The Effectiveness of a state-wide non-traditional teacher licensure program model

Ezell, GlendaUniversity of Arkansas – Fort Smith

gezell@uafortsmith.edu

Smith, RolandUniversity of Arkansas – Fort Smith

rsmith@uafortsmith.edu

Brody, CarolUniversity 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.

1

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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).

The Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria are based on formal analyses of important tasks required of beginning teachers, reviews of research, analyses of state regulations for teacher licensing, and extensive fieldwork that included pilot testing the criteria and assessment process (Dwyer & Villegas, 1993; Dwyer, 1994; Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, & Bukatko, 1992). The 19 criteria were validated by Charlotte Danielson (1996) who worked with the Educational Testing Service. Extensive fieldwork in Delaware and Minnesota shaped and refined its structure and the details of its content. Its philosophical basis is outlined in Development of the Knowledge Base for the Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments Assessment Criteria (Dwyer, 1994).

The Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria play a major role in teacher licensure in Arkansas. All teachers in Arkansas, regardless of their pathway to teacher licensure, must be able to demonstrate proficiency in the Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria. The 19 essential teaching criteria are embedded in education programs of studies at institutions of higher education and in the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program training modules. Teachers in the public schools must be trained in the Pathwise Mentoring Model before becoming qualified to mentor novice teachers. Additionally, most institutions of higher education in Arkansas require the cooperating teachers for their interns to be Pathwise trained.

5

The Pathwise Mentoring Model is used during the induction phase for all novice teachers. The novice teacher is paired with a Pathwise-trained mentor at the school site. The Pathwise-trained mentor coaches, supports, and guides the novice teacher. The Pathwise-trained mentor also observes the novice teacher, assesses the novice teacher’s performance in the 19 essential teaching criteria by using the Pathwise assessment rubrics, and then provides the novice teacher with focused feedback.

Near the end of the induction period, the novice teacher schedules a Praxis III assessment through a state computerized system. The state Praxis III coordinator assigns a state Praxis III assessor, an individual who has completed an intensive five-day training followed by a one-day proficiency test, to set up an observation time with the novice teacher. The Arkansas Praxis III Assessor observes the novice teacher in the classroom and assesses the novice teacher’s performance, based on the 19 essential teaching criteria. The Praxis III assessor assigns a score for each criterion, based on the evidence and matched to the criterion scoring rules and rubric. The individual criterion scores are then totaled. The novice teacher must score above the Arkansas cut-off score to successfully complete the Praxis III assessment and receive a standard, renewable license to teach.

Praxis III assessments include a pre-observation and a post-observation conference. The conferences require the novice teacher to reflect and self-evaluate each criterion. The self-reflection component is a critical piece to the Praxis III assessments. Throughout the Pathwise Mentoring Program, novice teachers are instructed to be critical and reflective practitioners. The Pathwise and Praxis III scoring rules and rubrics are designed to assess the novice teacher’s skills in the reflection component. Table 1 identifies the Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria.

Table 1

6

Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential Teaching Criteria

Criterion Description

A1 Becoming familiar with students’ background knowledge and experience

A2 Articulating clear learning goals that are appropriate to the students

A3 Connecting the content from the past, to the present, and to the future

A4 Using appropriate methods, activities, and instructional materials

A5 Using evaluation strategies aligned with the lesson

B1 Creating a climate that promotes fairness

B2 Establishing and maintaining rapport with students

B3 Communicating challenging learning expectations to each student

B4 Establishing and maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior

B5 Making the physical environment safe and conducive to learning

C1 Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students

C2 Making content comprehensible to students

C3 Encouraging students to extend their thinking

C4 Monitoring students’ understanding of content, providing feedback and

adjusting learning activities as the situation demands

C5 Using instructional time wisely

D1 Reflecting on the extent to which the learning goals are met

D2 Demonstrating a sense of efficacy

D3 Building professional relationships

D4 Communicating with parents and guardians

______________________________________________________________________________Note. Educational Testing Service (2002). Pathwise Orientation Guide

Purposes of the Study and Related Research Questions

7

The first cohort of teachers to complete the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program received their standard teaching license in 2003 and they are now in their third year of teaching. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the first cohort of teachers to complete the Arkansas Non-Traditional Licensure Program using the quantitative measure for licensure in the state, the Praxis III test. Additionally, the study was conducted to identify dispositional characteristics of teachers in the NTLP Program, to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program through qualitative measures, and to identify ways to alleviate the need for an alternative licensure program by recruiting those individuals into a teacher-training program before they complete a bachelor’s degree in another field. The research questions related to this purpose were:

1. How do the 2003 Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program teachers compare to traditionally licensed teachers (using the Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria as the measurement)?

2. Using the UA – Fort Smith Disposition Rating Scale, what are the dispositions of the candidates in the 2004 - 2005 cohort of NTLP teachers assigned to the UA – Fort Smith site?

3. How do the reasons the Arkansas 2003 NTLP teachers cited for wanting to becometeachers compare with state and national data of licensed teachers?

4. What can colleges of education do to recruit individuals into teacher training programs before they complete a bachelor’s degree in another area and then decide to become a teacher through an alternative licensure program?

Definitions of Terms

The terms listed below were operationally defined for use in this study as follows:

Alternative teacher licensure or certification A teaching license/certificateobtained without completing an approved college teacher education program (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). The term is used interchangeably with the term “non-traditional teacher licensure or certification.” Formative assessment. Formative assessments monitor progress during the learning process. The Pathwise Mentoring Model is an example of a formative assessment.

Initial teaching license. In Arkansas, the initial teaching license is a non-renewable license granted to novice teachers during the mentoring/induction phase. All novice teachers must successfully complete the Pathwise Mentoring/Induction Program and Praxis III before receiving a renewable license to teach.

