I n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

Alternative Routes 

to Teacher Certification

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

SM

I n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

Alternative Routes 

to Teacher Certification

SMSM
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0012, Task Order D010, with 

WestEd. Sharon Horn served as the contracting officer’s representative. 

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Nina S. Rees

Assistant Deputy Secretary 

Michael J. Petrilli

Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary

Patricia Gore

Director, Teacher Quality Programs

November 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint 

this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement,

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org/;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 

1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter 

(TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/recruit/altroutes/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Figure 5 on page 14, adapted from Understanding by Design Handbook, is used with permission of the copyright holder, ASCD. 

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development is a worldwide community of educators advocating sound policies and sharing best practices to achieve the success of each learner. To learn more, visit ASCD at http://www.ascd.org/.
iii

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Foreword v

Introduction 1

 Part I: Elements of Promising Alternative 

Route Programs 7

Recruit Widely, Select Carefully (7)

 Design a Coherent, Flexible Program (11)

Provide Extensive Support (16)

Engage in Continuous Reflection 

and Improvement (22)

Part II: Program Profiles 27

Alternative Certification Program, 

Hillsborough County, Florida (29

)

Educator Certification Program, Region XIII,

Austin, Texas (33

)

 Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program, 

 Northwest and Metro Regional Educational 

Service Agencies, Georgia (37)

 New York City Teaching Fellows, New York (41)

Northeastern California Partnership for 

Special Education, Chico, California (45)

Wichita Area Transition to Teaching, 

Wichita, Kansas (49) 

Acknowledgments 53

 Appendix A: Research Methodology 55

Appendix B: Resources 57

Notes 59

Contents
iv

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1. Six Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification 2

Figure 2. Final Study Scope 5

Figure 3. Candidate Recruitment and Selection 9

Figure 4. Wichita Structured Interview Form 12

Figure 5. Region XIII Unit Planning Guide 14

Figure 6. Georgia (RESA) Candidate Portfolio Contents 17

Figure 7. Hillsborough Three-Cycle Observation Schedule 19

Figure 8. New York City Mentor Position Description 21

Figure 9. Chico Continuous Improvement Cycle 25 
v

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Foreword 

I am pleased to introduce the fifth publication in the Innovations in Education series: Alternate Routes to 

Teacher Certification. This series, published by my Department’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, 

identifies concrete, real-world examples of innovations in five important areas, in addition to this one: 

public school choice, supplemental educational services, charter schools, magnet schools, and alternate 

pathways to school leadership. 

World War II General Omar Bradley once said, “Teachers are the true soldiers of democracy. Others can 

defend it, but only teachers can create it.” I have a deep respect for the teaching profession. My parents 

were both educators and taught me that reading and studying hard could help me transcend my small, 

segregated Mississippi town. I went on to become a teacher and a coach myself, and eventually served as 

dean of a school of education. In my role as superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, 

I hired thousands of teachers and came to understand what it took to be successful in the classroom.

For all these reasons I have been proud, in my role as secretary of education, to call for talented individuals 

across our nation to enter the most noble of professions: teaching. 

And yet, in too many of our states and communities, lots of talented people find that they cannot say 

yes to teaching because of hoops and hurdles that have been placed in their way. If the only option for 

midcareer professionals interested in teaching is to go back to school for several years, then complete an 

unpaid student teaching assignment, all before receiving a paycheck, many wonderful candidates with 

families and mortgages will have no choice but to say no. And that is a great loss for our country.

Fortunately, that is starting to change. Across this land, states, school districts, nonprofit groups, and 

now even schools of education are creating alternative pathways into the teaching profession. These 

“alternative route” programs vary tremendously, but the best ones recruit widely, select only the very best 

candidates, provide intensive training, and support their teachers regularly for several years once they are 

in the classroom. And they are showing great promise.

As a former dean of a school of education, I respect the important role that traditional teacher preparation programs play. They will always produce a large percentage of our teachers, and while some have 

struggled in the past, we are seeing promising signs of improvement there, too. (For examples, read my 

third annual report on teacher quality, available at www.title2.org.) But these programs were designed 

for undergraduate students who decide early in their lives to become a teacher. Midcareer professionals, 

recent liberal arts graduates, retired military personnel, and others bring life experiences and, in many 

cases, a maturity to teaching. Their preparation needs are different than for traditional candidates, and 
vi

finally those needs are being met. (And I am glad to see many schools of education responding to the new 

competition by offering their own streamlined, alternative route programs.)

I have been a strong supporter of alternative routes to teaching that come in many different forms—from 

the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, which is developing a challenging, competency-based route into the profession, to alternative route programs supported by the federal Transition 

to Teaching program or developed in partnership with The New Teacher Project, to recruiting initiatives 

like Troops-to-Teachers and Teach for America. I am also proud to have launched the National Center for 

Alternative Certification, which connects talented teaching candidates with alternative route programs 

through its Web site (www.teach-now.org). And, starting this year, the Center will also provide hands-on 

technical assistance to alternative route programs across the country, in large part based on the lessons 

in this publication.

Which brings us to the alternative routes featured herein. We scoured the country looking for programs 

that had stood the test of time and were showing signs of positive results. We pushed and prodded to 

learn the secrets of their success, in important areas like recruitment, selection, preservice training, and 

ongoing support and mentoring. And we have put it all together in this publication, in the hope that new 

alternative route programs, or those trying to get better, will not have to “recreate the wheel.” While these 

programs should not be seen as “models” and the case study methodology used does not provide the type 

of information about cause-and-effect that scientifically based research does, we do hope that others can 

learn from these examples. 

Creating alternative routes to certification is not a silver bullet—and it is not the entire solution to our 

nation’s teacher quality challenge. But it is an important part of the solution, and I have confidence that 

rigorous alternative route programs like those featured in this book will bring thousands of talented “soldiers of democracy” into our schools, and all of us will be the better for it.

Rod Paige

U.S. Secretary of Education

November 2004
1

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

With both high retirement and high attrition rates among K–12 teachers and a burgeoning student population nationwide, more teachers are needed. Yet if we are to turn around schools in need of improvement, 

help all students meet rigorous academic standards, and close the achievement gap, simply getting more 

teachers into the profession will not suffice. As reflected in the No Child Left Behind requirement that all 

teachers of the academic subjects be highly qualified, new teachers must be equipped with the knowledge, 

skills, and dispositions to teach to high standards and to be effective with the increasingly diverse array of 

students in today’s classrooms. Moreover, a good number of these newcomers must commit and be able 

to teach in hard-to-staff content areas and in our most challenging schools. In short, the challenge to the 

profession is to prepare and retain greater numbers of high-quality teachers.

Introduction

This category includes midcareer individuals and 

middle-aged retirees from other professions. Instead 

of requiring participants to follow the traditional 

teacher preparation pattern of academic course work 

and supervised student teaching before taking over a 

classroom, alternative programs move candidates into 

their own classrooms after a short period of training. 

Candidates continue their studies at night and on 

weekends and receive structured mentoring and support while they teach. 

Because novice educators in these programs can begin teaching—and drawing a salary and benefits—so 

quickly, the programs are able to attract candidates 

whose financial obligations might rule out the slower 

traditional route to teaching. For similar reasons they 

can appeal to classroom paraprofessionals with degrees 

who, in addition to needing a salary, may want to 

Expanding the education workforce at the necessary 

pace while also ensuring that teachers are effective 

and motivated to stay on the job requires new ways of 

recruiting, training, and supporting teacher candidates. 

We cannot rely exclusively on traditional teacher preparation programs to ratchet up their efforts. We need 

to develop new routes to teacher certification, giving 

more candidates more access through high-quality 

alternative teacher preparation programs designed to 

meet local needs. 

“Alternative” in what ways? Instead of drawing primarily from the traditional pool of teacher preparation 

candidates that consists mainly of college students 

and recent graduates, alternative route programs cast 

a broader net, making efforts to attract older, nontraditional candidates who come to the program already well-versed in the content they want to teach. 
2

teach in the school where they now work, something 

alternative programs are more likely to facilitate.1

 In 

fact, most alternative route teacher preparation programs are location-specific. Unlike traditional university-based programs, alternative programs tend to be 

created by a local partnership for the express purpose 

of preparing teachers to meet the needs of the local 

school district(s).

This guide looks at these new routes to teacher certification as they play out in six programs in different states, examining how these initiatives go about 

recruiting strong candidates and ensuring that their 

teachers are well-equipped to serve today’s students. 

(Basic statistics about these sites appear in figure 1.) 

The Movement Toward Alternatives 

One impetus for alternative preparation programs has 

been the teacher shortage experienced in many locales. Along with teacher retirements, high attrition 

among novice educators, and student enrollment 

growth, other contributing factors include class-sizereduction policies and a salary schedule that does not 

provide incentives to teach in hard-to-staff subjects 

or schools. Shortages are especially acute in urban 

areas, special education, and in certain content areas 

such as mathematics and science. And among those 

candidates who do take teaching jobs, many don’t 

stay long. About 9 percent of new teachers (those in 

their first three years on the job) left teaching at the 

end of the 2000–01 school year, a percentage that has 

been increasing over the last decade.2

Given this situation, many school districts have turned 

to bringing in uncredentialed teachers on emergency 

permits. Such individuals may have the potential to be 

FIGURE 1. Six Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification 

Program/Location/

Year Program Initiated

Certification/

Degree Partners

Alternative Certification 

Program/Hillsborough 

County, Florida/1998

Elementary

Secondary

School District of 

Hillsborough County

Educator Certification 

Program/Region XIII,

Austin, Texas/1989

Elementary

Secondary

Special Education

Bilingual Education

Region XIII Education 

Service Center

Region XIII School 

Districts

Georgia Teacher Alternative 

Preparation Program 

(Northwest and Metro 

Regional Educational 

Service Agencies [RESA])/

Georgia/

NW: 2001

Metro: 2003

Middle Grades

Secondary

Special Education

Early Childhood 

Education (Metro 

only)

School districts in 

NW Georgia and 

metropolitan Atlanta

New York City Teaching 

Fellows/New York/2000

Elementary plus 

master’s degree

Secondary plus 

master’s degree

Special Education

Bilingual Education

NYC DOE

The New Teacher 

Project

Area universities

Northeastern California 

Partnership for Special 

Education/Chico, 

California/1989

Special Education Cal. State Univ., Chico

57 local ed. agencies

Commission on 

Teacher Credentialing

U.S. Dept. of Education’s

Office of Special 

Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

Wichita Area Transition 

to Teaching/Wichita, 

Kansas/1992

Secondary with 

master’s degree 

option

Wichita State Univ.

Wichita Public Schools
3

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Total 

Program 

Graduates

2004 

Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

(2004 unless 

otherwise noted) Program Faculty

Program 

Duration Preservice Program Inservice Program

Cost per 

Candidate/

Who Pays

530 Rolling 

admission; 

no cohort

59% Female

41% Male

71% White

18% Afr. Am.

8% Hispanic

3% Asian Am.

(2003 data)

District teachers 1-2 years 18 course work 

hours (optional)

108-120 course 

work hours

$1,600

District pays $800 

Candidate pays 

$800

2,082 236 79% Female 

21% Male 

Majority are White

(2003 data)

Region XIII 

education 

specialists

17 months 50 online course 

hours; 180 course 

work hours;2-week 

(60 hours) summer 

field experience 

Approximately 

100 course work 

hours

$5,200

Candidate pays

NW: 64

Metro: 23

NW: 43

Metro: 40

NW: 

66% Female 

34% Male

76% White

17% Afr. Am.

3% Hispanic

3% Asian Am.

(2003 data)

Master teachers 

and administrators

2 years 80 course work hours

Year 1: 6 seminars

Year 2: 4 seminars

Up to 250 course 

work hours plus 

5 days field work 

in a different 

school

NW: $2,250

Metro: $2,700

Case by case; 

combination of 

candidate, school, 

RESA

5,748* 2,000 66% Female

34% Male

58% White

19% Afr. Am.

13% Hispanic

5% Asian Am.

5% Other

Area universities 2-3 years 7-week program: 

80 hours student 

teaching, plus 6 to 9 

graduate credits

Varies by 

university

$12,000 licensure 

plus master’s

District pays 

$8,000

Candidate pays 

$4,000

331 60 74% Female

26% Male

88% White

9% Hispanic

2% Native American

2% Asian Am.

15% Individuals with

disabilities

Calf. State Univ., 

Chico special 

education faculty

2 years One-day orientation 

(“survival training”)

36-57 units 

of university 

course work

$10,000 average

Candidate is 

responsible but 

may receive a 

scholarship of 

$5,200–$10,000

234 26 65% Female

35% Male

85% White

15% Other 

Wichita State 

Univ. College of 

Education faculty

2 years 9 credit hours 

(3 courses)

At least 

24 credit hours

Program with 

licensure $4,800 

Plus master’s 

degree $6,400 

Candidate pays

* Number who have started teaching following preservice program.
4

good teachers, but too often they have been left to “sink 

or swim,” with support that is insufficient, inconsistent, 

or nonexistent. And these least-prepared teachers are 

most likely to be in schools with concentrations of lowperforming students—the very students most in need 

of effective teaching.3

Quality concerns have also driven the alternative 

route movement. States and schools have been frustrated as they watch talented individuals say yes to 

teaching in private schools and charter schools because of the high cost and other hurdles they would 

have to overcome to be certified to teach in a traditional public school.

In between traditional programs and emergency permits lies the diverse and growing world of alternative 

route programs. In 2004, 43 states plus the District of 

Columbia reported having some type of alternative 

route for certifying teachers, while only 8 states said 

they had such routes in 1983 when the National Center for Education Information began collecting such 

data. In states like California, New Jersey, and Texas 

that have been pursuing alternative routes since the 

mid-1980s, 20 percent or more of new teachers enter 

the profession through alternative routes; Texas offers 

52 separate routes.4

The term “alternative route” has been used for 

everything from unstructured help for individuals on 

emergency permits to sophisticated, well-designed 

programs. The National Center for Alternative Certification posts state-by-state listings of alternative route 

programs and now has a typology of over 10 different kinds.5

 Fortunately, the Center reports an emerging 

consensus on required features that closely resembles 

critical features identified by researchers6

:

›› The program has been specifically designed to 

recruit, prepare, and license talented individuals 

who already have at least a bachelor’s degree.

›› Candidates pass a rigorous screening process.

›› The program is field-based.

›› The program includes course work or equivalent 

experiences while teaching.

›› Candidates work closely with mentor teachers.

›› Candidates must meet high performance standards for completion of the program.

Alternative routes allow people such as career changers and those who have been out of the job market 

(e.g., stay-at-home mothers) and who hold at least a 

college degree to transition into teaching without the 

hardship of leaving the paid workforce or the expense 

and possible redundancy of traditional teaching programs. The new programs have the potential to attract 

a range of talented individuals who previously might 

not have made the shift, including those who want 

to be in certain urban or rural settings and those who 

believe traditional programs lack grounding in actual 

classroom experience. And they can meet the needs of 

a specific local setting, training people close to home, 

where they are likely to stay.

This guide profiles what six established alternative 

programs look like, whom they attract, and how they 

put into practice features like those listed above. They 

model commitment, ingenuity, and a variety of practices from which others may learn.

Case Study Sites and Methodology

The six programs highlighted in this guide are: the 

Alternative Certification Program, Hillsborough County, 

Fla.; the Educator Certification Program, Region XIII, 
5

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Austin, Tex.; the Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program, Northwest Regional Educational Service 

Agency (RESA) and Metro RESA, Ga.; the New York City 

Teaching Fellows program, New York, N.Y.; the Northeastern California Partnership for Special Education, 

Chico, Calif.; and the Wichita Area Transition to Teaching 

program, Wichita, Kans. For a narrative summary of each 

site’s context and program, see Part II of this guide.

These programs were selected from a larger pool of 

possible programs through the benchmarking methodology that underlies this study. Adapted from the fourphase benchmarking process used by the American 

FIGURE 2. Final Study Scope 

Program Profile

›› What are the overall goals of the program and its major 

components? 

›› What specific local needs does the program meet?

›› What are the process and requirements for certification?

›› What are the demographics of candidates and faculty in 

the program? 

›› What are the funding sources for the program?

Recruitment and Selection

›› What criteria are used to identify and select candidates?

›› How are the candidates recruited?

›› Does the program control the placement of candidates?

›› What are the elements that make the selection 

process rigorous?

Teacher Training: Content and Pedagogy

›› What are the program performance standards for 

teachers and candidates?

›› What content-based and pedagogical course work is 

required and when? 

›› How are content and pedagogy integrated in the 

program delivery?

›› What specific strategies are taught for working with 

targeted student populations?

›› In what ways is the program field-based?

›› How is the program designed to meet the individual 

needs of the candidate?

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

›› By what methods do mentors support candidates? 

›› What are the criteria for mentor/supervisor selection?

›› How are mentors/supervisors recruited and trained? 

Program Monitoring and Evaluation

›› How is teacher performance assessed? 

›› What program outcomes are monitored 

(e.g., retention rates)?

›› How are program evaluation data and candidate 

feedback used to improve recruitment and 

program strategies?

Productivity & Quality Center, as well as general case 

study methodology, the study proceeded through several phases (described more fully in Appendix A). 

A study scope or conceptual framework (see figure 2) 

was developed at the beginning of the project to guide 

program selection and analysis. Developed from an 

examination of relevant research literature, the framework was reviewed and refined by a panel of experts.

