Effects of traditional and alternative teacher certification on student achievement

Effects of Traditional vs. Alternative Teacher Certification on Student Achievement
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Enhancing student achievement remains a matter of concern in the education context. Indeed, it is a topic that has increasingly attracted the attention of scholars and policymakers in the U.S., especially in the wake of concerns such as poor student outcomes, teacher attrition, diminishing enrolment into teacher preparation programs, as well as teaching workforce ageing (Mueller, 2012). Improving the quality of the teaching workforce has been identified as crucial for enhancing student achievement (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2012), with research demonstrating the association between quality teaching and student outcomes (Adnot et al., 2017; Jang & Horn, 2017; Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy, 2014). In this regard, there has been increased focus on teacher preparation and certification programs (Sindelar et al., 2014; Townsend, 2014). Policymakers, taxpayers, employers, school administrations, and parents demand that teachers be equipped with skills and knowledge that make their competence outstanding not only in the U.S., but also globally.
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of extant literature on teacher certification. First, a definition of teacher preparation is offered. Next, the theoretical framework is described, specifically focusing on Shuman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge. Attention is then paid to education reforms (professionalization versus deregulation), traditional teacher certification, alternative teacher certification, and non-certified teachers (paraprofessionals). The review also focuses on the link between teacher certification (certified vs. non-certified teachers) and student achievement, the link between traditional versus alternative teacher certification and student achievement, as well as the measurement of teacher quality using value added models. Finally, a summary of the review is provided, clearly identifying gaps in literature.
Defining Teacher Certification/Preparation
Teacher certification is the process of preparing teachers for the teaching profession (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Also referred to as teacher preparation, teacher certification denotes “a state-approved course of study, the completion of which signifies that an enrollee has met all the state’s education or training requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in the state’s elementary or secondary schools” (Jang & Horn, 2017, p.1). The aim of teacher certification is to ensure high quality teaching, which is a crucial ingredient of enhanced student learning. Teacher certification programs seek to churn out teachers who can effectively teach students with diverse needs, teachers with proven pedagogical skills, and teachers with the ability to deliver subject matter in a manner understandable to students (Waddell & Vartuli, 2015). The programs are designed to equip prospective teachers with the skills, knowledge, and experiences necessary for providing effective learning to students (Kent & Giles, 2016).
In the U.S., teacher certification requirements differ from state to state since education is ran by state governments as opposed to the federal government. Even so, the process of certification generally entails accomplishing a bachelor’s degree on the minimum, completing a state-approved teacher education program, passing skill and knowledge tests, as well as satisfying the requirements for a background check (Townsend, 2014). This is the conventional path to certification, although certification may be achieved through alternative routes (Jang & Horn, 2017).
Theoretical Framework: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
A major question with respect to teacher preparation relates to what teacher preparation programs should focus on. Lee Shuman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) answers this question. According to the model, teacher preparation programs should focus on both pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge (Fan, 2014). Teachers’ understanding of both knowledge areas is crucial to student achievement. Shuman developed the model in 1986 with a view to enhancing teacher preparation and student learning. Content knowledge basically refers to teachers’ knowledge of subject matter, while pedagogical knowledge denotes teachers’ general knowledge of instructional techniques (Major, 2015). PCK represents a much broader focus of teacher preparation. It is a form of knowledge that integrates subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In other words, PCK is a form of knowledge which “integrates the content knowledge of a specific subject and the pedagogical knowledge for teaching that particular subject” (OECD, 2012, p. 5). Based on the framework, there has been a shift from the generic teacher preparation approach that has been dominant in the education field for decades to an approach that places emphasis on the intersection of content and pedagogy (Juttner et al., 2013).
PCK is what distinguishes a science educator from a scientist, for instance. The difference between a science educator and a scientist stems from how they organize and use subject matter knowledge (Incikabi & Tokmak, 2013). For a science teacher, the organization of science knowledge is based on the teaching perspective and that knowledge is utilized for enhancing students’ understanding of science concepts. For a scientist, however, the organization of science knowledge is based on the research perspective and that knowledge is used for scientific inquiry or generating new knowledge. Essentially, as per the PCK perspective, teacher preparation emphasizes not only subject matter knowledge, but also how that knowledge can be most appropriately presented to the student to facilitate learning (Fan, 2014).
Shuman’s original model has made significant contributions to teaching and learning, specifically by emphasizing the significance of integrating general pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge. Nonetheless, the original model had some limitations. For instance, the original model did not consider the implications of the learning context and student characteristics on teaching and learning. In view of this limitation, Shuman expanded his model in 1987, to include seven knowledge areas: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of student characteristics, knowledge of the learning contents, and knowledge of educational purpose, values, and philosophy (Fan, 2014). The reviewed model provided a better understanding of the knowledge development process in teachers.
Other scholars have also emphasized environmental and student characteristics as important knowledge areas for teachers. In 1993, for instance, Kathryn F. Cochran and her colleagues revised the model to make it more consistent with the constructivist approach to learning (Philpott, 2014). They developed a PCK model that integrates two more components in addition to content and pedagogical knowledge. One component relates to student characteristics, especially with respect to age, development level, learning ability, learning strategies, motivation and attitudes towards learning, as well as previous knowledge of subject matter. The second component relates to the physical, social, cultural, and political environment in which learning occurs. As per Cochran and her colleagues, teachers’ knowledge of these areas is important (Philpott, 2014). Knowledge of the four components facilitates a broader understanding of pedagogical content knowledge. Since then, there have been further developments to the concept of PCK (Fan, 2014; Incikabi & Tokmak, 2013). The overarching position in these models is that PCK development is driven by several factors, including the teacher’s background, the teacher’s everyday teaching experiences, the learning context, as well as students’ experiences and attributes.
The work of Shuman and other scholars suggests that the development of pedagogical content knowledge is a process – it occurs over time as the teacher gains more experience (Fan, 2014). During the teaching process, the teacher transforms their knowledge of content for teaching purposes. The transformation takes place as the educator interprets and reflects on subject matter knowledge, presents the knowledge to learners using multiple techniques, and adapts the knowledge to students’ characteristics. Based on this perspective, it is evident that the development of teacher knowledge is a complex process – a process that encompasses comprehending underlying processes such as the teaching and learning process, the dissemination of knowledge to students, and the knowledge construction process.
