The impact of teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a “hard-to-staff” urban...

The Impact of Teacher Preparation

on Student Achievement in Algebra

in a ‘‘Hard-to-Staff’’ Urban

PreK-12-University Partnership

Belinda G. Gimbert*a, Dean Cristola, and Abdou Marty Seneb

aThe Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA, and bElizabeth City State University,

North Carolina, USA

(Received 7 March 2006; accepted 23 November 2006)

Debate about teacher supply, demand, retention, and attrition has been renewed in recent years by

an increased concern about the reduced numbers of prospective teachers entering teacher education

programs, the high attrition rate of beginning teachers, and the resulting teacher shortages. U.S.

schools are experiencing teacher shortages, especially in low-income urban areas, because of

increased school enrollment, teacher retirement, reduction in class size, teacher attrition, and

turnover related to low salaries, job dissatisfaction, and lack of administrative support and influence

over decision-making. Recently, the increased interest in teacher quality has been the topic of

debate for policy-makers, the public, and the educational community. The purpose of this study

was to determine if a nontraditional teacher preparation program, the Transition To Teaching

program, was a viable way to ease the teacher shortages in a high poverty, urban U.S. school district,

and at the same time, to evaluate the impact of teacher training on students’ academic achievement.

The results of this study afford evidence that the students taught by 1st-year, alternatively prepared

teachers achieved as well as or better than their peers taught by traditionally certified 1st-year

teachers, according to student achievement in mathematics, specifically Algebra I.

Nationally, the United States Department of Education (2002) has estimated that 2.2

million teachers would be required by 2010 to fill the vacancies created by retirement

and those exiting from the field of public education (Howard, 2003). Of these needed

teachers, approximately 15% (345,000) will be demanded in central cities, and in

*Corresponding author. School of Educational Policy and Leadership, Transition To Teaching

Program, Newport News Public Schools, The Ohio State University, 301E Ramseyer Hall, 29 West

Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, USA 43210-1177. Email: [email protected]

School Effectiveness and School ImprovementVol. 18, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 245 – 272

ISSN 0924-3453 (print)/ISSN 1744-5124 (online)/07/030245–28

� 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09243450601147528

schools with large concentrations of low-income students (Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2002). Although the supply of teachers throughout the 1990s has increased

and the number entering the pool of new teachers each year has been adequate to

meet the demands of the nation’s school districts, rates of retirement and teacher

attrition seriously contribute to the frustration of maintaining a highly qualified

teaching staff for every school in the country (Walker, 2003). Within the next 10

years, nearly 700,000 teachers will retire. And, the attrition rate of new teachers has

steadily increased throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century. Based on the 2001

data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), nearly one third of

all new teachers in the USA leave the teaching field within their first 3 years of

teaching and almost 50% may leave within the first 5 years of their teaching career

(Ingersoll, 2001; Walker, 2003). Resultant, the combination of retirement and

attrition has a significant impact on our schools and the students that are served

within them (Howard, 2003; Walker, 2003).

At the same time as school districts’ need for new teachers is growing in urban and

rural United States (Ingersoll, 2004), research supports the importance of providing

students with the most effective teachers in order to ensure teacher retention and

student academic success (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). With passage of the

Act of No Child Left Behind, (NCLB, 2001), U.S. schools were confronted with the

added problem of attracting and hiring teachers who met the U.S. federal definition

of ‘‘highly qualified’’ (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2002; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). In

an effort to maintain a standard level of accountability, NCLB requires that a teacher

instruct students only in the particular curriculum for which the teacher is certified.

Given that this legislation’s charge has decreed a highly qualified teacher in every

classroom by the school year 2006 – 2007, school districts across the USA have been

scrambling to provide every child access to highly qualified educators.

Various global studies employing national, state, and other datasets (Angrist &

Lavy, 2001; Bressoux, 1996; Bressoux, Kramarz, & Prost, 2006; Clotfelter, Ladd,

& Vigdor, 2006; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heiling, 2005; Navarro &

Verdisco, 2000) have reported significant relationships between teacher quality and

student performance at the levels of the individual teacher, the school, the school

district, and the state. Specifically, the lack of qualified teachers in the fields of

mathematics and science seriously impacted the instruction that students received in

these academic areas and undermined the future earning potential of the students not

receiving their instruction from a qualified teacher (Greenberg, Rhodes, Ye, &

Stancavage, 2004). Secondary high-need schools, particularly those serving students

from low-income families, registered the most severe teacher shortages (Ingersoll,

2001). Indeed, some reasons why many teachers do not want to work in these

environments are their low level of student achievement (National Association of

Educational Progress [NAEP], 1998), high rates of teen pregnancy, high levels of

student dropout, and high incidence of violence (NCES, 1997).

District-level working conditions, such as salaries, teachers’ views of administrative

support, school climate, and other work opportunities within the district, have been

identified as important in teacher decisions to enter and remain in a district.

246 B. G. Gimbert et al.

According to Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003), higher salaries, more opportu-

nities within the district, and higher spending on instruction increased the probability

of teachers remaining within the district. Other researchers have confirmed such

conclusions (Ballou & Podgursky, 1997; Brewer, 1996; Theobald & Gritz, 1996). In

a recent study by Ingersoll (2001), teacher turnover has been stated to be 50% higher

in high-poverty schools than in more affluent school contexts. And, both new and

experienced teachers resign from low-performing schools at much higher rates than

they leave high-performing schools (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999). The cost of

early departure effectively drains schools’ financial and human resources (Darling-

Hammond & Sykes, 2003). As a consequence, high-need urban and rural secondary

schools remain understaffed in terms of both quality and quantity of teachers

(Clotfelter et al., 2003; Fideler, Foster, & Schwartz, 2000; Guin, 2004). For example,

urban secondary schools which educate over 40% of students with limited English

proficiency, three quarters of minority students, and more than half of the students

from low-income families, are staffed with inexperienced and underqualified teachers

(Ingersoll, 1996, 1999, 2002).

In the USA, federal and state policy-makers, in response to calls from the public

and practitioners in hard-to-staff school districts, have attempted to relieve teacher

shortages in core academic subjects (Ingersoll, 2001) through legislative provision

and financial support for nontraditional teacher preparation programs. These

advocates have espoused that alternative certification can meet the demand for more

teachers while maintaining or improving quality (U.S. Department of Education,

2002). The expansion of alternative (or nontraditional) teacher preparation that

began in the late 1980s has continued into the 21st century. However, accompanying

the proliferation of nontraditional teacher preparation programs is a growing

controversy that surrounds the manner in which teachers are trained to attain the

teacher quality required by state mandates for teacher licensure and NCLB

guidelines.

Currently, 48 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legislated non-

traditional teacher preparation programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 2006). School

districts, educational service agencies, universities, 4-year colleges, 2-year community

colleges, for profit and non-profit organizations, or partnerships of these entities

deliver these programs. Also included are national programs like Troops to Teachers,

which focuses on military personnel moving into teaching positions, and Teach for

America (TFA), which focuses on new college graduates who did not major in

education. As is the case with most educational concepts that become popular over a

rather short period of time, programs of alternate pathways to teacher licensure

appear to be as different as they are similar. Teacher educators are challenged to

increase the number of program completers by creating innovative pathways to

certification, simultaneously producing teachers of quality who can effectively foster

the academic achievement of all students.

In light of the apparent failure of U.S. traditional teacher education programs to

generate an adequate number of new teachers in hard-to-staff urban and rural school

districts, the reviewed research of nontraditional teacher training has offered several

Teacher Preparation, Algebra I, Student Achievement 247

consistent findings. First, studies have demonstrated that alternative (or nontradi-

tional) certification programs have contributed highly qualified teachers, thus relieving

some immediate teacher shortages in core academic subjects such as mathematics,

science, special education, and English as second language (Chin, Young, & Floyd,

2004a; Clewell & Villegas, 1999; Feistritzer, 1993, 2003; Gimbert, Cristol, Wallace, &

Sene, 2005; Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Haberman, 1999; Natriello &

Zumwalt, 1993; Shen, 1998). Second, studies of teacher characteristics have indicated

that teachers from alternative certification routes, compared to those from traditional

programs, are more disposed toward teaching in high-need urban schools because of

the participants’ life and background experiences (Chin, Young, & Floyd, 2004b,

2006; Stoddart, 1993). Graduates of nontraditional and alternative teacher education

programs differ from traditional recruits in their background, typically older than

traditional licensed candidates (Guarino et al., 2006; Humphrey, Wechsler, Bosetti,

Wayne, & Adelaman, 2002). Third, nontraditional teacher preparation pathways have

been more likely to recruit prospective teachers who were willing to work with urban

students (Chin et al., 2004b; Natriello & Zumwalt, 1993; Shen, 1997) and who held a

higher expectation for students of color (Fox, 1984; Haberman, 1990, 1999).

