Traditional vs. Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

A meta-analysis is presented of the academic achievement effects on students taught by teachers from alternative teacher preparation (ATP) programs, compared to students taught by teachers from traditional teacher preparation (TTP) programs. The literature has indicated mixed results on the student-level academic outcomes of ATP programs. Findings from this meta-analysis indicate an overall statistically significant, yet small, difference in ATP and TTP programs (g = 0.03; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.04, p = 0.001), with the mean achievement of students who had ATP teachers was about 0.03 standard deviations above that of students who had TTP teachers. Further, there were differences in student achievement by type of ATP program, school level, and academic subject area. These results, as well as implications for policy and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. * Identifies studies included in the meta-analysis.

  2. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. *Antecol, H., Eren, O., & Ozbeklik, S. (2013). The effect of Teach for America on the distribution of student achievement in primary school: evidence from a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review, 37, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ball, D.L., Hill, H.C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/65072/Ball_F05.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.

  5. Betts, J. R., Zau, A. C., & Rice, L. A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: new evidence from San Diego. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyd, D., Goldhaber, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17, 45–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. M., & Sindelar, P. T. (2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: challenges and solutions for rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 9–15. https://acres-sped.org/journal.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. *Clark, M.A., Isenberg, E., Liu, A.Y., Makowsky, L., Zukiewicz, M. (2015). Impacts of the Teach for America investing in innovations scale-up. (Ref #: 06889.740). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/education/tfa_investing_innovation.pdf.

  10. *Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: a cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2010.0023.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) [CMA; Computer Software] (2014) Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

  12. Constantine, J., Player, D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., & Deke, J. (2009). An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification (NCEE 20094043). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094043/pdf/20094044.pdf

  13. Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: a meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalton, S.S., & Henderson, A. (2015). HEA title II accountability: impact of alternative route teacher preparation. Paper presented at the 25th Annual National Association for Alternative Certification Route Teacher Preparation, Chicago, IL. https://alt-teachercert.org/HEA%20Title%20II%20.pdf

  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deeks, J. J., Dinnes, J., D’Amico, R., Sowden, A. J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., … European Trial Collaborative Group (2003). Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7(27), 1–173.

  19. Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], Text - S.1177 - 114th Congress (2015–2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text.

  20. Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112439894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gimbert, B., Bol, L., & Wallace, D. (2007). The influence of teacher preparation on student achievement and the application of national standards by teachers of mathematics in urban secondary schools. Education and Urban Society, 40, 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507303993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. *Gimbert, B., Cristol, D., & Sene, A. M. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a “hard-to-staff” urban preK–12–university partnership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18, 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450601147528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. *Glazerman, S., Mayer, D., & Decker, P. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: the impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. *Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737022002129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hedges, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: a review of the evidence. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center. Retrieved from National Education Policy Center website http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america.

  29. *Henry, G. T., Purtell, K. M., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Thompson, C. L., Campbell, S. L., & Patterson, K. M. (2014). The effects of teacher entry portals on student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113503871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Humphrey, D., & Wechsler, M. (2007). Insights into alternative certification: initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 109, 483–530. https://www.tcrecord.org

  33. Hutchison, L. F. (2012). Addressing the STEM teacher shortage in American schools: ways to recruit and retain effective STEM teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.729483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Losinski, M., Maag, J. W., Katsiyannis, A., & Parks Ennis, R. (2014). Examining the effects and quality of interventions based on the assessment of contextual variables: a meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 80, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mason-Williams, L. (2015). Unequal opportunities: a profile of the distribution of special education teachers. Exceptional Children, 81, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. *Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C., & McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487198049003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. National Education Association [NEA] (2015). Research spotlight on alternative routes to teacher certification. https://www.nea.org/tools/16578.htm.

  39. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

  40. *Nunnery, J., Kaplan, L., Owings, W. A., & Pribesh, S. (2009). The effects of troops to teachers on student achievement: one state’s study. NASSP Bulletin, 93, 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636509359338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD] (2015). Universal basic skills: what countries stand to gain. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264234833-en.

  43. *Piro, J. S., Shutt, T., & Stewart, G. (2010). Value added student achievement in alternative and traditional teacher preparation pathways. The Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 6(2), 1–8. https://jwpress.com/JLHE/JLHE.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. *Sharkey, N. S., & Goldhaber, D. (2008). Teacher licensure status and student achievement: lessons from private schools. Economics of Education Review, 27, 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shuls, J. V., & Trivitt, J. R. (2015). Teacher effectiveness: an analysis of licensure screens. Educational Policy, 29(4), 645–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813510777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Stronge & Associates (2013). Stronge teacher evaluation system: a validation report. Oshkosh, WI: Strong & Associates Educational Consulting, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.cesa6.org/effectiveness_project/Validation-Report-of-Stronge-Evaluation-System.pdf.

  48. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Teach for America [TFA] (2016). https://www.teachforamerica.org/.

  50. The White House (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act: a progress report on elementary and secondary education. Executive Office of the President (December). https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf.

  51. U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Census regions and divisions of the United States. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.

  52. U.S. Department of Education (2002). New No Child Left Behind. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/html/PLAW-107publ110.htm.

  53. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: the secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/2002title-ii-report.pdf.

  54. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2013). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers: the secretary’s ninth report on teacher quality. https://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport13.pdf.

  55. U.S. Department of Education, Race to the Top (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.

  56. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2012). Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wilson, D.B. (2011). Effect size calculation and basic meta-analysis. The Campbell Collaboration [Training video]. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org.

  58. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: an insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Document R-01-3. https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf.

  60. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

  61. *Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of Teach for America in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zhang, D., Wang, Q., Losinski, M., & Katsiyannis, A. (2014). An examination of preservice teachers’ intentions to pursue careers in special education. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113510743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise K. Whitford.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whitford, D.K., Zhang, D. & Katsiyannis, A. Traditional vs. Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs: A Meta-Analysis. J Child Fam Stud 27, 671–685 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0932-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Teacher preparation
  • Traditional
  • Alternative
  • Student academic achievement