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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Percent of Beginning Teachers Produced by Traditional Degree Programs and Alternative Programs by Teaching Area: 2003-04 (with 1-3 Years of Experience) Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES Column Percents % Teaching Area Demand: Total Teaching Force Traditional Degree Program Alternative Program Special Ed. 13 % 14 % 20 % a Voc/Business Ed 5 % 4 % 9 % a Mathematics 8 % 9 % 11 % b Science 6 % 5 % 9 % b Elementary Ed. 33 % 35 % 22 % c Arts/Music 7 % 6 % 3 % c All Other Subjects 28 % 27 % 25 % Total 100 % a Significantly greater than traditional degree program b Equivalent to traditional degree program c Significantly less than traditional degree program

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

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

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

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

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

19. Years of Teaching Experience Fully Certified Special Education Teachers By Years of Teaching Experience Source: 2003-04 SASS, NCES Fully-Certified Teachers Traditional Degree Programs Alternative Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Program Content GEFSEFGEMSEMFE∑ INT49.5 (0-180) 62 (0-270) 82.5 (0-240) 239 (112.5- 490) 216.4 (0-720) 643.6 (137.5- 1645) STP112.4 (0-240) 71.5 (30-112) 198.2 (144-270) 295.5 (144-432) 219.7 (74.7-480) 897.3 (528- 1392) DIS16.5 (0-45) 69.9 (0-135) 39.2 (0-144) 270.8 (84-515) 89.3 (0-432) 485.7 (144-947) LEA17.5 (9-23.5) 31.8 (10.5-45) 55.7 (20-84) 27.8 (0-45) 13.3 (0-40) 146.2 (80-223)

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

33. Program Content by Type

34. Program Length, % Preservice

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

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

37. Completers by Program Type

38. Starters and Finishers

39. Completion Rate

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

41. Average Cost by Program Type

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

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

44. Program Size and Cost

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

46. Program Length & Intensity INTDISSTPLEA Years to Completion 1.952.002.171.22 % Regular Faculty 33%53%42%0% Clock Hours 653489897146 Program Intensity (hours/year) 334.3242.9414.1119.5

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

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

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

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

51. Phase II: Graduate Survey Demographics Previous degrees and work experience Programs considered and chosen Program content, including practice teaching (from SASS) Sense of preparation (from SASS) Professional activity