Education I NEED HELP ON MY HOMEWORK

https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871211015976

Journal of Teacher Education 1 –15 © 2021 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00224871211015976 journals.sagepub.com/home/jte

Research/Empirical

Introduction

Multiple preparation pathways have emerged since the 1980s, offering “alternatives” to traditional, university-based preparation. These pathways include faster routes to teacher licensure and immersive residency models that include full- year classroom apprenticeships. Despite the proliferation of these new pathways into preparation, we know little about how various routes of entry empirically differ. Indeed, prior studies point to finding more heterogeneity within rather than between pathways (i.e., Boyd et al., 2012; Grossman & Loeb, 2008); however, the labels “traditional,” “alternative,” and “residency” are commonly used to signal different types of preparation. For example, alternative routes tend to priori- tize learning teaching “on the job” (Humphrey & Wechsler, 2008) as a teacher of record and therefore have greatly expe- dited formal preparation, whereas residency models priori- tize learning to teach alongside an experienced mentor teacher for an entire preservice year in a PK-12 classroom setting (Guha et al., 2016). As these pathways claim to offer distinct forms of preparation, we need to understand whether, and how, this is the case.

In this study, we examine the preparation experiences reported by preservice student teachers (PSTs) across pathways

and programs serving Chicago Public Schools (CPS). With over 35 preparation programs (see Appendix A, available with the online version of this article), Chicago is home to four residency programs, three alternative certification programs, and over 28 traditional programs, comprising a diverse and rich preparation context in which to begin to investigate whether and how PSTs and their experiences differ between pathways.1 Obtaining a locally based, bird’s eye-view about preparation can inform potential PSTs about the pathway that might serve as the best match for their needs; it can also inform employers who may seek newly certified teachers with different forms of prepara- tion. The specific programs that make up this local landscape define each pathway route in Chicago-specific ways that may differ from similarly named routes in other contexts. For exam- ple, Academy of Urban School Leadership (AUSL) and Teach For America (TFA)-Chicago have the largest residency and

1015976 JTEXXX10.1177/00224871211015976Journal of Teacher EducationMatsko et al. research-article2021

1Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

Corresponding Author: Kavita Kapadia Matsko, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. Email: [email protected]

How Different Are They? Comparing Teacher Preparation Offered by Traditional, Alternative, and Residency Pathways

Kavita Kapadia Matsko1 , Matthew Ronfeldt2 , and Hillary Greene Nolan2

Abstract Nontraditional teacher preparation pathways were designed to offer different forms of preparation meant to attract different populations of teachers; however, prior literature suggests they may not provide as much of an alternative as initially intended. Drawing on surveys of nearly 800 preservice student teachers and their mentor teachers, we offer a descriptive overview comparing traditional, alternative, and residency pathways preparing teachers in Chicago Public Schools. Our study provides evidence that nontraditional forms of teacher preparation in Chicago do indeed provide unique routes of entry into the profession. We find substantive differences in the kinds of preparation that these pathways offer, including features of preparation such as program and student teaching duration and methods course load, which are often assumed to differ. We also find differences in features not historically studied including mentor characteristics and experiences, types of mentoring provided, and supports received by mentors.

Keywords teacher education preparation, teacher residency, alternative certification, mentoring

2 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

alternative programs in the area, respectively, and are similarly represented in our sample. Although results from our study can- not then be generalized beyond Chicago, they identify initial patterns in preparation that can be taken up and comparatively studied in other labor markets.

We seek to better understand the traditional, alterna- tive, and residency teaching pathways of PSTs in CPS. Specifically, we explore similarities and differences across pathways along three dimensions: (a) characteristics of the PSTs completing teacher preparation; (b) features of prepa- ration, with a particular focus on preservice mentoring; and (c) PSTs’ perceptions of their readiness to teach and career intentions.

Literature Review

Little empirical work has been done to determine the degree to which intended differences in nontraditional pathways are being actualized in candidates’ preparation experiences. In this review, we describe studies that focus on differences between pathways and the kinds of preparation offered; we also review studies examining differences in terms of PST outcomes. We use these studies to inform the features of preparation we include in our analysis.

Pathways that provide a fast-track to licensure are typi- cally referred to as “alternative” programs, as they provide an alternative to “traditional” approaches to preparation.2 The premise of alternative pathways in their earliest concep- tion was that by recruiting promising individuals, extended preservice preparation may not be necessary (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007, citing Klagoholz, 2000).3 Thus, these path- ways tend to be marked by abbreviated preparation and early entry as teacher of record (Humphrey & Wechsler, 2008; Stoddart & Floden, 1995).

Alternative routes have been fueled by the prospect of attracting a new population of prospective teachers into teaching (Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Stoddart & Floden, 1995; Zeichner & Hutchinson, 2008). By offering reduced tuition rates and fewer entry requirements, they are often designed to recruit prospective teachers of color (Villegas & Lucas, 2004), subject matter experts (Stoddart & Floden, 1995), and other academically talented individuals who may not have otherwise considered teaching (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).4 In New York City, the strategy appeared to work— newly hired teachers from alternative pathways were more racially diverse, had stronger academic credentials, were more likely to teach in science and math, and work with mar- ginalized students (Boyd et al., 2008).

Because new recruits typically have strong subject matter expertise (Boyd et al., 2012; Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Stoddart & Floden, 1995) but lack training in instructional methods, alternative providers have emphasized learning while “on the job” in PK-12 classrooms. Although propo- nents of alternative pathways assert that they address teacher

shortages by providing a fast-track into classrooms, others have noted that high rates of turnover of alternatively pre- pared candidates are contributing to the shortage problem (Goldstein, 2014). The question of who enters nontraditional pathways and why is one that continues to be of interest, given nontraditional pathways’ tendency to work within par- ticular high-need districts to prepare teachers for particular contexts (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014a; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014b).

Nearly one out of every five new public school teachers nationwide is prepared through an “alternative” certification pathway (McFarland et al., 2018). As of 2020, Teach For America has over 62,000 alumni and corps members across 50 U.S. regions, both urban and rural. At first glance, these statistics seem to suggest that the presence of alternative routes has reshaped the preparation landscape.

Yet, few studies that have examined the features of alter- native programs suggest they have had little impact on the kinds of preparation that PSTs experience. Existing large- scale evidence indicates that all routes of preparation are marked by a “lack of innovation” in which “most alternative route programs have become mirror images of traditional programs” (Boyd et al., 2008, p. 339). Based on a review of nearly 50 alternative route programs, Walsh and Jacobs (2007) come to a similar conclusion. Placing blame on schools of education for co-opting efforts of alternative route reforms, they conclude that today’s alternative programs have less selective candidates, are longer, require more coursework, and provide less intensive mentoring than the plans put forth by those who originally proposed these reforms.

One possible reason that prior studies have found that alter- native pathways are not truly different from traditional routes is because of their focused attention on narrow sets of variables such as number and types of course requirements and duration of student teaching.5 Ronfeldt et al. (2014), for example, used Schools and Staffing Survey data to demonstrate that alterna- tively prepared teachers reported significantly shorter practice teaching experiences but completed a statistically similar num- ber of methods-related courses. In our work, we go beyond stu- dent teaching duration to consider many characteristics of mentors and mentoring, for example.

While existing literature suggests that alternative path- ways provide preparation that is more traditional than ini- tially intended, it acknowledges that differences do exist. For example, Boyd and colleagues (2008) examined the number of course requirements across pathways and found that pro- spective teachers in traditional programs have more opportu- nities to consider learning and development and special education compared with nontraditional “early entry” pro- grams; by contrast, the latter offered more coursework opportunities related to classroom management. Here again, the identified differences tend to focus on the amount of coursework opportunities and less about preparation quality.