Some theoretical frameworks view learning as the process of transforming the student’s knowledge or learning experience by changing the learning environment. For instance, teachers may enhance the learning experience by employing mind-stimulating instructional techniques such as technological tools (Incikabi & Tokmak, 2013). Teachers may also improve the learning experience by fostering collaborative and problem-based learning. Such techniques change how students construct knowledge or understand concepts, thereby facilitating improved learning. Other models view the teaching and learning process from the perspective of the student, especially with respect to the contribution or involvement of the student in the learning process (Karatas et al., 2017). Indeed, most contemporary learning approaches emphasize greater participation of the student in the learning process (Townsend, 2014). This view transforms the roles of both the teacher and the student in the teaching and process. The teacher becomes a facilitator of learning as opposed to a mere lecturer, while the student becomes an active participant in the learning process as opposed to a mere listener.
The relevance of PCK especially originates from the changing needs of students. It is now imperative to equip students with skills that are appropriate for the 21st century, such as problem solving, analytical, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration skills (OECD, 2012). These demands warrant a different approach in how the teaching workforce is prepared. Educators must be able to tailor learning into modern standards, which calls for a comprehensive understanding of subject matter knowledge. Besides academic and professional knowledge, teachers must be keen on practical experiences, experiential learning, affective and motivational drivers of learning, general pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, as well as pedagogical content knowledge (Merk, et al., 2017). With such knowledge, teachers are better placed to help students construct knowledge and relate classroom concepts with the real world.
Research has demonstrated that teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge can positively affect students’ learning outcomes compared to content knowledge or pedagogical knowledge alone. For example, in their study of 158 biology teachers in Germany, Juttner et al. (2013) show that measuring teachers’ competence based on PCK principles can positively influence student learning. Similar findings have been reported elsewhere (Karatas et al., 2017; Merk, et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the link between PCK and student learning is a relatively new area of research, hence the need for more research.
Education Reforms
Before the 1950s, the federal government was not closely involved in teacher preparation (Schuster, 2012). With increased government financing over time, however, the involvement increased. The involvement was especially driven by a report published by UNESCO in 1966 calling upon governments to recognize teaching as a profession (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). The UNESCO report led to shifts in teacher education, particularly from a policy perspective. Ever since, policymakers throughout the world have paid greater attention to teaching professionalization. Tons of education reform reports have strongly emphasized the need for reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure quality teaching (Waddell & Vartuli, 2015). As explained by Mueller (2012), effective education reform must ensure “well-prepared, skilled teachers” (p. 1).
While there is general consensus that quality teaching is integral to student learning, there have been two conflicting views on how to produce quality teachers. These conflicting perspectives have led to divergent education reform agendas, with one side advocating for professionalization and the other one advocating for deregulation. From the professionalization perspective, teaching is similar to other professions such as medicine and law, hence the need for professional certification (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). This perspective advocates for formal education, fulfillment of rigorous teaching requirements, undergraduate or post-baccalaureate training, teacher preparation programs, and professional development. In the U.S., many states have teaching certification systems requiring teachers to fulfill a series of requirements, with bodies such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) supporting increased teaching requirements.
The introduction of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 particularly marked tremendous shifts in teacher certification in the U.S. The legislation introduced tougher requirements for candidates wishing to teach core subjects (Monk, 2015), and required teachers to be “highly qualified” (Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011, p. 390). More specifically, the legislation required teachers to have an undergraduate degree on the minimum, state certification, and competence in subject matter. Only teachers with those qualifications would be hired by state governments. Teachers were required to become “highly qualified” by 2006 (Schuster, 2012), but little had been achieved by the end of the set deadline (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Even so, the legislation marked an instrumental step in the push for the professionalization of teaching. By raising requirements for teaching, the legislation would presumably end the employment of non-certified or under-qualified teachers in public schools.
Nonetheless, the legislation mainly emphasized subject matter knowledge and introduced constraints in teacher certification (Townsend, 2014). This was one of the major shortcomings of the legislation. By emphasizing subject matter knowledge, the NCLB gave little attention to pedagogy and curriculum. This resulted in a narrower view of teaching accountability in which teaching effectiveness was measured by the ability to pass tests as opposed to more meaningful aspects such as teacher characteristics. Schuster (2012) also criticizes NCLB’s attention to content knowledge, pre-service tests, and experience, contending that such measures are not necessarily useful indicators of teaching quality. Another shortcoming of the NCLB stemmed from the fact that it empowered higher learning institutions to be accountable for their graduates’ test score, an aspect that eventually widened inequality (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). In the end, NCLB critics turned out to be right as the legislation was replaced in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The deregulation perspective on the other hand equates teaching with occupations like journalism, hence no need for professional certification (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). This perspective advocates for lesser teaching coursework requirements, lower barriers to entry to the teaching profession, alternative teaching licensure, more emphasis on content knowledge as opposed to teaching coursework, and greater flexibility in hiring teachers. Proponents of deregulation basically advocate for self-regulation (Townsend, 2014). Self-regulation means little involvement of state governments in teacher preparation. Under self regulation, governance of the profession would be done by bodies with membership drawn from the profession. This approach has been used in countries such as Scotland and Canada (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012).
For deregulation proponents, the most crucial factors that influence student achievement are factors that have to do with teachers (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Based on this premise, proponents argue, the focus of policy should be more on luring and retaining candidates with certain characteristics and candidates who can work in certain schools as opposed to qualification requirements that have little to do with teaching effectiveness. In a self-regulatory system, attention is paid to getting the right individuals for the teaching profession, developing the individuals into effective teachers, and ensuring every student has access to competent instruction. Proponents of deregulation hold the view that achieving this under the professionalization perspective is quite difficult (Townsend, 2014). Indeed, as noticeable in other professions, a substantial portion of training occurs in real-world contexts. Following from this argument, individuals with teaching talent can learn teaching skills on the job (in a real-life teaching setting). This perspective has formed the basis for alternative certification paths (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). On the whole, education reform within the context of teacher certification has degenerated into a debate of professionalization versus deregulation, with proponents of professionalization on one hand advocating for traditional certification and proponents of deregulation on the other hand advocating for alternative certification.
