The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgments
Section 1: Introduction
The Policy Context for the Pathways to Teaching Careers Initiative
The Pathways to Teaching Careers Program
The Structure of the Initiative
Overview of Sites Included in this Evaluation
Section 2: Evaluation Methods
The Summative Evaluation
Data Collection
Survey Coding, Data Verification, Data Entry, and Data Validation
Analysis and Use of Survey Data
Section 3: Program Outcomes
Q. 1: Did the Pathways Program meet its overall recruitment goals?
Q. 2: Have Pathways participants remained in the Program through completion and certification? Once they have completed the Program, do they work in targeted districts?
Q. 3: Are Pathways graduates good teachers?
Q. 4: Have Pathways graduates been retained in the teaching profession?
Section 4: Factors Contributing to the Success of the Pathways Program
A Strong Partnership
Careful Recruitment and Selection of Program Participants
A Rigorous, Innovative, and Culturally Sensitive Teacher Education Curriculum
Support Services for Candidates
Support Services for Completers
Section 5: Conclusions and Policy Implications
Conclusions
Q. 1: Did the Pathways Program meet its overall recruitment goals?
Q. 2: Have Pathways participants remained in the Program through completion and certification? Once they complete the Program, do they teach in targeted school districts?
Q. 3: Are Pathways graduates good teachers?
Q. 4: Do Pathways graduates remain in teaching?
Summary
Policy Implications
References
APPENDIX A : Overview of DeWitt Wallace Pathways to Teaching Careers Program sites
APPENDIX B : Surveys
APPENDIX C : Description of the Praxis III Assessment system
APPENDIX D : Report on Scholars Who Left the DeWitt Wallace-Readers Digest Pathways to Teaching Careers Program Before Program Completion
APPENDIX E : Coefficient of Variation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Sources of Survey Data to Answer Evaluation Questions
Table 2. Survey Response Rates
Table 3. Contribution of Pathways Participants to the Diversity of the Teacher Pool
Table 4. Field Supervisor Ratings in Main Teaching Areas, by Status
Table 5. GES Ratings in Main Teaching Areas, by Status, Years 1-4
Table 6. GES Ratings in Main Teaching Areas, by Status, in Comparison to Typical Novice Teachers, Years 5-6
Table 7. Teaching Effectiveness: Praxis III Ratings for a Sample of Pathways Participants
Table 8. Setting and Assignments of Pathways Teachers Employed Three Years after Completion in a Full-Time Job in Teaching, by Status
Table 9. Setting and Assignments of Pathways Teachers Employed Three Years after Completion in a Full-Time Job in Teaching, by Race/Ethnicity
Table 10. Reasons Given by Pathways Graduates Who Entered and Left Teaching
Table A.1a. Profile of Sites in the Northeast and Midwest Expansion
Table A.1b. Profile of Sites in the Southern Expansion
Table A.1c. Profile of Independent Sites
Table A.1d. Profile of Peace Corps Sites
Table D.1. Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Dropouts and All Scholars in the Case Study Sites
Table D.2. Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Dropouts from the Case Study Sites Who were Contacted for Interviews
Table D.3. Amount of Time Dropouts Spent in the Program Before Leaving
Table D.4. Reasons for Leaving the Program
Table D.5. Suggestions for Ways to Retain Scholars in the Pathways Program
Table E.1. Coefficient of Variation: Field Supervisor Ratings in Main Teaching Areas, by Status
Table E.2. Coefficient of Variation: GES Ratings in Main Teaching Areas, by Status, Years 1-4
Table E.3. Coefficient of Variation: GES Ratings of Pathways Teachers in Comparison to Typical Novice Teachers in Main Teaching Areas, by Status, Years 5-6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Profile of All Pathways Participants
Figure 2. Demographic Profile of Pathways Participants by Status
Figure 3. Progress of Pathways Participants through the Teacher Education Pipeline, by Status
Figure 4. Pathways Teachers Working in Targeted and Non-Targeted Districts
Figure 5. Pathways Graduates Three Years After Completion: What Are They Doing?
