Pedagogue Blog

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio wants to expand the role that for-profit schools have in higher education.

According to USA Today, Rubio wrote an editorial for the National Review where he details why he believes the nation is better off if the education department changes the rules of accreditation for for-profit schools.

“These innovative providers cannot compete with the cartel of existing brick-and-mortar colleges and universities that dominates the accreditation process and shields our higher-education system from reform, competition, and accountability.”

Rubio is referring to how tough it is for for-profit colleges to attain accreditation. In changing the process, Rubio believes that it would allow for more for-profit schools to offer vocational training.

In doing so, far more Americans will be ready to attain gainful employment. In essence, Rubio wants “more welders and fewer philosophers.”

Slight problem with Rubio’s argument is that he’s receiving donations from the for-profit education industry. It’s not much as Rubio has taken in about $24,000 since 2014 according to opensecrets.org.

While the totals aren’t high, it lends credence to the idea that Rubio only has this idea to appease a portion of his donation base.

But in addition to that, it doesn’t seem to be the best idea in the world to allow for more for-profit institutions into the fold of higher education without dealing with the problem that many have caused.

From Corenthian Colleges to Education Management Corporation, the United States Education Department has been busy putting out fires that for-profit colleges has caused.

Rubio is right that students may need greater access to vocational institutions, but for-profit colleges may not be the best way to go.

According to a government report released earlier in December, the U.S. Department of Education will cancel $27.8 million in federal student loans owed to the for-profit school chain Corinthian Colleges Inc by more than 1,300 former students. It was determined that the students were tricked into taking on the debt.

The Huffington Post tell us that this instance is the latest use of a rarely-utilized provision in the federal law that provides student debtors the right to petition the Education Department to release their debt. The debt may be released only in situations where the students were swindled into taking out loans.

The debt forgivement plan affects 1 percent of the roughly 125,000 student debtors who are eligible for expedited debt cancellation. That comes to around 2 percent of the students’ nearly $1.3 billion in combined loan balances. The U.S. Departments of Education said in June and November that those borrowers were eligible for instant loan relief upon determining that Corinthian had probably defrauded past students by sharing fictitious job placement rates.

Education Department spokeswoman, Denise Horn, said in a statement that department officials “are working as quickly as possible to process claims in a manner that is fair to students and taxpayers.” She also said the department’s Federal Student Aid office “has been contacting and will continue to contact potentially impacted student borrowers to provide clean information about their options, including loan discharge applications, in addition to providing enhanced information on the department’s website.”

Corinthian once operated at least 120 schools with approximately 110,000 students across North America. The for-profit schools under the Everest, Wyotech, and Heald brands filed for bankruptcy in May.

One school’s resilient Second Chance program helps students earn their diplomas and overcome stereotypes about credit recovery.

By Matthew Lynch

When you think about credit-recovery programs you likely think of truant or at-risk students. These students, who need a push to catch up after falling behind, are getting lost in the shuffle, leading to lower overall graduation rates in high schools across the country. With a well-structured academic support system combined with credit-recovery options, district leaders at Lawrence County Community Unit School District experienced a 9% increase in graduation rates. Administrators have also seen what cutting its Second Chance program did to the district and how it teaches at-risk students a lot more than the Common Core.

Here’s a typical story from Lawrence County CUSD. The only thing between Joe (a senior whose name has been changed) and his hard-earned high school diploma was one English final. Thinking he could breeze by, Joe failed the test, meaning that walking the stage to collect his diploma with the rest of his class was no longer a reality. After a series of meetings with the school’s guidance counselor and the principal, the team created a credit recovery plan. Joe was given three days to complete an entire semester’s work. Two all-night study sessions, three long days in the computer lab, and a passing grade got him a diploma—and the overwhelming feeling of success earned through determination.

Joe was lucky. He had a second chance, something many students don’t ever get. The reputation and perceived expense of credit-recovery and second-chance programs has caused schools across the country to quietly cut these programs, leaving students to find their own options. The truth is, not every student who could benefit from credit recovery or alternative options is an at-risk student. Many are special ed, are working to get ahead of the curve, or graduate on time with the rest of their class.