Mentor. A mentor is an experienced, licensed teacher assigned to support a novice teacher. In Arkansas, individuals must be recommended by their school administrator and must successfully complete a three-day Pathwise training to become a mentor.

Novice Teacher. A novice teacher is one who is completing his or her first full year as the teacher of record (having primary responsibility) for a classroom of students. In Arkansas, participants in the non-traditional teacher licensure program have a provisional license to teach. They are considered novice teachers for the duration of the two-year program and/or successful completion of the Praxis III assessment.

Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program. Non-traditional teacher licensure

8

programs are alternative routes to teacher certification or licensure. They range from emergency certification to very sophisticated and well-designed programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). The term is used interchangeably with “alternative teacher licensure or certification program.”

Pathwise Assessment System. “Built on a framework of essential teaching skills as defined by professional educators, Pathwise is an assessment tool for the evaluation of the classroom performance of student teachers and first-year teachers” (Pathwise Orientation Guide, 2001, p.3). The Pathwise assessment system is composed of research-based criteria and scoring rules that are non-grade, non-subject area specific. The system includes training to ensure that observers accurately and reliably interpret and score the assessment data in order to provide substantive feedback and coaching.

Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential teaching criteria. The Pathwise/Praxis III19 essential teaching criteria are teaching skills demonstrated by effective teachers. The criteria were identified and agreed upon by hundreds of professional educators and they are supported by significant research (Pathwise Orientation Guide, 2001).

Praxis III assessment. The Praxis III is a system for assessing the skills of beginning teachers in their own classroom settings. It is a summative performance assessment for licensing teachers in some states. The Praxis III system includes the same 19 essential teaching criteria as its companion formative assessment model, The Pathwise Assessment System.

Provisional teaching license. A temporary license to teach that is given to a degreed or a non-degreed individual with the expectation that the individual granted the provisional license to teach will complete the necessary requirements to obtain a standard license to teach. Teacher licensure/certification. The terms are used inter-changeably in the literature. Certification is a nonstatutory process by which a governmental body, agency, or association officially grants permission for an individual to use the title adopted by the profession, if the individual has met the predetermined professional qualifications. Licensure grants an individual legal right to practice a profession, providing the individual has met the minimum qualifications established by the profession (Bradley, 1995). The term “teacher licensure” was used in this study to ensure consistency, unless the term “teacher certification” was used in a quote or cited from a specific study or program that used the term. Traditional teacher licensure. Traditional teacher licensure is a way of obtaining a teaching license/certificate by completing an undergraduate teacher education program at an approved college or university, whereby the program includes a minimum of four years, professional course work with supervised student teaching and/or internships, and is approved by a State Board of Education (Bradshaw & Hawk, 1996; Feistritzer & Chester, 2003).

Standard teaching license. In Arkansas, a standard teaching license is a renewable license granted to a novice teacher who successfully completes the Pathwise Mentoring/Induction Program and the Praxis III performance based assessment.

Summative assessment. Summative assessments measure the final results at the end of the evaluation period. The Praxis III is an example of a summative assessment.

The Literature Review

Current Traditional Teacher Licensure

9

Presently, state governments have assumed the responsibility for licensing teachers. A traditional route to teacher licensure includes the completion of a college education program. The process begins with a college or university submitting a proposed program of study for a teacher preparation program by discipline and/or grade level(s) that meets state mandated guidelines. The state has the power to approve or not approve the plan. An individual seeking a teaching license applies for admission to the college or university education program, completes the required program of study, and completes all other additional requirements (including but not limited to GPA requirements, an internship, and passing specified tests). Upon successful completion of the requirements of the college’s state-approved program of study, the individual applies to the state for a teaching license.

The requirements for obtaining a teaching license vary tremendously from state to state and institution to institution. Feistritzer (1994) concluded that the process of licensing classroom teachers in the United States is inconsistent. Each state determines who can be licensed and in what areas. Requirements may include the equivalent of a major in education at the undergraduate level, completion of field experiences for different lengths of time and intensity, the successful completion of different national licensure test(s) or state-designed exams, and the possibility of a fifth year in a teacher education program (Arends et al., 2001; McNergney & Herbert, 2001).

Additionally, the terminology used for various teaching licenses is confusing. According to Feistritzer & Chester (2003), there are 30 different titles used for the initial teaching licenses and more than 50 titles used for second stage teaching licenses throughout the United States and the District of Columbia.

Many states recognize another’s licensure through reciprocity agreements or pacts by which licensure in one state allows eligibility for licensure in another state. If one state does not recognize another’s licensure, additional requirements to obtain the state’s licensure must be fulfilled by taking additional college coursework and/or taking additional licensure exams (McNergney & Herbert, 2001).

Alternative Teacher Licensure

Alternative licensure programs have been defined as methods of entry into teaching that do not rely heavily on completion of higher education teacher preparation programs. The programs were created because of anticipated teacher shortages and a concern for increased content knowledge for teachers (Bradshaw, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1994). In recent years, alternative licensure programs have grown rapidly in numbers and variety. The programs vary by state and may be designed to achieve different goals and objectives (Otuya, 1992). In 2003, Feistritzer & Chester reported a total of 144 alternative routes to teacher licensure in the United States and the District of Columbia. The present alternative licensure movement began in the 1980s when the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projected that by 1992 the supply of new teacher graduates would meet only two-thirds of the demand for new teachers. The prediction was based on a projected increase in elementary and secondary enrollments, teacher attrition rates, the low number of

10

candidates completing teacher preparation programs, and the number of teachers approaching retirement age (Feistritzer, 1994).

