Do Traditionally Certified Teachers Really Have Better Curriculum Leadership Than Alternatively Certified Teachers? Based on an Empirical Study in China

Abstract

With the gradual improvement of open teacher selection mechanisms, the comparison of traditionally and alternatively certified teachers has become one of the international focuses in teacher research. Current studies have compared teachers of different certification pathways from multidimensional perspectives; however, no study has yet compared the differences in curriculum leadership between the two types of teachers. Teacher curriculum leadership is the ability of teachers to collaborate with stakeholders in the curriculum area to promote curriculum optimization and the development of students and teachers, and it includes three dimensions: teachers’ curriculum leadership views, practices and identity. This study conducted a comparative analysis of the curriculum leadership of traditionally and alternatively certified teachers based on data from 9,068 teachers of 20 provinces in China. Independent samples t-test and multiple linear regression analysis revealed no significant differences between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers on the overall level of curriculum leadership and the three sub-dimensions of curriculum leadership views, practices, and identity. Theoretically, it provides new evidence for the debate about whether there are differences between the two types of teachers by further corroborating the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the educational effectiveness of traditionally and alternatively certified teachers. Practically, it justifies the rationality of an open teacher selection mechanism and points the way to further reforms in university teacher education.

Keywords

alternative certification teacher leadership quantitative research teacher education open teacher selection mechanism

Introduction

Currently, many countries have established open teacher selection mechanisms. Previously, the only way to enter the teaching profession was to receive professional training in teacher education through formal higher education and obtain the appropriate degree and diploma. Since the second half of the 20th century, to alleviate teacher shortages and improve teacher structures, more and more countries have explored non-traditional approaches to teacher selection by opening up access to the teaching profession for those who did not have a professional background in teacher education but had the desire and potential to teach (Aksoy, 2017; Andrew, 2012; An & Koedel, 2021; Nesje, 2016). Such an entry mechanism for teachers in most countries divided the teaching force into two main sources: those who enrolled in teacher education major during higher education and chose to teach after graduation, called teachers from university-based teacher education programs or traditionally certified teachers; and those who entered teaching without pre-service teacher education but through teacher license exams or alternative certification programs, called alternatively prepared teachers or alternatively certified teachers. As the scale of alternatively certified teachers continues to expand, a comparison of the two types of teachers has become one of the focuses of teacher research.

Studies compared traditionally certified teachers with alternatively certified teachers along four dimensions. The first dimension was teaching performance. While a small number of studies have demonstrated differences between the two types of teachers (Ding & Li, 2014), more research revealed that there were no significant differences in teaching effectiveness of the two types of teachers, especially in terms of improving students’ learning outcomes (Constantine et al., 2009; Ludlow, 2013; Shuls & Trivitt, 2015; Whitford et al., 2018).

The second dimension was classroom management. Regarding the classroom management of the two types of teachers, the conclusions of the research have been differentiated. Some studies concluded that there was no significant difference between the classroom management of traditional and alternative certified teachers (Lucksnat et al., 2024 (Lucksnat et al., 2024; Ritter & Hancock, 2007). Other studies found that there were significant differences between the two types of teachers. Teachers in formal education encountered fewer classroom problems in the first 3 years of teaching than alternatively certified teachers (Taneri & Ok, 2014).

The third dimension was preparation for teaching. Most research revealed that traditionally certified teachers were generally better prepared to teach than alternatively certified teachers (Matsko et al., 2022; Redding & Smith, 2019; W. H. Schmidt et al., 2020; Zientek, 2007), but that there were no significant differences between them in particular aspects or contexts (Matsko et al., 2022; Zientek, 2007). For example, Matsko et al. (2022) found through a survey of novice teachers in Texas that traditionally certified teachers felt better prepared for communication, planning and use of teaching strategies than nontraditionally certified teachers, but both types of teachers were unprepared for projects related to multidisciplinary curricula or assessing student learning.

The fourth dimension was professional psychology. Generally speaking, in addition to teaching efficacy, there was a big difference in the professional psychology of the two types of teachers. In terms of teaching efficacy, there was no statistical difference between the two types of teachers (Zientek, 2007). In the aspect of teaching motivation, it was consistently found that traditionally certified teachers were more likely to choose the teaching profession for intrinsic factors, whereas teachers in alternative certification programs were mainly motivated by extrinsic factors (Aksoy, 2017; Lucksnat et al., 2022; Zientek, 2007). Perhaps for this reason, traditionally certified teachers had a significantly higher professional identity than alternatively certified teachers (Lei & Li, 2021), and alternatively certified teachers had greater professional mobility (Redding & Smith, 2016).

From the literature review, it is evident that teachers trained in teacher education institutions differ from alternatively certified teachers in different comparative dimensions. In most cases, there were no significant differences between the two types of teachers in the teaching performance dimension, both differences and no differences in the classroom management dimension, and significant differences in the preparation for teaching and professional psychology dimensions. This suggests that changes in the criteria for comparison are highly likely to lead to different conclusions. And even with the same criteria, differences in context may lead to differentiated conclusions. Although current studies have compared teachers with and without a professional background in teacher education on multiple dimensions, they ignored differences between the two types of teachers on the increasingly important indicator of curriculum leadership.

Curriculum leadership is often considered an important factor in supporting school development and promoting curriculum reform (Wai-Yan Wan & Leung, 2022). In the context of international curriculum reform, educational scholars emphasized curriculum leadership as “a distinctive form of teacher agency” rather than a subordinate concept of teacher leadership (A. Harris et al., 2020), called for more attention to teacher curriculum leadership (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Essentially, teacher curriculum leadership is the ability of teachers to cooperate with stakeholders in the curriculum area to collaboratively contribute to the sustainable optimization of the curriculum and the sustainable development of students and teachers (Chen et al., 2021; X. Wang et al., 2022; Xu & Chen, 2021). The core of teacher curriculum leadership is the reshaping of curriculum as a collaborative enterprise, transforming teachers into critical convenors of educational contexts, relationships, spaces, and times, and achieving high-quality teaching and learning through collaboration among teachers and between teachers and other curriculum actors to ensure that students’ physical, social, and emotional needs are met (UNESCO, 2021). This means that teachers should be determined to innovate, change the teaching methods that suppress the development potential of students, and actively explore new paths to promote the all-round development of students. And in addition to classrooms and schools, teachers should also play a leading role in the curriculum in a broader social situation, mobilizing all resources to reshape the time and space of education, so that all students can receive equal and open high-quality education (Freire, 1970; Holt, 1995; Illich, 1971; Kohl, 1974; Kozol, 2024; Neill, 1960; S. Schmidt, 2009). In the last decade or so, with extensive empirical research demonstrating the positive contribution of teacher curriculum leadership to student academic achievement (Ingersoll et al., 2017), a wide range of teacher curriculum leadership initiatives have been undertaken worldwide, making teacher curriculum leadership an increasingly important measure of a key indicator of teacher professionalism. Unfortunately, however, little research has been conducted to compare whether there are differences between teachers trained in teacher education institutions and alternatively certified teachers from the perspective of curriculum leadership.