Traditional Certification
Prior to joining the teaching profession, one must be awarded a teaching certificate or license by the state. Traditionally, teacher certification programs are administered by colleges and universities (Townsend, 2014). Some programs, however, are administered by school districts or non-profit organizations. Regardless of where it is provided, a teacher certification program is aimed at equipping pre-service teachers with the skills and knowledge required to effectively plan lessons, instruct students, manage student behavior, and to evaluate student performance (Schuster, 2012).
In traditional teacher certification, candidates first earn a bachelor’s education degree at a state-approved college or university (Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy, 2014). The candidate chooses a major based on the candidate’s preference for subject or grade level. For example, a candidate who desires to teach preschool to 5th grade students should major in elementary education, whereas a candidate wishing to teach at the high school level should major in their preferred subject (e.g. science, math, or history). After completing undergraduate education, the candidate undertakes a teacher preparation program – a program whose aim is to complement the major pursued in college. The teacher preparation program may be pursued alongside the undergraduate degree or upon finishing the degree. The next step involves an internship. Though internship periods vary one state to another, candidates are generally required to undertake at least 15 weeks of practical teaching (Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017).
The internship is followed by a series of Praxis tests. Typically, candidates are required to pass three Praxis tests (Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017). One of the tests is the Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators. This test is designed to evaluate a candidate’s reading, writing, and math skills. Another test is the Praxis Subject Assessments test, which is designed to assess a candidate’s general teaching skills as well as their knowledge of the subject they wish to teach. The third test is the Praxis Content Knowledge for Teaching Assessments test. The purpose of this test is to appraise the candidate’s knowledge of specialized content and how effectively the candidate can apply the knowledge in real world practice. After passing these tests, one can then apply for certification (Jang & Horn, 2017). Candidates’ criminal history must also be examined before a teaching license is finally awarded.
Advocates of traditional certification argue that formal certification programs take potential teachers through wide-ranging training that focus on not only subject matter knowledge, but also other equally critical areas such as pedagogy and child development (Brinkman, 2014). This intensive preparation is intended to produce highly qualified teachers, which ultimately influences student achievement. Nonetheless, traditional certification programs are not without limitations. For instance, traditional certification programs have been criticized for locking out talented individuals from the teaching profession, hence aggravating challenges such as teaching workforce shortages (Kim, 2015; Mueller, 2012). Increased criticism of traditional certification has seen the emergence of alternative certification.
Alternative Certification
Alternative programs have emerged over time to help candidates who did not undertake the traditional path earn a teaching certificate (Townsend, 2014). Many states in the U.S. recognize these programs (Jang & Horn, 2017). Alternative programs are mainly targeted at retired military service members, volunteers affiliated to non-profit organizations such as Teach for America (TFA), as well as programs administered by school districts, individual schools, private entities, and community colleges. For instance, TFA volunteers have an opportunity to acquire certification while gaining practical classroom experience. TFA is one most renowned alternative teacher certification programs in the U.S. The program is a countrywide initiative through which individuals with a passion for teaching are recruited to teach in underserved schools in both rural and urban areas, and gain certification after a period of time (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). While some programs are countrywide, others are regional. Under regional programs such as the NYC Teaching Fellows program, candidates are recruited to teach in school districts as they gain certification (Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017).
TFA and the NYC Teaching Fellows are just a few of the many alternative teacher certification programs available in the U.S. Other examples include iteachTEXAs (in Texas), Teach Kentucky (in Lousiville), Mississippi Teacher Corps (in Mississippi), The New teacher Project, as well as emergency certification programs (Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011; Jang & Horn, 2017). On the whole, an important objective of alternative teacher certification programs is to bring passionate, motivated, and talented individuals into the classroom.
For candidates undertaking alternative programs, most states allow for application for a temporary teaching certificate (Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017). Candidates use the interim license to practice while they fulfill the requirements for teaching. Upon completing the teacher preparation program, candidates are then required to pass the applicable exams (Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy, 2014). Irrespective of the certification route taken, one must apply for a teaching certificate upon fulfilling all the stipulated requirements. Also, one must satisfy background checks. Additionally, the certificate must be renewed periodically. Certification renewal requires continuing education, where teachers undertake general education, subject-specific, coursework, or graduate-level courses.
Alternative certification routes have gained prominence in the last two decades. By 2009, the number of alternative teaching certifications surpassed 59,000, an overwhelming growth from just 275 in 1984 (Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011). Today, the figure is much higher given that more alternative certification programs have emerged. Alternative certification programs now account for approximately 20% of the entire teaching workforce in the U.S. (Mueller, 2012). This translates to more than 600,000 teachers. The emergence of alternative certification has largely been influenced by the shortcomings inherent in the traditional system of teacher certification. A major advantage of alternative teacher certification compared to traditional certification is that the former attracts a broader variety of candidates to the teaching profession by removing pre-service teaching coursework requirements and accelerating entry into paid teaching (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). This benefits schools by producing a teaching workforce that more closely resonates with the racial and cultural characteristics of the student population (Gordon, 2014). An even more sensible rationale for alternative teacher certification is that it attracts individuals with not only an undergraduate degree, but also the passion for teaching (Sindelar et al., 2014).
In addition, alternative teacher certification programs have been useful in addressing the shortage of teachers in certain subjects (e.g. mathematics, science, and special education) and schools (e.g. schools in disadvantaged locations) (Childre, 2014; Gordon, 2014; Koehler et al., 2013). The U.S. continues grappling with a significant shortage of educators, in large part due to teacher attrition and increased exit of the baby-boomer population from the workforce (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). This has resulted in imbalances between supply and demand, consequently compelling some school districts to look for alternatives. Alternative teacher certification offers a better solution for this imbalance compared to the use of emergency certifications. Furthermore, as alternative routes do not require several qualifications, underserved schools have access to a large pool from which they can draw valuable talent. This places underserved schools in a better position to meet the learning needs of their students (Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011).