Programs were sought that met four basic criteria: 

candidates enter the program with at least a bachelor’s degree, candidates are teachers of record during 
6

training, the program has an established track record over three or more years, and it uses promising 

practices such as tailored, field-based programming 

and strong mentor support. Sixteen programs were 

screened using a weighted criteria matrix; the six programs highlighted in this publication had higher scores 

and represented a range of geographic locations and 

types of programs. 

Data collection took place through one-day on-site 

visits; interviews with program administrators, faculty, 

current candidates, and graduates; and review of 

documentation. This guide is synthesized from a more 

comprehensive research report that includes case descriptions and cross-site analysis of key findings. 

This descriptive research process suggests promising 

practices—ways to do things that others have found 

helpful, or lessons they have learned about what not 

to do—and practical “how-to” guidance. This is not the 

kind of experimental research that can yield valid causal 

claims about what works, so readers should judge the 

merits of these suggestions according to their understanding of the reasoning behind them and fit them to 

their local circumstances.
7

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

A successful alternative teacher preparation program attracts and selects the right candidates. It offers 

a carefully thought-out, research-based curriculum that is coherent and flexible. It provides effective 

support to candidates. And it is committed to its own continuous reflection and improvement. This 

section explains how. 

Part I: Elements of Promising 

Alternative Route Programs

Recruit Widely, Select Carefully

The rationale driving alternative route programs is that 

many excellent teacher candidates have made other 

life or career choices but would be open to becoming 

teachers if presented with the right offer. Because these 

preparation programs are created to address the specific teacher shortage(s) experienced in the districts they 

serve, their challenge is to identify the types of potential candidates who would best meet district needs and, 

then, make them an offer they can’t refuse. But first programs have to get their attention. Thus, the recommendation, gleaned from the successful programs profiled in 

this guide, is to recruit widely and select carefully.

In light of the great need for specific subject-area teachers (e.g., in science),7

 the recruitment efforts of most 

programs target individuals who are already steeped in 

the relevant content because they have majored in it 

and have been working in that field. Included in this 

category are many midcareer professionals and early 

retirees. This targeted approach reflects the mission 

statements of many alternative programs. For example, 

the program in Hillsborough County, Florida, seeks to 

“expand the pool of educators to include non-education majors committed to making a positive impact 

on student achievement and providing quality educational opportunities.” New York City’s program rests on 

a similar assumption, that “there is a substantial pool 

of talented individuals who have chosen other career 

options and who are capable of and interested in becoming excellent teachers.” 

While trying to recruit widely, programs must also be 

selective in the candidates they admit, ensuring that 

those who enter an alternative route program have the 

necessary knowledge, skills, and personality to quickly 

become effective teachers. So how does a program target its recruitment efforts to ensure a strong applicant 

pool from which to select tomorrow’s best teachers? 

Successful programs have found a variety of ways. 

RECRUITMENT APPROACHES

The six programs represented here report that word of 

mouth is by far their most effective recruitment tool, 
8

particularly because it typically yields candidates who 

are similar to previously successful candidates. Moreover, satisfied candidates and school systems are likely 

to spread the word without any special effort on the 

part of their program. Other, less personal advertising 

approaches, such as radio and television spots and local 

newspaper advertisments, have also proven fruitful, especially for newer programs. New York uses a print advertising campaign to inspire dissatisfied professionals 

to become teachers. Subway posters send provocative 

messages to burned-out or disillusioned professionals. 

“Tired of diminishing returns? Invest in NYC kids” was 

just one of many Madison Avenue-inspired invitations. 

News coverage has also proven to be a boon to alternative programs. When the New York Times, for example, 

ran a story about the district’s alternative route program, 

2,100 applications flooded in over the next six weeks.

Some programs target specific groups in their recruitment efforts. The Chico program, designed to increase 

the number of special education teachers in northeast 

California, deliberately targets groups that are underrepresented nationally among special education teachers (especially people with disabilities and men). 

Information sessions and recruitment fairs are another 

way programs inform interested people about their alternative route processes. Such information sessions help 

potential applicants self-select, recognizing early whether the high demands of the alternative approach fit their 

skill and energy levels. The Hillsborough program hosts 

two large recruitment fairs each summer. Approximately 

900 people attend these sessions. In New York, several information sessions prior to the application deadline provide those considering the program with the opportunity 

to speak with current candidates, a program recruiter, and 

other individuals involved in the alternative program. The 

sessions include a program overview, testimonials from 

current participants, and a question-and-answer period 

mediated by candidates and recruiters.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Once a highly motivated group of people has shown 

interest in becoming teachers, programs must decide 

how to manage the application and selection process 

to ensure that they get the best candidates in their programs. The first level of screening involves setting application requirements. All of the programs highlighted 

in this guide require applicants to have completed a 

bachelor’s degree. Grade-point average (GPA) can also 

be used to set minimum standards; this requirement 

is typically set by university rather than other program partners. As the leaders of the New York program 

point out, GPA is not necessarily an indication of an 

applicant’s ability to become an effective teacher. In 

general, traditional admissions criteria such as GPA and 

letters of recommendation are of little help when applicants are career changers or have been out of school 

for many years. (See figure 3 for program-by-program 

recruitment and selection criteria and steps.)

What may be most telling for alternative route program 

applicants are solid content knowledge and the ability, 

by virtue of life and work experience, to relate content 

to the real world. The rigorous nature and fast pace 

of these programs require that applicants have a high 

level of maturity and tenacity and a learning style that 

is a good fit with a “practice-to-theory” approach.

SELECTION PROCESSES

Successful programs have selection processes and tools 

to help them identify applicants who have what it takes 

to succeed in classrooms as well as in the program. 
9

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

FIGURE 3. Candidate Recruitment and Selection

Application Requirements Selection Process

Alternative 

Certification 

Program/

Hillsborough 

County, Florida

• Hold or be eligible for a temporary teaching certificate from 

the Florida Department of Education (requires a BA in the 

desired certification area)

• Paid instructional employee of Hillsborough County School 

Board or Board-approved charter school

1. Be identified by district as a qualified HCPS employee

2. Submit the program application with hiring principal’s 

signature

Educator 

Certification 

Program/Region 

XIII, Austin, Texas

• BA with a 2.5 GPA

• Required course work and semester hours in desired 

certification area

• Evidence of competency in reading, writing, and mathematics

• Daily access to a computer, printer, and Internet connection

• 3 letters of recommendation 

1. Gallup TeacherInsightTM interview

2. Satisfactory score on candidate selection matrix

3. Input on application from Austin ISD (the region’s 

largest employer)

Georgia Teacher 

Alternative 

Preparation 

Program 

(Northwest and 

Metro Regional 

Educational Service 

Agencies)/Georgia

• BA with a 2.5 GPA

• Major in desired certification area

• Employed by a public school system

• Criminal background clearance

• Pass or exempt from Praxis I

• No teacher education program completed

• No teaching certificate 

NW: Candidates are hired and screened by the school system

Metro: 

1. Paper screening process (includes review of application, 

resume, 2 reference letters, transcripts, and “passing” a 

personality test) 

2. Interview

3. Pass the Essentials of Effective Teaching course

4. Secure a teaching position

New York City 

Teaching Fellows/

New York

• BA with a 3.0 GPA

• U.S. citizen or permanent resident

• Speak English fluently

• No teacher education program completed

• No teaching certificate 

1. Submit transcripts, resume, and personal statement

2. Attend the interview-interaction 

3. File review process 

4. Receive regional placement and university assignment

5. Pass two state-required exams

Northeastern 

California 

Partnership for 

Special Education/

Chico, California

• BA with a 2.67 GPA

• Demonstration of subject mater competency

• Pass CBEST

1. Meet application requirements 

2. Haberman Star Teacher Selection Interview

3. Satisfactory score on the interview rubric

Wichita Area 

Transition to 

Teaching/Wichita, 

Kansas

• BA with a 2.5 GPA

• Major in desired certification area

• Same general education courses required of all other WSU 

teacher education students

• Minimum of two years’ employment in a career related to 

their content specialty

• Admitted to the WSU graduate school

1. Transcript analysis 

2. Interview with program director

3. Pass Pre-Professional Skills Tests in reading, writing, and 

mathematics

4. Secure a teaching position 
10

Communication with hiring districts and applicant interviews are key elements in making these determinations.

Each of the six alternative route programs in this guide 

has a different approach to placing candidates in the 

classroom. Some programs require that applicants 

have a job with one of their partner districts or a job 

offer contingent on their program participation. Other 

programs accept candidates whom they judge to be 

highly likely to find a placement on their own. Still 

other programs work directly with districts in making their selection decisions, with the goal being to fill 

chronic vacancies. No matter what approach is used, 

the program must have an excellent relationship with 

the school district(s) it serves. Program administrators 

must consistently place highly successful candidates; 

otherwise they cannot build the trust necessary to 

sustain the program. Successful placements are also 

key to building the kind of reputation that fuels highly 

desirable word-of-mouth recruitment.

The New York program’s screening criteria narrow an 

annual pool of approximately 17,000 applicants down 

to around 1,900 candidates. Applicants who meet a 

first set of basic requirements are invited to sign up 

for a four-hour interview-interaction with trained 

selectors. During the interaction, applicants teach a 

five-minute sample lesson, produce a 20-minute writing sample, and participate in a 20-minute, one-onone interview. The writing sample, a parent letter for 

example, is intended to reveal a candidate’s criticalthinking and problem-solving skills, as well as communication skills. The one-on-one interview is an opportunity for a selector to follow up on any aspect of the 

lesson or writing sample and to ask additional questions so that the selector can make a well-informed 

recommendation. Selectors write a summary and rate 

each candidate they interview. Of the applicants who 

reach the interaction screening, approximately 45 percent are recommended by the selectors. The final step 

in the application process involves additional review of 

files by program staff and experienced selectors. About 

10 percent of the applicants who make it to this stage 

are eliminated in the file review process. 

A multistage selection process is also used by the program in Texas Region XIII. An applicant who meets the 

baseline requirements for this program participates in 

a highly structured interview, the Gallup TeacherInsightTM, completed online during the application process. A program leader in the candidate’s credential 

specialization develops an overall score for a candidate, 

incorporating the Gallup interview results, overall GPA, 

course work GPA, information from the applicant’s references, and other comments and observations. The 

final score, combined with input from Region XIII, determines which applicants are selected for each cohort 

of candidates. 

The interview is perhaps the single most important aspect of the selection process for the special education 

program in Chico. Every candidate who has met staterequired prescreening criteria goes through a structured 

interview conducted by a program team. The interview 

instrument is inspired by the Star Teacher Selection 

Interview developed by the Haberman Educational 

Foundation—a scenario-based instrument to predict 

how teacher candidates would deal with challenging and even stressful situations. The interview helps 

to gauge such qualities as whether a person is persistent, is a problem solver, is protective of learners and 

learning, can translate theory into practice, and can use 
11

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

successful approaches with students who have characteristics that put them at risk for school failure. For the 

Chico program, the interview is tailored to rural special 

education teaching. It seeks to evaluate, for example, a 

candidate’s reasons for becoming a teacher and working with exceptional children, prior commitment to 

exceptional children, and skills in communication and 

collaboration. This interview process also requires applicants to produce an essay. Program team members use 

a rubric to score the applicants, and only those above 

a high cutoff point are admitted to the program. As a 

program adviser notes, “The interview process makes it 

clear to candidates that this is a rigorous program. Before we used it, candidates would get into the program 

and then say, ‘I had no idea this would be so hard.’” 

Interviews are also part of the application process in 

the smaller programs that recruit and screen to meet 

specific local needs. The Wichita program uses a structured interview (see figure 4) and scoring rubric and 

the regional program in Texas conducts an interview 

with each applicant.

Design a Coherent, Flexible Program

The key to developing and maintaining an effective 

program is having knowledgeable, committed leadership—people who are clear about a community’s teaching needs and visionary about how to address them. 

These leaders also know what learning experiences 

make for coherent preparation as well as how to meet 

their candidates’ individual needs. And since most programs are partnerships, leaders must be able to create a 

structure for shared and responsive decision-making. 

Of the programs in this guide, only Hillsborough operates without partners. The other programs involve 

multiple school jurisdictions and often include universities or other entities in their leadership structure. 

For example, the programs in Texas and Georgia have 

regional service centers at their hubs. New York, Chico, 

and Wichita all have strong university partnerships. In 

each partnership program, policy is set jointly and each 

partner contributes to the program in specific ways. 

In Chico, for instance, the university provides televised or Web-based courses, regional supervision, and 

separate course sections for candidates. Participating 

local schools guarantee candidates 10 paid release days 

each year to attend classes. The state’s Commission on 

Teacher Credentialing and the federal Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services help underwrite 

candidates’ tuition, the services of mentors and candidate adviser, and program coordination and evaluation. 

Chico program leaders routinely collect and analyze 

data and make recommendations for program finetuning to the broadly representative advisory board. 

Such data collection and adaptability are seen by all 

the programs as crucial to their continuing effectiveness. Not only do these programs respond to changing 

local needs, but each program considers itself a work 

in progress, continuously reviewing how best to serve 

its candidates’ and districts’ needs. Alternative route 

program administrators aim to devise an artful combination of course work and support, a program that is 

coherent and flexible. 

TRADITIONAL STANDARDS

Like traditional preparation programs, alternative programs must be accredited and must ensure that candidates gain the competencies they need to teach their 

students and to meet state credentialing requirements. 

The design of the programs studied—from candidate 
12

FIGURE 4. Wichita Structured Interview Form 

Questions asked of all candidates

1 Why are you considering a career change to become a teacher?

2 What experiences have you had working with middle school or high school age students 

and diverse cultural groups?

3 What are the greatest challenges you expect to encounter as a new teacher?

4 Based on your past work experiences, what do you think past employers and co-workers 

would tell us about you as an employee?

5 If you were to teach for five years and leave teaching at that time, what is the single most 

important thing you would want your students to remember about you as their teacher?

6 Classroom discipline can be challenging to any teacher. What would you do in each of the 

following situations?

• Students failing to turn in assignments

• A student talking back

• A student caught cheating on an assignment or test

• A student constantly talking and not paying attention in class

7 If you were limited to three adjectives to describe yourself as a teacher what three would 

you choose and why?

8 If a student complained to you about another teacher not being fair, how would you handle 

this situation?

9 How important is it for a teacher to have a sense of humor? Explain your answer.

10 Have you ever had difficulty learning any subject material? If so what method did you use 

to overcome this difficulty? How would you help a student experiencing a similar difficulty 

in your class?

11 How will you go about making your subject relevant to your students?

12 I have asked you several questions about teaching and your desire to become a teacher. 

What questions would you like to ask me about the transition to teaching program?

advising through preservice, curriculum, and on-thejob practice—is driven by state requirements, including 

those for the credential itself, standards for the teaching profession, and standards that drive the academic 

content encountered by K-12 students. Region XIII in 

Texas took an especially thorough approach to building 

a program around standards. Early on, the program experienced considerable variability across different cohort groups and instructors in what was being covered. 

Not wanting to lose the supportive cohort structure, 
13

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

program staff created a more fully specified curriculum. Using the “backward-design” principles and tools 

of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, they completed an 

extensive redevelopment process. They started by determining what the candidates would need to know 

and be able to do based on the state standards. They 

then determined what evidence candidates would 

have to produce to demonstrate having met the standards. Finally, they developed the learning activities 

intended to enable candidates to generate that evidence. Figure 5 illustrates one piece of the backwardmapping process, which has guided the program’s unit 

development and assessment. In using this process, 

says the program director, program staff have gained 

a much stronger understanding of the state standards 

themselves and, as a result, have been more effective 

in working with candidates.

Program leaders in Chico describe standards as the 

common language spoken by everyone in the program. 

Each candidate’s individualized plan specifies which 

standards are being met through which courses or 

activities. Similarly, candidates’ lesson plans have 

to meet teaching standards and student standards. 

And their portfolios and reflective logs are organized 

around which standards are being addressed or illustrated. In each supervisor visit to a candidate’s site, 

the conversation focuses on which teaching standards 

are observed in that day’s lesson and which still need 

to be addressed.

In Hillsborough, the components of candidates’ eight 

required courses are designed to help them gain the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to successfully demonstrate competency in Florida’s 12 Accomplished Practices for teaching.

UNTRADITIONAL STRUCTURES

While programs are traditional in their alignment 

with state standards, how their candidates meet those 

standards can vary widely. Programs studied range in 

length from one to three years. Each begins with a few 

days to several weeks of preservice training, after which 

candidates take on regular teaching positions. Candidates are bolstered by structured support and continue 

to take courses at night and on weekends. The goal at 

the end of each program is certification. In New York, 

candidates also earn a master’s degree. Wichita candidates have an option to earn a master’s degree.

Each program’s preservice segment, regardless of duration, focuses on similar essentials. Typical is Georgia’s 

80-hour intensive course, which orients candidates to 

best practices in lesson planning, instruction, assessment, and classroom management, and provides them 

with field experiences and observations. Candidates 

also learn about teacher roles and responsibilities and 

the teaching code of ethics, as well as basics of parent 

communication and special education.

