by Leo Klagholz

New Jersey’s “Alternate Route”to Teacher Certification

JANUARY 2000

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State:

New Jersey's "Alternate Route" to Teacher Certification

by

Leo Klagholz

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................iii

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................vii

Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

Reform of Undergraduate Teacher Preparation ....................................................................................1

Development of an "Alternate Route" Proposal....................................................................................3

Political Reaction and Compromise ......................................................................................................7

Use of the Provisional Teacher Program by New Jersey Schools ......................................................11

The National Teacher Shortage Debate ..............................................................................................19

Appendix..............................................................................................................................................22

Table of Contents

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State i

Figure 1Number of Provisional Teachers Hired by New Jersey Schools (1985-1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 2Number and Proportion of Provisional and Traditionally Prepared Teachers Hired for September by New Jersey Public Schools (1985-1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Figure 3Fields of Employment of New Jersey Provisional Teachers (1985-1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 4Numbers of NJ Public School Districts By District Factor GroupEmploying Provisional Teachers in September (1985-1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 5Mean NTE Scores of New Jersey Provisional Teacher Program Applicants and NJ College Teacher Education Graduates (1985-1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 6Numbers of "Alternate Route" Teachers Hired Annually for September by Public and Nonpublic Schools, and Percentages of New Public School Teachers Represented by "Alternate Routers" (1985-1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

List of Figures

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State iii

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State v

If you've read any of this Foundation's other recent publications about teachers and teacher quality, you

already know that we're fans of alternative certification. Today more than forty states offer such

programs. The best of them provide compressed basic training for prospective teachers without forcing

lengthy detours through colleges of education, and allow qualified candidates for teaching posts to

bypass most of the hoops and hurdles that so often deter talented people from public school classrooms.

Alternative certification was essentially invented in 1983, when New Jersey introduced its pathbreaking

plan. In this report, Leo Klagholz, the Provisional Teacher Program's original architect, outlines its

aims, the debates that attended its birth and growth, the results it has had so far, and some lessons for

other states. What's especially noteworthy about the alternative certification program depicted in these

pages is that it was designed not to respond to a teacher shortage but as part of a broader effort to boost

teacher quality in the Garden State. The evidence presented here suggests that it has done exactly that.

Dr. Klagholz knows the story of alternative certification better than anyone and we were thrilled when

he agreed to write this report. A life-long educator, at the time he crafted New Jersey's Provisional

Teacher Program he was Director of Teacher Preparation and Certification in the state's Department of

Education, serving under Commissioner Saul Cooperman and Governor Tom Kean. In more recent

years, he himself served as New Jersey's Comissioner of Education under Governor Christie Whitman.

Today, Leo is a Distinguished Scholar in Educational Policy Studies at The Richard Stockton College

of New Jersey. Readers wishing to contact him directly may call him at 609-652-4521, write to him at

Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Jim Leeds Road, Pomona, NJ 08240-0195 or send an e-mail

to Leo.Klagholz@stockton.edu.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is a private foundation that supports research, publications, and

action projects in elementary/secondary education reform at the national level and in the Dayton area.

Further information can be obtained from our web site (http://www.edexcellence.net) or by writing us at

1627 K St., NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006. (We can also be e-mailed through our web site.)

This report is available in full on the Foundation's web site, and hard copies can be obtained by calling

1-888-TBF-7474 (single copies are free). The Foundation is neither connected with nor sponsored by

Fordham University.

Chester E. Finn, Jr., President

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

Washington, D.C.

January 2000

Foreword

In September 1984, the New Jersey Board of Education launched the Provisional Teacher

Program, the nation's first alternative teacher certification program, which was part of the

state's broader effort to boost the quality of its teaching force. The "alternate route," as it

came to be known, emerged from a reform process initiated after a commission created by

the legislature concluded that New Jersey's teacher preparation programs were producing

poorly educated graduates.

In response, the state embarked on a dual path of reform: improving the quality of

undergraduate teacher preparation while also creating the Provisional Teacher Program as

an alternate pathway into the profession. The traditional route was reformed by reducing

the number of required education courses; this came after a study conducted by the state's

Department of Education found that most such courses were superfluous. That study

identified a core body of applied knowledge to which every new teacher ought to be

exposed, but effective teacher preparation was redefined as a combination of a solid liberal

arts education and mentor-assisted practice teaching.

At the same time, the state established an alternative system through which school districts

could recruit talented individuals with liberal arts backgrounds who had not studied

education in college. The alternate route candidates would develop their teaching skills in

essentially the same way as traditional candidates: by teaching with the support of a

mentor. Formal instruction in a core of applied teaching knowledge could take place

during the novice teacher's first year of employment rather than in college; indeed,

receiving this instruction in conjunction with mentor-guided practice was thought to be

essential. Ultimately, the state's new certification regulations established parallel

requirements for the alternative and traditional routes, yet the former remains a true

alternative: only 200 clock hours of formal instruction in teaching methods are required.

According to the author, New Jersey's alternative certification program has markedly

expanded the quality, diversity, and size of the state's teacher candidate pool. By 1998-99,

457 school districts had utilized the program. Applicants had higher scores on teacher

licensing tests than traditionally prepared teachers and attrition rates for alternatively certi-

fied teachers were lower than those of their traditionally trained counterparts. The

Provisional Teacher Program also became the dominant source of minority teachers for both

urban and suburban schools.

Executive Summary

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State vii

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 1

September 1999 marked fifteen years sincethe establishment of the New Jersey ProvisionalTeacher Program, the state's "alternate route" toteacher certification. Since then, New Jerseyschools have used the program to hire and trainnearly 7,000 new teachers. The program, whichis now an integral part of the state's teacheremployment system, has helped account for the

fact that, since 1985, New Jersey has not issueda single emergency certificate in any of theaffected teaching fields. Nor has it had toauthorize the employment or reassignment ofany teachers outside their subject fields. Farmore importantly, the program has achieved itsprimary purpose of enhancing the overall qualityof the state's teacher candidate pool.

Introduction

Reform of Undergraduate Teacher PreparationNew Jersey's "alternate route" enjoys

widespread acceptance largely because it was created as part of a broader effort to enhanceteacher quality. That effort began with initiativesaimed at improving the quality of undergraduateeducation degrees by reducing pedagogy coursesin favor of increased liberal education and prac-tice teaching requirements. This reform of the"traditional route" paved the way for the "alter-nate route" program because it fundamentallyredefined the "well-prepared teacher" as someonewith a liberal arts degree who acquires teachingskill mainly through actual classroom practice.

Commission to Study TeacherPreparation Programs

Concern over the quality of public educationand teaching reached a peak in the 1970s whenthe former state teachers colleges were required toconvert to liberal arts-based institutions as part ofa restructuring of the higher education system.This conversion brought the curricula of teachereducation programs under intense public scrutinyand criticism.

In 1978, the State Legislature created theCommission to Study Teacher PreparationPrograms in New Jersey Colleges (CSTPP), comprised of legislators, state education officials,

educators and private citizens. The Commission'spurpose was to "conduct a study of teacher prepa-ration programs at New Jersey colleges…becauseof dissatisfaction with the quality and scope of theprograms for the education of teachers in this stateand the requirements for licensing (CSTPP, FinalReport, June 1981)." The CSTPP conducted anexhaustive review of undergraduate preparationprograms and concluded that they were producingpoorly educated graduates.

The Commission's inquiry revealed that statecertification mandates had produced a prolifera-tion of education courses and programs in circum-vention of the campus-based processes that col-leges use to assure the quality of academic offer-ings. In public hearings, higher education leaderscriticized these courses as generally unchallengingand lacking in substance. Teachers claimed thatthey did not contribute significantly to their class-room success.

Yet education courses comprised as many aseighty credits in a 120-credit teaching degree.Prospective teachers not only majored in educa-tion, they also took education-based "hybridcourses" to satisfy liberal education require-ments—e.g., "Math Concepts in the ElementaryClassroom" in place of the more rigorous, stan-dard math courses that other students wererequired to take. Thus, elementary teaching can-

didates were able to graduate without havingtaken a single substantive course in science, mathor history. Prospective secondary teachers com-pleted specialized, sometimes hybrid, subjectmajors—e.g., "science education" instead ofphysics or chemistry.

Some members of the Commission questioned whether the traditional teacher prepa-ration curriculum contained sufficient academicsubstance to justify the award of a college degree.

