Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study by texaseducation

TEXAS EDUCATOR PREPARATION PATHWAYS STUDY

DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING THE TEXAS EDUCATOR WORKFORCE

Acknowledgments We are grateful to esteemed members of the Steering Committee for their tireless commitment to supporting the PK-12 system, improving outcomes for students, and shining a bright light on the challenges faced by teachers and educational leaders in service to students.

Steering Committee Members

Lead Researchers (bios in appendix)

John Fitzpatrick, Steering Committee Chair Executive Director, Educate Texas

Michael Marder, PhD Co-Founder of UTeach Natural Sciences and Professor, Department of Physics, College of Natural Science, UT Austin

Shari Albright President, Charles Butt Foundation Sarah Beal Executive Director, US PREP National Center Susan Dawson President and Executive Director, E3 Alliance Laila Ferris Principal, El Paso ISD Julieta V. García Professor, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Charles Glover Vice President of Grants, The Meadows Foundation Cecilia Gutierrez Teacher/Education Program Advisor at Akins High School Cassandra Herring Founder, President, and CEO Branch Alliance for Educator Diversity Alejandra Ortega Assistant Principal, Houston ISD

Pedro Reyes, PhD Executive Director of the ERC and Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, College of Education, UT Austin Jill Marshall, PhD Co-director of UTeach, and Associate Professor of STEM Education and Physics, UT Austin Celeste Alexander, PhD Director, Education Research Center (ERC), UT Austin Charles R. Martinez, Jr., Ex Officio committee member Dean and Professor, UT Austin, College of Education Beth Maloch, Ex Officio committee member Senior Associate Dean, UT Austin, College of Education

A special thanks to Dr. Laura Torres, Director, Data Analytics, Assessment and Translational Research, for her support in translating the findings of the study in this report.

Wynn Rosser President and CEO, T.L.L. Temple Foundation Celina Estrada Thomas Superintendent, Hutto ISD

Educate Texas Educate Texas, an initiative of Communities Foundation of Texas, is a trusted change agent in Texas education, working through programs and policies to ensure every Texas student is prepared in the school, in the workforce, and in life. Since 2003, Educate Texas has partnered with school districts, institutions of higher education, businesses, community and civic organizations, state agencies, and policymakers to strengthen the public and higher education systems for all Texas students. Learn more at edtx.org

2 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

Letter from the Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study Leads John Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Educate Texas Charles R. Martinez, Jr., Dean, College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin

No responsibility of the state is more important than ensuring that the PK-12 public education system allows all Texas students to reach their potential. We know that the quality of teacher preparation is one of the most important predictors of student success. At the same time, Texas continues to see a mass exodus of teachers leaving the profession for a host of reasons—poor pay, challenging teaching conditions, and lack of support and career development—putting pressure on teacher preparation programs to respond to the shortage. Rightfully, traditional, university-based teacher preparation programs work to safeguard the quality of their programs, which often include essential training elements such as high doses of supervised pre-service teaching, even as they endeavor to respond to the shortage. Yet school leaders still need to hire teachers to fill the gap, and this has increasingly led to the rise of nonuniversity-based alternative certification programs. Little is known about differences between traditional, university-based certification programs and alternative certification programs in terms of outcomes for students and teachers. Undoubtedly, there are highly effective university-based programs and alternative certification programs, just as there are programs of both varieties that are lower quality. Both universitybased and alternative certification programs appeal to particular teacher candidates, which suggests that there may be important innovations to identify in both types of programs. In addition, we know that the education system in Texas continues to need better supported teachers to ensure that all students meet their potential, and to provide the strongest educator preparation experience possible so that teachers are ready for the challenges they will face in the classroom.

Big questions loom on the horizon for Texas regarding teacher certification. To what extent does preparation pathway matter in terms of teaching excellence? What are the unique characteristics of teacher preparation programs that lead to better outcomes for students and teacher preparation and retention landscape in Texas? As public education leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders grapple with these and other questions, there has never been a more urgent moment for Texas to develop and sustain pathways into teaching. In the wake of COVID-19, a chronic crisis in Texas is likely to become a catastrophe if we fail to respond to the needs of current and future teachers. The stakes for an entire generation of Texas students could not be higher.