Consistently since their inception, alternative certification programs have recruited a

greater number of minority teachers than their counterpart traditional preparation

programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 2006; Haberman, 1999). Significantly, research has

shown that alternative preparation programs have been successful in providing ‘‘hard-

to-staff’’ school systems with teachers who had diverse educational and ethnic

backgrounds (Chin et al., 2004a; Fox, 1984; Gimbert et al., 2005; Haberman, 1990,

1999; Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998; Shen, 1997). Last, the majority of

teachers from alternative preparation programs have ‘‘switched’’ from another career

to education (Koneci et al., 2002).

In response to the recent global education community’s charge for an assessment

of the quality of teacher preparation and certification, international research has

addressed a comparison of teacher characteristics and training (Angrist & Lavy, 2001;

Bressoux et al., 2006; Chin et al., 2006; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Greenberg

et al., 2004; Haberman, 1999; Navarro & Verdisco, 2000). Researchers have explored

the attrition and retention rates of both traditionally and nontraditionally prepared

teachers (Birkeland, 2003; Boser & Wiley, 1988; Boyd, Grossman, Lankford,

Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006; Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Guarino

et al., 2006; Haberman, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001; Shen, 1997; Stoddart, 1993), as well

as some aspects of teacher performance, such as sense of efficacy (Guyton, Fox, &

Sisk, 1991). However, considerable controversy has emerged about evidence that has

addressed whether or not nontraditional and alternative teacher preparation

programs produce teachers who are as competent and effective as those from the

traditional teacher education programs (Boyd et al., 2006; Bressoux et al., 2006;

Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004; Goldhaber &

Brewer, 2000, 2001).

During the mid-1990s and the early years of the 21st century, teacher preparation

factions emerged that have identified with one of two tangential positions. One


alliance has argued for a market-based, antiregulatory approach with fewer barriers to

entry for prospective teachers (Ballou & Podgursky, 1998). The other conglomerate

has aligned with a regulatory approach that enhanced teacher quality through higher

entry levels for preservice teachers, rigorous preservice preparation, and adoption of

teacher performance standards (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). Proponents of nontradi-

tional and alternative teacher education programs, those with an antiregulatory

agenda, have continued to espouse that U.S. market forces improve the quality of

teaching (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). Some research has supported this approach

through verification that no significant difference in achievement was found between

the students taught by nontraditionally prepared teachers and those taught by their

traditionally prepared counterparts (Boyd et al., 2006; Decker et al., 2004; Gimbert

et al., 2005; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Miller et al., 1998). Opponents of

nontraditional teacher preparation, or advocates for increased regulation of U.S.

preservice teacher training and inservice teacher professional development, have

found that the K-12 students of teachers prepared through alternate pathways to

certification achieved less than their peers taught by traditionally prepared teachers

(Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1999; Darling-Hammond et al., 2001; Laczko-Kerr &

Berliner, 2003).

Teacher Training and Student Achievement

It is now clear from the literature review that the relationship between teacher

preparation and student performance is one of the most aggressively debated issues

among those who study global teacher education programs and related issues of

teacher licensure/certification. While K-12 institutions worldwide face teacher

shortages in specific content areas—mathematics, science and special education—

researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners contest the most effective ways to

prepare new teachers. Recent research efforts to assess the impact of teacher training

on K-12 student achievement (Bressoux et al., 2006; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000,

2001; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2003; Miller et al., 1998; Monk & King, 1994;

Wenglinsky, 2000; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001, 2002) have applied

analytical procedures to aggregated data from multiple state and national databases

situated in different countries. For example, U.S. studies have analyzed data from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the National Educational

Longitudinal Study (NELS), Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), and

Staffing Surveys (SASS). Other studies have analyzed data from a survey conducted

by the French Ministry of Education (Bressoux, 1996; Bressoux et al., 2006), and

also from the Jerusalem Schools Authority, Israel (Angrist & Lavy, 2001).

Individually, these studies’ results have yielded conflicting and, at times, confusing

evidence about the relationship between type of teacher certification and student

achievement for both policy-makers and practitioners. Collectively, an in-depth

review of the more recent empirical large-scale empirical studies revealed some

consistent findings. In the next section, the findings of several noteworthy studies are

discussed, and this is followed by points of research consensus. In addition, gaps in


the scholarly literature are identified with respect to type of teacher training and

student performance.

Across studies using different units of analysis and different measures of

preparation, a significant relationship between teacher qualification and student

achievement has been documented and accepted. In a study based on regression

analysis of data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS, 1998),

Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) examined the relationships between 12th-grade

students’ performance in mathematics and science and teacher certification (3,786

mathematics students; 2,524 science students; 2,098 mathematics teachers; and

1,371 science teachers). They found several informative relationships. First, students

of teachers with mathematics degrees and/or certification in mathematics achieved

better than the students of teachers without subject matter preparation. Second,

student test scores in mathematics were higher when the teacher of record held

professional or full state certification, relative to the students’ scores when taught by a

teacher who was certified out of subject or held private school certification. Third,

students taught by teachers with bachelor’s and/or master’s degrees in mathematics

outperformed the students taught by teachers who were not credentialed in the same

field. Fourth, students taught by an uncertified science teacher or a science teacher

who held a private school certification showed lower scores. Fifth, measurement of

student achievement growth revealed no significant differences between mathematics

or science student test scores for teachers with emergency certification and those

traditionally certified. In their conclusion, Goldhaber and Brewer argued that ‘‘at the

very least,’’ the study’s outcomes ‘‘cast doubt on the claims of the educational

establishment that standard certification should be required of all teachers’’ (p. 145).1

In rebuttal, Darling-Hammond et al. (2001) disputed some of Goldhaber and

Brewer’s (2000) assertions pertaining to certification, claiming that the study’s very

small sample size did not permit such a far-reaching statement (Greenberg et al.,

2004). In the initial sample of 3,469 teachers, grades-10 and -12 student achievement

data from 58 mathematics and science teachers who held temporary or emergency

certification were analyzed. In their critique, Darling-Hammond et al. emphasized

that the regression coefficients for emergency and temporary certification generated

by Goldhaber and Brewer’s statistical model were generated from a very small sample

and were not statistically significant (Birkeland & Peske, 2004). In their reanalysis of

these data, Darling-Hammond et al. claimed that only about one third of the NELS

sample teachers who held temporary or emergency licenses were new entrants to

teaching with little or no educational background. Further, these researchers

demonstrated that many of the 24 science teachers (of 3,469 in Goldhaber and

Brewer study’s sample) with temporary or emergency certificates had experienced

similar years of teaching and subject-matter knowledge to the certified teachers in the

sample (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Controlling for pretest scores, content

degrees, and years of experience, Darling-Hammond et al. demonstrated that

students taught by the subsample of teachers on temporary or emergency and who

were new to teaching attained smaller achievement gains than those who had attained

full state certification through a traditional pathway.2


The literature on out-of-field teaching has supported the notion that, in order to

teach content effectively, a teacher must have a minimum of subject-matter

knowledge, the equivalent of a content major (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Monk,

1994). Various empirical studies have debated the importance of education in

pedagogical methods versus education in a subject area. For example, using the

national dataset, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), Monk (1994)

found that teachers’ education coursework, more than additional preparation in

mathematics and science, was positively correlated to student academic achievement

in these subject areas. Further, this study ascertained that education courses in

subject matter have a positive effect on student learning at each grade level in both

mathematics and science.

