1 / 51

NCLB Policy and Research on Alternative Route Preparation

NCLB Policy and Research on Alternative Route Preparation. Erling E. Boe, Penn Michael S. Rosenberg, Johns Hopkins Paul T. Sindelar, Florida. Background: Context and Policy. To address the chronic, long-term, and worsening shortage of special education teachers…

nita-coffey
Download Presentation

NCLB Policy and Research on Alternative Route Preparation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NCLB Policy and Research on Alternative Route Preparation Erling E. Boe, Penn Michael S. Rosenberg, Johns Hopkins Paul T. Sindelar, Florida

  2. Background: Context and Policy • To address the chronic, long-term, and worsening shortage of special education teachers… • NCLB encourages the development of streamlined alternatives to traditional teacher preparation, • Even though • we know very little about how effective alternative routes are, • and generalizing from secondary content model to special education is specious. • However, what we do know suggests that not all alternative routes are equally effective.

  3. Our Purpose Today • To ascertain the consequences of public policy promoting alternative routes, we will share findings from our recent studies of alternative route preparation.

  4. THE SUPPLY, QUALIFICATIONS, AND ATTRITION OF TEACHERS FROM TRADITIONAL ANDALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF PREPARATION Ed Boe and Bob Sunderland University of Pennsylvania and Lynne Cook California State University, Dominguez Hills OSEP Project Directors Conference July 17, 2007 tqrm\OSEP Panel 7-07(1).ppt

  5. PROBLEMS • Chronic shortage of teachers in special education and other fields. • Lack of high quality national data on the preparation of teachers by traditional and alternative routes intended to reduce the shortage.

  6. NCES NATIONAL DATA SOURCESSchools and Staffing Survey (SASS): 2003-04Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS): 2004-05 The first sources of high-quality sample survey data on teacher supply and attrition by type of preparation (i.e., traditional vs. alternative). Caution: Numbers reported are subject to sampling and other errors; therefore, numbers reported are an approximation.

  7. COMMON TERMS • TTP: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program • ATP: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program • SETs: Special Education Teachers • GETs: General Education Teachers

  8. FIRST RESEARCH QUESTION • How many employed teachers are produced by TTP and ATP programs?

  9. Type of Preparation by Years of Experience [Public and Private Teachers Combined] Traditional Program Percentage of Teachers AlternativeProgram 21 or More 1-3 11-20 4-10 Years of Teaching Experience Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  10. SECOND RESEARCH QUESTION • How many SETs completed various types of preparation?

  11. Special Education Teacher Supply by Years of Teaching Experience Alternative Programs Traditional Degree Programs All Other Other Traditional Alternative 62 % 16 % 22 % 72 % 9 % 19 % 3 % 23 % 74 % Percentage of Teachers by Type of Preparation Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  12. THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION To what extent did TTP and ATP programs produce beginning teachers who were hired to teach in shortage areas such as: * Special education * Mathematics education * Science education

  13. Percent of Beginning Teachers Produced by Traditional Degree Programs and Alternative Programsby Teaching Area: 2003-04 (with 1-3 Years of Experience) a Significantly greater than traditional degree program b Equivalent to traditional degree program c Significantly less than traditional degree program Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  14. FOURTH RESEARCH QUESTION • How much preparation was obtained by beginning SETs who completed TTP and ATP programs?

  15. Supply of SETs from Traditional and Alternative Programs by Number of Methods Courses (Years 1 – 3) Percentage of Beginning SETs Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  16. Supply of Public Teachers from Traditional and Alternative Programs Completing Five or More Methods Courses by Years of Experience (1 versus 3) Percentage of Beginning Public Teachers With Five or More Methods Courses Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  17. Supply of SETs from Traditional and Alternative Programs by Weeks of Practice Teaching (Years 1 – 3) Percentage of Beginning SETs Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  18. FIFTH RESEARCH QUESTION To what extent did TTP and ATP Programs produce qualified SETs who were? * Fully certified * Prepared in special education

  19. Fully Certified Special Education Teachers By Years of Teaching Experience TraditionalDegreePrograms AlternativePrograms Fully-Certified Teachers Years of Teaching Experience Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  20. Supply of SETs from Traditional and Alternative Programs by Teaching Major Field (Years 1 – 3) Percentage of Beginning SETs Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES

  21. SIXTH RESEARCH QUESTION Attrition of beginning teachers prepared through TTP and ATP Programs: Is there a difference?

  22. Attrition of Full-Time Public School Teachers by Type of Preparation Source: 2003-05 SASS, TFS, NCES

  23. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS • ATP Programs have become a major source of beginning SETs (22%). • ATP Programs have responded to the shortage of SETs. • Beginning SETs from ATP Programs are less well prepared and qualified than those from TTP Programs. • Attrition of beginning teachers is equivalent from TTP and ATP programs.