Charles R. Martinez, Jr., Ph.D. Dean, College of Education The University of Texas at Austin

John Fitzpatrick Executive Director Educate Texas

Executive Summary

We know that educator preparation matters when it comes to teacher retention and effectiveness, and— more importantly— when it comes to student outcomes.

The preparation, placement, and retention of PreK-12 teachers is essential to ensuring the success of the public education system. Yet, persistent trends in Texas and throughout the U.S. point to significant challenges in ensuring the strength of the teacher workforce. In Texas, the PreK-12 system loses about 10% of its teachers in any given year 1. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen much greater teacher attrition rates. Historically, one response to the growing teacher shortage in Texas has been the development of many different pathways into the profession for those wishing to enter PreK-12 classrooms— more teachers certified through alternative pathways than any other state by a considerable margin.

1 Texas Education Agency. (2021, May). Public education information management system (PEIMS), Employed Teacher Attrition and New Hires 2006-08 through 2020-21 report. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/employed-teacher-attrition-and-new-hires-tgs210519.pdf

Student learning differed based on teacher certification programs.

Months of learning: Months of learning is a measure of how much students learned during a given school year based on their scores on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam. Students whose scores go up by more than expected are said to gain additional months of learning.

Learning gaps cumulate over time.

Students from low-income households are more likely to get assigned alternatively certified teachers, and by 9th grade are a year behind their wealthier peers.

4 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

Additional months of learning in 9th grade English language arts when student had teachers from a university certification program compared to alternatively certification program.

Additional months of learning in 9th grade Math when student had teachers from not-forprofit program compared to for-profit program.

Not-for profit EPPs - universities, colleges, school districts, schools, and educational service centers.

University-certified teachers - those who were prepared in a Texas university educator preparation program and went through student-teaching, including post-baccalaureate degree-holders.

For-profit EPPs - all companies that were excluded from the not-for-profit definition above.

Alternative certified teachers - those who were not prepared in a Texas university educator preparation program.

Over a nine-year period, university-certified teachers had a 24% higher retention rate than alternatively certified teachers. Alternatively certified teachers remained in field over a nineyear period.

Universitycertified teachers remained in field over a nine-year period.

Fewer teachers are coming from Texas universities. On our current course, certification of middle and high school teachers from Texas universities will continue to drop and more teachers will come from alternative certification programs. 14,000 12,000

14,000

University-certified middle and high school teachers

12,000

10,000 8,000 6,000

4,000 2,000 0

2002

2008

2014

2020

2031

Alternatively certified middle and high school teachers Impact of 2008 financial crisis

2002

Key Recommendations More support for teachers in their first three years of teaching.

Create more accessible and affordable universitybased pathways to teacher certification.

2008

2014

Covid-19 pandemic

2020

2031

Greater transparency and accountability around practices and outcomes of different Educator Preparation Programs.

The Challenge

Different pathways to educator preparation Texas is like no other state in its preparation of teachers. On average, Texas prepares about 26,000 teachers annually2, yet the growth rate of Texas PK-12 population— which is among the highest in the country—add increased demand for more teachers. In response to the ongoing teacher shortages, Texas is unique in terms of the many different pathways created to train teachers wishing to enter PK-12 classrooms. These programs include university-based certification programs, as well as alternative certification programs. University-based programs consist of multiple semesters of coursework and practice-based field experiences. Alternative certification programs offer an accelerated entry into the classroom as coursework and internship experiences are completed while serving as the teacher of record. Currently, Texas produces far more alternatively certified teachers than any other state. Specifically, Texas produces 60% of the nation’s alternatively certified teachers through non-university alternative certification pathways. More than half of all new teachers hired in Texas come from alternative preparation programs, which has allowed an increase in the number of teachers entering the profession at a time when teacher shortages persist across the state. Given these trends and differences in preparation experiences, The Texas Educator Preparation Pathway Study was designed to examine both student performance and teacher retention and mobility outcomes of the different pathways available to people who become certified as teachers.

