 1980 as a cabinet-level agency (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). The federal involvement in state certification requirements was most drastically noted in 2002 with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, known as No Child Left Behind. Under the policy, states that wished to participate in Titles 1 through 10 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were required to have all of their teachers highly qualified. According to The U.S. Department of Education, highly qualified teachers must possess a bachelor’s degree, full certification or licensure, and prove competency in the subject area or grade level in which they teach by passing a standardized content area test(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Today, more than half of the states require prospective teachers to pass both a professional pedagogical knowledge exam and a content area exam (Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupuis, 2008). As the demand for teachers has increased, and the requirement of teachers has become more rigorous, the traditional routes to teacher certification cannot provide enough teachers for the increasing student population.
Supply of Traditionally Trained Teachers
The need for teachers has outpaced the supply in most geographic regions in the United States, although the severity varies. Three frequently cited causes of teacher shortages include the increasing student population, the aging teaching workforce, and the 2002 legislation mandating highly qualified teachers in all public schools’ core content courses.
The rising trend in student population was noted in a 2003 census brief that declared a record number of 48.5 million students attending school (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). From 1991 to 2004, an increase in 15% of total elementary and secondary enrollment was observed (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), an additional increase of 9% in total elementary and secondary student enrollment is expected between the years 2004 and 2016. In 2008, the public school system serviced 49.8 million students, a new annual record, and by 2017 projections estimate that public school enrollment reach more than 54 million (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
The Baby Boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, comprises 53% of the teaching workforce in the United States (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009). Of the 76 million individuals in the Baby Boom generation (Sloane et al., 2008), 1.7 million are teachers and principals (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009). All 1.7 million educators in the Baby Boom generation are eligible for retirement in the next 10 years (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009).
Attention on retaining teachers after retirement prompted the creation of many postretirement work programs, known as phased retirement plans, which allow retired teachers to be contracted to return to the classroom (Smartschoolsplus, 2008). These initiatives permit veteran teachers (and other certified school district personnel) to full retirement benefits, while continuing to work as contracted employees. Contracts can only be offered for a limited time (National Association of State Retirement Administrators, 2002). Postretirement work programs encourage retired teachers to continue working, thus temporarily aiding in alleviating the teacher shortage. However, the quick fix of phased retirement programs has not been able to keep up with the increasing retirement of teachers.
The shortage of teachers differs greatly based on geographic region and is more prevalent in poor school districts (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). Schools in poverty areas experience more school-to-school teacher migration and observe higher attrition rates among teachers (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). These high rates of teacher turnover affect low-income students as “some studies have found that teacher attrition seems related to the demographic characteristics of schools’ student populations . . . [or] due to the difficulties posed by the kinds of working conditions that often pertain in high-minority, low-income schools” (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009, p. 11). Four factors have been found to influence the decision of teachers who are considering vacating their current teaching position or abandoning the field entirely: working conditions, salaries, levels of preparedness, and support and mentoring during the early years in the field (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009). The nationwide shortages of teachers in the high-need disciplines of math, science, and Special Education, coupled with localized teacher attrition and universal teacher retirement, exacerbates the staffing challenges of some geographic regions more than others.
Regions and disciplines in need of teachers have resorted to placing teachers out-of-field and hiring unlicensed teachers to serve as unofficial teachers of record. Studies indicate that not all disciplines and demographics are evenly affected by out-of-field teaching as nearly one third of all secondary mathematics teachers are teaching out-of-field and “teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to be teaching out-of-field than are teachers in more affluent schools” (Ingersoll, 1999, p. 30). Of the 39 largest school districts that served high-minority, high-poverty students in 1995, 77% reported hiring teachers who were unlicensed (Eubanks & Weaver, 1999). The intensity of the shortages in high-minority, high-poverty schools and districts has a higher likelihood of relying on “unlicensed teachers than are higher-income districts serving more white students” (Birkeland & Peske, 2004, p. 7).
The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act mandated that all teachers of core content disciplines be highly qualified. According to Grover J. Whitehurst’s speech to the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers, the highly qualified policy statement is interpreted to mean
Teachers matter (otherwise why focus on teachers at all).