New York’s seven-week summer preservice training involves both course work and student teaching 

to launch a master’s degree program at any of the 

11 partnering universities. During their preservice experience, candidates complete 90 hours of course 

work while simultaneously logging 80 hours of student 

teaching. At the end of each day, participants come together in groups of approximately 30 to meet with their 

fellow adviser; these meetings add up to about 75 hours 

of group support throughout the summer. In addition 

to being good teachers, fellow advisers are selected for 

their familiarity with alternative routes to certification 

and their skill in working with adults. These preservice 
14

FIGURE 5. Region XIII Unit Planning Guide

Adapted from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Understanding by Design Handbook. Worksheet 3.2, 

p. 62. Copyright 1999 ASCD. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
15

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

advisers impart information and facilitate discussions 

intended to help program participants make sense of 

and mesh what they are learning in their course work 

and in their classroom teaching. To inform these sessions, the fellow advisers also observe candidates during 

their student teaching. Since the program’s inception, 

participants have routinely identified these advisers as 

particularly helpful. 

Greater variation occurs in how and where candidates 

continue their course work once on the job, although 

nights and weekends are the norm. While Chico mixes in 

some release time, programs have run into the expense 

of hiring substitute teachers as well as candidates’ objections to losing time with their students. In New York, 

inservice schedules are created by each partnering university and courses typically are held in the evening or 

during the summer. In Hillsborough, district teachers 

teach courses in the evenings—an arrangement that 

fosters empathy since instructors and candidates alike 

have been teaching all day and experiencing common 

challenges. Hillsborough sets no order for taking the 

prescribed classes, which are offered at multiple evening and weekend times in multiple locations. In Texas, 

candidates receive 100 hours of inservice training while 

they are on the job. The instruction is designed and delivered by the program’s seven “education specialists,” 

some of it via the Internet.

Online course delivery is a hallmark of Chico’s two-year, 

special education-focused program, which serves an 

expansive rural area. Special education faculty, many 

of whom are classroom teachers, teach weekly evening courses, using real-time streaming video on the 

university’s interactive distance education system. Despite drives as long as five hours, Chico candidates also 

come to the university and meet with their cohort for 

a full-day class each month using a release day. This 

face-to-face interaction on campus continues during 

the required summer school.

INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACH

While all alternative route programs delineate course 

requirements and align their program with state standards, they also recognize the extra demands placed on 

their candidates. Unlike traditional teacher candidates, 

candidates are almost immediately on the job—with full 

responsibility for groups of students. Their course work 

sequence and the timing of support cannot be carved 

in stone. “They need everything at once,” said one program coordinator, who—like leaders in all the programs 

studied—must balance that awareness against the reality that too much too soon is overwhelming.

Since most programs require that candidates demonstrate knowledge of subject matter to qualify for admission, the focus is typically not content knowledge 

but pedagogy—lessons and practice in how best to 

teach specific kinds of content to diverse groups of 

students. (Exceptions are New York’s math immersion 

component, targeting non-math majors who will teach 

math, and the component of the Texas Region XIII 

program that helps candidates pass the state-required 

content knowledge examination.)

Each program offers candidates initial basic knowledge—

say, in reading instruction or classroom management—

and then follows up with more complex information and 

instruction at the moment the candidate needs it. The 

director of the alternative route program at Pace University—one of the partners in New York City—explains that 

alternative programs ground candidates’ course work 
16

in their teaching and explore theory in practical terms. 

Similarly, an evaluator of the Chico program points out 

its pragmatic stance: “This approach is the reverse of traditional theory to practice,” she says. “It’s turned teaching upside down in university classrooms.”

In Chico, the individualized approach begins with each 

candidate’s Individualized Induction Program (IIP). Developed with a program supervisor, each IIP is a personal road map that documents a candidate’s goals and 

tracks an action plan for achieving those goals. Candidates also sign a course contract that is forwarded to 

the university’s credential analyst. To be sure candidates 

get the courses they need, and recognizing the stresses 

they are under, the program adviser monitors the candidates to make sure they sign up for the right classes—

and to call them if they have not. “They get a lot of hand 

holding because they become so overwhelmed with 

teaching and taking course work,” explains a Chico program adviser. Ongoing individual advisement addresses 

other university deadlines that Chico candidates have 

to meet, phone numbers they need, and general troubleshooting. “Tons of email,” notes one program adviser, 

is the key to the ongoing personal support candidates 

receive from their instructors and advisers. 

Other programs where candidates follow individualized 

programs include those in Hillsborough and Georgia. 

As in Chico, candidates’ programs are tailored to their 

particular background and experience—and adjusted 

over time to address specific, individual needs. 

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Identification of individual needs in these alternative 

programs is made possible by the amount of ongoing 

assessment each candidate receives. This assessment 

approach models the kind of assessment candidates are 

learning to conduct with their own students. Generally, 

it includes formal and informal observations by program 

support providers and principals as well as the portfolios candidates develop over the course of the program. 

In Georgia, Hillsborough, and Chico, portfolios document candidates’ growth in competencies aligned with 

state standards (see figure 6). Portfolios are also used as 

instruments for self-reflection and are tied to student 

learning. In Chico, for example, candidates’ portfolios 

include samples of students’ individualized lesson plans, 

plans that are driven by candidates’ analyses of ongoing student assessment data and are then critiqued 

by supervisors, mentors, and the school that employs 

them. In Georgia, video clips document the candidate’s 

classroom environment and instruction. Hillsborough 

has a particularly detailed structure for integrating assessment with support, as explained in the next section.

Across the programs, a final sign-off on competencies 

generally involves support providers, the employer, and 

appropriate course instructors.

Michael McKibbin, consultant with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, who is in charge of California’s alternative programs, points to a critical difference between the evaluation in traditional and alternative 

teacher preparation. In traditional programs, he notes, by 

the time a student teacher realizes he or she cannot perform a skill or task, it’s too late. The benefit of alternative 

programs, he says, is that “performance assessment can 

be done over a long period of time, so that remediation 

and improvement can be applied and monitored.” 

Provide Extensive Support

The heart and soul of these high-quality alternative programs is the on-the-job supervision and 
17

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

FIGURE 6. Georgia (RESA) Candidate Portfolio Contents

Domain and Areas Addressed* Examples of Documentation

Domain I (Planning and Preparation)

Competencies 1-7, e.g.

• Demonstrating knowledge of content 

and pedagogy,

• Demonstrating knowledge of students,

• Selecting instructional goals,

• Demonstrating Knowledge of 

Resources,

• Designing Coherent Instruction,

• Assessing Student Learning

Lesson plans with acquisition lessons and 

the components, extending and refining 

lessons, examples of differentiated 

strategies, graphic organizers, and 

authentic tasks and assessments

Domain II (Classroom Environment)

(Competencies 8-12)

Include video clips documenting the 

candidate’s classroom environment and 

culture of learning, a classroom floor plan 

and rationale, student rules, Glasser’s 

Choice Theory Implementation, and a 

discipline plan

Domain III (Managing Student Behavior)

(Competencies 13-18)

Include video clips documenting 

instruction, observation records 

documenting mentor and RESA 

observations, examples of student work 

from various levels of achievement, 

copies of candidate’s written feedback 

to students, and examples of lesson 

modification

Domain IV (Professional Responsibilities)

(Competencies 19-24)

Include copies of administrator’s 

evaluations, documentation of 

participation in school and community 

activities

* Framework based on Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (ASCD, 1996)
18

support candidates receive as they face the daunting challenges of being a new teacher in what is 

often a very difficult classroom setting. In the programs studied, support is structured at three levels: 

(1) program-provided supervisors; (2) site-based mentors; and (3) peer cohort support. All six programs 

had some variation of these three, which interweave 

to form a new-teacher safety net. Rather than strand 

candidates to sink or swim, support structures ensure 

that candidates will fulfill their promise or, as McKibbin 

puts it, that “they will obtain the skills to succeed and 

the commitment to stay.” 

ON-SITE SUPERVISION

All of these programs include direct and indirect support. Direct support comes in the form of classroom 

observations, done by the program (or university) 

supervisor, the mentor (who is often an experienced 

teacher at the candidate’s site), or a school administrator, such as the principal, who has partnered with the 

program to provide such support. 

In Georgia, mentors observe frequently, give candidates 

feedback, and act as role models by coaching and demonstrating lessons. They also arrange for candidates to 

visit and observe in other classrooms.

In Hillsborough, the coaching cycle is key to the program. Because candidates can enter at different times 

during the year, the program is organized into a series 

of observation-and-coaching “loops” within three cycles 

or phases, as depicted in figure 7. Within weeks 1–2, for 

example, the support provider—the candidate’s program 

administrator—conducts a preobservation conference 

to schedule observation times and introduce the candidate to the Florida Performance Measurement System 

instrument. Observations will be based on Florida’s Accomplished Practices for Educators, and the administrator will use this instrument in evaluating the candidate 

on those practices. The candidate will self-assesses on 

the same competencies. After the initial observation has 

taken place, the administrator and the candidate, together with a trained peer teacher, write an action plan 

to determine methods and time lines for addressing 

competencies that have not been successfully demonstrated. This plan guides subsequent observations and 

conferences and is updated at the end of each cycle.

Chico supervisors are also course instructors, ensuring 

that there is no disconnect between course work and 

classroom practice. As one Chico supervisor explains, 

“I know what’s being taught in reading courses, and 

if I go out and see that it’s not happening, I say, ‘You 

just finished the course—where is it?’” On-site support 

is planned but also highly individualized—tailored according to Chico candidates’ individualized plans and 

expressed needs. And the support team—supervisors, 

mentors, and school administrators—zeroes in on potential crises. “Need someone there next Tuesday?” 

queries another Chico supervisor. “We’ll make that happen. We do visits on top of visits.” 

In all of the programs, support is carefully coordinated. 

In Georgia, supervisors facilitate regular reporting and 

communication. In Hillsborough, principals take that 

role. In Chico, it’s the university supervisors, each regionally assigned and working with 10 to 15 mentors 

and roughly the same number of candidates. As they 

follow their candidates and link with mentors throughout the four semesters, Chico supervisors also communicate and develop rapport with school principals and 

other district or county education administrators. 
19

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

FIGURE 7. Hillsborough Three-Cycle Observation Schedule

Cycle I–

18 weeks

Cycle II–

9 weeks

Cycle III–

9 weeks

Weeks

1-2

Identify ACP support 

staff

Weeks 

19-28

Conduct 3 observations Week

29

Write Cycle III Action 

Plan

Pre-observation 

conference 

Review Cycle II 

Alternative Certification 

Professional 

Development Plan 

(ACPDP)

Weeks

30-37

Conduct 2 observations

Complete screening 

instruments

Final Summative 

Assessment

Write Cycle I Action 

Plan

Weeks

3-4

Conduct 2 observations

Review Cycle I 

Alternative Certification 

Professional 

Development Plan 

(ACPDP)

Weeks

5-17

Conduct 2 observations

Review Cycle I 

Alternative Certification 

Professional 

Development Plan 

(ACPDP)

Week

18

Hold Cycle I Final 

Conference

Develop Cycle II 

Alternative Certification 

Professional 

Development Plan 

(ACPDP)
20

All program leaders agree that the success of a support 

structure rests, fundamentally, on an environment of 

trust. Interns must continually give honest answers 

to the support providers’ core question: “How are you 

doing?” Since candidates are simultaneously dealing 

with course work, teaching, supervision, and mentoring, everyone knows they are having a struggle. “In 

a traditional program, people expect your competencies to be there,” says a graduate of Chico’s program. 

“Here, supervisors know you will be floundering. I 

invited my supervisor to ‘Come see my worst part of 

the day.’ I was at four schools. She came to each one. 

She saw the diverse environments and knew my challenges. She understood. Then later, I said, ‘Come again 

and see how much better I am doing.’ There is no intimidation.”

That sense of trust and bolstered confidence was 

echoed by a Georgia candidate: “From the beginning of 

the program, I felt I was set up to succeed.”

ON-SITE MENTORING

While supervisors keep classroom practice grounded in 

course work, on-site mentors—“treasured advice givers,” as one candidate called them—are critical to dayto-day survival. The programs pay strong attention to 

the selection and training of mentors, pay mentors a 

stipend, and are very clear about what is expected of 

them. (As an example, figure 8 is New York’s mentor 

position description.) In Texas, mentors are selected 

by principals who receive guidance from Region XIII 

on what qualities to look for in a mentor. Mentors attend 15 hours of professional development provided 

by Region XIII. The mentor and each candidate must 

complete six observations during the school year—

Region XIII suggests three times with the candidate 

observing the mentor and three with the mentor observing the candidate. In addition, the two also hold a 

minimum of four discussion meetings.

Georgia mentors—who are themselves classroom teachers—receive training on coaching and communication. 

They spend a minimum of 100 hours working with each 

candidate the first year and 50 hours the second year. 

One mentor responsibility is to support the candidate 

throughout all phases of the program by providing feedback based on the Danielson framework (see figure 6 on 

page 17).

Mentors in Hillsborough are former administrators. Not 

only do these individuals bring a wealth of expertise, 

but they have a vested interest in the district and can 

speak to principals and veteran teachers with the authority needed to make the candidates’ lives easier. For 

example, candidates might be tempted to take on extra 

or peripheral responsibilities as good school citizens. 

Mentors would counsel principals to restrict such duties, to make candidates’ experiences less taxing.

PEER SUPPORT

Besides this very direct support, successful alternative 

programs offer a more distanced yet crucial kind of 

support, in the form of seminars. Such seminars create a bridge—between theory and practice and also 

between the program’s course work and its system of 

support. These sessions offer candidates the opportunity to share frustrations and engage in problem solving, 

not only with program faculty but with fellow candidates, whose insights come from being in the same 

boat. These kinds of discussions allow candidates to 

travel an arc: They take theory learned in course work, 

try it out with students, return to the group to analyze 
21

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

FIGURE 8. New York City Mentor Position Description

VACANCY NOTICE

New York Teaching Fellows Mentoring Program

POSITION: Teacher to serve as a Full Time Mentor Teacher—Elementary, IS/JHS/HS and Special Education for 

Teaching Fellows and other first year teachers with Transitional B Certification.

The New York City Teaching Fellows Full Time Mentor Model is designed to support and guide new teachers by having 

experienced colleagues serve as their mentors. The supportive, productive rapport between mentor and intern is intended to 

increase the new teacher’s effectiveness and job satisfaction. At the same time, the mentor/teacher’s role will enhance his/her 

professionalism by providing an opportunity to share successful practices.

LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City.

ELIGIBILITY: NYC licensed, tenured classroom teacher.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

• Minimum of five (5) years satisfactory teaching experience in the New York City Public Schools.

• Mastery of pedagogical and subject matter skills.

• Extensive knowledge of the new NYS and NYC performance standards and new assessments.

• Fluency in DOE regulations, policies and practices relative to content area.

• Demonstrated expertise in designing and implementing standards-based instruction.

• Exemplary knowledge about content, materials and methods that support high standards in various curriculum areas.

• Demonstrated capacity to serve as a catalyst for implementing instructional change in the classroom.

• Demonstrated understanding and experience in addressing the complexities of classroom life.

• Knowledge of staff development practices and in-service education.

• Record of engaging in cooperative and collaborative projects with staff/adults/administration.

• Evidence of excellent interpersonal relationship qualities.

• Demonstrated skill in team building and group dynamics.

• Experience in relating to adult learners.

• Evidence of excellent oral and written communication skills.

• Willingness to undergo additional training during the summer and throughout the year, as well as to travel among field 

locations.

• In certain collaborations, willingness to serve as adjunct faculty for collaborating college/university which may also 

require that candidates hold a Master’s degree.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITES:

• Establish and maintain a trustful, confidential and non-evaluative relationship with intern.

• Serve as a Peer “Coach,” providing opportunities for intervisitation, demonstrating /modeling and conferring with the intern.

• Develop and conduct a daily in-school program that is tailored to the beginning teacher’s professional interest and concerns.

• Assist teachers in using collected data to work on the design and implementation of a comprehensive educational plan 

that focuses on high standards and achievement for all students including those who are LEP and/or receive special 

education services.

• Model appropriate and innovative teaching methodologies through techniques such as team teaching, demonstrations, 

simulations and consultations.

• Act as a liaison between the intern, entire school staff and the administration to promote the positive aspects of mentoring.

• Meet periodically with university faculty representatives.

• Promote collegiality through fostering an atmosphere of cooperation and communication among school personnel.

• Maintain and submit required documentation (mentoring plan, monthly log of mentoring activities, etc.).
22

what succeeded or failed, get advice, and then go back 

and try again—each time growing in terms of teaching, 

reflection, and self-analysis.

Georgia offers an example of how such peer support operates. The RESA program makes available a series of professional, problem-based seminars. The seminars are facilitated by teachers with successful classroom experience, 

positive experience teaching adults, and expertise in particular specialty areas. Candidates are required to attend 

six seminars in the first year and four in the second year. 

If the support team determines that a candidate needs 

help with, say, behavior management, it recommends a 

classroom management seminar. The support comes in a 

form that is easy to digest, as well as relevant. 

Engage in Continuous Reflection 

and Improvement

All six of these programs are deeply attuned to outcomes. They take responsibility for preparing candidates 

to succeed in the classroom and to meet state certification or licensing requirements. They work with candidates, through training and support, to ensure that 

each candidate masters required skills and can demonstrate those skills on the job and in formal assessments. 

Moreover, the programs continually seek to improve 

outcomes, with a focus on how well they meet the 

needs of candidates and partner districts.

ASSESSING CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE 

Alternative route programs focus squarely on candidates’ on-the-job performance. “Traditional programs 

emphasize knowledge,” says the coordinator of Hillsborough’s program. “Our program is skill-based. During 

the whole year of the internship, we are seeing if the 

knowledge from course work is translating into a skill.”

