Alternative Teacher Preparation in Colorado:
Moving from Experimental to Established

Authors:

Mary Bassett, Gene Campbell, Eric Hirsch, Kelly Hupfeld, & Robert Reichardt, with assistance from Ann Foster and Andrea Jachman

Executive Summary

Among the challenges to having a quality teacher in every Colorado classroom, every day is the challenge of maintaining a sufficient supply of teachers. Almost 15 years ago Colorado began establishing new and innovative alternative routes for preparing teachers. These alternative systems have become an important source of new teachers within the state. Despite their prominence, little attention has been focused on alternative preparation programs. For this reason, the Alliance for Quality Teaching, under a grant from the Donnell-Kay Foundation, conducted this first study of alternative preparation in Colorado since 1996. This report is intended to be a first step in better understanding alternative preparation within Colorado and in moving alternative teacher preparation from an experiment to an established component of the teacher preparation system.

Background

Colorado school districts hire between 6,500 and 7,000 teachers annually. These new hires can be categorized based on whether they already have teaching experience and whether they were trained inside or outside of Colorado. Between 40 and 50 percent of these hires are actually new to teaching; The rest have some teaching experience. About half of all teacher hires were trained outside of Colorado. The end result is that about 1,500 of the teachers hired by Colorado public schools each year are new to teaching and trained within the state (Reichardt, 2003).

Alternative route teachers are hired because of their content knowledge and are able to begin teaching before they have completed their preparation. In other words, alternative programs are on-the-job training, with wide variation in the amount of training participants receive before they enter the classroom. In school year (SY) 2002-03, Colorado’s alternative routes produced approximately 650 fully licensed teachers working in public schools and about 100 working in private schools. This statistic suggests that in SY 2002-03 up to 40 percent of all new teachers who were trained in Colorado came through alternative routes. Though often viewed as a stopgap measure, alternative teacher preparation programs have, in fact, become an important part of the teacher preparation system in Colorado.

Study Subject

The mission of the Alliance for Quality Teaching is to ensure that Colorado children have a quality teacher in every classroom, every day. Because of the growth of alternative programs, the Alliance conducted this study to learn more about the role alternative teacher preparation is playing in providing quality teachers.

In particular, this study asked three simple questions:

1. Who is participating in alternative programs, and how were they recruited?
   
2. What are the alternative programs’ processes in the three areas identified as key to quality: pre-service training, mentoring, and curriculum?
   
3. What subjects are alternative teachers teaching, and are they being retained.

Major Findings

It is clear that some teachers in alternative preparation programs are entering the classroom without having the opportunity to learn how to teach.

The data collected for this study provided insight into each of these questions as well as new information about teacher preparation in Colorado. In general, there was wide variation in alternative program structures and an indication that alternative programs are being used by some as a last-minute measure to fill classrooms.

The first finding of this study is that alternative programs appear to be attracting more males and higher-educated candidates into the teacher workforce. However, alternative programs do not appear to be working as a tool to increase the number of minority teachers.

Second, there is wide variation in program processes, with an alarming number of alternative route teachers that do not appear to be receiving training in teaching skills before they begin teaching. In other words, it is clear that some teachers in alternative preparation programs are entering the classroom without having the opportunity to learn how to teach. There also appears to be wide variation in what alternative participants are taught during the program and the amount of mentoring they receive. Some variation is expected as each program is crafted to meet local conditions and participants’ needs. What is of concern is that there are few policy mechanisms to ensure a minimum of skills before alternative route teachers begin teaching and that they meet the Colorado performance-based teaching standards upon program completion.

Third, the record is mixed as far as alternative programs easing the teacher shortage in specific subject areas. Alternative teachers are working in some shortage areas, such as foreign languages and math. However, few are being trained in special education or vocational education, which also appear to be facing shortages. At the same time there are many working in art education and elementary and pre-school education, which are subjects that do not appear to be facing teacher shortages. Finally, the data showed that the retention rate of alternative teachers is lower than fully trained teachers, but higher than those with emergency authorizations.

In the process of conducting this research, two additional lessons became clear.

First, it is not clear why Colorado needs to have two distinct alternative routes, i.e., alternative licensing programs (ALPs) and teacher-in-residence (TiR) programs.

Second, it became apparent that there is much more that can be learned about all of Colorado’s teacher preparation programs. This research needs to focus on the quality of all new teachers in Colorado, including those trained in other states.

Data Collection (Methodology)

In December 2002, the Alliance convened an advisory group to design the study and evaluate survey instruments. The group met again in April and corresponded by e-mail to lend diverse perspectives to the data analysis and discuss the appropriateness of the report recommendations.