Teachers vary in their quality (otherwise why distinguish highly qualified teachers from others).
Quality is affected by
General knowledge and ability (otherwise why require a bachelor’s degree).
Certification and licensure (otherwise why make that a defining feature of being highly qualified).
Experience (otherwise why distinguish beginning from experienced teachers).
Subject matter knowledge (otherwise why require that beginning teaches have demonstrated through their college major or an examination that they have knowledge of the subject matter they teach).
Intensive and focused in-service training (otherwise why provide funds to support such activities).
Alignment between teacher training and standards-based reforms (otherwise why require evidence of such alignment in state applications for funding; U.S. Department of Education, 2003, para. 6).
The supposition is that teachers make a difference in students’ achievement and that their quality is related to, among other components, their certification status. The certification status, as a component of the highly qualified label, caused districts who employed high levels of out-of-field and unlicensed teachers to seek alternatives routes of hiring teachers. The policy mandating 100% of teachers to be highly qualified required full participation by the 2005-2006 academic year, and “given the time commitment and expense of traditional teacher certification, it seem[ed] likely that these unlicensed teachers turn to alternative certification programs” (Birkeland & Peske, 2004, p. 8).
A Paradigm Shift in Teacher Certification
Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) described the importance of teacher training stating “certainly among the most demanding kinds of professional preparation: teacher educators must constantly model practices; construct powerful learning experiences; thoughtfully support progress, understanding, and practice; carefully assess students’ progress and understandings and help link the theory and practice” (p. 441). As the standards for teacher certification became more rigorous, more critical attention was paid to the preparation of teachers (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). In 2002, The U.S. Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, stated that there “was little evidence that education school course work leads to improved student achievement” (Levine, 2006, p. 39). Paige stated that educators should be selected based only on verbal ability and subject matter knowledge. Furthermore, he stated that enrollment in a school of education should be voluntary and encouraged states to eliminate teaching requirements and “other burdensome bureaucratic hurdles” (Levine, 2006, p. 39). As a result of sentiments such as these, and the public’s criticism of teacher preparation programs, many states have deregulated teacher licensure guidelines and created an environment in which nontraditional and traditional certification paths are encouraged (Levine, 2006).
The traditional university’s structure of teacher education has been traced to James Earl Russell of the Teacher’s College at Columbia University in the early 1900s (Feiman-Nemser, n.d.). One of the early critics of traditional teacher education programs was James Conant, in 1963, in which his argument for modifying traditional programs pointed to a lack of content area focus and academic rigor (Conant, 1963). In studying traditional teacher preparation programs from 1950 to 1990, a number of shortcomings were found by authors Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) including fragmented and superficial curriculum, inadequate time for learning, traditional views of schooling, and uninspired teaching methods. During the 1980s, two historical reports were published that initiated a movement of teacher education reform. In 1986, the Holmes Group, Inc. published a report, Tomorrow’s Teachers, in which they stated that teachers were the greatest hope for educational reform; therefore, teacher preparation programs must be revised. The group listed several goals for teacher preparation programs, which included the following, as outlined by Ishler (1995): “to make the education of teachers intellectually more solid; to recognize differences in teachers’ knowledge, skill, and commitment, in their education, certification, and work; and to connect our institutions to schools,” further adding, “to create standards of entry to the profession that are professionally relevant and intellectually defensible, and to make schools better places for teachers to work and learn” (para. 4). The second report published by the Carnegie Forum in 1986 entitled, A Nation Prepared, held the same message—increased professionalism and a need for higher standards (Sadker & Sadker, 2005, p. 16).
A vast amount of research by organizations such as The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 2001; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001) and The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (Shields et al., 2003) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of traditional teacher preparation programs. Studies indicate that the traditional teacher preparation programs that consist of 4 years of undergraduate level academics and practicum experience are not an effective format for teacher preparation (Hirsch et al., 2001; Shields et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). Three alternatives to the current traditional teacher preparation programs have been proposed, including extending the traditional 4-year undergraduate program to 5 years, postponing studies of professional practice to the graduate level, and circumventing coursework in favor of more practical on-the-job training (Feiman-Nemser, n.d.). Theoretical research published by the Teacher Education and Learning to Teach Program, and recently supported by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, indicated there is no single effective way to organize teacher education programs as a variety of successful programs employ a number of effective methods (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, p. 391).
Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification
Alternative pathways toward certification have been used by states, formally and informally, for more than three decades. The formal documentation of alternative routes to teacher certification programs began in 1983 when the National Center of Education Information began requesting annual licensure updates of the participants, known as teaching interns (Feistritzer, 2005a). Since 1985, when 275 teaching interns were enrolled in alternative certification programs nationwide, the awareness and availability of these programs have proliferated, resulting in approximately 60,000 annual participants (National Center for Education Information, 2007a).
Beginning in the 1980s, when states introduced options to a traditional licensure, they operated their alternative programs with diverse models, each functioning under their own certification guidelines (Feistritzer, 2005b). Alternative routes to teacher certification offered individuals the option of working as the teacher of record in the classroom, under an alternative certificate, while obtaining the necessary college coursework toward full certification (Feistritzer & Haar, 2006). Eight states offered alternative certification programs in 1983 and by 2003, 46 states offer these nontraditional avenues of certification (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). Among the 46 states that offer alternative certification programs, 144 different models were in operation, all functioning to expedite the certification coursework, allowing alternatively certified teachers to obtain on-the-job training and to be paid as a certified teacher (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). By 2007, every state had variations of an alternative teacher certification route, with 485 distinct programs offered (National Center for Education Information, 2007b). Seventy-one percent of all teaching interns serve in high-needs areas and schools, which are described as having high minority populations, high poverty levels, and are often located in low socioeconomic areas (Feistritzer, 2005a). Participation has expanded to such an extent that current data indicates approximately one third of all new teachers enter the field through an alternative route (Institute of Education Sciences, 2009).
According to a report by Feistritzer (2005a), alternative certification programs are field-based programs “designed to recruit, prepare and license talented individuals who already had at least a bachelor’s degree—and often other careers in fields other than education” (p. 3). These programs have several common characteristics: “rigorous screening processes, coursework or equivalent experiences in professional education studies before and while teaching, work with mentor teachers and/or other support personnel and high performance standards for completion of the programs” (Feistritzer, 2005a, p. 3). The nontraditional pathways to teacher certification permit a broader interpretation of traditional certification laws and present an innovative response to the need for teachers (Noll, 2008, p. 387). Nontraditional teacher certification programs target midcareer bachelor’s-prepared recruits (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).
Supporters of alternative certification programs believe that the current state certification processes are already too restrictive. In a current Brookings Institution paper, it was stated that “public education already is a regulated monopoly” (Noll, 2008, p. 383). Advocates for alternative certifications argue that these types of options open the field for a diversity of teacher backgrounds. This would include those changing careers, who otherwise would only have the option to attend and become certified under traditional systems. In addition, alternative programs, according to Blair (2003; as cited in Kauchak & Eggen, 2008), tend to appeal more to cultural minorities and individuals in the high-need disciplines of math and science. Proponents’ view the bachelor’s-prepared, alternatively certified, teachers as possessing a greater wealth of life experiences and bringing maturity and dedication to the field (Kauchak & Eggen, 2008). A recent study conducted by the Institution of Education Sciences (2009) found no statistical difference in student achievement between traditional and alternatively prepared teachers and no evidence to correlate the length or content of the teacher preparation coursework and the teachers’ effectiveness.
Opponents of alternative teacher certification policies warn that a lack of pedagogical knowledge on behalf of the teacher will lead to lower student achievement and teacher satisfaction (Noll, 2008, p. 388). According to challengers of alternative certifications, this is particularly true when teachers are placed in high-need, low-income schools. Alternative routes have been criticized as leaving the recruits underprepared to manage the tasks of teaching. “Most alternative routes sponsored by school districts, states or other vendors have been found to be significantly less effective at preparing and retaining recruits than university-based teacher education programs” (Darling-Hammond, 1999, p. 13). Critics refer to a 2000 study indicating that the “two-year dropout rate for alternative licensure candidates is more than three times greater than the national average for new teachers” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2008, p. 43) and may be attributed to the disproportionate rate at which alternatively certified teachers are assigned to high-minority and high-poverty schools. According to Sadker and Sadker (2005), a challenge may exist with the nature and population of alternative programs, stating that “studies of alternative licensure preparation have indicated that graduates of alternative programs represent more of an attempt at a quick fix for teacher shortages than a permanent solution” (p. 551).