Linking educator preparation pathways with teacher effectiveness This study builds on a body of research in the field of teacher education. States and universities across the country have conducted various studies to assess and evaluate differences in preparation programs and outcomes associated with those differences (e.g., Bastian et al., 2018; Boyd et al., 2006, 2008, 2009; Henry et al., 2010, Lincove et al., 2015). In their review of studies about educator preparation programs (EPPs) conducted between 2000-2012, Cochran-Smith and Villegas (2015) argue that research examining the outcomes of educator preparation programs has largely focused on two areas—1) comparative studies examining the differences between teachers certified to teach in university-based programs and alternative certification programs (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Zeichner, 2003) and 2) the effect alternative preparation pathways have had on teacher effectiveness, retention, and mitigating teacher shortages in traditionally understaffed, low-income school communities (e.g., Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006, 2009). Few of these studies have examined these questions with longitudinal data that includes long-term outcomes for students and teachers. And, to date, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of educator preparation programs in Texas, with these studies focusing largely on student achievement as measured by standardized test scores (e.g., Lincove et al., 2015, Marder et al., 2020). Given the challenges of linking preparation program quality with teacher effectiveness using student test results (e.g., AERA, 2015, von Hippel & Bellows, 2018), we consider a variety of factors that influence the outcomes of various EPPs (Bastian et al., 2018). In our efforts to examine the outcomes of EPPs in Texas, we focus our analysis on the two broad areas of student performance and teacher retention and mobility.

“

The quality of the teacher in a classroom is the single best predictor of student success. With the overall drop in teachers coming through the preparation pipeline, the increase of alternative certified teachers who are less likely to stay in teaching, and the increased attrition rate in the last two years, we are in such a dire need for well-trained teachers that the entire education system may well need to shift in order to provide quality teaching to students. – Susan Dawson, President and Executive Director, E3 Alliance

”

2 Data Sources: 2010-2011 and after, TPEIR (https://www.texaseducationinfo.org/Home/ Index?scroll=new-reports-section). Earlier data from SBEC interactive reports (no longer available) 6 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

Our goal is to harness empirical data to better identify the strongest educator preparation approaches to meet the increasing demand for teachers in Texas, while ensuring the highest quality preparation possible. The study will include two sets of analyses— one focused on student outcomes and one focused on teacher outcomes.

The need for continued research This report provides a summary of emerging findings from the educator preparation pathways study. The findings do not tell us, however, why teachers are leaving the field or the nuanced factors within educator preparation pathways that make a difference in teacher retention and student achievement. We also chose not to disaggregate the data beyond university-based and alternative certification pathways as we did not want to make comparisons between specific programs. However, we did distinguish not-for-profit organizations and for-profit companies to examine differences in student learning based on teacher certification from these programs. This report is an important first step toward addressing the knowledge gaps in what we know as we work to build a deeper evidence base for improving teacher retention and effectiveness. It is our hope that these findings will illuminate ways we can learn from existing pathway models to better serve the needs of Texas teachers and students.

10 Key Findings

12 Recommendations

14 Student Performance

20 Teacher Retention and Mobility

24 Looking Ahead

26 Appendix: Methodology

28 Appendix: Researcher Biographies

31 Appendix: References

Key Findings

Given the number of teacher certification pathways available and the potential impact of various pathways on teacher longevity and quality, researchers from The University of Texas at Austin utilized a unique statewide longitudinal dataset to investigate student performance and teacher retention and mobility. The sample of teachers (n = 14, 825) studied included educators who were certified from university-based and alternative certification programs during September 2009 to August 2010 and were followed for nine years. Below is a summary of the top-level findings from our analyses. More detailed information about each of these key findings can be found later in this report.

Student Performance

Teacher Retention & Mobility

Texas has gathered a significant amount of data about students and teachers, and this repository of data includes the results of every state test every student has taken since 2012, linked to their teacher. We analyzed changes in students’ test scores over time to find which types of teachers led students to learn the most. We considered school poverty concentration and other factors that influence the challenge of teaching.

Teacher experience matters and teachers who stay in teaching develop a deep understanding of how they can help students succeed. As a result, teacher retention is an important factor to being successful with all students. To better understand teacher retention and mobility, we examined the full cohort of 14,825 teachers that were certified during September 2009 to August 2010 and were followed for nine years. We looked at how long teachers stay in the field of education, where they teach, and their mobility across varying school contexts.

(led by Marder, M., Rhodes, A., and Marshall, J.; see bios in Appendix)

The sample of educators included to examine student learning outcomes was between 6,000 and 30,000 teachers per grade level and subject area over the period from 2012 to 2019. Our Key Findings: •

In every tested subject, students do better if they have university-certified teachers.

