1

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

Residency Pathways

Kavita Kapadia Matsko

National Louis University

Matthew Ronfeldt

University of Michigan

Hillary Greene Nolan

University of Michigan

ABSTRACT

Though non-traditional routes were designed to offer different forms of preparation meant to

attract different populations of teachers, prior literature suggests they may not provide as much of

an alternative as initially intended. Drawing on surveys of nearly 800 preservice student teachers

(PSTs) and their mentor teachers, we compare traditional, alternative, and residency pathways

preparing teachers in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). We find substantial differences between

pathways in terms of structural features. We find mixed evidence on whether non-traditional

pathways are diversifying the workforce – while non-traditional PSTs are more likely to be Black,

plan to teach marginalized students, and have STEM placements, they are similar in terms of

gender, GPA, and placements with English language learners and special needs students.

Compared to traditional PSTs, non-traditional PSTs feel less prepared and plan shorter teaching

careers, though plan careers specifically in CPS of similar duration.

ACKNOWLEGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Joyce Foundation for supporting our investigation of

critical questions about teacher preparation pathways in Chicago. We are especially thankful for

the time and expertise of our research team members, Molly Gordon, Jennie Jiang, Stuart

Luppescu, and Elaine Allensworth at the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research

without whom we could have not conducted this study. We are appreciative of the support of our

partners in the Chicago Public Schools Talent office and teacher preparation program colleagues

across the city. Last, we thank the hundreds of teacher candidates and mentor teachers across

Chicagoland who responded to our surveys about teacher preparation; their voices were central to

this research.

Suggested Citation: Matsko, Kavita K., Ronfeldt, M., Greene Nolan, H. (2018, under review).

Working Paper: How Different Are They? Comparing Preparation Offered by Traditional,

Alternative, and Residency Pathways in Chicago Public Schools.

2

INTRODUCTION

Nationwide, there has been a dramatic increase in attention to teacher quality, particularly

since teachers are repeatedly identified as one of the most important in-school contributors to

improved student outcomes. Concerns about teacher quality are often linked to questions about

how teachers are best prepared to enter the workforce (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff,

&Wyckoff, 2009), especially in large school districts serving predominantly low-income, students

of color. Multiple pathways have emerged since the 1980’s, offering “alternatives” to the

traditional manner in which teachers are prepared. These pathways include faster routes to teacher

licensure such as Teach for America, and more recently developed residency models which

include full-year classroom apprenticeships as part of teacher preparation. Despite the

proliferation of these non-traditional pathways into teaching, not much is known about the actual

differences between them and more traditional routes, or their relationships to teacher candidate

perceptions of preparedness and career intentions.

Alternative pathways were originally conceived of and designed to address concerns about

teacher quality and impending teacher shortages by providing candidates new routes of entry into

the profession (Zeichner & Hutchinson, Grossman & Loeb, 2008). By streamlining entry

requirements, and decreasing the length of time to becoming a teacher of record, alternative

pathways hoped to lure the “best and the brightest” as well as career changers—particularly those

with expertise in the areas of mathematics and science (Boyd et al., 2012), into the work of

teaching in high-needs schools. As pathways of preparation have proliferated, and in some cases

existed side-by-side in the same institutions (Gatti, Conklin & Matsko, 2018; under review),

questions have been raised about whether and how these pathways truly differ from one another,

and the degree to which candidates are getting truly different preparation experiences. In their

comparison between the kinds of preparation that alternatively and traditionally certified teachers

experienced in NYC, Grossman and colleagues (2008) concluded that, “the overall structure of

teacher education – foundation courses, methods courses, a variety of field experiences loosely

linked to the university – were more similar than different across all these institutions and

pathways” (p. 336). However, this study and other studies on the differences between pathways in

terms of the kinds of preparation they offered were conducted prior to the emergence of teacher

residency pathways, and often focused on entry requirements and a few set of features that may

not have captured the complexities of the preparation process.

In this study we examine the traditional, alternative, and residency teaching pathways of

preservice student teachers (PSTs)1 in Chicago Public Schools with the goal of providing a

descriptive account of these preparation experiences across a large, geographically-defined urban

district. Little research has been done on these three pathways as a collective, giving us a rare

opportunity to investigate whether and how student teachers and the preparation they receive

differs across pathways. The features in our analyses represent a variety of “inputs” into the

preparation that PSTs experience and that program leaders can influence. They include structural

or program design features, such as program length and amount of methods coursework, as well

as key features of student teaching, such as the type of placement and school. We pay special

1 We use the term “student teaching” to represent the extended (clinical) portion of the teacher preparation process during which

candidates get the opportunity to learn how to teach with some type of mentoring and oversight in each pathway prior to becoming

a teacher of record.

3

attention to mentor teachers (MTs), whom, to our knowledge, have received little attention in

prior comparisons of routes of entry. We examine MT characteristics, including their years of

teaching and prior experience as mentors, and the types of mentoring MTs provide, including

different kinds of feedback and support. Finally, we explore differences, on average, between

pathways in terms of PSTs’ perceptions of preparedness and their career aspirations prior to

becoming teachers of record.

LITERATURE REVIEW

That there are numerous pathways into teaching has been well noted by scholars (e.g.

Frazer 2007; National Academies, 2010). Since the 1980s, the proliferation of alternative routes

has been fueled by the prospect of attracting a new population of prospective teachers into

teaching (e.g. Stoddard and Floden, 1996; Grossman and Loeb, 2008; Zeichner and Hutchinson,

2008). By offering reduced tuition rates and fewer entry-requirements, alternative preparation

pathways are often designed to recruit prospective teachers of color (Villegas and Lucas, 2004),

subject matter experts (Stoddard and Floden, 1996), and other academically talented individuals

who may not have otherwise considered teaching as an option (Darling Hammond,1992). Walsh

and Jacobs (2007) write, “The concept was straightforward: make it less cumbersome for talented

individuals without teaching degrees to enter the classrooms” (p. 1). Alternative providers were,

in part, responding to evidence that schools with more low-income students and student of color

had trouble filling teaching vacancies and were more likely to hire under-qualified teachers. In

New York City, the strategy appeared to work – as alternative routes took hold, newly hired

teachers became more diverse in terms of race and gender, had stronger academic credentials, and

were more likely to teach in shortage subject areas (e.g., science, math); they were also more

likely to work in schools with marginalized students (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, & Wycoff,

2008).

By recruiting academically talented individuals, especially in identified shortage areas

such as STEM, reformers argue that some aspects of traditional preparation - like content

coursework – may be unnecessary, while other requirements can be overhauled. Because new

recruits typically have strong content backgrounds but lack training in instructional methods,

alternative providers have emphasized clinical experiences, where alternative candidates can learn

to teach while teaching. As part of this emphasis, reformers have pushed to reduce preservice

requirements so that alternative candidates are able to take lead instructional and legal

responsibility for students (as “teacher of record”) as quickly as possible. As part of this early-

entry redesign, alternative programs, more than traditional programs, provide additional supports

for inservice teachers, including mentoring and induction, after they become teacher of record

(Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Humphrey, Wechsler, & Hough, 2008).

Much has been written about how traditional, alternative, and residency teaching pathways

were designed to emphasize particular features of preparation over others (Stoddard and Floden,

1996; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005; Frazer, 2007;

Cochran-Smith & Villegas, 2016). Table 1 summarizes each of the pathways and how they were

intended to be distinct from one another. Though we know a lot about how non-traditional routes

were intended to differ from traditional ones, little empirical work has been done to determine the

degree to which intended differences are being actualized in candidates’ preparation experiences.

4

The proliferation of alternative routes has been rapid. Recent evidence suggests that one

out of every five new public school teachers nationwide is prepared through an “alternative”

certification pathway (US Department of Education, 2013; Walsh & Jacobs 2007). At first

glance, these statistics seem to suggest that advocates for alternative routes have truly reshaped

the preparation landscape. Yet despite the ways the proliferation of alternate routes might have

changed the discussion about teacher preparation, the few existing studies that have examined the

kinds of preparation that alternatively certified teachers actually receive suggest this proliferation

may have had little impact on the kinds of preparation PSTs experience.

Alternative teacher preparation routes were initially intended to offer a substantively

different pathway into the profession from traditional university-based programs, but existing

large-scale evidence suggests that all routes of preparation are marked by a “lack of innovation”

in which “most alternative route programs have become mirror images of traditional programs”

(Boyd et al., 2008, p.339). Based on a review of nearly 50 alternative route programs, Walsh and

Jacobs (2007) come to a similar conclusion. Placing much of the blame on schools of education

for capitalizing on and coopting efforts of alternative route reforms, the authors conclude that

today’s alternative programs have less selective candidates, are longer, require more coursework,

and provide less intensive mentoring than the plans put forth by those who originally proposed

these reforms.

However, it is possible that prior studies reached the conclusion that alternative routes to

preparation are not truly different from traditional routes, at least in part, because of their focused

attention on program requirements and coursework, while paying less attention to differences in

other areas of preparation like clinical experiences. When studies have investigated clinical

experiences, they have tended to consider a narrow set of features, like duration of student

teaching. Ronfeldt, Schwartz and Jacob (2014), for example, use nationally representative data

from the Schools and Staffing Survey to demonstrate that alternatively prepared teachers report

significantly shorter practice teaching experiences but completing statistically similar number of

methods-related courses. While prior work has considered differences in pathways in terms of

duration of clinical experiences (Grossman & Loeb, 2008;), less is known about the kinds or

quality of these experiences.

While the existing literature suggests that alternative pathways provide preparation that is

more similar to traditional than initially intended, it still acknowledges that differences exist.

However, the differences that have been identified tend to focus on the amounts or kinds of

opportunities and less about their quality. For example, Boyd and colleagues (2008) examined the

number of course requirements across pathways found that prospective teachers in preservice

college-recommending programs have more opportunities to consider learning and development

and special education, whereas prospective teachers in non-traditional, or non-traditional “early-

entry” programs may have more opportunities to consider issues of classroom management. They

also found that fewer than half of the instructors in non-traditional programs teaching what are

arguably core courses for teacher preparation are tenure-line faculty.

Another limitation of what is known about between-route differences in preparation comes

is that this information comes from studies of programs that existed almost a decade ago. It is

quite possible that preparation has experienced a spike in innovation during the last decade,

particularly with the proliferation of residency-based or clinically-focused programs that offer

candidates more time in field to learn how to teach, and often in partnership with particular high-

needs contexts (Berry et al 2009; Matsko and Hammerness, 2014). Residencies are an

increasingly common alternative to traditional routes in the preparation landscape, partly as a

5

result of being prioritized in recent federal grant competitions. In 2010, for example, residency

programs received $149 million from Teacher Quality Partnership grants, suggesting a growing

interest in expanding the residency pathway in the field. Advocates argue that residency programs

take the best of both the traditional and alternative route worlds – a strong emphasis on

recruitment paired with extensive -- especially clinical -- preparation. Unlike most alternative

pathways which aim to drastically reduce preservice time and requirements, residency pathways

are designed to have extensive preservice clinical preparation---typically four days per week in a

school over the course of an academic year.

Reformers behind both residency and alternative programs intended intensive mentoring

to be a key ingredient – prior to becoming teacher of record in the case of the former and after

becoming teacher of record in the case of the latter. Walsh and Jacobs (2007) found, however,

that the mentoring occurring in most alternative programs was not as intensive as expected; for

example, MTs observed weekly in only one-third of programs. In contrast, very little is known

about what mentoring looks like inside residency programs. Mentoring is an area that the present

study is poised to explore across pathways in greater depth, including who MTs are, the kinds,

amount, and quality of mentoring they provide, and the opportunities to learn that PSTs report

experiencing.

While less has been written about differences between pathways in terms of their inputs

(kinds of preparation PSTs experience), much has been written about differences between

pathways in terms of outputs (PSTs’ workforce outcomes and readiness to teach). In New York

City, Darling-Hammond et al. (2002) compared traditionally prepared teachers to teachers who

were alternatively prepared or received no preparation. Based upon surveys of 3,000 beginning

teachers, traditionally prepared teachers felt significantly better prepared to teach in most areas.

