Summer/Fall Certification Option: a Working Model for Science Teacher Preparation

1

SUMMER/FALL CERTIFICATION OPTION: A WORKING MODEL FOR SCIENCE AND MATH TEACHER PREPARATION

Brenda M. Capobianco

Dept of Curriculum & Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442

Allan Feldman

School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003

This study is the result of a three year effort to recruit quality secondary school science and mathematics teachers while increasing the efficiency and speed of the certification process. The results presented in this paper are from a small-scale evaluation study of an alternative teacher certification program titled the Summer/Fall Certification Option. The participants in this study include two cohorts of current (N=10) and past participants (N=6) located in western Massachusetts. Data were collected in the form of surveys, focus group interviews, questionnaires, and supporting documents. Data analysis entailed open-coding of all data sources. Results from the study describe how participants identify key features of the program, such as small class size, diversity of participants, and practicing teachers as instructors as important factors contributing greatly to the success of the program. In the end, this study may draw attention to the need for more small-scale, university-based initiatives for teacher preparation.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) include standards for science teacher education as well as standards for student learning [1]. A look at these standards and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) standards for science teacher preparation programs [2], clearly indicate that the initial preparation of science teachers requires rigorous course work in the sciences as well as intensive work in education including significant amounts of field work in the form of practica and pre-practica. In the years since the publication of these documents, university and college-based teacher education programs have been faced with increasing amounts of State and Federal oversight, especially in the form of high stakes tests. At the same time, faced with a growing shortage of science teachers, States have instituted a wide variety of alternative routes to certification [e.g., 3]. In this paper, we present the results of an evaluation study of an alternative certification program that seeks a middle ground between the fast-track model (e.g., the six-week Massachusetts MINT program) and more traditional models.

Several studies have been done that compare teachers with no certification to those who went through traditional teacher education programs [4] and comparisons between teachers who went through alternative and traditional programs [e.g., 5, 6]. These comparisons have been inconclusive and are often driven by the ideology of the sponsoring agency. As a result we find proponents of the alternative programs claiming that they allow more access to teaching, that it is a more efficient process, and that "alternative programs allow potential teachers to bypass ineffective teacher education programs” [3, p. 37]. Opponents of alternative certification programs argue that these programs cannot produce the quality teachers needed to improve K12 education. While the study to be presented in this paper is not a comparison per se, it does evaluate an attempt to produce quality science and math teachers while increasing the efficiency and speed of the certification process.

Alternative Certification Programs

What follows is an overview of two approaches to the recruitment of high-quality teachers in the state of Massachusetts: a fast track initiative funded by the state known as the Massachusetts Institute for New Teachers (MINT) and an alternative teacher certification program implemented by the University of Massachusetts Amherst titled the Summer/Fall Certification Option. Our purpose in presenting a description of each program is two fold. First, we set the context of our work by providing a brief history of the two approaches to teacher recruitment in Massachusetts. Second, we expand further upon the design and features of one particular teacher preparation program – the Summer/Fall Certification Option - that has been effective at preparing quality science and math teachers for making an immediate entry into the classroom.

Massachusetts Institute for New Teachers (MINT)

Since 1999, the Massachusetts Department of Education has developed and implemented a variety of state-funded initiatives designed to address teacher supply and quality needs through recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers [7]. One such initiative includes the Massachusetts Institute for New Teachers, referred to as MINT [8]. The primary purpose of MINT is to provide qualified and motivated recent college graduates and mid-career professionals with content expertise an accelerated route to teacher certification. MINT participants earn their initial license through an intensive summer training institute, followed by an on-going support and assessment program during their first year as a teacher. More specifically, the model includes seven weeks of classroom experience in the mornings and seminars in the afternoons, followed by support seminars during the first year of teaching, and a performance assessment at the end of the first year.

Over the past four years, MINT has trained nearly 600 teachers, with more than half of these new teachers teaching in high-demand content areas (e.g. science and mathematics) [8]. MINT graduates are currently working in over 225 schools in all regions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In a recent study conducted by the Center for Education Policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, almost 90% of school principals who have hired MINT graduates would do so again without reservation [9]. However, the same study indicates that a large fraction of the MINT graduates chose not to teach in urban settings, and many who did, left teaching within a short time period.

In response to this result, the State decided to make drastic changes in the MINT program. The first was to decouple it from the well-advertised "signing bonus" program that promised MINT teachers $20,000 for the completion of 5 years of teaching. It is important to note that the MINT graduates who left teaching forfeited the unpaid portion of the bonus. The second was to link acceptance into the program with the offer of a specific job in a high-need district. That is, anyone accepted into the MINT program is to be guaranteed a teaching job come fall. Third, MINT was farmed out to collaborations of institutions of higher education (IHE) and school districts. This was done to both improve the quality of the teacher education courses and to provide a way for ongoing mentorship and supervision during the first full year of teaching. As it turns out, the newly minted MINT program is similar in design to the University of Massachusetts Summer/Fall Certification Option.

Summer/Fall Certification Option

The Summer/Fall Certification Option was developed as a part of STEMTEC[1], the Massachusetts Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, funded by the National Science Foundation. Its goals have been to increase the supply, quality, and diversity of science and math teachers. The Summer/Fall Option was conceived as a way to increase the size of the initial certification program, in a time of shrinking budgets, to meet the growing demand for high quality science and math teachers.

The program is an intensive teacher certification program in science and mathematics designed to assist pre-service candidates in completing all Massachusetts teaching certification requirements within a period of six months. The Option is designed for juniors, seniors, and post-BA/BS students who want to teach science or mathematics at the middle or high school level, and who want to complete a teacher certification program in less than one academic school year.