The purpose of this study is to explore the differences in curriculum leadership between teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers, taking China as an example, to fill the gap in this area of contemporary comparative teacher research. From the perspective of research topics, taking curriculum leadership as a comparison standard has important theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, it will provide new evidence for the academic controversy between the two types of teachers from the new comparative dimension of curriculum leadership. In practice, it will provide information for the rationality of the current multi-path teacher selection mechanism and the quality of university teacher education projects. From the scope of the research, China has the largest teaching force in the world, so understanding how Chinese traditionally certified teachers differ from alternatively certified teachers is critical to improving teacher education programs and understanding alternative certification more broadly. In addition, understanding the differences in curriculum leadership between the two types of teachers and the reasons for these differences will help to provide useful suggestions and inspiration for the reform of teacher education and the construction of teachers in China and the world. Based on the above analysis, the main research question addressed in this study is whether there are differences in curriculum leadership between teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers? Another research question that arises from this is whether the professional background of teacher education will have an impact on teachers’ curriculum leadership?

From the review of the literature, although there are different opinions on the performance of teachers trained in universities and alternatively certified teachers, some studies have more inclined to the conclusion that there is no significant difference between the two types of teachers in teaching performance and classroom management(Constantine et al., 2009; Lucksnat et al., 2024; Ludlow, 2013; Ritter & Hancock, 2007; Shuls & Trivitt, 2015; Whitford et al., 2018), and that teacher’s curriculum leadership is closely related to teaching performance and classroom management (Ingersoll et al., 2017). Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in curriculum leadership between teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers.

Hypothesis 2: In the case of controlling interference variables, the teacher’s professional background will not have a significant impact on the teacher’s curriculum leadership.

Methods

Instruments

Referring to the relevant studies such as Sinha and Hanuscin (2017) as well as Hunzicker (2017), this study developed the “Curriculum Leadership Questionnaire for Primary and Secondary School Teachers” as a research tool. The questionnaire was divided into two parts, the teacher curriculum leadership and the related factors, including 55 items (see all items of the questionnaire in the Supplemental Material). The teacher curriculum leadership part contained three subscales of teachers’ views, practices, and identity of curriculum leadership, including 29 items, all of which used a 5-point Likert scale; the related factors part was measured at both the individual and the school levels, with 26 items in the form of multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank questions, or the 5-point Likert scales. As in Table 1, the reliability coefficients of all scales were above 0.8, indicating that the instrument had good stability. Besides, the questionnaire had good content validity based on the feedback from five educational experts.

Table 1.

Cronbach’s α Coefficients for the Teacher Curriculum Leadership Questionnaire.

Dimensions	Cronbach’s α
Teacher curriculum leadership views	.945
Teacher curriculum leadership practices	.949
Teacher curriculum leadership identity	.815
Teacher curriculum leadership	.965
Teacher’s individual factors	.882
School factors	.962
Influencing factors of teacher curriculum leadership	.958
Total scale	.976

Variables

The dependent variable of this study is the teacher curriculum leadership, which is expressed by the comprehensive level of the three sub-dimensions of teacher curriculum leadership views, practices, and identity, and is measured by the items in the questionnaire such as “You have a certain understanding of teacher curriculum leadership” and “You believe you can and should be involved in curriculum leading, management and decision-making.” The core independent variable is the teacher certification pathways. This is distinguished by the question “Do you have a teacher education background” in the basic information part, choose “Yes” to be traditionally certified teachers, and choose “No” to be alternatively certified teachers. This study adds other variables that may influence teacher curriculum leadership from both the teacher and school levels. The teachers’ individual level includes variables such as teachers’ professional title, teaching age, professional level, and leadership willingness. The school level includes variables such as school nature and school location.

Data Source

The subjects of this study were 9,068 primary and secondary school teachers from 20 provinces in China. There are large differences in the school segments and regions of Chinese teachers. To ensure a representative and balanced sample, this study implemented this survey from January 2020 to April 2021 using hierarchical random sampling. First, according to the needs of the research, the sample size was initially determined to be about 20,000, and according to the number of teachers in each school section of the country in 2020 announced by the Ministry of Education of China, the sampling ratio of primary school teachers, junior high school teachers and senior high school teachers was determined to be 6:3:1. Second, according to the geographical location and economic development level, in eastern, central and western China, sample provinces (20 provinces such as Shandong, Hubei and Sichuan) and sample cities (40 cities such as Weifang, Wuhan, and Chengdu) were randomly selected at the level of primary schools, junior high schools and ordinary high schools according to the sample proportion at the sample city level, and conducted a group survey of teachers in sample schools. Before the investigation, the researchers explained the purpose and content of the investigation to the teachers of the sample school, and all investigations were based on informed consent. Considering the impact of the epidemic, the survey was mainly in the form of electronic questionnaires. In the end, the study obtained 23,915 questionnaires filled out by primary and secondary school teachers, of which 19,521 were valid, including 11,268 elementary school teachers, 5,385 junior high school teachers, and 2,868 senior high school teachers, which met the sampling expectations. Considering that educational level and the quality of the teaching school might have an impact on teachers’ curriculum leadership, this study further selected a total of 9,068 teachers with a bachelor’s degree or above and teaching in a school with the same level of school quality (upper-middle level) from 19,521 valid questionnaires. Among them, the sample size of traditionally certified teachers was 7,565, and that of alternatively certified teachers was 1,503. Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample teachers.

Table 2.

Basic Information of Teacher Samples.

	Traditionally certified teacher		Alternatively certified teacher			Traditionally certified teacher		Alternatively certified teacher
Characteristics	Number	Proportion (%)	Number	Proportion (%)	Characteristics	Number	Proportion (%)	Number	Proportion (%)
Gender
Female	5,575	61.5	1,305	14.4	Multiple disciplines	1,365	18	284	18.9
Male	1990	21.9	198	2.2	Position
Teaching age					With position(s)	5,100	67.4	900	59.9
0–5 years	1,645	18.1	829	9.1	With no position	2,465	32.6	603	40.1
6–10 years	1,193	13.2	303	3.3	Teaching period
11–15 years	972	10.7	143	1.6	Primary school	4,159	49.5	1,046	11.5
16–20 years	940	10.4	80	0.9	Middle school	2,261	24.9	360	4.0
21 years and above	2,815	31.0	148	1.6	High school	1,145	12.6	97	1.1
Job title					School nature
Unrated	833	11	496	33	Public school	7,314	80.7	1,434	15.8
Third-level teacher	123	1.6	47	3.1	Private school	251	2.8	69	0.8
Secondary teacher	2,416	31.9	630	41.9	School location
First-level teacher	3,043	40.2	276	18.4	Ethnic regions	2,444	32.3	548	36.5
Advanced teacher	1,137	15	53	3.5	Non-ethnic regions	5,121	67.7	955	63.5
Senior teacher	13	0.2	1	0.1	Urban and rural location
Teaching subject					Urban	6,639	87.8	1,309	87.1
Single discipline	6,200	82	1,219	81.1	Rural	926	12.2	194	12.9