•

Every year, from fourth through ninth grade, students gain the equivalent of one to two extra months of learning in mathematics if they have universitycertified teachers. Students whose scores go up by more than expected are said to gain additional months of learning.

•

For low-income students, having a universitycertified teacher can offset half or more of the disadvantages that comes from living in poverty.

(led by Reyes, P., Alexander, C., Joshi, M., and Solis Rodriguez, J.; see bios in Appendix)

Our Key Findings: •

University-certified teachers were retained at a 73% rate during a nine-year period, while only 59% of alternatively certified teachers remained in the field.

•

Black and Hispanic/Latino/a teachers are more likely to advance professionally in both university and alternative pathways. A higher proportion of Black (9%) and Hispanic (6%) teachers obtained advanced roles compared to White teachers (4%).

Months of learning definition: Months of learning is a measure of how much students learned during a given school year based on their scores on the STAAR exam. Students whose scores go up by more than expected are said to gain additional months of learning. 10 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

In summary, university-certified teachers had higher student learning and stayed longer in the field than alternatively certified teachers. Across all preparation pathways, however, too many early career teachers leave the field (over 40% within first five years). This attrition problem is likely to grow in the next few years with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors. Although variations exist within the group, universitybased pathways typically include multiple field experiences culminating in a semester of student teaching prior to becoming teacher of record. Research has demonstrated the importance of such clinical practice and preparation, and the inclusion of this additional (supported/supervised) time in the field is likely contributing to better outcomes for university-prepared teachers (Sutcher et al., 2016; Zhang & Zeller, 2016). It is important to note that, since most alternative certification bypasses student teaching, teacher candidates from these programs often face great challenges in their first year that may lead to reduced retention in the field and decreased teaching effectiveness.

However, university-based programs take longer to complete, particularly for people returning for a second career, are typically more expensive than programs from other providers, and some may draw a less diverse population. Universities are producing fewer teachers than are necessary to fill the teaching needs for the state of Texas. Universities need to make their own certification pathways more accessible and more affordable to better serve the state of Texas. Alternative certification pathways provide more flexible pathways into teaching. Alternative certification programs have grown over the last 15-20 years and have helped address the teacher shortage, and, importantly, have contributed to needed efforts to diversify the pipeline of teacher candidates.

A note about how we defined Educator Preparation Pathways (EPPs) in this study: University-certified teachers - those who were prepared in a Texas university educator preparation program and went through student-teaching, including post-baccalaureate degree-holders. Alternative certified teachers – those who were not prepared in a Texas university educator preparation program. Not-for profit EPPs – universities, colleges, school districts, schools, and educational service centers. For-profit EPPs – all companies that were excluded from the not-for-profit definition above. Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study. (2022). Report and recommendations from The University of Texas at Austin and Educate Texas study of educator preparation pathways in Texas. https://utexas.box.com/s/zf4p6muvmnbqll424rgcfvjdcxu3hgqk

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1 Provide comprehensive and systematic support for teachers in their first three years of teaching to improve teacher retention and quality.

RECOMMENDATION 2 Create more accessible, feasible, and affordable pathways to teacher certification programs that demonstrate higher levels of teacher retention and student achievement.

Provide legislative funding for mentoring (developmental feedback/observationbased coaching) and induction support to improve the effectiveness and overall well-being of novice teachers.

2A: Colleges of education, which have a primary role in establishing the evidence base for what constitutes effective teaching and learning, should ensure that their graduates are equipped to make a lasting difference in the schools and communities they will serve.

School districts need support to provide more effective onboarding of novice teachers and to provide dedicated personnel to direct and oversee induction support efforts in coordination with Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs). This support should be aligned with strong campus and district instructional support and leadership models for all teachers. Additionally, collaborations with Texas public universities, Education Service Centers, and alternative certification programs should be extended to support these efforts.

Texas public universities should create more timely, affordable, and accessible pathways for teacher certification programs in addition to the more traditional university pathways that currently exist. This should include the provision of financial support which is available to other types of post-baccalaureate students, such as tuition remission and stipends when involved in student teaching. For teacher prospects who are already degree holders, Texas public universities should create more accessible and affordable pathways towards certification.