Legal developments have also contributed to the growth of alternative teacher certification programs. The Renee v. Duncan case is an ideal example. NCLB provisions defined a highly qualified teacher as a teacher with state certification, an undergraduate degree on the least, and proven knowledge of subject matter. In a case that sought to challenge the designation of interns as highly qualified teachers, the Ninth Circuit ruled that teachers who had not completed state certification could not be regarded as highly qualified as doing so would defeat the intentions of NCLB (Schuster, 2012). However, Congress overruled the judgment, directing that teachers in alternative certification programs are also highly qualified. While the resolution of Congress has caused intense contention over what it means to be highly qualified, the directive has without a doubt added momentum to the acknowledgement of alternative teacher certification programs.
In spite of its growth, alternative certification has been the subject of intense criticism from proponents of traditional certification. It has been argued that alternative certification programs do not adequately prepare teachers for the demands of the teaching and learning environment (Mueller, 2012). More specifically, critics have asserted that having subject matter knowledge does not necessarily mean that one can effectively transfer that knowledge to a student, hence the importance of formal certification (Brinkman, 2014). There is also the argument that hiring alternatively certified teachers widens already existing inequalities with respect to the allocation of highly qualified teachers (Kim, 2015). Further attention to the merits and demerits of both routes to teacher certification and their impact on student achievement are addressed in succeeding sections of this chapter.
Non-Certified Teachers
Joining the teaching profession requires either traditional certification or alternative certification. Nonetheless, one can as well obtain a teaching job without certification. Teaching without certification gives one classroom experience prior to formal certification (Townsend, 2014). With or without the supervision of certified teachers, teaching aides – also known as paraprofessionals or paraeducators – assist teachers in fulfilling their teaching duties (Konza & Fried, 2012). This may involve assisting in general class work or helping with special needs students. Teaching aides may also be involved in providing behavioral support as well as clerical and administrative responsibilities (Shultz et al., 2015).
Candidates can teach without certification by seeking teaching assistant positions in public schools (Teacher Certification Degrees, 2017). Teaching positions that do not require certifications may also be found in private schools and foreign countries. Non-public and charter schools in the U.S. as well as schools in many countries across the globe do not have the same certification requirements as public schools. Pursuing teaching positions in these settings can offer a stepping stone for entering the teaching profession without formal certification (Shultz et al., 2015). Though teaching aides are not required to have certification, they should have either high school or associate degree qualifications.
Certified vs. Non-certified Teachers and Student Achievement
Whether teacher certification enhances student achievement remains a highly debatable matter. As explained by Monk (2015), the question of what predicts teaching effectiveness is yet to be clearly answered. Are certified teachers more effective than non-certified teachers? Are traditionally certified teachers more effective teachers than alternatively certified teachers? These are fundamental questions that require more straightforward answers if teaching quality is to be improved. In a literacy improvement project involving four education assistants permanently employed at a junior primary school in an Australian city, Konza & Fried (2012) found that using the aides improved the reading skills of three students who were struggling with reading at the school. A systematic review of literature on the effectiveness of paraprofessionals reports similar findings (Brock & Carter, 2013). The review, which included 13 experimental studies, demonstrates that if adequately trained, paraprofessionals have the potential to employ educational practices that can positively influence academic and social skills in students with intellectual and development disabilities. More specifically, the review shows that using paraprofessionals can successfully help teachers enhance communication skills, address problematic behaviors, and improve independence in students with special needs. The experimental nature of the studies included in the review certainly strengthens the findings of the review.
Shultz et al.’s (2015) study, however, reports conflicting findings. The study, a statewide survey involving 3,385 educators in Vermont, specifically found that the density of paraprofessionals correlated negatively with reading achievement, with the correlation being strongest at elementary and middle school levels. Nonetheless, the study found a positive association between the density of paraprofessionals and students’ behavioral outcomes. In other words, as the study found, while the use of paraprofessionals may lead to reduced behavioral incidents in school, it may negatively affect academic outcomes. This underscores the significance of hiring certified teachers. Certified teachers are trained on a wide variety of topics, such as subject matter, classroom management, and child development, making them more effective teachers compared to non-certified teachers (Mueller, 2012; Townsend, 2014).
Indeed, the value of certified teachers is strongly supported by literature (Adnot et al., 2017; Kim, 2015; Mueller, 2012). For example, in their quasi-experimental study involving public schools in the District of Columbia, Adnot et al. (2017) found that replacing low-performing teachers with high-performing teachers significantly improved student achievement. Though it is not clear from the study whether low-performing teachers were teachers without certification or high-performing teachers were teachers with certification, the study demonstrates the connection between teacher quality and student achievement.
On the whole, there is some empirical support for the use of non-certified teachers in improving student learning. Therefore, rather than restricting paraprofessionals to just clerical and administrative duties, schools can take advantage of paraprofessionals to improve student achievement, especially in students with unique learning needs. However, research on the effectiveness of paraprofessionals has a number of limitations. First, there is still inadequate empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in enhancing student learning, with some studies (e.g. Shultz et al., 2015) linking the use of paraprofessionals to negative student achievement. Second, it is not exactly clear what roles paraprofessionals should be involved in, and what roles produce the greatest impact on student achievement. This ambiguity means that schools may not clearly understand how to appropriately utilize paraprofessionals. Most importantly, the research does not offer comparisons of the effectiveness of certified teachers versus non-certified teachers. It is still quite difficult to tell if there are significant differences across certified and non-certified teachers with respect to student achievement. More research is needed to fill these gaps.
Traditional vs. Alternative Teacher Certification and Student Achievement
There has been even greater contention over the link between traditional certification versus alternative certification and student achievement, with literature reporting conflicting findings. On one hand, traditional certification has been shown to positively affect student achievement, especially by exposing prospective teachers to challenging field experiences (Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy, 2014). Such experiences give teacher candidates an opportunity to prepare for the real classroom environment, consequently placing them in a better position to impact student learning. According to Jang & Horn (2017), traditional certification improves student achievement by enhancing teachers’ knowledge of instruction. The rigorous preparation pre-service teachers are taken through effectively equips them with the skills, knowledge, and experiences required to facilitate effective student learning. The preparation process entails a high level of professional training, pedagogical training, and subject matter training. For proponents of traditional certification, these knowledge areas are best developed via traditional certification programs (Mueller 2012).