This difference is evident across all six sites. Because 

candidates are classroom teachers fully in charge of 

groups of students, performance can be monitored over 

time, instruction is responsive to candidates’ needs, 

and candidates have the opportunity to re-try strategies and re-teach material. As noted earlier, this kind 

of supportive assessment keeps candidates improving 

even as it keeps them afloat. 

Programs vary in how they organize candidate assessment. Texas and Wichita incorporate performance 

tasks and work samples. New York’s assessment mechanisms vary according to the university program in 

which candidates are placed. Virtually every program 

uses classroom observation to evaluate candidate 

performance. And three sites—Georgia, Hillsborough, 

and Chico—make extensive use of portfolios.

Ongoing formal observation in each program is accompanied by conferences with candidates and, often, written feedback as well. Programs like that in 

Texas’ Region XIII deliberately emphasize formative 

observation, that is, classroom visits that are not used 

for evaluation. Most programs, however, include formal observation as part of the summative assessment 

required for teacher certification.

In Wichita, for example, mentor and administrator observations are required for certification. Mentors use an 

observation form adapted from the Professional Practice Scale published by the Association for Supervision 

and Curriculum Development.

Hillsborough’s three-cycle observation and coaching 

system, described earlier, includes 10 observations, 

three of which are formal (see figure 7, page 19). For 

each cycle, the candidate and school-based mentor 
23

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

teacher develop a candidate action plan to address areas of nonmastery, and observations during that cycle 

focus on those targeted areas. For example, in specified weeks of the first cycle, the school-based mentor 

needs to conduct at least 2 observations that address 

competencies the candidate has not yet successfully 

demonstrated, while also noting whether the candidate continues to improve in areas of proficiency. 

Another key assessment strategy is the use of portfolios, which are used for both formative assessment, 

as noted earlier, and summative assessment. For 

Georgia’s portfolio, candidates amass evidence that 

demonstrates proficiency in 24 competencies (see 

figure 6, page 17). To show capability in planning and 

preparation, for example, they include lesson plans and 

graphic organizers. Showing skill in creating an appropriate classroom environment calls for video clips and 

classroom floor plans. Candidates gather three to four 

samples for each competency.

Given the level of time and effort that goes into creating the portfolios, the Georgia programs take great care 

in evaluating them. The program employs a part-time 

supervisor for just that job. Using a rubric to rate each 

competency, the evaluator provides candidates with 

feedback and submits documentation to the program 

coordinator. When all members of the candidate support team agree that a candidate is proficient in all 24 

competencies, they each sign a competency completion form and submit it along with a recommendation 

for clear, renewable certification.

In Hillsborough, site principals oversee portfolios. Staff 

from the district’s Office of Training and Staff Development orient each principal to the portfolio creation 

process, including a checklist of required items. Annual 

portfolio auditing is handled by educators hired as consultants and trained by project staff.

EVALUATING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

Assessment of candidate performance is only one 

anchor point in continuous program improvement. 

Programs also must routinely monitor whether they 

are meeting critical needs—those of the candidates 

themselves as well as those of partner districts and 

multiple stakeholders.

To evaluate overall effectiveness, programs systematically gather and analyze data using a variety of tools, including questionnaires for candidate needs assessment; 

surveys and interviews of principals; course effectiveness ratings by candidates; support provider ratings of 

candidates; and follow-up surveys after graduation of 

former candidates and their employers. 

RESPONDING TO CANDIDATE NEEDS

To identify candidate needs, for example, survey information from candidates often is gathered as early as 

the beginning of their preservice experience. In New 

York, for instance, candidates complete a “temperature 

gauge,” an online survey asking them to evaluate their 

first three weeks of preservice training, including course 

content and advisory time. The results allow staff to 

follow up with candidates as needed and to make adjustments that might improve their experiences for the 

remainder of preservice. A follow-up survey gauges 

how successful the adjustments have been. 

Chico candidates fill out a pre-entry questionnaire to 

help staff accommodate their experience and characteristics. Instructors then conduct a candidate needs 

analysis at the beginning of each course to help them 
24

tailor instruction. At the end of each course, candidates 

let instructors know how well the course met their 

needs in terms of increased proficiency. 

Region XIII in Texas, like several other programs, surveys its candidates at the end of the program on a wide 

range of issues. Questions cover the program’s overall 

performance, the quality of the training, the caliber of 

support from mentors and supervisors, and candidates’ 

expectations for the future. Texas and Chico survey 

candidates and their employers after graduation. 

Data collected on the needs of candidates and local districts are used to continually improve every 

aspect of the programs. When candidates in Wichita, 

for example, reported strongly valuing the feedback 

on their teaching provided by their support providers and said they wanted more, the program increased the number of support-provider visits to 

classrooms. Most candidates now receive at least 

10 visits in the school year and get written feedback 

from each. The program also accommodated candidates’ logistical problems by purchasing new technology that allows candidates at remote sites to participate 

in classes via the Internet by streaming video rather 

than drive hundreds of miles. 

One measure of success is the rate of program completion. Chico, for one, has seen its candidate retention rate rise from 86 percent of the cumulative 

pool of those who had completed the program in 

1999–2000 to 91 percent in 2003–04. Program leaders credit their focus on gathering data and responding to them. It’s important to note that the data are 

not just quantitative, says Chico’s evaluator. “We try 

to collect candidates’ voices. The survey at the end of 

each class is not just their rating but their words and 

their emotions connected to this course experience. 

Honesty is important. We break down the objectives 

of the courses and ask what students are not feeling 

satisfied with.” Instructors see the exact words of the 

students at multiple points in the curriculum and use 

that feedback for tailoring. Coordinators, too, look at 

all the feedback and routinely revisit the question of 

curriculum sequence.

RESPONDING TO REGIONAL NEEDS

Meanwhile, to stay on top of the changing needs of partner school districts and other local stakeholders, each 

program does yet another level of needs assessment. 

Chico, for example, regularly draws on information 

from a wide range of informants (see figure 9 for Chico’s map of its multiple evaluation strands). One group 

is its advisory board, whose members—including local 

school officials, parents, and representatives from local special education support agencies —keep a finger 

on the region’s pulse. Further information comes from 

supervisors. Because they are constantly in contact 

with school and county office administrators, their 

meetings frequently raise triggers for program change. 

Moreover, a number of part-time university faculty are 

also teachers in the public schools, affording yet another level of feedback. And because program leaders 

are almost constantly writing grants, formal surveys 

and interviews of local participants—including all 385 

principals—provide further, up-to-date data.

Chico’s regional needs assessment has led over time to 

shifts in the program’s emphasis. For example, more attention has been paid to autism in recent years as that 

disability has become more prevalent. The program has 

shifted from an early focus on elementary, multiple-subject teaching to middle and high school teaching as the 
25

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

need for special education teachers at those levels has 

expanded. And the search for more candidates interested 

in serving students with moderate to severe disabilities 

remains a priority, in response to greater need. 

Program leaders in Georgia see responsiveness to district 

needs as a way to model for candidates how good teachers assess and respond to student needs. They believe that 

one reason their program has enjoyed so much success is 

that the people involved, from the top down, truly value 

an open exchange of ideas. Program leaders know local 

school needs because they ask—and then they listen and 

act. For example, this process has led to adding strands in 

early childhood and special education.

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME

It’s clear that continuous program improvement depends on committed, collaborative leadership and inclusive decision-making. In Texas’s Region XIII program, 

analysis of all data collected is done at an annual retreat. Staff members get together for two days each 

year to analyze what is working well and what they 

want to improve. They pride themselves on being able 

to “turn on a dime” to make changes.

FIGURE 9. Chico Continuous Improvement Cycle
26

In New York, an advisory board consisting of program 

participants from each partner university works closely 

with the program directors and the chancellor. For the 

first couple of years, the focus was on the quality of what 

the university offered the candidates. Today the emphasis 

has shifted to encompass broader issues of the teaching 

experience in New York classrooms to continually address 

ways to support quality teaching. 

Chico, at this point, is reaping the rewards of its years 

of careful development. It has enjoyed sustained leadership with its current director and other key leaders in 

place for more than a dozen years. During that time, the 

program has developed a deep base of expertise that 

constitutes its support network. Many of today’s supervisors were once candidates themselves. Many returned 

to enroll in the university’s master’s program—for which 

15 of their candidate credits applied. Often long-time 

residents, support providers understand the rural context and the needs of local schools.

A point of pride for all involved is that the Chico program has begun to have an effect beyond special education. “I see other teachers coming by when I come to a 

school,” says one supervisor. “Staff in three or four other 

classes begin taking on the traits of the special education teacher who is doing a wonderful job—because of 

the supportive model.” Seeing that the program’s candidates bring cutting-edge skills to their sites, a number of administrators tap them to do consultations and 

modeling with other teachers, for example, or to present at board meetings. 

The first part of this guide has presented some crosscutting design elements of a strong alternative teacher 

preparation program. The next part more fully describes 

each program, giving readers six variations of how 

these elements mesh to support the development of 

successful teachers. 
27

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Part II: 

Program Profiles

 Alternative Certification Program, 29

Hillsborough County, Florida 

Educator Certification Program, 33

Region XIII, Austin, Texas 

 Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation 37

 Program, Northwest and Metro Regional 

 Educational Service Agencies, Georgia

 New York City Teaching Fellows, New York 41

 Northeastern California Partnership 45

 for Special Education, Chico, California

 Wichita Area Transition to Teaching, 49

Wichita, Kansas
28
29

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Alternative Certification Program, Hillsborough County, Florida 

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Elementary

Secondary

School District of 

Hillsborough County

1998 530 Rolling 

admission; 

no cohort

59% Female

41% Male

71% White

18% Afr. Am.

8% Hispanic

3% Asian Am. 

(2003 data)

1–2 years $1,600

District pays $800 

Candidate pays $800

To address growing shortages of qualified teachers, while 

providing the best education opportunities for all students, 

the School District of Hillsborough County (SDHC) created 

its Alternative Certification Program (ACP) offering teaching and training opportunities to non-education majors. In 

the 1980s, Florida’s State Department of Education had put 

alternative programs in the state universities, but over time it 

became clear that the alternatives were no longer alternative. 

According to SDHC’s director of training and staff development, these alternatives had “folded right into the university as a straight graduate program.” In 1997, the legislature 

decided to give districts the option of creating their own 

alternative programs. Hillsborough’s program was created in 

1998–1999. 

SDHC’s general hiring practice for a long time was to first seek 

experienced teachers from other districts, then experienced 

teachers from other states, followed by student teachers, and, 

finally, alternative route teachers. The director of training and 

staff development says this was a hold-over from the 1980s 

when alternative certification was seen as a place for “leftover 

hippies.” In ACP’s early stages, she says, school administrators 

were poorly disposed to its graduate teachers, many of whom 

got the “cold shoulder.” But as administrators saw classrooms 

that would be teacherless at the start of the school year, 

they accepted ACP teachers. Enough ACP teachers have since 

joined SDHC schools and been succuessful that administrators 

no longer shun alternative certification candidates.

ACP initially focused on math and science, and served “infield” candidates, which meant that if a candidate’s degree 

major was in chemistry, then that is what he or she taught. 

Candidates went through the ACP to gain pedagogical knowledge and relied upon their university experience for the content in the subject they would be teaching. Three years later, 

however, the program was expanded to serve charter school 

teachers and “out-of-field” candidates—those who wanted to 

teach a specific subject, such as math, but did not have the 

college course work to support that choice. Ultimately, outof-field participants are responsible for gaining content-area 

knowledge for the field in which they want to teach by taking 

university courses, and the ACP is responsible for the pedagogy and teaching methods portion of the certification. 

ACP candidates have two years to complete the program, but 

most need only one year. Those who take two years do so on 

the recommendation of their mentor or building principal, 

who feels that the added time with ACP support and supervision will benefit the candidate. To gain Florida certification, 

the candidates must complete the SDHC ACP, pass a state 

General Knowledge Exam, the Florida Educator Examination, 

and the Florida Subject Area Exam, and meet the requirements of state law. 

Recruitment and Selection

The district runs 6 to 10 ACP evening informational meetings 

each year, and in the summer it hosts two large ACP recruitment fairs. Approximately 900 people attend these sessions. 

On occasion, the program will get news coverage, which frequently results in several calls to the office of Training and 

Staff Development the next day.
30

Since its inception in 1989, 1,327 candidates have been 

accepted into the SDHC ACP, and the program has grown 

over 300 percent in the past five years. Of the 530 teachers 

certified since 1998, 87 percent remain in the district. One 

ACP staff member says the program’s biggest appeal is its 

accessible nature and low cost. ACP candidates can enter the 

program at any time during the year, once they have been 

hired. This makes midyear candidates eligible for support 

and instruction once they enter the classroom, as opposed 

to waiting until the fall. 

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy 

The ACP recommends a 180-day completion timeline for 

the program’s two components, course work and field work 

(the internship year), each completed in conjunction with 

the other. Eight required courses are based upon the 12 Accomplished Practices established by the Florida Department 

of Education: 

1. Teacher Induction/Classroom Management (18 hours)—

based on Harry Wong’s The First Days of School.

2. Professionalism Through Integrity: Code of Ethics 

(3 hours)—training component based on the Florida Department of Education’s Code of Ethics and Principles of 

Professional Conduct.

3. Transition Into Teaching (24-30 hours)—examines the 

developmental needs of K-12 students and strategies to 

meet those needs.

4. Effective Teaching Strategies (18-24 hours)—focuses on 

the six domains of the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS).

5. Instructional Strategies Through Cooperative Learning 

(24 hours)—based upon the work of Johnson and Johnson and Spencer Kagan, and presents knowledge, skills, 

and strategies to implement cooperative learning.

6. Integrating Technology in Education (15 hours)—

emphasizes ways to use technology in the classroom.

7. Crisis Intervention for Educators (3 hours)—video-based 

course designed to help educators recognize the signs of 

emotional distress, behavior indicators of physical and 

emotional abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, and neglect.

8. English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) 

Independent Reading Course (3 hours)—provides ESOL 

awareness for educators.

These courses help participants gain the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities required to successfully demonstrate each of 

the components in the 12 Accomplished Practices. Course 

work is aimed at all levels and is non-subject-specific, with 

the exception of the ESOL course that addresses the needs of 

English language learners in the district.

Course work is completed in three places concurrently with 

field work. Teacher Induction and Professionalism Through 

Integrity are offered through the district’s New Teacher Orientation. Crisis Intervention for Educators and ESOL courses 

are offered through independent study on the participant’s 

campus. The remaining courses are completed through district-sponsored classes. There is no specific order in which 

classes must be completed, but there are obvious benefits 

to taking specific classes (e.g., Teacher Induction) early in 

the process.

Teachers employed by the district, trained in professional 

development, teach the ACP courses during evenings or on 

weekends. One trainer comments that being in the classroom 

all day helps her to bond with the ACP candidates because 

they are in the same boat as her students—“tired and exhausted from the day, but excited to be learning new things!” 

Within the field work component of the program, a threecycle observation process takes place over 36 weeks focusing on the instructional performance of the candidate (see 

figure 7). This includes a minimum of seven data collection 

observations, three “formal” observations, and work with a 

mentor to ensure the candidate is making progress. The observation cycle, which includes specific tasks that must be 

completed, is conducted by the ACP mentor in addition to 

the internal support staff observations.
31

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Candidates are also required to develop a portfolio. The 

school administrator is in charge of the portfolio process 

and works closely with the candidate teacher and the ACP 

staff. The school administrator also works with the candidate 

teacher’s mentor to gather evidence, becomes knowledgeable 

about the guidelines and methods of documentation of accomplished practices, and distributes and collects the ESOL 

and CRISIS Intervention test. It is up to each administrator to 

work with each candidate individually to support the cycle of 

the program he or she is in. One principal commented, “It is a 

lot of work to plan it out for each teacher; it’s tough, but the 

benefits make it worth it.” 

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support 

The mentoring component was added to the ACP in 2000 

based on the Steve Barkley coaching and mentoring model. 

ACP mentors are intended to be friends, coaches, and support people who are nonjudgmental, understanding, and 

nonthreatening. These external mentors are experienced administrators formerly employed by SDHC. As former administrators, they come with training and experience in teacher 

support and evaluation. On occasion, university personnel 

have acted as ACP mentors, but with limited success. One ACP 

staff member hypothesizes that previous administrators possess a “commitment to the organization” that people outside 

the district may not have, and she screens for these characteristics in choosing mentors. Another bonus of using past 

administrators is that they have the respect and authority to 

speak to another principal “administrator to administrator” as 

they observe and advocate for the candidate teacher.

Mentors typically work with 12 to 15 candidate teachers 

at a time and are generally assigned to the same campuses 

or those close to each other to minimize travel in such a 

large county district. Their role is to act as a liaison between 

the teacher, the campus support team, and the Office of 

Training and Staff Development. They also fill in the information gaps for any course work that the candidate has 

yet to complete. Visits typically last an hour and mentors 

are paid $60 per visit and their travel costs. Mentors work 

approximately three days a week, meeting with four to five 

candidates a day.

Observations are based on the Florida Performance Measurement System, a screening and observation instrument tied to 

the 12 Accomplished Practices. Using the information gained 

from this instrument, mentors can recommend additional 

professional development, set up a model lesson, organize 

departmental support, and offer praise to candidate teachers. 

Mentors also review lesson plans, grade-book protocol, classroom management skills, and other district-based processes 

the candidate might be struggling with. 

