Corporation
of New York
Vol. 3/No. 2
Spring 2005
Alternative Paths to Teacher Certification
Election Reform: Lessons from 2004
Also in this issue:
Virtual Library Model: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York
What Would John Steinbeck Say?
A Milestone For The Carnegie Reporter
Past Issues:
Request a free subscription to the print edition
Alternative Pathways to College
Maybe so, but others, such as Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, point out that “Alternative certification comes in all shapes and sizes, and is only as good as its preparation.” On that score, she says, the reviews are mixed: “Some are high quality, and others are not,” adding that in some cases, in the rush to create “short cuts to training,” new teachers are placed in classrooms “on a hope and a prayer.” Acknowledging that, “There are a lot of good alternative routes that don’t give short shrift to good preparation,” Darling-Hammond says “What separates high-quality programs from low-quality is what counts.” The problem, of course, is that there is no consensus on standards in this fast-developing marketplace of alternative certification programs. If, among the growing profusion of alternative certification programs, weeds are sprouting among the flowers, might not the same be said of university-based teacher education programs, many of them long-established?
Carnegie
Corporation of New York President Vartan Gregorian acknowledges that this
is certainly the case. “We can no longer close our eyes to the problem
of America’s schools of education and the pitiful job most of them
do in preparing our teachers,” he says. “What is needed is
nothing less than an unwavering commitment to a gold standard of teacher
education, one in which university-based teacher education programs prepare
teachers who are proficient in the fields in which they will be teaching,
well versed in the latest theories and practices of pedagogy, skilled
in technology and professionally mentored with solid classroom experience—all
of which cannot be accomplished at warp speed.” Carnegie Corporation
has made such a commitment in the form of Teachers for a New Era, a multimillion-dollar,
five-year reform effort aimed at creating a new teacher education model,
inspired by the idea of a “gold standard” and designed to
strengthen K–12 teaching.
In the meantime, in classrooms throughout the nation, particularly in high-needs urban and rural areas, each year children are being welcomed by increasing numbers of teachers who have come to their profession, and been certified, via alternate routes, i.e., judged to possess the minimum competencies to teach as required by their respective locality. Says Emily Feistritzer, “It’s here. Anybody who thinks it’s a debate is out of touch with what’s going on.” At the same time, she declares, “Schools of education will be around forever,” and, “University-based teacher education programs will always be there.”
Time for a Study
In an effort to take a measure of “what’s going on,”
Carnegie Corporation of New York commissioned a national study to examine
who actually participates in alternative certification programs and how
these programs train teachers for the classroom. Says Dan Fallon, “Although
there are thousands of different programs parading under the same banner,
some are little more than desperation moves of school districts that demean
and degrade the teaching profession. On the other hand, many are perfectly
okay. We wanted to know: what might a good alternative certification program
look like?” A report on the research study, Insights into Alternative
Certification: Preliminary Findings from a National Study, written
by Daniel C. Humphrey, associate director for educational policy, and
Marjorie E. Wechsler, educational policy analyst, both of SRI International,
an independent, nonprofit research organization, describes seven case
studies, selected by the research team after culling through hundreds
of alternative certification programs.
“Teacher education,” explains Humphrey, “is a highly politicized and polarizing debate.” As for alternative certification, he observes, those on the right tend to see alternative certification as a highly desirable, market-driven phenomenon; those on the left view the same phenomenon with concern, aware that the needs of the poor are often not well served by market forces. Those actually involved in quality teacher preparation, whether in traditional university-based programs or alternative route programs, are keenly aware that, either way, teacher preparation is a very complex and expensive undertaking. And then there are the programs themselves, which, upon examination, according to Humphrey, tend to challenge assumptions and conventional wisdom. “Rest assured,” he explains, “any generalization you make about alternative certification is likely to be wrong.” He adds, “Whenever someone argues that alternative certification is this or that, you should probably question it.” In general, he says, the data collected and analyzed in the study do not support the arguments of either proponents or opponents of alternate certification.
For example, according to the study, the notion that alternative certification programs attract a more diverse pool of teachers that includes greater numbers of men, older individuals, minorities, and “mid-career switchers”—many with special expertise in fields in which shortages are particularly acute, such as mathematics and science—is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the study found that alternative certification participants tend “to reflect the gender mix of the profession as a whole and the racial composition of their local market.” Moreover, it turns out that only a very small fraction of alternative certification participants are “mid-career switchers” from mathematics and science professions. Similarly, the belief that alternative certification attracts many who never considered teaching as a career option before also turns out not to be the case. In fact, “large numbers of alternative certification participants have prior teaching experience or experience working with children in classroom settings.”
On the “streamlining” aspect of teacher certification, the study found that while alternative certification participants are moved into the classroom more quickly, they do not obtain full certification any faster than participants in traditional programs. Clinical practice is shortened in most programs, and coursework can be quite similar to that of traditional programs or tailored to the particular program design. The value of on-the-job training, central to the arguments of proponents of alternative certification, varies widely, the critical variable being the nature of the school environments. According to the study, “Some participants experience rich and supportive environments in which they thrive and learn their new profession, while others experience chaotic and unsupportive environments that not only prevent them from learning how to teach, but also drive them from the profession.” In cases where a good match cannot be guaranteed—that is, the training needs of the participants are not appropriately matched with the available supports offered by the school—the perceived benefits of on-the-job training never materialize.
The seven case studies examined in the Humphrey–Wechsler study do not settle the debate on the merits or limitations of alternative teaching certification, but because these programs are among the largest and best known in the country, and provide a range of approaches, they do provide valuable insights into the dizzying complexity of alternative certification.