grossman pp22-27 2:el template 3/30/10 10:20 pm page 22 ... · full certification. although...

One of the most significantchanges in the teachingprofession over the past twodecades has been the rapidgrowth of alternative routes

into teaching. Such routes typically enableindividuals with a bachelor’s degree to beginteaching as the teacher of record beforecompleting all the coursework required forfull certification. Although alternative path-ways to a teaching career were rare in the1980s, 49 U.S. states now allow some formof alternative certification (Feistritzer, 2008).

The prevalence of such routes differsdramatically by state. In some states, such asCalifornia and New Jersey, alternative routesare not so alternative anymore; roughly 40percent of New Jersey teachers enter theclassroom through alternative routes(Grossman & Loeb, 2008). However, instates such as Vermont, Washington, Alaska,and North Dakota, relatively few alternativepathways exist.

The prevalence of alternative routes also

varies by district. In some large urbandistricts, including New York City; Oakland,California; Washington D.C.; and Chicago,Illinois, several different alternative programsprovide a significant number of teachers forcity schools. For example, from 2000 to2004, the number of teachers in New YorkCity entering from alternative certificationgrew from essentially zero to more than2,800, largely replacing the emergency certi-fied teachers, whose numbers dropped from3,886 to 607 (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford,Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006). Even more striking,the majority of math teachers in New YorkCity now enter the classroom through theNew York City (NYC) Teaching Fellowsprogram. However, in the more affluentScarsdale school district, just 14 miles fromthe Bronx, relatively few teachers enterthrough these routes.

The current proliferation of pathways,which reflects the increasing demand forteachers, is not limited to the United States.Other countries, including the Netherlands

22 E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P / M AY 2 0 1 0

Learning from

MultipleRoutes

The variation in teacher preparation pathways canpropel our understanding of how best to prepare teachers.

Pam Grossman and Susanna Loeb

© YVETTE WATSON

Grossman pp22-27_2:EL Template 3/30/10 10:20 PM Page 22

A S C D / W W W. A S C D . O R G 23

Grossman pp22-27_2:EL Template 3/30/10 10:20 PM 3

and Israel, are also experimenting withalternative routes as the demand forteachers increases.

The existence of multiple routes isalso not limited to teaching. Thenursing profession, in particular, offerscandidates a variety of ways to enternursing, from accelerated communitycollege programs, to four-year Bachelorof Arts programs, to advanced degreeprograms (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, &Day, 2009).

Given the growth of alternate routes,particularly in urban school districts,and the ways in which the multiplicityof pathways has begun to define theteaching profession, we need a clearunderstanding of these programs.According to some, the existence ofmultiple routes into teaching is not somuch an innovation as a return to anearlier period in our profession duringwhich teachers were prepared locally(Fraser, 2007; Zeichner & Hutchinson,2008).

A Varied LandscapeDespite the common terminology usedto describe them, alternative routes varywidely in their program design. Fourfeatures capture the range of variation.

Feature 1: Nature of the ProviderIn the current landscape of teachereducation, three providers predomi-nate—institutions of higher education;private providers, including nonprofitorganizations; and districts. Virtually allalternative route programs representpartnerships among these providers.

Most urban residency programs arerun by the district, but with the supportof either a university or nonprofit organ-ization. For example, the Boston TeacherResidency program was launched by theBoston Public Schools in partnershipwith the University of Massachusetts. Incontrast, the Academy for Urban SchoolLeadership, a not-for-profit organization,runs the Chicago Urban Teacher Resi-

dency program in partnership with bothChicago Public Schools and National-Louis University. Similarly, the NewTeacher Project partners with bothdistricts and local universities to run itsteaching fellows programs. Many ofthese programs could best be describedas hybrid models.

Universities are a key player in mostalternative route programs. In additionto providing the vast majority of tradi-tional preparation programs eitherthrough undergraduate or master’sprograms, they provide much of thecoursework for many alternativeprograms.

Feature 2: Response to Labor Market NeedsAlternative route programs often arise inresponse to specific labor market needs.The NYC Teaching Fellows programwas developed to meet concerns aboutteacher shortages that arose as a resultof legislation that eliminated temporarylicenses for teachers. These programsoften target high-need certificationareas, such as special education, math,and science.