The Commission's study also suggested that,due to their poor academic reputation, educationprograms and courses attracted weak students.The State Department of Higher Education report-ed that for several consecutive years, the SATscores of New Jersey high schoolgraduates who indicated educa-tion as their intended majorranked 22nd among 23 collegemajors. A high proportion wasfound to be deficient in basicskills on the statewide test forentering college freshmen.However, despite their weak aca-demic prowess, few educationstudents washed out of theirpreparation programs.

Based on testimony providedby teacher representatives, the Commission foundthat "practice teaching," performed in schoolclassrooms under the guidance of a school-basedmentor teacher, was the most valuable aspect ofprofessional preparation.

Regulatory Reforms

The CSTPP concluded that beginning teachers must, first and foremost, be educated persons. It recommended that undergraduatedegree programs enrolling certification candidatesbe required to include a substantial liberal arts orgeneral education component, a liberal arts or sci-ence major, and expanded practice teachingrequirements.

Exercising its authority over college degreeprograms, the State Board of Higher Educationtook the lead in implementing the Commission'srecommendations. It convened a Blue RibbonPanel on Teacher Education, chaired by Penn sociologist Ivar Berg and including then-AERApresident Frank Farley and Stanford professorRalph Tyler. The panel endorsed the CSTPP recommendations and expanded on their rationale.On that basis, the higher education board requiredall undergraduate education programs to include:(1) approximately sixty credits of "pure" liberaleducation courses, distributed among relevant dis-ciplines; (2) a liberal arts or science major com-prised of courses taken by liberal arts majors in

the same field; and (3) progres-sively intensive practice teachingexperiences, beginning with abrief introductory sophomoreexperience and culminating in thesenior year with a semester of full-time student teaching. Given therequirement that certification can-didates major in the liberal arts,the higher education board alsodirected colleges to cease award-ing undergraduate degrees in thefield of education, except where

education is the secondary emphasis in a dualmajor.

These changes, which were aimed at improv-ing new teacher quality, redefined effective "tradi-tional" preparation as a combination of liberaleducation and mentor-assisted practice teaching.Thus, it was not a large step to establish a parallelsystem through which school districts couldimprove teacher quality by recruiting other liber-ally educated individuals who did not study edu-cation in college. These "alternate route" candi-dates would develop their instructional skills inthe same way students in the reformed "traditionalroute" would: by actually teaching in a schoolclassroom with support from a mentor teacher.

2 Leo Klagholz

Elementary teaching

candidates wereable to graduatewithout having

taken a single sub-stantive course inscience, math or

history.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 3

Yet the state did not simply conceive of and propose such a program. Instead, the "alternateroute" evolved from a study conducted to deter-mine the place of education courses in thereformed traditional preparation programs.

Certification Study

The Department of Education had to conduct such a study because the question ofwhich, if any, education courses should be includ-ed was unresolved. While the CSTPP's inquiry produced criticism of education courses in gener-al, it did not assess individual courses.

There were three reasons why the Departmentof Education's study of educationcourses in the "traditional" collegeroute also led to a proposal of an"alternate route."

First, the study was a continua-tion of a long-term search for waysto improve teacher quality that sofar had generated harsh criticism ofcertification mandates and firmlycommitted the state to a strategy ofdramatically expanding the liberaland practical education of teachers.Therefore, the certification studywas necessarily oriented and pre-disposed toward weeding out weak and unneces-sary education course requirements.

Second, while higher education officials haddefined the teacher quality problem primarily interms of the academic adequacy of collegedegrees, the state education commissioner and hisstaff approached it mainly as a human resourceissue. They hypothesized that school districtswere being prevented from employing capableteaching candidates simply because they lackedthe very courses that had been the subject of harshcriticism over the previous five years. Therefore,their study included a review of certification filesto identify individuals whose applications had

been rejected though they had job offers in hand,and an analysis of the certification requirementsthat caused their rejection.

Third, the CSTTP had previously planted theseed for the idea of an "alternate route." Al-though it did not analyze individual certificationcourses, its members struggled, without reachingagreement, with the general problem of what todo with education study in the new liberal arts-based preparation programs. It recommendedrequiring the new degrees to incorporate three"pure" liberal arts courses in the behavioral/socialsciences, and the higher education board's regula-tions incorporated such a mandate. Higher educa-tion representatives generally favored moving

education study, per se, to the grad-uate level, but teacher union repre-sentatives argued that teachingcompetence could be acquiredthrough means other than a gradu-ate education degree. Attempting tosatisfy polar positions, the CSTPP'sfinal report advanced the idea ofmoving requisite education study tothe graduate level but asserted thatthere would be "…situations inwhich it would be unreasonableand undesirable to require comple-tion of a [preparation] program in

the prescribed way." Thus, the CSTPP urged that"…equivalency routes to certification must beprovided." In the Commission's view, such aroute would involve an assessment of individualcandidates' knowledge, teaching skills and person-al qualities in the manner of an external degreeprogram.

The idea of requiring all teaching candidates to obtain a generic master's degree ineducation was never taken seriously, mainlybecause of the contradiction inherent in creating agraduate degree out of course content deemed generally unworthy of undergraduate credit.However, the basic idea of creating an "equivalen-

Development of an "Alternate Route" Proposal

It was not a large stepto establish a parallelsystem through whichschool districts could

improve teacher quality by recruiting

other liberally educated individualswho did not study

education in college.

4 Leo Klagholz

cy route" through which to meet certification requirements was "on the table" when the state education department began its internal review ofcertification mandates.

Certification Reform Proposal

In September 1983, the education department issued its report. It discussed theurgent need to improve the quality of public edu-cation and the related importance of "attracting tothe teaching profession men and women of outstanding talent and academic achievement." It concluded that many of the then-existing education course mandates failed to achieve thatresult because of their "limited effectiveness aspredictors of competence." It asserted that "anynew requirements should be concerned withprocess (courses taken) only in the most generalsense and must instead emphasize the assessmentof each individual candidate."

To that end, the report urged theState Board of Education to replaceits existing course mandates withthree basic certification require-ments that were compatible withthe already-adopted preparationprogram reforms. Specifically,each certification applicant wouldbe required to: (1) obtain a bac-calaureate degree with a major inthe subject to be taught; (2)demonstrate subject competency bypassing the relevant subject test of the NationalTeachers Exam (NTE); and (3) acquire anddemonstrate teaching skill by completing a men-tor-assisted, school-based internship.

Again, these requirements were not proposed as an "alternate route" but rather as universal standards that all certification candidatesshould be required to meet—primarily students inthe redesigned undergraduate preparation pro-grams. For such students, the new practice teach-ing requirement, spread out over the sophomore,junior and senior years, would constitute theschool-based internship. Preparation program stu-

dents would take the proposed subject test aftergraduation and prior to receiving certification.

"Alternate Route" Proposal

The education department's review of rejectedcertification applications had confirmed itshypothesis that many individuals with outstandingacademic qualifications and pertinent experiencewere being barred from employment for lack ofseemingly trivial courses. Therefore, the depart-ment's report went on to state:

There is a need to provide an alternateroute to certification for those who possessa degree but have not completed an intern-ship, and thereby open the doors of theteaching profession to talented personsfrom all collegiate fields of study….[Therefore] for those who majored in theliberal arts…the internship could be pro-vided after graduation by a local [school]

district.

A candidate would qualify for the"alternate route" if he or she pos-sessed the same academic qualifica-tions required of students in the new"traditional route": a baccalaureatedegree with a major in the teachingsubject and a passing score on asubject matter test. The individualwould also have to obtain a joboffer from a local school districtthat had examined his or her experi-

ence, background and personal qualities. Onceemployed with full salary under a one-year provi-sional certificate, the "alternate route" teacherwould receive support from a mentor teacher dur-ing the initial year while completing in-servicetraining. School staff would monitor and evaluatethe teacher's development and classroom perform-ance, and recommend at the end of the yearwhether or not the state should issue standard cer-tification.

RationaleThe logic of the education department's

proposal, and its eventual acceptance across the

A candidate wouldqualify for the

"alternate route" ifhe or she possessedthe same academic

qualificationsrequired of students

in the new "traditional route.”

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 5

state, are rooted in its unique treatment of the roleof teacher training in the broader system ofteacher preparation and employment.

The department's study did indeed concludethat most existing education courses—some withtitles like "Discovering Your Teaching Self,""Descriptive Linguistics," and "Revolutions inEducation"—were superfluous and should be jetti-soned from state regulation. Yet it did not con-tend that all education study was valueless. Onthe contrary, it asserted the existence of a corebody of "applied" knowledge—i.e., how-to-teachknowledge—to which each new teacher ought tobe exposed. Yet it also concluded that permittingsuch exposure to occur during a teacher's firstyear of employment would be: (1) an acceptableway of training the individual novice; and (2) asuperior approach to assuring the overall qualityof the teacher candidate pool.