12 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

As a state policy priority to combat the problem of teacher turnover, the state should provide incentives to public universities to provide more accessible pathways to university-based teacher certification; for example, providing scholarships for teacher candidates pursuing university-based certification programs.

2B: Texas school districts, community colleges, and universities should create and/or redesign efforts to provide seamless pathways that expose, inspire, and support young people to pursue and complete careers as teachers. State policy and regulations should incentivize the pathways to teacher certification through grants and funding, to encourage high schools, community colleges, and Texas universities to create pathways to certification based on quality dual credit, internships and aligned curriculum that transfers, resulting in students earning a high school diploma, Associates Degree (AA) and Baccalaureate (BA). University programs should create options to increase opportunities for teacher candidates to test out of credit courses and dual credit to increase completion of teacher certification through university-based programs. State policy and regulations should support innovations locally with “stackable credentials”1 to create more opportunities for current teachers’ aides and other lay professionals to earn university degrees and become certified teachers. Interest or non-interest in teaching is often established early in the education pipeline before students enter postsecondary education. State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), Texas community colleges, and Texas public universities should work to coordinate with grants and programs such as “Grow Your Own”2 that cultivate early interest and community-based development in teaching.

RECOMMENDATION 3 Provide greater transparency around the practices and outcomes of different EPP models. The SBEC should increase the clinical hour requirements for teachers for those pursuing an alternative certification as a late-hire3 candidate before they serve as a teacher of record. In 2018-2019, 95% of late hires came from alternative certification programs. SBEC should increase reporting and accountability requirements around latehire teachers to disincentivize teacher candidates starting as a teacher of record without classroom-based experience. Because current Texas “late hire” provisions make it possible for initial teacher hires to enter classrooms without yet fulfilling all certification requirements, SBEC should add additional incentives for teacher candidates to be hired earlier in the year and receive training during that time. SBEC should increase transparent data reporting on student outcomes by program type to differentiate quality among programs and to determine state action for lower performing programs.

1 Credits from a certificate can be “stacked” toward an associate degree, then credits from an associate degree (AA) can count toward a baccalaureate (BA) degree. The “stackable credentials” process lays out a set of courses or credentials that are related and acceptable to a specific university-based teacher preparation program where the institution agrees to provide credit or admission to the teacher preparation program given their course of program. Furthermore, these programs can target pathways to teacher certification for paraprofessional, teachers’ aides, and other education certificates. 2 The Grow Your Own program is grant-funded by TEA where there is an organizational agreement between the higher education institution and high schools. The high schools identify potential future teachers beginning in the sophomore or junior year. The higher education institution agrees to admit these identified students into their university-based teacher preparation program. These programs should be increased and continue to have funding by the state. 3 New teachers allowed to defer all educator preparation requirements apart from program admission until after they begin teaching full-time.

Student Performance (led by Marder, M., Rhodes, A., and Marshall, J.; see bios in Appendix)

KEY FINDINGS • • •

In every tested subject, students do better if they have university-certified teachers. Every year, from fourth through eighth grade, students gain the equivalent of one to two extra months of school time spent on mathematics if their teachers came from university-based programs. For low-income students, having a teacher from a university program offsets up to half the disadvantages that come from living in poverty.

A Measure of Student Learning In this study, student learning was investigated by looking at changes in student test scores on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam over time. The analysis used value-added models to determine how much students learn during a given school year based on their scores. Student learning differed based on where their teachers were certified. Months of Learning Definition Months of learning is a measure of how much students learned during a given school year based on their scores on the STAAR exam. Students whose scores go up by more than expected are said to gain additional months of learning. 60% of Texas public school students live in or near poverty.