To examine the impact that alternative pathway programs have had on education, national research studies were summarized, followed by a synthesis of general findings from regional research studies. Next, details of state studies are provided, concluding with an examination of two well-known alternative pathway programs.
National Research Studies on Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification
The earliest research of considerable size was supported by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted in the mid-1980s of 20 alternative and retraining of programs by Adelman (1986). The purpose of the scholarly study was to investigate “concerns about the supply and quality of American teachers [especially] special types of teacher training programs that have been developed by states, localities, and institutions of higher education” (Adelman, 1986, p. 7). Adelman et al. (1986) addressed four research questions: “What are the characteristics of individuals being attracted to such programs and of the programs themselves; how successful are programs in preparing teachers, particularly for math and science classrooms,” followed by “What are participants’ career goals and how successful are they in finding permanent teaching positions; and what are the perceptions of current faculty and administrators regarding alternative certification and retraining?” (p. 8). The study found that alternative certification programs offered more practicum experience and condensed coursework and attracted individuals who were well-educated and had plans to continuing their teaching career. Although there were negative perceptions among some administrators, the study concluded that alternative certification programs were “responsible and innovative approaches to addressing local and state issues of teacher supply and quality” (Adelman, 1986, p. 10).
Early empirical research by Denton and Peters (1988) focused on alternative certifications and examined their effectiveness in preparing secondary math and science teachers. Denton and Peters (1988) enrolled three cohorts of students in an alternative program and conducted a study for 15 months. Although significant sample size attrition was found, research indicated that the interns felt influenced sufficiently by their coursework in pedagogy and content that they were able to reproduce it in their classrooms. Improvements by the interns were made in the areas of “desired teaching skills, academic attainment of students, and the ability to reflect on their personal roles and ultimately to become certified” (Denton & Peters, 1988, p. 68).
A 1997 empirical study conducted by J. Shen investigated the policy implications of traditional and alternative teaching practices through two research questions: “What percentage of the public teaching force were Alternative Certified teachers? Did Traditionally Certified and Alternatively Certified teachers differ in demographics, work experience, academic qualification, career pattern, and what and where they taught?” (Shen, p. 277). A representative sample of 47,105 teachers was used, of which 1,119 represented a subsample of alternatively certified teachers. The study found that little difference was noted in gender between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers, however more non-White teachers were found to be entering the field through alternative pathways. In addition, Shen (1997) found that alternative pathways did not attract older individuals, nor did they attract individuals with higher academic quality. Alternatively certified teachers were found to be 11% more likely to teach in high minority population schools and 5% more likely to teach in the high need disciplines of math and science (Shen, 1997).
Wilson et al. (2001) studied commonalities among quality traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs in 2001 and did a follow-up report in 2003. The secondary research study provided useful recommendations and improvements for all categories of teacher preparation programs. The study reviewed 57 research sources to determine common characteristics and program trends (Wilson & Floden, 2003). In researching alternative programs specifically, the report researched 20 of the 57 studies and concluded that alternative programs were more successful at attracting diverse teachers, in terms of ethnicity and age (Wilson et al., 2001). Inconclusive evidence was found in the areas of program quality and participant enrollment quality when comparing traditional and alternative pathways (Wilson & Floden, 2003). Wilson & Floden (2003) described four characteristics of effective alternative programs, including “high standards for entry, substantial pedagogical training, high-quality mentoring, and strong evaluation components” (p. 22).