An earlier U.S study by Hawk, Coble, and Swanson (1985) reported that a major

or minor in mathematics or science in an undergraduate teaching degree can enhance

student achievement. These researchers argued that in mathematics and science,

subject-matter knowledge has a significant impact on student test scores in these

subjects. The effects of teacher training on student achievement showed that, in

general mathematics as well as algebra, students taught by teachers certified in

mathematics had higher scores than their counterparts taught by teachers certified out

of field (Monk & King, 1994; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997). A follow-up study

conducted by Laczko-Kerr and Berliner (2003) compared certified teachers who had

completed a minimum 45 semester hr of education coursework with uncertified

teachers (Teach for America, provisional teachers, emergency teachers, holders of

bachelor’s degrees) who had experienced little or no education coursework, or any

other type that would meet the requirements for a standard certification. These

researchers used 109 matched pairs of the two groups of teachers and the Stanford

Nine (SAT-9) to analyze student academic achievement in Grades 3–8 in Arizona.

They concluded that students of certified teachers had higher test scores than those of

undercertified teachers.

A comparison of teacher qualifications, student background, and school

characteristics, the study conducted by Greenberg et al. (2004) used data from the

NAEP 2000 Grade-8 mathematics assessment to examine how teacher qualifications

were related to student achievement in mathematics among students enrolled in

U.S. public schools. In this study, four specific teacher qualifications were defined

accordingly: teacher certification, academic major or minor, highest postsecondary

degree, and years of teaching experience. Although relying on cross-sectional NAEP

background data for measures of student achievement, they found, independent of

other factors and teaching credentials, that teacher certification and holding a degree

in mathematics were the teacher qualifications associated with higher mathematics

achievement among eighth-grade public school students. Interestingly, a second

finding pertained to economically disadvantaged eighth-grade students who were less

likely to have a mathematics teacher with a degree in mathematics than their more

affluent counterparts. A third finding revealed that students in high-ability mathe-

matics classes were more likely to have teachers with a major or minor in mathematics

or mathematics education than students in mixed- or low-ability mathematics classes.


This study did not expose a statistically significant relationship between having a

major or minor in education and student achievement.

A recent study, conducted by Boyd et al. (2006), assessed how changes in entry

requirements altered the teacher workforce and affected student achievement. To

conduct the analysis of the relationship between six different types of pathways into

teaching, nontraditional and traditional, and student achievement, the researchers

constructed a student database ‘‘with student exam scores, lagged scores and

characteristics of students and their peers linked to their schools, teachers and

characteristics of those teachers, including indicators of the pathway into teaching’’

(p. 8). Specifically, this study’s research question addressed: Do students of teachers

who enter the classrooms with reduced coursework preparation and limited clinical

experiences achieve gains that differ significantly from students who are taught by

traditionally certified or temporary licensed teachers? Boyd et al. found that, relative

to other estimated effects, pathway differences are of moderate importance.

Specifically, for elementary mathematics and English/language arts (ELA), they

found that students of nontraditional teachers achieved as well as those of college-

recommended pathways by the end of the 3rd year of teaching. Likewise, for middle-

school mathematics, similar results have indicated that initially, there is no significant

difference between pathways of preparation. However, middle-school mathematics

students of teachers in one particular nontraditional pathway, Teaching Fellows,

made significantly greater improvement between their 2nd and 3rd years of teaching,

outperforming the students of college-recommended teachers. A prominent critique

of the Boyd et al.’s study is that all New York City teachers, including the NYC

Fellows, Teach For America, and other alternative route teachers, were required to

complete full certification requirements within 3 years of entering teaching.

Depending on the definition of alternate pathway to teacher licensure, Floden and

Meniketti (2006) noted that the Boyd et al. study could be considered a study that

compared standard route with delayed standard-route entrants.

These findings concur for the most part with findings in the earlier empirical

literature on pathways to teaching conducted in the U.S. For example, in a prior U.S.

study, Miller et al. (1998) explored the relationships between routes to teacher

certification and student achievement among Grade-3 public students. These

researchers used matched comparison of nine alternatively certified teachers and

nine traditionally certified teachers with the same 3-year teaching experience and

teaching in the same content area (elementary education). They found no significant

difference in student achievement between students taught by alternatively certified

teachers and their counterparts taught by the traditionally certified teachers in mathe-

matics or reading scores. Applying multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Miller et al. found that students (n¼188)

of alternatively certified teachers achieved as well as the students (n¼ 157) of the

traditionally certified teachers in mathematics and reading.

In other nations, studies have analyzed national datasets to investigate the

relationship between teachers’ characteristics and student achievement (Angrist &

Lavy, 2001; Bressoux, 1996; Bressoux et al., 2006). Supported by their postulate,


that the effects of inservice training for trained and untrained teachers have received

less research attention in developed countries than the consequences of teachers’

general skills, Angrist and Lavy (2001) presented an evaluation of the effect of

inservice training in Jerusalem schools. Using a matched comparison design with

differences-in-differences, regression, and matching estimates, Angrist and Lavy have

documented that on-the-job and inservice training in secular schools led to an

improvement in student achievement. An extension to Bressoux’s 1996 study that

had looked at the effect of inservice teaching on novice teachers in France, Bressoux

et al. (2006) studied the impact of different teacher and class characteristics on third

graders’ student achievement using two categories of teachers—trained novice

teachers and untrained novice teachers. Bressoux et al. found that teachers’ training

substantially improved student test scores in mathematics, whereas on reading scores,

teachers’ training was beneficial only to students in high-achieving classes. And, the

study’s findings reported that teachers’ education background had a significant

impact since untrained teachers who majored in sciences compensated for their lack

of training and had the same effect as trained teachers.

Despite the available global research that has investigated national and state data-

sets to ascertain the impact of teacher qualifications, surprisingly little research exists

that links the qualifications of individual teachers to the performance of students at

both the classroom-level and the individual-student level. Policy-makers and

practitioners have recognized that reliable measures and valid disaggregated data

procedures are vital to providing trustworthy indices of teacher effectiveness. Under

intense time constraints to meet the NCLB (2001) mandates in the U.S., a three-

pronged approach to meet this need was proposed by Adcock and Hislop (2004) that

directed studies to (1) implement disaggregated data collection procedures that

accurately identified the teacher-of-record for each student in a core academic

subject; (2) collect verifiable data that led to a definition of teacher quality; and (3)

adopt ‘‘value-added analytical procedures on the reported data to provide policy

makers with accurate and reliable indices of teacher effectiveness’’ (p. 1). The

ramifications were significant. States and districts were charged to construct NCLB

compliant data systems to collect data pertinent to teacher certification, academic

training, and years of experience (McCabe, 2004). And, as a priority, school districts

were required to collate accurate and valid disaggregated measurements of student

achievement at the school level and make these available for analytical procedures.

As previously discussed, however, much of the research in the field has been

conducted with state- or district-level aggregate data on teacher qualifications, rather

than on individual students and their teachers.

In summary, the aggressively debated issue about the impact of type of teacher

training, whether nontraditional or traditional, on student performance has generated

some points of consensus. The reviewed research offers several consistent findings.

First, graduates of nontraditional and alternative teacher education programs appear

to have increased the supply of teachers and changed the composition of the

teacher workforce, in particular for high-poverty urban schools. Second, many

teachers entering through nontraditional pathways have solid academic training and


have performed well on tests of general knowledge. Third, an estimation of the effect

of teachers on student achievement has demanded robust student test-score

data. Last, research on the effects of teacher preparation programs with reduced

requirements prior to teaching has been sparse. Evidently, empirical studies that

assess the impact of traditional and/or nontraditional preservice teacher preparation

policies on teacher quality are relatively scarce. It is, therefore, of particular

importance that the educational community advocates a robust research foundation

for understanding how best to structure teacher preparation programs from either a

nontraditional or traditional perspective (Boyd et al., 2006).

Despite a plethora of studies that have focused on macro-effects of teacher

qualifications, there is a noticeable lack of policy evaluation research with classroom-

based data on the individual student and valid teacher identification that investigates

validated classroom-based data. In particular, little research has studied the

performance of students who were taught by 1st-year teachers who experienced

different pathways of teacher preparation. In addition, the literature review did not

uncover a study that has analyzed disaggregated individual student-level and school-

based data identified with individual teacher-level data at a specific grade level in a

specific content. The intent of this study was to evaluate the impact of state policy

pertaining to nontraditional teacher preparation on student achievement using

disaggregated individual student-level data that matched individual students with

their individual teachers and controlled for teacher, student, and classroom

characteristics. Explicitly, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects on

students’ mathematics performance of a nontraditional teacher-training program,

known as the Transition To Teaching (TTT) program, that was enacted through a

school division-university partnership. This empirical pilot study compared middle-

and high-school students’ achievement at the individual student and teacher level,

specifically in Algebra I, with type of teacher preparation. To determine the impact, if

any, of teacher training on students’ academic achievement outcomes, the following

questions were considered:

1. Did middle- and high-school students taught by nontraditionally prepared

teachers trained through the TTT program achieve in Algebra I as well as the

students who were taught by traditionally prepared teachers (non-TTT)?