  24. Cost and Cost Effectiveness ofAlternative Route Teacher Preparation Paul T. Sindelar University of Florida Michael S. Rosenberg Johns Hopkins University Nancy Corbett, David Denslow, and James Dewey University of Florida

  25. Where We Were: Reviews • Effective ARC programs can produce competent teachers, often as competent as graduates of traditional teacher education programs • Effective ARC programs are characterized by (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001; 2005): • Collaboration among program providers (LEA, SEA, IHEs) • Program of adequate length and intensity • Substantial, rigorous, and coherent programmatic content • Meaningful and frequent observation and mentoring

  26. Where We Were: AR Indexing Study(Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007) • Development of Program Lists (n=235) • Final Sample (n=101) • Areas of Survey • Program Infrastructure • Program length and intensity • Program Characteristics • Participant Characteristics

  27. Where We Were: AR Indexing Study: General Themes • High IHE Involvement • AR programs represent an effective means for IHEs to expand their offerings with little additional capital expenditure • Impact of streamlined programs operating along with traditional programs • Length of Preparation and Support • Regardless of length of time before assuming full teaching responsibilities most AR programs are more than 18 months • Most programs making efforts to deliver supportive programs that promote successful induction

  28. Where We Were: AR Indexing Study • Participants • Mid-Career Changers – 46% • Recent Bachelors - 29% • 25% of Recent Bachelors Degrees are General Educators • May Require Individualized Programs

  29. Where We Are: INVEST Phase I Cost Studies (Sindelar, Corbett, Denslow, Dewey, Lotfinia, & Rosenberg, 2007) • In-Depth Program/Cost Analysis of 31 AR Programs • Data Collection • Interviews with Program Directors • Analysis of Program Planners • Analysis of Cost Tables

  30. Cost Studies: Definitions • Internship Program (n=14): Participants are hired as teachers and complete program while teaching • Distance Education/Online Program (n=10): Courses are delivered via internet or distance education technology • Paraprofessional Step-Up Program (n=4): Program leads to licensure and/or degree for paraprofessionals • District Sponsored Program (n=3): School district or regional consortium provides training

  31. Program Content

  32. Program Content: All Programs Note: 1 = gen ed foundations, 2 = SE foundations, 3 = gen ed methods, 4 = SE methods, and 5 = field experiences

  33. Program Content by Type

  34. Program Length, % Preservice

  35. Discussion Points • District Programs have far fewer hours and few special education specific content hours • Distance and Internship programs primarily “on-the-job” • Phase II data to help assess influence of content allocation on outcomes

  36. Costs & Cost Effectiveness • How large are AR programs and does size vary by program type? • How much do AR programs cost and does cost vary by program type? • Is economy of scale achieved? How large does a program need to be to be efficient? • How long does it take to complete an AR program and does completion time vary by program type? • Does completion rate vary by program type?

  37. Completers by Program Type

  38. Starters and Finishers

  39. Completion Rate

  40. Estimating Costs • Course-by-course accounting • Regular faculty: rank and FTE • Salary by rank estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey • Non-regular faculty: $ amounts for adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants • Administrative (including tech support) • Facilities (pending)

  41. Average Cost by Program Type

  42. Cost Comparisons • Five cost or cost benefit studies • Darling-Hammond, 2000 (Teach for America) • Denton & Smith, 1985 • Fowler, 2003 (Massachusetts Initiative for New Teachers) • Lewis, 1990 • Rice & Brent, 2002 (Pathways to Teaching) • Reporting 10 per completer cost estimates (or ranges) • Reported in constant 2006 dollars

  43. Cost Comparisons • $23,522 Bachelor’s Degree (Darling-Hammond) • $14,500 Internship and Step-up Programs • $13,635 MINT Program (Fowler) • $11,710 TFA (Darling-Hammond) • $10,500 Distance Programs • $9,605 to $13,760 full-time at public institution (Rice & Brent) • $5,600 District Programs • $4,567 to $7,365 part-time at public institution (Rice & Brent)

  44. Program Size and Cost

  45. Program Size and Cost • Economy of scale is achieved at 30participants • With increasingly fewer participants, costs rise steeply • Beyond 30, per participant costs do not decline significantly • At any given program size, distance and district programs tend to cost less

  46. Program Length & Intensity

  47. Summary of Phase I Findings • IHEs participate in most alternative route programs • There are discernible models of AR training • Internship • Distance delivery • Step-up • District Sponsored

  48. Summary of Phase I Findings • Hours of instruction vary dramatically by program type (by a factor of 6) • Only district-sponsored programs seem streamlined in the NCLB sense • Cost varies dramatically by program type (a factor of 2.6) • Yet economy of scale is achieved with 30 participants, regardless of program type

  49. Food for Thought • Step-up program graduates tend to remain in the field as teachers… • Will low attrition ameliorate high initial costs for step-up programs? • Recall that step-up programs have highest % completion • Much less is known about attrition and retention of completers from other program types… • Will high attrition inflate the low initial costs for completers of distance and district programs? • Are AR program graduates competent teachers? • Does beginning teacher quality vary by program type?

  50. Phase II: Data Collection • Teaching observations (Pathwise) • Teacher Quality • 6 teachers from 3 programs of each type (N = 72) • Graduate Survey • Unique contribution to supply • Prospective study of teacher attrition • As many graduates from as many programs as possible

More Related