Janna SIEGEL ROBERTSON, Ph. D. Do Alternatively Prepared Special Education Teachers Stay on the Job? (How Should We Evaluate Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs?) Janna SIEGEL ROBERTSON, Ph. D.

Janna Siegel Robertson, Ph. D. Jacques Singleton, Ed. D. Comparison of Traditional Versus Alternative Preparation of Special Education Teachers Janna Siegel Robertson, Ph. D. Jacques Singleton, Ed. D.

Overview The shortage of special education teachers has prompted the creation of alternative certification programs. The effectiveness of the University of Memphis’ (U of M’s) 14 year alternative Special Education Institute program in preparing teachers to teach and remain in the field was examined. The program was compared to the U of M’s traditional certification program.

Method During Spring 2009 data was collected through information obtained from the U of M’s College of Education’s data base and information from four local school districts about the current employment of special education teachers. The number of program graduates from the traditional and alternative programs were compared for longevity. The results give support that alternative programs do lead to additional employment and teachers were retained for several years.

Numbers of U of M Special Education Teachers Employed by Four Local Public School Districts (N=373) _______________________________________________________ Total Employed n n (%) __________________________________________ Alternative Program 183 92 (50.27) Traditional Program 190 63 (33.15) _________________________________________________________

Numbers of U of M Special Education Teachers Employed by Four Local Public School Districts by Year (N=373) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Years Alternative Traditional since total employed total employed Graduation (n=183) (n=92) (n=190) (n=63) ________________________________________________________________ 1 10 4 9 5 2 15 14 14 9 3 20 12 5 3 4 23 14 10 5 5 25 16 12 7 6 22 11 6 4 7 9 5 23 3 8 3 1 13 3 9 12 6 11 4 10 13 4 17 2 11 6 3 16 5 12 7 0 16 1 13 9 1 18 7 14 9 1 20 5 _______________________________________________________________

Alternative and Traditional Program Graduates Length of Employment _________________________________________ M SD Sig. Alternative Program 5.11 2.84 .0028* Traditional Program 7.00 4.34 ________________________________________________ * p ≤ .05

Gender (N = 373) __________________________________________________ Domain Total Employed n n (%) Alternatively Certified (N=183) Males 37 27 (72.79) Females 146 55 (37.67) Traditionally Certified (N=190) Males 13 6 (46.15) Females 177 57 (32. 20)

Ethnicity (N = 373) _________________________________________________ Total Employed Domain n n (%) __________________________________________________ Alternative (n=183) African American 72 43 (59.72) White 109 48 (44.04) Native 1 1 (100) Asian 1 0 (0) Traditional (n=190) African American 42 21 (50.00) White 144 41 (28.47) Hispanic 3 0 (0)

Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs Research State Reports http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/

Research on California Alternative Programs Fact sheet http://www.cateachercorps.org/downloads/ california_teacher_corps_fact_sheet.pdf Data http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/Alternative- Pathway-2008-2009.pdf

California Education Specialist District Intern Program Moderate/Severe Disabilities and Early Childhood Disabilities http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/Intern-Expansion-2009.pdf Mild Disabilities http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/Intern-Study-Report-to-Legislature- 2007.pdf Do the programs help meet the shortages of Special Education Specialists in California’s classrooms? Are there any differences among those who enter classrooms through this route compared to more traditional student teaching routes? Do the teacher preparation programs meet the needs of partnering districts? Have these programs been able to develop instructional and support systems that meet the needs of their clients/candidates? Do the programs who participated in this pilot program have the capacity to prepare and support high quality teachers for students with special needs?

What is coming. . . and is already here . . . Race to the Top Value Added Teacher Preparation Programs will be evaluated by the Value Added of their programs to the student’s progress. California’s Report Card for Teacher Preparation Programs http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TitleII_2008- 2009_AnnualRpt.pdf Tennessee's Report Card for Teacher Preparation Programs http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/Teacher%20Report%20C ard%202010/Report%20Summary.pdf

SO WHAT? Teacher preparation programs should used evidenced based practices and evaluate their own instructional practices Alternative teacher preparation programs are not necessarily better or worse Alternative teacher preparation programs should improve teacher preparation, not just be as good as traditional teacher preparation The measure of an effective teacher preparation program is how well the students perform who were taught by the program’s graduates

Janna Siegel Robertson Ph. D. robertsonj@uncw.edu