Traditional Teacher Education Recruits Fare Better -- and Now the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Wants to Do Something About It

As 2007 comes to an end, a treasure trove of new teaching quality reports are being released. The most stunning and sobering report may be the one released by the Public Agenda Foundation and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality — aptly entitled  “Working without a Net: How New Teachers from Three Prominent Alternative Route Programs Describe Their First Year on the Job." This study exposed the poor preparation that alternative certification recruits from Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, and Troops to Teachers actually receive. In surveying a random sample of both “prominent” alternative certification and traditionally prepared novices, the study identified several stark findings. For instance:

• 84 percent of traditional recruits rated their preparation in managing classrooms as excellent or good, compared to only 60 percent of the alternative certification recruits;
• 71 percent of traditional recruits rated their preparation in helping struggling students as excellent or good, compared to only 38 percent of the alternative certification recruits; and
• 77 percent of traditional recruits rated their preparation in providing individualized instruction to students as excellent or good, compared to only 49 percent of the alternative certification recruits.

In addition, 34 percent of the alternative recruits who are teaching in high needs schools reported they were planning to leave teaching within two years. However, only 4 percent of the traditional recruits noted they were going to leave within the same time frame.  These survey data do not suggest that traditional teacher education programs have it right – but for the most part they are doing a better job than even the highly regarded Teach for America program in getting new recruits ready for the immense challenges of teaching in high needs schools.

It seems like the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation gets it – announcing just recently a far-reaching fellowship program to recruit and prepare college graduates and mid-career professionals to long-term teaching careers in high-need schools. As part of the effort both the Annenberg Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York will provide a $30,000 stipend and one year of graduate education at four of the nation’s top teacher-education programs (Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Virginia, and University of Washington) to candidates who agree to teach in low-income schools (The Lilly Endowment will launch a similar effort in Indiana.). Even Teach for America recruits agree that such a program is long overdue — as one noted in a recent blog posted in response to the release of the Public Agenda study:

As a Teach for America alum, I can say that this fellowship sounds like it will be much more effective than TFA….[which] more or less throws you in to the wolves and creates unattainable goals for a first year teacher. You get no support in the classroom by the way of a mentor and no training in pedagogy. Alternate route courses are a joke….I really hope this program works out well, and not only attracts qualified candidates, but also encourages them to stay in the teaching field.

Granted these self-reported survey data do not tell the whole story in terms of the traditional versus alternative preparation debate. Many of the alternative recruits are just as committed to serving high needs students — and perhaps in some cases even more. However, the public schools need to recruit – and prepare – them. They no longer should have to work “without a net.” The students they teach deserve much better.