The intent of certification as described under NCLB was to produce high quality teachers – teachers with high efficacy. Highly qualified teachers are better placed to employ sophisticated teaching techniques that meet the increasingly complex learning needs of the contemporary learner (Mueller, 2012). They can employ techniques such as group learning, collaborative learning, and hands-on learning to deliver instruction in a core area. Additionally, highly qualified teachers are more likely to be involved in professional development with a view to enhancing their skills and knowledge (Brinkman, 2014). The possession of these skills, according to Kim (2015), makes traditionally certified teachers exceptionally effective in influencing student achievement. From the perspective of PCK, effective teachers are teachers with knowledge of not only content, but also pedagogy (Fan, 2014). In other words, effective teachers have the ability to present subject matter knowledge to students in an effective manner, consciously considering the implications of factors such as student characteristics and learning context on student learning. Traditional certification equips teachers with this knowledge and experience, hence increasing their teaching effectiveness.
Traditional certification has positive implications on not only student outcomes, but also teacher outcomes such as incorporation of evidence into practice, self-efficacy, job performance, as well as job satisfaction and retention (Jang & Horn, 2017; Mueller, 2012). The connection between these teacher outcomes and student achievement has been supported by literature (Adnot et al., 2017; Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012; Townsend, 2014). Nonetheless, as shown in Mueller’s (2012) study of 164 alternatively certified teachers and 960 traditionally certified teachers in 32 school districts in Kentucky, there are no significant differences between alternatively certified and traditionally certified teachers in terms of job performance, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction.
In spite of the potential benefits of traditional teacher certification, some critics think otherwise. One of the greatest critics of teacher certification is Kate Walsh, the current president of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NTCQ), an organization that advocates for tougher teacher evaluation. Walsh has long argued that teaching is a profession that “does not require highly specialized knowledge and expertise” (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012, p. 164). She believes that teaching skills can be acquired on the job. Walsh has specifically decried the limitations inherent in teacher certification research, asserting that the current teacher certification process has not effectively contributed to enhancing the competence of the teaching workforce. She has advocated for more flexible entry requirements as opposed to coursework requirements, devolution of teacher certification to school districts, and more fruitful teacher preparation methods (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Essentially, for Walsh, teacher certification does not effectively capture the teacher’s teaching ability, intellectual ability, knowledge of instructional techniques, and passion for children, hence the need to reconsider the importance of teacher certification.
Other critics have also opposed the professionalization of teaching. Wendy Kopp, the founder of TFA, has argued that requiring formal certification for teachers to an extent defeats the drive for equal access to education (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). There is some merit in this argument. It is well recognized that socioeconomic background is a significant predictor of educational achievement (Kim, 2015; Mueller, 2012). For instance, a student born in a poor family is less likely to attain a college or university degree compared to one born in a well-to-do background. In other words, it may be difficult for a person born in poor background to fulfill the requirements of traditional certification. Some of these individuals have impeccable teaching talent and can even perform better than traditionally certified teachers (Townsend, 2014).
Critics have further argued that traditional certification essentially embodies the problems inherent in national policy with respect to teacher preparation (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Non-profit organizations such as TFA, which focus on alternative teacher certification, have shown that teachers do not necessarily have to undergo traditional certification to become effective teachers. Such organizations recruit college graduates with a passion for teaching to teach in needy school districts. For such individuals, requiring professional certification serves to diminish their enthusiasm towards teaching, ultimately undermining efforts aimed at tackling social inequity. Additionally, professional certification has the potential to drive away talented individuals from the teaching profession (Townsend, 2014). Indeed, there are many talented and potentially effective teachers with a great deal of subject matter expertise in the labor market (Mueller, 2012). These individuals may be objected to initiatives that somehow compromise their teaching effectiveness (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). If given an opportunity, these individuals can enhance teaching quality.
Another weakness of traditional certification is that it does not effectively consider the realities of the labor market, especially with respect to teacher compensation (Mueller, 2012). Under the traditional method of certification, teacher salaries determined by a rigid, politically-controlled structure that does not reflect the economic realities inherent in the labor market, ultimately contributing to understaffing in schools with high needs (Brinkman, 2014). This challenge is compounded by the relatively costly nature of traditional certification programs, which makes it quite difficult for many individuals desiring to be teachers to consider alternative routes (Mueller, 2012). For instance, under the traditional certification route, candidates have to undertake one year of unpaid student teaching. In essence, the opportunity cost of traditional certification makes many individuals consider other certification routes.
Traditional certification programs have also been criticized for failing to change with times. For instance, it has been argued that there have been insignificant changes in formal teacher preparation programs since the 1950s, particularly in terms of content and structure (Townsend, 2014). Reforms have mainly dwelled on aspects such as certification requirements, compensation, entry standards, and teacher evaluation, with little focus on actual teacher preparation (Mueller, 2012). Whereas these aspects are crucial drivers of teacher quality, teacher preparation is much more than just certification requirements. An effective teacher preparation program must be consistent with time. Today’s world, for instance, increasingly demand’s problem-based learning. Regrettably, traditional teacher preparation programs have not effectively changed with time. These limitations have the potential to undermine student achievement (Townsend, 2014). On this premise, critics of traditional certification advocate for deregulation – alternative teacher certification.
Considering the limitations of NCLB, Schuster (2012) advocates for the replacement of the traditional teacher certification system with an alternative system that: 1) gives states greater flexibility to determine what constitutes “highly qualified” teachers; 2) incentivizes teachers to apply and remain in high-needs schools; 3) minimizes requirements for entry into the teaching profession in favor of more rigorous preparation and retention of talented teachers; 4) eliminates certification tests entirely; and 5) imposes greater accountability on teacher preparation programs. Such a system can enhance student achievement by ensuring more effective response to students’ unique needs and school-specific challenges, ensuring students in high-needs schools have greater access to passionate teachers, and by enhancing the quality of teacher preparation programs. For Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy (2014), alternative teacher certification programs have the potential to enhance student achievement as individuals with previous work experience elsewhere enter the profession to address needs that may not be effectively addressed by their traditionally certified counterparts.