Lawrence County CUSD started its Second Chance Program about 13 years ago to help the group of nonconforming, at-risk students gain diploma status. Students would leave the traditional classroom setting to receive extra time and help from a specialized teacher. Within eight years, the school’s graduation rates increased dramatically.

In 2012, funding for Lawrence County’s Second Chance Program was cut, leaving at-risk students to struggle through courses in the traditional classroom setting. Graduation rates quickly dropped to less than 70%. Two years later, the Second Chance Program was revived with a new look, a new name, and a new online component allowing for even more flexibility. Since its resurgence, graduation rates have increased from 70% to 79%. This school year, administrators at Lawrence County CUSD hope to reach their goal of an 85% graduation rate.

Welcome to the LHS School Within A School Classroom

At Lawrence County CUSD, teacher Barbara Fabyan has her own school within a school classroom at the high school where students needing extra academic support can come during the school day. It’s an environment that removes students from their regular classrooms, so they’re able to concentrate on their schoolwork without distraction. At any given time, she may have a 9th-grade student with an IEP needing special assistance on a project or another student who is at risk of dropping out and without determination may miss the deadline to graduate with the rest of his or her class.

While dozens of students come into her class strictly to recover failed credits, “Odysseyware, the customizable online curriculum program and credit recovery software we use, allows me to restructure entire courses or individual topics and assessments to best fit the student’s needs,” Fabyan said.

Fabyan’s classroom also serves as an alternative for students wishing to work at a faster pace. For example, one of her students had knee surgery and couldn’t participate in gym class. Instead, she worked through an online curriculum provider to earn a year’s worth of history credits in one semester.

Online options give students the freedom to work at their own pace while sticking with Illinois State Standards. Lawrence County offers a blended learning option which, based on the increase in graduation rates, has proven successful for students so far.

A Wake-up Call for Students

Fabyan uses a  “tough love” approach to teaching in the credit-recovery classroom. “Making mistakes is part of learning,” she said. “When students come in, they know it’s their last chance to complete the work and make it to graduation. Some students have dug themselves a deep hole with truancy and behavioral issues, and they know my classroom is the only place they can go to dig themselves out. It’s a wake-up call.”

When students enter Fabyan’s classroom, they often have negative thoughts about specific classes, teachers, and school in general—prejudices that hold them back from success. Her mission is to break down the walls of what “school” is and show students success is possible, but it won’t come easy. With the support from her fellow teachers and administration, Fayban and her students are constantly empowered to beat the odds and push through adversity. It’s the encouragement that keeps the program alive, allows students to reach their goals using whatever means it takes.

Rising to the Challenge

According to the Center for Public Education, 47% of high school dropouts cite “uninteresting classes” as the major reason for leaving, and 35% say “failing in school” was a major factor in dropping out. With the virtual labs, videos, audio, and games that they get from an online curriculum, students are pleasantly surprised, then challenged and engaged.

“My students realize the traditional courses they were taking may have been easier compared to Odysseyware,” said Fabyan. “Students that used to be failing are excelling with more difficult content. They realize they really have to work hard to pass. It’s more challenging, but in a way they are more engaged in the content and actually learning.”

She notes many students saying, “I really feel like I’m learning something,” and, “If I had this online option for more of my courses I would know more, and wouldn’t have fallen behind in the first place.”

That sort of realization makes students sprint to the end and get their diplomas. By the time at-risk students have their certificate in hand, they’ve learned a lot more than the Common Core. They’ve mastered the art of overcoming challenges and are part of changing the reputation of students using credit recovery. And now, because of the great success of the Second Chance Program, classroom teachers all over Lawrence County CUSD are using Odysseyware to better align their lessons with CCSS and engage students in a typical classroom setting.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

So you want to be a teacher! That means you’re most likely looking for a teacher education program. To ensure proper training and the best chance at certification, you’ll want to enroll in a TEAC accredited teacher education program.

But why? Why does TEAC accreditation matter? Well, to receive accreditation from TEAC, programs have to provide evidence that their program is of the highest quality. Schools that would like to apply for TEAC membership must first gain candidate membership, and then successfully matriculate through the accreditation process.

