The Effectiveness of a state-wide non-traditional teacher licensure program model
Ezell, Glenda
University of Arkansas – Fort Smith
Smith, Roland
University of Arkansas – Fort Smith
Brody, Carol
University of Arkansas - Fort Smith
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Bera SIG:
Teacher Education and Development
Symposium 8216:
Utilizing Comprehensive Assessments as the Basis for Promoting Positive Dispositions
#0868
ABSTRACT
Multiple state and federal initiatives in the United States of America call for increased teacher effectiveness in America’s schools at the same time that nation-wide statistics indicate a need for approximately two million new teachers in the coming decade. A variety of non-traditional teacher licensure programs has been sanctioned. Will these produce teachers able to increase the student learning demanded of society?
This study first examines the literature concerning non-traditional teacher licensure programs in the United States of America. Then, a more intensive examination of a non-traditional teacher licensure program used in one state is presented in two ways. First, a statistical analysis compares novice teachers who were licensed through this model with those who completed a traditional teacher preparation program through colleges of education accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Second, the presenters will review the Arkansas Non-Traditional Licensure Program by examining one university site. This qualitative analysis is based on surveys, the observations of the presenters who serve as site directors, interviews, and open-response questionnaires completed by the participants at that site. The significance of the study, recommendations for change, implications for practice, and conclusions will be discussed.
Introduction
Recent projections indicate that the nation will need to hire 2.2 million teachers in the next 10 years or 210,000 new teachers every year for the next decade (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). It is also estimated that within the next five to seven years, 50% of the teachers currently in our classrooms will either retire or exit the profession (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Ingersoll, 2001; Merrow, 1999; Wayne, 2000). The American Association for Employment in Education reports that 2001 was the first year since the organization began its research in which no teaching fields were perceived as having a surplus of candidates and that 34 of the 47 teaching fields surveyed showed a pattern of increased demand from 1999 to 2001 (National Education Association, 2003). Ingersoll (2003) reports that data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics found 58% of all schools had difficulty filling teaching positions in one or more fields.
Several factors have contributed to the demand for new teachers. Primary reasons given by researchers are retiring baby boomers, increased student enrollment, smaller classes, fewer students entering colleges of education, competition for college graduates, and teacher attrition (Darling-Hammond, 2000b; Feistritzer, 1999; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003).
The poor retention rate of new teachers is one factor contributing to teacher shortages. According to Berry (2000), about 30% of all new teachers leave in their first five years of teaching and that number increases to 50% of the new teachers in inner city schools. Lucksinger (2000) reports that between 20-40% of new teachers leave the profession after their first two years of teaching. Ingersoll (2003) maintains that after five years, 40-50% of all beginning teachers have left the teaching profession.
Teachers leave for a variety of reasons. Ingersoll & Smith (2003), while noting that since 1984 teacher retirements have increased, point out that teacher attrition plays a larger role in the teacher shortage. Ingersoll (2003) calls the dilemma in teacher retention “the revolving door” as large numbers of employees flow into, between, and out of schools each year (p. 11). Many teachers leave to get a better paying job, to raise a family, or to find a safer more manageable work environment (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Wayne, 2000). Ingersoll (2001) asserts that some teachers leave to find a profession with more autonomy while others leave because of the lack of public respect for the teaching profession. Many teachers leave the profession to find jobs that are less complex and time-consuming (Fetler, 1997; Ingersoll, 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003; Turley & Nakai, 2000).
The steady increase in student enrollment since 1984 and reduction in class sizes add to the teacher shortage dilemma (Ingersoll, 2003). Rothstein (1999) asserts that in the next decade 1.5 million schoolchildren will be added to the nation’s classrooms. In the midst of a growing student population, efforts are being made to reduce class size. In fiscal years 1999-2001, Congress provided a total of $2.5 billion specifically to help states reduce class sizes.