One possible explanation for these differences is that the group used to compare to traditional

route graduates included teachers with no formal preparation; additionally, those who received

alternative certification did so in the infancy of these programs in NYC, perhaps before they had

really developed.

Since then, many different studies have compared alternative to traditional route

graduates’ in terms of student achievement gains, with mixed results (Boyd et al., 2006, 2012;

Glazerman et al., 2006; Grossman & Loeb, 2008; Kane et al., 2008). Some studies have also

considered differences between pathways in terms of teacher retention, though results are again

somewhat mixed. Drawing on the same source of data (Schools and Staffing Survey / Teacher

Follow Up Survey), for example, Grissom (2008) finds traditionally and alternatively certified

teachers to have similar rates of retention while Redding and Smith (2016) find traditionally

prepared teachers to have higher rates of retention.

Few comparisons between pathways on workforce outcomes have considered residency

programs. An important exception, Papay et al. (2011) examine the Boston Teacher Residency

(BTR). Consistent with research on alternative routes, these authors find that, compared to other

new teachers in Boston, BTR graduates are more racially diverse and more likely to teach math

and science. Additionally, they have significantly better rates of teacher retention. However, BTR

graduates had statistically similar ELA achievement gains and significantly worse student math

achievement gains, though BTR graduates improved more rapidly over time in the latter area.

One possible explanation for the mixed results from comparisons of pathways on

workforce outcomes could be what Boyd et al. (2008) and Walsh and Jacobs (2008) suggest – that

alternative routes are not providing substantially different forms of preparation experiences to

PSTs. In this work, we investigate how preparation pathways in Chicago differ from one another

6

across a wider range of features of preparation than has been considered in prior literature, with

particular attention to clinical experiences, including the role of MTs. We also explore whether

there are differences between graduates from these different pathways in terms of their career

plans and how well prepared to teach they feel.

Especially given ways that non-traditional routes are supported today in federal legislation

such as in the Every Student Succeeds Act and its predecessor, No Child Left Behind, through

competitive federal funding programs such as the Teacher Quality Partnership programs, it is

critical to better understand whether various preparation pathways actually differ, on average,

from one another and, if so, how. If alternative or residency pathways are not really providing an

alternative to traditional forms of preparation, as some scholars have suggested, then this calls

into question the policy and funding attention that they have received. In order to determine

whether pathways indeed offer significantly different preparation experiences, we ask:

1. What are similarities and differences across pathways in preservice student teacher

characteristics?

2. What are similarities and differences across pathways in program design and

features of preparation?

3. What are similarities and differences across pathways in preservice student

teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach and career intentions?

METHODS

Setting

This study takes place in the context of Chicago Public Schools (CPS), which serves about

400,000 predominantly Latino and Black students each year.2 Chicago is a promising site for

examining the similarities and differences in preparation between pathways because each year

approximately one-thousand PSTs enter teaching in and around the Chicago area through nearly

40 colleges and universities representing a variety of preparation pathways---traditional,

alternative, and residency. See Appendix Table 1 for more details about the institutions.

Data

To answer our research questions, we surveyed PSTs who completed their student

teaching in CPS during the 2015-2016 school year; we also surveyed their MTs. Contact

information for PSTs and MTs in traditional teacher education programs was obtained through

CPS’ centralized registration process in their Office of Student Teaching; contact information for

PSTs and MTs in alternative and residency TEPs was obtained directly from those programs.

Preservice Student Teacher Surveys. Online surveys were sent to PSTs after they

completed their preservice student teaching, residency, or intensive summer institute but before

they became teachers of record. We made this decision because we were primarily interested in

the forms of preparation that teachers received, as well as their self-perceptions of readiness to

teach and career plans, prior to becoming legally and professionally responsible for the education

of children. It is important to note, though, that this decision meant that we did not capture

ongoing forms of teacher education and support once individuals become teacher of record;

2 CPS At a glance (website) http://cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-glance/Pages/Stats_and_facts.aspx

7

alternative route programs, in particular, are thought to provide ongoing and intensive inservice

support, which our analyses are not capturing.

In order to ensure that PSTs responded to surveys as near as possible to the end of their

preservice student teaching, residency, or intensive summer institutes, we administered surveys to

PSTs at three time points: fall 2015, spring 2016, and summer 2016. Surveys asked PSTs

questions about their TEP, including coursework, pre-student teaching field experiences, field

instructors, and reasons for choosing their TEPs. Surveys also asked PSTs to reflect on the

mentoring they experienced during student teaching,3 their feelings of preparedness for teaching,

and their career plans, including intentions to teach in underserved schools. Surveys completers

were offered gift cards of $25.

Response rates for PSTs who answered at least one question on the survey ranged from

61-78 percent. Response rates were a bit lower for PSTs who fully completed the survey and

ranged from 58-71 percent. We have slightly higher response rates from PSTs who completed the

survey over the summer months, which exclusively included students in alternative programs.

Table 2 provides additional information about survey response rates.

Mentor Teacher Surveys. Surveys were also sent online to any MTs who worked with at

least one PST during the 2015-16 academic year. MT surveys asked MTs to assess aspects of

their own mentoring, including their teaching and mentoring experience, training or compensation

received, and self-perceived mentoring quality. MTs also responded to questions about their

PSTs’ performance during student teaching and sense of preparedness for aspects of teaching.4

Survey completers were offered $25 gift cards.

Response rates for MTs who answered at least one item on the survey ranged from 64-73

percent. Survey completers ranged from 58-69 percent. Response rates from MTs were highest

during the spring term, which included MTs from traditional and residency pathways. Table 3

shows additional details about response rates.

Sample Tables 2 and 3 explain the maximum coverage for our analytic sample of PSTs and MTs.

We had 250 Fall PST respondents, 420 Spring PST respondents, and 105 Summer PST

respondents, for a total of 775 PSTs. The first question on PSTs’ surveys asked them to indicate

which teacher education program they were completing; not everyone completed this question.5

Of the PST survey respondents, we were able to identify the program and pathway for all Spring

and Summer respondents and for 242 Fall respondents, for a total of 767 PSTs – our analytic

sample of PSTs.

In order to be included in this analysis, an MT needed to both have responded to a survey

and have mentored a PST who could be linked to a program and pathway. Of the 705 MTs who

responded to the survey, 165 had mentored PSTs who did not complete the survey; of the

remaining 540 MTs, 7 were linked to PSTs who had completed the survey but did not identify

3 PSTs were asked questions about one specific MT with whom they worked; if PSTs worked with multiple MTs in a term, they

were asked to respond about the one MT with whom they spent the most time. 4 MTs received individual survey links for each PST with whom they worked; if they worked with multiple PSTs, they received as

many surveys. One exception was that MTs who worked with Teach for America responded about their PSTs as a group since they

work with higher numbers of PSTs at the same time. 5 Respondents in the Summer survey who did not indicate a program could be classified into TFA or Relay depending on which

survey they completed.

8

their program. Thus, 533 MTs were included in our analytic sample for models in which mentor

characteristics were the focus (see Table 4 for details). Appendix Table 2 shows that there were

no significant differences in characteristics between MTs included in our analytic sample for

those models and those excluded due to their PSTs missing pathway information.

Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of PSTs and MTs in our sample. Because our

sample focused specifically on just those PSTs who completed their student teaching in a CPS

school, it is not representative of all PSTs in these teacher education programs or pathways, since

many elect to complete their student teaching outside of CPS. On average, PSTs who were

engaged in student teaching in Chicago during the 15-16 school year were majority White (57.8

percent), and female (75.9 percent), and over 25 years old on average. About half of the PSTs in

our sample majored in education, with an average GPA of 3.49 out of 4.

The right side of Table 4 shows characteristics of our MT sample. Similar to PSTs, the

majority of MTs in our sample were female (80.1 percent) and White (56.9 percent). Nearly a

quarter of MTs (23.5 percent) were graduates of CPS themselves. About half (52.5 percent)

majored in education, and even more (77.5 percent) majored in a subject they currently teach. On

average, MTs were about 39 years old during the 2015-16 year of mentoring.

Measures

In this section, we describe the focal outcomes for our study, which include features of

preparation, and in particular, mentoring measures. We also include PSTs’ and MTs’ perceptions

of PSTs’ preparedness, and PST career intentions as outcomes.

Features of Teacher Preparation. The features in our analyses represent a variety of

“inputs” into the preparation that PSTs experience and that program leaders can influence. They

include structural features, such as program length and amount of methods coursework, as well as

key features of student teaching, such as the type of placement and school. We pay special

attention to MTs whom, to our knowledge, have received little attention in prior comparisons of

routes of entry. We examine MT characteristics, including their years of teaching and prior

experience as mentors, and the types of mentoring MTs provide, including different kinds of

feedback and support. See Table 5a for a complete list of features of preparation used as outcome

measures.

Mentoring Measures. As discussed in the introduction, supporters of non-traditional

pathways proposed intensive mentoring as foundational to alternative forms of preparation. Thus,

we surveyed MTs in each pathway about the kinds and amount of mentoring they provided their

PSTs; we asked similar questions of the PSTs about the mentoring that they received. Based upon

these questions, we created a number of measures for different aspects of mentoring. These

included measures of the frequency of mentoring activities (e.g., observation, examining student

work together), the kinds of feedback MTs provided (e.g., reflective, about areas in need of

improvement), amounts and kinds of job help (e.g., sharing job openings, feedback on resumes),

what PSTs learned in conversations with their MTs about the domains of instruction, and PSTs’

perceptions of their MTs’ teaching effectiveness. All of the mentoring measures used in our

analysis have been created using Rasch6 methods. See Appendix Table 3 for details.

6 Rasch IRT theory posits that questions of varying degrees of difficulty differentiate people’s placement along a

developmental scale: Endorsing more difficult questions means that respondents have higher levels (or more positive

beliefs) on the underlying construct (Bond and Fox, 2015). Both item difficulties and respondent abilities are placed

on the same scale and expressed in logits. Most measures used in our study met minimum thresholds for reliability

(0.7).

9

Perceptions of Preparedness. One of the key outcomes in this analysis was PSTs’ self-

perceptions of preparedness to teach in their own classrooms by the end of student teaching.

Although these measures are based on self-reports, they provide us with a critical perspective on

preparedness: that of the individual closest to the preparation process—the student teacher.

Program leaders and scholars commonly use survey-based measures of PSTs’ feelings of

preparedness to teach for program assessment and research purposes, although recent research

raises questions about the predictive value of PSTs’ feelings of preparedness to observable

measures of their instructional effectiveness (e.g., observation ratings or VAMs) after becoming

teachers of record (Ronfeldt, Matsko, Greene Nolan, & Reininger, 2018). That said, scholars have

found PSTs’ feelings of preparedness to be related to teachers’ self-efficacy (Darling-Hammond

et al., 2002) which, in turn, has been linked to student achievement (Armor et al., 1976).

Additionally, using a nationally representative sample of teachers, Ronfeldt, Schwartz & Jacob,

(2014) found teachers who felt better prepared were more likely to remain in teaching.

We asked PSTs and MTs a series of similar survey questions about PSTs’ preparedness to

take on the responsibilities of teaching in four domains of instruction aligned with CPS’s teacher

evaluation system:7 (1) planning and preparation, (2) instruction, (3) classroom environment, and

(4) professional responsibilities. We also asked PSTs about the opportunities they had to learn

about each of these areas in their programs, and various types of supports they received in the

field, particularly from their MTs. We submitted these survey items to Rasch analysis to create

domain-level measures. Table 5 and Appendix Table 3 shows detailed information about the

measures and Rasch reliabilities. For additional information about variables included in the

analyses (in addition to measures) and their data sources, please see Table 5b for a complete list

of these measures.