2. Did the Algebra I test scores of students taught by nontraditionally trained

teachers change over time compared to the students of the traditionally trained

teachers?

Context of This Study

As is the case with most educational concepts that become popular over a rather short

period of time, alternative routes of teacher preparation appear to be as different as

they are similar. The large variability in alternative certification programs has made

it difficult to compare nontraditional teacher preparation with traditional teacher

training on student performance, often because there was not enough information


concerning the characteristics or design features of the programs in question

(Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). Essentially, a description of the specific

nontraditional teacher preparation program provides the context in which this study’s

emerging understandings unfolded.

Situated in a southeast school district in Virginia, this school system-university’s

nontraditional teacher preparation partnership was funded by a 5-year U.S.

Department of Education’s Transition To Teaching (TTT) grant. The purpose of

the TTT program was to meet this particular school division’s need for ‘‘highly

qualified’’ teachers (NCLB, 2002) in the high-need core academic subjects

(mathematics and science) in hard-to-staff schools. The target populations of this

TTT program were career switchers, recent college graduates, substitute teachers,

and professionals who had classroom experience. The objectives of the program were

two-fold. First, to recruit and prepare highly qualified teachers through alternative

licensure program in a Local Education Agency-Institute of Higher Education (LEA-

IHE) partnership, and ensure that these individuals receive their teaching license by

meeting competencies defined in the Virginia Licensure Regulations for School

Personnel (1998). Second, to provide to these individuals significant follow-up

support with a mentor and cohort experience in the first 3 years of teaching to help

them become highly effective teachers who make teaching their long-term careers.

It is important to note that the TTT program was a partnership between a high-

need local educational agency and a local institution of higher education founded

on the premises of a school – university partnership, specifically the professional

development school model (Holmes, 1986). The research site selection of the

high-need, majority-minority local education agency was based on this particular

school division’s nontraditional teacher preparation program that addressed five

standards of excellence for alternative certification programs (Haberman, 1991).

These standards were: (1) a highly selective approach for the participants’ acceptance

was applied [to this Transition To Teaching program]; (2) the program recruited the

best faculty to teach the candidates; (3) training to implement meaningful curriculum

content was afforded to these prospective teachers; (4) effective teaching methods

that focus on pedagogy were included in the training; and (5) evaluation of the

program’s effectiveness, or otherwise, was conducted.

Before entering the classroom, the TTT teachers participated in an intensive

training program that included curriculum and instruction methods, course content

related to the Virginia Standards of Learning, differentiation of instruction, classroom

behavior management, and human growth and development (Gimbert et al., 2005).

Upon completion of the Level I work, the school system employed these teacher

candidates on the basis of obtaining a Virginia 1-year eligibility teaching license. Level

II training continued during the 1st year of teaching and included a minimum of 20

instructional clock hours. Each beginning teacher was assigned a school-based

mentor and a cognitive content coach to assist their transition into the profession

during their first 3 years in the profession. Upon completion of both the Level I and

Level II training, the beginning teacher candidate on the nontraditional pathway was

eligible for a 5-year Virginia professional teaching license.


Specifically, this alternative pathway of teacher preparation required teacher

candidates who previously held at least an undergraduate degree in mathematics or

a degree with a major in mathematics and who were employed as a teacher-of-record

to attain state certification in a program that encompassed eight criteria. First, each

TTT teacher was required to meet the state’s professional experience coursework,

otherwise known as the pedagogical coursework, by participating in a content-specific

cohort that was supported by a school – university partnership between the school

district and a local institution of higher education. Second, each TTT teacher

experienced an intensive 3-year mentoring program based on the PathWise Teacher

Induction program (Educational Testing Service). Third, TTT teachers engaged in

individually-tailored professional growth experiences including peer tutoring. Fourth,

each TTT teacher completed a process of classroom-based research that included an

opportunity to present findings at a state and/ or national conference. Fifth, each TTT

teacher candidate attended the school districts’ New Teachers Academy. Sixth, each

TTT teacher was afforded an opportunity to complete college credits for professional

development (e.g., towards the attainment of a masters degree in literacy education or

special education). Seventh, each TTT teacher created and presented annually for 3

years an individual electronic portfolio that documents growth in professional

practice. And, eighth, each nontraditionally prepared TTT teacher was evaluated

according to the state’s teacher performance standards.

Methodology

A quasi-experimental design was used for this study because two intact groups of

subjects were formed on a basis other than random assignment. Specifically, a non-

equivalent comparison group design was used in the study. Teacher participants were

matched by school based on the type of classrooms, 1st year of teaching experience,

type of mathematics taught (Algebra I), grade level (middle or high school), and

teacher preparation experience of the teachers. Participating middle and high schools

were designated Title I schools, with approximately 47% – 52% economically dis-

advantaged student population that mirrored the school system’s Free and Reduced

lunch rate, 46.4%. With respect to ethnicity, each middle and high school mirrored the

school system’s demographics, 55% African-American, 35% White, and 10% Latino

and/or English as second language). To this extent, interclass selection bias was

controlled for student social-economic status and diversity, as well as class size.

Teacher Participants

The TTT program provided training to individuals who were interested in entering

the field of teaching but who had not received degrees in education. Potential

participants were required to have the following upon entry into the program: a 2.5

grade point average or higher in all college coursework; a bachelor’s degree or higher

from an accredited college or university with courses in mathematics or a bachelor’s

degree or higher from an accredited college or university with work experience related


to mathematics; a qualifying score on the Praxis I series of tests that meets the

licensure requirements of Virginia in the area of reading, writing, and mathematics;

and a qualifying score on the Praxis II mathematics test with qualifying scores for a

Virginia alternative teaching license (known as a 1-year eligibility license). In

addition, successful applicants met the requirements for employment as a public

school teacher in the state of Virginia (Transition To Teaching, 2004). The TTT

program required qualified candidates to participate in a 5-week Summer Institute

that focused on pedagogical coursework as well as child and adolescent growth and

development. Each participant was expected to commit to teach for 3 years in the

urban school district where they received their training (Transition To Teaching,

2004). Of the 22 candidates, 18 completed Cohort 1, including 12 mathematics

teachers and 6 earth science teachers. However, only 6 of the 12 mathematics

teachers met the requirements to be included in the study (teaching applicably

sections of Algebra I, ABCD, or CD).

For the purpose of the study, a comparison group was selected of six non-TTT

teachers who were hired as mathematics teachers for the school year 2003 – 2004 in

the same district, and taught Algebra I (sections ABCD or CD). The six non-TTT

teachers referred to in the study represented the traditionally prepared teachers.

These non-TTT 1st-year teachers had experienced a traditional teacher preparation

program, were certified to teach in Virginia or other states, and attained state

certification/licensure. Each non-TTT teacher held at least a bachelor’s degree (a

major in mathematics), and demonstrated subject-matter competency by passing a

state-mandated mathematics test. In addition, each non-TTT teacher successfully

met the requirements of Title I, Part A of the NCLB Act (2001) to be defined as a

‘‘highly qualified’’ teacher, as well as the district and Virginia Department of

Education’s (VDOE’s) employment criteria.

The six TTT teacher participants were three males and three females, the average

age was 34 years, and ethnicity was three White, and three African American. The six

non-TTT teacher participants were four males and two females, the average age was 24

years, and the ethnicity was five White and one African American. All teacher partici-

pants, TTT and non-TTT, had passed the state-mandated subject-matter test, Grades

6 – 12 Mathematics, on their first attempt with an equal or higher minimum passing

score (using actual scores rather than self-reported data). Non-TTT teacher partici-

pants had successfully completed student teaching experience or equivalent clinical

practicum, attaining a grade of a Bþ or higher as noted on an academic transcript.