Data Analysis

This study used SPSS 27.0 and STATA 17.0 for data analysis. The specific analysis methods and processes are as follows: First, an independent samples t-test was used to analyze differences in curriculum leadership levels between elementary and secondary school teachers from traditional certification programs and alternative certification programs. Second, multiple linear regression was used to further verify the measurement results of the independent samples t-test. This study focused on the differences in curriculum leadership between teachers graduating from university teacher education programs and teachers selected by alternative certification programs, but not excluding the potential impact of other variables than the core independent variables on it. Therefore, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to observe whether university teacher education background would have a significant impact on teacher curriculum leadership when controlling variables such as teaching age, job title, leadership willingness, and principal factor were included. Finally, a shift in research methodology was used to overcome the self-selection bias through propensity score matching to further test the consistency of the empirical results of this study.

Results

Analysis of the Differences in Curriculum Leadership Between Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Teachers

The independent samples t-test on the curriculum leadership level of traditionally and alternatively certified teachers showed that the two types of teachers had different degrees of differences in the overall level of curriculum leadership, curriculum leadership views, practices, identity, and several sub-dimensions, and alternatively certified teachers have slightly higher levels of curriculum leadership. According to the definition of effect size given by Cohen, if the d value is lower than 0.2, it indicates that the difference between groups is at a very low level, and if the d value is higher than 0.8, it means that the difference between groups is significant. Based on the analysis of the results, it was found that the difference in curriculum leadership between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers was minimal, that is, the two types of teachers did not show significant differences in curriculum leadership (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Differences in Curriculum Leadership Between Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Teachers.

	Traditionally certified teacher		Alternatively certified teacher
Variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-Test	Cohen’s d
The overall level of Teachers’ curriculum leadership	3.77	0.555	3.82	0.565	−2.911^**	−0.082
Teacher curriculum leadership views	3.83	0.616	3.88	0.620	−2.664^**	−0.076
Factual idea	3.86	0.614	3.90	0.620	−2.619^**	−0.074
Methodological concept	3.77	0.702	3.81	0.703	−2.244^*	−0.063
Value concept	3.82	0.692	3.87	0.682	−2.645^**	−0.074
Teacher curriculum leadership practices	3.77	0.571	3.81	0.584	−2.428^*	−0.069
Curriculum thought	3.80	0.069	3.82	0.616	−1.110	−0.031
Cultural modernity	3.70	0.690	3.72	0.692	−1.269	−0.036
Policy understanding	3.83	0.633	3.84	0.640	−0.570	−0.016
Vision consistency	3.83	0.688	3.86	0.694	−1.609	−0.045
Curriculum design	3.89	0.619	3.93	0.628	−2.375^*	−0.067
Overall planning	3.89	0.668	3.92	0.668	−1.654	−0.047
Resources consciousness	3.90	0.660	3.95	0.664	−2.657^**	−0.075
Collective lesson preparation	3.88	0.673	3.92	0.673	−2.310^*	−0.065
Curriculum implementation	3.96	0.560	4.00	0.568	−2.010^*	−0.057
Student-oriented	3.97	0.595	4.00	0.588	−1.863	−0.052
Professional support	3.90	0.622	3.94	0.627	−2.620^**	−0.074
Dynamic generation	4.09	0.611	4.10	0.607	−0.359	−0.010
Curriculum evaluation	3.92	0.583	3.96	0.588	−2.484^*	−0.071
Clear guidance	3.89	0.633	3.94	0.636	−2.429^*	−0.069
Timely monitoring	3.89	0.621	3.95	0.612	−3.010^**	−0.084
Effective improvement	4.00	0.610	4.02	0.618	−0.972	−0.027
Curriculum development	3.25	1.147	3.31	1.187	−1.938	−0.056
Response to needs	3.37	1.165	3.41	1.212	−1.175	−0.033
Appropriate resources	3.33	1.202	3.37	1.219	−1.277	−0.036
Due procedure	3.15	1.218	3.24	1.246	−2.550^*	−0.072
Teacher curriculum leadership identity	3.71	0.630	3.79	0.624	−4.375^***	−0.123
Group identity	3.84	0.682	3.92	0.653	−4.278^***	−0.117
Self-identity	3.66	0.763	3.71	0.747	−2.252^*	−0.063
Post identity	3.47	0.968	3.59	0.929	−4.380^***	−0.120
Responsibility identity	3.86	0.711	3.93	0.688	−3.380^**	−0.093

Note. SD = standard error.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The Level of Curriculum Leadership Views of Alternatively Certified Teachers Was Comparable to That of Traditionally Certified Teachers

In terms of cognition of curriculum leadership, the two types of teachers showed differences in curriculum leadership views at the 1% significance level (p < .01), and alternatively certified teachers had slightly higher levels of factual idea, methodological concept, and value concept than traditionally certified teachers. The results of the internal effect size analysis showed that the absolute values of Cohen’s d for the three sub-dimensions were 0.074, 0.063, and 0.074, indicating that although the differences in curriculum leadership views of the two types of teachers were statistically significant, they did not reach the very small level of differences. The significance level and effect size of the differences showed that alternatively certified teachers were not at a disadvantage in curriculum leadership views. Further, alternatively certified teachers are comparable to traditionally certified teachers in understanding the meaning of teacher curriculum leadership and its importance to student development, in acquiring the knowledge to reason, make decisions, and solve specific problems in specific curriculum leadership contexts.

The Difference in Teacher Curriculum Practices Between Alternatively and Traditionally Certified Teachers was Negligible

In terms of teacher curriculum leadership practices, alternatively certified teachers performed at the same level as, or even slightly better than that of traditionally certified teachers. In the secondary dimension, the two types of teachers were statistically different in curriculum design, implementation, and curriculum evaluation (p < .01), indicating that alternatively certified teachers had some curriculum leadership advantages in the three core practical aspects of curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation compared to teachers from university-based teacher education programs, while the leadership levels of the two types of teachers were comparable in terms of curriculum thought and curriculum development. Although a comparison of the effect sizes for the five practice components revealed Cohen’s d to be between 0.031 and 0.071, indicating that alternatively certified teachers were not significantly higher than traditionally certified teachers, at least it indicated that alternatively certified teachers were no worse than traditionally certified teachers in conducting dynamic classroom evaluations and optimizing curriculum design.