In 2005, a study was commissioned by the National Center for Education Information with the purpose of investigating the reasons teachers elected alternative routes to certification (Feistritzer, 2005a). The sample size of 2,647 respondents represented a cross section of all alterative pathway participants. Feistritzer (2005a) found that most teachers in an alternative pathway to certification program were recruited for high-need areas in high-need subjects. The study concluded that 54% of teachers entering through an alternative path stated their probable inability to become certified without the alternative pathway, and as age increased, the likelihood of attending a traditional program decreased. In addition, Feistritzer (2005a) found that 52% of men reported an inability to attend a traditional program, and Hispanic teachers found themselves less likely to attend a traditional program. Ninety-seven percent of the participants surveyed would recommend an alternative pathway to certification (Feistritzer, 2005a).
A study conducted by the American Education Research Association in 2005 explored the quality of teacher preparation programs and routes to certification (Cochran-Smith, Zeichner, & American Educational Research Association, 2005). The study investigated and synthesized the common themes and essential findings from published research reports. The 12-chapter study was written by a panel of American Education Research Association members, each of whom was tasked with researching and authoring individual sections. All panel members followed American Education Research Association guidelines for research by examining only peer-reviewed empirical studies from 1986 to 2002. Chapter 9 examined alternative routes to certification by reviewing 38 studies with the following conclusions: alternatively certified teachers are “more willing than traditionally-certified teachers to teach in low-SES urban schools, but these data may reflect more where teachers can get jobs than actual teacher preferences” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2005, p. 663). Negligible differences were found in efficacy levels of alternatively and traditionally certified teachers as noted through observations. Under some circumstances, alternatively licensed teachers may “have higher expectations for the learning of students of color living in poverty than teachers who have been traditionally certified” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2005, p. 689). In the conclusion of the chapter, the researchers noted little disparity between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers (Cochran-Smith et al., 2005).
A recent study examined student achievement results and classroom practices of traditionally and alternatively certified teachers (Institute of Education Sciences, 2009). The study used only subjects in schools in which traditionally and alternatively certified teachers were contracted in the same grade level. The sample size included 20 districts, 63 schools, and 2,600 students. The study found that the effectiveness level of the teacher is not correlated with the amount or substance of the teacher preparation coursework. The study concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of alternatively and traditionally certified teachers on student achievement results (Institute of Education Sciences, 2009).
Regional Research Studies on Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification
Regional studies of alternative pathway programs have focused on the following geographic regions: a study of the 15 states in the Southern Regional Education Board, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia (Cornett, 1990); a study of the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory region, including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Legler, 2002); and a study of unidentified Midwestern states (Adcock & Mahlios, 2005). A summary of those studies led to the following conclusions: alternative pathways attract more male teachers, alternative pathways attract more ethnically diverse teachers, and alternative pathways enroll individuals who would not have been able to obtain a certificate through traditional routes (Adcock & Mahlios, 2005; Cornett, 1990; Legler, 2002).
State Research Studies on Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification
Several individual states’ alternative pathway to certification programs have been studied, including a study of Connecticut (Bliss, 1990), a study of New Jersey (Klagholz, 2000), a study of California (Chin, Young, & Floyd, 2004), a study of Colorado (Bassett, Campbell, Hirsh, Hupfeld, & Reichardt, 2004), a study of Massachusetts (McDermott, 2005), and two studies of Florida (Flood & Milton, 2005; Milton, Flood, & Dukes, 2006). State-specific studies examined the characteristics and qualities of the participants in the alternative pathway programs, the effectiveness of the program, and the relationship with student academic achievement. General findings from the studies were difficult to ascertain as each program is based on the states’ educational policies and therefore not comparable.
Well-Known National Teacher Training Programs
Although teacher certification and alternative routes to teacher certification are regulated by each state, a number of national programs do exist. National training programs require state certification policies to be followed, and permission must be granted by each state in which the program requests to operate. Two well-known national teacher training programs include Troops for Teachers and Teach for America. The programs require a commitment of 2 years and enrollment in a teacher preparation coursework program, but they do not necessarily conclude with issuance of a teaching certificate (Feistritzer & Haar, 2006). National teacher training programs do not fundamentally qualify as an alternative path to certification as they do not inevitably end with a teaching license. However, many states opt to classify them as alternative programs because their participants work under alternative or intern teaching licenses. Troops for Teachers, created in 1994 by the Department of Defense and supported by the Department of Education, helps eligible armed forces members obtain teaching certifications and offers a stipend for working in high-need schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Since it was established, Troops to Teachers has recruited and placed former military personnel into more than 9,000 classrooms, with 785 of those participating in an alternative pathway to certification program (Feistritzer, 2005a).