For example, when the NYC TeachingFellows program failed to recruit a suffi-cient number of math teachers, theorganization created its Math ImmersionProgram, which is designed to increasethe number of math teachers for thedistrict. The program works with candi-dates who are interested in teachingmath but who did not major in math incollege. In addition to the regularpreservice training provided to all NYCTeaching Fellows, Math Immersioncandidates receive two weeks of inten-sive training in math.

Some programs target other dimen-sions of the labor market. Teach forAmerica, for example, provides teachersfor difficult-to-staff schools in bothurban and rural districts. Others focuson increasing the diversity of theteaching force. Such programs include



the Boston Teacher Residency programand Milwaukee’s Metropolitan Multicul-tural Teacher Education Program, whichwas developed for paraprofessionalsworking in Milwaukee public schoolswho hold bachelor’s degrees, but whohave not completed a teacher certifica-tion program.

Feature 3: CourseworkPrograms vary widely with regard to thetiming and character of coursework andfield experiences. University-basedprograms usually require students tocomplete all their coursework and field-work before certification. Alternativeroutes more typically have participantsenroll in an abbreviated trainingprogram, often for six to eight weeksduring the summer, before becomingthe teacher of record in local schools.Teachers then complete their courses forcertification while they are full-timeteachers. Some programs, such as Teachfor America, run their own trainingprograms, whereas others, including theNYC Teaching Fellows program,contract with local universities.

Other alternative routes offer anextended residency program in whichparticipants take courses and spendsubstantial time in schools before takingon full responsibility for a classroom.This extended model best describesmost urban residency programs as wellas such programs as the Teacher Educa-tion Institute in Elk Grove, California.This model of graduated responsibilityalso describes many 5th-year university-based programs, often not consideredalternative, in which students spendhalf the day in schools and half the dayin coursework, gradually increasingtheir responsibility for a classroom overthe year.

Many universities are currentlygearing up to create urban residencyprograms as part of the federal stimulusplan. Further complicating the distinc-tions between traditional and alternate

programs, a number of teachers enrolledin university-based programs teach full-time before completing all their certifi-cation requirements. This overlap inprogram features across pathways is onereason why many scholars havesuggested that the distinction betweenalternative and traditional programs isblurry at best and misleading at worst(see Grossman & Loeb, 2008;Humphrey & Weschler, 2007; Zeichner& Conklin, 2005).

Feature 4: Recruitment and SelectionAccording to a number of studies, alter-native routes have succeeded inattracting a new pool of teachers intothe classroom, although the characteris-tics of this pool can vary greatly byprogram. Highly selective programs likeTeach for America and the NYCTeaching Fellows have been successfulin attracting prospective teachers withfar stronger academic qualifications thanthose who enter teaching through moretraditional pathways.

However, not all alternative routes arehighly selective. Humphrey and Wech-sler’s (2007) study of seven alternativecertification programs showed thatalthough the percentage of participantswho had attended a competitive collegewas high for Teach for America (79percent), it was low for other programs,such as Milwaukee’s Metropolitan Multi-cultural Teacher Education Program,where only 6 percent of participants hadan undergraduate degree from acompetitive college. The variation inteacher characteristics by program illus-

trates the difficulty of making sweepinggeneralizations about alternative certifi-cation programs and the kinds of peoplethey recruit.

One of the reasons that the selectivityof undergraduate institutions and othermeasures of academic ability vary somuch across alternative route programsis that not all of these programs aim atincreasing the academic ability ofincoming teachers. As we have pointedout, a number of alternative programs

aim at increasing the racial, ethnic, andgender diversity of the teaching force.

There is some evidence that alterna-tive programs have been moresuccessful at recruiting male teachers, aswell as black and Hispanic teachers(Hammerness & Reininger, 2008). Inour survey of teacher candidates in NewYork City, we found that 30 percent ofTeach for America candidates and 31percent of Teaching Fellows candidateswere male, compared with 22 percent intraditional education graduate programsand 7 percent in traditional undergrad-uate programs. Similarly, 58 percent ofTeach for America candidates and 56percent of NYC Teaching Fellows werewhite, compared with 67 and 63percent of candidates from traditionalgraduate and undergraduate programs,respectively (Boyd et al., 2006).