Career Intentions. Other outcomes in our analyses were measures of PSTs’ career

intentions at the end of their student teaching experience. More specifically, we asked PSTs how

many years they planned to teach generally and in CPS specifically. Although career intentions

are not the same as actual years of teaching, prior research suggests a promising relationship

between them. We also asked PSTs to indicate their top five desired characteristics of a future

teaching position. Among several options we gave PSTs for this question, we asked about PSTs’

preferences to teach: low-income students, ELL students, Latino students, Black students, and

low-achieving students.

Analytic Methods

Given that our analyses examined differences across three pathways of teacher preparation

(traditional, alternative, and residency), we created a pathway designation for each PST based on

the first survey question PSTs answered, which asked them which TEP(s) they completed in the

2015-16 academic year. We made pathway decisions based on how programs self-identified, and

a list of program designations based on a list of approved Illinois State Board of Education

Providers for the year in which the data was collected. When candidates identified affiliation with

multiple programs, we designated one program as their “primary” TEP, and used that as their

designated pathway.8 This happened in instances, for example, when non-traditional programs

7 See http://www.cps.edu/ReachStudents/Pages/AtaGlance.aspx for more information for CPS “REACH” system. 8 All surveys allowed PSTs to mark multiple TEPs, except for the fall traditional route survey, which forced PSTs to choose one.

Any PST who selected multiple institutions where one included TFA or AUSL was categorized as TFA or AUSL, respectively, for

10

were paired with universities providing coursework for licensure. For more information about

pathway designation see Appendix Table 1 and its related notes. Our full sample

consisted of 940 unique PSTs and 705 unique MTs, making up 1,028 unique PST-MT pairs. As

explained above, our analytic sample of 767 PSTs and 533 MTs was determined by having

available pathway information. For Research Question 2, PST and CT characteristics and features

of preparation were treated as outcomes and modeled as a function of pathway, which we explain

in more detail below. Sets of outcomes for Research Question 2 included: PST characteristics,

structural features of preparation, perceptions of mentoring, preparedness, career intentions, and

mentors and mentoring experience. For almost all models, we modeled the data at the PST level

since most PST responses were invariant even when PSTs were linked to multiple MTs (e.g. PST

age, PST major). However, when PSTs could be linked to multiple MTs, we collapsed mentor

information across PSTs. For continuous mentor measures, such as Rasch measures on their

perceptions of mentoring, we averaged across the Mts a given PST had. For dummy mentor

measures, such as race and gender indicators, we counted whether a PST ever had at least one

instance of each dummy; therefore, if a PST had two female MTs, she would have a 1 indicating

she had ever had a female MT, and if she had one female and one male MT, she would have a 1

for female and a 1 for male. For the set of outcomes called “Mentors and mentoring experiences,”

we modeled the data at the MT level, since in these cases MT information was the same even if

they had multiple PSTs (e.g. teaching experience, reasons for serving as MT, receiving mentoring

PD).

Research Question 1. To test whether a given pre-service teacher characteristic was

predicted by pathway, we used multilevel regression models with PSTs nested in TEPs that took

the following general form:

PST Characteristicij = γ00 + γ10Pathway + r0j + eij (Equation 1)

where the characteristic for PST i in teacher preparation program j is a function of an intercept

(γ00), pathway indicators for traditional, with non-traditional (alternative + residency) as the

reference group (Pathway), a TEP-level random effect r0j, and a PST-level residual eij. The PST

characteristics included gender, race, whether a parent, whether a CPS graduate, having any prior

teaching experience (e.g. substitute), undergraduate major (education/not, subject teaching/not),

and undergraduate GPA. In two additional series of models, we included indicators for (a)

alternative as pathway, with non-alternative (traditional + residency) as reference and (b)

residency as pathway, with non-residency (traditional + alternative) as reference. In separate

model specifications, we nested PSTs in pathway instead of TEP; results were similar.

Research Question 2. Our second investigation used the same methods as our first, except

features of preparation were substituted for PST characteristics as outcome measures. The

features of preparation, which were outcomes for Research Question 2, consisted of program

structural features (e.g. timing of coursework, length of program), features of student teaching

(e.g. grade and subject), MT characteristics (e.g. whether a parent, years of experience), and PST

primary TEP. People who selected both TFA and RELAY were classified as primarily TFA. Any PST who selected multiple

institutions where one included Golden Apple was categorized for primary TEP as the other selected institution (not Golden

Apple). Anyone who entered two institutions that were impossible together based on our knowledge of programs in the

Chicagoland area (e.g. NEIU and Elmhurst) were reclassified into a primary TEP of Other/Unknown. Michigan State was made

into its own category due to a large number of respondents who wrote it into the ‘other’ response. After classifying PSTs into their

primary TEPs, the pathway variable was created. PSTs were designated as 'alternate' pathway if they were primarily in TFA,

Western Governors, or Grand Canyon TEPs; 'residency' pathway if they were primarily in AUSL, RELAY, UTEP, or the IL state

teacher pipeline TEPs; and 'traditional' otherwise.

11

and MT perceptions of mentoring (e.g. feedback frequency, job search assistance). See Table 5a

for focal features of preparation.

Research Question 3. To answer our third question, we used the same methods as for our

first, except we substituted PSTs’ self-perceptions of preparedness and career plans for PST

characteristics as outcome measures. In terms of perceptions of preparedness, we consider

preparation overall, as well as in each instructional domain. In terms of career intentions, we

considered plans to teach over ten years generally, plans to teach over ten years specifically in

CPS, and whether one of PSTs’ top-five preferences for a future teaching position included

working with marginalized student populations (low-income, ELL, Latino, Black, low-achieving).

RESULTS

What are the similarities and differences in preservice teacher characteristics across

pathways?

We first investigated how preservice student teachers in Chicago Public Schools in 2015-

16 varied by pathway in terms of their demographic characteristics as well their chosen majors,

prior teaching experiences, and GPAs. Results in this section are summarized at Table 6a. It is

important to note that, due to the multiple comparisons we are making throughout this paper, we

decided to use a more conservative criterion for statistical significance – we focus on results at the

p<0.01 level throughout.

As is true nationally, the majority of Chicago area student teachers in our sample are

White. We found that the proportion of White PSTs in traditional programs was 61 percent,

compared to 54 percent of PSTs in residency programs and 50 percent in alternative programs.

Though not significant, these differences between pathways are consistent with one of the

intended goals of alternative pathways - to attract individuals to teaching who might not have

otherwise, including more teachers of color. Compared to non-traditional pathways, traditional

pathways had significantly fewer Black PSTs. Eighteen percent of PSTs in alternative programs

and 17 percent of PSTs in residency programs in our sample were Black. Comparatively, only

seven percent of traditional PSTs in our sample were Black. We found no other significant

differences across pathways by race/ethnicity in our sample.

In order to see whether there were any differences across pathways in the kinds of

experiences student teachers had prior to beginning their current teacher education program, we

asked student teachers whether they taught in any capacity (as a teacher or teacher substitute, full

or part time) in a school or childcare facility. Because most alternative and residency programs

recruit students who already have bachelors’ degrees, it is not entirely surprising that a

significantly higher proportion of alternative and residency PSTs in our sample had prior teaching

experience compared to traditional pathway students. Residency PSTs reported prior teaching

experience at the greatest rate (48 percent) followed by alternative (42 percent), then traditional

(21 percent).

In addition to asking PSTs whether they had previous teaching experience, we also asked

them to identify whether or not they were undergraduate education majors. 48 percent of all PSTs

reported majoring in education, and PSTs in traditional pathways were significantly more likely

to have majored in education compared to students in alternative or residency programs. Fifty-

nine percent of students in traditional programs reported majoring in education compared to 26

percent for residency and only 14 percent in alternative programs. These results are consistent

12

with the original vision proposed by advocates for alternative pathways into teaching—to attract a

population of candidates not initially considering a career in education.

We also asked student teachers to estimate their overall undergraduate GPA on a scale of

0.1-4.0. The average self-reported GPA of our sample of PSTs was 3.5 out of 4.0, with

significant differences by pathway. While there were no significant differences between

alternative PSTs and non-alternative PSTs in terms of GPA, residency PSTs had significantly

lower GPAs compared to traditional and alternative PSTs. Given academic selectivity was meant

to be a cornerstone of alternative preparation, finding alternative and traditional PSTs’ GPAs to

be so similar was unexpected. However, it is also consistent with prior research suggesting that

alternative providers might not be doing enough to recruit individuals with academically strong

backgrounds, with a minority of alternative programs (about 1 out of 3) having minimum GPA

requirements of at least 2.75 (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007).

We also asked PSTs to indicate the primary reason they chose their teacher preparation

program. (See Table 6b for details). PSTs in all three pathways cited ‘strong reputation’ as a top-

five reason for choosing their program. Both traditional and alternative pathway PSTs cited their

programs being less expensive and giving financial aid or support as top-five reasons, neither of

which was indicated as a top-five reason by residency PSTs. Residency and traditional PSTs were

united in reporting that they chose their program since it gave training in their area and resulted in

a degree, reasons alternative pathway PSTs did not cite as a top-five reason for choosing their

program. Alternative pathway PSTs were unique among the three pathways in saying that their

program allowed them to teach temporarily before pursuing another career, while residency PSTs

were unique in pointing to yearlong residency and speed to completion as the top two reasons

they chose their program.

What are the similarities and differences in program design and features of preparation

across pathways?

In this section, we examine the degree to which there are differences, on average, between

preparation pathway experiences by focusing on different sets of features of teacher preparation:

(i) structural features and key features of student teaching, (ii) MT characteristics, and (iii) the

types of mentoring provided by MTs. Results in this section are summarized in Table 7.

Our main reasons for choosing these specific features is because prior literature, described

previously, indicates that they were intended to vary across pathways or were related to candidate

outcomes. Some of the structural features of preparation, such as amount of coursework and

length of student teaching, for example, have been studied in prior literature,9 while other

features, such as why a teacher chooses to mentor PSTs and types of mentoring he or she

provides, are unique contributions of this study. We elaborate below.

Structural Features

As previously described, alternative providers envisioned substantial structural reforms to

initial preparation: reduce program length and coursework and fast-track candidates into clinical

9 See Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student

achievement. Economics of education review, 13(2), 125-145; Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. (2014). Does

pre-service preparation matter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-46;

Ronfeldt, M. & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8),

1091-1106. Ronfeldt, Schwartz, & Jacob, 2014.

13

work and ultimately into their roles as teachers of record, where they could complete remaining

requirements. These intended differences in program length, methods coursework and timing, and

length of student teaching bear out in our findings.

Program Length. When alternative programs were initially proposed, a central motivation

was to reduce the length of time it takes to receive certification. On average, our data suggest that

non-traditional pathways are indeed quicker routes to certification. While 77 percent of traditional

PSTs reported programs that were 15 months or longer, 35 percent of residency PSTs and 13

percent of alternative PSTs reported the same. In reducing program length, alternative routes were

initially designed to also reduce requirements like amount of coursework and length of preservice

clinical experiences. We find evidence that alternative programs in Chicago reflect these intended

differences.

Methods Coursework Timing & Amount. On the whole, traditional pathway PSTs

completed the most courses, followed by residency PSTs, and then alternative PSTs. While one-

third of traditional PSTs reported completing at least seven methods-related courses, 25 percent of

residency PSTs and ten percent of alternative PSTs reported the same. The difference between

traditional and non-traditional pathway PSTs was statistically significant. While traditional

programs were historically designed so that candidates could complete most course and other

requirements before student teaching, alternative reformers, with their emphasis on fast-tracking

candidates into clinical work and full-time teaching, envisioned PSTs would finish up coursework

while completing their clinical requirements. Consistent with this intended vision, we found

significant differences between pathways in terms of the proportion of coursework completed

prior to student teaching. While about nine out of ten traditional pathway PSTs completed most of

their methods coursework before student teaching, only about three in ten alternative and

residency pathway PSTs did the same.