Figure 6. Percentage of Pathways Three-Year Graduates Currently Employed In Education, by Race/Ethnicity and Status
Figure 7. Comparison of Pathways Completers Who Are Still in Teaching After at Least Three Years, and Those Who Left Teaching After at Least Three Years, by Status and Race/Ethnicity
Figure 8. Pathways Graduates - Not Employed in Education
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the cumulative findings from the six-year evaluation of the Pathways to Teaching Careers Program supported by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund. The report is organized into five sections. In this introduction, we first situate the Pathways program within the current policy context, and then provide an overview of the Pathways initiative. Section 2 describes the evaluation methods. The two subsequent sections present the evaluation findings. Section 3 describes program outcomes, while Section 4 highlights Pathways strategies that proved successful in recruiting new candidates into teacher education, preparing them for teaching, and supporting them through program completion and the attainment of teacher certification. The final section gives the conclusions of the evaluation as well as the implications for policy that can be drawn from the study.
The Policy Context for the Pathways to Teaching Careers Initiative
The predicted shortage of K-12 teachers has captured the attention of educators and policymakers. Projections for the number of new teachers needed over the next eight school years (i.e., AY 2001-02 through AY2008-09) range from 1.6 to 2.0 million (Hussar, 1999). The growing demand for new teachers is attributed largely to two converging demographic trends. First, K-12 student enrollments are expected to expand substantially in the years ahead. In the Fall of 1998, for example, public elementary and secondary schools served a total of 46.5 million students (Snyder & Hoffman, 2000). By 2008, that number is expected to climb to 48.2 million (Hussar, 1999). This trend toward increasing enrollments is expected to extend well into the 21st century: according to the U.S. Department of Commerce (1996), the population of 5- to 19-year-olds will rise to 79.6 million by 2050. Second, as the student population swells, large numbers of teachers who were hired during the baby boom enrollment years will reach retirement age (Hussar, 1999). Exacerbating the attrition problem created by the expected waves of retirements is growing dissatisfaction among teachers stemming from factors such as poor school conditions, lack of administrative support, and low salaries (Education Commission of the States [ECS], 2000; Ingersoll, 2000). Complicating matters further, recent policies that reduce maximum class size, particularly for younger students, are creating additional demands for teachers, especially in the early grades (Clewell & Forcier, 2000; ECS, 2000).
Teacher shortages are not merely a matter of things to come. Many school systems are currently experiencing difficulties filling teacher vacancies. These shortages, however, are not evenly distributed (Clewell, Darke, Davis-Googe, Forcier, & Manes, 2000). Urban and rural schools, in particular, are plagued by an inadequate supply of teachers (Ingersoll & Bobbit, 1995; Eubanks, 1996; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). The majority of teachers prefer to teach in suburban schools (Howey & Zimpher, 1991), and new and returning teachers are not inclined to teach in urban areas (Jones & Sandidge, 1997). That many of the nation's highest teacher attrition rates occur in urban districts compounds the problem (Adams & Dial, 1993). It is well documented that teachers in central city public schools are the most likely both to migrate to teaching positions elsewhere and to leave the profession altogether (Whitener, Gruber, Lynch, Tingos, Perona & Fondelier, 1997).
Current teacher shortages are also more intense in selected fields. Bilingual education and special education vacancies are particularly difficult to fill (Boe, Bobbit, & Cook, 1997; Schmidt, 1992). Such shortages have been attributed to the low production of teachers in these two areas of specialization relative to the increasing numbers of immigrant students and recent changes in special education codes. Teachers of mathematics and science are also difficult to find (Clewell & Forcier, 2000; Clewell et. al., 2000; Grissmer & Kirby, 1992), in part due to the abundant opportunities that exist outside the teaching profession for college graduates with mathematics and science backgrounds (Clewell & Forcier, 2000).
The growing racial/ethnic imbalance between the student population and the teaching force raises questions about the relative shortage of teachers of color. Over the past two decades the student population has become increasingly diverse. Students of color already comprise over one-third of K-12 enrollments, and by 2035 they are expected to account for the majority of all children served in public elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996). Teachers of color, on the other hand, now comprise only about one-tenth of the teaching force in public schools (Snyder, Hoffman & Geddes, 1997). Unless active steps are taken to recruit more candidates of color into teaching and retain them in those positions, the representation of this group is likely to decline in the future (Clewell & Villegas, 2001; Villegas & Clewell, 1998a).