Several factors led to the increase of alternative teacher licensure programs. Primary reasons include a decline in the public’s confidence that colleges can recruit and adequately prepare enough effective teachers, concerns about the quality of individuals entering the teaching profession, and concerns about the projected teacher shortages (Stoddart & Floden, 1995; Wenglinsky, 2002). Blair (2003) reported that Rod Paige, U. S. Secretary of Education, said, “At a time when we desperately need strong teachers in our classrooms, we should be doing all we can to attract and keep the best and brightest candidates. A good place to start is by drawing from nontraditional sources” (p. 3).

Roth (1986) noted the following three purposes for alternative licensure programs: “(1) to circumvent the traditional teaching education programs, (2) to meet the supply needs for teachers in the future, and (3) to avoid the issuance of emergency certificates” (p. 2). Lewis (1996) found that a major function of alternative teacher licensure programs was to increase diversity in the teaching workforce. Crow, Levine, & Nager (1990) reported that alternative teacher licensure programs recruited mature individuals with prior work experience who could make classroom instruction relevant to the real world for students. It was found that mature candidates bring rich experiences to teaching. Dill (1994) posited that alternative licensed teachers tend to work in their own communities and may have advantages over young, imported teachers because of their knowledge of the local culture.

According to Feistritzer & Chester (2003), alternative teacher licensure has become a respectable concept and more than 200,000 persons have been licensed through alternative licensure programs since 1985. Thousands more are being licensed to teach through college alternative teacher preparation programs. They reported that the primary reason for the growth of many new alternative licensure programs is the fact that it is clearly market-driven. The programs are designed specifically to meet the demand for teachers in shortage areas and geographic areas where the demand is the greatest.

Various organizations were formed in an effort to recruit and train teachers through alternative licensure routes. According to Sluder & Irons (1996), alternative routes to licensure are ideal for recruiting career switchers who want to become teachers. One example is Troops to Teachers, a program that provides assistance for military personnel who are interested in becoming teachers. Finn & Kanstroom (2000) reported that since 1994, more than 3,000 veterans have taken advantage of the program to transition into a teaching career. Another alternative route designed specifically for individuals who are making a mid-career move is the Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. program (Franklin, Pedergrass, Tu, & Veitch, 1999). A third example of an alternate route is the Teach for America program. Teach for America is a national teacher corps program that recruits recent college graduates and others with baccalaureate degrees to teach in rural and urban school districts for two years. Finn & Kanstroom (2000) reported that over 4,000 candidates applied for 1,000 slots in 2002.

Alternative licensure programs may be broadly divided into three categories. The first category includes those programs that are linked to graduate study and internships. The second category

11

includes programs that provide some training before the actual classroom teaching begins. The last category includes programs that allow teacher candidates to begin teaching without any preparation or training (Bradshaw, 1998).

Characteristics of Alternative Licensure Teachers

Alternative routes attract minorities, males, and older experienced professionals (Houston & others, 1993; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Most are highly educated, life-experienced adults who want to teach to improve the educational system in the United States. Houston et al. (1993) found that many of the alternatively licensed teachers in their surveys reported that because of financial and time constraints, they would not have been able to become teachers had it not been for the alternative routes.

Alternatives teacher licensure programs attract diverse individuals who are willing to relocate to high-need areas. In the National Association of State Boards of Education publication, Moving Past the Politics, Roach & Cohen (2002) stated

Graduates of alternative certification programs are more racially diverse. Eighty-seven percent of traditionally certified teachers are white, compared with seventy-nine percent of alternatively certified teachers. They are more likely to teach in subject fields and geographic locations where they are most needed, including large central cities and in schools that serve students. In other words, graduates of ACPs are more likely than traditionally licensed teachers to teach in areas most afflicted by teacher shortages. (p. 8)

Feistritzer & Chester (2003), in the National Center for Education Information publication Alternative Teacher Certification, A State-by-State Analysis 2003, stated“Teachers coming through alternative routes generally are older, more experienced and have a strong commitment to helping young people learn and develop” (p. 4).

Finn & Kanstroom (2000) found that teachers with alternative licensure are more likely to have bachelors’ degrees in math and science. Both of those areas have a shortage of teachers.

Laczko-Kerr & Berliner (2003) completed a review of literature on alternative licensure programs and found that alternative licensed teachers were more willing than traditionally-licensed teachers to work in rural or urban areas. They stated that alternative licensure programs attract older adults, minorities, retired military personnel and individuals with majors in mathematics and sciences.

Issues and Concerns Surrounding Alternative Teacher Licensure

There is a debate in the literature concerning alternatively licensed teachers. The debate is magnified by the nature of the research that has been conducted on alternative programs and the lack of clarity over what constitutes an alternative licensure program (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001).

12

Feistritzer & Chester (2000), who have studied alternative licensure programs for many years, found alternative licensure is a blanket term for

every avenue to becoming licensed to teach, from emergency certification to very sophisticated and well-designed programs that address the professional preparation needs of the growing population of individuals who already have at least a baccalaureate degree and considerable life experience and want to become teachers. (p. 3)

Alternative licensure programs can be national, regional, or local in scope. National programs focus on recruiting a particular type of candidate into the teaching profession. Regional programs include state alternative programs designed to alleviate teacher shortages in geographic areas or subject areas. Local alternative programs include programs offered by school districts, education cooperatives, or institutions of higher education. Sixty-five percent of higher education institutions surveyed by the National Center of Education Information (NCEI) had at least one program for the preparation of teachers who enter at the post-baccalaureate level.