Length of student teaching placement. We also found significant differences in duration of

clinical experiences. Over 94 percent of residency PSTs reporting clinical experiences of 15

weeks or longer in duration. This is compared with 63 percent of traditional PSTs and eight

percent of alternative PSTs. These findings match common perceptions about each of these

pathways. Alternative and residency programs were designed, in part, to get PSTs into classrooms

immediately. Most of the alternative pathway PSTs in our sample worked with students in a six-

week summer school teaching experience, while taking intensive coursework before being placed

as a teacher of record in a classroom. On the other hand, resident PSTs reported working

alongside a MT (and sometimes more than one) for an entire academic year while learning how to

teach before becoming a teacher of record. In fact, the leading reason why residents said they

chose their program was because it allowed for a yearlong classroom training experience.

Coursework-Fieldwork Alignment & Student Teaching Quality. On average, traditional

pathway PSTs perceived greater alignment between coursework and fieldwork than non-

traditional PSTs. Specifically, we asked PSTs to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the

statement “During student teaching I was able to use strategies and techniques I learned in my

university classes” with responses ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 was “strongly disagree”, 2 was

“disagree”, 3 was “agree,” and 4 was “strongly agree.” On average, 60 percent of traditional

pathway PSTs reported the highest level of alignment (“strongly agree”), followed by alternative

pathway PSTs (44%), and resident PSTs (31%). Compared to PSTs from the other two pathways

combined, traditional PSTs were significantly more likely to agree strongly with this statement.

Traditional pathway PSTs were also significantly more likely to report that they learned a lot from

student teaching, with 73 percent strongly agreeing that they learned a lot from student teaching,

14

compared to 58 percent of resident PSTs and 54 percent of alternative pathway PSTs who said the

same.

Placement Characteristics. By reducing costs and requirements, alternative pathways

hoped to attract candidates who might not have otherwise considered teaching, including

candidates who work in shortage areas, like, for example, career changes from math and science

fields. In our analyses, we examined the subject and grade level of student teaching placement

classrooms as a signal for endorsement area to investigate whether alternative pathways indeed

recruited candidates in shortage areas.

For traditional pathway PSTs, the most common student teaching placement was in

elementary, self-contained classrooms (30%), with ELA/social studies a close second (27%). In

contrast, math and science related student teaching placements occurred most frequently in non-

traditional pathways, with 32 percent of alternative pathway PSTs and 40 percent of resident

PSTs completing a math or science student teaching placement traditional pathway PSTs were

significantly less likely than PSTs from non-traditional pathways to have math or science

placements, with only 18 percent doing so. This finding corroborates literature that suggests non-

traditional programs are responsive to some teaching shortage area needs. However, the high need

special education and ELL areas were uncommon student teaching placements across pathways,

and there were no significant differences between them. There were also no significant

differences in the grade level of student teaching placements.

Mentors and Mentoring

MTs and the kinds of mentoring they provide also play an important role in the

preparation of teachers. Each pathway in our analysis had teachers serving as mentors, who were

responsible for supervising PSTs’ teaching, giving feedback, and supporting their development

into teachers. We investigated whether there were differences between pathways in terms of the

characteristics of MTs and the kinds of mentoring they provided.

Mentor teacher background characteristics. Traditional pathway MTs were, on average,

significantly older than non-traditional pathway MTs and significantly more likely to be parents.

The average age of the traditional MTs was 40 years old, while it was 35 for alternative and

residency mentors. Although the differences were not statistically significant, we found that

alternative pathway MTs were generally a more racially diverse group. Whereas 58 percent of

traditional pathway MTs were White, just 42 percent of alternative pathway MTs were white.

One-quarter of alternative pathway MTs were Black, compared to 11 percent of residency

pathway MTs and 9 percent of traditional pathway MTs; there were also more Asian MTs in the

alternative pathway (13%) compared to traditional (5%) and residency (9%).

On average, traditional pathway MTs had the most teaching experience, with 60 percent of

traditional pathway MTs having over ten years of teaching experience compared to alternative

(9%) and residency (42%) MTs; traditional pathway MTs also had the most experience in CPS

specifically. However, traditional pathway teachers were more likely to be first-time mentors. In

contrast, alternative pathway MTs reported mentoring significantly more PSTs even though they

had significantly less teaching experience. The majority (82%) of alternative pathway MTs had

worked with over 5 prior PSTs, compared to just 24 percent of residency pathway MTs and 22

percent of traditional pathway MTs. This statistic likely reflects the fact that (1) MTs of TFA

corps members, the majority of our alternative MT sample, typically mentor many corps members

simultaneously during Summer Institute experiences and (2) TFA usually recruits its own corps

members, who typically have few years of experience, to serve as MTs.

MTs also reported working with different numbers of teacher preparation programs

15

depending on their pathway. Residency pathway MTs were significantly more likely to have

worked with exactly one teacher education program before mentoring their current PST, whereas

traditional pathway MTs were more likely to have worked with multiple programs. In terms of

receiving professional development on mentoring, traditional pathway MTs were significantly

less likely to have received such support, while residency pathway MTs were significantly more

likely.

Reasons for Serving as Mentor. A variety of reasons bring teachers into the role of mentor.

We found, though, that there were no statistically significant differences between pathways in

terms of MTs’ primary reason for choosing to serve. Among traditional MTs, the top two reasons

for serving as a MT were to help repay the profession (30%) and to help their own students

(22%). For alternative pathway mentors, the top two reasons were to help repay the profession

(47%) and because they personally enjoy mentoring (24%). The top two reasons among residency

MTs were because they personally enjoy mentoring (29%) and they believe it helps them improve

their own practice (21%). Despite the common perception that student teachers might help reduce

the course load, hardly any MTs in our sample reported becoming a mentor for this purpose.

Mentor Compensation. There were no significant differences between pathways in terms

of the proportion of MTs who reported receiving compensation; however, there were significant

differences in terms of the amount reported. Half of residency pathway MTs received financial

compensation for serving as a mentor (44%), compared to 33 percent of alternative pathway MTs

and 15 percent of traditional pathway MTs. Among MTs who reported a dollar amount of

compensation, residency MTs, on average, earned $1,792.50, significantly more than the $226.19

and $321.43 than traditional and alternative MTs earned; other MTs did not report a dollar

amount but some residency MTs reported receiving as much as a 20 percent pay raise.

MT Perceptions of Mentoring. When asked about the kind of support MTs provided to

their PSTs, traditional pathway MTs perceived their own domain-specific mentoring and job

search assistance to be significantly stronger than non-traditional pathway MTs, but they felt they

provided less frequent feedback. Compared to mentors in other pathways, residency pathway

MTs perceived their mentoring less favorably in three areas: observing and giving PSTs related

feedback, domain-specific mentoring, and job search help. Residency programs are geared

towards high-needs schools, and sometimes hire into specific schools within a district, and

therefore have strong hiring rates, which may also explain why job search support is less explicit

from MTs in these programs.

PST Perceptions of Mentoring. Traditional pathway PSTs’ perspectives on the mentoring

they received were similar to their MTs’ self-perceptions: they felt their MTs provided more job

help support, but less frequent feedback. Compared to other pathways, alternative PSTs thought

their MTs gave them more frequent feedback, yet reported mentoring activities and job search

help happened less frequently overall. Given the commitment among advocates for alternative

routes to provide intensive coaching, this latter finding seemed somewhat surprising. It is

important to bear in mind, though, that our measures are of preservice coaching, whereas

alternative providers have historically advocated for intensive coaching as part of induction

practice during inservice, full-time teaching. It is possible that alternative providers provide more

intensive coaching during the inservice period, which we do not observe.

Are there average differences between pathways in terms of pre-service teachers’

perceptions of their preparedness to teach and career plans?

16

Thus far we’ve investigated how pathways differ in terms of the kinds of preparation

experiences PSTs report. We next consider whether there are differences between pathways in

terms of how well prepared to teach PSTs feel, how long they plan to teach generally and in CPS

specifically, and their commitments to teach particular student populations. Table 8 summarizes

these results.

After student teaching, traditional pathway PSTs felt, on average, significantly more

prepared for teaching overall, and particularly in the domains of instruction, urban teaching, and

Common Core. Alternative pathway PSTs felt less prepared for teaching across domains but

differences were significant at the p<0.01 level only in the case of teaching specifically in schools

serurban schools; given that we surveyed candidates after the completion of their preservice

training, which is substantially truncated for alternative programs, these results are perhaps

unsurprising. Residency PSTs felt they were prepared at statistically similar levels as their non-

residency counterparts, though their scores trended lower across teaching domains.

We also found that traditional PSTs were significantly more likely than non-traditional

PSTs to plan more than ten years in teaching, while alternative pathway PSTs were significantly

less likely to plan more than a decade in teaching than other pathways. About two-thirds (66%) of

traditional PSTs said they planned to teach for at least ten years, as compared with 47 percent of

residency PSTs and fewer than one-fifth (19%) of alternative PSTs. Though there were significant

differences between pathways in terms of teaching generally, there were no significant differences

between pathways in terms of PSTs’ plans to teach at least ten years specifically in CPS. That

said, about one out of three residency and traditional PSTs planned at least ten years in CPS as

compared with one out of six alternative PSTs.

In addition to asking how long PSTs intended to teach, we also asked about the settings in

which they would prefer to teach. As indicated in the introduction, one motivation for proposing

alternative routes programs was to respond to teacher shortages in schools with marginalized

students. Thus, alternative providers, like Teach for America, have been said to focus their

recruitment on prospective teachers who have strong commitments to working with low-income,

low-performing students of color. We were interested in whether non-traditional pathways were

indeed more successful at recruiting candidates with these kinds of commitments, so we asked

PSTs a series of survey questions about the kinds of schools in which they wanted to work.

Results suggest that non-traditional providers were indeed successful at recruiting

individuals with stronger commitments to working in schools with more marginalized student

populations. Resident PSTs were significantly more likely to want to work with Black and low-

achieving students as one of their top five characteristics that would be important to them at a

future school. By contrast, traditional PSTs were significantly less likely to prioritize these

student populations or to want to work with low-SES students. Though not statistically

significant, point estimates trended positive for alternative PSTs; related, a consistently greater

percentage of alternative PSTs said they prioritized working with marginalized students (except

ELL students) than traditional PSTs.

Summary: What is distinctive about each pathway?

Given the many findings described above, we thought it would be instructive to pull

together features of each pathway that were unique from the others. Below, we look across

features to highlight the characteristics of each pathway that make it distinctive.

17

Traditional. Results from this study suggest that, compared to non-traditional pathways,

traditional pathways have some distinctive structural characteristics. PSTs who enter through

traditional pathways were more likely to complete pre-student teaching field experiences and to

finish most of their coursework prior to student teaching. They completed more methods-related

courses overall than other pathways. They were also more likely to be education majors and to

major in the subject they planned to teach.

MTs from traditional pathways also stood out from MTs from other pathways. First, they

had significantly more years of experience in general and in CPS in particular. They tended to be

older and were more likely to have worked with multiple teacher education programs. Traditional

MTs also were also distinctive in terms of their coaching. In particular, traditional MTs reported

providing the strongest domain-specific (e.g., planning) mentoring and, according to both MTs

and PSTs, job support.

PSTs in traditional pathways also had relatively more favorable opinions about many

aspects of their preparation. In particular, traditional PSTs reported stronger alignment between

clinical experiences and coursework than other pathways; they also were more likely to report

learning a lot from their student teaching experiences generally. By the end of student teaching,

traditional pathway PSTs also felt better prepared for teaching, especially in instruction, urban

teaching, and Common Core, and they planned to teach for more years, though not in CPS.

Finally, they were more likely to say they chose their program for its strong reputation.

On the other hand, traditional pathways were less likely than other pathways to possess

certain features too. Traditional PSTs were less likely to be Black and to report that they chose

their program because it guaranteed a job. They were less likely to have had a prior teaching

experience of some kind. They were also less likely to report math and science placements.

Traditional MTs were less likely to receive professional training in mentoring, and they were

compensated significantly less financially for mentoring. In terms of their coaching, MTs and

their PSTs evaluated MTs’ feedback frequency less favorably. Finally, in terms of career plans,

traditional PSTs were less likely to plan to work in schools with many low-achieving and Black

students.