The results at the three-level indicator level were generally similar, demonstrating that alternatively certified teachers had the same practical ability of curriculum leadership as traditionally certified teachers. The t-test results showed that there were no significant differences between the two types of teachers in several indicators, such as overall planning, student-oriented, effective improvement, dynamic generation, responsiveness to needs, and appropriate resources, indicating that the two types of teachers were equally capable of grasping the advanced and cutting-edge curriculum ideas, grasping and conveying the latest curriculum policies and standards, as well as leading multiple subjects to practice the curriculum vision. There were significant differences in indicators such as resource awareness, collective lesson preparation, professional support, clear orientation, timely monitoring, and due procedures. Unexpectedly, teachers from university-based teacher education programs did not perform well in practice for their specialized training in teaching and learning, while alternatively certified teachers showed higher levels of curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation. Although the differential effect sizes for the two were small, they were sufficient to demonstrate that teacher education backgrounds are not necessarily accompanied by higher teacher curriculum leadership.

Alternatively and Traditionally Certified Teachers had no Significant Difference in the Level of Curriculum Leadership Identity

Combining the results of the independent samples t-test and the effect size test, there were no significant differences between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in the four indicators measuring the level of curriculum leadership identity-group identity (Cohen’s d = −0.117), self-identity (Cohen’s d = −0.063), job identity (Cohen’s d = −0.120), and responsibility identity (Cohen’s d = −0.093). This result showed that alternatively and traditionally certified teachers had similar attitudes toward the views that “curriculum leadership is a shared responsibility that needs to be achieved by the strength of the learning community” and “If you can get a certain administrative position, you can effectively carry out curriculum leadership, management, and decision-making, and promote the release of curriculum leadership.”

Relationship Between Teacher Education Program and Teacher Curriculum Leadership

Based on the above difference analysis, we can preliminarily conclude that there is no significant difference in curriculum leadership between alternatively and traditionally certified teachers. This finding responds to the first research question and also verifies Hypothesis 1 proposed in this study. However, considering that other variables may have potential effects on teaching curriculum leadership, which in turn may affect the relationship between the variable of teacher education program and teacher curriculum leadership, this study used multiple linear regression to conduct a supplementary analysis to examine whether teacher education program and teacher curriculum leadership can constitute an explanatory relationship under the control of teachers’ individual field factors and school factors.

As seen in Table 4, the four regression models fit well. However, after adding a series of control variables, such as teachers’ individual field factors, teacher education programs did not have an obvious effect on teacher curriculum leadership, which is consistent with the results of the t-test. In other words, after entering school fields, teachers might show differences in curriculum leadership and its sub-dimensions at different levels, but these differences are not caused by whether teachers have a teacher education background. This finding responds to the second research question and also verifies Hypothesis 2 proposed in this study.

Table 4.

Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between Teacher Education Program and Teacher Curriculum Leadership.

	Teacher curriculum leadership	Teacher curriculum leadership views	Teacher curriculum leadership practices	Teacher curriculum leadership identity
Teacher education background	−0.010 (0.009)	−0.007 (0.011)	−0.010 (0.010)	−0.010 (0.010)
Individual-level control variables
Gender	−0.016 (0.008)**	0.008 (0.009)	−0.023 (0.009)**	−0.005 (0.009)
Teaching age-6–10 years	−0.003 (0.011)	−0.018 (0.013)*	0.001 (0.013)	−0.001 (0.013)
Teaching age-11–15 years	0.010 (0.013)	−0.007 (0.015)	0.014 (0.015)	0.007 (0.014)
Teaching age-16–20 years	0.012 (0.014)	−0.007 (0.017)	0.018 (0.016)*	0.006 (0.016)
Teaching age-21 years and above	0.046 (0.013)***	0.020 (0.016)	0.057 (0.015)***	0.010 (0.015)
Teaching subject-Multiple disciplines	−0.007 (0.009)	−0.007 (0.010)	−0.014 (0.010)*	−0.001 (0.010)
Job title—Third-level teacher	−0.001 (0.025)	0.004 (0.030)	−0.003 (0.029)	0.002 (0.028)
Job title—Secondary teacher	0.019 (0.012)*	0.012 (0.015)	0.020 (0.014)	0.015 (0.014)
Job title—First-level teacher	0.009 (0.015)	−0.001 (0.018)	0.014 (0.017)	−0.004 (0.017)
Job title—Advanced teacher	−0.009 (0.018)	−0.003 (0.022)	−0.005 (0.021)	−0.030 (0.021)**
Job title—Senior teacher	0.005 (0.081)	0.014 (0.098)*	0.005 (0.095)	−0.006 (0.093)
Position—With position	0.002 (0.007)	−0.006 (0.008)	0.006 (0.008)	−0.010 (0.008)
Professional level—School level awards	−0.001 (0.014)	−0.005 (0.017)	0.002 (0.016)	−0.011 (0.016)
Professional level—County (district) level awards	−0.001 (0.012)	−0.002 (0.015)	0.002 (0.014)	−0.015 (0.014)
Professional level—Municipal awards	0.013 (0.013)	−0.006 (0.016)	0.023 (0.015)*	−0.015 (0.015)
Professional level—Provincial awards	0.001 (0.015)	0.000 (0.018)	0.007 (0.017)	−0.022 (0.017)*
Professional level—National awards	0.023 (0.016)**	0.012 (0.019)	0.030 (0.018)**	−0.005 (0.018)
Leadership willingness	0.288 (0.005)***	0.217 (0.006)***	0.251 (0.006)***	0.441 (0.006)***
Trust quality	0.162 (0.008)***	0.189 (0.010)***	0.141 (0.009)***	0.162 (0.009)***
Teacher self-efficacy	0.076 (0.008)***	0.100 (0.010)***	0.059 (0.010)***	0.098 (0.009)***
Teacher self-planning and management ability	0.092 (0.008)***	0.104 (0.009)***	0.087 (0.009)***	0.065 (0.009)***
Interpersonal skills	0.151 (0.009)***	0.120 (0.010)***	0.158 (0.010)***	0.102 (0.010)***
School-level control variables
Teaching period—Middle school	−0.017 (0.008)**	−0.039 (0.013)***	−0.030 (0.012)**	−0.012 (0.012)
Teaching period—High school	−0.010 (0.010)	−0.041 (0.013)***	−0.002 (0.012)	−0.016 (0.012)
School location—Ethnic regions	0.003 (0.007)	−0.008 (0.008)	0.007 (0.008)	0.000 (0.008)
Urban and rural location	−0.012 (0.010)*	−0.012 (0.012)	−0.012 (0.012)*	−0.09 (0.011)
School nature—Public school	0.010 (0.017)	0.007 (0.021)	−0.018 (0.020)**	0.007 (0.020)
School common vision	0.136 (0.010)***	0.138 (0.012)***	0.136 (0.011)***	0.085 (0.011)***
School cultural atmosphere	0.004 (0.011)	0.025 (0.013)	0.000 (0.012)	−0.008 (0.012)
Teacher community	0.033 (0.009)**	0.045 (0.011)***	0.035 (0.011)**	−0.003 (0.011)
School organizational structure	−0.020 (0.009)	−0.032 (0.011)*	−0.0278 (0.011)*	0.037 (0.010)**
Principal support	0.023 (0.011)	0.026 (0.013)	0.031 (0.013)	−0.024 (0.012)
Principal-teacher communication	0.035 (0.010)**	0.028 (0.012)	0.042 (0.011)**	0.003 (0.011)
Principal empowerment	0.053 (0.008)***	0.043 (0.009)***	0.052 (0.009)***	0.053 (0.009)***
Principal reward	0.022 (0.008)*	0.004 (0.009)	0.023 (0.009)*	0.026 (0.009)*
Sample size	9,068	9,068	9,068	9,068
Adjusted R²	.718	.662	.633	.709