The impact of alternative teacher certification on student achievement has been shown to be particularly significant in schools located in underserved areas, especially in areas with high concentrations of minorities and low socioeconomic groups (Grimmett, Young & Lessard, 2012). Student achievement in these areas is significantly affected by shortage of traditionally certified teachers. With alternative certification, schools in underserved areas have greater access to teachers, which may in turn positively affect student achievement. In his analysis, Childre (2014) demonstrates how Georgia College and State University (GCSU) designed and implemented an alternative teacher certification program to address the shortage of traditionally certified special education teachers in rural Georgia. The program, which involved training 15 individuals with provisional licenses on pedagogy and content, enhanced the quality of education delivered in the targeted setting. Whereas the program did not measure student outcomes, the study points to the positive implications alternative teacher certification programs may have on student achievement.
However, focusing on the popular TFA program, Heilig, Cole & Springel (2011) warn that recruiting alternatively certified teachers may compound the disadvantages experienced by students in underserved areas, thereby negatively affective student achievement. Essentially, students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to be disproportionately allocated less qualified teachers, resulting in inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers. This phenomenon is also depicted in Kim’s (2015) study, which involved an urban school district in Texas with a substantial proportion of minority and low-income students. The study found that students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to be assigned alternatively certified teachers. Disproportionate distribution of highly qualified teachers is an issue of concern as it means students who have the greatest need for highly qualified teachers lose a chance to get highly qualified teachers, consequently reinforcing existing inequalities. Childre (2014) shares similar concerns, asserting that the quality of some alternative teaching certification programs tends to be questionable due to factors such as limited coverage of critical content, ultimately resulting in inadequate teacher preparation.
For Heilig, Cole & Springel (2011), alternative teacher certification programs were introduced for both qualitative and quantitative purposes. However, the programs appear to have concentrated on quantity at the expense of quality. Both goals are equally important if student outcomes are to be improved. It is not difficult to agree with this point of view. Teacher training is a without a doubt an undertaking with significant implications on student learning, underscoring the need for substantial training and experience.
One reason why alternative teaching certification programs may not achieve their intended objectives is lack of adequate teaching preparedness on the part of program participants. In a mixed methods study that involved 18 participants pursuing an alternative certification program at a large, urban university, Koehler et al. (2013) found that participants with graduate degrees and industry experience felt less prepared for lesson plan development and classroom management compared to participants without graduate degrees and industry experience. Though the small sample used presents generalization difficulties, the study emphasizes the importance of preparing prospective teachers in alternative certification programs more adequately. The perceived lack of preparedness could be attributed to factors such as the unanticipated reality of teaching in an urban school as well as transitioning from non-teaching professional backgrounds to the teaching profession. Indeed, it is not uncommon for people outside the teaching profession to perceive teaching as a straightforward endeavor (Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011). Upon getting into the profession, one realizes that aspects such as classroom management are not as easy as one may think. It is because of these realities that traditional certification may be crucial.
According to Koehler et al. (2013), peer support and mentorship programs can be useful in helping alternatively certified teachers transition more effectively into the teaching profession. Peers and mentors can help these teachers have a better understanding of classroom realities, consequently becoming more effective in transforming student learning. Peer support and mentorship networks should be particularly developed during the practicum or field learning stage. Such networks give candidates transitioning into teaching an opportunity to learn from veterans. One can then transfer the experiences to their pedagogy and instructional methodology, thus becoming a more effective teacher.
The problem of lack of preparedness, however, is not specific to alternatively certified teachers – traditionally certified teachers may also experience challenges during the early stages of their profession (Conrad & Stone, 2015). In their study, Kent & Giles (2016) demonstrate that field experiences integrated into the teacher preparation program can be useful in enhancing teacher preparedness. The study involved students pursuing a teacher preparation program at a university in southeast U.S. Field experiences expose students to the reality of the teaching and learning environment. Prospective teachers get a chance to experience firsthand aspects such as students’ diverse cultural backgrounds and learning needs, placing candidates in a better position to teach students once they become certified teachers. Similar experiences could also be valuable for participants of alternative teacher certification programs (Scheeler, Budin & Markelz, 2016).
An evident gap in majority of the literature in this area is scarcity of studies comparing traditional certification and alternative certification with respect to student achievement. Most of the studies (e.g. Childre, 2014; Heilig, Cole & Springel, 2011; Jang & Horn, 2017; Schuster, 2012) suggest the existence of a correlation between traditional certification or alternative certification and student achievement. As association may not necessarily mean causality, it is important to understand whether certification (traditional or alternative) actually impacts student achievement. This is especially crucial as student achievement may be as a result of other factors other than teacher certification.
A few studies have, however, compared student achievement across traditionally certified and alternatively certified teachers. In their study of 232 middle school teachers in rural Texas, Uriegas, Kupczynski & Mundy (2014) found no significant differences between traditionally certified teachers and alternatively certified teachers in terms of classroom management. Given the fairly large sample used, the findings of this study add weight to the view that alternative teacher certification programs can positively influence student outcomes. Lincove et al.’s (2015) study also found no significant differences between traditional certification and alternative certification with respect to student achievement.
Nevertheless, some studies, specifically focusing on the TFA program, have found alternative certification to be more effective than traditional certification in influencing student achievement (e.g. Clark et al., 2013; Brinkman, 2014; Henry et al., 2014; Turner et al., 2012). Henry et al.’s (2014) study, for example, established that math scores across elementary, middle, and high school levels were higher in students taught by teachers certified through the TFA program compared to students taught by traditionally certified teachers. Also, the study found that science scores at the high school level were higher in students taught by TFA teachers than students taught by traditionally prepared teachers. In a similar vein, Clark et al.’s (2013) randomized controlled study found that math scores among 6th-12th grade students were significantly higher in students with TFA teachers compared to students with traditionally prepared teachers.