Participants enrolled in the TTT program must meet the same competencies as all

other teacher candidates for teaching certificates, and thus by the end of the their 1st

year of teaching, all TTT teachers have completed a similar set of courses to those

taken by the non-TTT teachers, graduates of college-recommended programs.

Research Sites

Three middle schools (MS), four high schools (HS), 12 teachers and a total of 335

students in a high-need urban school district in southeast Virginia participated in the


study (106 MS students and 229 HS students). The students taught by TTT Algebra

I teachers Cohort 1 (2003 – 2004) represented the experimental group (n¼150) and

those taught by 1st-year Algebra I non-TTT teachers in the same school system were

the comparison group (n¼ 185). Thus, the students taught by the six TTT teachers,

according to the specification (Algebra I, sections ABCD or CD) and their

counterparts taught by the six matched non-TTT teachers from the eight new

Algebra I teachers in the district, teaching sections ABCD or CD, hired during the

2003 – 2004 school year, were the participants (total considered n¼ 335). For

the sections, ABCD is a 2-year alternative method of taking Algebra I. CD is the 2nd

year of the 2-year course. MS Algebra I was a full-year course.

Matching Procedures

Of the eight non-TTT Algebra I (sections ABCD or CD) teachers hired in the district

during the 2003 – 2004 school year, six were matched to the six TTT Algebra I

(sections ABCD or CD) teachers in the same district. The decision for inclusion was

based on the type of school (MS or HS), the sections of Algebra I (ABCD or CD), the

grade level of teaching, and the type of teacher preparation experienced by the

teachers (see Table 1).

Measures

The student achievement data were collected over a period of 1 school year,

2003 – 2004. The first Algebra I quarterly test (Q1), the second Algebra I quarterly

test (Q2), the third Algebra I quarterly test (Q3), and the 2002 new version of the

Virginia Standards of Learning (VASOL) were used as the instruments for the study.

The Quarterly Tests (Q1, Q2, and Q3) were administered at the end of each 10-week

period. Quarterly Test 1 was given at the end of the first 10-week period of Algebra I

instruction (October, 2003). Quarterly Test 2 was given at the end of the second

10-week period of Algebra I instruction (January, 2004). Quarterly Test 3 was given

at the end of the third 10-week period of Algebra I instruction (March, 2004). The

state mandated test for Algebra I (VASOL test) was given at the end of the fourth 10-

week period of Algebra I instruction (June, 2004).

Table 1. Number of students by grade level and program

Pair Level TTT Non-TTT Total Grade Level Sections of Algebra I

1 MS 22 33 55 7 ABCD (3)

2 MS 43 8 51 8 ABCD (3)

3 HS 31 36 67 9 ABCD (4)

4 HS 32 27 59 9 ABCD (2)

5 HS 10 35 45 9 CD (3)

6 HS 12 46 58 9 CD (4)

Total 150 185 335


The Algebra I quarterly tests used in the study were based on the VASOL test

items, blueprint, and objectives. The urban school district in this study administered

the quarterly tests to monitor the progress of Algebra students throughout the year. A

panel of mathematics instructors, along with the mathematics coordinator for

secondary education within the school district, worked collaboratively to design test

items that mirrored the format and depth of items found on the state-mandated

Algebra I end of course assessment. The quarterly tests examine the students’ ability

to utilize algebraic symbols; to solve problems using graphs, tables, and equations; to

understand patterns, relations, functions, and models; and to solve complex

problems using a variety of problem solving strategies (Gimbert et al., 2005).

An application of Cronbach’s Alpha statistic test determined the internal con-

sistency reliabilities of the three Algebra I quarterly tests to be a¼ .98, a¼ .97, and

a¼ .98 for Q1, Q2, and Q3, respectively. Correlation coefficients between the

VASOL scores and the Algebra I quarterly tests were estimated to assess the validity

of the quarterly assessments. Pearson correlation coefficients were significant for all

the Algebra I quarterly tests but were not large (see Table 2). The coefficients of

shared variance are 21.06%, 33.98%, and 22.46% for Q1, Q2, and Q3, respectively.

The VASOL (2002) end-of-year assessment tests were designed by a panel of

experts that were comprised of specialists in mathematics education at the

VDOE, experienced mathematics instructors from various school districts through-

out the state of Virginia, university faculties with expertise in mathematics and

instruction, and members of the Virginia Council of Teachers of Mathematics, an

affiliate of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The state of Virginia

required all school districts to administer an end-of-course assessment for Algebra I

courses. The VASOL end-of-year assessment test was aligned with the standards

established by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Commonwealth of

Virginia Board of Education, 2002; VDOE, 1999, 2002). The reliability and validity

of the Algebra I end of course assessment involved correlations with other related

measures and between other VASOL Algebra I tests. The Spearman Rank Order

Correlation coefficient ‘‘rho’’ between the Algebra I VASOL tests and the Stanford 9

Total Math test was r¼ .53 (VDOE, 1999, 2002). The reliability and validity of the

end-of-year assessment from the state was reviewed annually by the VDOE through

an analysis of field-tested items and student responses (VDOE, 1999, 2002). The

Table 2. Correlation coefficients

Q1 Q2 Q3 SOL

Q1 Pearson Correlation 1

Q2 Pearson Correlation .553** 1

Q3 Pearson Correlation .311** .552** 1

SOL Pearson Correlation .459** .583** .474** 1

n¼ 335.**Correlation is significant at p5 .001.


district used both versions of the VASOL (old and new). Only the students who did

not pass the VASOL for the first time were given the old version. For the purposes of

this study, each student completed the new 2002 version. The data derived from the

Algebra I quarterly tests and the VASOL were used to compare two groups of

students, an experimental group taught by TTT teachers and a comparison group

taught by the non-TTT teachers, and to determine the academic growth among

Algebra I students between both groups.

Data Collection

To ensure confidentiality, the chair of the research committee at the participating

district, the coordinator of the TTT program, and the teachers involved in the study

provided the coded data. The TTT and non-TTT teachers were not randomly

assigned. However, the student participants to sections of Algebra I by the adminis-

tration of individual middle and high schools were randomly assigned, and therefore

countered interclass selection bias. The student participants were assigned numbers

and pseudonyms and there was no personal identification.

Data were collected immediately following the administration of each quarterly

test. The state-mandated test for Algebra I (VASOL test), given at the end of the

fourth 10-week period of Algebra I instruction, was provided the school system’s

Office of Accountability and Equity in June 2004. At that point, the initial sample

(508) was revised to include data from only those students who met the following

two criteria: (1) they were taught by the same teacher for the duration of the school

year 2003 – 2004, and data were available for the assessments (Q1, Q1, Q3, and

VASOL). Of the initial sample, some students did not take one or more assessments,

and some dropped out or moved to another class or school. Therefore, their

scores were not considered in the study. For the group of students of the TTT

teachers, the student attrition rate was 34%, and for the group of students of the non-

TTT teachers the student attrition rate was also 34%, therefore consistent for both

groups, and thus eliminating a selection bias between the experimental and control

student groups. In summary, the initial and final sample size was composed of

335 students, 150 TTT students, and 185 non-TTT students. The final dataset

comprised only student achievement data for those who received instruction from

the same TTT or the same non-TTT teacher for the duration of the data

collection period, the school year 2003 – 2004, and participated in all four data

measures.3

Data Analysis

First, the Algebra I test scores were converted into Z scores to remove the scaling

factor from the original test score distributions. Second, descriptive statistics (means

and standard deviations) were used to compare the students taught by teachers from

the TTT program (experimental group) and those taught by the non-TTT teachers

(comparison group). Third, a 2 (TTT vs. non-TTT)64 (tests administrated)


repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the impact of

teachers’ TTT status on student achievement in Algebra I. Box’s test was performed

to determine whether the data satisfied the assumption of equality of covariance

matrices required for repeated measures. Last, follow-up tests were conducted to

determine which of the means for the experimental group (TTT) and the comparison

group (non-TTT) differed significantly from each other. Multivariate Analysis of

Covariance (MANCOVA) was performed as a follow-up, using Wilk’s lambda as the

criterion for multivariate significance, and using the Bonferroni adjustment for

multiple comparisons.

Descriptive Statistics

The means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three Algebra I quarterly tests

and the VASOL end-of-course mathematics test for the treatment and for the

comparison groups are provided in Table 3. Standardized scores for the same tests

are provided in Table 4.