The lack of peer-reviewed literature on the topic of alternative licensure compounds the controversy. The literature on alternative teacher licensure programs consists primarily of internal evaluation reports and papers presented at national conferences where the research has not undergone peer-review (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Although most states have some type of alternative licensure program, few data-based research studies have been published on the topic (Kwiatkowski, 1999). Furthermore, reviews of research on alternative teacher licensure by Dill (1996), Hawley (1992) and Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, (2001) concluded that the research is of limited value in drawing conclusions about the programs. Dial & Stevens (1993) said (as cited by Kwiatkowski, 1999),

What is missing are reports of studies that provide analyses of actual data which support or refute a contention about possible outcomes of alternative certification. Of the few which have collected and analyzed data, the generalizability of the studies has been limited because the available samples were limited. (p. 227)

Zeichner & Schulte (2001) examined the peer-reviewed literature on alternative licensure programs. Their search of the peer-reviewed literature, which included descriptions of the characteristics and components of the programs studied, described 21 studies that were completed with 13 different alternative licensure programs. The characteristics of the programs and admission requirements varied greatly; although all of the programs required the participants to have a bachelor’s degree and many of them required secondary teachers to have a major in the subject taught. Preparation prior to assuming full responsibility for a classroom ranged from none to 10 weeks of coursework. All of the alternative licensure programs reviewed had some type of mentoring component.

After reviewing 92 studies, Allen (2003), Program Director of the Education Commission of the States (ECS), answered eight questions about teacher preparation. Using rigorous criteria, the 92 studies were selected from over 500 originally considered. The research concluded there was limited support that alternative programs produce cohorts of teachers who are as effective as

13

traditionally licensed teachers. However, the report emphasized that alternatively licensed teachers may experience more difficulties initially due to limited preservice training.

Most of the debate concerning alternatively licensed teachers centers around five critical issues: the variability in alternative teacher licensure programs, qualifications of teachers, the issue of pedagogical training versus content knowledge, the effectiveness of alternatively licensed teachers, and the retention rate of alternatively licensed teachers.

Arkansas Initiatives

In 2002, statistics for Arkansas from the National Center for Education Information (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003) indicated 1,350 teachers completed an approved college teacher preparation program and 164 teachers completed the Arkansas Non-Traditional Licensure Program. Judging from this, it would appear those numbers would be sufficient to cover the expected vacancies; however, other factors must be considered. According to a study conducted by TeachArkansas (2003), only 74% of education graduates from Arkansas’ institutions of higher education obtain their Arkansas teaching license, and only 52% of those choose to teach in Arkansas. In short, only about 39% of the graduates of teacher education programs in Arkansas actually teach in Arkansas. Those statistics are commensurate with national statistics that report between 33-40% of teachers who graduate from the nation’s 1,354 teacher preparation institutions in any given year actually teach the following year (Feistritzer & Chester, 2003). Additionally, approximately 10% of all the teachers in Arkansas choose not to return to the classroom from year-to-year (TeachArkansas, 2003). Based on an analysis of historical data of teachers in Arkansas, the report indicated an average of 670 retire each year and 1,781 teachers leave for other reasons. According to a report by Education Week (June 5, 2003), Arkansas loses some of those teachers to neighboring states that offer salaries $8,000 to $10,000 a year higher. After factoring in the number of graduates from institutions who choose not to teach in Arkansas schools, the yearly retirement rate, and the yearly turnover rate, Arkansas is experiencing a yearly gap of roughly 720 teachers (TeachArkansas, 2003) and the shortage is critical in some geographic areas.

To improve teacher recruitment and retention, the state of Arkansas has implemented several programs and in 2000 it updated the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program. According to the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program Curriculum Framework (2000), the changes were made in part because “Arkansas is no exception regarding the threat of facing a serious potential shortage of qualified and licensed teachers for its public schools” (p. 1). Although Arkansas already had an alternative licensure route and it had been in place since May 1988 (Davidson, 1995), the Arkansas Department of Education decided it “was a natural time to also strengthen and upgrade the requirements under the non-traditional method for licensure into the professional field of education” (Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program Curriculum Conceptual Framework, 2000, p. 1). Requirements for licensure were changed and the title was changed from Alternative/Non Traditional Licensure Program to the Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program (NTLP).

Methodology

Quantitative Data

14

The Arkansas Department of Education provided the Praxis III test database for both the NTLP teachers and the traditionally licensed teachers who took the Praxis III assessment during the 2003 test administration window. The Praxis III summative assessment is the companion to the Pathwise formative assessment and consists of the same 19 essential teaching criteria. Each Praxis III criterion has its own scoring rules and scoring rubric. With three points possible in each of the 19 criteria, the highest score possible on the Praxis III test is 57 points. In Arkansas, teachers holding an initial teaching license must score a minimum of 40 total points on the Praxis III test to earn a standard license to teach. One NTLP teacher and one TTT (traditionally trained) teacher who took the Praxis III assessment in 2003 did not score the minimum score required for licensure. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were conducted on the test scores provided by the Department of Education.

During the 2004-2005 training cycle, each participant at the UA – Fort Smith NTLP site completed a self-rating using the UA – Fort Smith Disposition Rating Scale. Data were collected and descriptive statistics were utilized.

Qualitative Data

Participants in the 2004-2005 Non-Traditional Licensure Program at the UA – Fort Smith site completed open-ended surveys. Data from the surveys were coded and analyzed for patterns. The data were used to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program, strategies universities could use to recruit individuals into education programs, and demographic information of the participants.

Findings

Praxis III Test Results

To determine the effectiveness of the 2003 NTLP teachers in the skills measured by the Pathwise/Praxis III 19 essential criteria, the Praxis III test scores were used to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. Table 2 reports the comparison of NTLP and traditionally licensed teachers in all four Praxis III domains.