Because of the similarities of their missions and accreditation philosophies, it was only natural that these two organizations would eventually merge. The Council for the Accreditation of Education Preparation’s (CAEP) mission is to raise the quality of teacher education programs, while also serving as the paragon of excellence in teacher education accreditation. They plan to do this by set- ting high standards, requiring programs to submit evidence of program effectiveness, and creating an atmosphere of continuous improvement. During the creation of CAEP, its creators tapped into multiple perspectives in a quest to transcend the status quo and usher in a new era of teacher education accreditation and preparation.

To achieve these goals, the CAEP Board of Directors created the CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting and charged it with developing accreditation standards for preparation programs.

As of April 2013, the CAEP Commission has developed the following draft standards for teacher education programs:

Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college and career-readiness standards.

Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice

The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P–12 students’ learning.

Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity

The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and field and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification.

Standard 4: Program Impact

The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P–12 student learning, classroom instruction and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Standard 5: Provider Quality, Continuous Improvement, and Capacity

The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates’ and completers’ positive impact on P–12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained, evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers’ impact on P–12 student learning.

Please note that these are only draft standards and may change significantly. Visit CAEP’s website to view the final version.

Do the programs you’re looking to enroll in meet CAEP standards? Make sure you’re signing up for the best education possible. Being highly qualified will give you an edge when it comes time to apply for a job, and will give you a leg up in pay ranking when it comes time to settle salary. It may take some extra looking now, but graduating from a CAEP-compliant program will pay off in the long run!

Teacher compensation systems rank among current hot-button issues in the world of education. While there’s no doubt as to the reality of a teacher salary issue, how exactly to go about fixing that is anything but unclear. Some districts have implemented “teacher compensation systems” as a way to “fairly” determine pay rankings, but the effectives and flat-out feasibility of these compensation systems is highly contested.

One of the main accusations of the current teacher compensation system is that it’s not designed to respond to market realities. While teacher compensation is considered low when compared with other occupations, there are differences in pay even within the teaching community. For example, rural teachers are generally paid less than teachers in urban areas. This includes beginning salary, average salary, and highest salary on the pay scale. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 39 of 50 states, the pay of rural beginning teachers is less than that of their urban counterparts. The same is true for the average salary and the highest salary.

Some experts have suggested increasing the pay of teachers who teach in-demand subjects like mathematics and science. This is because graduates in these subjects are more likely to be lured away from teaching by organizations in the technology field with higher paying jobs. But schools simply cannot compete with salaries offered by information technology firms. As a result, schools are sometimes forced to hire under-qualified teachers in these subject areas, which has a negative impact on overall student achievement. It’s also unfortunate that senior teachers manipulate transfers to move to better paying and more desirable schools, leaving the most disadvantaged students to be taught by inexperienced teachers.

Yet another suggestion is the introduction of a merit-based pay model. This is to enable high-performing teachers to make more money, awarding recognition in concrete terms to those who are delivering the greatest measurable benefit to students. Many oppose this model. Some of the reasons they cite against a merit-based pay model include:
• It may result in a popularity contest among teachers and may not truly be based on the quality of their teaching.

• Student performance cannot be solely linked to teacher quality, as factors beyond the teacher’s control determine student achievement.

• Merit-pay schemes may discourage teachers from working with difficult-to-teach children, because they fear it will affect their compensation.

While it’s good that districts are attempting to do something about the salary issue, so far, teacher compensation systems don’t seem to be the final answer. Salary is still an area full of questions. Has your district implemented a compensation system? What are the districts around you doing? What’s working? What’s not? Are there any changes you have the power to make? Whether you’re a new teacher or an experienced pro, what can you do about the issue of education and fair pay?

Teachers have been particularly hard-hit by the economic hard times and market fluctuations of recent years. No one denies that teachers are over-worked and under-paid. Because of this, salary is a major factor behind the current high rate of teacher turnover.

But what about the salary issue in particular is so problematic? One of the major contributors to the problem of teacher shortage is the relatively low income and the process of fixing teacher salaries. Experts have suggested different solutions to address the problem of low income, including increasing the pay for teachers in hard-to-staff schools or subjects, introducing merit-based pay packages, or simply hiking overall salary scales for all teachers. But fixing teacher salaries is not as easy as it appears. It’s important to understand why teacher salaries are comparatively low. What’s really behind the problem?

