Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nita-coffey |
View: | 23 times |
Download: | 3 times |
NCLB Policy and Research on Alternative Route Preparation
Erling E. Boe, PennMichael 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…
• 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.
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.
THE SUPPLY, QUALIFICATIONS, AND ATTRITION OF
TEACHERS FROM TRADITIONAL AND
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF PREPARATION
Ed Boe and Bob SunderlandUniversity of Pennsylvania
andLynne Cook
California State University, Dominguez Hills
OSEP Project Directors ConferenceJuly 17, 2007
tqrm\OSEP Panel 7-07(1).ppt
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.
NCES NATIONAL DATA SOURCESSchools and Staffing Survey (SASS): 2003-04
Teacher 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.
COMMON TERMS
• TTP: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program
• ATP: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program
• SETs: Special Education Teachers
• GETs: General Education Teachers
FIRST RESEARCH QUESTION
• How many employed teachers are produced by TTP and ATP programs?
61%65% 67%
70%
2%4%
14%9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Years of Teaching Experience
Type of Preparation by Years of Experience[Public and Private Teachers Combined]
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Per
cen
tage
of
Tea
cher
s
Traditional Program
Alternative Program
1-3 4-10 11-20 21 or More
SECOND RESEARCH QUESTION
• How many SETs completed various types of preparation?
0% 50% 100%
Years 11 to 20
Years 4 to 10
Years 1 to 3
Percentage of Teachers by Type of Preparation
Special Education Teacher Supplyby Years of Teaching Experience
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Traditional Alternative 62 % 22 % 16 %
Other
72 % 9 % 19 %
74 % 3 % 23 %
All OtherAlternative ProgramsTraditional Degree Programs
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
Percent of Beginning Teachers Produced by Traditional Degree Programs and Alternative Programs
by Teaching Area: 2003-04 (with 1-3 Years of Experience)
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Column Percents %
Teaching Area
Demand: TotalTeaching Force
Traditional Degree Program
Alternative Program
Special Ed. 13 % 14 % 20 % a
Voc/Business Ed 5 % 4 % 9 % a
Mathematics 8 % 9 % 11 % b
Science 6 % 5 % 9 % b
Elementary Ed. 33 % 35 % 22 % c
Arts/Music 7 % 6 % 3 % c
All Other Subjects 28 % 27 % 25 %
Total 100 % 100 % 100 %
a Significantly greater than traditional degree programb Equivalent to traditional degree programc Significantly less than traditional degree program
FOURTH RESEARCH QUESTION
• How much preparation was obtained by beginning SETs who completed TTP and ATP programs?
36%
27%
37%
0%
50%
30%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Traditional Degree Programs
Alternative Programs
1 or 2 Methods Courses 3 or 4 Methods Courses
5 or More Methods Courses
1 or 2 Methods Courses 3 or 4 Methods Courses
5 or More Methods Courses
Percentage of Beginning SETs
Supply of SETs from Traditional and AlternativePrograms by Number of Methods Courses (Years 1 – 3)
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
57%
28%
0%
53%
52%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Traditional Degree Programs
Alternative Programs
First Year Teaching
Third Year Teaching
First Year Teaching
Third Year Teaching
Supply of Public Teachers from Traditional and Alternative Programs Completing Five or More Methods Courses
by Years of Experience (1 versus 3)
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Percentage of Beginning Public Teachers
With Five or More Methods Courses
36%
10%
54%
0%
87%
5%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Traditional Degree Programs
Alternative Programs 0 Weeks Practice 1 - 7 Weeks Practice
8 or More Weeks Practice
0 Weeks Practice 1 - 7 Weeks Practice
8 or More Weeks Practice
Supply of SETs from Traditional and AlternativePrograms by Weeks of Practice Teaching (Years 1 – 3)
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Percentage of Beginning SETs
FIFTH RESEARCH QUESTION
To what extent did TTP and ATP Programs produce qualified SETs
who were?