Alternative. Alternative PSTs were more likely to say they chose their program because it

let them teach temporarily before pursuing another career. They felt their MTs provided more

frequent feedback than PSTs from other pathways. Alternative pathway MTs were more likely to

have mentored many PSTs before.

Alternative pathways stood out in other ways for being less likely to have certain

characteristics. Alternative PSTs completed fewer courses, were less likely to have had a pre-

student teaching field experience, and felt less welcome at their placement school faculty

meetings. Their MTs had less teaching experience and were less likely to report that serving as a

MT would help their own students. Alternative PSTs felt their MTs provided less job search help

and engaged in less frequent mentoring activities. Finally, alternative PSTs felt significantly less

prepared for the domain of urban teaching and were significantly less likely to believe they would

teach for over ten years.

Residency. The residency pathway was distinctive in terms of having the longest clinical

experiences and in terms of having these experiences more often in math and science placement

classrooms. Residency MTs received the greatest financial compensation; they also received

mentoring professional development more often. Perhaps in part because of these many benefits,

residency MTs were also more likely to have worked only one residency program (the current

one) and not other programs. At the end of student teaching, resident PSTs were more likely than

18

other PSTs to want to work with low-income and Black students in future teaching roles.

In terms of characteristics that residency pathways were less likely to possess, residency

PSTs also had significantly lower GPAs, though the difference was only 1/5th of a grade point.

PSTs in the residency pathway were less likely to complete methods courses before

residency/student teaching and to complete their residencies in an all-subject/elementary

placements. Residency MTs perceived less favorably the mentoring they provided their residents

in specific instructional areas and in job search help; they also were more self-critical about the

frequency and helpfulness of the observations and feedback that they provided their PSTs. While

they tended to perceive their own mentoring more critically, it is not necessarily the case that

residency MTs actually provided worse mentoring. For instance, it could be the case that –

because they tended to have more training and compensation – they might have set higher

standards for themselves and, thus, been more self-critical.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION

In response to recent questions being raised about whether alternative pathways are truly

alternative, our study indicates that newer forms of preparation such as alternative and residency

models in Chicago do indeed provide unique routes of entry into the profession. Our findings

suggest that substantial differences, on average, across pathways do exist, especially in terms of

structural features. Moreover, the differences are often consistent with the visions that reformers

initially intended. For example, PSTs from non-traditional pathways reported completing shorter

programs overall, less coursework, and were more likely to have math and science placements;

while PSTs from traditional pathways completed more coursework, were more likely to complete

most of their coursework prior to student teaching, and were more likely to report pre-student

teaching field experiences.

As indicated in the introduction, reformers who developed alternative preparation

proposed these structural changes in part to attract a new crop of teachers who might not have

chosen the profession otherwise – including teachers who are committed to working shortage

fields and schools, racially diverse, and academically talented. We find some evidence that non-

traditional PSTs in Chicago reflect reformers’ visions in some ways – they are more likely to be

Black, prioritize working with marginalized students (Black, low-achieving, low-income), hold

non-education undergraduate majors, and student teach in STEM placements.

In other ways, though, non-traditional pathways do not appear to be diversifying the

incoming supply of new teachers in ways we might expect. In particular, we find no significant

differences between traditional and non-traditional PSTs in terms of the proportion who are male.

We also find no significant differences between non-traditional and traditional PSTs in terms of

GPA. In fact, when we look closer, residency PSTs have significantly lower GPAs than

traditional PSTs, while alternative PSTs have similar GPAs. This is in contrast with findings from

NYC, where the proliferation of alternative routes corresponded with increases in the proportion

of male teachers and average GPA (Boyd et al., 2008). Also, despite a reputation for targeting

shortage areas, non-traditional pathways placed a similar proportion of PSTs in ESL and special

education student teaching classrooms as traditional PSTs.

Few studies have looked at the role of MTs across pathways, and this is another

contribution of our study. Some key differences exist in MTs’ background and qualifications. For

example, even though traditional pathways MTs have more teaching experience, MTs from non-

traditional pathways tend to have mentored more PSTs and received more professional

19

development for their role. Though not significantly different, we find that non-traditional

pathways have recruited a higher proportion of MTs of color, which is consistent with their

commitment to increase the diversity of the workforce. And finally, we find some evidence that

MTs from different pathways have different emphases when coaching. For instance, compared to

PSTs from other pathways, traditional PSTs felt their MTs provided stronger assistance in finding

a job, which may reflect the fact that non-traditional PSTs are sometimes guaranteed a job as part

of enrollment. Traditional PSTs reported less frequent feedback from their MTs; traditional MTs

concurred – they also felt they provided less frequent feedback.

When asked more about the quality -- as opposed to quantity or structure -- of preparation

experiences, traditional PSTs and MTs tended to have more favorable reports. They were more

likely to report alignment between coursework and fieldwork, learning a lot from student

teaching, and field placement schools with stronger working conditions. Also, though they

reported less frequent feedback from MTs, there is some evidence that the quality of mentoring in

traditional pathways was stronger – traditional MTs reported better domain-specific mentoring

and both traditional MTs and PSTs reported better quality job help support; mean scores on other

measures for PSTs’ perceptions of the quality of the mentoring they received were consistently

higher, though not at significant levels, than other pathways as well.

Our final analyses looked at the relationships between pathway type and

how candidates differ in their sense of preparedness for teaching, their intentions to teach

generally and in CPS, and their commitments to teach in particular settings. After student

teaching, traditional pathway PSTs felt significantly more prepared for teaching overall, and that

they planned significantly more years in teaching than non-traditional routes, findings that are

consistent with some prior research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Redding & Smith, 2016).

Despite planning longer teaching careers in general, traditional PSTs were no more or less likely

than non-traditional PSTs to plan more than ten years specifically in CPS. Taken together, these

findings seem to suggest that traditional programs in the Chicago area are graduating PSTs who

plan long careers but not necessarily in CPS. Additionally, traditional PSTs were significantly less

likely than non-traditional PSTs to prioritize wanting to teach low-income, Black, and low-

achieving students than non-traditional PSTs, suggesting perhaps that they are pursuing longer

careers but specifically with higher-achieving, more privileged student populations.

Residency PSTs more than other PSTs planned to work with marginalized student

populations. Specifically, they were significantly more likely to prioritize wanting to teach Black

and low-achieving students. Given these results, and given that residency programs are typically

designed to prepare teachers in specific contexts so that they will persist and succeed in those

same contexts, we expected residency PSTs to plan longer careers in CPS than other pathways.

However, we found no significant differences on this outcome; in fact, a very similar proportion -

about one-third - of both residency PSTs and traditional PSTs planned more than ten years in

CPS. This result, though, was driven in part by the fact that less than half of residency PSTs

planned to teach more than ten years overall, as compared with about two-thirds of traditional

PSTs. In other words, among PSTs who planned longer teaching careers, a greater share of

residency PSTs than traditional PSTs planned these long careers in CPS.

Consistent with prior literature suggesting that alternative PSTs have higher turnover

rates, alternative PSTs in were significantly less likely to plan on teaching for over a decade than

PSTs from other pathways. While only 19 percent of alternative PSTs planned to teach over ten

years, 16 percent planned to teach over ten years specifically in CPS. So, though a small

percentage of alternative PSTs plan long teaching careers, among those that do, most plan to do

20

so specifically in CPS. In fact, our results suggested that the proportion of alternative PSTs that

planned long careers in CPS was statistically similar to the proportion from other pathways. On

the other hand, though, alternative PSTs felt significantly less prepared for urban teaching than

other pathways. Given the explicit mission of TFA and many other alternative programs to

prepare teachers to succeed in urban contexts, this result initially seemed surprising. However,

when interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind the self-reported nature and timing

of these data. It is possible, for example, that alternative PSTs were actually just as prepared for

urban teaching as other PSTs, but felt less prepared because they were on the cusp of taking over

lead teaching responsibilities whereas PSTs could look forward to many more weeks and months

of being an observer or co-teacher. Even if alternative PSTs were not as prepared, it is also

important to recognize that many receive mentoring after becoming teachers of record, and may

potentially improve at greater rates than PSTs in other pathways.

Due to a number of study limitations, we advise readers to be cautious in their

interpretations of findings. First, as discussed above, these analyses are based entirely on self-

reports of preparation through online surveys. All findings must be interpreted as PSTs’ or MTs’

perceptions of preparation as opposed to objective measures of preparation. Also, while PSTs

from traditional pathways might feel better prepared, it does not necessarily mean they are better

teachers or that their programs did a better job at preparing them. In fact, a recent study in

Chicago suggests that PSTs’ self-perceptions of preparedness are unrelated to their first-year

observation ratings on district evaluations (Ronfeldt et al., 2018). It is possible, for example, that

traditional PSTs feel better prepared because their student teaching experiences are not as

complex, challenging, or authentic as those in other pathways, thus making them feel better

prepared when in fact they may not be. Despite limitations of using feelings of preparedness as an

outcome measure, there is some evidence that it is related to teacher retention (Ronfeldt et al.,

2014).

Second, because we were interested in investigating preservice preparation, most alternative

PSTs completed their surveys at the end their intensive summer preparation experiences before

becoming teacher of record at the beginning of the fall semester. Thus, they reflected on much

shorter preparation experiences. In some ways this stacked the deck against PSTs from alternative

pathways in terms of the amount of preparation and how well prepared they likely felt. Our

analyses also fail to capture or reflect the ongoing support and training that alternative pathways

continue to provide after PSTs become teacher of record. At the same time, we wanted to

compare pathways in terms of the kinds of preparation PSTs received before taking professional

and legal responsibility for children, in which case our findings may be representative.

Finally, findings from our study cannot be generalized to other labor markets and are

unlikely even to be representative of PSTs from across the programs we studied. In particular, we

targeted PSTs who were student teaching specifically in CPS, though a number of PSTs for across

programs and pathways complete their student teaching in public schools outside of CPS and in

private schools; their perspectives are not represented in this paper. Moreover, our findings are

unlikely to even generalize to the population of PSTs who student teach in CPS because we find

that survey respondents differ from non-survey respondents on observable characteristics.

To our knowledge, our work offers a first of its kind district-wide analysis focusing on

teacher preparation across pathways that includes residency programs. As stated by Grossman and

Loeb (2008), there are trade-offs implicit in any route to teaching. Therefore, the primary

motivation for these analysis is not to compare pathways in terms of quality, but rather to begin to

descriptively understand design similarities and differences across pathways in response to key

21

questions raised in the literature about whether and how the preparation PSTs receive differs

across pathways. Better understanding these related trade-offs might be informative for district

and teacher preparation stakeholders. For instance, based on our findings that current non-

traditional pathways do successfully offer more placements in STEM areas, an identified area of

need in CPS, the district might also consider working more closely with non-traditional pathways

to work in other shortage areas, such as in special education and working with English language

learners. Teacher preparation program may find utility in our findings, for example, about

mentoring, and provide more explicit assistance to MTs across all pathways in how to provide

targeted feedback to PSTs and how often.

In future work, we will examine which features of preparation, regardless of pathway,

predict how well prepared to teach candidates feel and how long they plan to stay in teaching and

in CPS. This kind of analysis will continue to guide teacher educators from pathways of all stripes

to redesign their programs to ensure candidates feel better prepared and committed to teaching for

the long haul. We hope this types of work generates more even more interest and consideration of

the many ways candidates are learning how to teach, and is informative to individuals interested

in pursuing teaching, teacher educators who continually strive to improve their practice, and also

to the district stakeholders who invest in teacher candidates by opening their doors for student

teaching every year.

REFERENCES

Berry, B., Montgomery, D., & Snyder, J. (2009). Urban teacher residency models and institutes of

higher education: Implications for teacher preparation. Carrboro, NC: Center for Teaching

Quality

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How Changes in Entry

Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement. Education

Finance and Policy, 1, 176–216.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., McDonald, M., Reininger, M.,

Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Surveying the landscape of teacher education in New

York city: Constrained variation and the challenge of innovation. Education Evaluation

and Policy Analysis. 30(4), 319-343.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and

student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New

York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high

poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818.