Overall, the TTT students scored 11 points less than the comparison group,

on average, during the first Algebra I quarterly test period (MTTT¼ 63.38,

Mnon-TTT¼ 74.46). The first quarterly test (Q1) results revealed a half standard

deviation separated the two groups, in favor of the comparison group. The reported

effect size, Cohen’s d, was 0.44, considered as moderately large. In the second and

third quarterly tests (Q2 and Q3), as well as during the VASOL test periods, the TTT

students reversed the tendency and surpassed the non-TTT students. Specifically, in

the second and third Algebra I quarterly tests, and the VASOL test period, the TTT

students led the non-TTT students by respectively 7 points, 11 points, and 8 points

(see Table 3). The effect sizes, Cohen’s d, were for Quarterly Test 2, 0.42

(moderately large), Quarterly Test 3, 0.58 (moderately large), and VASOL end-of-

course test, 0.21 (moderate).

Table 3. Mean scores by grade level and program: quarterly tests and SOL

Q1 Q2 Q3 SOL

Level M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

Middle

Comparison 80.58 8.49 41 63.12 11.27 41 74.80 10.72 41 469.97 35.11 41

TTT 75.83 11.80 65 70.27 19.78 65 72.96 24.30 65 458.98 34.24 65

High

Comparison 72.72 10.80 144 54.25 16.15 144 55.93 17.08 144 432.89 37.96 144

TTT 62.68 15.75 85 58.25 12.92 85 69.83 11.73 85 442.91 41.92 85

Total

Comparison 74.46 10.82 185 56.21 15.62 185 60.11 17.70 185 441.11 40.33 185

TTT 63.38 15.57 150 63.46 17.26 150 71.19 18.26 150 449.88 39.47 150


Substantial difference in the advantage of the non-TTT students during the first

test period was followed in favor of the TTT students during the second and third test

periods. During the end-of-course test period, a small difference favoring the

experimental group was found (MZQ1¼7.24, MZQ2¼ .23, MZQ3¼ .32,

MZSOL¼ .12) for the students taught by the TTT teachers and (MZQ1¼ .20,

MZQ2¼7.19, MZQ3¼7.26, MZSOL¼7.09) for the students taught by the non-

TTT teachers (see Table 4).

Inferential Statistics

To evaluate whether the differences in academic achievement between the students

taught by the TTT teachers and their peers taught by the non-TTT teachers grew,

decreased, or remained similar from the first Algebra I quarterly test (Q1) to the

VASOL test, the mean Z scores for each group were analyzed and the F test calculated.

Box’s test indicated that the observed covariance matrices were significantly

different between the two groups (F10, 481187.5¼ 14.06, p5 .001). Therefore, the

Geisser-Greenhouse conservative F test was used to correct for the possibility of

positive bias in the F statistic arising from a violation of the equality of covariance

matrices assumption (Kennedy & Bush, 1985). The Geisser-Greenhouse test called

for using degrees of freedom equal to 1 in the numerator, and n-1 in the denominator.

In this case, the Geisser-Greenhouse adjustment yielded a significant interaction

between time period and groups (F1, 334¼ 53.48, p5 .001). Further, sphericity and

the results of assumptions of normality and independence were satisfactory. In

addition, the interaction effects (Algebra I6Treatment) were tested using the

multivariate criterion of Wilks’ lambda (L), and found to be significant (L¼ .738,

F4, 330¼29.315, p5 .001). This finding indicated that there was a statistically

significant effect of the multivariate repeated measure, the students’ scores over the

four measurement periods. This effect was qualified by the interaction with the TTT

and non-TTT independent variable. The significant interaction effect indicated a

Table 4. Mean Z scores by test, grade level, and group

Z score (Q1) Z score (Q2) Z score (Q3) Z score (SOL)

Level M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

Middle

Comparison .65 .62 41 .21 .67 41 .51 .57 41 .62 .87 41

TTT .30 .87 65 .64 1.18 65 .42 1.29 65 .34 .85 65

High

Comparison .07 .80 144 7.31 .96 144 7.48 .91 144 7.30 .94 144

TTT 7.67 1.16 85 7.07 .77 85 .25 .62 85 7.05 1.04 85

Total

Comparison .20 .80 185 7.19 .93 185 7.26 .94 185 7.09 1.00 185

TTT 7.24 1.15 150 .23 1.03 150 .32 .97 150 .12 .98 150


unique pattern of test score variation that distinguished the students taught by a TTT

teacher from those taught by a non-TTT teacher. Although the students’ test score

data in the individual teacher’s classes were collapsed for the analyses, the use of the

repeated measure of students’ scores over the four measurement periods eliminated

some of the error variance.

Figure 1 (Mean Z scores by test periods and by groups) shows that the comparison

group had higher scores than the experimental group in the first test period (.20 and

7.24, respectively), a difference of .44 points, with significant F1, 333¼ 17.66,

p5 .001 for the Q1. In the second test period, the experimental group reversed the

trend and led the difference to .42 points (7.19 for the non-TTT and .23 for the

TTT students), with significant F1, 333¼ 16.23, p5 .001 for Q2. In the third test

period, the experimental group kept the lead over the comparison group by .58

points, respectively (.32 and 7.26), with significant F1, 333¼ 31.48, p5 .001 for Q3.

Finally, in the VASOL test period, a small advantage of .21 points also favored the

TTT group (7.09 for the non-TTT students and .12 for the TTT students), with a

significant F1, 333¼ 3.98, p¼ .047 for VASOL. MANCOVA was used to follow up

Figure 1. Mean Z scores by test periods and by groups

Note. Q1¼first quarterly test (end of first 1-week period of Algebra I instruction); Q2¼ second

quarterly test (end of second 10-week period of Algebra I instruction); Q3¼ third quarterly test

(end of third 10-week period of Algebra I instruction); SOL¼ end-of-course test, VASOL (end of

fourth 10 week period of Algebra I instruction)


the significant multivariate result. The interaction between TTT teacher preparation

and longitudinal Algebra I scores was significant (F1, 323¼ 32.33, p5 .001).

Findings

Current research shows that there is a significant relationship between teacher quality

and student achievement, even in studies using different units of analysis and

measures (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Miller

et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 2001, 2002). In an effort to isolate the effect of teacher

certification on the achievement of students who are the most at risk of educational

failure and the most likely to have noncertified teachers, this study investigated the

impact of teacher preparation on student achievement. Through individual teacher-

level analysis, the level of performance in Algebra I, as well as the achievement

growth, of students taught by 1st-year alternatively prepared teachers was compared

to that of 1st-year traditionally prepared counterparts employed by the same high-

need urban school division.

Descriptive statistics performed on individual teacher-level data indicated that the

students taught by the TTT teachers (experimental group) achieve in mathematics

Algebra I as well as or better than the students taught by the non-TTT teachers

(comparison group). Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the original test

scores and of the transformed Z scores showed that the experimental group achieved

less during the first Algebra I quarterly test (Q1), had higher test scores on average in

the second and third Algebra I quarterly tests (Q2 and Q3), and had more success in

the VASOL, as compared to the non-TTT students (comparison group).

Furthermore, data analysis using a 264 repeated measures ANOVA shows that the

average Algebra I test scores were significantly different between the two groups

(F1, 323¼ 32.33, p5 .001). Follow-up tests with MANCOVA indicate that the

achievement of TTT teachers’ students, when compared to the achievement of non-

TTT teachers’ students, was lower during the first test period and significantly higher

for both the second and third test periods, but also was slightly better in the end-of-

course assessment. There was a significant difference between the two groups with a

small advantage for the experimental group in the last test period (VASOL).

Discussion

The results of this study show that middle-school (MS) students achieved better than

the high-school (HS) students in all the Algebra I tests for both groups. According to

a senior staff person in the district, 90% of MS students passed the end of course

assessment in Algebra I, while only 70% of HS students passed in the 2003 – 2004

academic year (Personal communication, 2004), which is consistent with the VASOL

results. Even though the VASOL results by themselves do not answer the research

questions of this study, it is important to remark that, in general, MS students had a

higher rate of success, compared to the HS students, during the VASOL test period.

Indeed, the VASOL results of the study show that 97% of MS students passed


compared to 82% of HS students. In addition, the data indicate that 91% of the TTT

students passed the VASOL, while only 84% of the non-TTT students succeeded

(see Table 5).

