Response to NCTQ’s 2009 State Policy Yearbook’s Statements on
Alternate Routes to Teacher Certification

C. Emily Feistritzer

NCTQ’s 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook’s take on alternative routes in the states is a classic example of

1. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - "a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions." (Wikipedia)
   
   
2. The importance of reading the fine print and Methodology section. 

The Methodology section at the end of the Yearbook states:

For the most part, the Yearbook does not assess states on the quality of policy implementation. Much could be said about what states do or do not do with the laws and regulations that they approve. Analyses may comment on what appears to be a little-used or poorly implemented policy, but these observations do not determine a state's rating. The Yearbook reflects policy, not practice.

WHEW!  Does that mean we can comfortably ignore it since it may not have much to do with what states are actually doing?

For starters, there is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the report to substantiate the statement made in it’s release that "the burdensome requirements of states' so called alternate routes to certification block talented individuals from entering the profession."  

Applying NCTQ’s apparent criteria for a "genuine" alternate route actually produces 26 – not five – states that are implementing a “genuine or nearly genuine” alternative route to teacher certification.

In the “Primary Fndings” of the NCTQ report posted on the web site, several statements are made regarding state policy for alternate routes. 

Having been tracking what states are doing in this area for the last 25 years, conducting surveys of states, local program providers, and people entering teaching through alternate routes, evaluating state programs and following the “scientific” research on the topic and making the information available through print since 1990 and on the web since 2004 (found at www.teach-now.org), I think I have a handle on what is, in fact, going on in this field.  Numerous diverse and far-flung delivery mechanisms have evolved providing every conceivable pathway to teaching for every conceivable candidate who wants to teach – and they are constantly coming and going.  It is no time for self-appointed arbiters of “genuine alternate routes” to be counting numbers.

My responses and questions for each of these statements from NCTQ’s 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook’s follow in red. 

"Few states' alternate routes to certification provide a genuine alternative pathway into the teaching profession." Really?  Have you asked the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have entered teaching through these alternate routes in the last decade or the people who have run the alternate routes or the school personnel who have had them teaching in their schools? 

"Instead of offering a real alternative, most states' alternate routes either mirror traditional routes or appear to be little more than emergency certificates in disguise." FALSE.  Most states have gone back to the drawing board and created guidelines for designing alternative programs that meet the needs of individuals who already have at least a bachelor’s degree and want to teach, many of whom also want to get a Master’s Degree.

"Although all but one state claim they have an alternate route, only five states offer a genuine alternate route that provides an accelerated, responsible and flexible pathway into the profession for talented individuals." What do you mean by "a genuine alternate route that provides an accelerated, responsible and flexible pathway into the profession for talented individuals?" 

I assume the five states deemed by NCTQ to offer a "genuine alternate route" are Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia and New Jersey since those are the only ones in Figure 46 on page 158 that have the box blackened in the column “Genuine or nearly genuine alternate route.”.  Why these five?   With the exception of New Jersey which has the one alternate route it has had since 1985, the other states have authorized multiple alternate routes.  In your report on page 150, Connecticut gets a star for being an example for best practice because it meets three of your “admission criteria for a quality alternate route.”   Connecticut actually has five authorized alternate routes, but I assume you are referring to the one authorized in 1986 entitled “Alternate Route to Teacher Certification”  -- a fine route indeed, but fails your criteria of being open to all subjects and grade levels.  In its admission criteria, candidates also have to have had experience in an educational environment with children of the age group the individual wishes to teach. – not exactly your everyday credential for the thousands of career switchers or recent college graduates wanting to teach.  

Florida has four different alternate routes being implemented in its 67 counties/school districts.  Which one is “genuine”?  None of them require a GPA higher than 2.5. 

And so on…

"While the routes in 24 states could be improved with some regulatory adjustments, the routes on the books in the remaining 21 states are in need of fundamental and extensive restructuring."  Like what?

"States do little to effectively screen candidates seeking admission to their alternate routes. Just 11 states require alternate route candidates to meet an appropriate standard of past academic performance, and only 28 states require all alternate route candidates to pass a subject-matter test before starting to teach." Flat-out FALSE and very misleading.

"Alternate route admissions criteria in only 19 states are flexible to the needs and backgrounds of nontraditional candidates."?????" The remaining 32 states require candidates to have a subject-area major without permitting candidates to alternatively demonstrate subject knowledge by passing a test." FALSE

"In terms of coursework requirements, many alternate route programs closely resemble traditional preparation programs. Only 14 states appropriately limit the amount of coursework that can be required of alternate route teachers. In addition, only 12 states require that alternate route teachers receive mentoring of high quality and intensity." What does "appropriately limit the coursework" mean and why does it matter?  What is “mentoring of high quality and intensity?"  Who decides?

"Most states still view alternative certification as the route reserved for needy districts or shortage subject areas. Only 20 states allow broad usage of their alternate routes across subjects, grades and geographic areas, and also allow organizations other than higher education institutions to train teachers."  SOOO? Alternate routes generally aren’t used if there is no need for teachers. They are not certification mills.  Every one of the 130 alternate routes created by 49 states and the District of Columbia being implemented in some 600 programs throughout the country was created to meet the demands for teachers in specific regions, subject areas and grade levels and to meet the needs of individuals who already have at least a bachelor’s degree and want to teach.  Alternate routes come and go based on market demand.  And that is a good thing.