“

Students from lower-income families leave Texas schools today well behind their wealthier counterparts in the education that they have received. On our present course, the teachers most able to help them learn will have all but disappeared. – Jill Marshall, Co-director of UTeach

”

We analyzed student learning gains, from one year to the next, using test scores. For this part of the study, we used value-added models to compare university-certified teachers and alternatively certified teachers with data between 2012 to 2019. The models controlled for campus, individual student characteristics, classroom characteristics, and student scores from the previous year. In comparison to previous studies that used one year of data, examined every educator preparation program separately or were limited to certain grade levels or subject areas, this study used eight years of data, grouped preparation programs together in categories such as “university-based” or “alternative,” and addressed all grade levels and subject areas for which tests are available. We found that students had higher learning gains when they had university-certified teachers. Figures 1 and 2 look at student learning gains in mathematics and English language arts in elementary and middle school, and 9th grade. Every year, from fourth through ninth grade, students gain the equivalent of one to two extra months of learning in mathematics if they had university-certified teachers. Every year, from fourth through nine grades, students gain up to an extra month learning in reading and writing if they had university-certified teachers. High school students with university-certified teachers gained one to two more months of learning per school year in Algebra I and English language arts than if they had alternatively certified teachers. Students gained an average of 0.6 to 1.2 months more learning per school year in biology and 0.6 to 0.7 months in history when they had university-certified teachers. These are all the tested subjects in high school for which the comparison is possible.

14 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

For every grade level, and in every subject, students learned more from university-certified teachers than alternatively certified teachers. Figure 1. Additional months of learning in mathematics per year when students had a university-certified teacher. 1.8 additional months of learning in 9th grade math when student had university teachers.

2.0 1.8 University

1.7

1.6

7th Grade

8th Grade

1.0

1.8

Alternative 4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

9th Grade

Figure 2. Additional months of learning in English language arts per year when students had a university-certified teacher

2.2 additional months of learning in 9th grade ELA when student had university teachers.

University

1.1

1.0

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

0.7

0.8

7th Grade

8th Grade

2.2

Alternative 9th Grade

Student Performance – continued

For every grade level, and in every subject, students learned more when their teachers were from not-for-profit programs compared to for-profit alternative certification programs. Figure 3. Additional months of learning in mathematics per year when students had a not-for-profit teacher. 2.4 additional months of learning in 9th grade math when student had not-for-profit teachers

2.3 Not-for-profit

2.0

1.6

1.9

2.4

1.6

For-profit 4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

Figure 4. Additional months of learning in English language arts per year when students had a not-for-profit teacher.

Not-for-profit

1.9 additional months of learning in 9th grade ELA when student had not-for-profit teachers

1.4 1.0

0.8

0.5

1.9

0.7

For-profit 4th Grade

5th Grade

16 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

How much do Texas students learn when their teachers are from universitycertified programs compared to alternative certification programs? Table 1. Additional months of learning in a given school year when students had teachers from a university-certified programs1. Mathematics

English Language Arts

4th grade

0.7 to 1.0 months

0.3 to 1.1 months

5th grade

0.9 to 2.0 months

0.2 to 1.0 months

6th grade

0.9 to 1.8 months

0.0 to 1.0 months

7th grade

0.8 to 1.7 months

0.0 to 0.7 months

8th grade

0.8 to 1.6 months

0.0 to 0.8 months

9th grade

1.5 to 1.8 months

1.6 to 2.2 months

Biology

History

0.6 to 1.2 months

0.6 to 0.7 months

How much do Texas students learn when their teachers were from not-forprofit programs compared to for-profit alternative certification programs? Using the same value-added models, we distinguished not-for-profit programs and for-profit programs to compare student learning gains between 2012 to 2019. We found that students do better if their teachers were from not-forprofit programs. Figures 3 and 4 look at student learning gains in mathematics and English language arts in elementary and middle school, and 9th grade. Table 2. Additional months of learning in a given school year when students had teachers from not-for-profit programs². Mathematics

English Language Arts

4th grade

1.1 to 1.6 months

0.6 to 1.4 months

5th grade

1.4 to 2.3 months

0.4 to 1.0 months

6th grade

1.1 to 2.0 months

0.1 to 0.8 months

7th grade

1.3 to 1.9 months

0.1 to 0.5 months

8th grade

0.9 to 1.6 months

0.2 to 0.7 months

9th grade

1.5 to 2.4 months

0.5 to 1.9 months

Biology

History

0.9 to 1.7 months

1.1 to 1.5 months

1 The ranges of months of learning in this table come from controlling for different sets of factors, not from statistical uncertainties in the estimates. 2 Not-for-profit programs include those at colleges and universities, school districts, schools, and educational service centers.