Matsko et al. 3

Another limitation of studies examining between-route differences in preparation is that they examine programs from over a decade ago. As a result, they do not consider more recent innovations in teacher preparation, including teacher residencies. Inspired by the medical model, residen- cies provide candidates with a yearlong, in-school “resi- dency” in which they learn to teach alongside a mentor, typically in a high-need classroom (Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 2008; Guha et al., 2016). Unlike most alternative pathways, residency pathways are designed to have extensive preser- vice clinical preparation—typically 4 days per week in a school over the course of an academic year—and often involve district partnerships to prepare for particular geo- graphic regions or context (Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 2008; Conklin et al., 2019; Gatti, 2014; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014; Solomon, 2009; Williamson et al., 2016).6

Given the surge of recent federal and philanthropic funding available to support residencies (Gatti, 2014), there are now over 50 residency programs nationwide, which range in size from five to 100 residents per year (Guha et al., 2016). Advocates argue that residency programs take the best of both the traditional and alternative route worlds—with a strong emphasis on recruitment paired with extensive clinical prepa- ration (Grossman & Loeb, 2008). Given their infancy, most residency studies are descriptive studies of single program (Matsko & Hammerness, 2014; Solomon, 2009; Williamson et al., 2016). More research is needed on this newer model of preparation, particularly in the form of comparative studies (Berry, 2005). Our study aims to address this gap.

Reformers behind nontraditional pathways proposed intensive mentoring as a key preparation feature. Alternative and residency programs often provide supports for their graduates in the form of early career mentoring and induc- tion, both during initial preparation and after becoming teachers of record (Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Guha et al., 2016; Humphrey et al., 2008). Walsh and Jacobs (2007), however, found that the mentoring occurring in most alterna- tive programs was not as intensive as expected; for example, mentor teachers (MTs) made weekly observations of candi- dates in only one third of alternative programs they studied. In contrast, mentoring is highly emphasized in residency pathways during preparation. One study of 30 teacher resi- dency programs found that mentors received an average of 37 hr of training (Perlstein et al., 2014). The present study examines differences in mentoring between pathways in greater depth.

Although only a few studies (described above) have com- pared pathways in terms of the kinds of preparation they offer, more studies have compared pathways in terms of average graduate outcomes, including feelings of prepared- ness to teach, achievement gains, and retention. To our knowledge, though, no prior study has compared across all three pathways, another contribution of our work.

In terms of alternative versus traditional route compari- sons, Darling-Hammond et al. (2002) found graduates from

traditional route programs felt better prepared in instruc- tional knowledge of curriculum and teaching strategies and had a greater sense of efficacy than alternatively prepared peers. Zientek (2007) had consistent findings. In contrast, only one longitudinal analysis reviewed failed to detect dif- ferences between traditionally and nontraditionally prepared kindergarten teachers in their self-reported instructional practices in mathematics (Guarino et al., 2006). When con- sidering teacher retention, studies generally suggest that tra- ditionally prepared teachers are retained at higher rates, though results are somewhat mixed (Garcia & Weiss, 2019; Grissom, 2008; Redding & Smith, 2016).7

Regarding comparisons in graduate outcomes between residency and traditional programs, studies consistently point to high retention rates of the former (Guha et al., 2016). Papay and colleagues’ (2012) examination of the Boston Teacher Residency (BTR) also found their graduates had sig- nificantly better rates of teacher retention than other new teachers. Additional findings from that study suggested that BTR residents were more racially diverse and more likely to teach math and science, though achievement results were mixed. Two additional studies which examine residency pathways in New York (Sloan & Blazevski, 2015) and Memphis (Silva et al., 2014) find graduates from residency programs to have stronger achievement gains.

Drawing from our review, we identify several dimensions of preparation to comprise a conceptual framework to under- gird our study. We begin by noting the importance of who enters the preparation process by capturing (a) PST charac- teristics, including race/ethnicity, gender, and grade point average (GPA). We then consider differences between path- ways in terms of (b) features of preparation such as number of courses and length of student teaching, and include a focus on preservice mentoring including mentor characteristics and mentoring strategies used during student teaching. Finally, we look at (c) PST’s self-reported outcomes for per- ceived teaching readiness and career intentions. We use these dimensions to descriptively compare traditional, alternative, and residency pathways within CPS. Specifically, we ask, what are similarities and differences across pathways in (a) PST characteristics, (b) program design and features of prep- aration, and (c) PSTs’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach and career intentions?

Method

Setting

This study takes place in CPS, which served 381,349 stu- dents in the 2015–2016 school year. The student body is pre- dominantly Latino (46.5%) and Black (37.7%), with White students making up 9.9% of students. CPS employs 19,822 teachers.8

Each year, approximately 1,000 PSTs enter student teach- ing in the Chicago area through nearly 40 colleges and

4 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

universities encompassing the multiple pathways that are our focus—traditional, alternative, and residency.9 This unique convergence of multiple pathways in a single market gives us a rare opportunity to begin to differentially understand, on average, the various preparation pathways that PSTs experi- ence and their impact on their preparation and career intentions.

Data

To answer our research questions, we surveyed PSTs who completed their student teaching in CPS during the 2015– 2016 school year and their MTs. We drew items from prior surveys10 where available and developed new questions about features with little prior evidence. We piloted the new items with student teachers and mentors in Chicago and other labor markets and asked for feedback about whether they captured the intended constructs, and then revised the items accordingly. See Appendix Tables 4 and 5 (available with the online version of this article) for reliability informa- tion regarding our focal measures.

PST surveys. We sent online surveys to PSTs after they com- pleted their student teaching, residency, or intensive summer institutes but before they became teachers of record. We administered surveys at three time points: fall 2015, spring 2016, and summer 2016. Surveys asked PSTs questions about their preparation, including coursework, prestudent teaching field experiences, field instructors, and reasons for choosing their programs. They also included items about mentoring experienced during student teaching,11 feelings of preparedness for teaching, and career plans, including inten- tions to teach in underserved schools. Survey completers were offered US$25 gift cards.

Mentor teacher surveys. Online surveys were sent to MTs who worked with at least one PST during the 2015–2016 academic year. Surveys asked MTs to assess aspects of their own mentoring, including their teaching and mentoring experience, training or compensation received, and self-per- ceived mentoring quality. MTs also responded to questions about PSTs’ performance during student teaching and sense of preparedness for aspects of teaching.12 Completers were also offered US$25 gift cards.

Sample

Appendix Tables 2 and 3 (available with the online version of this article) explain the maximum coverage for our ana- lytic sample of PSTs and MTs. We were able to identify the program and pathway for all spring and summer13 respon- dents and for 242 fall respondents, for a total of 767 PSTs— our analytic sample of PSTs.

To be included in this analysis, an MT needed to have both responded to a survey and mentored a PST who could

be linked to a program and pathway. Thus, 533 MTs were included in our analytic sample for models in which MT characteristics were the focus (see Appendix Table 4, avail- able with the online version of this article). We also con- firmed there were no significant differences in characteristics between MTs in our analytic sample and those excluded due to missing pathway identification (see Appendix 5, available with the online version of this article).

Measures

In this section, we describe the focal measures and features of preparation, including mentoring measures (Research Question 2) as well as measures of PSTs’ preparedness and career intentions (Research Question 3).

Features of teacher preparation. The features in our analyses represent a variety of “inputs” into the preparation that PSTs experience. They include features such as program length and amount of methods coursework, as well as features of student teaching and the mentoring PSTs receive (see Appen- dix Table 6, available with the online version of this article).

Mentoring measures. We surveyed MTs and PSTs in each pathway about the kinds and amount of mentoring provided/ received. Based on responses, we created several mentoring measures, including frequency of mentoring activities, kinds of feedback MTs provided, amounts and kinds of job help, what PSTs learned in conversations with their MTs about the domains of instruction, and PSTs’ perceptions of their MTs’ teaching effectiveness. All mentoring measures were created using Rasch14 methods (see Appendix Table 7, available with the online version of this article).

Perceptions of preparedness. A key outcome of our study was self-perceived preparedness to teach by the end of stu- dent teaching. Although self-reported, this provided us with the critical perspective of the student teacher. We asked PSTs questions about their preparedness to take on the responsibilities of teaching in four domains of instruc- tion aligned with CPS’s teacher evaluation system15: (a) planning and preparation, (b) instruction, (c) classroom environment, and (d) professional responsibilities. We also asked PSTs about how many opportunities to learn about each of these domains their programs offered, as well as the various types of supports they received in the field, particularly from their MTs. We submitted these survey items to Rasch analysis to create domain-level measures (see Appendix Tables 7 and 8, available with the online version of this article).