Overall, Algebra I students of TTT teachers, compared to that of students taught

by the non-TTT teachers, did not perform as well during the first Algebra I quarterly

test period (Q1). The sudden reversal of tendency in algebra achievement between

Q1 and Q2 according to teacher training (while this tendency remained quite stable

afterwards) was striking. After lengthy debate, the researchers decided that this

pattern may be explained by the TTT teachers’ limited preservice clinical

experiences. For example, each non-TTT teacher had experienced a carefully

structured student teaching experience, whereas none of the TTT teachers had this

same experience. The results indicate that, in the second and third Algebra I quarterly

tests (Q2 and Q3), and during the end-of-course Algebra I test period (VASOL), the

experimental group outperformed the comparison group. Likewise, in the last test

period (VASOL), although there was only a small difference, the TTT students

achieved better than the non-TTT students.

Although considered a pilot study, an initial step that empirically investigated the

impact of type of teacher preparation on instructional practices and student

achievement, the methodological limitations were disclosed. The small number of

teachers (12) and students (150 to experimental group and 185 to comparison group)

and the specific nature of the TTT program in Virginia decreed that it was not

possible to generalize to a larger population. Furthermore, with the absence of

random teacher selection and random teacher assignment to either experimental or

comparison groups, the ability to generalize the findings of the study is also limited.

And, the researchers acknowledge that the most rigorous method to perform this

study would be to test the students of both groups before and after exposure to the

teachers. Otherwise, telling with precision the effect of teacher certification on

student achievement is limited. The researchers advocate that longitudinal research is

needed to track the students’ progress throughout their schooling to determine the

cumulative effects of teacher certification on students’ outcomes. Research that tracks

and matches students who are taught by the TTT teachers with their peers taught by

the non-TTT teachers, over a period of at least 3 years, would provide more

Table 5. SOL Results by grade level (middle school – Grades 7 & 8 and high school – Grade 9) and

group

TTT Non-TTT Total

Level P F P F P F

MS 62 3 41 0 103 3

HS 75 10 115 29 190 39

Total 137 13 156 29 293 42

Note. P¼ passed. F¼ failed.


information on the issue of the debate (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). The student attrition

rate was high (34%). And last, low validity coefficient correlations (.459, .583, and

.474, respectively, for Q1, Q2, and Q3) were unregistered for the Algebra I quarterly

tests. However, this was understandable because the quarterly tests are formative

measurements, while VASOL tests were summative measurements.

Conclusion

Recently, Guarino et al. (2006) attributed ‘‘insufficient and sometimes dwindling

resources’’ (p. 173) to the difficulty of realizing the dual goals of recruiting and

retaining effective teachers. Further, these researchers have claimed the current U.S.

economic conditions as the impetus for ‘‘many states to rollback their expenditures

on public education’’ (p.173). In response to burgeoning cutbacks, the educational

community and policy-makers have conducted urgent reviews to determine which

programs deserve local, state, and federal funds to raise the quality of teaching in the

‘‘most cost-effective manner’’ (p. 173). It is, therefore, of particular importance that

we turn to the broader question: Are nontraditional teacher preparation programs

a viable option for meeting the demands of the NCLB (2001) quality teacher

requirements? The findings of this study have important implications, as alternative

certification programs continue to afford a recruitment strategy to relieve teacher

shortages in particular subjects. The findings contradict some research that has

showed negative effects of alternative preparation programs on students’ performance

and indicate that the TTT students achieved better than the non-TTT students after

the first Algebra I quarterly test. Of course, the question remains whether the

particular training program studied here is similar to training programs that might be

used in other settings. Policy-makers, the public, and the educational community

should note that the results of this study support some recent large-scale empirical

studies that have suggested that well constructed and implemented alternative

certification programs can produce ‘highly qualified’ teachers, who have a positive

effect on students’ level of performance in mathematics (Humphrey & Wechsler,

2007).

Although the sample sizes of both the teacher and student participants were small

for this pilot study, the empirical findings indicate that nontraditional teacher

preparation programs are promising options for school districts to consider in the

effort to provide effective teachers for students in mathematics classrooms at the

middle-school and high-school levels. In relation to the retention plans/decisions of

the study participants, information revealed each TTT and non-TTT teacher

participants was offered, and accepted, a renewed contract for the following school

year and commenced teaching with the same school system in the next school year,

2004 – 2005. It should be noted that this information was accessed from the school

system’s human resources database, and although noted, it was not an issue that was

addressed in the research design. That stated, the researchers acknowledge that urban

school districts experience great difficulty in retaining beginning and certified

teachers, especially in mathematics. The findings do provide support for the potential


of alternative teacher preparation programs to provide highly qualified mathematics

teachers who can effectively enhance student achievement at least as well as grad-

uates of college-recommended programs. Importantly, research should explore the

research questions: Are these alternatively prepared teachers retained in their

originating, high-poverty and hard-to-staff schools? And, do they stay in teaching for

5 years or longer?

Nontraditional and alternative teacher preparation programs must ensure that

prospective teachers trained by these means have access to research-based knowledge

afforded to teachers prepared through traditional teacher preparation. Both school-

and university-based teacher educators must start from the same premise. If school

division – university partnerships are to produce highly skilled and effective non-

traditionally prepared teachers who afford authentic learning experiences for every

student, then that partnership’s alternate route to teacher certification preparation

should be standards-based and research-driven. Recently, Boyd et al. (2006) have

proposed that the distinction between alternative certification programs and

traditional programs are becoming increasingly blurred. There appears to be as

much difference between traditional preservice teacher preparation programs as there

is between alternative teacher programs and their counterpart graduate college-

recommended programs.

To conclude, recent empirical studies have led us to understand that nontraditional

teacher preparation programs with high standards for entry, rigorous coursework

requirements, and stringent evaluation standards appear to be in concert with

traditional teacher preparation programs (Humphrey & Weschler, 2002, 2005;

Decker et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2001). That stated, a ‘‘better’’ question for local

and state policy-makers to address is: What essential characteristics must be included

in any given teacher preparation program that enables a local educational agency to

meet its staffing needs with a diversified and highly effective teaching force? And,

given the current climate that demands key indicators of accountability measured by

standardized testing, research studies concerned with the impact of preservice teacher

preparation programs on student achievement gains in mathematics classrooms

might be conducted across more schools and grade levels.

Acknowledgement

This publication is supported by the Transition To Teaching federal grant funded

through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The opinions expressed herein do not

necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official

endorsement by the U.S Department of Education should be inferred.

Notes

1. In their study, Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) analyzed individual teacher-level data from NELS:

88, to explore 10th- and 12th-grade students’ gains in mathematics and science. The researchers

controlled for state licensing requirements, teacher undergraduate and graduate major, teacher

experience, and the student’s family background.


2. Through their reanalysis of the same dataset, NELS: 88, Darling-Hammond et al. (2001)

refuted claims by Goldhaber and Brewer (2000). Darling-Hammond et al. disputed the claims

based on the small sample size (only 24 science teachers and 34 mathematics teachers), and

highlighted the nonsignificance of the regression coefficients for emergency and temporary

certification in Goldhaber and Brewer’s model.

3. The present analysis did not include students’ class as a factor. Although teachers were

matched, classes were not, nor were the students. That is, if a teacher taught 35 students in two

Algebra I sections, the 35 students were combined into one group. Thus, although the study’s

design does not examine differences between individual classes of students, it does examine the

changes across these students over time and multiple dependent measures.

References

Adcock, E. P., & Hislop, B. (2004, April). NCLB – Teacher Report: Getting to the truth about the

ESEA Title 1 achievement gap. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. (2001). Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from

matched comparison on Jerusalem Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2),

343 – 369.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn

Institute for Employment Research.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1998). The case against teacher certification. The Public Interest, 132,

17 – 29.

Birkeland, S. E. (2003, April). Meeting the competing demands: The shifting approach to ensuring teacher

quality in one alternative certification program site. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Birkeland, S. E., & Peske, H. G. (2004). Review of literature on alternative certification. Retrieved

November 16, 2006, from http://www.teach-now.org

Boser, J. A., & Wiley, P. D. (1988). An alternative teacher preparation program: Is the Promise

fulfilled? Peabody Journal of Education, 65(2), 130 – 142.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006, April). How changes in entry

requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bressoux, P. (1996). The effects of teachers’ training on pupils’ achievement: The case of

elementary schools in France. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 252 – 279.

