Does Preservice Preparation Matter? Examining an Old Question in New Ways

Abstract

Background Over the past decade, most of the quantitative studies on teacher preparation have focused on comparisons between alternative and traditional routes. There has been relatively little quantitative research on specific features of teacher education that might cause certain pathways into teaching to be more effective than others. The vast majority of evidence on features of preservice preparation comes from qualitative case studies of single institutions that prepare teachers. Among the few large-scale cross-institution studies that exist, most provide only descriptive trends that fail to account for teacher and school characteristics that might explain apparent relationships in the data. Additionally, these studies typically look at state- or district-level data, providing little information on national trends. Purpose Focusing on two features of preparation commonly targeted by certification policies, this study asks: Does completing more practice teaching and methods-related coursework predict teachers’ retention and perceived instructional preparedness? Do the results vary for different kinds of teachers and schools. Research Design This is a secondary analysis of data from the two most recent administrations of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a nationally representative survey of teachers that includes information about preservice preparation, retention, and perceptions of preparedness. We link surveyed teachers to Common Core of Data on their schools and to Barron's ratings of college competitiveness. Data Analysis We use linear and logistic regression with state and district fixed effects, as well as comprehensive controls for school and teacher characteristics, to estimate whether completing more practice teaching and methods-related coursework predicts teachers’ self-perceived instructional preparedness and persistence in the profession. Findings We find that teachers who completed more methods-related coursework and practice teaching felt better prepared and were more likely to stay in teaching. These positive relationships were similar across alternative and traditional routes and tended to be greater among graduates from competitive colleges, males, and mathematics and science teachers, as well as teachers in urban, rural, and secondary schools. Conclusions Our study provides some of the best suggestive evidence to date that teacher education programs, and certification policies that influence them, can improve teachers’ preparedness and persistence by increasing requirements for practice teaching and methods-related coursework. Policy makers often consider reducing preparation requirements to increase the supply of academically talented and underrepresented teacher groups. Finding these groups to be at least as, and usually more, responsive to additional preparation raises some concern that reducing requirements could have negative consequences for their preparedness and retention.

Front End to Back End: Teacher Preparation, Workforce Entry, and Attrition

“…A small body of literature finds some connections between teacher education and the attrition of teachers. Ingersoll and colleagues (2012), Papay and associates (2012), and Ronfeldt and colleagues (2014) each find positive effects of more extensive teacher training on teacher retention, while Goldhaber and colleagues (2011) and Feng and Sass (2017) find that more effective teachers are more likely to remain in the workforce. Ronfeldt (2012, 2015) finds that teachers who student taught in schools with lower rates of annual teacher turnover and higher levels of collaboration are less likely to leave the teaching workforce.…”

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

“…Studies that have correlated measures of feelings of preparedness with measures of inservice teaching effectiveness have found mixed results (Bastian et al, 2019; Ronfeldt et al, 2020). There is some evidence, though, that perceptions of preparedness are related to teacher retention (Ronfeldt et al, 2014).…”

“…One possible reason that prior studies have found that alternative 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 alternatively prepared teachers reported significantly shorter practice teaching experiences but completed a statistically similar number of methods-related courses. In our work, we go beyond student teaching duration to consider many characteristics of mentors and mentoring, for example.…”

Attrition and Turnover Among Beginning Teachers in Texas by Preparation Program

“…Studies of attrition by preparation program type did not specifically explore attrition among different types of ACPs. Because ACPs widely vary in program purposes and structures, academic selectivity, coursework requirements, and support for new teachers (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007), it is theoretically likely that attrition and turnover rates also vary among ACPs because some program features have been found to be correlated with teacher attrition and turnover (e.g., Ronfeldt et al, 2014). Therefore, combining all ACPs in a single group and concluding that ACP teachers have high attrition and turnover rates may send a misleading message to stakeholders and policymakers, particularly if some types of ACPs are more (or less) successful in retaining teachers than other types of ACPs.…”