Career intentions. We asked PSTs how many years they planned to teach generally and in CPS specifically; for our main analyses, we created indicator variables for whether or not they planned more than 10 years. We also asked PSTs to

Matsko et al. 5

indicate their top-five desired characteristics of a future teaching position (see Appendix Table 9, available with the online version of this article). Among several options, we asked about PSTs’ preferences to teach low-income students, English Language Learners (ELLs), Latinx students, Black students, and low-achieving students.

Analytic Methods

We created a pathway designation (traditional, alternative, or residency) for each PST based on the first survey ques- tion the PSTs answered, which asked them which teacher eduction programs (TEPs) they completed in the 2015– 2016 academic year. Pathway decisions were based on a list of program designations approved by Illinois State Board of Education for the year in which the data were collected.

For almost all models, we modeled the data at the PST level because most PST responses were invariant even when PSTs were linked to multiple MTs (e.g., PST age, PST major). When PSTs could be linked to multiple MTs, we collapsed mentor information across PSTs. For continuous mentor measures, such as Rasch measures on their perceptions of mentoring, we averaged across the MTs a given PST had. For dichotomous measures, such as race and gender indicators, we counted whether a PST ever had at least one instance of each dummy; for example, a PST with more than one MT could be coded as having both a female and a male MT. For the set of outcomes called “Mentors and Mentoring Experiences,” we modeled the data at the MT level, because in these cases MT information was the same even if they had multiple PSTs (e.g., teaching experience, reasons for serving as MT, receiving mentoring professional devel- opment [PD]).

Research Question 1. Our study’s central focus is comparing differences in preparation, perceived preparedness, and career intentions as a function of pathway. However, given prior literature suggesting that different routes attract and recruit different kinds of PSTs, we first examined the extent to which PST background characteristics in Chicago varied significantly by pathway. Conceptually, we wanted to test whether there were statistically significant differences between pathways in terms of average PST characteristics. By using a multilevel regression framework with indicators for each pathway as predictors and PST characteristics (or program features for Research Question 2; see below) as out- comes, we are able to make these comparisons and test whether differences are unlikely to be due to chance while adjusting for the fact that PSTs enrolled in the same TEPs are not independent. Thus, we used multilevel regression models with PSTs nested in TEPs that took the following general form:

PST Characteristic Pathwayij j ijr e= + + +γ γ00 10 0 , (1)

where the characteristic for PST i in teacher preparation program j is a function of an intercept (γ00); pathway indica- tors for traditional, with nontraditional (alternative + resi- dency) as the reference group (Pathway); a TEP-level random effect r0j; and a PST-level residual eij. The PST characteristics included gender, race, whether a parent, whether a CPS graduate, having any prior teaching experi- ence (e.g., substitute), undergraduate major (education/not, subject teaching/not), and undergraduate GPA. In two addi- tional series of models, we included indicators for (a) alter- native as pathway, with nonalternative (traditional + residency) as reference, and (b) residency as pathway, with nonresidency (traditional + alternative) as reference. In separate model specifications, we nested PSTs in pathway instead of TEP; results were similar.

Research Question 2. Models related to Research Question 2 were similar to Equation 1, except features of preparation were substituted for PST characteristics as outcome measures. The features of preparation, which were outcomes for Research Question 2, consisted of program features (e.g., timing of coursework, length of program), features of student teaching (e.g., grade and subject), MT characteristics (e.g., whether a parent, years of experience), and PST and MT perceptions of mentoring (e.g., feedback frequency, job search assistance). See Appendix Table 6 (available with the online version of this article) for focal features of preparation.

Research Question 3. Models related to Research Question 3 were also similar to Equation 1, except we substituted PSTs’ self-perceptions of preparedness and career plans for PST characteristics as outcome measures. In terms of perceptions of preparedness, we considered preparation overall, as well as in each instructional domain. For career intentions, we considered plans to teach over 10 years generally, plans to teach over 10 years specifically in CPS, and whether one of PSTs’ top-five preferences for a future teaching position included working with marginalized student populations (low-income, ELL, Latino, Black, low-achieving).

Results

Research Question 1: What Are the Similarities and Differences in Preservice Teacher Characteristics Across Pathways?

We first investigated how PSTs varied by pathway in terms of their demographic and educational characteristics (see Table 1). Due to the multiple comparisons made throughout this article, we use a more conservative criterion for statisti- cal significance and focus on results at the p < .01 level.

6 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

As is true nationally, many Chicago-area student teachers in our sample are female and White. We found that the pro- portion of White PSTs in traditional programs was 61%, compared with 54% of PSTs in residency programs and 50% in alternative programs. Although not significant, these dif- ferences between pathways are consistent with one intended goal of nontraditional pathways—to attract more teachers of color. Compared with nontraditional pathways, traditional pathways had significantly fewer Black PSTs only 7%, com- pared with 18% of PSTs in alternative programs and 17% of PSTs in residency programs.16 We found no other significant differences across pathways by race/ethnicity or gender in our sample.

To determine other differences across pathways, we asked PSTs whether they had prior experience with children in a school or child care facility,17 finding that a significantly higher proportion of alternative and residency PSTs in our sample had prior teaching experience compared with tradi- tional pathway PSTs. Residency PSTs reported prior teach- ing experience at the greatest rate (48%) followed by alternative (42%), then traditional (21%).

We also asked PSTs to identify whether they were under- graduate education majors. Of all PSTs, 48% reported major- ing in education, and traditional PSTs were significantly more likely (59%) to have majored in education than their nontraditional peers (26% in residencies, 14% in alternative pathways). When asked to estimate their undergraduate GPA on a scale of 0.1 to 4.0, the average self-reported of our sam- ple of PSTs was 3.5; residency PSTs had significantly lower GPAs compared with traditional and alternative PSTs.

Finally, we asked PSTs to indicate the primary reason they chose their programs (see Appendix Table 9, available with the online version of this article). PSTs in all three

pathways cited “strong reputation” as a top-five reason for choosing their programs. Both traditional and alternative PSTs cited their programs being less expensive and giving financial aid or support as top-five reasons, neither of which was indicated as a top-five reason by residency PSTs. Residency and traditional PSTs were united in reporting that they chose their programs because of training and degree offerings in their study areas, which alternative PSTs did not identify as a top-five reason. Alternative PSTs were unique among the three pathways in saying that their selected pro- grams allowed them to teach temporarily before pursuing another career, while residency PSTs were unique in pointing to yearlong residency and speed-to-completion as the top two reasons they chose their programs.

Research Question 2: What Are the Similarities and Differences in Program Design and Features of Preparation Across Pathways?

In this section, we focus on preparation features such as pro- gram length and coursework as well as varying aspects of mentoring, including MT characteristics and the mentoring provided by MTs. Results are summarized in Table 2. Some features of preparation, such as amount of coursework and length of student teaching, for example, have been studied in prior literature,18 while other features, such as why a teacher chooses to mentor PSTs and types of mentoring that MTs provide, are unique contributions of this study.

Alternative providers envisioned substantial structural reforms to initial preparation: reduce program length and coursework, and fast-track candidates into clinical work and ultimately into their roles as teachers of record, where they could complete remaining requirements. These intended

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of PST Characteristics as a Function of Pathway..

PST characteristic

Traditional pathway (vs. nontraditional)

Alternative pathway (vs. nonalternative)

Residency pathway (vs. nonresidency)

nM/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate

Male 20.5% 0.64 (0.18) 33.3% 1.38 (0.66) 28.6% 1.43 (0.61) 720 Female 78.2% 1.56 (0.41) 64.6% 0.60 (0.22) 71.4% 0.78 (0.32) 720 Asian 6.2% 0.75 (0.24) 9.0% 1.44 (0.53) 8.0% 0.86 (0.42) 763 Black 7.1% 0.31** (0.14) 18.0% 4.57* (2.87) 17.2% 1.71 (1.12) 763 Latino 20.0% 1.12 (0.46) 15.3% 0.88 (0.51) 14.9% 0.93 (0.48) 763 White 60.5% 1.92 (0.77) 49.5% 0.45 (0.26) 54.0% 0.69 (0.37) 763 Other/Multi/Native American 11.0% 1.40 (0.41) 5.4% 0.45 (0.20) 11.5% 1.31 (0.58) 763 CPS graduate 21.4% 1.21 (0.64) 12.2% 1.16 (0.86) 13.1% 0.70 (0.46) 719 Undergraduate GPA (4 points) 3.5 0.13* (0.05) 3.5 −0.02 (0.08) 3.3 −0.18*** (0.05) 720 Education major 58.9% 4.67** (2.44) 13.5% 0.29 (0.24) 26.4% 0.26 (0.19) 763 Subject area major 67.3% 2.94** (1.09) 35.7% 0.28* (0.17) 47.6% 0.51 (0.28) 720 Prior teaching experience 29.1% 0.52** (0.11) 41.8% 2.42 (1.24) 47.6% 1.59 (0.65) 719 Parent 11.0% 0.69 (0.42) 9.2% 2.98 (2.60) 9.5% 0.52 (0.43) 719

Note. Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given PST characteristic is modeled as a function of a pathway indicator (e.g., traditional, alternative, or residency). Each column shows regression coefficients for a given pathway predicting a given PST characteristic compared with the other two pathways combined. Sample sizes indicate the total sample across pathways for each outcome. All estimates are based on models at the PST level. Model estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST characteristics that are given as percentages (rather than as means). Standard errors are in parentheses. PST = preservice student teachers; CPS = Chicago Public Schools; GPA = grade point average. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Matsko et al. 7

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of Features of Preparation as a Function of Pathway.