Brinkman (2014) also conducted a causal-comparative study to compare traditionally certified teachers and alternatively certified teachers with respect to student’s scores on social studies, science, mathematics, and reading. The study, which involved 133 8th grade students drawn from a school district in Texas found that students taught by alternatively certified teachers outperformed students taught by traditionally certified teachers in mathematics (especially in probability, statistics, geometry, and spatial reasoning), science (especially in energy and matter topics), and social studies (especially science, technology, geography, culture, history, and society). In reading, however, Brinkman (2014) did not find statistically significant differences between the two groups. Turner et al. (2012) also did not find a discernible impact of alternative certification on student performance in language arts.
A review of recent research on the effectiveness of traditionally prepared teachers versus alternatively prepared teachers on student achievement also reports mixed findings (Jang & Horn, 2017). Some of the studies included in the review found that traditional and alternative teacher certification programs were equally effective in improving student achievement, while others found that alternative certification programs were significantly or slightly less effective. Nonetheless, as the review reports, there appears to be greater support for traditional certification than alternative certification. More specifically, the review reports that compared to alternative certification, traditional certification “consistently yields better instructional knowledge, self-efficacy, and teacher retention” across all grade levels save for kindergarten (Jang & Horn, 2017, p.1). On the whole, the review recommends reduced dependence on alternative teacher certification programs. Kim’s study (2015) also favors traditional certification over alternative certification: in the study, students with highly qualified or fully certified teachers had higher test scores compared to students with under-certified or alternatively certified teachers. Also, the study found that campus accountability ratings were higher in schools with more fully certified teachers compared to schools with more TFA or alternatively certified teachers.
Measuring Teacher Quality: Value Added Models
As the professionalization versus deregulation, or traditional versus alternative certification debate continues, the contention particularly stems from lack of consensus over which approach most effectively ensures teaching quality. As a result, the measurement of teacher quality and productivity has also become a topic of scholarly and policy debate. Measuring teacher quality basically entails evaluating the impact of teachers on student achievement (Lissitz, R., & Jiao, 2015). In the last few decades, the use of value added models (VAMs) in measuring teacher productivity has become common. VAMs are data-based tools used to measure teacher performance (Sass, Semykina & Harris, 2014). The models focus on the contribution an individual teacher makes to student performance in a given year. They measure the value a teacher adds to student achievement. This is basically achieved by comparing students’ test scores in the current academic year with their test scores in previous academic years. The evaluation also involves comparing test scores for students at the same academic level. Based on the evaluation, schools can determine the extent to which a given teacher enhances student outcomes, in comparison to the extent an ordinary teacher would. A number of school districts in the U.S. have adopted the system, especially school districts in New York, Tennessee, Dallas, Chicago, Florida, and Washington, D.C. (Lissitz, R., & Jiao, 2015).
The underlying model of teacher quality measurement is the cumulative achievement model, which measures student achievement by aggregating the student’s historical school-based and family inputs (Sass, Semykina & Harris, 2014). Nonetheless, other models that incorporate different inputs have been developed, notably the layered mixed effects model, the percent passing change model, the average score change model, and the multiple regression model (Wei et al., 2012). These models consider aspects such as differences in student characteristics, disability status, English proficiency, and socioeconomic background. While there are different varieties of VAMs, it is important to note that the underlying measurement methodology is the same across the board.
Though VAMs are useful for measuring teacher effectiveness, there are important shortcomings. First, rigorous scientific tests have not been conducted to validate the effectiveness of the models (Lissitz, R., & Jiao, 2015). This is a particularly significant limitation given the value of scientific validation. Additionally, critics of the models argue that test scores are often as a result of chance or factors beyond the control of the teacher, such as external tutoring, socioeconomic conditions, and natural ability (Koedel, Mihaly & Rockoff, 2015). These external factors can as well influence student achievement, meaning that VAMs may not necessarily provide a true reflection of a teachers’ contribution to student outcomes. Owing to these limitations, experts recommend the use of VAMs alongside other evaluation models (Amrein-Beardsley, 2014).
Summary
In summary, there has been immense scholarly attention to the subject of teacher certification. Over the years, reforms have been undertaken with the aim of changing how teachers are prepared and, ultimately, improving student achievement. For several decades, teacher certification has involved a rigorous process that requires prospective teachers to undergo a state-approved teacher preparation program, field-based learning, and a series of tests prior to obtaining a teaching license. These requirements stems from the professionalization perspective, which advocates for the treatment of teaching as a profession like other professions such as medicine. Proponents of traditional teacher certification argue that teachers should be highly qualified to ensure quality teaching. Through the traditional route, prospective teachers go through wide-ranging training cutting across aspects such as subject matter, pedagogy, and child development, eventually placing teachers in a better position to influence student learning.
Nonetheless, the traditional teacher certification route has been the subject of intense criticism, with critics asserting that it ignores the realities of the labor market. Traditional certification programs have also been criticized for restricting entry into the teaching profession, hence aggravating the problem of workforce shortage in the teaching profession. Moreover, critics of traditional teacher certification programs hold that teaching is a profession that is driven more by an individual’s talent as opposed to subject matter or pedagogy expertise. As a result, critics of traditional certification advocate for alternative certification. Indeed, alternative teacher programs now constitute a considerable percentage of the overall teaching workforce in the U.S. These programs ease entry into the teaching profession by minimizing teaching coursework requirements. Individuals interested in teaching can enter the profession by serving in underserved schools while gaining certification. Proponents of alternative teacher certification programs advocate for the deregulation of the teaching profession, arguing that deregulation is especially crucial for addressing workforce challenges in high-needs schools. Even so, there have been concerns that alternative teacher certification programs do not adequately prepare prospective teachers for the complex teaching and learning environment. Moreover, critics of alternative teacher certification programs argue that alternative certification worsens existing inequalities with respect to the distribution of highly qualified teachers, hence detrimental to student achievement.