Note. The number in the bracket denotes the standard error.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Robustness Tests

To reduce the effects of confounding variables and self-selection bias on the empirical results, this study used Propensity Score Matching to test the robustness of the findings. The influence of teacher background on teachers’ curriculum leadership was estimated mainly through Mahalanobis distance matching, K-nearest neighbor matching (K = 4), and K-nearest neighbor matching in calipers. The matching results passed the common support domain hypothesis and the balance test.

Table 5 presents the values of ATT and t-test statistics after matching traditionally certified teachers with alternatively certified teachers. The results were consistent with the results obtained from the independent samples t-test and multiple linear regression mentioned above, which reaffirmed the conclusion that “there is no significant difference in curriculum leadership between alternatively and traditionally certified teachers,” and once again supports our hypotheses. Specifically, the matching results showed that whether Mahalanobis distance matching, K-nearest neighbor matching, or K-nearest neighbor matching in calipers were used, the absolute values of the t-statistics for the dimensions of curriculum leadership views, practices, and identity for both types of teachers ranged from 0.08 to 1.11, far from the statistically prescribed minimum critical t-value of 1.64 (p < .1), which meant that the curriculum leadership of the traditionally certified teachers was not higher than that of alternatively certified teachers. When comparing only the mean values, the curriculum leadership of the two types of teachers was at a relatively high level, and the alternatively certified teachers were slightly higher than the traditionally certified teachers. This result strongly responds to the independent samples t-test results, indicating that the results of this study have strong robustness.

Table 5.

PSM Estimation Results for the Effect of Teacher Education Background on Teacher Curriculum Leadership.

Matching methods	Dependent variables	Traditionally certified teachers	Alternatively certified teachers	ATT	t-Test value
Mahalanobis distance matching	The overall level of teacher’s curriculum leadership	3.771	3.859	−0.088 (0.090)	−0.97
	Teacher curriculum leadership views	3.829	3.899	−0.070 (0.103)	−0.68
	Teacher curriculum leadership practices	3.768	3.870	−0.102 (0.092)	−1.11
	Teacher curriculum leadership identity	3.710	3.755	−0.045 (0.106)	−0.43
K-nearest neighbor matching (K = 4)	The overall level of teacher’s curriculum leadership	3.771	3.781	−0.010 (0.024)	−0.41
	Teacher curriculum leadership views	3.829	3.831	−0.002 (0.027)	−0.08
	Teacher curriculum leadership practices	3.768	3.778	−0.010 (0.025)	−0.40
	Teacher curriculum leadership identity	3.710	3.730	−0.020 (0.027)	−0.74
K-nearest neighbor matching in calipers (calipers= 0.23)	The overall level of teacher’s curriculum leadership	3.771	3.781	−0.010 (0.024)	−0.41
	Teacher curriculum leadership views	3.829	3.831	−0.002 (0.027)	−0.08
	Teacher curriculum leadership practices	3.768	3.778	−0.010 (0.025)	−0.04
	Teacher curriculum leadership identity	3.710	3.730	−0.020 (0.027)	−0.74

Note. The number in the bracket denotes the standard error.

p < .1(t > 1.65). **p < .05(t > 1.96). ***p < .01(t > 2.58).

Discussion

Through independent sample t-test and multiple linear regression analysis of the data of 9,068 teachers, this study explores two questions: whether there is a difference in the curriculum leadership of teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers, and whether the background of teacher training has an impact on teachers’ curriculum leadership. The study found that there were no significant differences in the curriculum leadership of teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers, and that professional background in teacher education did not have a significant impact on the teachers’ curriculum leadership. This finding further promoted the academic controversy about the differences in the characteristics of the two types of teachers.

There is no Difference in Curriculum Leadership Between Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Teachers

As mentioned above, there are two opposing views on the comparison of two types of teachers in current studies: one view is that there is a difference between the two, and the other view is that there is no difference between them. In terms of teaching performance and classroom management, most studies have concluded that there is no difference (Constantine et al., 2009; Lucksnat et al., 2024; Ludlow, 2013; Ritter & Hancock, 2007; Shuls & Trivitt, 2015; Whitford et al., 2018). For example, according to the meta-analysis conducted by Whitford et al. (2018), the average score of students of teachers in alternative teacher preparation programs was only about 0.03 standard deviations higher than that of students of teachers in traditional teacher preparation programs, which meant that the difference was negligible. Lucksnat et al. (2024) found through a survey of German teachers that there were no significant differences between the two types of teachers in classroom management, student support and cognitive activation. The results of this study are consistent with these studies, that is, we also found that there was no significant difference between the curriculum leadership of teachers trained in teacher education universities or colleges and alternatively certified teachers, and whether teachers came from formal teacher education or alternative certification paths will not have a significant impact on their curriculum leadership. This study is consistent with the conclusions of such studies. One possible explanation for the present study’s is consistensy with classroom management and teaching performance. Teachers’ curriculum leadership is realized through teachers’ influence on the subjects involved in the curriculum, especially the students, and the classroom is the core field in which teachers exert curriculum leadership.