Traditional pathway (vs. nontraditional)

Alternative pathway (vs. nonalternative)

Residency pathway (vs. nonresidency)

nFeatures of preparation M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate

Structural and other features Program at least 15 months long 76.8% 2.31 (1.85) 13.3% 0.20 (0.22) 34.5% 0.93 (0.98) 749 Completed at least seven methods courses 33.1% 2.49** (0.73) 10.2% 0.27** (0.11) 25.3% 0.57 (0.25) 754 Completed most courses prior to student teaching 92.2% 21.0*** (10.1) 29.2% 0.14 (0.18) 80.5% 0.05*** (0.04) 665 Placement at least 15 weeks long 63.2% 0.77 (0.76) 8.1% 0.03* (0.04) 94.3% 27.6* (38.8) 730 Perceived program coherencea 60.1% 2.18*** (0.38) 44.4% 0.66 (0.27) 31.4% 0.42* (0.14) 724 Perceived learning from placementa 72.5% 2.08*** (0.37) 54.5% 0.50* (0.15) 58.1% 0.71 (0.25) 724 Completed prestudent teaching field placement 96.9% 50.2*** (45.1) 8.7% 0.01*** (0.01) 40.7% 0.08 (0.13) 738 Student taught: PreK–Grade 5 58.0% 1.20 (0.36) 55.0% 1.07 (0.46) 59.8% 0.67 (0.29) 767 Student taught: Grades 6–8 23.7% 1.04 (0.39) 18.0% 0.59 (0.31) 30.0% 1.38 (0.61) 767 Student taught: Grades 9–12 33.2% 1.43 (0.62) 24.3% 0.41 (0.28) 25.3% 1.12 (0.65) 767 Student taught: All subjects/self-contained 30.4% 1.55 (0.38) 27.9% 1.13 (0.42) 13.8% 0.40** (0.14) 767 Student taught: English Language Arts or social studies 26.7% 0.97 (0.19) 21.6% 0.72 (0.18) 35.6% 1.51 (0.36) 767 Student taught: Math or science 18.3% 0.37*** (0.10) 31.5% 1.66 (0.76) 40.2% 3.34*** (1.21) 767 Student taught: Arts, foreign language, physical education 13.9% 4.09* (2.79) 7.2% 0.46 (0.45) 5.7% 0.14 (0.14) 767 Student taught: Special education or ESL 6.2% 1.20 (1.03) 0.9% 0.24 (0.34) 4.6% 1.96 (1.91) 767 Felt placement school teachers were collaborativea 56.1% 1.60 (0.39) 37.4% 0.53* (0.17) 47.1% 0.80 (0.28) 728 Felt welcome at placement school faculty meetingsa 59.6% 1.73* (0.47) 29.3% 0.28*** (0.07) 56.3% 1.15 (0.43) 728 Felt included in placement school activitiesa 56.1% 1.86* (0.50) 30.3% 0.43* (0.16) 44.8% 0.79 (0.30) 728 Felt placement school administration was supportivea 39.9% 1.56 (0.45) 33.3% 1.10 (0.47) 25.6% 0.49* (0.17) 727 Mentors and mentoring experience Male 18.4% 1.17 (0.43) 31.6% 1.03 (0.59) 15.3% 0.78 (0.36) 456 Female 80.6% 0.80 (0.30) 68.4% 1.03 (0.59) 84.7% 1.37 (0.63) 456 Asian 4.9% 0.44 (0.22) 11.4% 2.61 (1.77) 7.4% 1.79 (1.08) 517 Black 8.7% 0.56 (0.25) 17.7% 3.19* (1.86) 11.8% 0.95 (0.62) 517 Latino 19.4% 1.28 (0.57) 11.4% 0.37 (0.31) 14.7% 1.18 (0.64) 517 White 58.1% 1.42 (0.39) 49.4% 0.53 (0.23) 55.9% 0.86 (0.29) 517 Other/Multi/Native American 7.4% 0.63 (0.26) 8.9% 1.03 (0.78) 10.3% 1.86 (0.88) 517 CPS graduate 23.2% 1.24 (0.45) 16.9% 1.68 (0.85) 11.7% 0.46 (0.23) 459 Education major 54.5% 1.20 (0.35) 30.4% 1.08 (0.49) 52.9% 0.73 (0.26) 517 Subject area major 77.7% 1.18 (0.37) 75.3% 0.63 (0.30) 78.3% 1.04 (0.41) 462 Parent 58.7% 2.18** (0.63) 15.6% 0.36* (0.18) 43.1% 0.62 (0.24) 460 Post-baccalaureate degree 71.5% 0.61 (0.20) 84.8% 0.77 (0.35) 85.3% 2.71* (1.22) 517 Age (years) 40.0 5.26** (1.73) 28.8 −5.02 (3.05) 35.4 −4.67 (2.49) 465 More than 10 years teaching experience generally 60.0% 2.53*** (0.70) 9.1% 0.33* (0.16) 41.7% 0.48* (0.16) 462 More than 10 years teaching experience in CPS 53.6% 2.58*** (0.74) 6.5% 0.27* (0.14) 36.7% 0.50 (0.19) 464 First time serving as mentor teacher 23.0% 1.15 (0.36) 11.4% 1.11 (0.54) 17.6% 0.77 (0.30) 521 Worked with exactly one TEP before 11.3% 0.26*** (0.09) 25.3% 1.10 (0.90) 42.6% 5.53*** (1.81) 521 Worked with multiple TEPs before 64.3% 2.11** (0.57) 63.3% 0.88 (0.43) 39.7% 0.36** (0.11) 521 Worked with one to five PSTs before 53.2% 1.48 (0.53) 6.3% 0.21** (0.12) 58.8% 1.42 (0.61) 521 Worked with six or more PSTs before 22.3% 0.55 (0.23) 82.3% 4.71** (2.49) 23.5% 0.78 (0.45) 521 Received professional development for mentoring 9.6% 0.03*** (0.02) 64.6% 3.28 (5.29) 61.8% 58.1*** (53.2) 521 Served as MT because: repays profession 29.6% 1.04 (0.31) 46.8% 2.58* (1.08) 16.2% 0.47 (0.19) 521 Served as MT because: helps relieve teaching load 1.3% — 0.0% — 0.0% — 521 Served as MT because: helps students 21.7% 1.87 (0.70) 3.8% 0.55 (0.35) 13.2% 0.55 (0.25) 521 Served as MT because: helps the TEP 3.3% 3.49 (3.60) 0.0% — 2.0% 0.50 (0.52) 521 Served as MT because: receive compensation 4.0% 0.15 (0.16) 0.0% — 4.4% 10.5* (10.6) 521 Served as MT because: enjoy it 15.7% 0.60 (0.20) 24.1% 1.29 (0.71) 29.4% 1.77 (0.67) 521 Served as MT because: administration asked 7.2% 6.62 (7.40) 7.6% 0.54 (0.67) 1.5% — 521 Served as MT because: helps me improve 16.4% 0.82 (0.29) 7.6% 0.20 (0.21) 20.6% 2.08 (0.81) 521 Received compensation for being MT 15.1% 0.11* (0.12) 32.9% 5.48 (9.96) 44.1% 8.69 (11.8) 521 Amount of compensation received (US$) 226 −728** (240) 321 −86 (538) 1,793 981*** (231) 80 Perceptions of mentoring PST: Conversations with MT about teachinga 4.4 0.25 (0.30) 4.5 0.13 (0.37) 3.8 −0.63 (0.40) 727 PST: MT’s instructional effectivenessa 4.7 0.49 (0.37) 4.8 0.08 (0.50) 3.9 −0.85 (0.45) 726 PST: MT’s overall mentoring support and feedbacka 3.8 0.56* (0.26) 3.3 −0.40 (0.33) 3.2 −0.56 (0.35) 730

