Alternate Route Eligibility: Arkansas

Expanding the Pool of Teachers Policy

Goal

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.

Nearly meets goal
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Alternate Route Eligibility: Arkansas results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/AR-Alternate-Route-Eligibility-7

Analysis of Arkansas's policies

While they do not exceed the requirements for traditional preparation programs, the admission requirements for Arkansas's alternate route do consider applicants' past academic performance and subject-matter knowledge and provide some flexibility for nontraditional candidates.

Arkansas's Non-Traditional Licensing Program requires alternate route candidates to have a minimum GPA of 2.5 overall, or 2.75 in the last 60 credit hours of coursework. The state provides exemptions to this requirement for individuals who have at least 15 years of work experience and who meet certain other conditions.

Non-Traditional Licensing Program candidates must pass a basic skills assessment and a subject-area assessment. Candidates with master's degrees can supply equivalent scores on entrance exams such as the GRE, GMAT or LSAT in lieu of this requirement.

Although a major is not required, Arkansas does require candidates in some fields to complete certain coursework prior to program admission. Candidates seeking licensure in either early or middle childhood must complete six credit hours of coursework in teaching reading and three credit hours of Arkansas history.  Secondary social studies candidates must also complete three credit hours of Arkansas history. Candidates may not fulfill these requirements by passing a test.  

Arkansas passed legislation, effective April 2011, that grants a full five-year standard license to any individual that successfully completes the Teach For America (TFA) program. TFA candidates are also exempt from the additional coursework requirements listed above.

Citation

Recommendations for Arkansas

Increase academic requirements for admission.
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. Accommodating candidates who may not meet that standard in their overall GPA but who can meet it in their last 60 credit hours is a reasonable policy, but an either/or policy means candidates need only meet the lower standard. 

Offer flexibility in fulfilling coursework requirements.
Arkansas should allow candidates who already have the requisite knowledge and skills to demonstrate such by passing a rigorous test.  In the case of the Arkansas history coursework, it seems likely that candidates may already be highly knowledgeable about the subject matter and, if so, should be provided the option of passing a test rather than completing coursework. The state is commended for allowing TFA applicants to test out of coursework requirements and should extend this flexibility to all of its candidates.

Eliminate basic skills test requirement.
Although Arkansas is commended for requiring all candidates to pass a subject-matter test to demonstrate strong content knowledge, the state's requirement that alternate route candidates also pass a basic skills test is impractical and ineffectual. Basic skills tests measure minimum competency—essentially those skills that a person should have acquired in middle school—and are inappropriate for candidates who have already earned a bachelor's degree. At a minimum, the flexibility granted to applicants with a master's degree should be extended to all applicants to substitute the basic skills requirement with equivalent SAT or ACT scores.

State response to our analysis

Arkansas recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.

Research rationale

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 Carlisle, Correnti, Phelps and Zeng. "Exploration of the Contribution of Teachers' Knowledge About Reading to their Students' Improvement in Reading." Reading Writing. (2009), US 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 (2009): 49-57. M. Barber and M. Mourshed, How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. McKinsey & Company (DATE). A.J. Wayne and P. Youngs, "Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review," Review of Educational Research 3, No. 1 (2003): 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 Teachers; R. Ehrenberg and D. Brewer, "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1950s' Coleman Revisited," Economics of Education Review 14 (1995), 1-21; R. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters," Harvard Journal on Legislation 28 (1991), 465-498; R. Ferguson and H. Ladd, "How and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools," in Holding Schools Accountable, ed. H. Ladd (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1996), pp. 265-298; R. Greenwald, L. Hedges, and R. Laine, "Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Students' Outcomes, Educational Researcher 23, no. 3 (1994), 5-14; E. Hanushek, "Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation Using Micro-Data," American Economic Review 61, no. 2 (1971), 280-288; E. Hanushek, Education and Race: An Analysis of the Educational Production Process (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1972); E. Hanushek, "A More Complete Picture of School Resource Policies," Review of Educational Research 66 (1996), 397-409; H. Levin, Concepts of Economic Efficiency and Educational Production," in Education as an Industry, ed. J. Froomkin, D. Jamison, and R. Radner (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976); D. Monk and J.R. King, "Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement," Economics of Education Review 12, no. 2 (1994), 125-145; R. Murnane, "Understanding the Sources of Teaching Competence: Choices, Skills, and the Limits of Training," Teachers College Record 84, no. 3 (1983) 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 10 (1981), 83-100; M. McLaughlin and D. Marsh, "Staff Development and School Change," Teachers College Record 80, no. 1 (1978), 69-94; R. Strauss and E. Sawyer, "Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies, Economics of Education Review 5 (1986), 41; 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, White, Presley, and DeAngelis, Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois. Illinois Education Research Council (2008). A. Summers and B. Wolfe, "Do Schools Make a Difference?" American Economic Review 67, no. 4 (1977), 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 (2009).  Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb and Wyckoff, "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement." American Education Finance Association (2006).  J. Constantine et al. "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification" Mathematica Policy Research (2009).

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 (2003); available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410656_NBPTSCertification.pdf.