Bressoux, P., Kramarz, F., & Prost, C. (2006). Teachers training, class size, and student outcomes:

Evidence from third grade classes in France. Unpublished paper.

Brewer, D. J. (1996). Career paths and quit decision, evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor

Economics, 14(2), 313 – 339.

Chin, E., Young, J. W., & Floyd, B. D. (2004a, April). Reducing the shortage of teachers in

hard-to-staff schools: Do alternative teacher preparation programs make a difference? Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San

Diego, CA.

Chin, E., Young, J. W., & Floyd, B. D. (2004b, April). Understanding teacher development: A cultural-

historical approach to the study of teachers prepared through alternative certification programs. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San

Diego, CA.

Chin, E., Young, J. W., & Floyd, B. D. (2006, April). Reducing the shortage of teachers in hard-to-staff

schools: Do alternative teacher preparation programs make a difference? Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San

Francisco, CA.


Clewell, B. C., & Villegas, A. M. (1999). Creating a nontraditional pipeline for urban teachers: The

pathways to teaching careers models. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 306 – 317.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2003). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of

novice teachers. Durham, NC: Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University. Retrieved

August 16, 2006, from http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/ clotfelter/eer-novice12-03.

pdf

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher – student matching and the assessment of

teacher effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 11936). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education. (2002). Mathematics standards of Learning

curriculum framework: Algebra I. Retrieved June 28, 2004, from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/

vdoe/instruction/math/math_framework.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8),

12 – 17.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1999). Recruiting teachers for the 21st century: The

foundation for educational equity. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 254 – 279.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teaching certification matter?

Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57 – 77.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher

preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher

effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1 – 50.

Darling-Hammond., L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for educa-

tion: The right way to meet the ‘‘highly qualified’’ teacher challenge. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 11(33). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33

Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining ‘‘Highly Qualified Teachers’’: What does

scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13 – 25.

Decker, P., Mayer, D., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach For America on students: Findings

from a national evaluation. Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey.

Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.teacherforamerica.org/documents/mathematics_

results_6.9.04.pdf

Feistritzer, C. E. (1993). National overview of alternative teacher certification. Education and Urban

Society, 26(1), 18 – 28.

Feistritzer, C. E. (2003). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Information.

Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. T. (2006). Alternative teacher certification: A state by state analysis

2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Fideler, E. F., Foster, E., & Schwartz, S. (2000). The urban challenge: Teacher demand and supply in

the great City Schools. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

Floden, R., & Meniketti, M. (2006). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and science

and in the foundation of education. In Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Kenneth M. Zeichner

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel and research education research

(pp. 261 – 308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.

Fox, J. N. (1984). Restructuring the teacher workforce to attract the best and brightest. Journal of

Education Finance, 10, 214 – 237.

Gimbert, B. G., Cristol, D. S., Wallace, D., & Sene, A. M. (2005). A case study of a competency-

driven alternative route to teacher licensure in an urban ‘‘hard to staff’’ school system. Action

in Teacher Education, 27(1), 53 – 71.

Goldhaber, D. B., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher

certification and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2),

129 – 145.

Goldhaber, D. B., & Brewer, D. (2001). Evaluating the evidence on teacher certification: A

rejoinder. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 79 – 86.


Greenberg, E., Rhodes, D., Ye, X., & Stancavage, F. (2004, April). Prepared to teach: Teacher

preparation and student achievement in eighth-grade mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved August

15, 2006, from http://www.air.org/news_events/documents/AERA2004PreparedtoTeach.pdf

Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention:

A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173 – 208.

Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 12(42). Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n42/

v12n42.pdf

Guyton, E., Fox, M. C., & Sisk, K. A. (1991). Comparison of teaching attitudes, teacher efficacy,

and teacher performance of first year teachers prepared by alternative and traditional teacher

education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 39(4), 38 – 44.

Haberman, M. (1990). The rationale for training adults as teachers. In C. Sleeter (Ed.),

Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 275 – 286). Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Haberman, M. (1991). The dimensions of excellence in teacher education. Washington, DC: Office of

Governmental Affairs, USDE.

Haberman, M. (1999). Increasing the number of high-quality African American teachers in urban

schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 208 – 212.

Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic research.

Hawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journal of Teacher

Education, 36(3), 13 – 15.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools.

East Lansing, MI: Author.

Howard, T. (2003). Who receives the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S. teacher

shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 142 – 160.

Humphrey, D., & Wechsler, M. (2007). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a

national study. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 483 – 530.

Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, K., Bosetti, K., Wayne, A., & Adelaman, N. (2002). Alternative

certification: design for national study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of under qualified teachers in American secondary schools.

Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26 – 37.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499 – 534.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. School Administrator, 59(3), 42 – 43.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why some schools have more underqualified teachers than others.

In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2004 (pp. 45 – 88). Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/

faculty_research/docs/BPEP-RMI-2004.pdf

Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational

Leadership, 60(8), 30 – 33.

Kennedy, J. J., & Bush, A. J. (1985). An introduction to the design and analysis of experiments in

behavioral research. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Koneci, L., Pottorff, D., King, C., Lin, E., Armstrong, D., Pryor, S., Reiken, B., Collins, S.,

Melin, J., Shroyer, J., & Eikenberry, G. (2002). Teacher education for career changers. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Teacher Educators, Grand Rapids,

MI. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 463249).

Laczko-Kerr, I, & Berliner, D. C. (2003). In harm’s way: How under certified teachers hurt their

students. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 34 – 39.


Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools:

A descriptive analysis. Education Evaluation and policy Analysis 24(1), 37 – 62.

McCabe, M. (2004, April). The divergent paths of alternative teaching routes: Evidence of wide-ranging

variation in state alternative-route teacher education programs. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C., & McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and

traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 165 – 178.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and

student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125 – 145.

Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in

secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject matter preparation.

In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education

(pp. 29 – 58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1998). Reading report card for the nation and

states. Washington, DC: Author.

Natriello, G., & Zumwalt, K. (1993). New teachers for urban schools? The contribution

of the provisional teacher program in New Jersey. Education and Urban Society, 26(1),

49 – 62.

National Center Educational Statistics. (1997). Projections to 2007. Washington, DC: NCES.

Navarro, J. C., & Verdisco, A. (2000). Teacher training in Latin America: Innovations and trends.

Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

No Child Left Behind. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act, reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act. Retrieved on August 18, 2004 from http://www.nochildleftbehind.

gov

Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to

study the effects of teachers on student achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(10), 256 –

284.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student

academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and

Assessment Center.

Shen, J. (1997). Has the alternative certification policy materialized its promise? A comparison

between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in public schools. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 276 – 283.

Shen, J. (1998). Alternative certification, minority teachers, and urban education. Education and

Urban Society, 31(1), 30 – 41.

Stoddart, T. (1993). Who is prepared to teach in urban schools? Education and Urban Society, 26(1),

29 – 48.

Theobald, N. D., & Gritz, R. M. (1996). Allocating resources to influence teacher retention.

In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in

elementary and secondary schools (pp. 132 – 155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Transition To Teaching. (2004). Thinking about teaching middle or high school, but don’t have a

teaching license? Retrieved March 1, 2004, from http://nnschools.org

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy and Planning

and Innovations. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary’s annual

report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.

Virginia Department of Education. (1998). Virginia licensure regulations for school personnel.

Richmond, VA: Author.

Virginia Department of Education. (1999). Virginia standards of learning assessments: Standards of

learning (VASOL) tests validity and reliability information. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://

www.pen.k12.va.us/vdoe/assessment/validity.pdf

Virginia Department of Education. (2002). Virginia’s Implementation of No Child Left Behind

(NCLB). Retrieved April 20, 2005, from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/nclb


Walker, S. (2003). Let’s hold on to what we’ve got: A national commission on teaching and

America’s future report looks at the problem of teacher attrition. Virginia Journal of Education,

96(8), 11 – 15.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher

quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current

knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and

Policy.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s

view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190 – 204.


The impact of teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a “hard-to-staff” urban...

Documents

Transcript of The impact of teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a “hard-to-staff” urban...