(continued)

8 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

Traditional pathway (vs. nontraditional)

Alternative pathway (vs. nonalternative)

Residency pathway (vs. nonresidency)

nFeatures of preparation M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate

PST: Frequency of MT’s feedbacka 3.0 −1.50*** (0.37) 4.9 1.74*** (0.47) 4.1 0.63 (0.65) 732 PST: MT’s job search assistancea −0.5 1.91*** (0.43) −3.2 −2.28*** (0.62) −1.7 −1.31 (0.71) 728 PST: Frequency of MT’s mentoring activitiesa −0.1 0.13 (0.20) −0.9 −0.82*** (0.21) 0.3 0.47* (0.23) 634 MT: Domain-specific mentoringa 5.7 1.05** (0.39) 3.5 −0.22 (0.57) 5.5 −2.08*** (0.37) 576 MT: Frequency of feedback given to PSTa 3.3 −0.75** (0.25) 3.9 0.77* (0.37) 4.2 0.50 (0.45) 579 MT: Job search assistance given to PSTa −1.6 2.35*** (0.43) −5.0 −1.14 (0.78) −2.8 −3.28*** (0.39) 576 MT: Frequency and responsiveness of observationsa 6.4 0.82 (0.45) 4.6 0.33 (0.60) 6.9 −1.85*** (0.40) 574

Note. Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given feature of preparation is modeled as a function of a pathway indicator (e.g., traditional, alternative, or residency). Each column shows regression coefficients for a given pathway predicting a given feature of preparation compared with the other two pathways combined. Sample sizes indicate the total sample across pathways for each outcome. Structural features and perceptions of mentoring are modeled at the PST level; mentors and mentoring experience are modeled at the MT level. Model estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST characteristics that are given as percentages (rather than as means). Standard errors are in parentheses. ESL = English as a second language; CPS = Chicago Public Schools; PST = preservice student teachers. aThese items are Rasch measures created from PST and MT survey items. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2. (continued)

differences in program length, methods coursework and tim- ing, and length of student teaching bear out in our findings.

Program length. On average, nontraditional pathways are quicker routes to certification. While 77% of traditional PSTs reported programs that were 15 months or longer, only 35% of residency PSTs and 13% of alternative PSTs reported the same. In reducing program length, alternative routes also reduced requirements such as amount of coursework and length of student teaching, which we also find evidence to support (see below).

Methods coursework timing and amount. On the whole, tradi- tional PSTs completed the most courses, followed by resi- dency PSTs and then alternative PSTs. While one third of traditional PSTs reported completing at least seven methods- related courses, only 25% of residency PSTs and 10% of alternative PSTs reported the same. The difference between traditional and nontraditional PSTs was statistically significant.

While traditional programs were historically designed so that candidates could complete most courses and other requirements before student teaching, alternative reformers, with their emphasis on fast-tracking candidates into full-time teaching, envisioned PSTs would finish up coursework while completing clinical requirements. Consistent with this intended vision, we found significant differences between pathways in terms of the proportion of coursework com- pleted prior to student teaching. While about nine in 10 tradi- tional PSTs completed most of their methods coursework before student teaching, only about three in 10 alternative and residency PSTs did the same.

Length of student teaching placement. We also found signifi- cant differences in duration of student teaching. Over 94% of residency PSTs reported clinical experiences of 15 weeks or

longer, compared with 63% of traditional PSTs and 8% of alternative PSTs. These findings match common percep- tions: Alternative and residency programs were designed, in part, to get PSTs into classrooms quickly, as teacher of record for the former and resident teacher for the latter. Most alter- native PSTs in our sample worked with students in a 6-week summer teaching experience while taking intensive course- work before being placed as a teacher of record in a class- room. On the contrary, resident PSTs reported working alongside one MT (sometimes multiple) for an entire aca- demic year before becoming a teacher of record. As men- tioned above, the leading reason why residents chose their program was because it allowed for a yearlong classroom training experience.

Coursework-fieldwork alignment and student teaching qual- ity. On average, traditional PSTs reported greater alignment between coursework and fieldwork than nontraditional PSTs. When asked if candidates were able to use strategies and techniques taught in their classes, 60% of traditional PSTs reported the strongest alignment, followed by alternative PSTs (44%) and resident PSTs (31%). Traditional PSTs were also significantly more likely to report that they learned a lot from student teaching (73%) as compared with 58% of resi- dent PSTs and 54% of alternative PSTs.

Placement characteristics. We examined the subject and grade level of student teaching placement classrooms as proxies to investigate whether nontraditional pathways recruited candi- dates in shortage areas, as their founders intended. For tradi- tional PSTs, the most common student teaching placements were in elementary, self-contained classrooms (30%), with English Language Arts (ELA)/social studies a close second (27%). In contrast, math- and science-related student teach- ing placements occurred most frequently in nontraditional pathways (32% for alterative PSTs, 40% for residency PSTs),

Matsko et al. 9

while only 18% of traditional pathway placements occurred in math or science classrooms. This finding corroborates lit- erature that suggests nontraditional programs are responsive, at least in terms of field placements, to some teaching short- age area needs.19 High-need special education and ELL areas were uncommon student teaching placements across path- ways; there were also no significant differences in the grade levels of student teaching placements.

Mentors and mentoring. MTs and the kinds of mentoring they provide also play an important role in the preparation of teachers. Each pathway in our analysis had teachers serv- ing as mentors during preparation who were responsible for supervising PSTs’ teaching, giving feedback, and supporting their development into teachers. We investigated whether there were differences between pathways in terms of men- tors and mentoring.

Mentor teacher background characteristics. Traditional MTs were, on average, significantly older (40 years old) than non- traditional MTs (35 years old). Although the differences were not statistically significant, alternative MTs were gen- erally more racially diverse. Whereas 58% of traditional MTs were White, just 42% of alternative MTs were White.

On average, traditional MTs had the most teaching experi- ence, with 60% of traditional MTs having more than 10 years of teaching experience compared with alternative (9%) and residency (42%) MTs; traditional MTs also had the most experience in CPS specifically. However, traditional MTs were more likely to be first-time mentors. By contrast, the majority (82%) of alternative MTs had worked with more than five prior PSTs, compared with just 24% of residency MTs and 22% of traditional MTs. This statistic likely reflects the fact that (a) MTs of TFA, the majority of our alternative sample, typically mentor many corps members simultane- ously during summer institute experiences and (b) TFA usu- ally recruits its own corps members, who often have only a few years of teaching experience, to serve as MTs.20

The number of different programs with which MTs had worked also varied by pathway. Residency MTs were signifi- cantly more likely to have worked with exactly one program before mentoring their current PST, whereas traditional MTs were more likely to have worked with multiple programs. Traditional MTs were significantly less likely to have received mentoring PD despite their tendency to have worked with more teacher education programs, while residency MTs were more likely to have received such support.

Reasons for serving as mentor. We found no statistically sig- nificant differences between pathways in terms of MTs’ pri- mary reason for choosing to serve in their roles. The most common reasons cited for becoming a mentor, regardless of pathway, were to “repay the profession” and because they “personally enjoy mentoring.” Despite the common

perception that student teachers might help reduce their workload, hardly any MTs in our sample reported becoming a mentor for this purpose.

Mentor compensation. There were notable suggestive, though not statistically significant, differences between pathways in terms of proportions of MTs who reported receiving some type of compensation for their mentoring. Close to half of residency MTs reported receiving financial compensation for serving as a mentor (44%), compared with 33% of alterna- tive MTs and only 15% of traditional MTs. Among MTs who reported a dollar amount, residency MTs on average earned US$1,792.50, significantly more than the US$226.19 and US$321.43 that traditional and alternative MTs reported earning, respectively.