Boyd, H., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J.

(2012). Recruiting effective math teachers: Evidence from New York City. American

Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1008-1047.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Villegas, A.M. (2016). Research on teacher preparation:

Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.) Handbook of

Research on Teaching (5th edition). Washington, D.C: American Educational Research

Association.

22

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How

well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of teacher education, 53(4),

286-302.

Fraser, J.W. (2007). Preparing America’s teachers: A history. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Gatti, L., Conklin, H., & Matsko, K. (2018). Teaching towards what ends? Residency candidates

navigating competing programmatic aims. In J. Brewer and C. Lubienski (Eds.),

Becoming a Teacher in an Age of Reform: Global Lessons for Teacher Preparation and

the Teaching Profession. Manuscript in preparation. Teachers College Press

Glazerman, S., Daniel M., & Decker, P. (2006). Alternative Routes to Teaching: The Impacts of

Teach for America on Student Achievement and Other Outcomes. Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management, 25, 75–96.

Grissom, J. A. (2008). But do they stay? Addressing issues of teacher retention through

alternative certification. In P. Grossman and S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternate routes to teaching:

Mapping the new landscape of teacher education (pp.129-2008). Cambridge, Mass:

Harvard Education Press.

Grossmann, P & Loeb, S. (2008) Alternative Routes to Teaching: Mapping the New Landscape of

Teacher Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press.

Humphrey, D.C., Weschler, M.E., & Hough, H.J. (2008). Characteristics of effective alternative

teacher certification programs. Teachers College Record, 110(4). Retrieved from

http://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/AltCert_finalTCversion.pdf

Jacobs, S., Walsh, K. (2007, September). Alternative certification isn’t alternative. National

Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved

from http://www.nctq.org/p/tqb/docs/Alternative_Certification_Isnt_Alternative_2007111

3021230.pdf Google Scholar

Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What Does Certification Tell Us about

Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education

Review, 27, 615–31.

Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “Urban” in Urban Teacher Education:

Making a Case for Context-Specific Preparation. Journal of teacher education, 65(2),

128-144.

Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Preparing Teachers for the Chicago Public Schools. In

S. Feiman–Nemser, E. Tamir, & K. Hammerness, (Eds.), Inspiring Teaching: Preparing

Teachers to Succeed in Mission–Driven Schools. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

Educational Press.

Matsko, K. K., Ronfeldt, M., Greene H., Klugman, J., Reininger, M., & Brockman S. (2018).

Cooperating Teacher as Model and Coach: What Leads to Student Teachers’ Perceptions

of Preparedness? Manuscript conditionally accepted. Journal of teacher education.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and

student achievement. Economics of education review, 13(2), 125-145.

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.

Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for

Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:

The National Academies Press.

23

Papay, J. P., West, M. R., Fullerton, J. B., & Kane, T. J. (2011). Does practice-based teacher

preparation increase student achievement? Early evidence from the Boston Teacher

Residency (No. w17646). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2016). Easy in, Easy out: Are Alternatively Certified Teachers

Turning Over at Increased Rates?. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086-

1125.

Ronfeldt, M., Matsko, K.K., Greene Nolan, H., & Reininger, M. (2018). Who knows if our

teachers are prepared? Three different perspectives on graduates’ instructional readiness

and the features of preservice preparation that predict them (CEPA Working Paper No.18-

01). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Educational Policy Analysis:

http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp18-01.

Ronfeldt, M., Matsko, K.K., Greene Nolan, H., & Reininger, M. (2018). Who Knows if our

Teachers are Prepared? Three Different Perspectives on Graduates' Instructional

Readiness and the Features of Preservice Preparation that Predict them. Working Paper.

Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/who-knows-if-our-teachers-are-prepared-

three-different-perspectives-graduates-instructional-readiness-and-features-preservice-

preparation-predict-them

Ronfeldt, M. & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher

Education, 28(8), 1091-1106.

Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. (2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? Examining

an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-46.

Stoddart,T. & Floden, R. (1995). Traditional and Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification:

Issues, Assumptions and Misconceptions. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. Gomez

(Eds.), Currents of Reform in Preservice Teacher Education. New York Teacher’s

College Press.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2013). Preparing and

Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The Secretary’s Ninth Report on Teacher Quality,

Washington, D.C. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/index.html VILLEGAS, A. M. and LUCAS, T. F. (2004), Diversifying the Teacher Workforce: A Retrospective and

Prospective Analysis. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103: 70-104.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004.tb00031.x

Walsh, K. & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative Certification Isn’t Alternative. National Council on

Teacher Quality. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/p/tqb/docs/Alternative_Certification_Isnt_Alternative_20071113021230.pdf

Wilson, S.W, Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current

knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Research report prepared for the U.S.

Department of Education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-

2001.pdf

Wilson, S. & Tamir, E. (2008). The Evolving Field of Teacher Education. In M. Cohcrane Smith,

S. Nemser, & D.J.McIntyre (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd

Edition (pp.908-935). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Zeichner, K.M., & Conklin, H.G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith and

K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on

research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24

Zeichner, K. & Conklin, H. (2008). Teacher Education Programs.” In M. Cochran-Smith & K.

Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research

and Teacher Education. Routledge.

Zeichner, K. & Hutchinson, E. A. (2008). The Development of Alternative Certification Policies

and Programs in the United States. In P. Grossman and S. Loeb (Eds.), Alternate routes to

teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard

Education Press.

25

TABLES

Table 1. Intended Differences Between Teacher Preparation Pathways

Traditional Pathways Traditional programs, the most common form of teacher preparation,

are housed in colleges or universities and result in a BA (4 year) or

MAT (2 year) degree. Traditional programs generally frontload

foundations and methods coursework and culminate with a clinical

experience called student teaching, which typically runs a semester

(generally 16 weeks) or less. Most traditional programs offer

“universal” preparation that is designed to prepare candidates to teach

in any context.

Alternative Pathways Pathways that provide a fast-track to licensure are typically referred to

as alternative routes, or alternatives to more traditional approaches to

preparation These programs are post-baccalaureate programs that

historically put more emphasis on recruitment, less on preparation

when compared to programs from other pathways, and often provide

in-service induction/mentoring support. An underlying assumption is

that, by recruiting promising/talented individuals, extended preparation

may not be necessary. Thus, these programs are also marked by

abbreviated pre-service preparation and early-entry as teacher of

record. Alternative certification programs are often accompanied by

course credits towards a master’s degree. They typically partner with

school districts and universities, but are not necessarily housed within a

university. (Humphrey and Wechsler, 2008)

Residency Pathways Inspired by the medical residency model, this teacher preparation

pathway involves partnership with districts to prepare for a particular

geographic region or context. Residencies provide candidates with a

year-long, in-school “residency” in which they learn to teach alongside

a teacher-mentor, typically in a high-need classroom. While residency

programs emphasize time in schools as a significant part of the

preparation process, residents also simultaneously take coursework that

is designed to correspond with ongoing work in the school. Residencies

are often in the form of master’s level programs with a 12-15 month

duration and are often accompanied by a post-residency work

requirement and induction programming. (Berry, Montgomery, Snyder,

2009; https://nctresidencies.org/about/residency-model-teacher-mentor-

programs/).

Table 2. Preservice Student Teacher Survey Response

Preservice Student Teachers Fall Spring Summer

Number of unique PSTs in roster 411 612 134

Number of respondents* 250 420 105

Number of completions 237 398 95

Response Rate (all respondents) 0.608 0.686 0.784

Response Rate (only completions) 0.577 0.650 0.709

Note: Respondents are defined as any student teacher that responded to at least one survey item. Completions are

defined as respondents who completed the survey. Some PSTs responded to both fall and spring surveys.

26

Table 3: Mentor Teacher Survey Response

Mentor Teachers Fall Spring Summer

Number of unique MTs in roster 349 593 26

Number of respondents* 223 463 19

Number of completions 203 427 18

Response Rate (all respondents) 0.639 0.781 0.731

Response Rate (only completions) 0.582 0.720 0.692

Note: Respondents are defined as any mentor teacher that responded to at least one survey item. Completions are

defined as respondents who completed the survey. Some MTs responded to both fall and spring surveys.

Table 4. Characteristics of full sample of student teachers and mentor teachers in CPS in 2015-2016

Student Teacher Characteristics Mentor Teacher Characteristics

Percent N Percent N

Female 76.0% 721 80.9% 465

White 56.6% 763 56.7% 526

Latino 18.7% 763 18.6% 526

Multiracial/Nat. Am./Other Race 10.2% 763 8.2% 526

Black 9.8% 763 9.7% 526

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.6% 763 5.7% 526

CPS graduate 19.2% 720 22.6% 526

Parent 10.4% 720 56.3% 469

Education major 48.5% 763 53.2% 526

Majored in subject now teaching 60.6% 721 76.4% 471

Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)

Age 25.4 (5.8) 718 39.3 (10.1) 465

Undergraduate GPA 3.5 (0.4) 721 -- --

Note: Descriptives in this table are based on an analytic sample of 533 mentors and 767 PSTs for whom pathway

information was available. In order to be included in this analysis, an MT needed to both have responded to a survey

and have mentored a PST who could be linked to a program and pathway. Of the 705 MTs who responded to the

survey, 165 had mentored PSTs who did not complete the survey; of the remaining 540 MTs, 7 were linked to PSTs

who had completed the survey but did not identify their program. Thus, 533 MTs were included in our analytic

sample. About 7 MTs did not answer questions about their background, bringing the maximum sample reflected in

Table 4 to 526.

Table 5a: Focal Features of Preparation

(1) Field Placement School Characteristics Data Source

Grade level and subject of placement PST Surveys (15-16)

TC Perceptions of School Working Conditions PST Surveys (15-16)

(2) Mentoring Teacher / Mentoring Characteristics Data Source

Demographic information (age, gender, race/ethnicity, parent, CPS graduate, age) MT Surveys (15-16)

Years of teaching experience MT Surveys (15-16)

27

Degrees, whether majored in education and/or subject teaching MT Surveys (15-16)

Prior experience as mentor teacher (with individual mentees and with programs) MT Surveys (15-16)

Reasons for serving as a mentor MT Surveys (15-16)

Mentor teachers' perceptions of the quality and frequency of their

coaching/mentoring

MT Surveys (15-16) -

Rasch measures

Teacher candidates' perceptions of the quality and frequency of coaching/mentoring,

of the mentor’s teaching effectiveness, and of the TEP

PST Surveys (15-16) –

Rasch measures

Whether mentor received pay, and if so how much/what type MT Surveys (15-16)

Whether mentor received training or support in the role, or wished for more MT Surveys (15-16)

(3) Features of Student Teaching Data Source

Amount of student teaching PST Surveys (15-16)

Amount and quality of pre-student teaching field experience PST Surveys (15-16)

Indicator for who was primarily responsible for selecting field placement (student

teacher, program director/faculty, K-12 school administrator) and mentor teacher

PST Surveys (15-16)

Role during student teaching (lead teacher, co-teacher, observational) PST Surveys (15-16)

Indicator for field instructor’s background (member of TEP, member of FPS) PST Surveys (15-16)

(4) Non-student teaching features of preparation Data Source

Coursework: Amount, timing, and quality of coursework (methods, content, etc.) PST Surveys (15-16)

Perception of learning a lot from the program, of program coherence PST Surveys (15-16)

Duration of program (in months) if completed full-time PST Surveys (15-16)

Primary reasons for choosing the preparation program PST Surveys (15-16)

(5) Preservice Student Teacher Characteristics

Gender, race/ethnicity, age, prior teaching experience, GPA, whether a graduate of

CPS, whether a parent.