A Look at OutcomesWe must weigh the success of alterna-tive routes according to outcomes for students. The effectiveness of alternative-route teachers is a crucial

The overlap in program features acrosspathways blurs the distinction betweenalternative and traditional programs.



question for urban districts, where themajority of teachers from alternativeroutes are placed.

Effect on Student AchievementThe evidence on how teachers fromalternative routes perform in classroomsis mixed. The accumulated evidence onTeach for America, which is the moststudied of all alternative routes, indi-cates that achievement results for corpsmembers’ students either mirror orexceed the results of students whoseteachers entered from university-basedprograms.

Teach for America teachers are typi-cally more effective in math than inEnglish language arts and more effectivein middle and high school than inelementary school (Boyd et al., 2006;Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004;Raymond, Fletcher, & Luque, 2001).Only one study has looked at the effect ofTeach for America at the high schoollevel. In their study in North Carolina,Xu, Hannaway, and Taylor (2008) foundthat students of Teach for Americateachers had substantially higher achieve-ment gains during the course of the yearthan students of teachers from traditionalroutes. Although data included teachersfrom various subject areas, the resultswere largely driven by differences in mathand science. The evidence on other early-entry alternative routes into teaching isboth sparser and less positive.

Comparing positive effects by pathwayis problematic. The variation in teachereffectiveness across teachers who wentthrough the same pathways is larger thanthe average differences in teacher effec-tiveness between pathways. In otherwords, both alternative and university-based programs have more and less effec-tive teachers. This variation suggests thatthe existence of alternative routes intoteaching alone, even highly selectivealternative routes, cannot ensure high-quality teaching and learning, particu-larly in high-poverty schools.

Teacher RetentionMirroring the diversity of alternativeroutes, the retention of alternative routeteachers also varies meaningfully acrossprograms. For example, Teach forAmerica teachers tend to show higherretention than other teachers in theirschools during and after their first yearbut substantially lower retention thanother teachers in subsequent years. Thiscould, in large part, be due to the factthat Teach for America requires a two-year commitment. On the other hand,

in a study of New York City teachers,we found that NYC Teaching Fellowsteachers remained in their schools atapproximately the same rate as tradi-tional teachers in the same schools, atleast over their first few years ofteaching (Boyd et al., 2006).

In a national sample of teachers,Grissom (2008) found that although theattrition of alternative route teachers ishigher than those of teachers from tradi-tional pathways, the differences are rela-tively small, with 82.3 percent of alter-native route teachers and 85.6 percentof teachers from university-basedprograms remaining in their schoolsover a one-year period.

Promising PracticesDespite the heated rhetoric aroundteacher education and alternativeroutes, with providers on both sidesclaiming the virtues of their approach,

the reality is much more varied. In thecurrent environment, with a diversity ofprograms serving different needs andoperating more or less effectively, wecan learn more by shifting away from afocus on differences in pathways andlooking instead for program featuresthat improve outcomes for teachers andstudents.

So what can we learn from the bestprograms—university-based and alter-native alike—about how best to recruit,select, and prepare highly effective

teachers? How can we make such prac-tices more common across the morethan 1,300 institutions and organiza-tions that prepare teachers?

Promising practices include� Doing a better job of selecting appli-

cants with propensities or skills that arerelated to effectiveness in particularsettings. For example, Teach forAmerica identified the attributes of itsmost successful teachers and then devel-oped screening procedures designed toidentify candidates with these leader-ship and organizational skills. In fact,some researchers have pointed out thatthe positive effects of Teach for Americateachers may largely be the result of theorganization’s emphasis on recruitmentand selection rather than on teacherpreparation (Zeichner & Conklin,2005).

� Providing novices with high-qualityfeedback on teaching performance. The



development of new rubrics for class-room observations offers the potential toprovide targeted feedback aroundspecific classroom practices. Both alter-native route programs, such as Teach forAmerica and NYC Teaching Fellows,and university-based programs, such asthat offered by the University ofVirginia, have begun to use suchrubrics.