Mentors advocate for their candidate teachers in many ways. 

They review the candidates’ schedule to ensure that it is conducive to the needs of a new teacher, they keep an eye out for 

too many duties beyond the classroom, and they make sure 

that teachers are not “coerced” into accepting sponsorship 

positions such as cheerleading or other school clubs. Mentors frequently will go to the administrator and lobby to have 

changes made if they feel the candidate teacher is overloaded 

with a difficult schedule or too many duties.

Funding

The ACP program is funded mostly with State Categorical 

Teacher Training funds and a few grants. Title I funds can 

also be used. SDHC receives $2.5 million each year from the 

state to run the program. The program cost per candidate is 

$1,600, which includes materials. SDHC and the candidate 

each pay $800. An ACP manager estimates that while tuition will rise, the program will remain extremely competitive with university programs that charge about $3,000 for 

certification.

Success Indicators 

Between July 1998 and June 2004, 530 teachers have completed the ACP, with 87 percent remaining in the district. The 

overall completion rate of candidates is 98 percent and the 

retention rate is 85 percent.

Key Success Factors

SDHC ACP offers a flexible, low-cost method for non-education majors to enter the teaching field quickly. Based on 

lessons learned, program officers stress the following:
32

›› Have “buy-in” from administrators, human resources, 

and district staff development teams before starting 

up. Building principals who will host the candidates 

need to believe in the program; the human resources 

department, which hires the teachers, needs to be kept 

in the loop, especially if it deals with certification issues; 

and district staff development teams need to know the 

weaknesses of the candidates and be prepared to offer 

assistance or additional professional development.

›› Be willing to make courses accessible and change them 

yearly to meet the needs of candidates. Host courses all 

over the district and at schools that are hosting other 

evening programs so that you can “cost share” to have 

a location open at night. 

›› An assessment process is important. Rely upon portfolios, mentor feedback, and course work results to guide 

the program.

›› Have the “behind-the-scenes” data system set up before you begin. You cannot do things manually; work 

closely with your technology department so that the 

technology can work for you.

›› Reevaluate the program continuously. Provide obvious 

steps for completion and “next steps” to the participants. Rely upon administrator and teacher surveys for 

feedback. This ensures that you will continue to meet 

the needs of your teachers, principals, and district as 

times changes.
33

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Educator Certification Program, Region XIII, Austin, Texas

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Elementary

Secondary

Special Education

Bilingual Education

Region XIII Education 

Service Center

Region XIII School Districts

1989 2,082 236 79% Female 

21% Male 

Majority are White

(2003 data)

17 months $5,200

Candidate pays

Like so many other alternative route programs, the initial 

driver for creating the Educator Certification Program (ECP) 

was a shortage of teachers with qualifications in certain 

certification areas. In 1989, the most critical shortages for 

the 59 school districts in and around Austin, Texas, were in 

special education. To help remedy this situation, the Region 

XIII Education Service Center (ESC) created an opportunity 

for professionals from many different fields to become special education teachers. This ESC, which serves the 16-county 

Austin area, is one of 20 such agencies created by the Texas 

legislature to function as intermediaries between the Texas 

Education Agency and local school districts.

The program underwent a major redesign in 1991. One of the 

most important changes was a switch from holding classes 

during the day to meeting in the evenings and on weekends. 

Daytime classes had forced districts to hire substitutes to fill 

in for the candidates while they attended classes. Night and 

weekend classes allow candidates to be with their own students as much as possible. The program also expanded the 

types of credentials offered to include bilingual and secondary education. The changes resulted in a huge increase in 

the number of program participants, or “interns.” In 1990 the 

program trained 17 special education teachers; in 1991 98 

teachers with various specialties exited the program. In 1995 

the program again increased its offerings and added regular 

elementary credentials. Region XIII ECP is currently approved 

to provide certification in Early Childhood–4th grade (Generalist); Early Childhood–4th grade (Bilingual Generalist); Early 

Childhood–12th grade (Special Education); All secondary level 

content areas; and Seven Career and Technology Education 

(CATE) areas. 

As the program has matured and adapted to serve increasing 

numbers of candidates, the ECP has also refined its program 

goals. Its current mission is “to be sure there is a teacher in 

every classroom who cares that every student, every day, 

learns and grows and feels like a real human being.” Staff 

have identified as underlying program principles: 1) Accountability—The high-stakes environment that students are 

required to excel in makes training teachers a high-stakes 

endeavor and 2) Practice what you preach—Be prepared to 

teach through modeling and alignment of standards if you 

expect your teachers to do the same.

The ECP is a rigorous 17-month, field-based program that 

integrates theory with practice. It provides training and certification for selected candidates who hold a bachelor’s degree 

and wish to become teachers. The cohort-based program 

prepares candidates to be “classroom ready” in six months 

through a combination of online and face-to-face preservice 

training. The training includes preparation and individual tutoring for the required state teacher assessment, as well as a 

two-week field experience. Following this six-month gettingready process, candidates continue training while employed 

by one of the Austin-area districts as the teacher of record in 

their own classroom. During this first year of teaching, the 

program provides the candidates with both mentoring and 

field support. 

The Region XIII ESC employs 15 full-time staff to support the 

ECP mission. The program’s director also oversees other Region 

XIII initiatives. Under the director, there is a program coordinator who oversees day-to-day program administration. Eight 

education specialists serve as cohort leaders, designing and 

delivering instruction for their particular area of certification. 
34

One recent addition is the position of mentor and field support specialist, who ensures that individuals who support the 

candidates in the field know how to reinforce what is being 

taught in program classes. The technology support and online education position is another recent addition, created 

to support the required online course work and to support 

the technology-related learning competencies. There are also 

four support staff at the ECP: one registrar, one office manager, and two program secretaries. 

Recruitment and Selection

Program enrollment fluctuates because the program accepts 

only enough candidates to fill the staffing needs in the districts it serves. The ECP program coordinator meets regularly 

with the regional affiliate of the Texas Association of School 

Personnel Administrators to stay aware of their hiring needs. 

Typically the program has 800–900 applicants of which it accepts 25–30 percent. Applicants must hold at least a bachelor’s degree with an overall grade point average (GPA) of 2.5, 

provide evidence of required competency in reading, writing, 

and mathematics, and have daily access to a personal computer, printer, and a private Internet connection. While the 

program prepares candidates in their content area for special education, bilingual, and elementary certificates, applicants seeking middle- and secondary-level certification must 

already have the required course work and semester hours 

for the desired certificate area. Applicants must also submit 

three letters of reference and complete the TeacherInsightTM 

assessment developed and administered by the Gallup Organization. While the program originally used its own interview 

process, it has found Gallup’s 40-minute online tool to be 

efficient and helpful. 

Upon completion of the application process, the cohort 

leader, in the credential specialization for which the applicant is applying, scores the applicant on a matrix, which includes the applicant’s TeacherInsightTM score, the applicant’s 

overall GPA and course work GPA, information from references, and other comments and observations. The matrix, 

which yields an overall applicant score, is used for the final 

selection of candidates. 

The program averages 275 participants each year. Candidates 

represent a range of professional backgrounds, including 

computer technology, sports, journalism, social work, the 

military, and retail.

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy

Program curriculum is based on state standards established 

by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and is 

aligned with the state board exams, the state Professional 

Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) Framework, and 

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the state curriculum established for Texas public schools.

Preservice training for the elementary, special education, and 

bilingual candidates begins in January each year with online 

course work to address the “highly qualified” component of 

No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB). These candidates are 

required to take the content portion of the Texas Examination of Educator Standards before they are hired, and most 

candidates remain in their current employment while they 

accomplish this. Candidates for middle- and secondary-level 

certification already meet the NCLB requirements for “highly 

qualified” through their college course work and are not required to take a content exam.

The online course work was created by Region XIII and master 

teachers throughout the region. Program staff reviewed it to 

ensure that it aligns with the state standards and provides

training necessary for candidates to pass the state exam in 

March. In March or April of the following year, all candidates 

then take the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities 

(PPR) exam. In the past, 98-99 percent of program candidates 

have passed this state exam. 

In mid-March of the first year, all candidates begin face-toface instruction. Required courses include Learning Foundations (human growth, development, and learning theory);

Lesson Design (lesson cycle and how to incorporate standards into lessons); Classroom Environment (how to establish a positive environment); The “Learner” (instructional and 

questioning strategies); and Beyond the “Learner” (designed 

to help the candidate develop a strong philosophy regarding 

being an educator.)
35

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

A two-week summer field experience takes place in June, 

during which candidates are assigned to a summer school 

classroom that matches their intended level of certification. 

The ECP requires a two-week field experience because that is 

the amount of time most candidates are able to take off from 

their current job.

After completing the online and face-to-face preservice 

training and the field experience, candidates are eligible to 

be employed by a district for the internship year. To remain in 

the program at this point, candidates must obtain a position 

as a teacher of record at the teaching level for which they 

are seeking certification. Generally, over 95 percent of ECP 

candidates obtain positions and remain through the intern 

year. When they are hired, the ECP program recommends the 

candidate for a probationary certificate from the State Board 

for Educator Certification (SBEC). As teachers of record, candidates receive full pay and benefits for the internship year. 

Candidates also receive an additional 12–18 hours of training 

from the ECP each month during the internship year. Some of 

this training is delivered over the Internet.

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

Each ECP candidate has an on-site mentor and field supporter available during both the summer field experience and 

the internship year. Each mentor is selected by the campus 

administrator, who receives guidance from Region XIII on 

mentor selection guidelines. Mentors attend 15 hours of professional development provided by the ECP. The on-campus 

mentor and candidate are required to complete six observations during the school year. The program recommends that 

the mentor observe the candidate three times and the candidate observe the mentor three times. The mentor and candidate must also get together for four discussion meetings 

during the year. 

A field supporter observes each candidate two times during the two-week summer field experience and makes four 

half-day visits, minimally, during the internship year. Field 

supporters are contracted through Region XIII and are usually educators who have a proven record in the classroom. 

Before becoming field supporters, these educators attend 

two to four days of training developed by Region XIII. Some 

candidates consider the support they get from mentors 

and field supporters to be one of the program’s greatest 

strengths. “I can honestly say that I don’t think I would have 

made it through the year without my field supporter,” says 

one candidate. 

Upon successful completion of the ECP (including the internship year) and the state licensing requirements, participants typically earn a teaching certificate specific to their 

area of study. To receive the certificate, candidates must satisfactorily complete all ECP course work and assessments, 

receive at least a satisfactory rating on their teaching evaluation, pass all state board exams, receive a recommendation 

from their campus administrator, and be recommended by 

the ECP program. 

Funding

The ECP is financially self-supporting. Candidates make 

scheduled payments that total approximately $5,200 over the 

17-month program. Of this amount, $3,700 is the “internship 

fee,” which is deducted from each candidate’s paycheck on 

a prorated basis during the internship year. There is no cost 

to districts for any portion of the program, as part of the 

candidate’s tuition pays for his or her school-based mentor. 

Success Indicators

ECP’s program completion rate was 89 percent during 1999–

2001. According to ECP’s deputy director, one of the most important benefits of becoming certified through this program 

is the outstanding reputation that ECP candidates enjoy in 

the region. Other staff members report that principals sometimes claim to prefer ECP candidates over other new teachers. 

When asked why, the principals reportedly cite the field support candidates receive during the induction year. 

Key Success Factors

ECP leaders identify the selection process as a key factor in 

the program’s success. They are selective and do not accept 

all applicants. They have a tool to identify strengths and 
36

weaknesses of potential candidates and they use it. Selectivity pays off in part because program staff can focus on supporting the candidates as they move through content, rather 

than on candidates who are struggling with issues outside of 

the content.

Program leaders also note the value of aligning the program to 

meet the needs of local districts and others who will be hiring 

their program graduates. Build a relationship with the districts 

you serve, they say: Take advantage of the natural relationships that are provided by proximity to schools and districts.

Alignment of the curriculum to state academic and performance standards is also key. ECP staff suggest staying in tune 

with the statewide education initiatives and local district 

initiatives. Doing so can help ensure that programs produce 

teachers who will be on the cutting edge and will be armed 

with the latest knowledge.

A candidate’s relationship with his or her cohort leader 

is crucial. The cohort leader does most of the instruction 

throughout the program, and it is with this individual that 

a candidate can find a “safe haven” if a question or problem 

arises and the candidate wants to avoid taking it to someone 

at the school site. Program staff also point to the invaluable 

support provided by the field support team and mentors, 

without whom there would be quite a bit of anxiety among 

teachers and principals. Not only do the teachers have access 

to an extraordinary form of support, but the principals know 

that when they hire an ECP graduate, that teacher will have a 

level of support from ESC XIII that a teacher from a university 

education program will not generally have. This reduces the 

burden on the principal to be responsible for all the support 

needed by most first-year teachers.

Finally, ESC XIII has a passionate, dedicated staff focused on 

making the program ever better.
37

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program, 

Northwest and Metro Regional Educational Service Agencies, Georgia

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Middle Grades

Secondary

Special Education

Early Childhood 

Education (Metro only)

School districts in NW Georgia 

and metropolitan Atlanta

NW: 2001

Metro: 2003

NW: 64

Metro: 23

NW: 43

Metro: 40

NW: 66% Female 

34% Male

76% White

17% Afr. Am.

3% Hispanic

3% Asian Am. 

(2003 data)

2 years NW: $2,250

Metro: $2,700

Case by case; combination of 

candidate, school, RESA

programs while always keeping an eye on how best to serve 

their own particular constituent districts. 

Although some of the specifics vary between the two programs, like all GA TAPPS, they both use a two-phase approach. 

Phase 1 begins in the summer with candidates taking an intensive “Essentials” course that introduces them to best practices and gives them information about professional roles and 

responsibilities of educators, code of ethics, parent communication, and special education issues. (For teachers hired after 

the start of the school year, the class is taught in the evenings 

and on Saturdays or the candidate may be required to take a 

“Five-Day Survival Course” before entering the classroom until 

the Essentials course is available again.) Phase 2 has candidates teaching in the classroom supported by intensive mentoring and supervision and monthly seminars. 

Recruitment and Selection

Because its candidates are hired as regular teachers and receive a teaching salary as they move through the program, 

GA TAPP has been able to attract a wide variety of applicants, including males and ethnic minorities. One GA TAPP 

candidate who had worked as a long-term, albeit uncertified, substitute teacher, reports having looked into a teacher 

preparation program at a nearby university only to lose enthusiasm upon learning that it could take up to four years 

to become a teacher. Through the GA TAPP program, she 

has been hired at a school where she used to substitute and 

she is now receiving slightly less than a full teacher’s salary 

(with benefits) until she earns a Clear Renewable Certificate. 

In the late 1990s when some northwest Georgia school districts were experiencing student population growth as rapid 

as any in the nation, attracting adequate numbers of certified classroom teachers was a struggle. With higher education programs graduating fewer and fewer teachers, in 1999 

almost 50 percent of new hires came from out of state. To 

address this critical teacher shortage, the region’s superintendents raised the call for an alternative route to certification. 

The Northwest Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA)—

one of 16 such agencies providing services and support to the 

state’s school systems by region—responded to the superintendents’ call by developing an alternative teacher preparation program. The program was approved by the Professional 

Standards Commission as meeting its standards, which are, 

themselves, based on the Interstate New Teacher Assessment 

and Support Consortium standards.

The following year the Professional Standards Commission 

facilitated the development of a statewide program modeled on that created by the Northwest RESA. Later named the 

Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (GA TAPP), 

the two-year, research-based program offers a low-cost 

method for bringing fully certified high-quality teachers into 

Georgia schools. Today, there are 9 RESA-operated GA TAPP 

programs, including the original NW RESA program, which 

serves 16 school districts across 11 mostly rural counties, and 

a closely linked sister program developed by the Metro RESA, 

which serves 11 school districts in the metropolitan Atlanta 

area. Today, the two RESAs coordinate and collaborate, learning from each other to continuously improve their respective 
38

Another candidate, a former industrial engineer, took early 

retirement and entered the program because he “wanted 

to give something back.” One man, a former veterinarian 

with two small children, looked into other options, but says 

he was drawn to the practical, hands-on aspect of the GA 

TAPP program. A candidate who is expecting his first child 

says an alternative route to certification was the only option 

for him because he could not afford a lapse in salary and 

benefits at this time in his life. In general, the application 

process starts with a local school system hiring a prospective 

candidate according to its normal hiring practices. Statemandated minimum requirements include a bachelor’s degree in the field of certification or related field, a 2.5 GPA, 

a passing score on the PRAXIS I (unless exempted based on 

qualifying SAT, ACT, or GRE scores), and clearance on the 

Georgia criminal background check. Once the applicant has 

been hired, GA TAPP staff review the applicant’s transcripts 

to ensure that he or she has the appropriate content background. Because the GA TAPP is not the only avenue to gain 

clear renewable certification, the local school system and 

the RESA determine the option that best fits the circumstances of each candidate, and some candidates are referred 

to other programs.

Although basic acceptance criteria are state-mandated, 

each RESA has its own variation on the selection process. In 

the NW RESA program, each district screens applicants on 

its own, although RESA staff might recommend a prospective candidate to a specific campus because, through their 

longstanding relationships with member districts, staff understand the needs and hiring criteria of each school system. 

In contrast, at the request of its member district, the Metro 

RESA pre-screens all applicants. This process includes a paper screening, a personality test, an interview with a panel of 

representatives of the Metro districts, and a question-andanswer session with a panel of first-year GA TAPP teachers. 