MT perceptions of mentoring. When asked about the kind of assistance MTs provided to their PSTs, traditional MTs per- ceived their own domain-specific mentoring and job search assistance to be significantly stronger than nontraditional MTs, but they reported providing less frequent feedback. Compared with mentors in other pathways, residency MTs perceived their mentoring occurring less frequently in three areas: observing and giving PSTs related feedback, domain- specific mentoring, and job search help. Residency programs often hire into specific schools, which might explain why MTs in these programs attend less to job support.

PST perceptions of mentoring. Traditional PSTs’ perspectives on mentoring they received were similar to their MTs’ self- perceptions: They felt their MTs provided more job help sup- port but less frequent feedback. Compared with other pathways, alternative PSTs reported their MTs giving them more frequent feedback, yet reported other mentoring activi- ties such as co-planning lessons, practicing specific instruc- tional strategies, reviewing student work, and job search help happening less frequently. Given the commitment among advocates for alternative routes to provide intensive coach- ing, this latter finding seemed somewhat unexpected. It is possible, though, that alternative providers provide more intensive coaching during the inservice period, which we do not observe.

Research Question 3: Are There Average Differences Between Pathways in Terms of Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach and Career Plans?

Having reviewed candidate characteristics and preparation features, we next consider differences between pathways in terms of how well PSTs feel prepared to teach, how long they plan to teach generally and in CPS specifically, and their commitments to teach particular student populations (see Table 3).

10 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

After student teaching, traditional PSTs felt on average significantly more prepared for teaching overall, and particu- larly in the domains of instruction, urban teaching, and Common Core. Alternative PSTs felt less prepared for teach- ing across domains, but differences were significant only in the case of teaching specifically in large urban schools. We found this surprising given local alternative pathways’ inter- ests in preparing for CPS. Given that we surveyed candidates after the completion of their preservice training, which is substantially truncated for alternative programs, these results are perhaps unsurprising. Residency PSTs felt they were pre- pared at statistically similar levels as their nonresidency counterparts, though their scores trended lower across teach- ing domains.

We found some pathway-based differences in the length of time graduates planned to spend as teachers, both in gen- eral and specifically in CPS. First, traditional PSTs stood out as planning significantly longer careers as teachers than PSTs from other pathways; about two thirds of traditional PSTs planned to teach for at least a decade as compared with one half of residency PSTs and one fifth of alternative PSTs. There were no statistically significant differences between pathways in terms of planning to teach for at least a decade specifically in CPS, though residency and traditional PSTs planned to do so at about twice the rate of alternative PSTs.

We also asked PSTs about the settings in which they would prefer to teach. Results suggested that nontraditional PSTs reported stronger commitments to working in schools

with minoritized student populations, a priority among non- traditional route designers. Residency PSTs, in particular, were significantly more likely to want to work with Black, low-income, and low-achieving students as priorities in future teaching positions. By contrast, traditional PSTs were significantly less likely to prioritize diverse student populations.

Discussion and Implications

This study offers a unique, district-wide analysis of teacher preparation across pathways, including residency programs. The primary motivation for these analyses is to extend the literature about whether and how the preparation PSTs receive differs across pathways in a single labor market. Although different pathways proclaim to offer very different forms of preparation, recent literature has suggested that the ways these pathways have been implemented have led to fewer differences than one would expect. In fact, some have argued that they do not provide substantively different kinds of preparation (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007). Although there is certainly variation within pathways, on average, our study provides evidence that nontraditional forms of teacher prepa- ration in Chicago do indeed provide unique routes of entry into the profession. We find there to be substantive differ- ences in the kinds of preparation that these pathways offer, including features such as program and student teaching duration and methods course load, which are often assumed

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of PST Self-Perceived Preparedness and Career Intentions as a Function of Pathway.

Traditional pathway (vs. nontraditional)

Alternative pathway (vs. nonalternative)

Residency pathway (vs. nonresidency)

nSelf-perceived preparedness & career intentions M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate M/% Model estimate

PST self-perceived preparedness Overalla 0.1 0.45** (0.17) −0.7 −0.50 (0.26) −0.1 −0.32 (0.23) 749 Planning and preparation 5.1 2.11* (0.85) 0.4 −2.75* (1.21) 4.5 −1.25 (1.15) 748 Instruction 6.2 2.54*** (0.71) 2.4 −2.43* (1.11) 4.8 −2.13* (1.02) 744 Environment 8.2 1.80* (0.85) 4.6 −2.03 (1.24) 7.5 −1.25 (1.13) 745 Professional responsibilities 3.7 1.38* (0.59) 1.2 −1.96* (0.81) 3.1 −0.65 (0.82) 741 Urban teaching 5.7 1.87** (0.64) 2.6 −2.41** (0.85) 4.7 −1.12 (0.93) 737 Common Core 13.2 6.87** (2.40) −1.5 −7.61* (3.67) 9.9 −4.94 (3.38) 734 Career intentions Planning more than 10 years teaching generally 65.8% 3.21*** (1.13) 19.2% 0.25** (0.13) 46.5% 0.41 (0.22) 507 Planning more than 10 years teaching in CPS 32.1% 0.76 (0.34) 16.3% 0.88 (0.55) 33.3% 1.63 (0.85) 509 A top-five desired characteristic of future job included Teaching low-income students 7.4% 0.43** (0.12) 13.0% 1.69 (0.79) 17.2% 2.25* (0.71) 759 Teaching ELL students 8.9% 1.66 (0.65) 8.3% 1.01 (0.44) 2.3% 0.24 (0.18) 759 Teaching Latino students 7.1% 0.60 (0.26) 10.2% 1.46 (0.80) 9.2% 1.65 (0.91) 759 Teaching Black students 3.5% 0.24*** (0.09) 8.3% 1.68 (1.24) 19.5% 4.44** (2.11) 759 Teaching low-achieving students 20.4% 0.32*** (0.09) 45.4% 1.77 (0.98) 50.6% 3.50** (1.48) 759

Note. Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given outcome is modeled as a function of a pathway indicator. Each column shows regression coefficients for a given pathway predicting a given outcome compared with the other two pathways combined. Sample sizes indicate the total sample across pathways for each outcome. All models are at the PST level. Model estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST characteristics that are given as percentages (rather than as means). Standard errors are in parentheses. PST = preservice student teachers; CPS = Chicago Public Schools. aOverall preparedness is a precision-weighted standardized score based on the first four domains: planning, instruction, environment, and professional responsibilities. All preparedness measures are Rasch measures based on survey items; overall measure is standardized. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Matsko et al. 11

to differ. However, we also find differences in features not historically studied including mentoring provided and train- ing and supports received by mentors. These results also have implications for policy makers and teacher educators who may have endorsed nontraditional routes to provide unique forms of preparation. Although findings from this Chicago study cannot be generalized to other labor markets, the between-pathway differences we have identified should be considered in studies of other labor markets to test whether distinctions between pathways hold elsewhere.

Many of the between-pathway differences we find in our study are consistent with the visions that reformers initially promoted. For example, PSTs from nontraditional pathways reported completing shorter programs overall with fewer coursework requirements and were more likely to have math and science placements. We find that nontraditional path- ways have been successful at recruiting nontraditional PSTs into teaching. Nontraditional PSTs are more likely to be Black, prioritize working with minoritized students (Black, low-achieving, and/or low-income), and hold noneducation undergraduate majors. Our data also suggest that nontradi- tional programs in Chicago seem to have more PSTs with prior education-related experiences compared with tradi- tional candidates. While it is unclear whether this is a func- tion of targeted recruitment or experienced candidates who are seeking out more clinically based program, this finding may be of interest to all teacher preparation program recruit- ment efforts in the area.

In other ways, however, nontraditional pathways do not appear to be diversifying the incoming supply of new teach- ers. For example, we find no significant differences between traditional and nontraditional PSTs in terms of sex or GPA as found in prior studies (Boyd et al., 2008). Given academic selectivity was meant to be a cornerstone of alternative prep- aration, finding no differences between GPAs was unex- pected. However, it is also consistent with prior research suggesting that alternative providers might not be doing enough to recruit individuals with academically strong back- grounds, with about one out of three having minimum GPA requirements of at least 2.75 (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007).

