The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements of traditional preparation programs while also being flexible to the needs of nontraditional candidates.
classifies eight routes as alternate routes to teacher certification:
Exceptional Work Experience Certification, Local District Training Program
Certification, College Faculty Certification, Adjunct Instructor Certification,
Veterans of the Armed Services Certification, University-Based Alternative
Route to Certification, Institute Alternative Route to Certification and Teach
For America (TFA) Alternative Route to Certification.
Candidates in the Exceptional Work Experience Certification program must have a minimum GPA of 2.5, or 3.0 in the last 60 hours of coursework. Candidates must have a major in their content area or a passing score on a subject-matter test. They must also have 10 years of work experience in the area in which certification is being sought.
Candidates in the Local District Training Program Certification program must have a minimum 2.5 GPA; an exception to this GPA requirement may be granted for candidates demonstrating exceptional experience. Applicants must also have a subject-area major or five years of related work experience and pass a subject-area test. A subject-matter test cannot be used to demonstrate subject knowledge in the absence of a major or related work experience.
Candidates in the Adjunct Instructor Certification must have expertise in a specific area: elementary certification requires a bachelor's degree with a 2.5 GPA, middle or secondary certification requires the same as well as a major/minor or area of concentration in the subject to be taught.
Candidates in the College Faculty Certification program must have a master's degree and five years of full-time teaching experience in the targeted content area at an institution of higher education. Candidates are not required to demonstrate prior academic performance, such as a minimum GPA standard, or pass a basic skills or subject-matter test.
Candidates in the Veterans of the Armed Services Certification program must have a major in the content area being sought with a minimum 2.5 GPA. Candidates must also pass a subject-matter test and have six years of active duty service.
Candidates in the University-Based Alternative Route to Certification program must have a bachelor's or a master's degree and meet university admission standards.
Candidates in the Institute Alternative Route to Certification program must have a bachelor's degree with a major in the targeted certification area and a cumulative GPA of 3.0, as well as minimum scores on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). Candidates for math/science certification must also have a minimum score of 450 on the quantitative section of the GRE. Those with professional degrees are exempt from the GRE requirement. Candidates must also pass a subject-matter test.
Candidates in the TFA Alternative Route to Certification program must have a bachelor's degree and meet participation criteria for the TFA program. The TFA Alternative Route to Certification is currently approved as a pilot program.
Kentucky Code 161.048 Education Professional Standards Board http://www.epsb.ky.gov/certification/certaltroutes.asp
While a minimum GPA requirement is a first step toward ensuring that candidates are of good academic standing, the current standard of 2.5 does not serve as a sufficient indicator of past academic performance. Kentucky should consistently require that candidates in all programs provide some evidence of good academic performance. The standard should be higher than what is required of traditional teacher candidates, such as a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Some accommodation in this standard may be appropriate for career changers. A rigorous test appropriate for candidates who have already completed a bachelor's degree, such as the GRE, would be ideal.
While Kentucky is commended for requiring candidates for the Veterans of the Armed Services Certification, the Institute Alternative Route to Certification and the TFA Alternative Route to Certification to demonstrate content knowledge on a subject-matter test, it is strongly recommended that the state extend this requirement to all of its candidates. The concept behind alternate routes is that the nontraditional candidate is able to concentrate on acquiring professional knowledge and skills because he or she has strong subject-area knowledge. Teachers without sufficient subject-matter knowledge place students at risk.
Kentucky should allow any candidate who already has the requisite knowledge and skills to demonstrate such by passing a rigorous test. Exacting coursework requirements could dissuade talented individuals who lack precisely the right courses from pursuing a career in teaching.
Although Kentucky's numerous options show the state's commitment to alternative certification, the state may want to consider consolidating some of its routes.
Kentucky recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that the Education Professional Standards Board does not prohibit institutions from offering flexibility in fulfilling coursework requirements.
Alternate route teachers need the advantage of a strong academic background.
The intent of alternate route programs is to provide a route for those who already have strong subject-matter knowledge to enter the profession, allowing them to focus on gaining the professional skills needed for the classroom. This intent is based on the fact that academic caliber has been shown to be a strong predictor of classroom success. Programs that admit candidates with a weak grasp of both subject matter and professional knowledge can put the new teacher in an impossible position, where he or she is much more likely to experience failure and perpetuate high attrition rates.
Academic requirements for admission to alternate routes should exceed the requirements for traditional programs.
Assessing a teacher candidate's college GPA and/or aptitude scores can provide useful and reliable measures of academic caliber, provided that the state does not set the floor too low. A 2.5 minimum GPA is the common choice of many alternate route programs but aims too low. As discussed in Goal 1-A, states should limited teacher preparation to the top half of the college bound (or in the case of alternate routes college graduate) population. GPA measures may be especially useful for assessing elementary teacher qualifications, since elementary teaching demands a broader body of knowledge that can be harder to define in terms of specific tests or coursework.