Student Performance – continued

How much do Texas students learn if they are low-income³, and their teacher comes from a university certification program compared to an alternative certification program? Figures 5 and 6 look at differences in months of student learning based on whether they were eligible for free and reduced lunch, the customary way to identify students from low-income backgrounds, and whether their teachers were from university or an alternative certification program. We identify expected learning over a 9-month school year with the average performance of not-low-income students with university-certified teachers (orange benchmark line).

Value-added models revealed that although lowincome students were behind students who were not-low-income in all grade levels, they achieved higher learning in math and English language arts when they had university-certified teachers. For low-income students, having a university-certified teacher can offset half or more of the disadvantages that comes from living in poverty.

Figure 5. Months of learning in mathematics based on student eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch and teacher pathway. Months of learning

Expected learning over 9-month school year

University teacher, Not-low-income student

7 6

Alternative teacher, Not-low-income student

University teacher, Low-income student

Alternative teacher, Low-income student

3 2 1 0

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

Figure 6. Months of learning in English language arts based on student eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch and teacher pathway. Months of learning

Expected learning over 9-month school year

University teacher, Not-low-income student

7 6

Alternative teacher, Not-low-income student

University teacher, Low-income student

Alternative teacher, Low-income student

3 2 1 0

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

3 Low-income students were those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). Not-low-income were those not eligible for FRPL 18 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

What do months of learning in value-added models mean in the real world? To put the value-added models and months of learning into context, imagine a student staying home for an entire month of school. Catching them up after just that one month would require not only the normal amount of learning growth, but a substantial additional effort to accelerate their learning to where they would have been if they had not stayed home. A difference of one or two months of learning per year may not seem very large, but differences build up over time.

Learning gaps cumulate over time We measured how the differences build up over time for students based on consequences of being economically disadvantaged. Figures 7 and 8 show results from a longitudinal analysis of students between 2012 and 2018 based on how they performed on the STAAR exam and whether they were eligible for free and reduced lunch in 3rd grade. When students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, no matter how well they performed on the STAAR exam in 3rd grade, they end up behind their wealthier peers in all grade levels.

By 9th grade, students who were not-low-income ended up a year ahead of their lowincome peers in mathematics and seven months ahead in English. Figure 7. Average cumulative difference in months of learning between low-income and not-lowincome students who scored the same on the Math STAAR exam in 3rd grade (2012). Months of learning

Cumulative additional months of learning between not-lowincome students and other students was largest at 7th grade.

18 16 14 12 10

Schools managed to close the gap in 8th and 9th grade, but the not-low-income students were still a year ahead of their low-income peers.

8 Difference between how much not-low-income students learned in math and what their lowincome peers learned.

6 4 2 0 rd

3 Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

Starting Point - Students who scored same on STAAR exam in 3rd grade. (2012)

Figure 8. Average cumulative difference in months of learning between low-income and not-lowincome students who scored the same on the English Language Arts STAAR exam in 3rd grade (2012). Months of learning

18 16 Cumulative additional months of learning between not-low-income students and other students was largest at 6th grade.

14 12

Schools managed to close the gap in 8th and 9th grade, but the not-low-income students were still a 7 months ahead of their lowincome peers.

10 8 6

Difference between how much not-low-income students learned in ELA and what their lowincome peers learned.

4 2 0 rd

3 Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

Starting Point - Students who scored same on STAAR exam in 3rd grade. (2012)

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

Teacher Retention and Mobility (led by Reyes, P., Alexander, C., Joshi, M., and Solis Rodriguez, J.; see bios in Appendix)

KEY FINDINGS •

University-certified teachers were retained at 73% during a nine-year period, while only 59% of alternatively certified teachers remained in the field.

•

When we analyzed teacher employment from 2010 to 2019, we found that an average of about 30,000 teachers left teaching per year, leading to about 45% of teachers across both pathways who either left the education system completely or moved within the field to pursue different roles in education. Figure 9 shows that by 2019, 73% of certified teachers from university certification pathways were still teaching or had roles in the education system compared to 59% of alternatively certified teachers. Alternatively certified teachers left teaching at a faster rate than university-certified teachers, with the biggest drop happening after their first year of teaching.

20 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

University-certified teachers stayed longer in the field. Figure 9. Results showed that the gap in the retention rate between universitycertified teachers and alternatively certified teachers grew wider in the latter years. Over a nine-year period, university-certified teachers had a 24% higher retention rate than alternatively certified teachers. % of the 2011 teacher cohort employed each year by educator pathway.