When asked about the quality of their preparation experi- ences, traditional PSTs tended to report more favorable per- ceptions than nontraditional, reporting more substantial learning during student teaching and greater alignment between coursework and fieldwork. Many residency pro- grams organize their curriculum to offer methods courses while students are in the field in part to promote alignment. However, our data show that traditional PSTs rather than residency PSTs perceive their coursework and fieldwork to be better aligned even though most of their methods courses are taken prior to student teaching.

Few studies have looked at the role of preservice MTs across pathways, another contribution of our study. We find some differences between pathways in terms of MTs’ back- grounds and qualifications. For example, even though

traditional MTs have more teaching experience, MTs from nontraditional pathways tend to have mentored more PSTs and received more PD for their role. We find that nontradi- tional pathways in Chicago have recruited a higher propor- tion of MTs of color, which is consistent with their commitment to racial diversity. Again, how nontraditional pathways recruit MTs of color would be of interest to all programs.

And, finally, we find evidence that MTs from different pathways have different emphases when coaching. There is some evidence that the quality of mentoring in traditional pathways was stronger—Traditional MTs reported better domain-specific mentoring, although both traditional MTs and PSTs report giving and receiving less frequent feedback. These findings suggest that mentor teachers across all path- ways could benefit from more assistance with providing high-quality and more nuanced supports to PSTs, and that having more mentoring experience does not necessarily lead to stronger mentoring. This last finding is consistent with other studies looking at mentor teachers in Chicago (Matsko et al., 2018).

Our final analyses looked at the relationships between pathway type and candidates’ perceptions of preparedness for teaching, their intentions to teach generally and in CPS. After student teaching, traditional PSTs felt significantly more prepared for teaching overall and they planned signifi- cantly more years in teaching. These findings are consistent with some prior research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Redding & Smith, 2016). While PSTs from traditional path- ways might feel better prepared, it does not necessarily mean they will become more instructionally effective teachers. Studies that have correlated measures of feelings of pre- paredness with measures of inservice teaching effectiveness have found mixed results (Bastian et al., 2019; Ronfeldt et al., 2020). There is some evidence, though, that percep- tions of preparedness are related to teacher retention (Ronfeldt et al., 2014).

In contrast, alternative PSTs felt significantly less pre- pared for urban teaching than other pathways. Given that one explicit focus of TFA-Chicago was to prepare teachers to succeed specifically in the Chicago and Northwest Indiana public school contexts, this result was somewhat unexpected. It is possible that TFA-Chicago’s abbreviated preservice preparation may have left PSTs feeling less prepared than PSTs from other pathways. Another surprising finding was that residency PSTs, who reported the most time in class- rooms during preparation, did not report feeling significantly more prepared than their nonresidency peers. A possible explanation here is that residents developed the most realis- tic views of the demands of teaching given their extended time in classroom and therefore reported feeling less pre- pared. More research is needed, though, to explore these potential explanations.

Despite planning longer teaching careers, traditional PSTs were no more or less likely than nontraditional PSTs to plan

12 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

more than 10 years specifically in CPS, and they were sig- nificantly less likely than nontraditional PSTs to prioritize wanting to teach low-income, Black, and low-achieving stu- dents. These findings suggest that they are perhaps pursuing longer careers but specifically with more privileged student populations. Residency PSTs more than other PSTs planned to work with minoritized student populations, specifically with Black and low-achieving students. We also noted that among PSTs who planned longer teaching careers, a greater share of residency PSTs than traditional PSTs planned these long careers in CPS.

Due to several study limitations, we advise readers to be cautious in their interpretations of findings. First, these analyses are based entirely on self-reports through surveys. All findings must be interpreted as PSTs’ or MTs’ percep- tions of preparation as opposed to objective measures of preparation. This is particularly a concern given that we find some evidence that different kinds of PSTs enter dif- ferent pathways; thus, the differences we report could reflect actual differences in preparation, differences in the perceptions of candidates enrolled in different pathways, or some combination. We also advise caution about general- izing this study’s findings to other labor markets. Many PSTs in the Chicago area complete their student teaching in schools outside of CPS; their perspectives are not repre- sented in this article. It is also important to note that the majority of our “alternative pathway” respondents were enrolled in TFA-Chicago, and that the majority of our resi- dency candidates came from two out of the four programs in our sample. Thus, the forms of preparation that compose “residency” and “alternative” pathways in this context are dependent upon the programs that make these routes up; program composition, and thus the features that define pathways, could likely vary by labor market.

Despite study limitations, we believe this kind of descrip- tive work can help Chicago-area employers in considering the relative experiences of the candidates they hire into the system based on their perceptions of preparedness and their knowledge of pathways, and tailor their supports accord- ingly. It can assist potential employers who are interested in recruiting candidates with specific types of preparation expe- riences, or subject matter preparation, and also help them begin considering early career supports that might be most beneficial to the new teachers they hire. A study like this might also begin to catalyze and guide teacher preparation program improvement. For example, program leaders might consider consulting with other pathways that are excelling in areas of preparation or recruitment in which they may want to grow their own programs. Teacher education leaders might also act on some of the mentor-related findings and provide more explicit mentoring PD.

This study offers one of the few analyses, to our knowledge, that simultaneously looks at multiple pathways, including resi- dencies in a specific labor market. Although each district and state labor market is unique, practitioners and scholars work to

define and implement nontraditional pathway approaches (e.g., alternative, residency) in ways that are meant to be similar across state borders, especially because many who lead these reform efforts are nationally organized (e.g., TFA and National Center for Teacher Residencies [NCTR]). Thus, other districts and states implementing these same preparation models may want to know how they compare. Market-specific analyses as conducted in this study can help teacher educators from all pathways to deepen their preparation and improve their pro- grams to ensure candidates feel better prepared and committed to teaching for the long haul, which taking the local contexts into consideration. In future work, we plan to look beyond pathway differences in terms of feelings of preparedness and career intentions, to test which features—varying within and across pathways—predict these outcomes.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the Joyce Foundation for supporting our investigation of critical questions about teacher preparation pathways in Chicago. We are especially thankful for the time and expertise of our research team members and colleagues at the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research without whom we could have not conducted this study. We are appreciative of the support of our partners in the Chicago Public Schools Talent Office and teacher preparation program colleagues across the city. Last, we thank the hundreds of teacher candidates and mentor teachers across Chicagoland who responded to our surveys about teacher preparation; their voices were central to this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by The Joyce Foundation in Chicago.

ORCID iDs

Kavita Kapadia Matsko https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1653-6750 Matthew Ronfeldt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-1812

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

1. The number and types of preparation paths reported in Chicago are based on data from the time of our study, 2015–2016.

2. We refer to “traditional” teacher preparation programs as primarily college- or university-based programs that provide teacher preparation for state licensure through undergraduate or graduate degree programs. Despite the variety within “tra- ditional” preparation programs, for the purposes of this article, we put all programs that are not “alternative” or “residency” in

Matsko et al. 13

the category of a “traditional” program. Indeed alternative and residency programs often partner with a college or university, but that is not a prerequisite condition.

3. Alternative certification programs vary in selectivity, suggest- ing varying definitions of “promise.”

4. As alternative pathways have evolved, some programs such as Teach For America, have shifted their focus from address- ing shortage areas to producing better teachers (Goldstein, 2014).

5. We use the term “student teaching” to represent the clinical portion of the teacher preparation process during which candi- dates get the opportunity to learn how to teach with some type of mentoring and oversight in each pathway prior to becoming a teacher of record.

6. See also National Center for Teacher Residencies (https:// nctresidencies.org/about/residency-model-teacher-mentor- programs/).

7. Studies looking at student achievement also point to mixed achievement results (Clark et al., 2013; Clotfelter et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Glazerman et al., 2006; Hanushek et al., 2005; Henry et al., 2014; Kane et al., 2008).

8. For further information regarding CPS (Chicago Public Schools) teachers, including salary schedules, benefits and evaluation handbooks, and contracts, see the teacher contract database compiled by the National Council on Teacher Quality (2018).

9. During the time of data collection, CPS was working with TFA, but not actively working with other teacher preparation programs to build nontraditional approaches to preparation. In recent years, however, that has changed as the district has launched several new residency programs in partnership with local institutions (see https://cps.edu/teach/pages/training. aspx).