Training of the Individual Novice

Novice teachers gain teaching ability most effectively by practicing in a school classroomwith advice and guidance from a veteran teacher.It makes no important difference whether a noviceengages in mentor-assisted practice through a col-lege preparation program prior to employment orduring the initial months of full-time salariedemployment. Indeed, doing so "through a collegeprogram" means that the college places the aspir-ing teacher in a school classroom where he or sheassumes full instructional responsibility as soon aspossible with support from a teacher employed atthe school. In both the employment-based andcollege-based scenarios, the new teacher learns byinstructing real students in school classrooms, andthe mentor is the primary control against the factthat the teacher is a novice.

It is also useful for novice teachers to receive formal instruction in applied professional knowl-edge. This aspect of training gives them theopportunity to interact with and learn from a men-tor who is not only a master of daily job function-ing, but also an expert in the accumulated wisdom

of "how to teach" generally. Such formal instruc-tion is most beneficial, though, when provided inconjunction with mentor-guided practice so thenovice can use it to analyze, solve and generalizefrom the real-world teaching problems he or she isencountering. The importance of this integrationof "learning and doing" renders unsound anynotion of separating formal instruction in appliedknowledge from mentor-guided practice. Giventhe minimal difference between acquiring suchexperience in a college program and doing so dur-ing the initial months of actual employment, it isacceptable for new teachers to receive formalinstruction in applied knowledge in conjunctionwith a district-run, job-based internship. Indeed,it would be ineffective to require "alternate route"teachers to complete education study in advanceof their employment-based internship.

Quality of the Teacher Candidate Pool

The fact that it makes sense to instruct noviceteachers in applied teaching knowledge does notjustify the simplistic use of teacher training as arigid legal control over employment eligibility.To assure the quality of the teacher candidatepool, government-imposed eligibility require-ments must provide job access to competent candidates and deny it to incompetent ones. State requirements inhibit teacher quality if they eitheradmit people who are unlikely to succeed orscreen out potentially successful individuals.Setting aside the artificiality of the distinctionbetween "pre-employment" and "co-employment"training, requisite teacher preparation—i.e., men-tor-guided practice combined with instruction inapplied professional knowledge—does not meetthe test of an effective pre-employment screen.

The problem is that basic "how to teach"knowledge is not a hard science like physics orbiology. It is more like parenting psychology. Abody of information exists and is clearly worth considering. However, doing so in advance doesnot guarantee long-term success, nor does failureto do so necessarily doom one to failure. That is

6 Leo Klagholz

because teaching ability is also influenced by qualities commonly possessed by individuals whohave not completed formal teacher preparation,such as knowledge of subject matter and personaltraits like intelligence, human sensitivity and car-ing, communication ability, work ethic, self-disci-pline, ability to relate to children, etc. As aresult, when government uses teacher training asa formal job eligibility screen, it produces thedouble error of failing to guarantee the compe-tence of those who meet requirements while alsoeliminating many individuals who have significant capabilities.

For those reasons, an "alternate route" is notonly an acceptable option from the perspective oftraining the individual novice, it isa superior means of assuring thedepth and breadth—and thereforethe quality—of the talent pool.

In advancing these ideas, thestate education department citedtwo pieces of prima facie evidenceof their workability.

First, few private schools andvirtually no colleges or universitieslimit their hiring of new facultymembers to those who have completed teachereducation. (Even collegiate schools of educationdo not do so.) On the contrary, these institutions select most of their new instructorsfrom among those who lack such training. Yetthey succeed.

Second, while the public education system hastypically required pre-employment educationstudy, it has also maintained the loophole of "emergency certification" so that school districtscan hire people who lack it. In New Jersey, emergency certification had become so lax as toencourage employing and reassigning teachers outside their subject fields. Yet public schooladministrators also frequently contrived local"teacher shortages" so they could get around certification requirements and hire subject-edu-cated individuals who lacked education study yetwere, on balance, the best prospects for particular

teaching jobs. Countless numbers of these systematically recruited "emergency" teachershave developed into very successful teachers.

In view of the preceding rationale, it is a myththat the New Jersey "alternate route" is built uponthe idea that it is useless to require new teachersto consider intellectually the accumulated wisdomof the profession. Colleges and private schoolsthat do a good job of induction do this on theirown, arranging institutes and seminars for theirnew faculty members and referring them to con-ferences and courses. It is reasonable for thestate to assure that these things are done in thepublic school system. Yet it is equally false toview the New Jersey program's inclusion of edu-

cation training as an affirmation ofthe appropriateness or necessity ofusing such training as a strict pre-employment eligibility screen.

Instead, the program is foundedon the idea that teacher quality isbest attained if the core body ofapplied professional knowledge isstripped of its trivial excesses andused only to supplement the

beginning teacher's mentor-guided induction tothe classroom. It is unimportant whether thenovice teacher is placed in a school classroom bya college preparation program before graduationor by a school district afterward, as long as men-toring support is available. To underscore thiscore argument, the Department of Education's1983 proposal cited the following statement byJames B. Conant:

Except for practice teaching and the spe-cial [methodological] work combined withit, I see no rational basis for a state pre-scription of the time devoted to education courses….[Methodology] should be made available at the moment the potential teacher most needs all the useful knowl-edge he can get; that is, when he actually begins to teach (The Education of America's Teachers, McGraw Hill, 1963).

It would be ineffective to

require "alternateroute" teachers to

complete educationstudy in advance oftheir employment-based internship.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 7

Before asking the State Board of Education toadopt its certification proposals, the educationdepartment announced that it would commissiontwo advisory panel studies during the 1983-84school year. The first would be comprised ofnationally recognized education researchers andwould provide a concise definition of the corebody of applied professional knowledge to sup-plement both the college-based and "alternateroute" internships. The second, comprised ofNew Jersey educators and citizens, would supplythe details of the "alternate route" internship.

Opposition and Support

Yet the "alternate route" proposal was immedi-ately denounced by the New Jersey Association ofColleges for Teacher Education (NJACTE), theNew Jersey Federation of Teachers (NJFT), andthe New Jersey Education Association (NJEA).(NJEA represents teachers atnearly all public schools whileNJFT mainly represents state col-lege faculty members.) Inresponse to political pressureapplied by these groups, morethan fifty members of the StateAssembly joined in introducing abill to prohibit the creation of"alternate routes" to teacher certification.However, the bill did not move forward for sever-al reasons.

First, opponents' arguments were extreme,contradictory and ultimately self-defeating. Theypredicted that the "alternate route" would attractonly "mediocre liberal arts graduates" and "failures from other career fields," some actuallyasserting that teaching is an unrewarding occupation and teachers are poorly regardedmembers of society. Others said that only urbanschools, forced by teacher shortages to seek out"warm bodies," would use the "alternate route."Still others predicted that the program wouldprove to be "elitist," bringing only "pointy-headed

intellectuals" to wealthy suburban schools whileexcluding minority candidates and urban schools.Such a possibility was disparaged with the absurdclaim that essential teaching qualities like caringand sensitivity are negatively correlated withintelligence.

Some critics predicted that no school districts would hire "alternate route" teachersexcept to cope with shortages. Others said thatschool professionals would use the program rampantly as an instrument of political nepotismand patronage. Some predicted that if any provisional teachers were hired "off the street,"they would be forced to "flee their classrooms byOctober" when they realized that they lacked theknowledge and skill to cope. The most insidiouscriticism was that "alternate route" teachers wouldbring harm to children because of a "lack of commitment and caring," evidenced by their deci-sion to study physics at Harvard, for example,

rather than major in education at a statecollege.

The Assembly bill also stalledbecause statutes delegate certificationauthority to the State Board ofEducation partly to protect actionsaffecting students from political interference. The fact that the boardwas merely conducting its own open

hearings while awaiting completion of the panelstudies made it difficult for the Legislature toshort-circuit the process in response to specialinterest lobbying.

Third, support for the "alternate route" grew asthe process moved forward. The proposal wasendorsed immediately by the Governor and thehigher education chancellor who, in fact, participated in its announcement. It later receivedsupport from organizations representing superintendents, principals, school board members, college presidents and trustee boards,and the business community. The state's largestnewspaper, the Star Ledger of Newark, alsoactively promoted the "alternate route" plan.

Political Reaction and Compromise

Opponents' arguments were

extreme, contradictory and

ultimately self-defeating.

