# Preparation and Certification

## Highlights

-   Most TTT grantees offer face‑to‑face programs that cover the
    foundations, learning theory, and pedagogy addressed in traditional
    teacher preparation. However, these programs of study may be
    delivered as courses, as seminars, and as modules, and an earned
    degree is not always the goal of participation. About 10 grantees
    reported details about their planned use of electronic resources to
    hold classes, conduct e‑mentoring, or support placement of
    participants. Grantees reported they frequently used evening or
    Saturday classes for participants.

-   About half of TTT teachers indicated their studies in methods of
    teaching and discipline and management were very useful for their
    performance in the classroom and less than 20 percent indicated
    their student teaching was very useful. About 40 percent of TTT
    teachers engaged in a student teaching experience during their
    program.

-   A small percentage of TTT teachers become certified, in the year
    they first "enroll;" most are teaching under a provisional
    certificate as they complete their state requirements and progress
    towards full certification. TTT teachers are considered highly
    qualified while participating in the TTT project.

## Preparation in TTT Projects

Preparation (or training) refers to the practices by which projects
prepare TTT participants for teaching and support their objective to
attain certification; these include both course work (whether through
traditional classes, online tutorials, professional development
sessions, or other means) and fieldwork that takes place in K--12
classrooms. TTT projects offer multiple ways of earning credit or
demonstrating a level of expected competence commensurate with being
considered a highly qualified teacher. In fact, 40 percent of TTT
grantees expected participants to earn academic credit in required
course work and 22 percent required some kind of professional
development, such as completing prepared modules delivered at specific
times during the TTT experience. In addition, 67 percent of grantees
required participants to complete a field experience (other than student
teaching) as part of course or professional development requirements,
such as observing in classrooms during summer school and 63 percent
required student teaching or an organized internship that was sometimes
concurrent with becoming a teacher of record (see Exhibit 34).

1.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Requiring Components of Teacher
    Preparation, by Component

![](media/image1.pct)

> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑seven percent of grantees required participants
> to participate in some kind of early field experience.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Mayer et al. (2003) and Seftor and Mayer (2003) note that the required
curriculum in alternative certification programs generally tends to
track the standard content and pedagogy studies for all new teachers,
which can roughly be categorized into pedagogy, child development, and
classroom management. Loeb and Reininger (2004) cite an *Education Week*
annual survey indicating 24 states and the District of Columbia have
"structured" alternate route programs that include both preservice and
mentoring components. The same survey found that in twelve states and
the District of Columbia, some classroom training before class
assignment occurs, which is most like the sequence of a traditional
program. TTT training seems to balance study of educational theory and
practical knowledge in the areas of classroom management, lesson
planning, and curriculum design. In some TTT projects, participants earn
a graduate degree after fulfilling the basic requirements.

TTT grantees were asked to indicate the approach they used (either
academic courses or delivery of seminars or professional development
modules) to convey required content of preparation and most said they
followed the approach of a typical teacher preparation curriculum: 60
percent or more of grantees required participants to earn academic
credit hours in topics such as development and diversity (e.g., working
with students with disabilities or English language learners), teaching
methods, assessment, classroom management, reading and writing and
teaching theory. In other grantees, between 31 percent and 39 percent
reported these same areas of focus were covered in required professional
development events (see Exhibit 35). Thus a typical TTT teacher has
studied many of the same topics covered in traditional preparation
programs, confirming the research cited above.

2.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Who Reported Requiring Course
    Credit or Professional Development Hours, by Topic

+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Topic                           | Course      | Professional        |
|                                 | Credit      | Development Hours   |
|                                 | Hours       |                     |
|                                 |             | (Percent)           |
|                                 | (Percent)   |                     |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Development/diversity           | 67          | 37                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Teaching methods                | 67          | 31                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Assessment                      | 63          | 38                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Classroom management            | 62          | 39                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Reading/writing                 | 61          | 32                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Teaching theory                 | 60          | 34                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Technology                      | 56          | 35                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Other                           | 56          | 38                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Community/parental involvement  | 42          | 34                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Organizational and              | 40          | 34                  |
| collaborative strategies        |             |                     |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Research methods                | 29          | 12                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Educational foundations         | 61          | 23                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+