However, most studies have concluded that there are differences when it comes to teaching preparation and occupational psychology(Aksoy, 2017; Lei & Li, 2021; Lucksnat et al., 2022; Matsko et al., 2022; Redding & Smith, 2016, 2019; W. H. Schmidt et al., 2020; Zientek, 2007). For example, W. H. Schmidt et al. (2020) used data on newly certified teachers in the United States to conclude that graduates of traditional teacher programs were significantly better prepared than graduates of alternative teacher programs in terms of mathematical content preparation. By investigating the professional attitudes and professional motivations of more than 400 trainee teachers with different certification pathways in Turkey, Aksoy (2017) found that university-based trainee teachers had better attitudes toward the teaching profession than trainee teachers in alternative certification programs. At the same time, compared with trainee teachers in alternative certification programs, the university-based trainee teachers are more driven by intrinsic motivation to choose teaching careers. The findings of this study are inconsistent with those studies, that is, we believe that there is no significant difference between the two types of teachers in terms of curriculum leadership. The possible explanation for the inconsistency between this study and the conclusions of other studies is that teaching preparation and professional psychology often involve only teachers, that is, teachers’ perception of whether they are adequately prepared for teaching content or methods, and teachers’ cognition of their own teaching motivation and professional commitment, whereas curriculum leadership is a concept of relationship, which is the actual impact of teachers in the process of interacting with students, parents, colleagues and other course-related subjects.

In addition, from a cross-cultural perspective, we found that these comparative studies were mainly in American contexts (Constantine et al., 2009; Ludlow, 2013; Ritter & Hancock, 2007; Shuls & Trivitt, 2015; Whitford et al., 2018), as well as a few studies in Germany (Lucksnat et al., 2022, 2024), Turkey (Aksoy, 2017; Taneri & Ok, 2014), and China (Ding & Li, 2014; Lei & Li, 2021). On the one hand, this highlights the significance of this study, that is, through the investigation of Chinese teachers, it makes up for the lack of existing studies in this regard. On the other hand, it also shows that the conclusion about whether there are significant differences between the two types of teachers is still an open topic, as the diversity of findings in the existing studies allows us to make reasonable speculations that studies on the same topic conducted in different cultural contexts may produce different conclusions. For example, in terms of classroom management, studies in Germany and the United States showed that there was no difference between the two types of teachers (Lucksnat et al., 2024; Ritter & Hancock, 2007), while the research results in Turkey showed that there were differences between the two types of teachers in classroom management (Taneri & Ok, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to consider these conclusions from a dialectical and open-minded perspective, and pay attention to seeking broader cross-cultural dialog.

Why is There no Difference in Curriculum Leadership Between Traditionally and Alternatively Certified Teachers?

At present, China has formed a relatively complete teacher education system, and the level of teacher education has been increasingly improved, especially in recent years, China has issued a series of documents such as Opinions on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of Teacher Team Construction in the New Era, Opinions on Implementing the Excellent Teacher Training Program 2.0, Targeted Excellent Teacher Training Plan for Underdeveloped Areas in Central and Western China, Plan to Strengthen Basic Education Teacher Force in the New Era, vigorously promoted the construction of a high-quality teaching force with students from university-based teacher education programs as the key training target, and provides a great policy guarantee for supporting the quality of teacher education. Therefore, the conclusion that there is no difference in leadership between the two types of teacher programs prompts us to reflect on why teacher education, which is specifically aimed at the preparation of future teachers, has not demonstrated the expected advantages. Or, why do alternatively certified teachers perform as well as teachers who graduate from teacher education institutions? From our perspective, there are two possible explanations for this phenomenon.

On the one hand, the imbalance of curriculum modules in teacher education leads to a focus on theoretical knowledge of education for traditionally prepared students, while alternatively prepared students have a stronger foundation in the subject of curriculum leadership. Traditionally prepared students in China generally take three types of courses: general education courses, subject-specific courses, and teacher education courses, and they are required to devote more than half of their professional learning time to general education and teacher education (Qiao & Lai, 2019; Zhou, 2014), which makes it difficult for them to learn subject knowledge in depth and limiting their future development of curriculum leadership to some extent. Another outstanding problem is the failure to link theory and practice in teacher education programs, resulting in a considerable gap between the curriculum teachers learn in teacher education colleges and those in primary and secondary schools (Al-Naimi, et al., 2020). Thus, some teachers are unable to apply the theories learned in teacher preparation programs to classroom practice (Qadhi et al., 2020), which affects teachers’ performance in teaching practice. In contrast, alternatively prepared graduates have a more solid academic foundation and can devote at least 4 years of their higher education to the study of specific subjects, which is very helpful for them to grow into subject experts (Beijaard et al., 2000). Baumert et al. (2010) also argued that mastery of subject matter knowledge is a prerequisite for teachers to exercise curriculum leadership and that teachers should have sufficient pedagogical content knowledge to generate their subject teaching knowledge, and to respond flexibly to the subject matter they teach. Additionally, comprehensive universities, especially teacher education colleges, have offered public compulsory courses and elective courses to alternatively prepared graduates, such as pedagogy and educational psychology, which help them to be sufficiently influenced in teaching methods and contents to reproduce these courses in class (Ludlow, 2013). Therefore, even if alternatively prepared graduates are not able to systematically learn the basic knowledge of education or receive professional training in educational practice, their educational background will not be completely blank.

On the other hand, the lack of educational practice hinders the generation of curriculum leadership among alternatively prepared graduates, and the acquisition of post-service experience gradually bridges the curriculum leadership gap between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers. Educational practice undertakes the important task of guiding teachers in making decisions about curriculum development, instructional organization, and individual student needs (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007), and is an important or even the most important component of teacher education (Wilson et al., 2002). However, there is inevitably an overemphasis on theory transfer and an underemphasis on classroom practice in the teacher preparation process. China attaches great importance to the educational practice of future teachers, and the MOE has issued the Opinions of the Ministry of Education on Strengthening the Educational Practice of Traditionally Prepared Students, which requires that “sufficient educational practice courses should be set up in teacher education programs, with educational apprenticeships, internships and studies as the main modules, and effectively implement the system of no less than one semester of educational practice for traditionally prepared graduates” (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2016). However, educational practice is still a weak link in teacher education so far (Ye et al., 2019). The policy stipulates that the internship period of no less than one semester is shortened to 1 month during the implementation process, and the limited practice time weakens the development of practical skills for future teachers. Therefore, traditionally prepared graduates often acquire the basic theoretical knowledge of education and teaching but lack the ability and experience to translate this knowledge into teaching practice (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007), making it difficult for them to effectively respond to the complex and changing teaching environment. Another possible explanation is that curriculum practice ability is more developed through the practical experience of serving as teachers (Puustinen et al., 2018). At the initial entry stage, teachers who received teacher education programs may show certain professional advantages, but the curriculum leadership gap between the two types of teachers gradually dissolves with the growth of teaching years and experience. For alternatively certified teachers, although they have not undertaken specialized practicum and professional learning, the two high-standard industry thresholds of teacher certificate and recruitment examinations jointly guarantee the entry qualification and the overall quality of the teaching force (Ingvarson & Rowley, 2017). They can also fully exercise the ability of curriculum development, design, and implementation through post-service training, and combine it well with subject knowledge. Accordingly, it is not surprising that alternatively certified teachers’ curriculum leadership performance is on par with that of traditionally certified teachers.