Bureaucratic Control

The need to prepare teachers for their profession was brought to the fore in the early 20th century. During the mid-19th century, when student attendance was not even compulsory, there was no dearth of teachers. But with the advent of common schools and compulsory attendance, the nation began to witness its first teacher shortage. To counter this shortage and improve the quality of the available pool of talent, colleges and universities established “departments of education” and rolled out teacher training programs.

As time passed, state bureaucracies began to control the certification of education-school graduates. Previously, control over licensing or certification rested with local officials, who would decide who was qualified to teach in their schools. When the state took over this process, it resulted in a mismatch between the certification process and the actual local market needs. Some experts suggest that this laid the foundation for today’s teacher shortage problems, although some welcomed the idea of a licensure process that lends legitimacy to the teaching profession.

Lower Salaries = Lower Interest

In 2005, the NEA, one of America’s largest teachers’ unions, reported that the average K–12 teacher earned about $46,752. A more recent survey revealed that the average salary for traditional public school teachers was $51,243 during the 2012–2013 school year, which was an increase of 8.8% from 2005.

When salaries for teachers declined during the mid-1980s, there was a corresponding decline in the interest in teaching as a career choice among college students. It’s easy to surmise that an increase in teacher salaries would generate more interest among college graduates. Similarly, research indicates that highly qualified teachers prefer to teach in districts that have more economically advantaged students and receive higher salaries. A historical study from the 1990s found that higher salaries are a major deciding factor in attracting better-qualified teachers. This implied that higher salaries definitely entice well-qualified candidates and can be a major factor in attracting teachers to hard-to-staff rural and urban areas. In contrast, more recent studies have shown little or no evidence that schools offering higher salaries for teachers actually attract higher quality teachers. The overall results have a variety of direct policy implications for the design of school accountability and teacher compensation.

Recruiters Talk It Down, Instead of Up

Some research reveals that salary may not be the top reason for teachers leaving their profession. A study by Public Agenda, a New York-based public policy organization, found that 86% of teachers prefer more supportive parents and better behaved students to a higher salary. The survey also found that 82% asked for more supportive administrators, and 74% wanted to work in a school that had an educational mission similar to their own, instead of a higher salary. This study proposes that policy makers are ignoring other important factors that are driving the current teacher shortage and are focusing only on the salary component, which may not be a wise decision.

The majority of surveys on job dissatisfaction among teachers cite low pay to be one of the main reasons for teacher turnover. According to the Horsley and Stokes study of 2005, low pay was a very common reason for teachers’ leaving their jobs. Several researchers indicate a direct relationship between job satisfaction and pay. Guthrie and Prince’s 2009 study suggest that financial incentives are often the deciding element in job satisfaction among teachers. So, while increasing pay may not be the only way to curb teacher turnover, it’s definitely necessary in reducing teacher attrition, especially among new teachers.

While it’s plain that higher salary for teachers would reduce the rate of teacher turnover, it’s not so clear how to make that higher rate of pay possible. Salary is a complex issue in any workplace, and education is no different. The more a district and an individual know about the root of the problem, however, the more information they have to use to fix the problem and help other teachers – or themselves.

Starting a new job is always daunting, no matter what the field. Starting a new job can be especially daunting when it means facing a room full of expectant faces – and then a district full of expectant administrators. Stepping into a position as a new teacher is no small feat. It’s nerve-wracking, anxiety-inducing, and not something that professionals who haven’t experienced it directly can quite understand. That combination of factors is what makes mentors so vital to new teachers. Mentors have stood in your shoes and know what you’re going through – and they’ve been around long enough to know what the solutions to all those problems look like, too. Without good mentors, new teachers are likely to fray more easily and more quickly, contributing to the current absurd rate of new teacher turnover.

To put it simply, providing mentoring to new teachers helps teacher retention. Teacher mentoring programs pair new teachers with experienced colleagues. The mentor supports and encourages the new teacher in navigating and understanding the challenges of the first few years of teaching. Mentors also help their mentees hone their teaching skills and impart valuable lessons from their own teaching experiences.