8 Leo Klagholz

Fourth, the powerful NJEA and the politicallyweak college teacher education groups were notunited either in the nature or the extent of theiropposition. The teacher education communityattacked the plan in basic principle and went allout to defeat it. The American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education took it on as anational issue and worked with NJACTE toorchestrate criticism from teacher education deansand faculty members across the nation. Somecame into New Jersey to attack the plan and oth-ers did so in journals and other national forums.NJEA, on the other hand, had supported theCSTTP reforms, which were motivated in part byteachers' criticisms of education courses.Therefore, while the teachers union's public criti-cisms of the "alternate route" proposal were ini-tially strident, its concerns were more of a practi-cal nature and it sought to resolve them throughnegotiation.

The "Boyer Panel"

As the public debate ensued, the state education department formed the first of its twoadvisory bodies, formally designated the Panel onthe Preparation of Beginning Teachers. The panelwas chaired by the late Ernest Boyer and comprised several of the nation's leading education researchers. Charged with defining thecore body of applied professional knowledge, thePanel recommended that all new teachers beexposed to instruction in three areas of appliedknowledge, with related subtopics, now referredto in New Jersey as the "Boyer Topics:" (1)Curriculum and Evaluation; (2) Student Learningand Development; and (3) the Classroom and theSchool.

The State Board ultimately adopted these top-ics as required supplements for the college-basedinternship, thus supplying the final element of thepreparation program reforms. The higher educa-tion board's requirement of three courses in thebehavioral/social sciences was redefined in regu-

lation to be synonymous with relevant sections ofthe "Boyer Topics." In adopting these require-ments, the State Board eliminated scores of othercertification course mandates. Though no totalcredit-hour requirement was attached to the newtopical requirements, it was expected that studentsin the redesigned preparation programs wouldcomplete, on average, about twelve credits ofstudy in the Boyer Topics. The education depart-ment also transmitted the Boyer Report to itsother advisory panel for inclusion in the "alternateroute" internship.

Members of the Boyer Panel were lobbiedaggressively to oppose the "alternate route."However, the Panel chose instead to include thefollowing statement in its final report, thus contributing to the proposal's momentum:

With respect to the issue of where profes-sional knowledge can best be presented,there is no single answer, no one arrange-ment that is always best. The college set-ting offers obvious advantages…. Thereare non-collegiate 'laboratory' settings thatalso may be appropriate for conveyingknowledge and skills to prospective teach-ers…. Perhaps the best approach is to jointhe learning places, to build partnershipsor coalitions among the separate institu-tions interested in teacher preparation withnew organizational arrangements to helpeducators carry on their work…. At thesame time, we are concerned that partner-ships, when they do exist, frequently aredominated by higher education. The ideasof teachers are trapped within traditionalcollegiate structures of semesters, credit-hours and the like.

Dr. Boyer attended a meeting of the state edu-cation board to present the report and state hissupport for the board's exploration of an "alternateroute."

The Internship PanelThe education department's second advisory

panel, formally titled the State Commission on

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 9

Alternative Certification, became the forumthrough which the department and the NJEAworked out an agreement that separated the teach-ers union from teacher education groups. TheCommission, comprised of state education inter-est-group representatives and individual educators and laypersons, resolved the following matters concerning the operation of the one-yearinternship for employed "alternate route" teachers.

College Participation: Some urged the stateto require that "alternate route" programs be runby colleges, not school districts. However, theeducation department was concerned that the program might be subverted if it hinged on college participation and the colleges refused to participate. Also, the department and publicschool groups were concerned that graduate programs would not be flexible enough to providethe desired program of integrated instruction andclassroom support tailored to the special circumstances of the employed "alternate route"teacher. The Commission resolved the issue bysuggesting that districts operating the "alternateroute" internship be required to seek the participation of a college and accept such involvement should it be offered. If the invitationwere refused, the district could go forward without college involvement.

Support Team: The panel addressed a con-cern that mentor teachers would be unable todevote sufficient time to "alternate route" teachers. It proposed that mentoring responsibili-ty be shared by members of a Support Team com-prised, at minimum, of the school principal and amentor teacher. A curriculum supervisor wouldbe added if the district employed such personnel,and a college representative would be included ifa college volunteered to participate. The principalwould chair the support team and coordinate its activities.

Evaluation: In response to union oppositionto mentor teachers' involvement in the formal evaluation of their "alternate route" colleagues,the Commission recommended that evaluations beconducted by certified administrators. (The regu-

lations ultimately required that they be conductedby the principal or another administrative memberof the Support Team.) The mentor teacher couldprovide informal input. The principal would alsobe responsible for recommending to the state atyear's end whether or not the "alternate route"teacher should be issued a standard certificate.

Standardization: The Commission standard-ized internship content, recommending that mem-bers of the Support Team be required to conductspecified numbers of mentoring sessions with the"alternate route" teacher and evaluations of his orher performance. It was also agreed that each"alternate route" teacher would be required tocomplete 200 clock hours of formal instruction inthe Boyer Topics, an amount chosen to parallelthe twelve credit hours that preparation programstudents were expected to complete. Since thisnoncredit instruction would only supplement men-tor-guided practice, the teacher's performance in itwould not be graded. Rather, like mentor teach-ers, course instructors would only be a source ofinput to the school principal.

Internship Phases: The Commission resolvedthe problem of how to maximize "alternate route"teachers' early success by recommending that theinternship include an initial twenty-day phase dur-ing which instruction and mentoring would bemost intense. This phase could take place prior tothe opening of school if the individual were hiredearly enough and a summer school program wereavailable. Or, it could occur during the noviceteacher's first twenty days on the job. In the lattercase, members of the Support Team would beresponsible legally for the teacher's job assignment,though he or she could teach full-time for all or partof the period depending on his or her initial readiness and progress.

Mentor Teacher Participation: TheCommission resolved union concerns over theterms of mentor teacher participation by proposingthat such participation be voluntary and compen-sated. As a result, each "alternate route" teacheris required to pay a tuition fee (currently $2,000)

10 Leo Klagholz

which the district uses to pay mentors and instruc-tors. The district may pay the fee for the teacher,if it chooses, or it may deduct it incrementallyfrom his or her pay over the course of the year.

Regional Centers: The Commissionaddressed concern over individual districts' abilityto provide the formal instruction component byrecommending that the state education departmentestablish regional centers to instruct "alternateroute" teachers in the Boyer Topics after schooland on weekends. Where the district elects to usethis option, a portion of theteacher's training fees is paiddirectly to the state depart-ment and used to staff andsupply the centers. The edu-cation department, like thedistricts, must solicit collegeparticipation in the centersbut may proceed unilaterallyif its solicitation is rejected.

Terminology: Manyexpressed the view that terms like "internship,"and "intern" did not accurately characterize eitherthe program or the college graduates likely to behired through it. The Commission proposed thatteachers employed through the program bereferred to as "provisional teachers." As a result,the "alternate route" was re-designated theProvisional Teacher Program.

Adoption of the ProgramIn September 1984, the State Board of

Education accepted the Commission's proposalsand adopted the Provisional Teacher Program,with only college teacher education groupsremaining opposed.

The new certification regulations establishedparallel requirements for both the "alternate" and"traditional" routes. Candidates in both wererequired to: (1) possess a college degree with anappropriate liberal arts major; (2) pass a subject

matter competency test; and (3)complete a mentor-guided intern-ship supplemented by study of coreprofessional knowledge. The onlydifferences involved the timing andsequence in which candidates com-pleted the requirements.

It was only because the tworoutes were equivalent by designthat the state was able to allow—indeed urge—school districts toconsider "traditional" and "alter-nate" candidates as equals in the job

market and to hire freely whichever they consid-ered the better qualified persons. Given therecruitment possibilities, this approach radicallyexpanded the quality, diversity and size of thepool of potential candidates. Therefore, the StateBoard eliminated regulations authorizing "emer-gency certification" and the hiring and reassign-ment of teachers outside their subject fields.

The State Board eliminated all regula-

tions authorizing"emergency certifica-

tion" and the hiring andreassignment of teachers

outside their subject fields.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 11

During the planning year (1984-85), theDepartment of Education took four implementation steps that proved essential to theprogram's success. It carefully designed the operational details, set up regional centers to provide formal instruction in the Boyer Topics,conducted a massive orientation campaign for district administrators, and established an office torecruit high-quality "alternate route" candidates.In response to requests from private and parochialschools, the department also established procedures through which those schools couldoperate "alternate route" programs, thus enablingtheir new teachers to earn public school certification.

The First Five Years

During its first five years, the ProvisionalTeacher Program was treated as a pilot project andthe state gathered data for use in deciding whetheror not it should be continued once the enablingregulations expired. Therefore, the informationavailable on provisional teachers hired during thatperiod is more detailed than in later years.