> Note: Educational foundations is the study of the history of education
> and the development of the educational systems in this country and in
> others.
>
> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑seven percent of FY2002 TTT grantees reported
> their participants were required to take courses for credit in the
> topic of development or diversity; 37 percent reported they required
> participants to earn credit through accumulating professional
> development hours in the topic.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT teachers largely agreed that their preparation through TTT addressed
teaching methods, student assessment, classroom discipline and
management, state and local standards, and the use of computers in
instruction (see Exhibit 36 for the relatively small percentages of
teachers reporting these are not part of their preparation). Twenty
percent of TTT teachers indicated that their preparation included no
study of content. There could be two explanations for the lack of
content study: (1) projects may have focused on classroom management and
administrative tasks to meet participants' needs and (2) participants
may have already earned the credits in their content area needed for
certification or passed assessments validating their content area
knowledge prior to entry.

Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers reported they had no student teaching
experience, which, as described above, is a less common component for
alternate route programs. Still, many project directors reported
developing a component of field experience (observation in classrooms),
internship in summer school classrooms, or long‑term (one full year) of
an internship under the direction of a classroom teacher.

3.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Activities\
    and Areas of Study NOT Part of Their Program

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers said that student
> teaching was not a part of their program.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Through field experiences connected to academic courses and through an
extended period of student teaching (six months or more), it is expected
that teacher candidates will have opportunities to observe and engage in
teaching guided by an experienced cooperating teacher, which will
prepare them to work independently and effectively as classroom
teachers. About 40 percent of TTT teachers from all target groups
reported they engaged in a student teaching experience. Slightly more
paraprofessionals than recent college graduates and midcareer
professionals had this kind of preparation, which is an acknowledgement
of their need for additional support prior to assuming responsibility
for instruction in a content area (see Exhibit 37).

4.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Their\
    Program Included a Student Teaching Experience

![](media/image3.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers who described
> themselves as paraprofessionals reported they participated in a
> student teaching activity.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

A large majority of TTT teachers reported all areas of study that were
part of their preparation experience as moderately or very useful, with
the exception of student teaching (see Exhibit 38). Fifty‑five percent
of TTT teachers indicated that the study of teaching methods was very
useful, and 50 percent reported the study of classroom discipline and
management as very useful. These views on the value of preparation
components make sense when considered in context: all TTT participants
did not participate in student teaching, for example, and others already
had experience with computers for teaching and learning. TTT project
developers recognized over time that their participants valued applied
content to manage the immediate demands of their responsibility as
teacher of record. The effort by some projects to incorporate what is
similar to a student internship came from seeing that participants
desired a transition period and some needed more help than others before
taking on full responsibility of the classroom.

Among different target groups, the percentages of TTT teachers reporting
their perceptions of utility differ only slightly, with one notable
exception: 46 percent of former paraprofessionals found content area
study very useful, compared to 30 percent of recent college graduates
and 35 percent of midcareer professionals. The difference in view is
likely due to the process of catching up that most paraprofessionals are
doing: those who do not have a bachelor's degree are pursuing the
content study that would have been accomplished by recent college
graduates or midcareer professionals.

5.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Utility of\
    Areas of Study

+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Areas of Study       | Very      | Som              | Not at all    |
|                      | useful    | ewhat/Moderately | useful        |
|                      |           | useful           |               |
|                      | (Percent) |                  | (Percent)     |
|                      |           | (Percent)        |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Methods of Teaching  | 55        | 37               | 4             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Discipline and       | 50        | 38               | 8             |
| Management           |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Student Assessment   | 43        | 48               | 4             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| State/Local          | 41        | 41               | 10            |
| Standards            |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Study of Content     | 36        | 35               | 9             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Computers for        | 26        | 48               | 15            |
| Instruction          |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Student Teaching     | 17        | 26               | 15            |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+