Ample evidence suggests that such teacher induction programs bring down high teacher turnover rates. For example, school districts in North Carolina, Connecticut, New York, and California have drastically reduced teacher attrition rates among teachers by implementing induction programs as well as other retention methods. Apart from simply retaining teachers, these teachers are also likely to become more confident of their teaching skills and competence in the long run, as experienced teachers are available to coach them and provide guidance in challenging situations. Yet another example is California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA), which reduced teacher attrition rates by almost two thirds. This program, with the cooperation of local school districts and colleges, reduced attrition rates and reported a 96% retention rate for first-year teachers. Over a period of 5 years, this program reduced attrition rates to a mere 9%, when compared with 37% of those new teachers who did not participate in such programs.

Another excellent example of new teacher mentoring is Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST) program, in which every new teacher is provided with a state-trained mentor for the first 2 years of teaching. In all mentoring situations, it’s important to ensure that the mentor has enough time to spend with the new teacher to make such mentoring strategies work.

If you’re interviewing for a new teacher placement, ask your prospective site what their teacher mentorship looks like. Are you a long-time teacher? Ask your administrators how you can step up as a mentor for new hires. Good mentorship will lead to good teachers and good classrooms, making the workplace better for everyone.

Teacher turnover is a major problem in education that affects student, teachers, and administrators alike. But what’s behind the massive migration and exodus of new teachers? And what’s to be done about it? Researchers have identified four major factors that should be addressed to reduce teacher turnover and to retain them for a longer duration in the profession.

1. Compensation

Some studies suggest that, contrary to popular belief, salary is not the number one reason for teachers’ leaving the profession, although sufficient evidence indicates that it plays a significant role. Those who teach in-demand subjects like mathematics and science are more likely to quit because they receive more attractive offers for opportunities outside the teaching profession. While salary is a major factor in attrition among young teachers who are beginning their careers, it also acts as a deterrent to the retention of experienced and well-qualified teachers.

2. Working Conditions

According to a national survey, teachers place a lot of importance on their working conditions and consider it a key factor in their decision to leave or continue in the teaching profession. Good working conditions include administrative support, availability of professional resources, freedom to express their opinions on matters related to their profession, and the empowerment to influence policy in their schools.

Research studies reveal that the teachers who work in affluent and advantaged communities experience better working conditions than those who work in low-income communities. These conditions include lesser numbers of students to teach and more decision-making power in their schools. Teachers who work with disadvantaged students experience less appealing working conditions, with limited administrative support, fewer textbooks and supplies, and larger student groups to handle. Thus, it is evident that working conditions play an important role in a teacher’s decision to continue or leave the teaching profession, and that they contribute significantly to high teacher attrition rates.

3. Teacher Education

It is evident from several research studies that better prepared teachers stay in teaching for longer periods of time. This is especially true for those who complete traditional teacher education programs, as compared to those who are trained for a few weeks before being released into the student community.

Not all alternative pathways are ineffective or poorly conceived. Some well-designed post- baccalaureate programs enable students to acquire the same high standards as those who graduate from traditional teacher education colleges. This is accomplished by combining traditional coursework with a well-established fieldwork training experience.

However, alternative routes that do not provide adequate training and mentoring to prospective teachers add to the “revolving door” syndrome that currently plagues the teaching profession.

4. Mentoring

Without good mentors, new teachers can feel lost, frustrated, and stuck. It’s much harder to get out of a problem not faced before without the guidance of someone who already knows the solution. It’s also much easier to keep making the same mistakes without the wise word of an outside perspective. Learn more about the importance of mentoring in reducing teacher turnover in future articles!

Are you interviewing for a new placement? Ask your prospective employers what they’re doing to reduce teacher turnover. Are you already working at a school? Ask your administrators what steps are being taken to address turnover at your site. If there’s no plan in place, look over the list above and come up with some suggestions of how to tackle the four big problem areas within your district!

There’s a lot of discussion right now in the world of education about teacher quality. Is it it’s flagging? If so, why? Whatever the case, how can teacher quality be improved? What determines what “teacher quality” is, anyway?