Table 2

Comparison by Domains for NTLP and TTT – 2003 Arkansas Praxis III Results

15

Mean St. Error SD Variance Kurtosis Skewness Min Max

Domain A – NTLP 13.24 .13 1.19 1.41 -0.52 -0.62 10.5 15

Domain A – TTT 13.35 .08 1.12 1.26 0.06 -0.64 9.5 15

Domain B – NTLP 13.31 .18 1.62 2.63 6.29 -1.94 5.5 15

Domain B – TTT 13.64 1.09 1.20 1.45 1.25 -1.11 9 15

Domain C – NTLP 13.51 .18 1.66 2.76 2.32 -1.55 7.5 15

Domain C – TTT 13.78 .10 1.22 1.50 2.28 -1.34 8.5 15

Domain D – NTLP 10.86 .10 .90 .82 0.76 -0.99 8 12

Domain D – TTT 10.92 .07 .99 .98 1.33 -1.15 7.5 12

Total – NTLP 50.93 .47 4.11 16.93 0.79 -1.07 38 57

Total – TTT 51.70 .27 3.49 12.22 1.45 -1.08 37.5 57

Note. N = 78 (NTLP) N = 156 (TTT) Data Source: Arkansas Department of Education (2003)

The traditionally licensed teachers had higher mean scores in all four domains, with the largest difference in Domain B (NTLP = 13.51; TTT = 13.78). The total mean score of the NTLP teachers was 50.93 and the total mean score of the traditionally licensed teachers was 51.70, a difference of .77. Four independent samples t-tests were conducted in order to test whether NTLP teachers differed significantly from traditionally-trained teachers on Praxis III ratings in any of the four domains. For Domains A and D, t-tests assuming equal variances were conducted because Levene's test for equality of variances indicated that the variances for NTLP and traditional teachers were equal in these two domains; p = .36 for Domain A and p = .35 for Domain D. For Domains B and C, t-tests assuming unequal variances were conducted because the results of Levene's test indicated that the variances were not equal; p = .04 for Domain B and p = .04 for Domain C.

For Domain A, the mean score for NTLP teachers (13.23) did not differ from the mean score for traditionally-trained teachers (13.35), t(232) = -0.726, p = .47. For Domain B, the mean score (13.31) did not differ from the mean score for traditionally-trained teachers (13.64), t(121) = -1.574, p = .12. For Domain C, the mean score for NTLP teachers (13.51) did not differ from the mean score for traditionally-trained teachers (13.78), t(120) = -1.253, p = .21. For Domain D, the mean score for NTLP teachers (10.86) did not differ from the mean score for traditionally-trained teachers (10.92), t(232) = -0.478, p = .63.

Although the t-tests indicated no significant differences in the mean scores of the two groups of teachers, the descriptive statistics noted differences in the variances of the two groups. As noted in Table 2, the range of minimum and maximum scores and the differences in the standard deviations and the variances were large in Domains B, C, and D.

16

Disposition Rating Scale

The following dispositions were identified by the College of Education at UA – Fort Smith as important dispositions demonstrated by effective teachers. The dispositions are expected of students enrolled in the UA – Fort Smith College of Education. Participants in the Arkansas NTLP Program self-rated themselves on the eight dispositions and six professional behaviors.

1. The teacher candidate understands and values the disciplines(s) he or she teaches.2. Because the teacher candidate believes all children can learn and there are multiple

ways children do learn, the teacher candidate is willing to utilize multiple teaching methodologies.

3. The teacher candidate is committed to planning effective units of curriculum that are aligned with assessment strategies and utilize appropriate technology.

4. The teacher candidate is committed to providing a classroom environment where the diverse needs, interests, and talents of students are appreciated and utilized to create a learning climate fostering attainment of high standards.

5. The teacher candidate is committed to a democratic school environment where positive attitudes, respect for all students and adults, and two-way communications are the norm.

6. The teacher candidate values continuous educational improvement that includes research, reflection, assessment, and earning as an on-going process.

7. The teacher candidate is committed to integrity, ethical behavior, and professionalism as the foundation for all that takes place in the school classroom.

8. The teacher candidate believes that close cooperation and collaboration with parents and the community are critical to maximum student learning for all students.

9. Promptness10. Appropriate dress and grooming11. Positive attitude.12. Caring and respectful of others.13. Demonstrates professional writing in all assignments including content and

mechanics.14. Demonstrates professional oral communication skills including correct verb usage

and the avoidance of inappropriate language (slang and idioms).

As indicated in the Figure 1 below, responses to numbers 3, 13, and 14 indicate areas in which the candidates rated themselves lower in the “Always” category. Additionally, there was one response in the “Never” category for number 10. The largest percentage of participants rated themselves “Always” in numbers 5, 7, and 12.

17

Figure 1. 2004-2005 Year One NTLP Cohort at UA-Fort Smith Site Self-Rated Disposition Rating Scale Results. Number of Participants = 41.

Figure 2 indicates the results of the self-ratings of the participants in the 2004-2005 Year Two Cohort at the UA – Fort Smith site The participants rated themselves primarily in the “Always” and “Often” categories. There was only one rating in the “Never” category for number 5. The highest percentage of participants rated themselves in the “Always” category in numbers 1, 7, 10 and 12. The highest percentage in both groups rated themselves in the “Always” category in number 7, which deals with integrity, ethical behavior and professionalism, and number 12, which deals with caring and respect for others.

18

Figure 2. 2004-2005 Year Two NTLP Cohort at UA-Fort Smith Site Self-Rated Disposition Rating Scale Results. Number of Participants = 75.