Once applicants are accepted into a GA TAPP program, they 

apply to the state for Intern Certification and the program 

assigns them a Candidate Support Team (CST) made up of 

school and system-level staff who provide support for the 

duration of their internship. 

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy

The Essentials of Effective Teaching is a required course for 

all GA TAPP candidates and most take it during the summer 

before they start teaching. This 80-hour class, based on Danielson’s framework, introduces candidates to best practices in 

Instructional Content and Practice, Planning and Managing 

the Teaching and Learning Environment, Instruction, and 

Professional and Ethical Practices. Each area has corresponding competencies in which candidates must demonstrate 

proficiency in order to pass the class. Through this course, 

GA TAPP teachers learn research-based exemplary practices 

in instructional pedagogy.

Additionally, to meet state requirements, candidates must take 

Introduction to Educating Exceptional Children and Youth and 

be able to demonstrate technology competencies, such as creating online activities and performance-based assessments, and 

aligning their curriculum with Georgia Technology standards. 

Also, candidates choosing to teach middle school have to take 

the Nature and Needs of the Middle School Learner course and 

the appropriate teaching reading and writing course.

The program also uses seminars, which are professional learning workshops designed to meet the candidates’ individual 

needs. For example, if a candidate’s mentor or supervisor 

notices that he or she is having difficulty managing pupils, a “Classroom Management” seminar could be recommended. These seminars are problem-based and aligned with 

Danielson’s framework. Candidates are required to attend a 

minimum of six seminars the first year and four the second 

year. Seminars also serve as a way to incorporate the latest 

research-based strategies and education trends. 

All candidates participate in a practicum in a school that is 

culturally and socioeconomically different from the candidate’s home school. Candidates receive release time from 

their classroom. In addition to observing instructional strategies and programs, the candidate may observe procedures 

related to discipline, parental involvement, community support, classroom space, or other areas of interest. A conference follows each practicum to discuss and reflect on what 

was observed. 
39

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

At both RESAs, the core members of the Candidate Support 

Team (CST) are a school-based mentor (a classroom teacher), 

school administrator (principal, vice principal), the system 

coordinator (a school system employee such as a human resources employee), and the RESA coordinator. Together, they 

ensure that the candidate receives daily support and supervision during the two-year internship. A support team may 

additionally include content experts, course instructors, and 

anyone else deemed helpful to support the candidate or advance his or her knowledge and skills.

The CST meets initially to review expectations with the candidate and then meets at regularly scheduled times and as many 

additional times as needed during the two-year training. Ongoing support is provided through a school-based mentor who 

observes frequently, provides specific feedback, and generally 

serves as a professional role model. Additionally, each candidate has a program supervisor assigned to him or her. The supervisor observes and meets frequently with the candidate, the 

school-based mentor, and the school administrator to discuss 

the candidate’s progress and any additional support that may 

be needed. The school administrator and the system coordinator observe the candidate both formally and informally. 

School-based mentoring by a classroom teacher is an essential part of the program, with candidates receiving a minimum of 100 hours the first year and 50 the second. The mentor, who receives a $1,000 stipend for the first year and $500 

for the second, supports the candidate in a variety of ways, 

including in collecting evidence that the candidate has met 

the competencies required by the program and in organizing the program portfolio that will be part of the candidate’s 

final assessment. On a regular basis, the mentor also observes 

the candidate in the classroom, coaches and demonstrates 

lessons, and facilitates reflective teaching opportunities. The 

mentor also arranges for the candidate to visit other teachers’ classrooms and maintains and submits all records and 

forms required by GA TAPP. 

The RESA coordinator and the rest of the CST are committed to the success of the candidate. Although there are many 

“evaluations,” both formal and informal, the basic purpose 

of the CST is to support the candidate by providing the 

feedback, resources, and strategies necessary for successful 

program completion. One candidate reports that “everyone 

in the program is available to help at anytime—and that includes my mentor, my RESA supervisor, even the coordinator 

of the program.” Most of the candidates say they could not 

imagine being a new teacher without the kind of support 

they received through GA TAPP. One high school teacher—a 

GA TAPP grad—says that from the beginning of the program 

she felt that she was “set up to succeed.”

Funding

Helping to pay for the program is one way in which a hiring 

system can support its GA TAPP candidates. For example, a 

system may pay for the program in its entirety or may require 

the candidate to pay and arrange a payment plan. In some 

instances, a system and candidate each pay a portion of the 

cost. One system recently adopted a policy requiring candidates to pay back a portion of the fees if they do not fulfill 

their contract. At the Metro RESA, even though the member 

school system may pay, ultimately the candidate is responsible for the program fees.

Success Indicators

One of the best advertisements for GA TAPP is the successful teachers that graduate from the program. Superintendents, 

principals, and other related school personnel claim that GA 

TAPP teachers are as prepared as, if not better prepared than, 

traditionally trained teachers. In fact, two of the three new 

teachers voted “Teacher of the Year” in one school district 

were GA TAPP candidates. One alumnus now in his third year 

of teaching has been approached by fellow teachers and his 

principal to model some of his strategies for the other faculty 

on his campus. 

Key Success Factors

The leaders of the GA TAPP program at both the NW and the 

Metro RESA do not just ask the candidates to master the four 

domains of planning and preparation, classroom environment, 
40

instruction, and professional responsibilities—they model it. 

One reason this program has enjoyed so much success is that 

the people who are involved in the program, from the top 

down, truly value an open exchange of ideas. They know what 

their local school systems need because they ask, and then they 

listen. This ability to not just listen to major stakeholders, but 

to seek them out, probe and question, and really flush out the 

needs of the local school systems is a major success factor. 

Another factor is the commitment to constantly evaluate 

and refine the program based on evidence of success. The 

RESAs have created forms, checklists, criteria, and rubrics for

all aspects of the program, providing them with a constant 

stream of feedback. This information is disseminated to relevant stakeholders (by email, through written correspondence, 

or meetings). After everyone has been consulted, decisions 

are proposed. This shared decision-making and responsibility 

model fosters tremendous buy-in at all levels. 

There is a real passion and commitment to the program. One 

assistant superintendent notes that while the program itself 

might not be hard to replicate, ”The heart, soul, and commitment at the highest levels might be harder to come by.”
41

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

New York City Teaching Fellows, New York

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Elementary plus 

master’s degree

Secondary plus 

master’s degree

Special Education

Bilingual Education

NYC DOE

The New Teacher Project

Area universities

2000 5,748

Number who 

have started 

teaching follow- ing preservice 

program

2,000 66% Female

34% Male

58% White

19% Afr. Am.

13% Hispanic

5% Asian Am.

5% Other 

2–3 years $12,000 licensure plus master’s

District pays $8,000

Candidate pays $4,000

In 1999-2000, 15 percent of New York City’s public school 

teachers and 60 percent of all new hires lacked teacher 

certification. The New York City Teaching Fellows (NYCTF) 

program was created in 2000 to recruit, select, and train 

talented professionals from outside the field of education 

to teach in City schools that were struggling to find highly 

qualified teachers.

After investigating alternative route models in other states, 

the New York City Department of Education decided to 

partner with The New Teacher Project, a national nonprofit 

organization that works with local education organizations 

to increase the number and maximize the effectiveness of 

public school teachers. The New Teacher Project runs the 

daily operations of the Teaching Fellows program, and the 

NYC Department of Education staff—director and four program managers—are responsible for policy direction and 

working with the schools and universities. 

The Teaching Fellows program is grounded in two core assumptions: First, there is a substantial pool of talented individuals who have chosen other career options but who are 

capable of and interested in becoming excellent teachers. 

This pool can be tapped by offering a clear, expedited, and 

structured path into the teaching profession. Second, the alternative route to certification can and will meet high standards for teacher preparation and certification. It provides 

a distinct and innovative path for candidates to achieve 

the same high standards as are expected of those who go 

through traditional teacher education programs.

The program begins in the summer, with seven to nine weeks 

of preservice training for fellows. During this period, they participate in a combination of university-based course work and 

student teaching. They are then hired by the NYC Department 

of Education to serve as teacher of record at schools needing 

their content expertise. In addition to receiving district-funded mentoring during the first year, fellows take classes and 

receive additional support from one of the program’s partner 

universities, of which there are currently 11. Classes and support are tailored to fellows’ needs and schedule, and fellows 

earn a master’s degree in the process.

Recruitment and Selection 

Word-of-mouth has been the most effective means of recruitment, but one of the program’s most distinctive recruitment efforts has taken place in the City’s subways. Dissatisfied 

professionals riding to unfulfilling jobs see ads proclaiming 

that “your most important clients will carry backpacks, not 

briefcases” and “no one ever goes back 10 years later to thank 

a middle manager.” In their personal statements about why 

they seek a career change, many program applicants say 

something about not feeling they are making a difference 

in “corporate America.” The program also uses the Internet 

to market itself, but most applicants are local. New York has 

decreased its use of print media (e.g., newspaper ads) because 

it determined that this approach was not cost effective. 

The program’s minimum selection requirements align with 

the state’s requirements and with entrance requirements 

for partner universities, in which fellows will need to enroll 
42

as part of the program. Prospective fellows must have a 

bachelor’s degree with a minimum overall GPA of 3.00, be a 

U.S. citizen or a permanent resident with a green card, and 

speak English fluently. Applicants may not have completed an 

undergraduate- or graduate-level teacher education program 

or hold a current or expired New York State teaching certificate. The GPA requirement is not written in stone. Applicants 

with a lower GPA can be accepted into the program under 

certain circumstances; the deciding factor is that applicants 

have to be acceptable to the partner university at which they 

will take classes.

The program also works closely with the NYC Department 

of Education to identify areas of need, which change over 

time. The program sets quotas and matches candidates to 

the needs.

The entire application process is coordinated online, and applicants are notified within three weeks whether they can 

continue to the next stage of the selection process, a fourhour multistage “interview.” At this stage, applicants must 

teach a five-minute sample lesson, produce a prompt-driven 

writing sample (e.g., a letter to parents) that is intended to 

reveal their critical thinking and problem-solving skills and to 

demonstrate how they use language, and, finally, participate 

in a one-on-one interview. Successful applicants are given 

their subject assignments and asked to enroll in the Fellows 

program. A computer system assigns them to a region, taking into consideration their subject area, schools’ needs, and 

fellows’ preferences. The New York City school system has 10 

regions, and each college and university participating in the 

Teaching Fellows program serves fellows from a specific region. Thus, a fellow’s teaching assignment dictates the institution of higher education at which he or she will enroll during 

the program. Once the fellows receive regional assignments 

they begin looking for a teaching position in that region, a 

process consisting of placement fairs, independent searches, 

and individual interviews facilitated by the Fellows program.

Prior to receiving the temporary state teaching license that 

allows them to be the teacher of record in a classroom, fellows must pass two state-required exams—the Liberal Arts 

and Sciences Test and Content Specialty Tests. The program 

encourages candidates to take the exams as early as possible 

so that if they do not pass, they will have time to re-take the 

tests before the fall. Those fellows who don’t pass until too 

late to start teaching in the fall may start to teach midyear 

if they subsequently pass the exams, although the program 

has not yet developed what it considers to be a satisfactory 

method for preparing midyear candidates. 

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy

Preservice. Fellows start their 200-hour preservice training 

with two weeks of full-time study at their assigned university. Because fellows are expected to have content expertise before applying to the program, preservice program 

course work is pedagogically oriented. (The only exception 

are applicants who were not math majors, but who majored or have extensive professional experience in a related 

field and who are willing to teach math, which has been an 

exceptionally hard-to-staff content area for NYC schools. 

These fellows complete two additional weeks of preservice 

preparation and additional content requirements over the 

two years of course work that follows preservice. NYCTF 

currently admits 300-350 fellows annually to the mathimmersion program.)

After two weeks of full-time classes, fellows shift to a combination of course work and field work. Each weekday morning they work as a student teacher at a NYC school where 

they are overseen by a “cooperating” teacher. Each afternoon 

they continue taking classes. And for two hours at the end of 

the day, groups of approximately 30 fellows come together 

for advisory time facilitated by a fellow adviser. In addition 

to imparting information and leading discussions about such 

essential topics as instructional design and delivery and classroom management, they help fellows reflect on their student 

teaching experiences, what they are learning in the course 

work, and how everything connects. To inform this process, 

the advisers also observe fellows during their morning field 

work. Employed by The New Teacher Project, advisers receive a 

$6,200 stipend for their work between May and September.

University course work. Once fellows complete their 

preservice session and become the teacher of record in a 
43

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

classroom, staff from The New Teacher Project and the NYC 

Department of Education step back and fellows’ assigned 

university becomes their main point of information and 

support for the duration. Although specific course requirements can vary from one university to another, the general 

content provided across all of them is guided in part by the 

state’s requirements for certification and in part by what 

the professors learn about the needs of fellows. How classes 

are taught is informed by the immediacy of the fellows’ 

teaching responsibilities. A professor who knows that a fellow might need to apply what he or she learns in a Tuesday 

night university course to a high school chemistry class the 

next morning is likely to work harder to tie theory to practice in classroom discussions. 

The number of fellows served by each university is determined 

by the number of teaching vacancies in the region it serves 

and by how many of the vacancies will be filled by a fellow 

as opposed to a standard hire. Thus, participating universities 

must remain flexible and be able to adjust to a fluctuating 

number of fellows from year to year. Each university employs 

one or more coordinators to manage its role in the Teaching 

Fellows program. This individual shepherds fellows through 

the next two years, plans the course work (e.g., decides if it’s 

necessary to increase the sections of an assessment class in 

order to serve the higher number of fellows in a given year), 

and manages the university’s field consultants. These consultants tend to be retired teachers or administrators, and per 

state requirements for an alternative route program, they 

must visit each fellow in his or her classroom at least once 

a month. In addition to offering feedback and guidance to 

the fellow, the consultants communicate with the university 

professors and the coordinator about what’s going on in the 

classrooms they observe. 

Most partner universities operate both traditional and alternative route teacher education programs, with alternative 

route programs especially prominent in high-need areas like 

mathematics and special education. Pace University, for example, has about as many students in traditional and alternative programs overall, but at its New York City campus almost 

90 percent of candidates are in alternative programs.

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

In addition to the preservice support they receive from fellow advisers and the inservice support they receive from a 

university’s field consultants, fellows can count on two additional sources of assistance. 

Program Support. Experienced fellows provide continued 

support to candidates through e-mail and phone calls. Lead 

fellows identified at each school site provide orientation and 

some on-site assistance. The program also provides communication and support through a newsletter and periodic 

seminars and social events.

Mentors. In the program’s start-up years, fellows received 

school-based mentoring, but the quality and amount was 

very inconsistent. Some teachers, while excellent in the classroom, are not necessarily good at working with other adults. 

Future program participants will profit from the Department 

of Education’s decision to institute a mentoring system for 

all new teachers that follows the model of the New Teacher 

Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. This model 

involves a formative assessment for which mentors receive 

specific training and which then guides individualized support. Full-time mentors each work with 17 new teachers as 

the model is being implemented in NYC for the 2004–05 

school year. A challenge is to provide the amount of support 

required for so many new teachers across the system (650 in 

one region alone, including 235 fellows), and to match mentors within particular license areas (e.g., science). 

Funding

The NYCTF program operates with a $35 million budget from 

the New York Department of Education. The state has received 

two federal grants to subsidize the program at certain partner universities enabling them to expand their capacity to fill 

subject area shortages. Until September 2003, the program 

covered the entire cost for a fellow to participate. Now, each 

fellow, through a payroll deduction, pays $4,000, one-third 

of the program cost. NYCTF understands the financial burden 

of changing careers and pays a nontaxable $2,500 stipend 

for each fellow’s participation in the preservice training. The 
44

fellows become full-time teachers after the seven weeks (nine 

for people needing the extra math content) and receive full 

salary and benefits as employees of the NYC Department of 

Education.

Success Indicators 

The program is filling a significant need in NYC, accounting 

for 30 percent of new hires in math. The popularity of the program is evident in the huge number of applications—around 

17,000 a year. Its effectiveness is tracked through retention 

rates. About 90 percent of candidates complete their first full 

year as teacher of record and return for the second year. The 

program is working with partner universities to track longerterm completion and retention rates.

Key Success Factors

Program staff identify the following as having significantly 

contributed to program success thus far:

›› engaging The New Teacher Project;

›› targeting recruitment to a wide market with the message of “do something meaningful in your career”;

›› taking great care with selection;

›› building a big enough pool of applicants to allow selectivity in accepting candidates;

›› constantly reassessing the program and the schoolsystem needs;

›› putting technical data systems in place ;

›› engaging the universities in the process early and often; 

and

›› working collaboratively with unions and regional 

representatives.
45

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Northeastern California Partnership for Special Education, 

Chico, California 

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Special Education Cal. State Univ., Chico

57 Local Ed. Agencies

Commission on 

Teacher Credentialing 

U.S. Dept. of Education’s

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

1989 331 60 74% Female

26% Male

88% White

9% Hispanic

2% Native American

2% Asian Am.

15% Individuals with 

disabilities

2 years $10,000 average

Candidate is responsible but 

may receive a scholarship of 

$5,200–$10,000

the university and each of the local education agencies share 

equally in decisions governing each local candidate’s recruitment, selection, support, and competency verification. 