* Fully certified
* Prepared in special education
48%
84%67%
90% 93%
81%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 -3 Years 4 - 6 Years 7 - 9 YearsYears of Teaching Experience
Fully Certified Special Education TeachersBy Years of Teaching Experience
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Fu
lly-C
erti
fied
Tea
cher
s Traditional Degree Programs
Alternative Programs
91%
6%
3%
0%
22%
20%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Traditional Degree Programs
Alternative ProgramsSpecial Ed. Teaching Major General Ed. Teaching Major
Other Major
Special Ed. Teaching Major General Ed. Teaching Major
Other Major
Supply of SETs from Traditional and AlternativePrograms by Teaching Major Field (Years 1 – 3)
Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES
Percentage of Beginning SETs
SIXTH RESEARCH QUESTION
Attrition of beginning teachers prepared through TTP and ATP Programs: Is there a difference?
9%
3%
7%
12%
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
Years of Teaching Experience
Annual Attrition Percent
AlternativeProgram
TraditionalProgram
1 - 3 4 - 6
Attrition of Full-Time Public School Teachers by Type of Preparation
Source: 2003-05 SASS, TFS, NCES
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.
Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Alternative 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Program Content
GEF SEF GEM SEM FE ∑
INT 49.5 (0-180)
62(0-270)
82.5(0-240)
239(112.5-
490)
216.4(0-720)
643.6(137.5-1645)
STP 112.4 (0-240)
71.5(30-112)
198.2(144-270)
295.5(144-432)
219.7(74.7-480)
897.3(528-1392)
DIS 16.5(0-45)
69.9(0-135)
39.2(0-144)
270.8(84-515)
89.3(0-432)
485.7(144-947)
LEA 17.5(9-23.5)
31.8(10.5-45)
55.7(20-84)
27.8(0-45)
13.3(0-40)
146.2(80-223)
Program Content: All Programs
Average Program Content, All Programs
8%
12%
21%
45%
14%
1
2
3
4
5
Note: 1 = gen ed foundations, 2 = SE foundations, 3 = gen ed methods, 4 = SE methods, and 5 = field experiences
Program Content by Type
Para-Professional Step-up
13%
8%
22%
33%
24%General Foundations
SE Foundations
General Methods
SE Methods
Field Experiences
District Sponsored
9%
15%
42%
23%
11%
General Foundations
SE Foundations
General Methods
SE Methods
Field Experiences
Distance Education
3%14%
7%
56%
20%
General Foundations
SE Foundations
General Methods
SE Methods
Field Experiences
Internship Model
8%10%
12%
36%
34% General Foundations
SE Foundations
General Methods
SE Methods
Field Experiences
Program Length, % Preservice
8.9
635.3
897.3
0.0
6.3
479.5
89.257.0
Internship Step-up Distance District
Program Type
Instructional Hours, Preservice (Blue)
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
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?
Completers by Program Type
Internship Step-up Distance District
31
96
42
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Average Annual Completers by Program Type
Starters and Finishers
3136
2227
42 44
96
113
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
INT DIS STP LEA
Program Type
Completion Rate
Completion Rates by Program Type
85%81%
96%
85%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
INT DIS STP LEA
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)
Average Cost by Program Type
Internship Step-up Distance District
$14,521.99
$5,566.94
$10,536.90
$14,317.84
$-
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$8,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
$14,000.00
$16,000.00
Average Cost Per Completer
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
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)
Program Size and Cost
Program Size and Cost
• Economy of scale is achieved at 30 participants 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
Program Length & Intensity
INT DIS STP LEAYears to
Completion1.95 2.00 2.17 1.22
% Regular Faculty
33% 53% 42% 0%
Clock Hours
653 489 897 146
Program Intensity(hours/year)
334.3 242.9 414.1 119.5
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
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
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?
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
Phase II: Graduate Survey
• Demographics• Previous degrees and work experience
• Programs considered and chosen• Program content, including practice teaching (from SASS)
• Sense of preparation (from SASS)• Professional activity