During the months of May, June, and July, the students participate in a series of in-depth courses and pre-practicum experiences designed to prepare students for teaching science and mathematics at the secondary level. These courses entail a comprehensive examination of the theories, methodologies, and practices necessary for establishing an effective and equitable science/math learning environment for middle and/or high school students. In addition, all of the courses (with the exception of one course) were developed and taught by practicing science educators.

Challenges faced by the Summer/Fall Certification Option

Like many alternative programs for teacher certification, the Summer/Fall Certification Option operates within several constraints or parameters. First, the Summer/Fall Option had to meet the requirements of an approved teacher education program in the state of Massachusetts. This entailed devising and coordinating intensive coursework on content pedagogy, educational psychology, and strategies for meeting the needs of diverse learners (i.e. bilingual/multicultural education). Additionally systematic clinical or pre-practicum experiences had to be connected to and incorporated in the program.

Second, the Summer/Fall program had to conform to the needs of the individual university faculty who had originally designed and usually taught the course during the academic year. These faculty members took ownership of the goals, objectives, and methodologies of his/her respective course. Therefore, the instructors of the summer courses needed to negotiate with the individual university faculty about their respective course syllabi.

Third, the program was dependent upon the availability of qualified faculty and existing resources. While this was a constraint, it was not an obstacle. Because of the efforts of STEMTEC and other projects in which local teachers had major roles, and because there exists a community of expert teachers educated in the university’s secondary teacher education preparation program, there was no shortage of potential instructors for the courses. In addition, STEMTEC was able to devote some of its resources to the development of the Option, and the Division of Continuing Education decided to invest money in the Option as a potential moneymaker for the University.

The fourth and last challenge faced by the director and support staff of the Summer/Fall Option was the schedule. Considerable efforts had to be taken to devise a schedule that reflected a rigorous and intense program limited to seven weeks in the summer. Access to available teachers, schools, and summer camps were a priority for integrating a practicum-based experience during both the summer and fall.

Distinctive characteristics of the Summer/Fall Certification Option

The Summer/Fall Certification Option was distinctive in several ways. Unlike more traditional programs for teacher preparation, the Summer/Fall Option enlisted the help of local and relatively new teachers of science as instructors of the summer and fall courses. Of the six instructors in the program, five had at least six or more years of science teaching experience, held masters degrees in science teacher education, and graduated from the same teacher preparation program. Additionally, these five instructors had participated in and co-facilitated workshops for the STEMTEC initiative and were highly knowledgeable of reform efforts in science education and science teacher education.

The participants themselves were also distinctive. All were either just completing their baccalaureate degrees or were post-baccalaureate. Some of these participants included business professionals, engineers, and recent college graduates who all showed interest in making a successful career transition to the classroom. That is, just the population that fast-track programs seek to serve.

A third distinctive feature is that after students complete the summer courses, they continue to be mentored and supervised by university faculty. In fact, they enter the academic year program and receive the same services and assistance as academic year students.

Methods

The Summer/Fall program officially began in the summer of 2000 and during the course of the second year (2001), a formative evaluation was conducted. The primary goals of the evaluation were to: 1) determine the effectiveness of the program at meeting the needs of both current and past participants; 2) identify ways to improve the program; and 3) make recommendations for recruitment and retention of future participants. What follows is an overview of the participants involved and procedures employed in the formative evaluation.

Participants

The participants in this evaluation included two distinct cohorts of students. The first group included students attending the program during the course of the evaluation. This included a total of ten students: six males and four females. Ten of the students were Caucasian and one student was African American. Seven students entered the program as post baccalaureate students and three students as mid-career professionals. This included two business professionals and one engineer. The age of the participants ranged from 22 to 57 years of age. The significance of reporting the age of the participants and their respective previous careers is to highlight the unique diversity of the participants and how their demographics are in stark contrast of the demographics of students within a traditional teacher preparation program.

The second group of students included past participants and applicants. We contacted three tiers of past participants: 1) participants who graduated from the program in its first year; 2) applicants who either deferred or declined their acceptance; and 3) applicants who were not accepted into the program. By contacting these sub-groups of participants and applicants, we wanted to learn the how participants heard about the program; why they decided to apply; what they thought about the application process; what they thought about the program; and what recommendations they could make to improve the program.

Data collection

Data were collected in the form of surveys, focus group interviews, questionnaires, and supporting documents (e.g. course syllabi) [10]. We began the evaluation by surveying the ten incoming participants in May 2001. We wanted to learn from the participants how they heard of the program, why they applied, and what their expectations were. We conducted focus group interviews with these participants on two separate occasions: at the beginning (June, 2001) and at the end of the summer session (July, 2001). Lastly, we mailed out questionnaires to fourteen past participants, including graduates and former applicants of the program, to determine how the program effectively met their needs and how to improve upon the program for the future. Of the fourteen questionnaires, six questionnaires were returned including responses from two graduates of the program, three candidates who declined their acceptance and one applicant who was not accepted.

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted inductively[11, 12] by reading and re-reading transcripts from focus group interviews, statements from surveys and questionnaires, and supporting documents (i.e. course syllabi) . Using grounded theory[13], categories were developed to help understand how the participants communicated to us the overall effectiveness of the program. Repeatedly appearing categories, concepts, and events led to construction of specific features that contributed to the overall effectiveness of the Summer/Fall program. The viability of the construction of these particular features was then tested against other relevant data sets (i.e. field notes from classroom observations and other supporting documents).