Alternate Route Eligibility: Vermont
Expanding the Pool of Teachers Policy
Analysis of Vermont's policies
Vermont offers three alternate route programs: the Peer Review program, the Teacher Apprenticeship Program (TAP) and the Spark Teacher Education Institute.
Candidates in Vermont's Peer Review program must have at least a bachelor's
degree and a major in the subject they plan to teach, or a strong liberal arts
background if applying for elementary licensure. They must also take a basic skills
test, and candidates seeking initial licensure must take a subject-matter test,
which cannot be used to test out of content coursework requirements.
Teacher Apprenticeship Program (TAP) applicants must have a bachelor's degree with "a strong concentration in courses related to the educator endorsement being sought (typically 30 credits or equivalent for high school, 18 credits or equivalent for middle level)." Candidates must also show content knowledge through life and work experiences, although the program does not provide guidelines on what that entails. To graduate from the program, candidates must pass both the Praxis I and II.
Spark Teacher Education Institute program for teacher certification without a masters has no requirements for eligibility other than having a bachelor's degree. Spark Teacher Education Institute runs the Master's in Teaching for Social Justice (MATS) program, in partnership with Marlboro College; the MATS program only requires candidates to have a bachelor's degree and pass the Praxis CORE exam.
Recommendations for Vermont
Screen candidates for academic ability.
Vermont should require that candidates to its alternate
routes provide some evidence of good academic performance. A rigorous test appropriate for candidates who have already completed a bachelor's degree, such as the GRE, or a GPA of 3.0 or higher, would be appropriate to assess academic standing.
Require applicants to pass a subject-matter test for admission.
Candidates from all of Vermont's alternate route programs should be required to pass a subject-matter test for admission. The concept behind alternate routes is that the nontraditional candidate is able to concentrate on acquiring professional knowledge and skills because he or she has strong subject-area knowledge. Teachers without sufficient subject-matter knowledge place students at risk.
Offer flexibility in fulfilling coursework requirements.
Vermont should allow any candidate who already has the
requisite knowledge and skills to demonstrate such by passing a rigorous test.
Exacting coursework requirements could dissuade talented individuals who lack
precisely the right courses from pursuing a career in teaching.
Eliminate basic skills test requirement.
Vermont's requirement for Peer Review and Spark Teacher Institute program candidates to pass a basic skills test is impractical and ineffectual. Basic skills tests measure minimum competency—essentially those skills that a person should have acquired in middle school. Passage of a basic skills test provides no assurance that the candidate has the appropriate subject-matter knowledge needed for the classroom. A test designed for individuals who already have a bachelor's degree, such as the GRE, would be a much more appropriate measure of academic standing. The state should eliminate the basic skills test requirement or, at a minimum, accept the equivalent in SAT or ACT scores.
State response to our analysis
Vermont was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.
Vermont noted that for all of the state's alternate route programs, candidates must successfully pass the Praxis Core exam as an assessment of basic skills and have a B average for entrance, though there is some flexibility in the GPA requirement in unusual cases.
The state added that while requisite knowledge and skills are not assessed through a test, the completion of coursework is not necessarily required. The Peer Review program is an alternate route by which candidates can earn initial licensure through demonstration of competency gained through professional or other experience.
-
Vermont
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Alternate route
teachers need the advantage of a strong academic background.
The intent of alternate route programs is to provide a route
for those who already have strong subject-matter knowledge to enter the
profession, allowing them to focus on gaining the professional skills needed
for the classroom. This intent is based on the fact that academic caliber has
been shown to be a strong predictor of classroom success. Programs that admit
candidates with a weak grasp of both subject matter and professional knowledge
can put the new teacher in an impossible position, where he or she is much more
likely to experience failure and perpetuate high attrition rates.
Academic requirements
for admission to alternate routes should set a high bar.
Assessing a teacher candidate's college GPA and/or aptitude
scores can provide useful and reliable measures of academic caliber, provided
that the state does not set the floor too low. States should
limit teacher preparation to the top half of the college bound (or in the
case of alternate routes college graduate) population. GPA measures may be especially
useful for assessing elementary teacher qualifications, since elementary
teaching demands a broader body of knowledge that can be harder to define in
terms of specific tests or coursework. In terms of assessments, relying on basic skills tests designed for those without a college degree is ineffective for alternate route candidates. The most appropriate assessment for post-baccalaureate candidates may be the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE).
Multiple ways for
assessing subject-matter competency are needed to accommodate nontraditional
candidates.
Rigid coursework requirements can dissuade talented,
qualified individuals who lack precisely the "right" courses from
pursuing a career in teaching. States can maintain high standards by using
appropriate tests to allow individuals to prove their subject-matter knowledge.
For instance, an engineer who wishes to teach physics should face no coursework
obstacles as long as he or she can prove sufficient knowledge of physics on a
test. A good test with a sufficiently high passing score is certainly as
reliable as courses listed on a transcript, if not more so.