A compelling argument has been made that the racial/ethnic gap between teachers and their students deprives all children, but especially children of color, of role models (Mercer & Mercer, 1986; Stewart, Meier, La Follette & England, 1989). Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the racial/ethnic gap between teachers and students deprives children of color of cultural brokers who might mediate critical differences between home and school that obstruct their academic achievement (Irvine, 1988; Villegas & Lucas, in press). The relative shortage of teachers of color, then, could have serious social and academic repercussions for the most rapidly growing segment of the student population (Villegas & Clewell, 1998b). In the past, empirical research attempting to establish the effect of having a same race/ethnicity teacher on student achievement was mixed and inconclusive (Ehrenberg & Brewer, 1995; Ehrenberg, Goldhaber & Brewer, 1995; Hanushek, 1992; Murnane, 1975). More recent research, however, has found consistent evidence of relatively large educational benefits that accrue to Black and Latino students with same/race ethnicity teachers (Dee, 2000; Clewell, Puma & McKay, 2001).
Concern about the relatively limited presence of males in the teaching force is heard in education and policy circles as well. During the 1993-94 school year, for example, males accounted for only 27 percent of all teachers (Henke, Chen, Geis & Knepper, 2000). The argument for greater parity in the gender distribution of the teaching force has not been articulated clearly in the literature, however. Presumably, more males are needed to serve as role models for children. This role model argument is most frequently heard from personnel in urban districts seeking males of color to staff city classrooms.
In brief, the overall demand for new teachers will grow substantially in the years ahead. Unless proactive steps are taken now, school systems across the country will have to contend with severe teacher shortages in the future. Already, a shortage of teachers is evident in urban and rural schools, in the fields of bilingual and special education, and in the subjects of mathematics and science. There is also a shortfall of teachers with certain characteristics. Specifically, the supply of teachers of color is sparse, and male teachers, especially males of color, are difficult to find.
Teacher shortages are problematic because they present a serious threat to the quality of education children receive in schools. When the supply of teachers is scarce, school systems cannot be selective in their hiring. Worse still, faced with large numbers of teacher vacancies, districts often resort to undesirable practices, such as assigning teachers to classes in fields other than those for which they were prepared (out-of-field assignments) and hiring teachers who lack appropriate teaching certificates (Clewell & Forcier, 2000). Such practices have become commonplace in urban schools serving high proportions of children who are poor and of color, with detrimental consequences for those children (ECS, 2000; Snyder & Wirt, 1998; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).
While response to the teacher shortage has been somewhat slow, a variety of policies intended to address current and projected school staffing challenges are already in place in some states and local districts. Some of those policies aim to control the exodus of the older and more experienced teachers by creating incentives for them to remain in their positions beyond the time at which they become eligible for retirement. Other policies seek to increase the retention rates of practicing teachers by raising salaries and other benefits, improving working conditions, and providing mentoring support through the initial years of teaching. A third policy approach calls for expanding recruitment efforts to include nontraditional pools of teachers, carefully selecting candidates from these pools, and preparing recruits rigorously for the teaching profession while supporting them in meeting certification requirements (for a thorough review of recruitment programs and policies see Clewell, Darke, Davis-Googe, Forcier & Manes, 2000). The Pathways to Teaching Careers Program exemplifies this last approach. In fact, both recent federal policy and literature on teacher recruitment bear the imprint of the Pathways experience, which has been carefully documented and evaluated over the past six years (see Clewell & Villegas, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Dandy, 1998; DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, 1997; Villegas & Clewell, 1998a, 1998b).
The Pathways to Teaching Careers Program
Cognizant of the critical shortage of well-prepared teachers for urban and rural schools, the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund launched the Pathways to Teaching Careers Program in 1989. The goal of this $50 million national initiative was to increase the number of well prepared and fully certified teachers--especially candidates of racial/ethnic minority backgrounds--working in high need public schools.
The Structure of the Initiative
The Pathways initiative was comprised of four program strands, each targeting a different population. The strand structure provided organizational cohesion to this comprehensive initiative.