During the pilot period, the number of provi-sional teachers hired annually by public and non-public schools, both in September and during thecourse of the school year, rose steadily (see Figure1). (An exception occurred in 1989-90, a year inwhich new teacher employment in the public

Use of the Provisional Teacher Program byNew Jersey Schools

Figure 1Number of Provisional Teachers Hired By New Jersey Schools (1985-1990)

Public NonpublicYear Mid-Year September Mid-Year September Total

1984-85 114 7 121

1985-86 68 140 4 58 270

1986-87 90 142 15 73 320

1987-88 116 160 19 78 373

1988-89 109 167 37 109 422

1989-90 69 155 37 117 378

Total 452 878 112 442 1884

12 Leo Klagholz

schools declined overall from the previous year.)By September 1990, 1,884 provisional teachershad been hired through the program, 1,330 (71percent) by public schools and 554 (29 percent)by participating nonpublic schools.

Because mid-year hiring sometimes occursunder time constraints, September employmentwas initially seen as the better indicator of schooldistricts' voluntary selection of provisional teachers in competition with traditionally preparedcandidates. As Figure 2 indicates, by the end ofthe five-year pilot period, provisional teacherswere annually representing about a quarter of allnew teachers employed at the start of the schoolyear by public schools.

Moreover, increasing numbers of provisionalteachers were hired, both in September and mid-year, in fields like elementary education, Englishand social studies where there was a substantialoversupply of traditionally prepared candidates

(see Figure 3).By 1990, the number of public school districts

that had taken part in the Provisional TeacherProgram at least once had risen to 246, nearly halfof the state's approximately 570 operating schooldistricts. Participating districts included rural,suburban and urban districts of all socioeconomiclevels in all twenty-one counties (see Figure 4).

In response to a state survey, districts indicatedtheir attraction to four characteristics that wereevident among many provisional teacher candi-dates. They were: (1) strong academic back-grounds and outstanding performance on therequired subject tests; (2) successful prior experi-ence in non-teaching jobs requiring mastery andapplication of subject knowledge; (3) successfulprior teaching experience; and (4) strong repre-sentation of qualified minorities.

Figure 2Number and Proportion of Provisional and Traditionally Prepared Teachers Hired for September by New Jersey Public Schools (1985-1990)

Provisional Traditionally Prepared

Date Number Percent Number Percent

September-1985 114 11 922 89

September-1986 140 14 860 86

September-1987 142 18 646 82

September-1988 160 29 392 71

September-1989 167 24 529 76

September-1990 155 26 441 74

Indeed, at a time when minority enrollment intraditional programs was consistently below 10percent, the Provisional Teacher Program becamethe dominant source of minority teachers for bothurban and suburban schools. Of the 1,330 provi-sional teachers hired by public schools (1985-90),370 or 28 percent were minorities.

Further, of the 1,884 provisional teachersemployed, 33 percent had graduated from collegewith honors, 18 percent possessed advanceddegrees (most in the candidate's teaching field),more than half were over the age of 25, and 70percent had previously taught in formal or infor-

mal settings. Fifty-nine percent werewomen and 41 percent were men.

Throughout the pilot period, appli-cants to the Provisional TeacherProgram achieved higher mean NTEscores than their traditionally preparedcounterparts in all fields where com-parisons are possible, except businesseducation, home economics and physi-cal education (see Figure 5). In effect,the program more than doubled thenumber of qualified candidates in theaffected fields while raising the NTEscores achieved, on average, by theoverall candidate pool.

Contrary to critics' dire predictions,provisional teachers did not "flee theirclassrooms by October." On the con-trary, over the five-year "pilot" period,the first-year attrition rate for provi-sional teachers hired in September was6.4 percent while that for traditionallyprepared new teachers averaged 18percent. Through 1990, 98 percent ofprovisional teachers who completedthe program were recommended forstandard certification by their princi-pals or headmasters.

During the pilot period, certaindata were gathered from time to timeto examine specific allegations by theprogram's critics. For example, tocheck the assertion that districts werenot drawing selectively from the

"alternate route" pool, the state in 1989 comparedthe NTE scores of employed provisional teacherswith those of the larger pool of provisionalteacher applicants. The comparison showed thatprovisional teachers actually employed had highermean scores in nine of twelve subject fields.

Data gathered in 1985 showed that, of the pro-visional teachers with prior teaching experience,about 40 percent had served as substitute teachersor aides, 30 percent had worked as college or pri-vate school faculty members, and about 30 per-cent had various other teaching-germane experi-

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 13

Figure 3Fields of Employment of New JerseyProvisional Teachers (1985-1990)

Field # of Teachers Percent

Elementary 911 48.4

Science 262 13.9

Mathematics 204 10.8

English 123 6.5

Social Studies 106 5.6

Foreign Lang. 93 5.0

Art 43 2.3

Music 43 2.3

Business 34 1.8

Phys. Educ. 29 1.5

Industrial Arts 12 0.6

Speech/Drama 12 0.6

Home Econ. 6 0.3

Psychology 5 0.3

Reading 1 0.05

14 Leo Klagholz

ences—e.g., as a tutor, studio instructor or collegeteaching assistant.

In 1988-89, the education department exam-ined the NTE passing rates of 204 applicants tothe Provisional Teacher Program who identifiedthemselves as minorities and 88 minority graduates of preparation programs. This

examination revealed average pass rates of 86 percent for all provisional teacher applicants, 85percent for minority provisional teacher applicants, 79 percent for all graduates of NewJersey college preparation programs, and 60 percent for minority preparation program graduates.

* District Factor Group ratings result from computations of local wealth and range from category "A"for districts in the poorest communities to "J" for the wealthiest. A designation of "V" indicates avocational school district.

Figure 4Numbers of NJ Public School Districts By District Factor Group*Employing Provisional Teachers in September (1985 - 1990)

DFG Rating # of Districts % of Total

A 28 11.4

B 19 7.7

C 19 7.7

D 21 8.5

E 21 8.5

F 24 9.8

G 22 8.9

H 27 11.0

I 22 8.9

J 27 11.0

V 7 2.8

Other 9 3.7

Total 246

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 15

Figure 5Mean NTE Scores of New Jersey Provisional Teacher Program Applicantsand NJ College Teacher Education Graduates (1985-1989)

Provisional Teacher College Teacher Ed.

Test N Mean N Mean

Elementary (General Knowledge) 2678 663 3660 657

Art 258 622 125 602

Biology 482 660 187 641

Business Education 358 610 148 612

English 649 640 413 589

French 87 656 37 632

German 30 643 11 599

Home Economics 37 603 31 631

Mathematics 475 615 302 595

Music 104 621 256 619

Physical Education 79 615 379 633

Physical Science 285 614 47 590

Social Studies 761 637 277 617

Spanish 120 659 89 621

Speech/Drama 63 638 19 635

Total 6466 5981

In response to critics' charge that provisionalteachers were probably dropping out in their sec-ond year after mentor support was withdrawn, thestate education department tracked two groups ofteachers employed during 1985-87. This studyshowed that 6.5 percent of provisional teachersleft their jobs during the second year comparedwith 7 percent of traditionally prepared newteachers.

None of the statistics cited above conveys anaccurate sense of the quality of people hiredthrough the Provisional Teacher Program or thegross inaccuracy of its critics' original predictions.That is better gained from descriptions of provisional teachers recognized annually as themost promising through a program sponsored by

the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation ofMorristown, New Jersey. The appendix to thisreport contains biographical sketches for the thirtyprovisional teachers selected as Dodge Fellows inthe illustrative year of 1990.

The Provisional Teacher Program Today

In order to address the high attrition rates oftraditionally prepared teachers, the State Board ofEducation in 1992 required them to undergo thesupport and evaluation requirements of theProvisional Teacher Program. Like "alternaterouters," traditionally prepared teachers now servetheir first year of employment under a provisionalcertificate while being mentored by a Support

16 Leo Klagholz

Team. At the end of the year, they are awardedstandard certificates on the recommendation ofthe school principal. (They do not receive supple-mental instruction in the Boyer Topics, havingcompleted such study in college.)

This policy change further dissolved the linesof distinction between two routes that were sub-stantively equivalent in the first place. As aresult, the Provisional Teacher Program is nowconceived of as a single program for all of thestate's liberally educated, subject-competentbeginning teachers, who complete the same training elements in different sequences. Theterm "provisional teacher" is now used in refer-ence to all new teachers, both alternative and traditionally prepared. This ebbing of distinctionscombined with the elimination of emergency certification has helped to embed the priority ofteachers' liberal education and subject preparationmore deeply within the hiring culture of the pub-lic school system.