When it comes to the perspective from the voice of authority – Michael Poliakoff, President of the National Council on Teacher Quality, believes that certain unwise choices and schemes adopted by states to counter teacher shortages have had an adverse impact on overall teacher quality. He states that the solution does not necessarily lie in imposing additional requirements on prospective teachers and that the state licensure process has no bearing on teacher quality. As a case in point, Massachusetts adopted a new teacher certification exam in 1998, which almost 59% of seniors and recent graduates failed. It was surprising to note that students from some of the most well-established teacher colleges had the highest failure rates. Apart from this, several other studies have found little or no connection between a state-level licensure requirement and the quality or effectiveness of a teacher in the classroom, although a few studies have revealed a direct connection between certified teachers and overall teaching effectiveness. It’s difficult to conclude in favor of either side of the debate.

It’s heartening to note that, as a result of several research studies, some universities are revamping their teacher education classes and overall curriculum to bring them up to date. Several school districts are also employing innovative programs to recruit the best talent available and accelerate their entry into the teaching profession. TFA provides an intensive 5-week training program for new college graduates without a background in education and, as mentioned earlier, is instrumental in staffing schools located in areas facing chronic teacher shortages. Yet another popular alternative program is the Troops to Teachers program, which has the support of former First Lady Laura Bush. This program aims to recruit and train former service members to become teachers.

While the debate over what qualifications lie behind good teaching goes on, there are several programs, traditional or otherwise, available to you now. Take some time to see if any of the programs talked about in this article are available in your area. Ask other teachers what they think of the ones that are. Do your research, look at statistics and gather perspectives, and you’ll find the training that will leave you most qualified, no matter what!

When thinking about whether to pursue a traditional teacher education program or enter an alternate-route program, money is unfortunately a major consideration. Some studies suggest that, contrary to popular belief, salary is not the number one reason for teachers’ leaving the profession, although sufficient evidence indicates that it plays a significant role. Those who teach in-demand subjects like mathematics and science are more likely to quit because they receive more attractive offers for opportunities outside the teaching profession. While salary is a major factor in attrition among young teachers who are beginning their careers, it also acts as a deterrent to the retention of experienced and well-qualified teachers.

So, when deciding how to obtain your credentials, you need to take a look at the numbers for each route. How much does each one cost? What’s the payout like for each program? While there is a teacher shortage, there’s also all too often a finance shortage in districts, too. When planning your pathway to becoming a teacher, you need to figure out what journey will get you to the highest-paying destination.

It may come as a surprise that those who opt for an alternative certification program often receive the same salary as traditionally trained teachers. For example, those who success- fully complete the Teach Mississippi Institute’s program receive a pay incentive (Danielson, 2007). In addition, if they complete their first year of teaching, they are paid as a third-year teacher from the second year onward. Note, however, that pay incentives are not offered in all states.

One of the main accusations of the current teacher compensation system is that it’s not designed to respond to market realities. While teacher compensation is considered low when compared with other occupations, there are differences in pay even within the teaching community. For example, rural teachers are generally paid less than teachers in urban areas. This includes beginning salary, average salary, and highest salary on the pay scale. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 39 of 50 states, the pay of rural beginning teachers is less than that of their urban counterparts. The same is true for the average salary and the highest salary.

Still unsure of which program holds the best payout for you? Make a spreadsheet! List out the cost of each program, the average salary for its graduates, and whether typical destinations for graduates include compensation systems or similar pay structures. Run the numbers! Calculating your future is an important task that necessitates time and effort to guarantee the best bottom line.

If you’re considering entering an alternate-route program as your pathway to teaching, you need to make sure you understand the pros and cons of the pathway. While fast-track programs are immensely useful, they do have some drawbacks. Here, we discuss the major pros and cons of alternate route programs to consider before making your final decision.

Alternate-route teachers bring a fresh perspective to the classroom. Many TFA teachers have work experience in other fields and bring the theoretical knowledge of their undergraduate major.

Proponents of the traditional route to teacher licensure insist that those who graduate from this program have better pedagogical skills and are more adept at classroom management.

Teachers who graduate from traditional teacher education programs are fully certified and are therefore better prepared to meet the rigors of teaching. A 2007 study by Stronge et al. reports that they possess better classroom management skills, can relate better to students, and can better meet their needs and interests. Apart from this, they can impact students more effectively and contribute toward their academic achievements.

According to one study, alternate-route teachers have the following disadvantages:

• Limited or poor knowledge of the curriculum
• Poor understanding of student motivation
• Difficulty in conveying content knowledge to students
• Less effective instruction planning

O the 8,000 alternate-route teachers found in TFA, only 2,000 remained in the program, indicating a very poor retention rate.