> Note: A small percentage of teachers did not report on the utility of
> each area of study.
>
> Exhibit reads: Fifty‑five percent of TTT Teachers reported that
> "methods of teaching" was a "very useful" area of study in their
> preparation for classroom teaching
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Project components were offered and required at different points in
different TTT projects. Often, they differed by target group as well.
For example, in the GRREC project, participants enter the project during
the summer semester and begin teaching in the fall at the school where
they are recruited and hired. During the fall semester participants from
the summer cohort take approximately six credit hours in the Western
Kentucky University's gradate program, including at least one online
course. Additional course credits are taken in the next semester and in
the fall. One of the required courses involves a supervised teacher
internship, led by professors. This project is academically based,
however, it has undergone fine‑tuning to allow participants flexibility
to extend their studies over a slightly longer period of time and
additional support through a survival skills toolkit and professional
development sessions focusing on applied skills and classroom management
techniques.

Prior to participants gaining teacher of record status as a new hire,
most grantees required all participants to attend orientation sessions.
Nearly half of the grantees required summer institutes for midcareer
professionals and recent college graduates and 37 percent of grantees
reported this as a requirement for paraprofessionals as well. Between 58
and 69 percent of grantees required all target groups to engage in
observations of teaching and attend cohort meetings. More grantees
reported a requirement to earn bachelors' degrees for paraprofessionals
(61 percent) than for midcareer professionals (29 percent) and recent
college graduates (23 percent), which is a reflection of the percentage
of paraprofessionals who enter TTT projects without a degree or with an
associate degree. Grantees reported they frequently used evening or
Saturday classes for participants. Illustrated in Exhibit 39 are the
variety of approaches used in TTT projects to ensure that, whether
before, during, or after becoming hired, most participants engage in
these typical program elements.

6.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Required Program
    Elements Before and After Attaining Teacher of Record (TOR) Status,
    by Target Group and Program Element

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Required Program  | Pa    |       | Midc  |       | R     |       |
| Element           | rapro |       | areer |       | ecent |       |
|                   | fessi |       | Pro   |       | Co    |       |
|                   | onals |       | fessi |       | llege |       |
|                   |       |       | onals |       | Grad  |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       | uates |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                   | B     | After | B     | After | B     | After |
|                   | efore | atta  | efore | atta  | efore | atta  |
|                   | atta  | ining | atta  | ining | atta  | ining |
|                   | ining |       | ining |       | ining |       |
|                   | TOR   | TOR   |       | TOR   |       | TOR   |
|                   | s     | s     | TOR   | s     | TOR   | s     |
|                   | tatus | tatus | s     | tatus | s     | tatus |
|                   |       |       | tatus |       | tatus |       |
|                   | (Per  | (Per  |       | (Per  |       | (Per  |
|                   | cent) | cent) | (Per  | cent) | (Per  | cent) |
|                   |       |       | cent) |       | cent) |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Orientation       | 92    | ---   | 91    | ---   | 88    | ---   |
| session           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Summer institute  | 37    | 13    | 48    | 16    | 49    | 14    |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Observations of   | 69    | 62    | 59    | 72    | 62    | 75    |
| teaching          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Regular cohort    | 65    | 54    | 58    | 77    | 59    | 74    |
| meetings          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Courses to earn   | 61    | ---   | 29    | 13    | 23    | 12    |
| bachelor's degree |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| credit            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Evening or        | 55    | 46    | 47    | 67    | 51    | 70    |
| Saturday classes  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mentoring         | ---   | 83    | ---   | 92    | ---   | 94    |
| activity          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Early field       | 69    | ---   | 55    | ---   | 55    | ---   |
| experience        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Practice or       | 60    | ---   | 40    | ---   | 43    | ---   |
| student teaching  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Other             | 31    | 43    | 50    | 49    | 50    | 51    |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Exhibit reads: Ninety‑two percent of grantees reported that
paraprofessional participants were required to participate in an
orientation session before becoming teachers of record.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