Precollege Strand
A precollege strand targeted middle school and high school students. The overriding goal of this effort was to cultivate an interest in teaching careers on the part of program participants. The Fund supported one project in this strand. Morgan State University, in collaboration with the Baltimore City Public Schools and several institutions of higher education in the area, was awarded a grant to design and implement a comprehensive precollege program. This effort involved the following activities: recruiting African American students from middle schools and high schools into the program; establishing a formal eighth grade course to expose students in up to 30 middle schools to professional careers in teaching; establishing an elective teacher preparation course at the 12th grade level in 20 Baltimore schools; establishing a magnet school for teaching in Baltimore City Public Schools; and developing links between and among selected institutions of higher education, the school district, and MESA (Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement) programs for the purpose of interesting precollege students in becoming teachers.
Undergraduate Strand
A second strand targeted traditional undergraduate students with the goal of interesting them in becoming teachers and earning teaching certificates. As part of this effort, Barnard College received funding to work with the Consortium for Excellence in Teacher Education, a group comprised of 16 private liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern United States with teacher education programs. Specifically, this program aimed to identify and recruit undergraduates from the participating colleges and to interest them in teaching in urban middle schools. As lead institution, Barnard College was responsible for providing program participants with supervised field placements in New York City middle schools; offering them an intensive four-week summer program in New York as well as credit-bearing seminars in New York on teaching students at the middle level; implementing follow-up activities at individual college sites and in New York City; and linking program participants, middle school students, and middle school teachers via a telecommunications network.
Paraprofessionals and Non-Certified Teachers Strand
The strand targeting paraprofessionals and non-certified teachers was the most encompassing of the four. These efforts aimed at identifying and recruiting paraprofessionals and non-certified teachers working in public schools (e.g., emergency-certified teachers, non-certified substitute teachers, and teachers working outside their areas of certification), and offering them scholarships and other support services in order to obtain bachelor's or master's degrees and/or meet other requirements for full state certification. In return, participants agreed to continue teaching in the public schools for a specified period of time after program completion. The strand consisted of three clusters of grantees. The Northeast and Midwest Expansion, comprised of 10 programs, was coordinated by Bank Street College. The Southern Expansion, involving 11 programs, was coordinated by the Southern Education Foundation. The third cluster included five independent projects that reported directly to the Fund.
Peace Corps Fellows Strand
The fourth strand included 14 projects, all of which were coordinated by the Peace Corps Fellows/USA Program. The aim of this strand was to identify and support potential teacher candidates from among returning Peace Corps volunteers (RPCVs). The projects placed selected Fellows in full-time salaried positions in urban and rural school districts, and provided a two-year graduate level program leading to teaching certification and a master's degree.
To summarize, what we refer to in the rest of this report as the Pathways to Teaching Careers Program was national in scope, although concentrated mostly in the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States. It was comprised of 40 individual projects (11 in the Southern Expansion, 10 in the Northeast and Midwest Expansion, 5 independent sites, and 14 Peace Corps Fellows programs). It also included three coordinating agencies (SEF, Bank Street College, and the Peace Corps Fellows/USA Program).
The evaluation study detailed in this report thus focuses on the 40 projects comprising the two most comprehensive Pathways strands--paraprofessionals and non-certified teachers, and RPCVs. Because the projects implemented by the two lead institutions--Morgan State University and Barnard College--were vastly different from the others in terms of goals, target population, and support strategies, they were evaluated separately. The role of the Pathways evaluation team relative to those two efforts was largely one of providing technical assistance on evaluation matters to staff from Morgan State College and Barnard College. For the remainder of this report, all references to the "Pathways Program," or "Pathways Scholars/Fellows" will refer solely to the 40 projects that are the subject of this evaluation.
Overview of Sites Included in this Evaluation
Figures A.1a-d (found in Appendix A) provides an overview of the 40 sites included in this evaluation. Each cluster--the Northeast and Midwest Expansion, the Southern Expansion, the Independent sites, and the Peace Corps sites--is profiled separately. An examination of the four components of Figure A.1 shows that all sites worked in partnership with one or more school districts. Nearly all the partner districts were located in urban areas. Paraprofessionals were the primary target pool for the sites in the Northeast and Midwest Expansion and the Southern Expansion. These two clusters also served non-certified teachers, mostly substitutes, some of whom lacked bachelor's degrees; they also served some emergency-certified teachers. With one exception, the Independent sites focused their recruitment activities largely on emergency-certified teachers employed in underperforming urban schools. Cambridge College, the exception in this cluster, targeted paraprofessionals instead. As expected, the Peace Corps sites recruited from the pool of RPCVs. These recruits were assisted in securing emergency-teaching certificates that enabled them to teach in the partner districts. Nearly all Peace Corps sites required RPCVs to hold a teaching position as a condition for participation in the program.
