Contact: Paul E. Peterson, Harvard University, (617) 495-8312

STANFORD – States with teacher certification programs that provide a genuine alternative pathway for teacher candidates -- those that require substantially fewer credits than the usual 30 demanded by most certification programs -- have a greater representation of minority teachers and higher classroom learning gains than states that have no alternative certification or a purely symbolic one, according to a new study by Paul E. Peterson, director of the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), and PEPG research associate Daniel Nadler published in Education Next .

Using data from the Office for Civil Rights, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Census Bureau, Peterson and Nadler were able to determine the ratio of minority representation in states’ teaching forces. They found that nationwide, little more than half as many minorities are teachers as would be expected given the minority composition of the adult population. In states with genuine alternative certification programs, however, minorities are represented at a ratio three times greater than in states with a merely symbolic or no alternative certification option.

Peterson and Nadler also found that students attending schools in states with genuine alternative certification programs gained more on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) than did students in the other states. In states that had genuine alternative certification, test-score gains on the NAEP exceeded those in the other states by 4.8 points in 4th grade math and 7.6 points in 8th-grade math. In reading, the additional gains in the states with genuine alternative certification were 10.6 points and 3.9 points for the two grade levels, respectively. Test-score gains were also larger among African Americans in the states with genuine alternative certification. The analysis controlled for demographic factors and for changes in class size and school expenditures.

In 14 of the 16 states that report the ethnic background of alternatively certified teachers, Peterson and Nadler found that the percentage of minority teachers that are alternatively certified exceeds the percentage of minorities in the state’s teaching force as a whole by a wide margin. In Mississippi, for example, the disparities are massive: 60 percent of the more than 800 teachers who were alternatively certified in 2004–05 were of minority background, while the overall Mississippi teaching force is just 26 percent minority. Other states where percentage differences between the two groups exceed at least 10 percentage points include California, Delaware, and Texas.

“There is every reason to believe that alternative certification is key to recruiting more minorities into the teaching profession,” Peterson points out.

Only 21 of the 47 states that provide an alternative pathway for teacher certification have truly alternative programs, according to Peterson and Nadler. In seven of the 21 states candidates are only required to pass a test, while 14 of the 21 require substantially reduced coursework than the average alternative program, which often encumber candidates with a course load nearly as heavy as their traditional certification program.

In states that offer genuine alternative certification, 28 percent of newly certified teachers chose the alternative route compared to only 5 percent in states that do not offer a genuine alternative pathway. Altogether, 92 percent of those with an alternative teaching certificate received it in one of the states that have such certification in reality as well as in name.

“Hardly anyone bothers with an alternative certificate if the requirements are essentially the same as for the traditional one,” Peterson notes.

To find out whether your state has a genuine alternative teacher certification program, read “What Happens When States Have Genuine Alternative Certification?” now available online and in PDF format.

Paul E. Peterson, director of the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), is editor-in-chief of Education Next . Daniel Nadler is a PEPG research associate.

Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to looking at hard facts about school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

---

Copyright © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
Phone: 650-723-1754