PST Surveys (15-16)

(6) Post-Student Teaching Feelings Of Preparedness And Aspirations Data Source

Feeling of preparedness for instructional domains of teaching PST Surveys (15-16) –

Rasch measures

Planned number of years teaching in different contexts PST Surveys (15-16)

Preferences for a future teaching position (e.g. close to home, many low-achieving

students)

PST Surveys (15-16)

(7) PST Characteristics Data Source

Demographic information (gender, race, parent, CPS graduate) PST Surveys (15-16)

Prior teaching experience PST Surveys (15-16)

Whether education or subject specific major PST Surveys (15-16)

GPA PST Surveys (15-16)

28

Table 5b: PST Perceptions of Preparedness

Table 6a: Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of PST Characteristics as a Function of Pathway

Note: Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given PST characteristic is modeled as a function of

a pathway indicator (e.g. traditional, alternative, or residency). Each column shows regression coefficients for a

given pathway predicting a given PST characteristic compared to the other two pathways combined; traditional

estimates are compared to non-traditional pathways consisting of alternative + residency, alternative estimates are

compared to non-alternative pathway consisting of traditional + residency, and residency estimates are compared to

non-residency pathway consisting of traditional + alternative. Sample sizes indicate the total sample across all

pathways for each outcome. All estimates are based on on models at the PST level.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Model estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST characteristics that are given as

percentages (rather than as means).

Planning and Preparation Classroom Environment

(PST reliability=.935; PST separation=3.797, PST

variance= 23.583)

(PST reliability=.906; PST separation=3.098, PST

variance=25.626)

Planning Lessons Developing Relationships With Students

Designing student assessments Managing Students' Behaviors

Selecting instructional Outcomes Implementing Classroom Routines & Procedures

Using results from Assessments to Improve Teaching

Anticipating student misconceptions about content when

planning for class

Developing Classroom Communities for Learning

Instruction Professional Responsibilities

(PST Reliability = .935; PST separation=3.797, PST

variance=24.583)

(PST reliability = .907; PST separation=3.127; PST

variance=16.138)

Traditional Pathway

(vs. Non-Traditional)

Alternative Pathway

(vs. Non-Alternative)

Residency Pathway

(vs. Non-Residency)

PST Characteristic

Mean/%

Model

Estimate Mean/%

Model

Estimate Mean/%

Model Estimate

n

Male 20.5% 0.64 (0.18) 33.3% 1.38 (0.66) 28.6% 1.43 (0.61) 720

Female 78.2% 1.56 (0.41) 64.6% 0.60 (0.22) 71.4% 0.78 (0.32) 720

Asian 6.2% 0.75 (0.24) 9.0% 1.44 (0.53) 8.0% 0.86 (0.42) 763

Black 7.1% 0.31** (0.14) 18.0% 4.57* (2.87) 17.2% 1.71 (1.12) 763

Latino 20.0% 1.12 (0.46) 15.3% 0.88 (0.51) 14.9% 0.93 (0.48) 763

White 60.5% 1.92 (0.77) 49.5% 0.45 (0.26) 54.0% 0.69 (0.37) 763

Other/Multi/Nat. Am. 11.0% 1.40 (0.41) 5.4% 0.45 (0.20) 11.5% 1.31 (0.58) 763

CPS Graduate 21.4% 1.21 (0.64) 12.2% 1.16 (0.86) 13.1% 0.70 (0.46) 719

Undergraduate GPA (4-pt) 3.5 0.13* (0.05) 3.5 -0.02 (0.08) 3.3 -0.18*** (0.05) 720

Education Major 58.9% 4.67** (2.44) 13.5% 0.29 (0.24) 26.4% 0.26 (0.19) 763

Subject Area Major 67.3% 2.94** (1.09) 35.7% 0.28* (0.17) 47.6% 0.51 (0.28) 720

Prior Teaching Experience 29.1% 0.52** (0.11) 41.8% 2.42 (1.24) 47.6% 1.59 (0.65) 719

Parent 11.0% 0.69 (0.42) 9.2% 2.98 (2.60) 9.5% 0.52 (0.43) 719

29

Table 6b: Top five reasons PSTs reported for choosing their pathway

Note: Responses choices beyond those noted in the table include: Allows part-time student option; Has fewer

admissions barriers; Guarantees job after graduation; Has a strong reputation; Known to give specialized training;

Results in a degree; Only one that admitted me; Other (explain). Most frequent fill-in responses to “other” reasons for

selecting pathway were mission alignment, only option available with employment, dual benefits of fast track and

degree providing).

Traditional (n=537) Alternative (n=98) Residency (n=85)

Reason

Rank Reason N (%) Reason N (%) Reason N (%)

1 Strong reputation 222

(41.3%) Other

20

(20.4%)

Allowed yearlong

student

teaching/residency

21

(24.7%)

2 Less expensive 61

(11.4%) Strong reputation

17

(17.3%) Faster to complete

15

(17.6%)

3 Gives training in

my area

60

(11.2%)

Has financial

aid/support

11

(11.2%)

Gives training in my

area

10

(11.8%)

4 Has financial

aid/support

54

(10.1%)

Teach temporarily

before pursuing

other career

10

(10.2%) Strong reputation

9

(10.6%)

5 Results in a degree 43

(8.0%) Less expensive

9

(9.2%) Results in a degree

9

(10.6%)

30

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of Features of Preparation as a Function of Pathway

Traditional Pathway

(vs. Non-Traditional)

Alternative Pathway

(vs. Non-Alternative)

Residency Pathway

(vs. Non-Residency)

Mean/%

Model

Estimate Mean/%

Model

Estimate Mean/%

Model Estimate

n

Structural Features of Preparation

Program at least 15 months long 76.8% 2.31 (1.85) 13.3% 0.20 (0.22) 34.5% 0.93 (0.98) 749

Completed at least seven methods courses 33.1% 2.49** (0.73) 10.2% 0.27** (0.11) 25.3% 0.57 (0.25) 754

Completed most courses prior to clinical placement 92.2% 21.0*** (10.1) 29.2% 0.14 (0.18) 80.5% 0.05*** (0.04) 665

Placement at least 15 weeks long 63.2% 0.77 (0.76) 8.1% 0.03* (0.04) 94.3% 27.6* (38.8) 730

Perceived program coherence^ 60.1% 2.18*** (0.38) 44.4% 0.66 (0.27) 31.4% 0.42* (0.14) 724

Perceived learning from placement^ 72.5% 2.08*** (0.37) 54.5% 0.50* (0.15) 58.1% 0.71 (0.25) 724

Completed pre-student teaching field placement 96.9% 50.2*** (45.1) 8.7% 0.01*** (0.01) 40.7% 0.08 (0.13) 738

Student Taught: PreK-Grade 5 58.0% 1.20 (0.36) 55.0% 1.07 (0.46) 59.8% 0.67 (0.29) 767

Student Taught: Grade 6-8 23.7% 1.04 (0.39) 18.0% 0.59 (0.31) 30.0% 1.38 (0.61) 767

Student Taught: Grade 9-12 33.2% 1.43 (0.62) 24.3% 0.41 (0.28) 25.3% 1.12 (0.65) 767

Student Taught: All Subjects / Self-Contained 30.4% 1.55 (0.38) 27.9% 1.13 (0.42) 13.8% 0.40** (0.14) 767

Student Taught: ELA or Social Studies 26.7% 0.97 (0.19) 21.6% 0.72 (0.18) 35.6% 1.51 (0.36) 767

Student Taught: Math or Science 18.3% 0.37*** (0.10) 31.5% 1.66 (0.76) 40.2% 3.34*** (1.21) 767

Student Taught: Arts, Foreign Language, P.E. 13.9% 4.09* (2.79) 7.2% 0.46 (0.45) 5.7% 0.14 (0.14) 767

Student Taught: Special Education or ESL 6.2% 1.20 (1.03) 0.9% 0.24 (0.34) 4.6% 1.96 (1.91) 767

Felt placement school teachers were collaborative^ 56.1% 1.60 (0.39) 37.4% 0.53* (0.17) 47.1% 0.80 (0.28) 728

Felt welcome at placement school faculty meetings^ 59.6% 1.73* (0.47) 29.3% 0.28*** (0.07) 56.3% 1.15 (0.43) 728

Felt included in placement school activities^ 56.1% 1.86* (0.50) 30.3% 0.43* (0.16) 44.8% 0.79 (0.30) 728

Felt placement school admin. was supportive^ 39.9% 1.56 (0.45) 33.3% 1.10 (0.47) 25.6% 0.49* (0.17) 727

Mentors and Mentoring Experience

Male 18.4% 1.17 (0.43) 31.6% 1.03 (0.59) 15.3% 0.78 (0.36) 456

Female 80.6% 0.80 (0.30) 68.4% 1.03 (0.59) 84.7% 1.37 (0.63) 456

Asian 4.9% 0.44 (0.22) 11.4% 2.61 (1.77) 7.4% 1.79 (1.08) 517

Black 8.7% 0.56 (0.25) 17.7% 3.19* (1.86) 11.8% 0.95 (0.62) 517

Latino 19.4% 1.28 (0.57) 11.4% 0.37 (0.31) 14.7% 1.18 (0.64) 517

White 58.1% 1.42 (0.39) 49.4% 0.53 (0.23) 55.9% 0.86 (0.29) 517

Other/Multi/Nat. Am. 7.4% 0.63 (0.26) 8.9% 1.03 (0.78) 10.3% 1.86 (0.88) 517

CPS Graduate 23.2% 1.24 (0.45) 16.9% 1.68 (0.85) 11.7% 0.46 (0.23) 459

Education Major 54.5% 1.20 (0.35) 30.4% 1.08 (0.49) 52.9% 0.73 (0.26) 517

Subject Area Major 77.7% 1.18 (0.37) 75.3% 0.63 (0.30) 78.3% 1.04 (0.41) 462

Parent 58.7% 2.18** (0.63) 15.6% 0.36* (0.18) 43.1% 0.62 (0.24) 460

Post-Baccalaureate Degree 71.5% 0.61 (0.20) 84.8% 0.77 (0.35) 85.3% 2.71* (1.22) 517

31

Age (years) 40.0 5.26** (1.73) 28.8 -5.02 (3.05) 35.4 -4.67 (2.49) 465

Over ten years teaching experience generally 60.0% 2.53*** (0.70) 9.1% 0.33* (0.16) 41.7% 0.48* (0.16) 462

Over ten years teaching experience in CPS 53.6% 2.58*** (0.74) 6.5% 0.27* (0.14) 36.7% 0.50 (0.19) 464

First-time serving as MT 23.0% 1.15 (0.36) 11.4% 1.11 (0.54) 17.6% 0.77 (0.30) 521

Worked with exactly one TEP before 11.3% 0.26*** (0.09) 25.3% 1.10 (0.90) 42.6% 5.53*** (1.81) 521

Worked with multiple TEPs before 64.3% 2.11** (0.57) 63.3% 0.88 (0.43) 39.7% 0.36** (0.11) 521

Worked with one to five PSTs before 53.2% 1.48 (0.53) 6.3% 0.21** (0.12) 58.8% 1.42 (0.61) 521

Worked with six or more PSTs before 22.3% 0.55 (0.23) 82.3% 4.71** (2.49) 23.5% 0.78 (0.45) 521

Received professional development for mentoring 9.6% 0.03*** (0.02) 64.6% 3.28 (5.29) 61.8% 58.1*** (53.2) 521

Served as MT because: repays profession 29.6% 1.04 (0.31) 46.8% 2.58* (1.08) 16.2% 0.47 (0.19) 521

Served as MT because: helps relieve teaching load 1.3% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 521

Served as MT because: helps students 21.7% 1.87 (0.70) 3.8% 0.55 (0.35) 13.2% 0.55 (0.25) 521

Served as MT because: helps the TEP 3.3% 3.49 (3.60) 0.0% - 2.0% 0.50 (0.52) 521

Served as MT because: receive compensation 4.0% 0.15 (0.16) 0.0% - 4.4% 10.5* (10.6) 521

Served as MT because: enjoy it 15.7% 0.60 (0.20) 24.1% 1.29 (0.71) 29.4% 1.77 (0.67) 521

Served as MT because: admin. asked 7.2% 6.62 (7.40) 7.6% 0.54 (0.67) 1.5% - 521

Served as MT because: helps me improve 16.4% 0.82 (0.29) 7.6% 0.20 (0.21) 20.6% 2.08 (0.81) 521