The overwhelming majority of the programs in three clusters--the Northeast and Midwest Expansion, the Southern Expansion, and the Independent sites--gave preference in the selection process to applicants from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in the partner districts' teaching forces. Only three Peace Corps sites gave preference to candidates from racial/ethnic minority groups. Of the 40 sites, only seven targeted males, especially males of color.
The majority of the programs targeted candidates who either already had a strong background in certain subjects/fields or were interested in developing skills in those areas. Eighteen sites gave priority to special education, while 10 sites focused on Bilingual/ESL instruction. Eleven sites targeted math and 10 targeted science. These recruitment and training priorities reflected the areas of greatest teacher shortages in the partner school districts.
In sum, the Pathways to Teaching Careers Program was designed by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund in response to the teacher shortages that were already evident in urban schools, and, to a lesser extent, rural schools, during the latter part of the 1980s. Teacher shortages have become even more intense since the Pathways initiative was launched in 1989. The need for new teachers is one of the most important policy issues in the United States today, and will most likely continue as such for some time to come. What has been learned from the Pathways experience has much to contribute to teacher recruitment policy. Before presenting the findings from the evaluation, however, we describe the methods used to collect and analyze the data.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is normal for an evaluation spanning six and a half years to have accumulated a large debt of gratitude to myriad individuals who have contributed to its work in one way or another. This evaluation is no exception. What we do find exceptional, however, is the level of dedication that those who have worked on this project have lavished on its successful implementation. Our deepest and most heartfelt thanks go to those who labored long and hard on the Pathways evaluation during its early years: Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen, Stephanie Mudge, Nancy Sharkey, and Antoinette Mitchell. Our first site visitors-from both the Urban Institute and Educational Testing Service-also deserve thanks: Barbara Bruschi, Peg Goertz, Carla Herbig, Maria Rosario Jackson, Molly Joy, and Tamara Lucas. Mary Coombs, Rosemary Deibler, Anita Haywood, and Michael Bowden contributed much to the production of reports and other project materials during the first three years. Thanks also go to Mark Paskowsky, who established the complex database for the Pathways evaluation and to George Chow, whose depth of knowledge and expertise helped ensure smooth sailing for our database. Carrie O'Connor McGillen and Karen Callahan were vital to ensuring the maintenance and updating of this database in later years. Their ingenuity and perseverance was exemplary. For their help in the preparation of this final report, we thank Alissa Anderson, Laurie Forcier and LaTasha Holloway. We also appreciate Jane Hannaway's suggestions for revising the final report. Kathy Barringer and Nick Holt of Roper Starch International helped us to increase response rates by doing a great job of tracking nonrespondents.
This "Acknowledgments" section would not be complete without expressing our gratitude to the 40 Pathways programs that participated in the evaluation: their project directors, staff, and participants actively cooperated in the data collection process. We could not have conducted the evaluation without their help. The same applies to the coordinating agencies and their representatives: Nathaniel Jackson of the Southern Education Fund, Nona Weekes and Cathleen Wiggins of Bank Street, and Fran Bond and Henry Fernandez of the Peace Corps Fellows Program.
Special thanks are due the members of our advisory board: Jacqueline Jordan Irvine, Patricia B. Campbell, the late Alonzo Crim, and Ursula Casanova. Their suggestions and insights early in the evaluation process helped give direction to our work.
We are grateful to the staff of the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund for their unfailing support throughout this project. Adam Stoll, who was our program officer for most of duration of the evaluation, was exemplary in his guidance of the process. Ed Pauly also provided invaluable feedback and support, especially during the last two years. Mildred Hudson, who was the original program officer for Pathways, helped to ensure the cooperation of Pathways sites by her support of the evaluation. Sam Cargile, who became program officer in 1997, continued to be supportive of our efforts. Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to thank the Fund as an organization for acknowledging and validating program evaluation as a tool for facilitating decision making, program improvement, replication of best practices, and policy development. It is extremely gratifying to us, as evaluators, to see the fruits of our work put to the best possible use as it has been by our funder. Thank you.
Beatriz Chu Clewell and Ana María Villegas
October 2001
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