Teach for America, founded in 1990 by Wendy Kopp, recruits highly successful college graduates by requiring a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.3 for application (Tatel, 1999). Teach for America’s philosophy is grounded in content knowledge, in contrast to a traditional preservice program’s pedagogical ideology. Teach for America’s (2006) mission is to “recruit aggressively to attract outstanding recent college graduates of all majors and career interests to commit two years to teach in urban and rural public schools, . . . to invest in the training and professional development necessary to ensure their success” and continues on by stating that “our teachers, also called corps members, go above and beyond traditional expectations to lead their students to significant academic achievement, overcoming the challenges of poverty despite the current capacity of the school system” (para.1). The corps members attend a 5-week “boot camp” during the summer prior to beginning their 2-year teaching commitment (Teach for America, 2006). After the boot camp, the corps members are required to attend ongoing professional development. In most cases, Teach for America has a partnership with local higher learning institutions, which the corps members may attend to obtain the standard teaching certification or master’s degree plus teaching certificate (Tatel, 1999). Teach for America and state policies mandate that recruits pass the state’s content knowledge examination in the area in which the alternative teacher wishes to teach. In addition, recruits must enroll in a teacher certification program that must be completed simultaneously while teaching under the alternative certification.
A 2005 study examined the effects of three levels of teacher certification on student achievement: alternatively certified Teach for America teachers, fully certificated teachers, and unlicensed teachers (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005). The study found that when compared with students who were taught by fully certificated teachers, students of alternatively certified Teach for America teachers attained levels of one half to 3 months lower. Unlicensed teachers showed even lower student achievement scores when compared with students of alternatively certified Teach for America teachers. The study indicated that certification status does affect student achievement, with unlicensed teachers having the least impact and fully certificated teachers having the most influence on student achievement. The results of the study indicated that unlicensed teachers “exert negative effects on student achievement relative to teachers with full certification” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p. 18). Darling-Hammond, cited in Noll (2008), stated that, “if anyone could prove that claim that teachers are born not made, these bright eager students might have been the ones to do it” adding that “evaluations found [the] summer training program did not prepare candidates adequately [with] many recruits knowing that their success, and that of their students, had been compromised by their lack of access to the knowledge needed to teach” (p. 389).
Additional studies conducted of alternatively certified Teach for America teachers have found no evidence of a negative correlation in student achievement. In a study of 69 Teach for America teachers in 23 school districts, Teach for America teachers of mathematics and science were found to have increased achievement on summative standardized assessments by one tenth of a standard deviation, with more than 6,000 student scores reported (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008). An additional study from 2005 of more than 65,000 students found that teacher certification status as traditional or alternatively certified (through Teach for America or the similarly selective local Teaching Fellow program) has no statistically significant difference on the student achievement beyond the 2nd year of teaching (Boyd et al., 2005). The authors of the study found that because of a reduced time and tuition costs of the preparation coursework, alternative paths attracted a more diverse teaching population. In addition, the levels of attrition were found to be similar to that of traditionally prepared teachers (Boyd et al., 2005).
Findings of national, regional, and state studies conducted immediately following the establishment of alternative routes to certification programs over 25 years ago have shown little difference to more recent studies. A synthesis of the research leads to five conclusions. Alternative pathways to certification are organizationally different in each state and represent each state’s educational policy directives. No statistically significant difference in student academic achievement exists between traditionally and alternatively certificated teachers. Research is inconclusive in alternative pathway’s enrollment of higher quality teachers. Alternative pathways to certification program participants are more diverse and alternative pathway teachers have a higher probability to teach in high-minority schools.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.