An alternative preparation survey formed the foundation of the report. In January, surveys were disseminated to the official contact in the designated agency of all 44 alternative licensing programs: 31 alternative licensing programs and 13 teacher-in-residence programs. The survey probed several areas related to candidate characteristics, recruitment strategies, program design, candidate assessment and support, and cost. Programs were encouraged to answer as many questions as possible. Follow-up faxes and phone calls to non-respondents occurred in February 2003.

Thirty of Colorado’s 44 alternative programs responded to the survey. The survey collected information from 68 percent of the alternative preparation programs: about two-thirds of alternative licensing and three-quarters of TiR providers. Response rates were higher than average for programs serving suburban districts and only slightly above half for those serving rural areas. Taken together, more than four-fifths of alternative route teachers are in programs that responded to the survey. To conduct the study, the Alliance sought partnerships with Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) and the Research and Development Center for Student Achievement at Colorado State University and Poudre School District (R&D Center).

Data were gathered from a variety of additional sources to complement the findings of the alternative preparation survey:

• An analysis of the program proposals submitted to the State Board of Education was conducted for all 44 alternative preparation programs. These proposals are required to include information related to planned curriculum, mentoring, cost, etc. Further, if major programmatic changes occur after approval is granted, notification of the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) is required. The Alliance analyzed all program files to gather information on mission, recruitment, curriculum, and candidate support.
  
  
• McREL conducted an analysis of a database that combines information from CDE human resources (HR), licensure, and school demographic data sets. This process allowed an analysis of candidates from ALPs from 1999 through 2001. This data enabled McREL to track ALP participant demographics, placement, and retention.
  
  
• The R&D Center shared data from their three years of studying teacher-in-residence programs affiliated with Metropolitan State College. Data sources included focus group transcripts, surveys of principals and TiR candidates, and retention information.
  
  
• The CDE provided the counts of participants in both the alternative licensing and TiR programs.
  
  
• Focus groups were conducted in May 2003 with teachers attending metro area alternative certification programs. Information gathered from these sessions was used in conjunction with focus group information from the TiR candidates assembled by the R&D Center.

Together, these data sources provide a much clearer picture of the types of candidates enrolled in alternative preparation programs in Colorado, as well as the types of instruction and support they receive.

There are many technical difficulties in studying these programs and producing information on alternative teacher preparation. These difficulties nationally include the use of 30 different titles for initial teacher certification and more than 50 titles for their second-stage teacher certification (Feistritzer & Chester, 2000). In other words, there are a jumble of approaches and frameworks nationwide that regulate programs and routes that people can take to enter the profession. This circumstance creates difficulties in providing an accurate national account of alternative teacher preparation programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 1998). These problems also surfaced in conducting this study. A result of using multiple data sets to study these programs is that not all of the data on program counts, completer counts, and placements completely agreed. This situation highlights the difficulty of getting clear data within a decentralized system. Thus, while the overall trends reported in this report are accurate representations of what is occurring in Colorado and have been verified using as many sources as possible, the exact counts are not as precise as would be desired by the authors of this report.

Recommendations

This research supports four policy recommendations on how to improve alternative teacher preparation within the state. These recommendations are:

1. The legislature must provide the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) with the authority and the capacity to hold alternative programs accountable for ensuring that program participants receive high quality mentoring throughout their program and can meet the Colorado performance-based standards when they complete their programs.
   
   Despite the fact that the number of teachers entering the profession through alternative programs has grown exponentially in the past decade, state capacity to evaluate and hold programs accountable has remained relatively static. CDE needs additional authority to create a public reporting system on alternative programs and a program review system to verify participants meet the Colorado performance-based standards. The CDE activities should be paid for through the fees that program participants pay for their licenses.
   
   There appears to be great variation in the mentoring support that alternative candidates receive. All alternative route mentors should participate in individualized induction programs based on an assessment of proficiency relative to the performance-based standards for Colorado teachers.
   
   
2. Districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) must structure alternative programs to bring the best candidates into the teaching workforce, not just the candidates available when the school year begins. In order to move in that direction, the legislature should require alternative preparation programs to publicly report when alternative route teachers are hired and the amount of training they receive before they enter the classroom.
   
   Hiring that is reactive to vacancies after the beginning of the school year, instead of active in seeking the best candidates who apply, serves as a barrier to improving the quality of the overall teacher workforce. In order to best serve both districts’ and the state’s need for a quality teacher workforce, alternative programs need to be treated and operated as legitimate and integral parts of the teacher preparation system. As such, all new teachers should be deliberately recruited, adequately prepared, fully supported, and appropriately placed.
   