As a result, the employment of "alternate routeteachers" is now commonplace and routine. AsFigure 6 indicates, the numbers ofsuch teachers hired annually inSeptember by New Jersey schoolsgrew from 121 in 1985 to 858 in1998.

Figure 6 also shows that thepercentage of all new publicschool teachers that "alternateroute" teachers represent has var-ied considerably from year toyear. This is a function of the general demand for beginningteachers in any given year, thenumbers and quality of candidates available fromthe two routes, the subject fields of demand andsupply, and competition between the public andprivate sectors. Three other factors are also worthmentioning.

First, "alternate route" candidates, whoseemployment requires the additional work of mentoring and evaluation, became relatively moreattractive in 1992 when the state required districtsto mentor and evaluate traditionally prepared newteachers as well. In 1992 and 1993, proportional

hiring of "alternate route" teachers reached itshighest levels (40 percent and 39 percent respectively). Second, traditionally prepared can-didates became relatively more competitive oncetheir colleges implemented the preparation pro-gram reforms, thus sending their graduates intothe job market with liberal arts degrees not unlikethose possessed by their "alternate route" counter-parts. In addition, college preparation programsresponded to competition with the "alternateroute" by marketing their graduates more effec-tively and providing follow-up service to employ-ing districts. Third, the education department,which had maintained an aggressive "alternateroute" recruitment program from 1985 to 1990,discontinued that effort when it began to producea surplus of candidates and when state resourcesbecame more scarce. Thus, with the recent surgeof demand, the pool of "alternate route candi-dates" has become shallower in relation to thedemand. (Note: The state is currently in theprocess of reinstating its recruitment program.)

Nonetheless, as of August 31, 1999, 6,984"alternate route" teachers had com-pleted the Provisional TeacherProgram. Of those, 98.4 percent were awarded standardteaching certificates on the recom-mendation of their school princi-pals or headmasters.

The number of public schooldistricts that have employed at leastone "alternate route" teacher rosefrom 246 in 1990 to 457 in 1998-99. The numbers of participatingdistricts remain well distributed

across socioeconomic levels. In addition, a num-ber of the state's new charter schools have hired"alternate routers" and set up the required SupportTeams. To meet growing demand, the educationdepartment has had to increase the number ofregional centers that provide "alternate route"teachers with instruction in the Boyer Topics fromtwelve in 1985 to over forty today.

It is worth noting that, although college partic-ipation in the regional centers is not required, in fact each center is operated voluntarily by a

Six and a half percent of

provisional teachersleft their jobs during

the second yearcompared with

seven percent of traditionally prepared

new teachers.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 17

college under contract with the state. In staffingthese centers, colleges have, over time, identifieda mix of full-time teacher education faculty andK-12 educators who are dedicated to the program.Many of these individuals have used the flexibili-ty of the noncredit format to achieve the pro-gram's ideal of providing an innovative vehicle

through which groups of novice teachers can useapplied knowledge to solve real world teachingproblems. One consequence of these develop-ments is that the "alternate route" has become anaccepted part of teacher training system and is nolonger the issue it once was with the state's col-leges of education.

Figure 6Numbers of "Alternate Route" Teachers Hired Annually for September by Public and

Nonpublic Schools, and Percentages of all New Public School Teachers

Represented by "Alternate Routers" (1985-1998)

Alternate Routers Hired Alternate Routers Hired

By Public Schools By Nonpublic Schools

Year (% of all new PS teachers*) Total

1985 114 (11%) 7 121

1986 140 (14%) 58 198

1987 142 (18%) 73 215

1988 160 (29%) 78 238

1989 167 (24%) 109 276

1990 155 (26%) 117 272

1991 152 (not available) 103 255

1992 317 (40%) 98 415

1993 322 (39%) 119 441

1994 408 (23%) 162 570

1995 391 (22%) 142 533

1996 300 (15%) 113 413

1997 537 (19%) 177 714

1998 685 (20%) 173 858

* Percentages are the proportions of all new teachers hired by public schools in the

given year who were "alternate route" teachers.

18 Leo Klagholz

Currently there is a national debate over howbest to address an impending teacher shortage. Ifthere are lessons to be learned from New Jersey'stwenty-year journey, they are the following:

Teacher Eligibility, Shortages andQuality

State licensing requirements have a greaterimpact on teacher supply than any other factor, inthat they legally define who is eligible to applyfor teaching jobs and who is not. The effect oflicensing requirements is always to narrow thecandidate pool. If they sharply constrain the poolin relation to the number of available jobs, therewill be shortages, and other measures for attracting candidates,such as incentives or streamlinedapplication procedures, can beeffective only within the boundariesset by government-defined eligibility. For that reason, beforeinstituting any other measures,states confronted with the prospect of teachershortages ought first to scrutinize their licensingor certification requirements to assure that theydefine the candidate pool in an appropriate man-ner.

However, if state officials expect more students to achieve higher standards, they need toemphasize teacher quality, not just quantity. Apreoccupation with "supply" and "shortages" canbe a distraction from that core issue. If the statehas gotten its definition of eligibility right, then itis appropriate to think about other ways to attracthigher-quality people into teaching. Yet if staterequirements are dysfunctional—if they define eligibility too narrowly, inaccurately or, worst ofall, in inverse relation to quality—then any result-ant problems of quality and supply are artificial.In that case, no amount of incentive programs,streamlined application procedures or "professional accreditation" of preparation

programs is going to make a critical difference.In fact, if accreditation "standards" reinforce dubious eligibility requirements, they are actuallycounterproductive.

New Jersey found that, if attention is focusedon the basic question of what constitutes quality,the issue of quantity virtually takes care of itself.Twenty years ago, the state began to recognize that most of its teacher licensingrequirements were indeed artificial. The education course requirements that had accumulated piecemeal over the years had notresulted from a conscious attempt to derive acoherent definition of quality. They were morethe result of education fads, political lobbying byteacher educators, and historical accident.

Those eligibility requirementswere systematically attracting weak college students and failing to convert them into competent teachers. At the same time, theywere screening out substantial numbers of talented men and

women who wanted to teach and were capable ofdoing so. The system was loaded with contradic-tions. It attracted academically weak students to,and repelled strong ones from, a job that essential-ly involves imparting academic knowledge to oth-ers. It included as part of its basic fabric the"emergency certificate," the oxymoron of alicense with no requirements, one that districtscould use to hire quality people by circumventingstate eligibility requirements, often with a know-ing wink of approval from state officials. It pro-duced the contradiction of the professor whotaught math to college freshmen but was legallyprecluded from teaching it to high-school seniors.

Only when New Jersey set aside its concerns over teacher supply and focused insteadon teacher quality, systemically separating thewheat from the chaff of state eligibility requirements, did the logical contradictions disappear. Only then did indicators of candidate

The National Teacher Shortage Debate

The effect of licensing require-ments is always to

narrow the candidate pool.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 19

quality improve and districts' supply of potentialjob candidates more than double.

Whether or not New Jersey has "gotten itright" in defining eligibility for teacher-job competition should still be debated. What is notreasonably debatable is that such definition is thecore issue. If teacher eligibility is definedimproperly such that relatively few candidates canqualify, most of whom are mediocre, or that manytalented ones are routinely turned away, then allother attempts to improve quality will necessarilyfall short.

Training and the BeginningTeacher

New Jersey's many years of experience with"alternate" and "traditional" candidates haveunderscored the fact that teacher preparation,completed in advance of employment, can do little more than smooth the beginning teacher'sinitial weeks on the job. That is one of the rea-sons why so many traditionally prepared teachersleave their jobs. The real work of teacher trainingbegins once the novice teacher is in the classroomfull time. Traditional preparation programs recognize this fact by placing their students inschool classrooms to teach with mentor assis-tance. If they did not, "education training" wouldamount to very little indeed. Given that basic factand the wealth of subject-educated talent avail-able, it is well worth it, on balance, for states toallow alternative candidates to qualify and to provide them the on-the-job support and trainingthey need to succeed. States that do so will findthat, when properly chosen, these candidates differ very little from traditionally prepared beginning teachers in their need for support andtheir capacity for success.

Characteristics of an EffectiveAlternate Route Program

For states that wish to create an effective"alternate route" program:

First, begin by reforming traditionalteacher preparation, eliminating artificial andunnecessary requirements and thereby layingthe groundwork for an alternative programthat is equivalent and parallel. If an "alternateroute" program is simply appended to anunchanged traditional system, then opponents canportray the excessive course requirements of thetraditional program as "state standards" and thestreamlined requirements of the alternative program as a "lowering of standards." While theargument is false, the state will be trapped by itsown inattention to basic reform and the "lesser"alternative program will be consigned to use onlyas a "fallback measure" for hiring "substandard"candidates in "emergencies."