Multiple ways for assessing subject-matter competency are needed to accommodate nontraditional candidates.
Rigid coursework requirements can dissuade talented, qualified individuals who lack precisely the "right" courses from pursuing a career in teaching. States can maintain high standards by using appropriate tests to allow individuals to prove their subject-matter knowledge. For instance, an engineer who wishes to teach physics should face no coursework obstacles as long as he or she can prove sufficient knowledge of physics on a test. A good test with a sufficiently high passing score is certainly as reliable as courses listed on a transcript, if not more so.
A testing exemption would also allow alternate routes to recruit college graduates with strong liberal arts backgrounds to work as elementary teachers, even if their transcripts fail to meet state requirements.
Alternate Route Eligibility: Supporting Research
For evidence of the lack of selectivity among alternate route programs, see Alternative Certification Isn't Alternative (NCTQ, 2007).
There is no shortage of research indicating the states and districts should pay more attention to the academic ability of a teacher applicant. On the importance of academic ability generally, see J. Carlisle, R. Correnti, G. Phelps, and J. Zeng. "Exploration of the Contribution of Teachers' Knowledge About Reading to their Students' Improvement in Reading." Reading Writing, Volume 22, No. 4, April 2009, pp. 457-486; U.S. Department of Education, Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; S. Kukla-Acevedo, "Do Teacher Characteristics Matter? New Results on the Effects of Teacher Preparation on Student Achievement." Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, No. 1, February 2009: pp. 49-57; M. Barber and M. Mourshed, How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. New York: McKinsey & Company, September 2007; A.J. Wayne and P. Youngs, "Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review," Review of Educational Research, Volume 73, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 89-122. See also G.J. Whitehurst, "Scientifically based research on teacher quality: Research on teacher preparation and professional development," presented at the 2002 White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers; R. Ehrenberg and D. Brewer, "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s'? Coleman Revisited," Economics of Education Review, Volume 14, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 1-21; R. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters," Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 28, Summer 1991, pp. 465-498; R. Ferguson and H. Ladd, "How and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools," in Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education, ed. H. Ladd (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,1996, pp. 265-298; L. Hedges, R. Laine, and R. Greenwald, "An Exchange: Part I: Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student Outcomes", Educational Researcher,Volume 23, No. 3, April 1994, pp. 5-14; E. Hanushek, "Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation Using Micro Data," American Economic Review,Volume 61, No. 2, May 1971, pp. 280-288; E. Hanushek, Education and Race: An Analysis of the Educational Production Process (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1972), 176 p.; E. Hanushek, "A More Complete Picture of School Resource Policies," Review of Educational Research, Volume 66, No. 3, Fall 1996, pp. 397-409; H. Levin, "Concepts of Economic Efficiency and Educational Production," in Education as an Industry, eds. J. Froomkin, D. Jamison, and R. Radner (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976), pp. 149-198; D. Monk, "Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement," Economics of Education Review, Volume 13, No. 2, June 1994, pp. 125-145; R. Murnane, "Understanding the Sources of Teaching Competence: Choices, Skills, and the Limits of Training," Teachers College Record,Volume 84, No. 3, 1983, pp. 564-569; R. Murnane and B. Phillips, Effective Teachers of Inner City Children: Who They Are and What Are They? (Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1978); R. Murnane and B. Phillips, "What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children Have in Common?" Social Science Research, Volume 10, No. 1, March 1981, pp. 83-100; M. McLaughlin and D. Marsh, "Staff Development and School Change," Teachers College Record, Volume 80, No. 1,1978, pp. 69-94; R. Strauss and E. Sawyer, "Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies,"Economics of Education Review, Volume 5, No.1, 1986, pp. 41-48; A. A. Summers and B.L. Wolfe, "Which School Resources Help Learning? Efficiency and Equity in Philadelphia Public Schools," Business Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, February 1975).
This research is supported by other research showing that teachers from more selective colleges are more effective at raising student achievement. See for example, B. White, J. Presley, and K. DeAngelis, 2008, "Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois", Illinois Education Research Council, Policy Research Report: IERC 2008-1, 44 p.; A. Summers and B. Wolfe, "Do Schools Make a Difference?", American Economic Review, Volume 67, No. 4, September 1977, pp. 639-652.
Evidence of the impact of college selectivity and academic ability on student achievement is also found in studies of alternative programs such as Teach for America and Teaching Fellows. For example, P. Decker, D. Mayer, and S. Glazerman, "The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation." Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,2004. 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; 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.
More evidence is provided by research done on National Board certified teachers. In fact, one study finds that the only measure that distinguishes them from their non-certified peers was their higher scores on the SAT and ACT. See D. Goldhaber, D. Perry, and E. Anthony, NBPTS certification: Who applies and what factors are associated with success? Urban Institute, May 2003; available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410656_NBPTSCertification.pdf.