In the past, colleges of education have been the primary source of schoolteachers; however, teacher education programs graduate only 100,000 potential teacher candidates each year and that number is only one-half of the teachers who will be needed to replace those retiring or to meet the needs of expanding enrollments (Littleton, 2000). Furthermore, Feistritzer & Chester (2003) assert that about one-third of those who graduate from the nation’s 1,354 teacher education programs in any given year actually teach the following year.
Whether the teacher shortage is the result of fewer students entering colleges of education or whether fewer graduates are entering and remaining in the teaching profession, classrooms are filled with students without enough teachers to teach them (Darling-Hammond, 2000b; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003; Paige, 2002; Turley & Nakai, 2000). The demand for qualified teachers is even greater in some geographic and subject matter areas. Although there is an oversupply of elementary school teachers in some areas, there is a growing demand for those teachers in inner cities and outlying rural areas of the country. The greatest demand for teachers is in mathematics, the sciences, and special education (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003).
One result of this shortage dilemma is the rapid growth of alternative routes to teacher licensure. The terms “alternative teacher certification” and “alternative teacher licensure” are used interchangeably in the literature to refer to many different avenues to becoming qualified to teach, ranging from emergency certification to very well developed programs. According to Feistritzer (1999), alternative teacher licensure has become a respectable concept in the last decade and has been the impetus for many new programs that provide excellent preparation and training for teachers. Feistritzer & Chester (2003) estimate that more than 200,000 individuals have been licensed through these programs.
Although alternative licensure programs were initiated primarily to deal with projected teacher shortages, they were also initiated to serve as a catalyst to reform traditional teacher training programs at institutions of higher education (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Public confidence in teacher preparation programs had decreased and critics argued that their lack of rigor and low academic standards discouraged talented individuals from entering the teaching profession. Studies conducted from the 1960s through the 1980s indicated that teacher education students were among the least academically-able and ranked at the bottom of the American College Testing Program distribution (Stoddart & Floden, 1995). National reports such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and High School (Boyer, 1983) recommended recruiting more academically-able teachers. The reports sought to influence public opinion by arguing that improving teachers’ academic qualifications would improve the quality of teaching.
Growing numbers of governors, state commissioners of education, and educational leaders have become increasingly concerned with teacher shortage issues and they have begun to investigate alternative licensure options. According to Feistritzer & Chester (2003), the federal government appropriated $41.65 million in the 2003 fiscal year budget, an increase of $6.65 million over the 2002 appropriation, for a Transition to Teaching program. The program was designed to assist mid-career professionals obtain licensure as teachers. In addition, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) legislation in December 2001 that authorized $3.175 billion for fiscal year 2002 and additional sums for the five succeeding fiscal years to prepare, train, and recruit high quality teachers and principals. Funds to establish programs to recruit qualified professionals from other fields and provide them alternative routes to licensure were included among its provisions.
The National Center of Education Information (NCEI) has been surveying the states concerning alternative routes to licensure since the issue surfaced in New Jersey in 1983. At that time, eight states had alternative routes for people who did not have a traditional teacher education background to become licensed to teach. By 2003, 46 states and the District of Columbia had some type of alternative route for licensing teachers. According to Feistritzer & Chester (2003), the remaining states are considering alternative licensure programs or have proposed programs.
In 2003, states reported a total of 144 alternative routes to license teachers ranging from minimal requirements to stringent requirements. The National Center for Education Information (2003) categorized the alternative teacher licensure programs into 10 categories according to purpose, admission requirements, focus, intensity, and format. Class A, which has the most stringent criteria, is the category reserved for programs that are designed for the explicit purpose of attracting talented individuals who already have at least a bachelor’s degree in a field other than education. The programs are not restricted to shortages or subject areas and they have formal instruction in theory and practice. In addition, programs identified for the Class A category include a mentoring component. Using those criteria, the National Center for Education Information identified 12 states that have at least one exemplary alternative teacher licensure route. The states are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas. On the other end of the continuum is Class J, a category designed to prepare individuals who do not meet basic requirements to become qualified to enter either an alternative or a traditional route to teacher licensure.