Whether traditional or alternative teacher certification enhances student achievement is a matter that has not been clearly answered by research. The extant literature provides mixed findings, with some studies advocating for traditional certification and others advocating for alternative certification. More importantly, few studies have been conducted to compare the impact of traditional certification versus alternative certification on student achievement. Majority of the literature in this area has focused on either traditional certification or alternative certification. This scarcity of research presents difficulties in ascertaining which teacher certification route is best for enhancing student achievement. There is need for further research to address this gap in research. By comparing value added scores for traditionally certified teachers and alternatively certified teachers, there can be greater certainty on which certification route most effectively influences student achievement. Value added scores indicate the contribution a teacher, whether traditionally or alternatively certified, makes to student achievement.


References
Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54-76.
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York: Routledge.
Brinkman, B. (2014). The impact of teacher preparation program on academic achievement in a south Texas school district. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Brock, M., & Carter, E. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211-221.
Childre, A. (2014). Preparing special educators highly qualified in content: Alternative route certification for unlicensed teachers in rural Georgia. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(1), 23-31.
Clark, M., Chiang, H., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows program (NCEE 2013-4015). Washington, D.C: National Center for Education and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Conrad, D., & Stone, C. (2015). Connecting the dots in preservice teacher education: Focusing on literacy instructional strategies to prepare teacher candidates for curriculum and certification challenges. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 41-49.
Fan, L. (2014). Investigating the pedagogy of mathematics: How do teachers develop their knowledge. London: Imperial College Press.
Gordon, H. (2014). The history and growth of career and technical education in America. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Grimmett, P., Young, J., & Lessard, C. (2012). Teacher certification and the professional status of teaching in North America: The new battleground for public education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Heilig, J., Cole, H., & Springel, M. (2011). Alternative certification and Teach for America: The search for high quality teachers. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 10(3), 388-412.
Henry, G., Bastian, K., Fortner, C., Kershaw, D., Purtell, K., Thompson, C., & Zulli, R. (2014). Teacher preparation policies and their effects on student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9(3), 264-303.
Incikabi, L., & Tokmak, H. (2013). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching: A TPACK (technological, pedagogical, content knowledge)-based course design for college students. In Keengwe, J. (ed.), Research Perspectives and Best Practices in Educational Technology Integration. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 288-303.
Jang, S., & Horn, A. (2017). The relative effectiveness of traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs: A review of recent research. Retrieved from http://www.mhec.org/sites/mhec.org/files/teacherprep2_20170301.pdf
Juttner, M., Boone, W., Park, S., & Neuhaus, B. (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 45-67.
Karatas, I., Tunc, M., Yilmaz, N., & Karaci, G. (2017). An investigation of technological pedagogical knowledge, self-confidence, and perception of pre-service middle school mathematics teachers towards instructional technologies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 122-132.
Kent, A., & Giles, R. (2016). Dual certification in general and special education: What is the role of field experience in preservice teacher preparation. Professional Educator, 40(2), 14p.
Kim, S. (2015). The effect of teacher quality on student achievement in urban schools: A multilevel analysis. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Koedel, C., Mihaly, K., & Rockoff, J. (2015). Value-added modelling: A review. Retrieved from https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2015/wp1501_koedel.pdf
Koehler, A., Feldhaus, C., Fernandez, E., & Hundley, S. (2013). Alternative certification programs & pre-service teacher preparedness. Journal of STEM Education: Innovation & Research, 14(4), 45-55.
Konza, D., & Fried, L. (2012). Maximizing the contribution of paraprofessionals in schools: A win-win-win story. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(9), 115-123.
Lincove, J., Osborne, C., Mills, N., & Bellows, L. (2015). Teacher preparation for profit or prestige: Analysis of a diverse market for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 415-434.
Lissitz, R., & Jiao, H. (2015). Value added modeling and growth modeling with particular application to teacher and school effectiveness. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Major, C. (2015). Teaching online: A guide to theory, research, and practice. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Merk, S., Rosman, T., Rueb, J., Syring, M., & Scheider, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceived value of general pedagogical knowledge for practice: Relations with epistemic beliefs and source beliefs. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184971.
Monk, D. (2015), Reflections on teacher preparation. Society, 52, 219-224.
Mueller, C. (2012). The impact of teacher certification programs on teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and teacher performance: A comparison of traditional and alternative certification. Doctoral Dissertation, Western Kentucky University.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and the teaching profession. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Background_document_to_Symposium_ITEL-FINAL.pdf
Philpott, C. (2014). Theories of professional learning: A critical guide for teacher educators. St. Albans: Critical Publishing.
Sass, T., Semykina, A., & Harris, D. (2014). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity. Economics of Education Review, 28, 9-23.
Scheeler, M., Budin, S., Markelz, A. (2016). The role of teacher preparation in promoting evidence-based practice in schools. Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 171-187.
Schuster, B. (2012). Highly qualified teachers: Moving forward from Renee v. Duncan. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 49, 159-173.
Shultz, G., Leibowitz, S., Tapper, J., & Ellis, S. (2015). A study on the use of paraprofessionals to deliver special education services in Vermont schools. Hadley, MA: University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute.
Sindelar, P., McCray, E., Brownell, M., & Kraft, B. (2014). Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation. New York: Routledge.
Teacher Certification Degrees. (2017). The student guide to certification. Retrieved from https://www.teachercertificationdegrees.com/
Townsend, T. (2014). International perspectives on teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Turner, H., Goodman, D., Adachi, E., Brite, J., & Decker, L. (2012). Evaluation of Teach for America in Texas schools. San Antonio, TX: Edvance Research, Inc.
Uriegas, B., Kupczynski, L., & Mundy, M. (2014). A comparison of traditional and alternative certification routes on classroom management. SAGE Open, 1-6.
Waddell, J., & Vartuli, S. (2015). Moving from traditional teacher education to a field-based urban teacher education program: One programs story of reform. Professional Educator, 39(2), 24p.
Wei, H., Hembry, T., Murphy, D., & McBride, Y. (2012). Value-added models in the evaluation of teacher effectiveness: A comparison of models and outcomes. Pearson. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/ComparisonofValue-AddedModelsandOutcomes.pdf