Conclusion and Suggestions

It was found that alternatively certified teachers’ curriculum leadership was comparable to that of traditionally certified teachers through this large-scale empirical study. This finding fully confirmed the rationality of the current open teacher selection mechanism and reflects the need to improve the future teacher preparation mechanism in teacher training universities and colleges. This leads us to the following insights.

First, open teacher selection mechanisms should be upheld to recruit excellent talents from diverse sources into the teaching force. Alternatively certified teacher programs provide easy access for individuals who want to teach, effectively addressing the shortage of teachers (Shaw, 2008). Moreover, this study and most related studies confirm that alternatively certified teachers have the same excellent performance as traditionally certified teachers in curriculum leadership, curriculum management, and teaching effectiveness (Ritter & Hancock, 2007; Zientek, 2007). Therefore, we should have sufficient confidence to release the restriction on the sources of teaching staff, constantly improve the access and screening system for alternatively certified teachers, and widely attract more outstanding talents with knowledge in mathematics, history, chemistry, and other professional fields to join the education industry (Whitford et al., 2018), to effectively facilitate the translation of content knowledge in specific subject areas into pedagogical knowledge with the help of their subject expertise.

Second, it is important to clarify the requirements for teachers from different certification pathways and establish a continuous inspection mechanism to ensure the social credibility of the teaching profession. The open teacher access mechanism provides career opportunities for teachers from different certification sources but inevitably raises social doubts about their teaching ability (Noll, 2008; Taneri & Ok, 2014). To eliminate public concerns, it is necessary to clarify the basic requirements for the induction of prospective teachers (Redding, 2022), and provide them with sustainable pre-service guidance to maintain the development quality and professional reputation of teachers. On the one hand, the minimum academic standards for entering the teaching profession should be strictly grasped from the aspects of the degree requirement, professional knowledge, ability, and disposition. On the other hand, we should establish a sustainable pre-service guidance and improvement mechanism to provide teachers who are about to enter the education field with guidance and support in curriculum resource development, overall curriculum planning, and implementation. In addition, it is necessary to test teachers’ classroom performance through teaching practices in advance, to timely urge the improvement of their teaching behavior and eliminate teachers with poor performance (Shuls & Trivitt, 2015).

Third, the curriculum leadership training for traditionally prepared graduates in teacher education institutions should be reinforced. Despite the existence of some pioneers such as Beijing Normal University, the cultivation of curriculum leadership among traditionally prepared graduates is still not given enough attention in Chinese teacher education institutions today, which is reflected in the curriculum setting (Al-Naimi et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2019). Given the international significance of curriculum leadership for teachers, it is necessary to strengthen the embedding of curriculum leadership in university teacher education curricula. First, strengthen the integration of subject content knowledge courses, pedagogy courses, and teacher education courses, to promote the intellectual integration of the curriculum leadership of traditionally prepared graduates. Second, establish a practice curriculum system throughout the whole process (Munthe et al., 2011) and strengthen practice guidance (Rots et al., 2007; J. Wang & Odell, 2002) to ensure that traditionally prepared graduates gain ample opportunities to apply their daily learning to curriculum practice in primary and secondary schools. Third, curriculum cooperation elements should be injected into academic courses and practical courses, and develop traditionally prepared graduates’ ability to lead student learning and lead activities across the classroom, disciplinary, team, and organizational boundaries (Muijs et al., 2013).

The fourth is to provide teachers with continuous and collaborative professional development support for curriculum leadership. The core of curriculum leadership is to promote professional cooperation among curriculum subjects (Chen et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2021), which requires teachers themselves to be placed in a multi-subject supported professional development context to deepen their perceptions of professional collaboration. This is critical for both traditionally and alternatively certified teachers. To this end, a joint support network of teacher education institutions-schools-teacher training institutions-administrative agencies centered on local school districts (College of Education, MSU, 2020; Muijs et al., 2013; Sykes et al., 2010; Zientek, 2007), is needed to provide opportunities for all teachers to develop curriculum leadership throughout their careers, and to ensure that teachers receive diverse and collaborative support.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are some limitations to this study. Firstly, this study is a teacher self-report, and all results should be interpreted as teachers’ perceptions of their curriculum leadership level, rather than as an objective picture. But given that studies comparing the two types of teachers on teaching performance and classroom management have reached similar conclusions, the differences we report can be seen as to some extent reflecting actual differences. Secondly, this study has not conducted a teacher-student pairing study to determine teachers’ curriculum leadership from the perspective of student gains. Thirdly, the generalization of the study needs to be enhanced. This study takes China as the context, but due to the lack of relevant research, it cannot be compared with countries with different cultural backgrounds from China. In addition, concerning the sample scope being limited to teachers with a bachelor’s degree or above who are currently teaching in upper-middle level schools in their districts, the focus of the subjects, while helping to ensure the scientific validity, also limits the scope of application and replication. Fourthly, this study does not strictly limit the quality differences between the two types of teachers’ graduation institutions, and to some extent ignores the impact of this factor on their curriculum leadership. Considering these limitations, this study will include students in future surveys, carry out a teacher-student paired study, and further consider the relevant information about the graduation institutions of both types of teachers, and conduct relevant international comparative studies to improve the understanding of the global situation. We believe that these ongoing explorations will have a substantial impact on future alternative teacher certification programs and teacher selection mechanisms.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241256344. – Supplemental material for Do Traditionally Certified Teachers Really Have Better Curriculum Leadership Than Alternatively Certified Teachers? Based on an Empirical Study in China

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241256344. for Do Traditionally Certified Teachers Really Have Better Curriculum Leadership Than Alternatively Certified Teachers? Based on an Empirical Study in China by Fenghua Xu, Xinyu Wang, Junyuan Chen, Jiamin Lin and Lei Wang in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the primary and middle school teachers who actively participated in the questionnaire survey for providing reliable data support for this study.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by Post-funded Projects of the Chinese National Social Science Foundation in 2019 “Research on Quality Improvement of School Culture Construction in the New Era” [19FJKB006]; National Natural Science Foundation of China “Mathematical model and application research of precision teaching in big data environment” [61877023].

Ethics Statement

Prior to beginning the study, ethics approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee in Central China Normal University under approval number: CCNU-IKB-202303020a.

ORCID iD

Junyuan Chen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

References

Aksoy

(2017). Turkish student teachers’ attitudes toward teaching in university-based and alternative certification programs in Turkey. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18, 335–346.

Al-Naimi

S. R.

Romanowski

M. H.

(2020). Novice teachers challenges and coping strategies in Qatari government schools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(9), 118–142.

Andrew

(2012). Teach for Australia (TFA): Can it overcome educational disadvantage? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 305315.

