Comparing Alternative and Traditional Teacher Certification Programs

Today, the National Research Council released a report titled “Preparing Teachers:Building Evidence for Sound Policy.” According to Ed Week, the report concludes that current evidence does not suggest that teachers who participate in alternative training pathways like Teach for America are any more or less effective than those who attend traditional training programs. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that alternative certification programs are no better or worse than traditional ones. It means that we don’t know enough about those programs or the teachers they produce to make a definitive call either way. As we look forward to the reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other federal education programs, we need to consider ways to better understand these programs and support those that are most successful.

According to the study, current research on teacher training programs shows that there is no significant difference in teacher quality between the two program types. The writers note that their conclusion does, however, come with a major qualification: good research on these teacher programs is hard to come by and not as rigorous as it could be. With better data, the study suggests, we could potentially find significant differences between teachers from different training pathways.

Assuming all alternative certification programs are the same, and therefore can be compared to traditional programs as a group, is questionable too. Sometimes differences among alternative certification programs are as great as differences between alternative and traditional programs. Without the data to hone in on these differences, we cannot properly assess what aspects of various programs are and are not working. Once we can identify those successful aspects, we can build ever better teacher training programs, whether they are alternative or traditional (or even eliminate the need for such a distinction). In the end, the point of teacher training is not about the struggle between alternative and traditional routes, but about training good teachers.

These findings have significant implications for federal teacher programs as Congress begins reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Obama Administration proposed creating a $405 million competitive grant program called Teacher and Leader Pathways that would lump together all existing funding for teacher training programs and nearly triple funding available for such programs. This proposed change has caused significant concern in the alternative certification world because it would eliminate line items in the budget for programs like Teach for America (TFA received $18 million in federal support in 2010) and require them to participate in the competitive grant process.

But moving to a competitive grant system has many pluses. First, successful programs like TFA could end up with significantly larger grants than they would have received under the old system, allowing them to expand or scale up as necessary. At the same time, the Department of Education could invest significant funds in various types of alternative certification programs based on the quality of their applications and previous records of success and collect ample data on the characteristics of these programs, their participants, and the outcomes they produce. Over time, the Department could use this data to better target and invest the competitive funds into those programs that show the best outcomes.

The report also emphasizes the importance of overall data collection to the future of education. Currently, almost every state has the capacity to collect longitudinal student outcome data for accountability purposes. But just a few states can track their teachers over time, beginning with their graduation from training programs and following them to different schools and subject areas. Statewide Data Systems, a federal grant program, provides competitive grants to states to help build and implement their longitudinal data systems. Thus far, the focus of these grants has been on student data including standardized test scores and demographics. But over time, this focus should shift to including teachers in these longitudinal systems so states can better assess how their traditional and alternative certification programs are serving their schools and their students.

It’s no surprise that current research on alternative and traditional certification programs is somewhat lacking. But it is surprising that we can’t claim to know any more about the variations in the quality of these programs than we did five years ago. With the right research and some strategic funding, however, we can grow this knowledge and start making some definitive statements about teacher training.