### Program Delivery Approaches and Challenges {#program-delivery-approaches-and-challenges .unnumbered}

Through the site visits and narrative responses to the APR, TTT projects
reported that when they are based in IHEs, which in turn prepare
candidates, they generally rely on the IHEs' teacher training curricula
as the foundation of the preparation. In these projects, participants
complete similar course work as full‑time students, with only minor
variations in the number of courses and course sequencing to accommodate
their work schedules or to provide more applied and survival‑skills
courses prior to, or in some cases during, early teaching stages.
Because many of the projects require participants to begin teaching
while they are still completing course requirements, courses covering
such topics as classroom management, multiple learning styles,
collaborative teaching, curriculum development and planning, and other
applied courses are given a higher priority than courses that focus on
educational theory to increase candidates' chances of success in the
classroom. Paraprofessional candidates must fulfill their degree
requirements and their pedagogy and administrative training. Thus, their
program can be extended by as much as two years.

Because TTT projects exist within a larger context of accountability for
teacher certification, they must also ensure that the content is aligned
with state and national standards. TTT sites reportedly designed or
supported curricula that ensured that candidates would receive adequate
training and course work to prepare them to pass all state certification
exams. Several project directors and coordinators, in fact, described
planning their curriculum by sitting down with the state standards in
front of them.

The training delivery formats selected by TTT projects appear to provide
a certain flexibility to accommodate the unique or specific needs of
particular sites and participant groups. For example, Montana's
tri‑state project, a rural and regional program, selected an online
delivery format that allowed NPTT to reach a large number of candidates
in sparsely populated areas throughout the tri‑state region.
Implementing an in‑person, face‑to‑face content delivery format would
have placed significant travel demands on most participants, and
realistically, the majority of the program's current participants would
not have been able to participate in the program. This delivery format
could certainly be considered feasible for similar rural or regional
programs that are attempting to meet the needs of schools and districts
in large regional or densely populated areas. Maryland's online program
was offered by the UMUC---a campus well‑known in the state for
specializing in the delivery of online degree programs. Many projects
(10 at least) incorporated online delivery mechanisms and a few were
developing portfolio systems.

Flexibility in sequencing is not easy to achieve. If the content is
being delivered by university faculty in traditional university
surroundings and with traditional resources, then faculty must agree to
teach in the evening and on weekends and work together to carefully
match program philosophy and standards to the needs of participants.
Furthermore, when participants seek to specialize in such areas as
bilingual education or special education, they cannot forgo the more
technical content that teachers in those subject areas need. One way to
address the course sequencing issue is to create modules and allow
participants to control their own pathways through content studies, with
an advisor who monitors their progress. Another approach is to divide
the course sequence into portions that reflect the needs of new teachers
and to carry the cohort together through the same sequence.

For the most part, however, TTT projects use the traditional in‑class,
face‑to‑face method for delivering the curriculum. This format was
favored by school districts and community‑based organizations and
cooperatives that relied on partnerships with IHEs to prepare candidates
academically. The cohort approach was embraced by most sites to promote
support in both the project courses and seminars and in school among
colleagues. Sites that implemented traditional, face‑to‑face delivery
formats varied the scheduling options to accommodate participants (e.g.,
greater use of Saturday and summer sessions, regional hubs).

Regardless of grant recipient type, in alternate routes where
individuals select their own training sites, there is much variation in
the quality control exerted over content delivered. Some entities
attempt to ensure that curricular content and pedagogy studies are
aligned with state standards. Others provide professional development
seminars offered on‑site to participants to make up for differences in
content and sequence in IHEs. A further implication of this flexibility
is pressure on the mentoring component to sustain new teachers and to
identify areas in which participants may need different kinds of
professional development and support. TTT projects have approached these
challenges in different ways: by standardizing the content and
delivering the same content at different sites; by adding professional
development sessions; and by adding mentors to an existing mentorship
system supported by district or State. More about mentoring and supports
in TTT projects is found in Chapter V.

## Certification 

TTT projects sought to fulfill the legislative mandate of simplifying
the participant experience of certification procedures, and flexible
arrangements helped accomplish this goal. Generally, these arrangements
included ensuring that credits were earned in project‑provided courses
delivered at a university or community college, online, or by other
means; reviewing transcripts to determine whether participants had met
standards or competencies required for certification eligibility;
providing professional development seminars and workshops that lead to a
"credit equivalent" or a "competency equivalent" but no credit hours; or
some combination of these approaches.