A testing exemption would also allow alternate routes to
recruit college graduates with strong liberal arts backgrounds to work as
elementary teachers, even if their transcripts fail to meet state requirements.
Alternate Route Eligibility: Supporting Research
For
evidence of the lack of selectivity among alternate route programs, see Alternative Certification Isn't Alternative (NCTQ, 2007).
There
is no shortage of research indicating the states and districts should pay more
attention to the academic ability of a teacher applicant. On the importance of
academic ability generally, see J. Carlisle, R. Correnti, G. Phelps, and J. Zeng. "Exploration of the Contribution of Teachers' Knowledge About Reading to their Students' Improvement in Reading." Reading
Writing, Volume 22, No. 4, April 2009, pp. 457-486; U.S. Department of Education, Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; S. Kukla-Acevedo, "Do Teacher Characteristics Matter? New Results on the Effects of Teacher Preparation on Student Achievement." Economics of Education
Review, Volume 28, No. 1, February 2009: pp. 49-57; M. Barber and M. Mourshed, How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. New York: McKinsey
& Company, September 2007; A.J. Wayne and P. Youngs, "Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review," Review of Educational
Research, Volume 73, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 89-122. See also G.J. Whitehurst,
"Scientifically based research on teacher quality: Research on teacher preparation and professional development," presented at the 2002 White
House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers; R. Ehrenberg and D. Brewer, "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s'? Coleman Revisited," Economics
of Education Review, Volume 14, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 1-21; R. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters," Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 28, Summer 1991, pp. 465-498; R. Ferguson and H. Ladd,
"How and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools," in Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education, ed. H. Ladd (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,1996, pp. 265-298; L. Hedges, R. Laine, and R. Greenwald, "An Exchange: Part I: Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student Outcomes", Educational Researcher,Volume 23, No. 3, April 1994, pp. 5-14; E. Hanushek, "Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation Using Micro Data," American Economic
Review,Volume 61, No. 2, May 1971, pp. 280-288; E. Hanushek, Education and Race: An Analysis of the Educational Production Process (Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath, 1972), 176 p.; E. Hanushek, "A More Complete Picture of School Resource Policies," Review of Educational Research, Volume 66, No. 3, Fall 1996, pp. 397-409; H. Levin, "Concepts of Economic Efficiency and Educational Production," in Education as an Industry, eds. J. Froomkin, D.
Jamison, and R. Radner (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976), pp. 149-198; D. Monk,
"Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement," Economics of Education Review, Volume 13, No. 2, June 1994, pp. 125-145; R. Murnane, "Understanding the Sources of Teaching Competence: Choices, Skills, and the Limits of Training," Teachers
College Record,Volume 84, No. 3, 1983, pp. 564-569; R. Murnane and B. Phillips, Effective
Teachers of Inner City Children: Who They Are and What Are They? (Princeton,
NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1978); R. Murnane and B. Phillips, "What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children Have in Common?" Social
Science Research, Volume 10, No. 1, March 1981, pp. 83-100; M. McLaughlin and D. Marsh,
"Staff Development and School Change," Teachers College
Record, Volume 80, No. 1,1978, pp. 69-94; R. Strauss and E. Sawyer, "Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies,"Economics of
Education Review, Volume 5, No.1, 1986, pp. 41-48; A. A. Summers and B.L. Wolfe,
"Which School Resources Help Learning? Efficiency and Equity in Philadelphia Public Schools," Business Review (Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, February 1975).
This
research is supported by other research showing that teachers from more
selective colleges are more effective at raising student achievement. See for
example, B. White, J. Presley, and K. DeAngelis, 2008, "Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois", Illinois Education Research Council, Policy Research Report: IERC 2008-1, 44 p.; A. Summers and B. Wolfe, "Do Schools Make a Difference?", American Economic Review, Volume 67, No. 4, September 1977, pp. 639-652.
Evidence
of the impact of college selectivity and academic ability on student
achievement is also found in studies of alternative programs such as Teach for
America and Teaching Fellows. For example,
P. Decker, D. Mayer, and S. Glazerman, "The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation." Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,2004. D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement." NBER Working Paper No. 11844,
December 2005; J. Constantine, D. Player, T. Silva, K. Hallgren, M. Grider, J. Deke, and E. Warner, "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report", February 2009, U.S. Department of Education, NCEE 2009-4043.
More
evidence is provided by research done on National Board certified teachers. In
fact, one study finds that the only measure that distinguishes them from their
non-certified peers was their higher scores on the SAT and ACT. See D.
Goldhaber, D. Perry, and E. Anthony, NBPTS certification: Who applies
and what factors are associated with success? Urban Institute, May 2003;
available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410656_NBPTSCertification.pdf.