The program begins with a preservice orientation on the CSUC 

campus. Program participants, or “interns,” then begin teaching full time while working toward a full credential by way of a 

highly structured, organized, sequential learning experience.

It typically takes two years to complete the program, including 

summer school on campus. During the school year, classes are 

offered on campus on the candidate’s monthly release days and 

on one Saturday each semester, as well as online after the candidate’s school day via real-time streaming video on the Web.

Recruitment and Selection

The program has an emphasis on attracting homegrown talent. In its recruitment efforts, the program deliberately targets 

groups that are underrepresented nationally as special education teachers (especially people with disabilities and men). And 

as the diversity of the region’s students continues to increase, 

the program also actively recruits ethnically diverse candidates. 

Due to regional increases in rural drug abuse and poverty, the 

program has made it a priority to search for candidates with 

credentials to serve students with moderate-to-severe needs. 

Many candidates in this program are career changers—notably from the military and the dot-com industry—or people 

re-entering the workforce. The average age is 40. Some candidates are drawn to the program because they have children 

of their own in special education. Others say they had always 

In 1987 the special education picture in California’s 14 mostnorthern rural counties could be summed up in a single word: 

desperate. The sparsely populated region, spanning 43,000 

square miles—an area slightly larger than Austria—had at 

least 60 special education teachers on emergency credentials 

and a much larger group of substitutes with no credentials 

at all. Individual county offices of education organized some 

courses locally in conjunction with California State University, Chico (CSUC), the sole higher education institution in 

the region providing special education preparation. But the 

curricular offerings lacked structure, frequency, sequence, 

and coherence. Professors made local visits only sporadically, 

and candidates had only rare opportunities to be on campus. 

Given these obstacles, it took roughly seven years to get the 

credential. Not surprisingly, few candidates stayed that long. 

In response to this crisis, CSUC developed the Northeastern 

California Partnership for Special Education in 1989. It offers 

an alternative route program in the form of an education specialist internship. Its mission is “to improve the quality of rural 

special education services to pupils and their families.”

The partnership comprises CSUC, 57 local education agencies 

(including school districts, individual schools, and counties), the 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), and the 

federal government. The Partnership Advisory Board provides 

program oversight and policy leadership. The Board consists of 

representatives of the partner groups, including a cross-section 

of professional roles, community and parent representatives, 

and university faculty. Regular communication ensures that 
46

wanted to teach but got sidetracked by better-paying jobs. A 

common denominator seems to be a certain level of maturity. 

Candidates must meet a set of basic state requirements, including having a bachelor’s degree with a GPA of at least 2.67, 

demonstration of subject-matter competency, and passing 

the California Basic Education Skills Test. Every candidate who 

meets the prescreening criteria goes through an extensive and 

intensive structured interview conducted by a team. Since the 

program is continual, interviews take place every two weeks. 

The interview protocol is inspired by the “Star” Teacher Selection Interview developed by the Haberman Educational Foundation—an instrument with a 95 percent predictive rate over 

its 35-year history. It helps to gauge such qualities as whether 

a person is persistent, is a problem solver, is protective of learners and learning, can translate theory into practice, and can 

use successful approaches with students considered at risk of 

failure. An essay portion of the interview assesses writing ability. And the process also includes role-playing situations.

The selection interview is specifically tailored to rural special 

education teaching. It seeks to evaluate, for example, a candidate’s reasons for becoming a teacher and working with 

exceptional children and prior commitment to exceptional 

children. It determines a canditate’s skills in communication 

and collaboration through such questions as: What role does 

collaboration play in special education? How would you create a climate of fairness and equity in a diverse classroom? 

“The interview process makes it clear to candidates that this 

is a rigorous program,” says a program adviser. “Before we 

used it, candidates would get into the program and then say, 

‘I had no idea this would be so hard.’”

Team members score interview results using a rubric and 

candidates who score below a cutoff point are not accepted. 

Candidates who do not make the initial cut are assigned to 

a second team for another interview. “We don’t want their 

whole career dependent on one interview,” says the adviser.

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy 

Each candidate’s goals and his or her action plan for 

achieving those goals—including course work, individual 

assistance, and professional development opportunities—

are documented and tracked in a personal roadmap called 

the Individualized Induction Program (IIP). The entire program is anchored in standards: the California standards for 

the teaching profession, the education specialist standards 

for earning the credential, and the California academic 

content standards for students. Each IIP is designed to ensure that by the end of the program, the candidate meets 

all the standards. The candidate’s course work must follow 

a prescribed scope and sequence of courses, but substitutions are allowed, based on a candidate’s background and 

experience. The candidate’s portfolios and reflective logs 

are organized around the standards.

The program begins with a one-day orientation, dubbed survival training, in which candidates become acquainted with 

the instructors, the university supervisors, and—if possible—

the local support providers (i.e., mentors). During the orientation, candidates also begin to get to know each other.

Throughout the program, discussions are tailored to suit 

the issues candidates confront in their daily teaching. The 

traditional time gap between course work and the chance 

to put what’s being learned into practice is virtually nonexistent in this program, with candidates continually traveling an arc from academic theory to trying it out with their 

pupils, and then, back in the university classroom, reflecting 

with instructors and peers on what worked, what didn’t, 

and why. 

The curriculum is geared to pupil outcomes. Under the program’s Pupil Assessment Project, for example, candidates focus on four or five of their most challenging pupils and how 

to move them forward. The emphasis is on using assessment 

to support pupil growth.

Overall, more emphasis is placed on teaching strategies than 

on content. “We are a fifth-year program, meaning that candidates come in with subject-matter content, so the focus is 

on pedagogy,” says the program director. “However, it’s very 

content-rich. And the fact is, both content and pedagogy are 

special-education specific.”
47

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

*For the theoretical underpinnings of the support structure, program leaders refer to Tharp and Gallimore’s Triadic Model of Assisted Performance (1988), which is based on the Kamehameha 

Elementary Education Program, a 15-year continuous research 

and development program.

The cluster of courses and field experiences required for California’s Level 1 credential covers a range of critical how-tos, 

such as how to manage the physical structure and content 

of learning environments to meet pupils’ behavioral and academic needs; how to work collaboratively to construct a pupil’s Individualized Education Program; and how to approach 

relationships with paraprofessionals. The cluster also covers 

assessment and evaluation, methods for teaching math, 

technology in specialized instruction, and laws and regulations in special education.

Level 2 requirements include instructional strategies for behaviorally and emotionally disturbed students and advanced 

curriculum content for teaching pupils with both mild-moderate and moderate-severe disabilities.

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

The individualized web of candidate support provided collaboratively by district and university staff is the soul of this partnership program.* Not only do these relationships provide a 

safety net for the candidate during the high wire act of simultaneously learning and teaching, but they enable high caliber 

learning experiences for pupils by bringing layers of expertise 

to bear in meeting pupil needs, even in remote locations.

The candidate’s support team consists of CSUC-based program coordinators and supervisors and local mentors and 

administrators. Supervisors are university instructors who 

facilitate the support network in their assigned region. Each 

supervisor works with 10-15 mentors and roughly the same 

number of candidates, whom they follow throughout the 

four semesters. They visit candidates onsite at least five times 

a semester to observe, coach, model, and mentor. Between 

visits, they maintain phone and email contact. Besides linking 

with mentors, supervisors communicate and develop rapport 

with school principals and other district or county education 

administrators. Many of today’s supervisors were once candidates themselves. Mentors, or local support providers, are 

local teachers or district staff members with at least three 

years of successful teaching experience. They are nominated 

by county or district administrators and usually work one-onone with a candidate—matched by credential and expertise. 

Mentors attend training at the university, meet weekly with 

the candidate for the first two semesters, and work with a 

university supervisor. The mentor gets release time and a stipend to function as the candidate’s coach, consultant, and 

critical friend to help reduce stress, build skills, and meet the 

needs of the moment. 

Principals and other local administrators are also integral 

members of the candidate’s support team. At the end of the 

program, the supervisor and principal must both sign off on required competencies for the candidate to receive a credential.

The program’s evaluation of a candidate’s readiness for the 

credential models the kinds of assessment the candidate is 

learning to conduct with his or her own pupils. The evaluation incorporates the following measures:

›› a GPA of at least 3.0 must be maintained in all courses;

›› artifacts from course work, including, in the candidate’s 

portfolio, a detailed reflective journal tied to standards, 

as well as individualized lesson plans driven by analyses of ongoing pupil assessment data and critiqued by 

supervisors, mentors, and the employer;

›› formative observation feedback, using a research-based 

format, that documents growth and skills in teaching;

›› results from individual progress conferences between 

candidate and faculty that are held at least twice a year;

›› results from conferences among supervisor, mentor, 

employer, and candidate that occur at critical junctures 

during internship placements; and

›› a final evaluation of competencies made by the supervisor, employer, and related program faculty.

Finally, each candidate presents his or her portfolio in an oral 

presentation for a peer-review session. Faculty then provide 

written feedback and make a recommendation regarding 

state certification.
48

Funding

Each partner contributes to the program. The university provides televised or Web-based courses, regional supervision, 

and separate course sections for candidates. Public schools 

guarantee candidates 10 paid release days each year to attend classes. Grants from the CCTC and the U.S. Department 

of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services support partial tuition stipends, the services of support providers (mentors and candidate adviser), and program 

coordination and evaluation.

Success Indicators

This program can boast an unprecedented feat: It has eliminated special education emergency credentials in its sprawling service area. Since 1990, the program has had 331 

graduates, and 91 percent of them now teach in the region’s 

schools. That rate of local retention has held steady despite 

the intensifying seriousness of pupil needs over time and 

despite the mobility afforded by a credential that qualifies 

one to teach at any K-12 level and across special education 

settings. So far, some 206,875 special education pupils have 

gained credentialed teachers. 

The program has also had a ripple effect throughout individual schools, as veteran general education teachers—often 

struggling to keep up with changed standards—tap into the 

cutting-edge knowledge and skills brought to their sites by 

way of the CSU Chico-linked special education program. “I 

see other teachers coming by when I come to a school,” says 

one university instructor. Administrators see this, too, and 

build on it to keep their sites more current. They ask candidates to do consultations and modeling with other teachers, 

for example, or to present at board meetings. 

Key Success Factors

The partnership leaders credit five guiding principles for driving the program’s success over time:

Attract candidates by raising, not lowering, standards. 

From the outset, the partners asserted the need to draw a different clientele—people more suited to meeting kids’ needs—by 

raising standards for admission, university curriculum, and 

candidate supervision and performance. They set, and have not 

wavered from, twin goals of high quality and ready access.

Ensure collaborative decisions. The public schools and the 

university make mutual decisions. A critical step in making 

the program a success was gaining the support of the regional school districts for a structured, centralized program. 

By allocating funds for monthly teacher release days, districts 

agreed to give up the courses they were offering locally. But 

it was not a tough sell, since administrators saw hope in the 

new program for ending the emergency credential crisis. 

Evaluate for continuous improvement. In the face of continual challenges, the program remains flexible, using evaluative 

data (including feedback from students and others throughout the region) to identify and solve problems. The use of data 

to tailor the program so that it meets candidate needs has 

resulted in a rising retention rate over time. One administrator 

emphasizes that information collected is not just quantitative. “We try to collect candidates’ voices. The survey at the 

end of each class is not just their rating but their words and 

their emotions connected to this course experience. Honesty 

is important. We break down the objectives of the courses and 

ask what students are not feeling satisfied with.”

Pursue high quality personnel. Program directors, instructors, supervisors, and advisers have extensive public school 

experience and excellent academic backgrounds. They understand highly effective teaching and the demands of a rural 

internship and are committed to offering stability through 

their roles. All involved credit the “grow-your-own” approach 

the program has used. In effect, it’s a case of program administration modeling the kind of culture it strives to nurture 

in the program itself. “We have all been mentored,” says one 

program staff member. “This program has done a remarkable 

job of recognizing talent in our own backyard and encouraging and supporting people to be innovative.”

Pursue external funding. Annual grant writing has secured 

state and federal funds that have underwritten management, 

advisement, coordination, regional travel, program materials, 

support provider stipends and training, candidate stipends, 

and program evaluation. 
49

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Wichita Area Transition to Teaching, Wichita, Kansas

Certification/Degree Partners

Program 

Initiated

Total Program 

Graduates

2004 Candidate 

Cohort

Candidate 

Demographics

Program 

Duration

Cost per Candidate/ 

Who Pays

Secondary with master’s 

degree option

Wichita State Univ.

Wichita Public Schools

1992 234 26 65% Female

35% Male

85% White

15% Other 

2 years Program with licensure $4,800 

Plus master’s degree $6,400 

Candidate pays

During the late 1980s Wichita State University (WSU) was 

reporting that fewer people were entering the teaching profession at the secondary level through traditional teacher 

preparation programs. At the same time, high-need urban 

districts like the Wichita Public Schools were experiencing 

teacher shortages generally, and most specifically in content 

areas such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages. In 

response, WSU, in partnership with the Peace Corps, implemented in 1992 an experimental alternative route to teacher 

certification. The program provided returning Peace Corps 

volunteers with an alternative path toward becoming a certified teacher and provided the community with teachers who 

had lived in a foreign culture and were able to bring those 

experiences to the learning environment. 

Based, in part, on the success of the WSU-Peace Corps partnership, the Kansas State Department of Education granted 

approval for WSU to expand the experimental program to include non-Peace Corps candidates beginning in the summer 

of 1997. At that time, WSU and Wichita Public Schools (WPS) 

received a three-year Title II grant to develop a program for an 

alternative route to teacher certification and to increase the 

number of alternative route candidates in high-need teaching areas. In this effort lay the foundation for the Wichita 

Area Transition to Teaching (WATT) program, which began in 

2001. That same year, in response to aerospace industry layoffs in Wichita, the city of Wichita and the Raytheon Aircraft 

Industry provided a grant to enhance the program.

WATT now serves some 40 Wichita-area school districts, 

enabling them to hire qualifying noncertified program 

participants to teach in content or specialty areas for which 

a district has had difficulty finding qualified applicants. Program candidates participate in a two-year course of study 

leading to full certification for teaching at the middle and 

high school level in the state of Kansas. The program begins 

with a summer preservice session and provides instruction 

and support to candidates while they serve as a teacher of 

record during the subsequent two school years. A three-year 

program, which results in a master’s degree in curriculum and 

instruction, is also available. 

The WATT program is managed by the Transition to Teaching 

Office in the College of Education at Wichita State University 

in collaboration with several other departments and agencies. The program, which employs a director, an assistant, and 

three part-time peer consultants, maintains a collaborative 

relationship with the school districts it serves. As one district 

human resources representative explains, her district needs 

WATT in order to fill its openings and WATT needs the district 

in order to place its candidates. WATT also maintains open 

communication channels and cooperates with the Kansas 

State Department of Education because licensing standards 

and regulations impact the requirements for the alternative 

certification route candidates.

Candidates come to WATT from a variety of fields. Recently, 

the largest number of candidates have come from businessrelated fields. Many substitute teachers have also entered 

the program.

Recruitment and Selection

A key WATT objective is to recruit and place midcareer 

professionals and recent college graduates in high-need 
50

teaching positions. To find the best-qualified candidates, 

WATT has developed a rigorous selection process that begins 

with a transcript analysis. Applicants must have a degree in 

the field in which they want to teach, but an analysis of their 

transcript yields information about their relative mastery of 

the relevant content. Analysis results are used to create a 

“plan of study” for the candidate that lists any deficiencies 

in the major content area, which candidates must make up 

within the two-year program period. Applicants are then 

interviewed by the program director who determines if an 

applicant is qualified to be a candidate. In order to participate in the program, qualified candidates must pass the PreProfessional Skills Test (PPST) in reading, writing, and mathematics. (Once in the program, candidates must pass the 

Praxis subject content test[s] at the end of their first year of 

teacher, and before program completion, they must pass the 

Principles of Learning and Teaching [PLT] test.) Finally, prior 

to being accepted, applicants must be admitted to Wichita 

State University Graduate School and have a job offer from 

an accredited school district.

This latter requirement is tied to the program’s intent to 

place candidates in high-need teaching positions. WATT conducts several activities designed to help qualified candidates 

meet this requirement: It hosts a job fair where candidates 

are introduced to potential employers. The program director 

works to match candidates with districts that have vacancies 

in high-need areas. Staff have also produced a booklet on 

interviewing skills and they host a seminar to assist candidates with interviewing procedures. After securing a teaching position in his or her field of licensure and appropriate 

grade level, the applicant officially becomes a part of the 

WATT program. 

Candidate Training: Content and Pedagogy 

Each candidate must successfully complete three summer 

courses (Creating Effective Classrooms, Introduction to the 

Exceptional Child, and Growth and Development) before 

WSU can recommend him or her to the state for the provisional certification required for the candidate to become 

a teacher of record and begin his or her clinical practice for 

the school year.

While serving as teachers of record, candidates participate in 

an internship course each semester. The course is a biweekly 

new-teacher seminar that caters to the needs of the candidates as they become immersed in the classroom. In addition to their four internship classes, during their two years 

of teaching, candidates take seven professional education 

courses: Creating Effective Classrooms, Introduction to the 

Exceptional Child, Theories of Growth and Development, 

Learning and Reading Strategies, Multicultural Education, 

Foundations of Education, and Curriculum Models and Processes. They are also expected to engage in university course 

work according to their individual plan of study, and to attend district-sponsored professional development activities 

as prescribed by the program and their employer district. 