Many participants experienced some combination of transcript review,
course work, and professional development by the project to determine
their eligibility for teacher certification. Almost no grantees reported
relying solely on transcript review or professional development to
determine eligibility, which provides some indication of the value
placed by TTT grantees on course work (whether classroom‑based or
online) as part of teacher preparation. Seventy‑five percent of grantees
targeting paraprofessionals relied on courses for credit as the sole
means of determining participants' eligibility. In addition, 29 percent
of grantees targeting midcareer professionals and 32 percent of grantees
targeting multiple groups reported a primary focus on course credit to
ensure participants' preparation for teacher of record status (see
Exhibit 40).

7.  Most Commonly Used Practices of FY 2002 TTT Grantees for Determining
    Eligibility for Certification Status, by Target Group

+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Target Group    | Review  | Courses | Profe   | Comb    | None    |
|                 | Tran    | for     | ssional | ination |         |
|                 | scripts | Credit  | Deve    |         | (P      |
|                 | Only    | Only    | lopment | (P      | ercent) |
|                 |         |         | Only    | ercent) |         |
|                 | (P      | (P      |         |         |         |
|                 | ercent) | ercent) | (P      |         |         |
|                 |         |         | ercent) |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Midcareer       | 0       | 29      | 0       | 57      | 14      |
| professionals   |         |         |         |         |         |
| only            |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Pa              | 0       | 75      | 0       | 25      | 0       |
| raprofessionals |         |         |         |         |         |
| only            |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Recent college  | 0       | 0       | 0       | 100     | 0       |
| graduates only  |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Multiple target | 3       | 32      | 5       | 52      | 8       |
| groups          |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: No 2002 TTT grantees reported they relied upon the review
of transcripts alone as a practice for determining the eligibility of
midcareer professionals for certification.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

More than a quarter of the grantees reported challenges with navigating
the certification regulations in their states. Some of these issues
involved changes made at the state level that were out of the grantees'
control. For example, one grantee stated that a "major difficulty has
been the added requirements to the credential programs in California.
Our project participants have to pass more required examinations despite
the fact that they had completed waiver programs. Additional
examinations translate into additional time, resources, and preparation
to study and pass them---which in turn put additional time and budget
constraints on our project." Several grantees faced similar problems
with unexpected state‑level certification changes, which required
rethinking training and testing for participants and increased the
expenditure of time, money and resources.

If a project focused on recruiting and placing teachers in a particular
subject, changes in certification requirements could be quite
problematic. For example, because of changes in state certification
requirements, a project in New York City experienced problems when
candidates seeking certification as teachers of speech with the
bilingual extension could no longer participate. Added to this was the
limitation that the grantee's partner, an IHE, did not have a
state‑approved program in this certification area.

Project directors commented that some applicants did not fully
understand the certification requirements. On occasion, it was reported
that applicants lost interest in the program once they realized what was
involved in the certification process. Some participants who did persist
in pursuing certification had struggled to pass certification tests.

Overall, among TTT teachers, 87 percent of those certified reported
holding certification relevant to the discipline of their main teaching
assignment. Among these, 91 percent of recent college graduates and 88
percent of midcareer professionals held teaching certification that
matched the subject of their main teaching assignment, compared to 86
percent of paraprofessionals (see Exhibit 41).

8.  Percentage of TTT Teachers with Certification Matching\
    Their Main Teaching Assignment, by Target Group

![](media/image4.pct)

> Exhibit reads: Ninety‑one percent of TTT teachers who were recent
> college graduates held a state teaching certificate in the field of
> their main teaching assignment.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Depending on the state‑level requirements, participants may hold
different types of certification while they are teachers of record.
Among those who reported holding a teaching certificate, 66 percent
reported a probationary, temporary, or provisional certificate, while 32
percent had regular certification. Those who began teaching with a
temporary certificate were expected to achieve full certification by the
end of the three‑year program. It is important to note again that all
teachers hired and participating in TTT projects are considered highly
qualified because the approved program meets *NCLB* standards for
alternate routes.