10. See https://cepa.stanford.edu/tpr-new/teacher-pathway-project 11. Preservice student teachers (PSTs) were asked questions about

one specific MT with whom they worked; if PSTs worked with multiple MTs in a term, they were asked to respond about the MT with whom they spent the most time.

12. MTs received individual survey links for each PST with whom they worked; if they worked with multiple PSTs, they received as many surveys. One exception was that MTs who worked with Teach For America responded about their PSTs as a group because they work with higher numbers of PSTs at the same time.

13. Respondents in the summer survey who did not indicate a program could be classified into TFA or Relay depending on which survey they completed.

14. The Rasch item response theory (IRT) posits that questions of varying degrees of difficulty differentiate people’s placement along a developmental scale: Endorsing more difficult ques- tions means that respondents have higher levels (or more posi- tive beliefs) on the underlying construct (Bond & Fox, 2015). Both item difficulties and respondent abilities are placed on the same scale and expressed in logits. Most measures used in our study met minimum thresholds for reliability (.7).

15. See https://www.ctulocal1.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ 2018-19-CPS-REACH-Handbook-final.pdf.

16. Finding evidence that alternative certification programs are recruiting a higher proportion of teachers of color is not meant to imply they are also doing better at retaining teachers.

To the contrary, evidence suggests alternative routes have higher turnover rates than others, which is harmful to stu- dent achievement (Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).

17. One survey asks, “Did you do any of the following activities prior to beginning your current teacher education program: Taught full- or part-time in a public or private school or other kind of childcare facility (yes/no)?” Compared with respon- dents from traditional routes, alternative and residency PSTs were more likely to select “yes.”

18. See Monk (1994) and Ronfeldt et al. (2014). 19. Our data speak only to the student teaching placements and not

to where PSTs are eventually hired. 20. Responses for TFA were completed by mentors who worked

with PSTs during their (preservice) summer institute.

References

Bastian, K. C., Sun, M., & Lynn, H. (2019). What do surveys of program completers tell us about teacher preparation qual- ity? Journal of Teacher Education, 72, 11–26. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487119886294

Berry, B. (2005). The future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 272–278.

Berry, B., Montgomery, D., & Snyder, J. (2008). Urban teacher res- idency models and institutes of higher education: Implications for teacher preparation. Center for Teaching Quality.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793–818.

Boyd, H., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2012). Recruiting effec- tive math teachers: Evidence from New York City. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1008–1047.

Clark, M. A., Chiang, H. S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows Programs. NCEE 2013–4015. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analy- sis with student fixed effects. The Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681.

Conklin, H., Gatti, L., & Matsko, K. K. (2019). Teaching towards what ends? Residency candidates navigating competing pro- grammatic aims. In C. A. Lubienski & T. J. Brewer (Eds.), Learning to teach in an era of privatization: Global trends in teacher preparation (pp. 149–170). Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286– 302.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach For America, and teacher effective- ness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 2–50.

14 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2011). Teach For America teachers: How long do they teach? Why do they leave? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 47–51.

Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). U.S. schools struggle to hire and retain teachers: The second report in “The Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market” series. Economic Policy Institute.

Gatti, L. (2014). Negotiating conflicting frames of experience: Learning to teach in an urban teacher residency. In V. Ellis & J. Orchard (Eds.), Learning teaching from experience: Multiple perspectives and international contexts (pp. 207– 222). Bloomsbury.

Glazerman, S., Mayer, D., & Decker, P. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 75–96.

Goldstein, D. (2014). The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession. Doubleday.

Grissom, J. A. (2008). But do they stay? Addressing issues of teacher retention through alternative certification. In P. Grossman & S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternate routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education (pp. 129–156). Harvard Education Press.

Grossman, P., & Loeb, S. (2008). Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education. Harvard Education Press.

Guarino, C. M., Hamilton, L. S., Lockwood, J. R., & Rathbun, A. H. (2006). Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergartners: Research and development report (NCES 2006-031). National Center for Education Statistics.

Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). The teacher residency: An innovative model for preparing teach- ers. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute. org/product/teacher-residency

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The Market for Teacher Quality. NBER Working Paper No. 11154. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Henry, G. T., Purtell, K. M., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Thompson, C. L., Campbell, S. L., & Patterson, K. M. (2014). The effects of teacher entry portals on student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 7–23.

Humphrey, D. C., & Wechsler, M. E. (2008). Getting beyond the label: What characterizes alternative certification programs. In P. Grossman, & S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education (pp. 65–98). Harvard Education Press.

Humphrey, D. C., Weschler, M. E., & Hough, H. J. (2008). Characteristics of effective alternative teacher certification programs. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 1–63.

Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education review, 27(6), 615–631.

Klagoholz, L. (2000). Growing teachers in the Garden State. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014a). Preparing teachers for the Chicago Public Schools. In S. Feiman-Nemser, E. Tamir, & K. Hammerness (Eds.), Inspiring teaching: Preparing teachers

to succeed in mission-driven schools (pp. 17–32). Harvard Educational Press.

Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014b). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113511645

Matsko, K. K., Ronfeldt, M., Greene, H., Klugman, J., Reininger, M., & Brockman, S. (2018). Cooperating teacher as model and coach: What leads to student teachers’ perceptions of prepared- ness? Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 41–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487118791992

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Forrest Cataldi, E., & Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2018). Teacher contract database [Data set]. Chicago Public Schools. https://www. nctq.org/contract-database/district/Chicago-Public-Schools

Papay, J., West, M., Fullerton, J., & Kane, T. (2012). Does an urban teacher residency increase student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 413–434.

Perlstein, L., Jerald, C., & Duffrin, E. (2014). Building effective teacher residencies. Urban Teacher Residency United.

Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alter- natively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831212463813

Ronfeldt, M., Matsko, K. K., Greene Nolan, H., & Reininger, M. (2020). Three different measures of graduates’ instructional readiness and the features of preservice preparation that predict them. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 56–71. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487120919753

Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. (2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–46. https://www.tcre- cord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17604

Silva, T., McKie, A., Knechtel, V., Gleason, P., & Makowsky, L. (2014). Teaching residency programs: A multisite look at a new model to prepare teachers for high-need schools. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.

Sloan, K., & Blazevski, J. (2015). New visions Hunter College urban teacher residency: Measures of success. New Visions. https://www.newvisions.org/page/-/UTR_Year%205%20 Final%20Evaluation_03.31.2015.pdf

Solomon, J. (2009). The Boston Teacher Residency: District-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 478– 488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109349915

Stoddart, T., & Floden, R. (1995). Traditional and alternative routes to teacher certification: Issues, assumptions and miscon- ceptions. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.),

Matsko et al. 15

Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 80– 106). Teachers College Press.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. F. (2004). Diversifying the teacher workforce: A retrospective and prospective analysis. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(1), 70–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004. tb00031.x

Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isn’t alterna- tive. National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/ nctq/images/Alternative_Certification_Isnt_Alternative.pdf

Williamson, P., Apedoe, X., & Thomas, C. (2016). Context as con- tent in urban teacher education: Learning to teach in and for San Francisco. Urban Education, 51(10), 1170–1197. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623342

Zeichner, K., & Hutchinson, E. A. (2008). The development of alternative certification policies and programs in the United States. In P. Grossman & S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternate routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education (pp. 15–30). Harvard Education Press.

Zientek, L. R. (2007). Preparing high-quality teachers: Views from the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 959–1001.

Author Biographies

Kavita Kapadia Matsko is associate professor and associate dean for Teacher Education at Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy. Her interests focus on the study and design of teacher preparation, mentoring, and induction, with a par- ticular interest in the features of clinical preparation that promote teacher development.

Matthew Ronfeldt is associate professor of educational studies at the University of Michigan. His scholarship seeks to understand how to improve teaching quality. His research sits at the intersec- tion of educational practice and policy and focuses on preservice and inservice teacher education, teacher retention, working condi- tions in schools, and the assessment of teaching and teacher educa- tion programs.

Hillary Greene Nolan completed her PhD in educational studies at the University of Michigan in 2019 with a concentration in teaching and teacher education. Her research focuses on the relational aspects of teaching, how teachers balance students’ academic and other needs, and how teachers develop their relational capacity. She currently teaches middle school in Rhode Island.