   Because alternative candidates are working as teachers while they receive their training, providing some instruction prior to the start of the year regarding classroom management, teaching to diverse learners, assessment, etc., is essential. Few programs offer substantial support prior to teaching—an average of 18 hours, or a little more than two days. Eight of the 30 responding programs offer no orientation or instruction before an alternative candidate has his or her own classroom. Even when pre-service is part of a program, many candidates do not attend because they are hired at the last minute or after the start of the school year. Newly approved regulations for ALPs mention the need for professional development prior to entering the classroom, but offer no guidelines and little definition. At the least, the state should require programs to report when alternative program participants are hired and how much training they receive before they enter the classroom. Ideally, the state should prescribe a set of skills or standards teachers must meet before they enter the classroom—skills that will enhance their likelihood of success from the first day.
   
   
3. The legislature should clarify the value added by having two different alternative routes in Colorado. This clarification can occur through a series of hearings or by requesting that CDE and other interested parties conduct a review focused on this issue. If there is no value in having two routes, then a single program that builds on the strengths of the current programs should be created. If there is value in having two routes, then each route’s mission and structures should be clarified to best meet the needs of districts and program participants.
   
   While ALP and TiR programs were created with different intent and have different requirements (particularly the duration of the program), there appears to be little rationale as to why the state should continue to have two different routes. The only differences appear to be the extent of the relationship with an institution of higher education (required for both types), program duration, and the fact that ALPs are used primarily by rural districts with less access to higher education and TiR programs are more prominent in the metro area and Pikes Peak region. It is not clear why a district/designated agency or a potential teacher would participate in one route or the other.
   
   If a new unified alternative program is created, it should maintain these aspects of Colorado’s current programs beyond what is discussed above:
   
   • A responsibility to ensure high quality faculty, and
   
   • Partnerships between small and rural districts to ensure program continuity and capacity.
   
   
4. Colleges and universities, CDE, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE), and districts must work together to gather and create additional information to evaluate teacher preparation program quality and learn how to improve teacher preparation throughout the state.

There are existing resources within the state to start moving this agenda forward. First, the first and third year study holds the potential to provide valuable information about new teachers within the state. Now may be the appropriate time for a cooperative review of the entire study to examine whether and how this study can meet the state’s and districts’ needs.

Second, current state level data sets, including the human resources (HR) and licensure data sets at CDE and the CCHE student record data system (SURDS), should be analyzed and combined to provide new information on placement, retention, and subjects taught by alternative route teachers.

Third, CDE (through the Colorado Student Assessment Program) and/or districts (through their own assessment programs) must begin linking student assessment data to teachers. It is only through this link that we can begin to learn about the impact of training programs on student learning. This process will take time and technical expertise, because multiple years of data as well as sophisticated analysis are required to make fair judgments about programs. Mandating that districts link their assessment data to preparation programs would be very costly. However, some districts may wish to cooperate on this issue as part of a larger project to learn more about issues affecting teacher quality.

Making the data accessible to researchers and other users outside of government agencies will increase the use of data. Organizations outside of the government can apply additional technical and financial capacity to existing data to learn about programs as well as overall systems. These resources are often available in non-government agencies, such as think tanks, research organizations, colleges, and universities.

The sharing of data between agencies and with researchers outside of the government raises important privacy issues. It will require strict procedures for ensuring the privacy of individuals represented within the data sets. The federal government has made recommendations for the content of these procedures (Cheung, 2000; Cheung, Clements & Pechman, 1997). The state should move ahead with clarifying these issues and procedures.

Conclusions

Alternative programs in Colorado have shown promise for increasing the diversity and education level of the Colorado teacher workforce. They have clearly become an important route for people to enter the profession. There is reason to believe that alternative programs are an improvement over staffing classrooms with emergency-authorized teachers because of the requirement to provide the support and training that leads to a more stable teacher workforce. However, alternative programs are, in essence, on-the-job training. There are skills that teachers can and should have before they start their jobs, and students could suffer while teachers acquire these skills. This potential harm requires that we learn more about the impact of these teachers on Colorado’s students. For this reason it is essential that data are collected that link student learning with a teacher’s route into the classroom.

Moving alternative programs within Colorado to the next stage of maturity will take time and effort. Alternative teacher preparation programs break down the historical walls between teacher training and schools and districts. Traditional programs have a longer history of accountability systems and assessment of new teacher skills. There are lessons from traditional programs that can be applied to alternative programs. However, the requirements for alternative programs must be tailored to fit those programs’ capacities, particularly those in small districts with little administrative capacity to meet extensive regulatory requirements.

Finally, under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, alternative route teachers are considered “highly qualified” while teaching during their alternative preparation program. This status should not be granted lightly. If alternative route teachers are going to be considered “highly qualified,” then a system must be created to ensure that these candidates meet the same standards as any other teacher. Hopefully, this review occurs before they begin teaching and certainly by the time they leave the preparation program. At a minimum, all alternatively prepared teachers should be expected to demonstrate proficiency relative to these standards before they are given a Colorado provisional or professional license that indicates they are fully trained to work in a Colorado classroom.