A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers

By 1993, 40 states had instituted alternative certification (AC) programs for degree holders wishing to teach (Sindelar & Marks, 1993). Although these alternative certification programs have occasioned controversy over their value, researchers have conducted very few substantive investigations on their effectiveness. The few extant studies have somewhat contradictory results. One problem with investigations and even discussion of AC and traditional certification (TC) is the variety of the former. Cornett (1990) provides useful descriptions of the broadly differing ends of the spectrum of AC programs: [Some AC programs] simply give teachers without the proper credentials (requirements such as education hours completed) an interim status and allow them to be employed while they work to earn the college credits that are equivalent to standard requirements for teacher education programs. On the other hand, several states have developed alternative certification programs--ones that permit Arts and Sciences graduates to go through intensified but shorter programs (not requiring the typical accumulation of education hours), or meet requirements by demonstrating competencies, or by gaining the necessary expertise through field-based experiences while holding a teaching position (p. 5 7, emphasis in original). In this article, we compare TC program graduates with individuals completing a carefully constructed AC program. The AC program required condensed coursework to meet provisional certification standards, an induction mentoring program, and ongoing coursework to meet minimal state certification guidelines. It did not meet the full requirements for a degree program in middle-level education. Darling-Hammond (1992), reviewing the literature on alternative teacher certification programs, reports: Studies of teachers admitted through quick-entry alternate routes frequently note that the candidates have difficulty with curriculum development, pedagogical content knowledge, attending to students' differing learning styles and levels, classroom management and student motivation (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990; Grossman, 1989; Lenk, 1989; Mitchell, 1987). Novice teachers without full training show more ignorance about student needs and differences and about teaching basics than trained beginners (Rottenberg & Berliner, 1990) (Darling, Hammond, 1992, p. 131). Some researchers question the content preparation of AC teachers, a supposed strength of AC programs. McDiarmid and Wilson (1991) compared the mathematical knowledge of teachers from two different AC programs with that of TC teachers and noted that teachers with AC preparation lacked depth of content knowledge. They did not improve appreciably through teaching the content: Our analyses should raise questions about assumptions that underlie policy initiatives such as alternate routes: Specifically, should a major in mathematics--or in any discipline--be accepted as a proxy for the kinds of understandings of the subject essential to helping diverse learners understand critical ideas and concepts (McDiarmid & Wilson, 1991, p. 102)? Several studies support the equivalence and occasional advantages of AC programs when compared with TC programs. Adelman (1986) found that AC programs attract individuals with greater classroom effectiveness than that possessed by TC teachers. In an evaluation of Texas programs, Wale and Irons (1990) found that administrators held favorable opinions of AC teachers. Hawk and Schmidt (1989) found no difference between AC and TC teachers, either in observed classroom performance or National Teacher Examination scores. Other researchers (Barnes, Salmon, & Wale, 1989; Dewalt & Ball, 1987; Etheridge, Butler, Etheridge, & James, 1988; Guyton, Fox, & Sisk, 1991; Hutton, 1987; Mishima, 1987; Soares, 1989, 1990) report similar findings. Comparisons based on achievement test performance suggest that AC programs do not necessarily lead to lower student outcomes (Barnes, et al. …