Expanding the Pool of Teachers Policy
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from limitations on its usage and allows a diversity of providers.
Hawaii does not appear to have any state guidelines for alternate route programs. Programs run by colleges and universities have been authorized for alternative certification as well as Teach For America and iTeach Hawaii.
Teach For America has been granted provisional approval through December 2014
to recommend candidates for licensure in Elementary Education K-6, English
7-12, Mathematics 7-12, Science 7-12, Social Studies 7-12, and World Languages 7-12. iTeachHawaii has been granted provisional approval through December 2013 to recommend candidates for licensure in Health K-6, 7-12 and K-12; Physical Education K-6,
7-12 and K-12; English 7-12; Mathematics 7-12; Science 7-12; and World
Hawaii Preparation Programs http://www.htsb.org/licensing-permits/preparation-programs/ Hawaii Teach for America http://www.htsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NBI-11-32-Teach-for-America.pdf ITeachHawaii http://www.htsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NBI-11-64-Provisional-Approval-of-iTEACHUS-Teacher-Education-Programs.pdf
Hawaii should reconsider grade and subject-level restrictions on any of its alternate route programs. Alternate routes should not be programs of last resort for hard-to-staff subjects, grade levels or geographic areas but rather a way to expand the teacher pipeline throughout the state.
Hawaii should continue to consider policies that encourage additional providers beyond Teach For America and iTeach Hawaii to operate programs, including other nonprofit organizations. A good diversity of providers helps all programs, both university- and nonuniversity-based, to improve. The state should also offer alternate routes without restriction with regard to subject, grade or geographic areas.
Hawaii recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board has awarded all fields requested by these alternative routes programs and invites them yearly to review their license fields and request any additional fields the programs feel they can support.
Alternate routes should be structured to do more than just address shortages; they should provide an alternative pipeline for talented individuals to enter the profession.
Many states have structured their alternate routes as a streamlined means to certify teachers in shortage subjects, grades or geographic areas. While alternate routes are an important mechanism for addressing shortages, they also serve the wider-reaching and more consequential purpose of providing an alternative pathway for talented individuals to enter the profession. A true alternate route creates a new pipeline of potential teachers by certifying those with valuable knowledge and skills who did not prepare to teach as undergraduates and are disinclined to fulfill the requirements of a new degree.
Some states claim that the limitations they place on the use of their alternate routes impose quality control. However, states control who is admitted and who is licensed. With appropriate standards for admission (see Goal 2-A) and program accountability (see Goal 1-K), quality can be safeguarded without casting alternate routes as routes of last resort or branding alternate route teachers "second-class citizens."
Alternate Route Usage and Providers: Supporting Research
From a teacher quality perspective—and supporting NCTQ's contention for broad-based, respectable, and widely-offered programs—there exists substantial research demonstrating the need for states to adopt alternate certification programs. Independent research on candidates who earned certification through the alternate-route Teach For America (conducted by Kane, Parsons and Associates) and the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. and ABCTE) programs has found that alternate route teachers are often as effective, and, in many cases, more effective, than traditionally-prepared teachers. See also M. Raymond, S. Fletcher, and J. Luque, July 2001. Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution, Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
Specifically, evidence of the effectiveness of candidates in respectable and selective alternate certification requirements can be found in J. Constantine, D. Player, T. Silva, K. Hallgren, M. Grider, J. Deke, and E. Warner, An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report, February 2009, U.S. Department of Education, NCEE 2009-4043; D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement." NBER Working Paper No. 11844, December 2005; T. Kane, J. Rockoff, and D. Staiger. "What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City." NBER Working Paper No.12155, April 2006.
A number of studies have also found alternative-certification programs such as Teach for America to produce teachers that were more effective at improving student achievement than other teachers with similar levels of experience. See Z. Xu, J. Hannaway, and C. Taylor, "Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School." The Urban Institute/Calder, April 2007, Working Paper 17; D. Boyd, P. Grossman, K. Hammerness, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, M. Ronfeldt, and J. Wyckoff, "Recruiting Effective Math Teachers: How Do Math Immersion Teachers Compare?: Evidence from New York City." NBER Working Paper 16017, May 2010.
For evidence that alternate route programs offered by institutions of higher education are often virtually identical to traditional programs, see Alternative Certification Isn't Alternative (NCTQ, 2007) at: http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/Alternative_Certification_Isnt_Alternative_20071124023109.pdf.