Received compensation for being MT 15.1% 0.11* (0.12) 32.9% 5.48 (9.96) 44.1% 8.69 (11.8) 521

Amount of compensation received ($) 226 -728** (240) 321 -86 (538) 1,793 981*** (231) 80

Perceptions of Mentoring

PST: Conversations with MT about teaching^ 4.4 0.25 (0.30) 4.5 0.13 (0.37) 3.8 -0.63 (0.40) 727

PST: MT’s instructional effectiveness^ 4.7 0.49 (0.37) 4.8 0.08 (0.50) 3.9 -0.85 (0.45) 726

PST: MT’s overall mentoring support and

feedback^

3.8 0.56* (0.26) 3.3 -0.40 (0.33) 3.2 -0.56 (0.35) 730

PST: Frequency of MT’s feedback^ 3.0 -1.50***

(0.37)

4.9 1.74*** (0.47) 4.1 0.63 (0.65) 732

PST: MT’s job search assistance^ -0.5 1.91*** (0.43) -3.2 -2.28***

(0.62)

-1.7 -1.31 (0.71) 728

PST: Frequency of MT’s mentoring activities^ -0.1 0.13 (0.20) -0.9 -0.82***

(0.21)

0.3 0.47* (0.23) 634

MT: Domain-specific mentoring^ 5.7 1.05** (0.39) 3.5 -0.22 (0.57) 5.5 -2.08*** (0.37) 576

MT: Frequency of feedback given to PST^ 3.3 -0.75** (0.25) 3.9 0.77* (0.37) 4.2 0.50 (0.45) 579

MT: Job search assistance given to PST^ -1.6 2.35*** (0.43) -5.0 -1.14 (0.78) -2.8 -3.28*** (0.39) 576

MT: Frequency and responsiveness of

observations^

6.4 0.82 (0.45) 4.6 0.33 (0.60) 6.9 -1.85*** (0.40) 574

Note: Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given feature of preparation is modeled as

a function of a pathway indicator (e.g. traditional, alternative, or residency). Each column shows regression

coefficients for a given pathway predicting a given feature of preparation compared to the other two

pathways combined; traditional estimates are compared to non-traditional pathways consisting of

alternative + residency, alternative estimates are compared to non-alternative pathway consisting of

traditional + residency, and residency estimates are compared to non-residency pathway consisting of

traditional + alternative. Sample sizes indicate the total sample across all pathways for each outcome.

Structural features and perceptions of mentoring are modeled at the PST level, whereas mentors and

mentoring experience are modeled at the CT level. Model estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST

characteristics that are given as percentages (rather than as means).

^These items are Rasch measures created from PST and CT survey items. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of PST Self-Perceived Preparedness and Career

Intentions as a Function of Pathway

Traditional Pathway

(vs. Non-Traditional)

Alternative Pathway

(vs. Non-Alternative)

Residency Pathway

(vs. Non-Residency)

Mean/%

Model Estimate

Mean/%

Model Estimate

Mean/%

Model

Estimate n

PST Self-Perceived Preparedness

Overall^ 0.1 0.45** (0.17) -0.7 -0.50 (0.26) -0.1 -0.32 (0.23) 749

Planning & Preparation 5.1 2.11* (0.85) 0.4 -2.75* (1.21) 4.5 -1.25 (1.15) 748

Instruction 6.2 2.54*** (0.71) 2.4 -2.43* (1.11) 4.8 -2.13* (1.02) 744

Environment 8.2 1.80* (0.85) 4.6 -2.03 (1.24) 7.5 -1.25 (1.13) 745

Professional Responsibilities 3.7 1.38* (0.59) 1.2 -1.96* (0.81) 3.1 -0.65 (0.82) 741

Urban Teaching 5.7 1.87** (0.64) 2.6 -2.41** (0.85) 4.7 -1.12 (0.93) 737

Common Core 13.2 6.87** (2.40) -1.5 -7.61* (3.67) 9.9 -4.94 (3.38) 734

Career Intentions

Planning over ten years teaching

generally

65.8% 3.21*** (1.13) 19.2% 0.25** (0.13) 46.5% 0.41 (0.22) 507

Planning over ten years teaching

in CPS

32.1% 0.76 (0.34) 16.3% 0.88 (0.55) 33.3% 1.63 (0.85) 509

A top-five desired characteristic of future job included:

Teaching low-income students 7.4% 0.43** (0.12) 13.0% 1.69 (0.79) 17.2% 2.25* (0.71) 759

Teaching ELL students 8.9% 1.66 (0.65) 8.3% 1.01 (0.44) 2.3% 0.24 (0.18) 759

Teaching Latino students 7.1% 0.60 (0.26) 10.2% 1.46 (0.80) 9.2% 1.65 (0.91) 759

Teaching Black students 3.5% 0.24*** (0.09) 8.3% 1.68 (1.24) 19.5% 4.44** (2.11) 759

Teaching low-achieving

students

20.4% 0.32*** (0.09) 45.4% 1.77 (0.98) 50.6% 3.50** (1.48) 759

Note: Each cell represents the results from one model in which a given outcome is modeled as a function of

a pathway indicator (e.g. traditional, alternative, or residency). Each column shows regression coefficients

for a given pathway predicting a given outcome compared to the other two pathways combined; traditional

estimates are compared to non-traditional pathways consisting of alternative + residency, alternative

estimates are compared to non-alternative pathway consisting of traditional + residency, and residency

estimates are compared to non-residency pathway consisting of traditional + alternative. Sample sizes

indicate the total sample across all pathways for each outcome. ^Overall preparedness is a precision-

weighted standardized score based on the first four domains: planning, instruction, environment, and

professional responsibilities. All preparedness measures are Rasch measures based on survey items;

domain-specific measures have not been standardized, but the overall measure draws on standardized

versions and is standardized. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. All models are at the PST level. Model

estimates are given in odds ratios for all PST characteristics that are given as percentages (rather than as

means).

Appendix Table 1: Institutions represented in our sample by pathway and number of survey

respondents

Pathway Institutions Represented in Sample N N

Traditional

(N=569)

Northeastern Illinois University 106 Roosevelt University 17

University of Illinois at Chicago 94 Columbia College Chicago 12

DePaul University 76 Chicago Semester 13

Loyola University Chicago 48 Chicago Center for Urban Life and

Culture

11

Illinois State University 26 University of Illinois Urbana-

Champaign

9

National Louis University 26 St. Xavier University 9

Michigan State University 26 North Park University 8

Western Illinois University 6 Northwestern University 8

Chicago State University 7 VanderCook College 7

School of the Art Institute of Chicago 5 Other/Unknown 33

Wheaton College 3 Christian College 2

Eastern Illinois University 1 Dominican University 1

Illinois Institute of Technology 5 Kendall College 2

Elmhurst 5 Erikson Institute 3

Alternative

(N=111)

Teach for America 99

Grand Canyon University 11

Western Governors University 1

Residency

(N=87)

Academy for Urban School

Leadership/National Louis or DePaul

Universities

58

Urban Teacher Education

Program/University of Chicago

20

RELAY Graduate School 6

Illinois State University/Teacher Pipeline 3

Appendix Table 2: Comparison of Mentor Teachers in the Analytic Sample (n=533) vs. those in Non-

Analytic Sample (n=172)

Analytic Sample (n=533) Non-Analytic Sample (n=172) Difference/Chi2

Female 465 80.9% 154 77.9% 0.63

White 527 56.6% 172 58.1% 0.13

Latino 527 18.6% 172 16.3% 0.47

Other 527 8.2% 172 7.6% 0.06

Black 527 9.7% 172 9.9% 0.01

Asian 527 5.7% 172 5.2% 0.05

CPS graduate 568 22.7% 157 24.8% 0.32

Parent 469 56.5% 157 63.1% 2.08

Education

major

527 52.9% 172 50.6% 0.29

Teaching

subject major

471 76.4% 157 79.6% 0.68

Age 465 39.3 156 39.1 0.23

Note: The 172 mentors not in our analytic sample were linked to PSTs without available pathway

information, who were therefore dropped from our analysis.

Appendix Table 3: Rasch Mentoring Measures

PST: Mentor’s teaching effectiveness in

instructional domains

MT: Mentoring effectiveness in instructional

domains

Reliability = 0.802; separation = 2.011;

variance=10.608)

How effectively did mentor…

PST: teach in cult. resp. ways?

PST: plan and prepare?

PST: create/maintain pos. environment?

PST: model professional responsibility?

PST: deliver instruction.?

(Reliability = 0.758; separation=1.771;

variance=7.113)

How effectively was your mentoring…

MT: in planning lessons?

MT: in Common Core?

MT: in culturally responsive teaching?

MT: in delivering instruction?

MT: in creating/maintaining positive classroom

environment?

MT: in modeling professionalism?

PST: Overall evaluation of mentor feedback,

observations, and relationship

MT: Frequency/Quality feedback provided

(Reliability = 0.913; separation=3.242; variance =

9.995)

Mentor…

PST: gave feedback consistent with field instructor

PST: provided PST with feedback often enough

PST: let PST take instructional risks

PST: gave feedback that helped PST learn to teach

PST: had appropriate expectations of PST

PST: allowed PST to make instructional decisions

PST: observed PST teach often enough

PST: was available to help if needed

(Reliability = 0.780, separation=1.885,

variance=5.941)

How often in your feedback did you…

MT: share specific data?

MT: refer to areas for improvement?

MT: ask reflective quest?

MT: offer general observations?

MT: offer concrete suggestions for improvement?

MT: refer to areas of strengths?

PST: Frequency/Responsiveness Feedback MT: Job Search Assistance Received

(Reliability = 0.843; separation=2.314;

variance=9.352)

How often the mentor…

PST: asked reflective questions

PST: referred to specific areas for improve.

PST: referred to specific things done well

PST: gave concrete suggestions

PST: offered general observations

(Reliability = 0.896, separation=2.928,

variance=11.765)

How often you…

MT: gave PST feedback on resume?

MT: helped PST prepare for an interview?

MT: discussed with PST job openings at FPS?

MT: discussed job openings beyond FPS?

MT: offered PST advice on jobs to apply for?

PST: Job Search Assistance Received MT: Frequency/Responsiveness Feedback

(Reliability = 0.866; separation=2.540;

variance=10.804)

How often the mentor…

PST: gave advice on types of jobs to apply?

PST: discussed specific job openings at FPS?

PST: discussed specific job openings beyond FPS?

(Reliability = 0.759, separation=1.776,

variance=11.651)

Agree/disagree

MT: My feedback was consistent with my PST's

field instructor’s feedback

MT: My feedback helped my PST learn to teach

PST: offered feedback on PSTs resume?

PST: helped PST prepare for an interview?

MT: I provided my PST feedback frequently

enough

MT: I observed my PST teach frequently enough

PST: Amount learned in conversation with

mentor about instructional domains

MT: Mentor Training and Support

(Reliability = 0.837;

separation=2.267;variance=11.978)

How much did you learn in conversations with

your mentor about…

PST: Common Core ?

PST: Culturally responsive teaching

PST: Planning and preparation

PST: Professional responsibilities

PST: Positive classroom environment

PST: Delivering instruction

(Reliability = 0.176; separation=0.462

;variance=4.139)

Training/support received from TEP:

MT: training on how to mentor my student teacher

MT: PD in mentoring/coaching strategies

MT: someone from program explained

expectations

MT: orientation meeting for MTs

MT: met with field instructor

MT: written information

PST: Frequency of mentoring activities

(Reliability = 0.700 separation=1.527;

variance=1.913)

How often PST and mentor…

PST: co-designed lessons

PST: analyzed student work

PST: co-taught lessons

PST: mentor asked PST to practice something

specific

PST: shared data/evidence about lessons taught

PST: mentor asked PST to observe him/her

Note: Both item difficulties and respondent abilities are placed on the same scale and expressed in

logits. Items within each measure are listed from most difficult to easiest to endorse.