In addition, proponents of traditional teacher education programs believe that “fast-track” programs reduce overall teacher quality, which may be harmful to the student community at large. They argue that, just as we would not entrust our children to uncertified medical professionals, we should not place their education and future into the hands of under-qualified and underprepared teachers.

Much research has been done on the relationship between teacher education and teacher effectiveness, which has led to hot debates in the teaching community. Linda Darling-Hammond, of the NCTAF, has stated that “fast-track” teachers have a negative impact on student achievement. She asserts that students of teachers with little or no preparation learn less than those who have fully prepared or traditionally educated teachers. According to her research, students taught by alternate-route teachers scored 6 points lower on the language-arts portion of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills when compared with students taught by traditionally prepared teachers.

However, supporters of the fast-track programs refute these claims. A research study by Xu, Hannaway, and Taylor (2008) found that the results of student exams indicated that TFA teachers were more effective than some traditionally certified teachers.

Another study, conducted in Houston, Texas, investigated whether certified teachers were more effective than uncertified teachers. This longitudinal study examined long-term student achievement with data from students taught during the period 1995 to 2002 and compared their achievement to their teachers’ certification status, experience, and degree levels. The data also examined whether TFA candidates were as effective as similarly experienced and certified teachers. The results showed that certified teachers produced significantly higher student achievement than uncertified teachers. It also revealed that uncertified TFA recruits were less effective than certified teachers, although those who became certified after 2 or 3 years did as well as other certified teachers.

The study concluded that teacher effectiveness is strongly related to the preparation an individual has received for teaching, irrespective of whether they took a traditional teacher education program or an alternate route program.

Whether you go the traditional route or the alternate route, in the end, your success as a teacher is up to you. If you seek out mentors and opportunities to grow, then you’ll be more than qualified. Don’t assume that taking one track or another gives you license to slack off. In teaching, like in the classroom, your final grade is a direct product of the effort you put into getting it.

You know that your district is in desperate need of teachers. You want to be a teacher, but you don’t have access to a traditional teacher-training program – what now? Check out an alternate-route program! Local community colleges and universities often offer them, and several operate throughout the country as stand-alone programs.

Alternate-route programs are an option that benefits parties on all sides of the education equation. One of the main advantages of alternative certification is that it helps district authorities reduce teacher shortages in schools with a dire need for teachers. This also holds true for certain critical-needs subjects, such as science and mathematics. Alternative certification accelerates the provision of highly qualified professionals to fill vacancies in schools that are difficult to staff in both urban and rural areas.

Alternative certification programs, also known as “fast-track” programs, are gaining increased acceptance among educators and the American public. The rationale behind the emergence of such programs is to meet the increasing shortage of teachers in America’s public schools. Many suggest that the number of teachers graduating from traditional teacher education programs is insufficient to meet the rising school student enrollment numbers.

Alternative certification programs differ greatly from traditional teacher education programs. While the latter are usually a 4-year college or university programs, training in alternate-route programs last for a few weeks or may not be required at all. Over the last decade or so, the popularity of traditional teacher education programs has declined by a large margin. Some of the factors contributing toward this decline are more financially attractive work opportunities, relatively low teacher income, and the significant investment of time and money required to complete a traditional teacher education program. As a result of these factors, large numbers of individuals see teaching as an unattractive career option.

Alternate-route programs target those individuals who do not have a background in education, but who want to pursue a career in education. In most states, those who opt for an alternate-route program do not receive their certification before entering the classroom. Instead, they may have to complete the initial “boot camp” in a few weeks and continue taking additional education classes as they teach. They are largely trained “on the job,” and become certified at a later date. Again, it just depends on the state. Problems arise when these teachers do not become certified but are allowed to teach for years with “emergency” or “provisional licenses” by school and district authorities due to severe teacher shortages.

By virtue of opening up the possibility of becoming a teacher to a wider range of people, alternate-route programs help attack the rampant teacher shortage. While your certification may not have come from the typical path, it’s anything but unappreciated. Employers know that alternate-route teachers are passionate and dedicated. Do your best, and they’ll take notice!