In a previous study conducted by Smith, Ezell, Martin and Brody (2004), 171 participants in the 2003-2005 Year One and Year Two NTLP Program cohorts at the UA – Ft. Smith site were surveyed concerning 10 areas of academic misconduct. The responses indicated that 59% of the NTLP participants had cheated when in school. There were four questions where participants responded with a “Yes” to the questioning concerning an issue of “cheating”.

As an undergraduate, did you ever recycle term papers (papers you completed for a different class)?

o 23 percent responded positively to this question. As an undergraduate, did you ever make up an excuse to avoid handing in a term paper

or taking a test on time? o 23 percent responded positively to this question.

Do you consider cheating to be a prevalent problem in education? o 63 percent responded positively to this question.

Do you think Academic Honor Codes (a signed pledge from each student) would reduce cheating in education?

o 28 percent responded positively to this question.

19

Reasons for Becoming a Teacher

Participants in the 2003-2004 Year One cohort at the UA - Fort Smith site were asked their reasons for becoming a teacher. As note in Figure 3, approximately 60% of the respondents indicated they wanted to teach because of their desire to work with youth.

________________________________________________________________________Figure3. 2003-2004 Year One NTLP Cohort at UA-Fort Smith Site – Reason for Teaching Survey. Number of Participants = 86.

The 2004-2005 Year One and Year Two participants in the NTLP Program at the UA – Fort Smith site were asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire concerning why they chose teaching as a profession. Answers from the Year One cohort ranged from “Been a failure at everything else” to “My Spanish teacher inspired me.” Of the 82 responses, 53 (64.6%) indicated they had chosen teaching because they wanted to make a difference by working with and teaching children. Answers from the Year Two cohort ranged from “Time off to spend with my children.” to “I love kids. Helping people achieve.” Of the 40 responses, 22 (55%) indicated they had chosen teaching because they wanted to work with children. The percentages are slightly below the findings of the National Education Association (2003) who reported in its publication Status of the American Public School Teacher 2000-2001 that 73% of the 2,178 teacher respondents it surveyed indicated they had entered teaching because of a desire to work with young people.

20

Strategies Colleges Could Use to Recruit Individuals Into Teaching

The participants in the NTLP Program at the UA – Fort Smith site were asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire. One question on the questionnaire asked the participants “At the university from which you earned your undergraduate degree, what would the College of Education have had to do to influence you to major in education”. The responses ranged from “Let me know that my degree in psychology would be useless without a master’s” to “Offer upper level courses on nights and or weekends.” Of the 79 responses from the Year One Cohort, 31 (39.2%) of the participants indicated there was nothing their college of education could have done to recruit them into teaching. The second highest percentage of respondents, 15 (18.9%) indicated their college of education could have been more proactive in recruiting and making information available about the teaching. Twelve respondents (15.1%) indicated the time and scheduling for education courses were not conducive for them. For the Year Two cohort, the responses ranged from “ Not be so intimidating, professors are not super friendly.” To “Portray to me that I could be successful at teaching. Tell me how rewarding it could be.” Of the 37 responses, the highest percentage of respondents 11 (29.7%) indicated there was nothing their college of education could have done to have convinced them to choose teaching as a profession. The next highest percentage of respondents 5 (13.5%) indicated they would have chosen teaching if the scheduling had been more student friendly.

Significance of the Study

The primary purpose of the study was to determine if the NTLP teachers in the Arkansas NTLP Program are effective teachers, not to determine which teachers are best - those who complete a traditional pathway to teacher licensure or those who enter teaching through the NTLP Program. Cochran-Smith (2005) cautioned against using “the horse race approach” to teacher preparation. She said,

Rather, we need research and debate that identify and explain - with empirical evidence - what active ingredients are in any programs, approaches, or routes where teachers have a positive impact as well as conditions and contexts in which these ingredients are most likely to be present. (pp. 5-6)

Additionally, since dispositions are considered a key component to teacher preparation, yet are not included in the admission process of the Arkansas NTLP Program, the study was conducted to determine the self-rated dispositions of those participants at the UA- Fort Smith site. Additional data have been collected since the first cohort began at the UA- Fort Smith site in 2003 in an effort to add to the research base surrounding alternative pathways to teacher licensure, particularly as it impacts the state of Arkansas.

The results of the Praxis III mean test scores indicated the NTLP teachers are effective teachers. In fact, the distribution of Praxis III test scores for both the NTLP teachers and the TTT teachers was negatively skewed and there were no significant differences between the mean scores of the NTLP and the TTT teachers; however, descriptive statistics identified differences in the variances of the two groups. The high scores may reflect the amount of preparation the teachers have had to practice the 19 criteria prior to the actual Praxis III assessment. The NTLP Program

21

requires training sites to present a Praxis III test preparation session. In the session, the rules and rubrics are presented with specific strategies to score a 3.0 in each criterion. Colleges of education also recognize the importance of preparing their students for the Praxis III test. Before each testing window, many teacher preparation programs host Praxis III test preparation sessions to assist their graduates who are preparing for the test. The participants rated themselves primarily in the “Always” and “Often” categories in the 14 areas surveyed in the UA – Fort Smith Disposition Rating Scale. Ironically, many of the participants had completed the Academic Misconduct Survey in 2004 and the results of that survey indicated approximately 59% self-reported they had participated in at least category of academic misconduct.

The reasons the NTLP participants reported they entered teaching were commensurate with findings from research conducted by the National Education Association (2003). The majority of the participants chose teaching because they want to work with youth and make a positive difference in the world.

A primary finding of the study was found in the qualitative data collected through an open-response survey administered to the 2004-2005 Year One and Year Two cohorts. UA – Fort Smith College of Education faculty wanted to identify ways universities and colleges could recruit individuals into teacher preparation programs before they completed degrees in other programs and then decided they wanted to teach. The survey results found the majority of respondents could not have been recruited into teacher preparation programs at that period of their lives. Other respondents indicated recruiting and student friendly scheduling may have lured them into teaching.

Recommendations For Change

Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations for change are made:

1. State officials should track the Praxis III test scores for the Arkansas NTLP teachers and identify strengths and weaknesses.

2. To determine if the Praxis III is a valid assessment of teacher effectiveness, the Arkansas Department of Education should track student achievement test scores over a period of time for each novice teacher. The achievement scores should be compared with the teacher’s Praxis III test scores to determine if there is a correlation between student achievement and Praxis III test scores.

3. The state should include a disposition component in the admission process of the Arkansas NTLP Program.

4. Colleges of education should become more proactive and actively seek and recruit individuals into the teacher preparation programs. Additionally, colleges of education should develop alternate schedules to assist working and non-traditional students into their programs. This study indicated those individuals in the NTLP Program want to teach because they want to make a positive and work with young people. Colleges of education should make every effort to locate those individuals while they are completing their undergraduate work and entice them into their programs.

22

5. State officials should allow sites to add hours of required college coursework in those areas of deficiency identified by our research, particularly classroom management, professionalism, and diversity.

Implications for Practice

From the research, a review of the literature, and our own experiences, UA – Fort Smith College of Education plans to:

1. Continue collecting data from the NTLP participants. The data will be used for program improvement, instructional module improvement, identification of teacher recruitment strategies, and to add to the data base concerning this controversial issue. 2. Expand staff development with faculty concerning ways that participants can cheat using technology, and the ways that faculty can detect persons who cheat using technology. Weisbard (2004) has developed a useful list of examples of commercial term paper companies, free term paper archives, examples of student papers mounted through course web pages and other sites, plagiarism detection articles and examples of commercial detectors.3. Continue the use of student self-reported surveys to monitor forward progress.4. Continue the administration of the disposition rating scale each semester by every faculty member in the College of Education for students in the traditional preparation program and self-ratings of participants in the NTLP Program.5. Resolve to promote conscious attention by faculty, administration, and presenters to model exemplary ethical conduct.

Conclusions

Research studies indicate alternative pathways to teacher licensure are viable options for those individuals who already have a degree and want to teach. After conducting a peer-review research of alternative licensure programs, Zeichner & Schulte (2001) maintained,

Instead of continuing the debate over which is better – alternative versus traditional 4-and 5-year undergraduate teacher education programs – it seems that it would be more useful to focus on gaining a better understanding of the components of good teacher education regardless of the structural model in which they are present. (p. 279)

In an effort to assist partner school districts in staffing empty classrooms, UA – Fort Smith College of Education decided to offer the Arkansas Department of Education alternative teacher licensure program. The experiences over the past two years have been insightful and rewarding. Although the program is a state program and the college is only a contracted site training provider, observations from faculty and staff involved in the program have been generally positive. Site directors have been able to report their observations back to state officials and program improvements have been made based on those recommendations. UA – Fort Smith and partner school districts plan to use both quantitative and qualitative data from the NTLP participants to prepare effective teachers for Arkansas schools.

23

REFERENCES

Allen M. (2003). Eight question on teacher preparation: What does the research say?Education Commission of the States. Retrieved September 15, 2003 from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/teachingquality/tpreport/home/index.asp

Arends, R. I., Winitzky, N. E., & Tannenbaum; M.D. (2001). Exploring teaching: An introduction to education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Arkansas Non-Traditional Teacher Licensure Program-Curriculum Conceptual Framework. (2000). Arkansas Department of Education.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000, May). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Continuing the debate. Teachers College Record. Retrieved October 23, 2000 from http://www.tcrecord.org.

Berry, B. (2000, Winter). Quality alternative in teacher preparation: Dodging the “silver bullet” and doing what is right for students. The State Education Standard. 21-25.

Blair, J. (2003, January 9). Skirting tradition. Education Week. Retrieved May 27, 2003 from http://0-proquest.umi.com.library.uark.edu//pqdweb .

Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Bradley, L. J. (1995). Certification and licensure issues. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(2). Retrieved September 6, 2003 fromhttp://0-proquest.umi.com.library.uark.edu/pqdweb?index=69&sid.

Bradshaw, L. K. (1998). Policy, politics, and contradictions of alternative teacher certification. San Diego, CA. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association.

Bradshaw, L. K., & Hawk, P. P. (1996). Teacher certification: Does it really make a difference in student achievement? Greenville, NC: Greenville, NC Eastern North Carolina Consortium for Assistance and Research in Education (ENCCARE).

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005, January-February). Taking stock in 2005: Getting beyond the horse race. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 3-7.

Crow, G. M., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1990). No more business as usual: Career changers who become teachers. American Journal of Education, 98, 197-223.

Cummins, W. (2003, August). Presentation by Arkansas Department of Education at Deans of Colleges of Education Meeting. August 13, 2003. Wyndham Riverfront Hotel, Little Rock, AR.

24

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How “Teach for America” hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21-34.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality education. NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved July 23, 2002 from http://www.nctaf.org/publications/index.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). How teacher education matters. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 51(3). 166-173. Article also found in Taking

sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues, 13th ed.(2005). McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and quality. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation; How do different pathways prepare teacher to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.

Davidson, M. D. (1995). A study of participants in the Arkansas alternative/non- traditional certification program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9536007).

Dial, M., & Stevens, C. J. (1993). Introduction: The context of alternative teacher certification. Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 4-17.

Dill, V. S. (1994). Teacher education in Texas: A new paradigm. Educational Forum, 58(2), 36-40.

Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for Praxis III: classroom performance assessments assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Dwyer, C. A., & Villegas, A. M. (1993). Guiding conceptions and assessment principles for The Praxis Series: Professional assessments for beginning teachers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Education Week. Arkansas. Retrieved June 5, 2003 from Education Week on the Web at http://www.edweek.org.

25

Feistritzer, E. (1999). Teacher quality and alternative certification programs. Testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce May 13, 1999. Retrieved April 23, 2003 from the National Center for Education Information at URL http://www.ncei.com.

Feistritzer, E., & Chester, D. T. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Feistritzer, E., & Chester, D.T. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Fetler, M. (1997, January 8). Where have all the teachers gone? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(2). Retrieved May 22, 2003 from http//:olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa.

Finn, C.E., & Kanstroom, M. (2000, Summer). Improving, empowering, dismantling. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved May 19, 2003 from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_pi-_improving.htm.

Fordham Foundation. (1999). Better teachers, better schools. Washington, DC. Author.

Franklin, R., Pedergrass, J., Tu, & Veitch, J. (1999). Help wanted: One million +good women and men. Retrieved June 20, 2003 from http;//horizon.unc.edu/edsp287/1999/team/shortage/index.html.

Haberman, M. (1986). Alternative teacher certification programs. Action in Teacher Education, 8(2), 13-28.

Hawley, W. D. (1992). The theory and practice of alternative certification: Implications for the improvement of teaching. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The alternative certification of teachers (Teacher Education Monograph No.14) (pp. 3-34). Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 334).

Houston, R. W. (1993). Problems of traditionally prepared and alternatively certified teachers. Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 78-89.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. A National Research Consortium. Retrieved January 4, 2004 from http://www.ctpweb.org

Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T.M. (2003). The wrong teacher solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

26

Klem, L. (1990, April). The challenge of understanding state content area requirements for the licensing of teachers. In C. Dwyer (Chair), Defining the Job of the Beginning Teacher: Multiple Views. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Kwiatkowski, M. (1999). Debating alternative teacher certification: a trial by achievement. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved May 22, 2003 from http://www.fordhamfoundation.org/betters/tchrs/15.htm.

Laczko-Kerr, I. & Berliner, D. C. (2003, May). In harm’s way: How undercertified teachers hurt their students. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 34-39.

Lewis, M. S. (1996). Supply and demand of teachers of color. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 390 875).

Littleton, D. (2000). The pathway to teaching careers program. Retrieved May 3, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/PromPractce.

Lucksinger, L. N. (2000, Fall). Teachers, can we get them and keep them? The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 67(1), 11-15.

Marchant, G .J. (1992, Spring/Summer). Knowledge, expertise, and alternative teacher certification. Teacher Education and Practice, 37-43.

McNergney, R. F., & Herbert, J. M. (2001). Foundations of education; the challenge of professional practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Merrow, J. (1999, October 6). The teacher shortage: Wrong diagnosis, phony cures. Education Week.

National Education Association. (2003, August). Status of the American public school teacher 2000-2001. Washington, D.C. www.nea.org

National Center for Education Information. (2003). ). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003). No dream denied. A Pledge to America’s Children. Washington, DC: Author.

Otuya. E. (1992). Alternative teacher certification-An update. Washington, D. C. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

27

Paige, R. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. U.S. Department of Education.

Pathwise Orientation Guide. (2001 edition). Educational Testing Service.

Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35.

Roach, V., & Cohen, B.A. (2002). Moving past the politics: How alternate certification can promote comprehensive teacher development reforms. National Association of State Boards of Education. NASBE Publications: Alexandria, VA.

Rosenfeld, M., Freeberg N. E., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of secondary school teachers. (Research Report 92-47). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Rosenfeld, M., Reynolds, A., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of elementary school teachers. (Research Report 92-53). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Rosenfeld, M., Wilder, G., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of middle level teachers. (Research Report 92-46). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Rothstein, R. (1999). Blaming teachers. The American Prospect, 11(2), 40-45.

Sluder, L. C., & Irons, J. (1996). Investigating alternative certification for early childhood teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teaching, 17, 82-87.

Smith, R., Ezell, G., Martin, T, & Brody, C. (2004). Assessment of ethical beliefs as a basis for forward progress. Unpublished paper presented at 16th Annual JUSTEC Seminar atWaseda University, Tokyo, Japan. October 4-8, 2004.

Stoddart, T., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Traditional and alternative routes to teacher certification: Issues, assumptions, and misconceptions. (NCRTL Special Report)

East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

TeachArkansas. (2003). Arkansas teacher supply and demand and program overview. Presented by Jamie Goss, Recruitment Director of TeachArkansas, at Arkansas Tech University on September 25, 2003.

Tracy, S. J., & Smeaton, P. (1993). State mandated assisting and assessing teachers: Levels of state control. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 219- 234.

28

Turley, S., & Nakai, K. (2000, March/April). Two routes to certification: What do student teachers think? Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 122-134.

Wayne, A.J. (2000). Teacher supply and demand: Surprises from primary research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(47).

Weisbard, P.H. 2004. Cheating, plagiarism (and other questionable practices, the Internet, and other electronic resources). Retrieved from www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/WomensStudies/plag.htm.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How school matters: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12 ). Retrieved March 2002 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12.

Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Wise, A. E. (2003, April 9). What’s wrong with teacher certification? Education Week. Retrieved June 5, 2003 from ttp://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=30wise.h22.

Zeichner, K. & Schulte, A. (2001). What we know and don’t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification program. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 266-280.

29