The Kansas State Department of Education has established 13 

performance standards for all Kansas teachers, and the WATT 

aligns its own candidate performance standards with these 

state standards. The required courses within the alternative 

route to teacher certification program are also aligned to the 

state standards. 

Mentoring, Supervision, and Support

The third and fourth WATT program objectives relate to ensuring that candidates receive adequate support during their 

two-year classroom experience. Once a candidate is hired by 

a school district, the program requests that the principal at 

the candidate’s school assign a mentor. Written suggestions 

on how to select appropriate mentors are provided to the 

district and the principal of the school. In addition to having 

a school-based mentor, each candidate is paired with a peer 

consultant. WATT certification candidates receive a minimum 

of 10 observations with written feedback during their first 

year and another 10 the second year.

As noted earlier, WSU employs three part-time peer consultants to assist the WATT Director, who also serves as a peer 

consultant. Wichita Public Schools also employs its own peer 

consultants to assist with all new teachers in the district, and 

one of these consultants works with WATT teachers as well. It 

can sometimes be difficult for the WATT peer consultants to 

make the required number of visits to candidates who work 
51

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

across the broad geographical area served by the program. 

Therefore, district superintendents, principals, and mentors 

help with classroom observations. 

WSU faculty members also support candidates through the 

weekly internship classes. Additionally, the program makes use 

of videoconferences for face-to-face communication throughout the week for candidates in remote areas of the state.

The fourth and fifth program objectives relate to ensuring 

that a high percentage of WATT candidates will be successful 

during their first- and second-year teaching experiences. In 

cooperation with WSU’s Office of Student Support Services, 

the program monitors the successful completion of clinical 

practice for all alternative route candidates. The hiring district, the university or district mentor, and the WATT director monitor candidates and provide evaluation-based support throughout the program. Candidates applying for exit 

from the program must complete an application and submit 

supporting documentation at the end of the second year of 

teaching. By this time, candidates will have been evaluated 

using the Teacher Work Sample (TWS), Administrator Performance Evaluation, Mentor Observation Assessment, the 

district contract renewal process, faculty assessment, and 

self-reflections. The WATT director reviews the applications 

and a certification clerk within WSU’s College of Education 

completes a certification audit. Candidates must also pass the 

Principles of Learning and Teaching test at the conclusion of 

the program before final licensure. 

Funding

The initial partnership between WSP and the Peace Corps 

was funded by a grant from DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest 

Foundation. The WATT program also benefited from a 2001 

U.S. Department of Education grant of $700,000 awarded 

under Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

as well as from local business funding. 

The tuition cost for the two-year WATT program is $4,800, 

plus books and test fees. (The PPST test costs about $130. 

Praxis content area tests are about $80 each, and the Principals of Teaching and Learning test costs about $100). 

A master’s degree, which includes licensure, requires 10 additional hours. Therefore the three-year program will cost 

approximately $6,400, plus tests and books. 

Success Indicators

Since 1992, 259 candidates have completed the WATT program (including the 41 Peace Corps fellows who participated 

in its first incarnation). Over the years, the program has had a 

90 percent completion rate, and 85 percent of the candidates 

who have completed the program since 1992 have remained 

in education. The WATT director also reports that over 95 

percent of WATT teachers are placed in high-need teaching 

positions based on requests from participating districts. 

Both anecdotal and quantitative data point to WATT’s success in meeting its objective of developing “competent, caring 

teachers.” On the anecdotal side, school administrators who 

work with WATT teachers describe them as assets, praising 

their maturity and overall involvement in school and community activities. WATT has also received reports that its teachers 

share new ideas and teaching tips with veteran teachers. Districts that employ a teacher prepared in this program tend to 

ask for additional WATT teachers when vacancies occur.

Some empirical data also indicate program success. A majority 

of all WATT teachers received “proficient” or “distinguished” 

final ratings from their peer consultants on each of the 

components included on the Association of Supervision and 

Curriculum Development’s Professional Practices scale used 

to assess levels of performance in planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional 

responsibilities. 

Key Success Factors

Alternative route candidates cite as a significant program 

strength the opportunity to spend most of the two-year program in the classroom teaching. They also acknowledge that 

the salary and benefits attached to being a teacher of record 

is an important factor. 

Program staff believe the job fair also contributes to candidate success. In 2002, the WATT produced its fair for 36 school 
52

districts and placed 53 new teachers in accredited schools for 

the 2002-2003 fall and midterm, exceeding the program goal 

of recruiting 50 new teachers.

Overall, the success of the WATT program lies in using the 

cohort model, its choice of class offerings, the availability 

of evening and weekend classes (e.g., the internship courses 

are offered every other Saturday during the two years), and 

the level of personal attention and support provided to its 

teacher candidates. 

While the WATT program has already achieved success, program staff point to trends that may further strengthen the 

program over time. A recently designed statewide Transition 

to Teaching Program has brought the state face-to-face with 

the challenges of implementing an alternative route to licensure. As more students enter the state program and as 

more institutions participate in the preparation of alternative 

candidates, it will likely bring about some changes in state 

regulations that guide this delivery model. Strong communication between participating institutions and school districts, collection of data, and continued statewide assessment 

of alternative route candidate performance will provide a 

foundation for the state of Kansas to effectively align and 

evaluate education performance standards with alternative 

route programs.
53

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Alternative Certification Program

School District of 

Hillsborough County

901 East Kennedy Blvd.

Tampa, FL 33602

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/

Cathy Jones

Program Director

Region XIII Educator 

Certification Program

5701 Springdale Rd.

Austin, TX 78723

http://kids.esc13.net/ 

Becky Washington

Senior Coordinator

Metro RESA Georgia Teacher 

Alternative Preparation Program

1870 Teasley Drive

Smyrna, GA 30080

http://www.mresa.org/

Phyllis S. Payne

Coordinator of Alternative Programs

Northwest RESA Georgia Teacher 

Alternative Preparation Program

3167 Cedartown Highway SE

Rome, GA 30161

http://www.nwgaresa.com/

Betsy Dellenback

Linda Segars

Coordinators

New York City Teaching 

Fellows Program

New York City Department 

of Education

65 Court Street, Room 322

Brooklyn, NY 11201

http://www.nycteachingfellows.org/

Vicki Bernstein

Director of Alternative Certification

Northeastern California 

Partnership for Special Education

California State University, Chico

Special Education Programs

Chico, CA 95929-0465

Lisa Churchill

Michelle Cepello

Co-Directors

Wichita Area Transition to 

Teaching 

Wichita State University

College of Education

201 Corbin Education Center

1845 N. Fairmount

Wichita, KS 67260-0028

http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=altcert

Judith Hayes

Director

WestEd

730 Harrison Street

San Francisco, CA 94107

http://www.WestEd.org/

Glen Harvey

Chief Executive Officer

Nikola Filby

Associate Director, 

Regional Laboratory Program

Edvance

123 Post Oak Lane, Floor 3

Houston, TX 77024

http://www.edvance.org/

C. Jackson Grayson Jr.

Chief Executive Officer 

Kristin Arnold

Project Director

Acknowledgments

The development of this guide was initiated and directed by 

Nina S. Rees, assistant deputy secretary in the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. 

Sharon Horn was project director. 

An external advisory panel provided feedback to refine the 

study scope and prioritize issues to investigate. Members included Vicki Bernstein, New York City Teaching Fellows; Emily 

Feistritzer, National Center for Alternative Certification; Meryl 

Kettler, Regional XIII, Texas; Joan Baratz-Snowden, American 

Federation of Teachers; Cyndy Stephens, Georgia Professional 

Standards Commission; and Ken Zeichner, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Staff in the Department of Education who provided input and 

reviewed drafts include Tom Corwin, John Gibbons, Margaret 

West Guenther, Thelma Leenhouts, Dan Madzelan, Meredith 

Miller, Michael Petrilli, Phil Rosenfelt, and William Wooten. 

This guide was written, designed, and based on a report by 

WestEd.

WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service 

agency committed to improving learning at all stages of life, 

both in school and out. WestEd has offices across the United 

States and also serves as one of the nation’s ten regional educational laboratories.

WestEd’s partner in developing this series of research reports 

and innovation guides is Edvance. Created by the American 

Productivity and Quality Center, Edvance is a resource for process and performance improvement with a focus on benchmarking, knowledge management, performance measurement, and quality improvement initiatives in education.

The six programs cooperating in the development of this 

guide and the report from which it is drawn were generous 

with both their time and attention to the project. We would 

like to thank the district superintendents and the many district staff members who were instrumental in coordinating 

and participating in the site visits that inform the report and 

this guide.
54
55

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

The project methodology is an adaptation of the four-phase benchmarking process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC),*

 including case descriptions of individual alternative route 

teacher preparation programs and a cross-site analysis of key findings. While classic benchmarking 

looks for best or promising practices, using quantitative measures and comparisons among organizations, alternative route programs are too new to fully support this methodology. A brief description of 

this project’s adapted methodology follows. 

Plan

First, a conceptual framework was developed from an 

analysis of research on teacher preparation, including 

alternative route programs. Experts in teacher preparation and alternative route programs were recruited 

to serve on an external advisory panel, which provided 

feedback to refine the framework and prioritize issues 

to investigate. The resulting study scope guided all aspects of the study (see figure 2 on page 5).

Site selection was a multistep process to ensure that 

the guide would feature an array of practices covering 

the elements of the framework and would represent 

a variety of geographic locations and contexts with 

which district administrators could identify. A list of 

possible sites was compiled through primary and secondary research conducted by Edvance, the education 

nonprofit created by APQC, and by WestEd and the expert advisory panel. All had some promising practices in 

place, required that candidates enter the program with 

at least a bachelor’s degree, and had candidates work 

as the teacher of record as part of the program. 

To narrow the selection, a screening template was developed to systematically analyze the weighted criteria 

for site selection identified by the advisers. The factors 

considered were whether the program had an operational track record beyond three years, was designed 

to meet local needs, gave credit to applicants with previous experience and skills, was field-based, appointed 

mentors to support candidates, tracked program retention and completion, and monitored student and 

teacher demographics. Multiple points were possible 

on each of these factors.

The template was completed for sixteen programs for 

which data were available based on public documents, 

Appendix A: 

Research Methodology

* American Productivity and Quality Center. (2001). Benchmarking 

in education: Pure and simple. Houston, Tex.: Author.
56

team collated the information collected during the site 

visits and developed a case study for each site. 

Analyze and Report

The project team analyzed all collected data to understand the promising practices uncovered throughout 

the benchmarking project, both within and across programs. Four key findings discussed in the final report 

emerged from the cross-site analysis. 

Two products resulted from this research: a report of 

the findings and this practitioner’s guide. The report 

provides an analysis of key findings across sites, a detailed description of each site, a collection of artifacts, 

and key project documents. The practitioner’s guide is a 

summary of the report intended for broad distribution.

Adapt

Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to select, 

adapt, and implement practices that meet their individual needs and contexts. The guide will be broadly 

distributed nationwide through presentations at national and regional conferences, as well as through national associations and networks. The guide and report 

are also accessible online at http://www.ed.gov/admins/

tchrqual/recruit/altroutes/index.html.

such as program marketing materials, reports, and program Web sites, supplemented with targeted phone 

interviews with program staff. The six programs that 

were selected had relatively high ratings on the template. In addition, selection balanced different types of 

programs (e.g. district-based, regional, university partnerships), and geographic locations.

Collect Data

Collecting detailed descriptive information from program staff, partners, and participants was key to understanding the program’s practices, the outcomes or 

impact achieved, and lessons learned from which others could benefit. The major steps to this phase were 

finalizing the site visit interview guide based on the 

study scope, and arranging and conducting program 

visits to the programs. 

Each of the six sites hosted a two-day site visit that 

included interviews with administrators, program participants, and partners as well as observation of events 

if scheduling permitted. During the site visits, these key 

personnel were asked questions from the site visit discussion guide tailored to their role group. In addition, 

artifacts from the sites, such as applications, planning 

tools, and interview protocols, were collected to provide concrete examples of program practices. The study 
57

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Appendix B: 

Resources

The Gallup Organization includes human resources 

development in education as a focus area. It offers 

tools and assistance for recruitment, selection, and 

development of teachers and principals. Its TeacherInsight InterviewTM tool is used in candidate selection in 

some sites in this guide.

http://education.gallup.com/

The Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc. promotes research-based models for identifying teachers 

and principals, particularly those suited to serve students at risk and in poverty. “The Star Teacher Interview” is designed to identify teacher candidates who 

are more likely to succeed.

http://www.habermanfoundation.org/

The National Center for Alternative Certification, 

established in 2003, serves as a “one-stop” clearinghouse of alternative-route information for policymakers, researchers, program administrators, and prospective 

teachers. The Web site provides easy access to detailed 

information about policies and about individual alternative route programs in each state. A searchable database 

is tailored for individuals seeking to become teachers. 

The National Center provides technical assistance and 

outreach to states, localities, and other entities wanting 

to create high-quality alternative certification programs 

or to upgrade existing programs, to Transition-to-Teaching grant recipients, and to policymakers developing 

plans for alternative certification initiatives. A call center 

answers questions about alternative certification; the 

toll-free telephone number is 1-866-778-2784. 

http://www.teach-now.org/

The National Council on Teacher Quality advocates 

for reforms in a broad range of teacher policies at the 

federal, state, and local levels, including raising the 

standards for entry into the profession while eliminating obstacles that keep many talented individuals from 

considering a career in teaching. The Council compiles 

a resources feature on alternative certification, including recent developments and “places to watch.”

http://www.nctq.org/

The New Teacher Center (NTC) at the University of California, Santa Cruz, addresses the pressing national need 

for new teacher and administrator induction programs, 

as well as quality professional development for educators at all stages of their careers. The NTC has developed 

a formative assessment system for new teachers, and it 

provides training and resource materials—print, video, 

and online. The NTC also conducts research on induction and facilitates a network of researchers.

http://www.newteachercenter.org/

The New Teacher Project (TNTP) is a national nonprofit organization that partners with education entities to increase the number of outstanding individuals 

who become public school teachers and create environments for all educators that maximize their impact 
58

on student achievement. Since 1997, TNTP staff have 

worked with school districts, colleges of education, and 

state departments of education to design and deliver 

alternative route programs that meet local needs.

http://www.tntp.org/

The Teaching Commission is a diverse, bipartisan 

group comprising 19 leaders in government, business, 

philanthropy, and education. Established and chaired 

by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., the former chair of IBM, the 

commission works to improve student performance 

and close America’s achievement gap by transforming the way in which America’s public school teachers are prepared, recruited, retained, and rewarded. The 

Commission’s report with four broad recommendations 

provides the framework within which it encourages innovation and reports progress around the country.

http://www.theteachingcommission.org/
59

Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification

Notes

1 Alternative teacher preparation programs like those described in this guide are aimed at candidates who enter 

the program with at least a bachelor’s degree. Other types 

of preparation programs serve classroom paraprofessionals who do not yet have a bachelor’s degree and would like 

to become a teacher.

2 Luekens, M. T., Lyter, D. M. and Fox, E. E. (2004). Teacher 

attrition and mobility; Results from the teacher followup survey, 2000–01 (NCES 2004–301). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

3

 Esch, C. E. and Shields, P. M. (2002). Who is teaching California children? Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for Teaching 

and Learning; Shields, P. M., Esch, C. E., Humphrey, D. C., 

Wechsler, M. E., Chang-Ross, C. M., Gallagher, H. A., Guha, 

R., Tiffany-Morales, J. D., and Woodworth, K. R. (2003). The 

status of the teaching profession 2003. Santa Cruz, Calif.: 

The Center for Teaching and Learning. 

4

 Teacher certification is a state responsibility. Each state 

authorizes routes in addition to establishing standards 

and criteria for certification. Background information 

and state-by-state listings can be found on the National 

Center for Alternative Certification Web site: http://www.

teach-now.org/overview.cfm/.

5

 The National Center for Education Information developed 

a classification for categorizing the alternative routes to 

teacher certification as program variations increased and 

as program reporting required more consistency. In 2004, 

the classifications ranged from Class A to Class K. Class A is 

the designation for programs designed to attract talented 

individuals with a bachelor’s degree to a formal program 

of instruction and mentor-supervision with no requirement as to subject area need or shortage of teachers. 

Class K is the designation for avenues to certification that 

accommodate specific populations for teaching, such as 

Teach for America and Troops-to-Teachers. For a detailed 

description of the criteria for each class, see the National 

Center for Alternative Certification Web site: http://www.

teach-now.org/frmClassificationOfAltRtes.asp.

6

 Reviews of research generally conclude that the most 

successful alternative programs tend to have high entrance 

standards; afford extensive mentoring and supervision; 

give extensive pedagogical training in instruction, management, curriculum, and working with diverse students; 

provide plenty of practice in lesson planning and teaching prior to a candidate taking on full responsibility as a 

teacher; maintain high exit standards, and develop strong 

partnerships (Allen, M. [2003]. Eight questions on teacher 

preparation: What does the research say? Denver: Education Commission of the States; Humphrey, D. C. and Bosetti, K. R. [2004]. What do alternative certification participants get? Implementation challenges. Paper presented at 

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 

Association, San Diego, Calif.; Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., 

and Ferrini-Mundy, J. [February, 2001]. Teacher preparation 

research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.

Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington; Zeichner, K. and Schulte, A. [2001]. 

What we know and don’t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. 

Journal of Teacher Education, 52, (4), 266–282). 

7 National Center for Alternative Certification: http://

www.teach-now.org/overview.cfm