Second, design the "alternate route" so thatit balances workability with a firm commit-ment to meaningful support and training. Ifthe program is cumbersome and bureaucratic, dis-tricts will not use it and capable candidates willnot tolerate it. If merely a "shortcut," it will nothave public or professional credibility, and districts' free use of it to attract quality people intoteaching will not have support or acceptance.

Third, get rid of emergency certificationand disallow the employment and reassignmentof teachers to teach subjects in which they havelittle formal education. The state's commitmentto quality is underscored and the justification forthe "alternate route" strengthened if the programis a replacement for "emergency" employmentand out-of-field teaching, both of which are madeunnecessary by a dual system of equivalent "traditional" and "alternate" routes.

Fourth, educate the public and the profes-sion. Any attempt to reform will generate opposi-tion and rhetoric about "lowering standards." Ifstate officials lack the courage to make the neces-sary counterarguments, they will be backed intocreating a bobtailed "alternate route" program thatis limited or unworkable. Such a program willfail to produce the desired results and is not worththe effort required to put it on the regulatory

20 Leo Klagholz

books. Fifth, do not make operation of the "alter-

nate route" program legally contingent on col-lege participation. New Jersey's non-collegiateregional centers are not only crucial to the pro-gram's workability, they also were—ironically—the main stimulus for college involvement. Hadcollege participation been guaranteed in regula-tion, most colleges would have resisted makingthe needed changes in practice or refused outrightto participate. The threat of being left out, createdby the state-run regional centers, accounted in nosmall measure for colleges' willingness to partici-pate in the "alternate route" program.

Recruit, recruit, recruit.Under New Jersey's dual system, aschool district with a job openingcan hire any graduate of any col-lege, of recent or past years, whohas a degree in the subject field, anappropriate mix of personal qualities and experience, and theability to pass the relevant subjecttest. If not unlimited, this nation-al—even international—pool issubstantially larger and morediverse than any pool of teacher education gradu-ates. Yet the best candidates are not going toarrive automatically on school doorsteps.Districts need sophisticated recruitment programs,yet few have them. The worst-case scenario is thedistrict that passively selects its new staff fromamong the student teachers placed in its schoolseach year by the local college. After properlydefining eligibility requirements, the developmentof effective means of searching out talent fromdiverse sources is the second most important thinga state can do to move away from worrying aboutshortages and toward achieving high levels ofquality.

National Commission on Teaching andAmerica's Future

Unfortunately, proposals advanced by the

National Commission on Teaching and America'sFuture sidestep the central question of state eligibility requirements.

The Commission's report, Solving theDilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand, andStandards, posits that a quality teacher is one witha college major in the subject to be taught "plusintensive preparation in teaching." It describes alow-quality candidate as one who has "less than aminor in the field to be taught, only a handful ofeducation courses, and little guided practice."According to the Commission, states with eligibil-ity requirements that limit employment to the for-mer type of candidate are "high-standard states"and those that do not are "low-standard states."

Then the report moves on to suggestseveral strategies for attracting morecandidates of the former type.

Yet the basic assumptions are critically important. A "collegemajor in the subject" and "intensivepreparation in teaching" are two dif-ferent things that cannot be lumpedtogether. That teachers need to be educated in the subjects they willteach is self-evident. It is the other

matter that's at issue. What specifically does"intensive preparation in teaching" mean? Whatis the curriculum that so substantially affects com-petence, in relation to other determining factors,that it should be used as the basis for legallydetermining which subject-educated individualsmay apply for teaching jobs and which may not?Why is a "handful of education courses" worsethan two hands full? Specifically, which courses?Taken when and under what circumstances? Tothe extent that the Commission tries to sweepaside these core issues and distract professionaland public attention from them, it does a greatdisservice to the profession, the public and, ulti-mately, the students.

It appears that the Commission's proposals aremotivated in part by a desire to "professionalize"the occupation of teaching by endowing it withthe trappings of the "medical model" of training

Proposals advancedby the NationalCommission onTeaching and

America's Futuresidestep the centralquestion of state eli-

gibility requirements.

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 21

and licensing. However, there is nothing inher-ently "professional" about the format of medicalpreparation which, unlike teaching, is based inthe hard sciences. If employing subject-compe-tent teachers and providing them mentor-support-ed job induction supplemented by concurrenteducation study is what produces the highest lev-els of teacher quality, then that is the most "pro-fessional" model for teaching. That is what pri-vate schools and universities do, and no onewould argue that college teaching is not a "pro-fession" due to its lack of pre-employment studyof teaching methodology.

More importantly, it is not the purpose of statelicensure to provide practitioners of occupations apublic aura of "professionalism." Its sole purposeis to protect and inform the public so its risk ofharm is minimized. It is an abuse of licensingauthority for state officials to help practitionersserve their own interests by misleading an unsus-pecting public into accepting artificial eligibilityrequirements as guarantees of competence whenthey in fact are not.

Voluntary board certification, such as thatoffered by the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards (NBPTS), is the propermeans by which teaching can enhance its "profes-sional" status. Because state licensing require-ments legally affect employment opportunity,they must necessarily emphasize that which isminimally essential to protect the public.Because it is voluntary and not required by law,professional certification can be used appropriate-ly by members of a profession to advocate what-

ever additional qualifications they believe are desirable.

The promise of the NBPTS was that it woulddevelop standards and assessment processes thatteachers, school districts and members of thepublic would accept purely on their merit. Thatis, teachers would seek out the process solelybecause they perceived it as essential to theirclassroom success and districts would hire board-certified teachers because they would demonstra-bly be more effective, not because either hadbeen prompted to do so by artificial governmentinterventions.

The National Commission on Teaching andAmerica's Future undermines this vision when itpursues its goal of "professionalization" by urg-ing state governments to grant official sanction tothe NBPTS process. As long as the jury is stillout on the NBPTS certification process, the bestthing states can do to promote its real, rather thanartificial, success is to allow it to succeed, or fail,entirely on its own merits.

Instead, if they are serious about enablingmore students to achieve significantly higher academic standards, the best thing that state governments can do is to make certain their ownlicensing houses are in order. That means ensuring that the legal eligibility requirementsthey promulgate encourage men and women ofoutstanding talent and ability to enter the teachingprofession. Unless this critically important starting point is solidly established, every otherattempt to enhance educational quality will bediminished accordingly.

22 Leo Klagholz

Biographical Descriptions of New Jersey "Alternate Route" Teachers Selected as Dodge Fellows in 1990

Teacher 1: graduated with high honors from the University of Puerto Rico with a degree in French literature. She studied French language and civilization at the Sorbonne and earned her Master'sDegree in Latin American Literature at Princeton University. She is multilingual and has worked as areference book translator, a curriculum consultant and a university instructor.

Teacher 2: graduated with honors and distinction in comparative languages from Yale Universitywhere she won the Scott Prize for Russian and the German Department Senior Prize. While at Yaleshe was the head counselor of freshmen, a foreign language tutor and tour manager for the SlavikChorus. She is multilingual and has worked as a legal assistant and legal translator of Russian andGerman.

Teacher 3: graduated with honors from Cooper Union with a degree in fine arts. He attended YaleUniversity, where he earned a Master of Fine Arts degree under two Ford Foundation grants and a Yalescholarship. He has exhibited as a painter, and has worked as a theatrical painter and university lectur-er.

Teacher 4: graduated from Yale University with a degree in African American studies. She was valedictorian of her graduating class of University High School in Newark, New Jersey. At Yale, shewas a writer for the Yale Observer, co-leader of the Christian Fellowship, and coordinator of theHarvest Ministry Church. She has worked as a secretary and a publishing assistant.

Teacher 5: graduated with high honors from Rutgers University with a degree in biochemistry. AtRutgers, he was awarded a Herbert Memorial Scholarship and a Marion Johnson Graduate Fellowship,and he served as captain of the baseball team and editor of the yearbook. He has worked as a substi-tute teacher and a camp counselor.

Teacher 6: graduated cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in chemistry. Sheearned her Master's Degree in physical chemistry at Rutgers University. She has worked as a scientificprogrammer for an engineering laboratory and as a college instructor. She has also supervised the highschool summer program for a community college, served as a girl scout leader, and volunteered for theRed Cross and YMCA.