Today, alternative pathways to teacher licensure are a source of confusion and debate in educational, political, state, and national arenas. The lack of clarity over what constitutes an effective alternative program and the nature of the research that has been conducted on alternative programs adds to the confusion concerning the issue (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). A major debate continues among educational researchers concerning the quality of teachers who complete alternative licensure routes (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000; Berry, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000a; Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Dial & Stevens, 1993; Fordham Foundation, 1999; Hawley, 1992; Kwiatkowski, 1999; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2003; Marchant, 1992; Paige, 2002; Stoddart & Floden, 1995; Wise, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
Arkansas has not been exempt from the teacher shortage dilemma. At a meeting of deans from institutions of higher education held August 13, 2003, Dr. Woody Cummins from the Arkansas Department of Education reported that Arkansas needs approximately 2,500 replacement teachers a year and institutions of higher education only contribute only about 1,250 of those replacement teachers. Currently, approximately 900 teachers are licensed through reciprocity agreements with other states and the remaining 300 teachers come from alternative pathways to education (Deans, Colleges of Education Meeting; August 13, 2003).
The Arkansas State Board of Education adopted requirements for the Arkansas Alternative/Non-Traditional Certification Program in May 1988 to meet the threat of a potential shortage of qualified and licensed teachers for its public schools. At that time, participants in the program were required to: have a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited college/university, to pass admission requirements that included evidence of past work experience, to submit letters of recommendation, to complete an interview, to pass the national teacher exams, to work with a mentor teacher at their employment site, and to complete two-week long training sessions each summer sponsored by the Arkansas Department of Education (Davidson, 1995).
In July 2000, the Arkansas Alternative/Non-Traditional Certification Program became the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program (NTLP) and changed from a three-year format to a two-year format. Prior to admission into the program, candidates are required to have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and must pass the Praxis I, a test in basic skills, and the Praxis II subject area test in the appropriate licensure area and level. These tests are the same state-mandated Educational Testing Services (ETS) Praxis Series tests that their traditionally licensed colleagues are required to pass before becoming licensed. Candidates must also pass a criminal background check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Once admitted to the program, candidates are issued a one-year provisional teaching license. To remain in the program, candidates must acquire a teaching position or verify they are willing to relocate to an area in Arkansas where a teacher shortage exists. The candidates receive intensive specialized training at one of the state training sites while receiving support from an assigned site-based trained mentor. The training sessions are held two weeks each summer and one Saturday a month during the two year program.
During the training, the candidates are introduced to the Pathwise Observation Assessment System, a formative assessment that consists of 19 essential teaching criteria and is part of the Arkansas Mentoring Program. Candidates are assigned a Pathwise-trained mentor at their school site to assist them in acquiring the skills measured by the Pathwise criteria. The mentor is required to use the Pathwise Observation Assessment System to observe the NTLP teacher and to give them focused, formative feedback.
To continue into the second year of the program and to receive another one-year provisional teaching license, candidates must show proof of continued employment. During the second year, candidates attend the two-week training sessions, complete NTLP program assignments, participate in monthly training sessions, continue to work with the site-based trained mentors, and successfully complete the Praxis II pedagogy test for their area of licensure.
At the end of their second year in the program, candidates must pass the Praxis III test, a summative performance-based assessment that consists of the same 19 essential teaching criteria as the Pathwise Observation Assessment System. Both the Pathwise and the Praxis III are objective observation instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom teachers. Each criterion represents a critical aspect of teaching and includes its own scoring rules and rubrics. The criteria apply to all grade levels, classroom structures, and content areas. The framework of knowledge and skills for beginning teachers used in the Pathwise/Praxis III assessments was derived from a national research base, which included job analysis studies by Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko (1992), a review and synthesis of relevant literature conducted by Reynolds (1992), consideration of both professional association recommendations, state licensing requirements, performance assessment practices (Klem, 1990; Tracy & Smeaton, 1993), and consultation with practitioners and teacher educators (Powers, 1992).