� Organizing coursework around thecore practices of teaching. Teaching iscomplex work, involving the orchestra-tion of many routines and practices.Identifying a subset of high-leveragepractices that novices must master earlyon and then organizing preparationaround these practices could betterprepare novices for the classroom.Several universities, including theUniversity of Michigan, StanfordUniversity, and the University of Wash-ington, have been exploring ways toorganize teacher education around suchpractices as how to lead a productivediscussion, how to select appropriatemath problems, and how to set upsmall-group work. Rather than justreading and discussing such practices,novice teachers try them out and receivetargeted feedback on their efforts.

An emerging program of research inteacher education has begun to demon-strate the link between features ofprograms across pathways and studentachievement. Our own study in NewYork City of the relationship betweenteacher education and student achieve-ment found that teachers who had theopportunity to engage in activities thatare closely related to the practices theywould engage in as new teachers weremore likely to be effective in their firstyear (Boyd et al., 2006). These activitiesincluded the opportunity to study thecurriculums used in New York and toengage in such activities as analyzingstudent work and conducting a readingassessment of a student.

Similarly, programs that were better

able to control the field experiences oftheir students were also more effective.Programs that had primary authority forselecting cooperating teachers and thatrequired more supervision of noviceteachers had graduates who had agreater effect on student achievement.This line of research, although only inits infancy, has the potential to accel-erate the improvement of all teachers.

ReferencesBenner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day,

L. (2009). Educating nurses: A call forradical transformation. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb,S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes inentry requirements alter the teacherworkforce and affect student achieve-ment. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2),176–216.

Decker, P., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S.(2004). The effects of Teach for America onstudents: Findings from a nationalevaluation. Princeton, NJ: MathematicaPolicy Research.

Feistritzer, E. (2008). Alternative teachercertification: A state-by-state analysis 2007.Washington, DC: National Center forEducational Information.

Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing America’steachers: A history. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Grissom, J. A. (2008). But do they stay?Addressing issues of teacher retentionthrough alternative certification. In P.Grossman & S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternate

routes to teaching: Mapping the new land-scape of teacher education (pp. 129–156).Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPress.

Grossman, P., & Loeb, S. (Eds.). (2008).Taking stock: An examination of alternativecertification. Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducation Press.

Hammerness, K., & Reininger, M. (2008).Who goes into early-entry programs? In P. Grossman & S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternateroutes to teaching: Mapping the new land-scape of teacher education (pp. 31–64).Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPress.

Humphrey, D., & Wechsler, M. (2007).Insights into alternative certification:Initial findings from a national study.Teachers College Record, 109(3), 483–530.

Raymond, M., Fletcher, S. H., & Luque, J.(2001). Teach for America: An evaluation ofteacher differences and student outcomes inHouston, Texas. Stanford, CA: The HooverInstitute, Center for Research on Educa-tion Outcomes. Available: http://credo.stanford.edu/downloads/tfa.pdf

Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & Taylor, C. (2008).Making a difference: The effects of Teach forAmerica in high schools. Washington, DC:National Center for the Analysis of Longi-tudinal Data in Education Research.

Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Teachereducation programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studyingteacher education: The report of the AERApanel on research and teacher education.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zeichner, K., & Hutchinson, E. A. (2008).The development of alternative certifica-tion policies and programs in the UnitedStates. In P. Grossman & S. Loeb (Eds.),Alternate routes to teaching: Mapping thenew landscape of teacher education (pp.15–30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educa-tion Press.

Pam Grossman ([email protected]) isthe Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Educa-tion and Faculty Director of the Centerfor the Support of Excellence in Teachingand Susanna Loeb ([email protected])is Professor of Education and Director ofthe Institute for Research on EducationPolicy and Practice at Stanford Univer-sity, Stanford, California. They are coau-thors of Alternative Routes to Teaching:Mapping the New Landscape of TeacherEducation (Harvard Education Press, 2008).

EL

A number ofalternative programsaim at increasing theracial, ethnic, andgender diversity ofthe teaching force.



grossman pp22-27 2:el template 3/30/10 10:20 pm page 22 ... · full certification. although...

Documents