Teacher 7: graduated magna cum laude with a degree in history and American studies from YaleUniversity. At Yale, she served as a volunteer tutor in the University's community outreach programand the Yale Puerto Rican Student Association. She has also served as a Big Sister. She has beenemployed as an arts administrator and has co-produced film festivals at the Smithsonian and New YorkUniversity. She is bilingual.

Teacher 8: graduated cum laude from Cornell University with a degree in Latin American studies.She earned her Master's Degree in urban affairs at the New School for Social Research, where she

APPENDIX

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 23

attended under a Jacob Kaplan Fellowship. She has worked as executive director of a New Yorkneighborhood association and as an intern for civic organizations in New York City. She is fluent inSpanish and has taught ELS in Peru, and she has tutored Vietnamese and Venezuelan students.

Teacher 9: graduated with honors from Princeton University with a degree in English, and he earnedhis Master's Degree in educational administration from Harvard University. He has worked as a col-lege admissions dean and residence director and served as assistant dean of students at Princeton. Hisultimate goal is to become an elementary principal in the public schools.

Teacher 10: graduated with honors from Rutgers University with a degree in electrical engineering.He was valedictorian of his Roselle, New Jersey high school class and attended Rutgers as a Johnsonand Johnson Leadership Fellow and a Bell Laboratories Engineering Scholar. He earned his MBAdegree at Columbia University and has worked as a securities trader and an associate in a managementconsulting firm.

Teacher 11: graduated with honors from Franklin and Marshall College with a degree in third world history. She was valedictorian of her graduating class at Audubon High School in Audubon, NewJersey. At Franklin and Marshall, she was treasurer of the Student Congress and played varsity fieldhockey and softball. She has worked as a recreation supervisor and as an intern in the New Jerseystate education department.

Teacher 12: graduated summa cum laude from Barnard College with a degree in biology. She was salutatorian of her graduating high school class in West Nyack, New York. She has worked as a bookkeeper and as a laboratory manager for Van Heusen Research and Development Corporation. Shehas also worked as a parochial school teacher and served as a cub scout den mother, a Big Sister, and arecreational and camp counselor.

Teacher 13: graduated with honors from Montclair State College with majors in Spanish, Italian and linguistics. While at Montclair, she was vice president of the Spanish Club and a member of the ItalianHonor Society. She is multilingual and has tutored students in Spanish.

Teacher 14: graduated with honors from Haverford College with a degree in English. She attendedPrinceton (NJ) High School where she received the Gold Key Award for student leadership and serv-ice. At Haverford, she was captain of the women's tennis team, and was recipient of the ArchibaldMacIntosh Award for outstanding freshmen scholar/athlete and the Varsity Cup, the college's highest athletic award. She has worked as an accounting reviewer, a planning consultant and a manager in private industry.

Teacher 15: graduated with honors from Douglas College with a degree in Spanish. At Douglas, shetutored students in physics and Spanish, and was elected to the national Spanish Honor Society. Sheearned her Master's Degree in Spanish at Rutgers and has worked as a bilingual social worker and abilingual insurance representative. She is active in PTA and the Scouts.

Teacher 16: graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Brandeis University, where heattended as a Justice Louis Brandeis Scholar, with a degree in English and American literature. He has

24 Leo Klagholz

worked as a residence advisor and camp counselor. At Brandeis, he served on the ScholarsProgramming Board and founded the Athletics Enthusiasts Club.

Teacher 17: graduated with honors from Brown University with a degree in biology. He earned hisMaster's Degree and Ph.D. at Cornell in the field of agronomy. He has worked as a college instructorand has conducted research for the Harvard School of Public Health, the United States DrugAdministration and the Institute for Cancer Research. He is also active in community and religiousorganizations.

Teacher 18: graduated with honors from Harvard University with a degree in English. At Harvard shewrote for the Independent and was president of the student organization for advocacy of the disabled.She earned her Master of Divinity Degree at Episcopal Divinity School, and was the first AfricanAmerican woman enrolled by the school. She has served as a hospital chaplain, as an admissions offi-cer at Princeton University, and as assistant director of admissions and coordinator of minority recruit-ment at Columbia University.

Teacher 19: graduated with honors from Rutgers University with a degree in English. At Rutgers shewas vice president of her senior class, received the Award for Academic Excellence in English, andwas elected to the national honor society, Alpha Sigma Lambda. She has taught kindergarten and sec-ond grade in nonpublic schools.

Teacher 20: graduated with honors from Barnard College with a degree in architecture with concentrations in art and mathematics. She received Barnard's King Crown Leadership Award and wasco-founder and president of the Architectural Society. She has worked as a program assistant for theBoard of the United Methodist Church, and has been active in Big Sisters, peer counseling and Sundayschool teaching.

Teacher 21: graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware with a degree in physics andreceived his Master's Degree in physics at the University of Pennsylvania. At Delaware, he was elect-ed to the national mathematics honor society and received the Science and Engineering Scholar Award.He has worked as a university teaching and research assistant.

Teacher 22: graduated magna cum laude from the Catholic University of America with a degree in biology. He earned his Master's Degree in theology at Washington Theological Union. He studiedSpanish culture and language in Mexico and is bilingual. He has worked as a teacher of biology andchemistry, and as a youth program director. He also served as chief administrator of a parochial schoolserving inner city Hispanic students in Wilmington, Delaware, where he was also a member of thecity's Hispanic educational outreach committee, the minority cancer outreach committee, the HilltopHousing Coalition and West Side Health Services Committee.

Teacher 23: graduated from the Julliard School of Music with a degree in music. He earned hisMaster of Science degree in music under a Julliard Scholarship. In the U.S. Army, he was assigned asa chaplain's assistant in Germany, where he also worked at the American Education Center. He hasserved as assistant director of operations at Rutgers University, director of a daycare center in Paterson(NJ), and director of education for the Urban League of Essex County (NJ). Most recently he worked

Growing Better Teachers in the Garden State 25

as music director for several churches while serving as a substitute teacher in the public schools.

Teacher 24: graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Mills College with a degree in biology. She received the college's Caryl Haskins Prize for distinction in the sciences and was electedto the national honor society. She earned her Master's Degree in plant physiology and her Ph.D. in biochemistry at Rutgers University. She has worked as a laboratory technician and as an agriculturalresearcher in Brazil. She has taught at the university level and has published scientific research arti-cles.

Teacher 25: graduated cum laude from Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges with degrees in history and science. She received a Harvard College Scholarship for academic achievement and participated in theHarvard/Radcliffe Choir. She earned her Master's Degree in education at Harvard, and has worked as atutor, a teaching assistant and a computer analyst.

Teacher 26: graduated with honors from Morgan State University with a degree in chemistry. Heearned his Ph.D. in catalysis at Johns Hopkins University. He has worked as a chemical officer in theU.S. Army, a chemist for Dupont and Sun Oil, and as senior research chemist at Celanese. He is certi-fied in employee motivation and executive development, and has conducted numerous workshops forteachers and other professionals.

Teacher 27: graduated with honors from Brown University with a degree in mathematics. At Brown,she served as an intern and tutor in a Providence, Rhode Island high school, an intern in an alternativehigh school in Brooklyn, and a teacher in the Brown Summer High School.

Teacher 28: worked as a carpenter and served as a petty officer in the U.S. Navy before enrolling inTemple University. He graduated from Temple with honors with a degree in history. Under a full teaching assistantship, he earned his Master's Degree in Caribbean African history, and has studied artat the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. He has also worked as a financial consultant and office manager in the insurance industry and as a housing consultant and restorationist.

Teacher 29: graduated with honors from Holy Cross College with a degree in mathematics and visualart. In college she tutored high school students, served a teaching internship at a New York school forblind students, and was active in the Big Sister Program. She also served as editor of her college's yearbook and a member of the Purple Key Society. She organized and directed the Holy Cross CollegeArt Show in 1989.

Teacher 30: graduated with honors in history from Columbia University, where he attended as a JohnJay Scholar. He is a graduate of Rutherford (NJ) High School, and was a member of the school's 1985state championship basketball team. He played varsity football at Columbia where he received the SidLuckman Award for most valuable player, was named to the ECAC Football Honor Roll, and was designated All-Ivy League and Ivy League Defensive Player of the Week. After graduation, he spent ayear working as an intern teacher at an integrated high school in Johannesburg, South Africa, where healso volunteered for an organization dedicated to desegregating the Johannesburg schools.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

1627 K Street, N.W. • Suite 600 • Washington, D.C. 20006Telephone: (202) 223-5452 • FAX: (202) 223-9226

http: //www.edexcellence.net

To order publications: 1-888-TBF-7474 (single copies are free)