Koedel

(2021). How do teachers from alternative pathways contribute to the teaching workforce in urban areas? Evidence from Kansas City. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–20.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional standards for Teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards.

Baumert

Kunter

Blum

Brunner

Voss

Jordan

Klusmann

Krauss

Neubrand

Tsai

Y. M.

(2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

Beijaard

Verloop

Vermunt

J. D.

(2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764.

Chen

Yang

Zhang

Wang

Zhang

(2021). Factors influencing curriculum leadership of primary and secondary school teachers from the perspective of field dynamic theory: An empirical investigation in China. Sustainability, 13(21), 12007.

College of Education, MSU. (2020). Teacher preparation program. http://education.msu.edu/teacher-preparation/educators/.

10.

Constantine

Player

Silva

Hallgren

Grider

Deke

(2009). An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification, final report (NCEE 2009-4043). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504313.pdf

11.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–138.

12.

Darling-Hammond

Baratz-Snowden

(2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132.

13.

Ding

(2014). A national investigation report and policy analysis on cultivation status of normal university students in China. Educational Researcher, 35(11), 95–106.

14.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

15.

Harris

Jones

Crick

(2020). Curriculum leadership: A critical contributor to school and system improvement. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 1–4.

16.

Holt

(1995). How children learn. Da Capo Lifelong Books.

17.

Hunzicker

(2017). From teacher to teacher leader: A conceptual model. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8, 1–27.

18.

Illich

(1971). Deschooling society. Harper & Row.

19.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Dougherty

Sirinides

(2017). School Leadership Counts. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/539

20.

Ingvarson

Rowley

(2017). Quality assurance in teacher education and outcomes: A study of 17 countries. Educational Researcher, 46(4), 177–193.

21.

Kohl

H. R.

(1974). Math, writing and games in the open classroom. Random House Inc.

22.

Kozol

(2024). An end to inequality: Breaking down the walls of apartheid education in America. The New Press.

23.

Lei

(2021). Identity difference between normal major graduates and non-normal major graduates and its policy implications. Journal of National Academy of Education Administration, 2, 86–95.

24.

Lucksnat

Richter

Henschel

Hoffmann

Schipolowski

Richter

(2024). Comparing the teaching quality of alternatively certified teachers and traditionally certified teachers: Findings from a large-scale study. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 36, 75–106.

25.

Lucksnat

Richter

Schipolowski

Hoffmann

Richter

(2022). How do traditionally and alternatively certified teachers differ? A comparison of their motives for teaching, their well-being, and their intention to stay in the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103784.

26.

Ludlow

(2013). Alternative certification pathways: Filling a gap? Education and Urban Society, 45(4), 440–458.

27.

Matsko

K. K.

Ronfeldt

Nolan

H. G.

(2022). How different are they? Comparing teacher preparation offered by traditional, alternative, and residency pathways. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3), 225–239.

28.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Opinions of the ministry of education on strengthening the educational practice of teacher education students. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7011/201604/t20160407_237042.html

29.

Muijs

Chapman

Armstrong

(2013). Can early careers teachers be teacher leaders? A study of second-year trainees in the teach first alternative certification programme. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(6), 767–781.

30.

Munthe

Malmo

K. A. S.

Rogne

(2011). Teacher education reform and challenges in Norway. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 441–450.

31.

Neill

A. S.

(1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. Hart Publishing Company.

32.

Nesje

(2016). Teach first Norway - Who joins and what are their initial motivations for teaching? Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), 150–178.

33.

Noll

J. W.

(Ed.). (2008). Taking side: Clashing views on educational issues (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

34.

Puustinen

Säntti

Koski

Tammi

(2018). Teaching: A practical or research-based profession? Teacher candidates’ approaches to research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 170–179.

35.

Qadhi

Hendawi

Ghazi

Al-Dosari

(2020). The impact of a teacher preparation programs on professional teaching competencies – Female novice teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(1), 118–135.

36.

Qiao

Lai

(2019). Pre-service teachers’ job-related perceptions of teaching in rural areas: A study of the free teacher education programme in mainland China. Teachers and Teaching, 25(7), 782–799.

37.

Redding

(2022). Changing the composition of beginning teachers: The role of state alternative certification policies. Educational Policy, 36(7), 1791–1820.

38.

Redding

Smith

T. M.

(2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125.

39.

Redding

Smith

T. M.

(2019). Supporting early career alternatively certified teachers: Evidence from the beginning teacher longitudinal survey. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1–32.

40.

Ritter

J. T.

Hancock

D. R.

(2007). Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1206–1216.

41.

Rots

Aelterman

Vlerick

Vermeulen

(2007). Teacher education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 543–556.

42.

Schmidt

(2009). Hartmut von Hentigs Schul- und bildungsvorstellungen und deren Umsetzung an der Bielefelder Laborschule. Grin Verlag.

43.

Schmidt

W. H.

Burroughs

N. A.

Houang

R. T.

Cogan

L. S.

(2020). The role of content knowledge in mathematics teacher preparation: A study of traditional and alternative teacher preparation in Texas. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2), 233–246.

44.

Shaw

(2008). The impact of alternative teacher certification programs on teacher shortages. International Journal of Learning and Media, 15(3), 89–98.

45.

Shuls

J. V.

Trivitt

J. R.

(2015). Teacher effectiveness: An analysis of licensure screens. Educational Policy, 29(4), 645–675.

46.

Sinha

Hanuscin

D. L.

(2017). Development of teacher leadership identity: A multiple case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 356–371.

47.

Sykes

Bird

Kennedy

(2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464–476.

48.

Taneri

P. O.

(2014). The problems of novice classroom teachers having regular and alternative certificates. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 416–427.

49.

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.

50.

Wai-Yan Wan

Leung

(2022). Integrating phenomenography with discourse analysis to study Hong Kong prospective teachers’ conceptions of curriculum leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(1), 91–116.

51.

Wang

Odell

S. J.

(2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481–546.

52.

Wang

Chen

Yue

Zhang

(2022). Curriculum leadership of rural teachers: status quo, influencing factors and improvement mechanism-based on a large-scale survey of rural teachers in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 813782.

53.

Whitford

D. K.

Zhang

Katsiyannis

(2018). Traditional vs. alternative teacher preparation programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 671–685.

54.

Wilson

S. M.

Floden

R. E.

Ferrini-Mundy

(2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190–204.

55.

Chen

(2021). K-VPI teacher curriculum leadership from the perspective of key competencies: Model construction and connotation interpretation. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 149–158.

56.

Zhu

L. N. K.

(2019). Reform of teacher education in China: A survey of policies for systemic change. Teachers and Teaching, 25(7), 757–781.

57.

Zhou

(2014). Teacher education changes in China: 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 1–17.

58.

Zientek

L. R.

(2007). Preparing high-quality teachers: Views from the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 959–1001.

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB