NCAC
holds meeting to begin data template design for alternate routes
On March 8, 2004, the new National Center for Alternative Certification
(NCAC) held a meeting in Washington, D.C., to begin designing a
template for comparable data collection in regard to alternative
teacher certification. Convened by NCAC President Emily Feistritzer,
the data template design meeting grew out of recommendations from
participants at the NCAC Conference held in San Antonio, February
1-3.
Participants in the March 8 meeting included four state officials
with intimate knowledge of teacher licensing: Michael D. McKibbin
(CA), Ron Kettler (TX), Karen Wilde (FL), and Cynthia E. Stephens
(GA); five university-based educational researchers: Dale Ballou,
Elaine Chin, Dean S. Cristol, Pamela Flood and Sande Milton; a
district-based alternate route director: Vicki Bernstein; program
director: Michelle A. Rhee, representatives from the U. S. Department
of Education: Thelma Leenhouts and Richard Mellman, and educational
researcher: Charlene K. Haar.
At the conclusion of the lively discussions,
the participants suggested that the NCAC Web site make available
resources such
as usable sample survey templates, success stories showcased and
lessons learned, and act as a repository of studies about alternative
routes to teacher certification.
To develop a data collection template, the group agreed that
there are at least three levels of information from three sources
that need to be considered:
1. State licensing offices responsible for alternative teacher
certification routes
2. Local or individual sites implementing alternate routes
3. Participants in alternative teacher certification routes.
Numerous
suggestions were made about the kinds of information that should
be collected at each of these levels, stressing that
the state data must be comparable and traceable to the “drilled-down” data
from which the state reports are generated. Therefore, the specificity
of the information requested is a primary concern. NCAC will continue
to collect data from the state licensing offices.
To provide assistance
with regard to suggested data gathering, the group recommended
that NCAC design or collect prototype surveys
that each of the three constituent reporting groups could use
to collect data about their own programs. These surveys would be
made
available on the NCAC Web site in the hope that more uniform
reporting about Who, What, When, Where, and How of alternative
routes to
teacher certification could be formulated.
Thus when NCAC collects
the data from the state licensing offices, a clear and accurate
picture of the status of alternative routes
to teacher certification will be available and particularly useful
to potential teacher candidates, researchers, and all others interested
in this growing phenomenon.
At this time, data collection is problematic
for several reasons. Currently, there is no requirement that states,
providers, or participants
provide data, much less comparable data. Even without comparable
data, comparisons between traditionally prepared teachers and those
teachers who are in classrooms because of the alternative options
are inevitable. Furthermore, although provisions in the federal
No Child Left Behind law require a “highly qualified” teacher
in every classroom by 2006, the legal counsel at the meeting assured
the group that “the U. S. Department of Education has no
interest in regulating state decisions.”
Among the decisions
by the state licensing offices are definitions and designations
of alternative teacher certification programs/routes.
To deal with the inconsistencies among the 50 states and the District
of Columbia, the National Center for Education Information has
developed a classification system that recognizes the similarities
and unique differences among the programs. It is likely that this
classification system will be used in the prototype survey template.
Considerable
discussion resulted from the kinds of data to be collected, the
manner in which to collect data, and even if the
data could be collected. Both quantitative data and qualitative
data can provide very useful information, but are affected by “who
does the counting and who decides what to count.” Furthermore,
the “alternativeness” of the more than 100 current
programs requires probing questions. Do the field-based programs
relate only to geographical concerns, or do they relate to the “practice
informs instruction” model? How does the delivery of services
occur? Distance learning? On-site programs? University setting?
What are program costs and who pays? Who conducts the assessments?
Are the programs subject to continual change based upon assessments?
What criteria are included in the assessments? What role do incentives
play in attrition rates? Do the standards exceed or are they similar
to the standards for those in non-alternative routes to teacher
certification? What links exist between student achievement and
teachers whose route to teaching included an alternative route?
The
group recognized that these and many other topics are challenging
issues within each state, and become even more so, when and if
comparisons are made among participants, programs and providers.
Regardless, school districts now have many more options as they
seek highly qualified instructional staff to meet the needs of
their students. NCAC looks forward to providing useful resources
as determined by the participants engaged in the discussions at
this meeting. Stay tuned.