100%

The biggest drop in alternatively certified teachers who left teaching was after their first year. The percentage still teaching dropped from 94% to 86%, about a 9 percent decrease or 652 fewer teachers in the classroom.

90% 80% 70%

University 73%

60%

Alternative 59%

50% 40% 30% 20%

Why the gap between 2011 to 2013? University teachers do not need a teaching position in order to receive certification and therefore do not have to immediately teach. However, alternatively prepared teachers only receive their teaching certification once they are employed as a teacher. Thus, university trained teachers may be certified the same year an alternatively prepared teacher, but can wait to be employed as a teacher, creating a gap in time certified to time employed.

10% 0%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

In Figure 9, linear probability modeling was used to determine the percent of the teacher cohort employed each year from 2011 to 2019. Additionally, survival analysis was conducted to further investigate teacher retention. Results indicate that over time the retention rate was observed to be higher for university-certified teachers compared to alternatively certified teachers. Further investigation using survival analysis found that teachers teaching in charter schools had a lower retention rate than teachers teaching in non-charter schools. Of the teachers teaching in 2013, more alternatively certified teachers taught in charter schools. Of the alternatively certified teachers in 2013, 7%, were teaching in charter schools. Of the university-certified teachers in 2013, 5%, were teaching in charter schools.

2018

2019

Teacher Retention and Mobility – continued

Interestingly, while a large proportion of teachers left the field, we also found that teachers from both alternative and university pathways found ways to move within the Texas education system. Of the total 2010 cohort across both pathways, 45% left their original teaching position to move either outside or within the education system and 55% were still in their original teaching position by 2019. Thirty-five percent left the education system completely, while 5% moved into lateral roles (e.g., librarian, music therapist, teacher appraiser, etc.) and 5% moved into more advanced roles (e.g., principals, superintendents, and other leadership positions) within the education system (see Figure 10 below).

Figure 10. Nearly half of teachers either left the education field or moved to a different role within the education field.

Left Education Still Teaching Lateral role Advanced role

22 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

When we disaggregate the data further, we found that... •

Black and Hispanic/Latino/a teachers are more likely to advance professionally in both alternative and university pathways. A higher proportion of Black (9%) and Hispanic (6%) teachers obtained advanced roles compared to White teachers (4%). These findings show that alternatively certified teachers are finding ways to move up in the system just as much as university teachers, especially teachers of color. This indicates that both pathways are helping to promote teachers’ professional growth and leadership within the Texas public education system.

•

Teachers from both preparation programs move to advanced roles approximately as well as they do to lateral roles.

•

Overall, fewer Hispanic teachers left the education system compared to the teachers belonging to other racial or ethnic categories. 45% left Texas public education or changed roles within the Texas public education system. (2019 snapshot)

University-certified teachers stayed in education at much higher rates, particularly those from underrepresented groups. Between 2010 to 2019, a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic teachers stayed in education either as teachers in the classroom or other roles within the education system. This trend was consistent across both educator preparation pathways. (2019 snapshot) Figure 11. Teacher mobility for university-certified teachers. Stayed in Education

Left Education Still Teaching

Total (N=7,245) White (N=4,664)

27%

63%

Hispanic/Latino/a (N=1,682) Black (N=372)

20%

18%

72%

15%

66%

40%

Advanced role

5% 4% 6%

Of all the Black teachers from university certification pathways that started in the 2011 cohort, by 2019, 85% were still in education, including 10% who advanced professionally.

4% 9% 10% 6

65%

60%

Lateral role

24%

Other (N=527)

5% 80%

100%

Figure 12. Teacher mobility for alternatively certified teachers. Stayed in Education

Left Education Still Teaching

Total (N=7,580) White (N=4,514) Hispanic/Latino/a

41%

47%

32%

55%

Black (N=836)

36%

48%

Other (N=679)

37%

48%

40%

60%

(N=1,551)

20%

Lateral role

Advanced role

5% 4% 6% 8% 8%

Of all the Hispanic teachers from alternative pathways that started in the 2011 cohort, 70% were still in education in 2019.

9% 7% 7% 80%

100%

Looking Ahead

The challenges of teacher shortages and retention in Texas require comprehensive data to identify effective and sustainable solutions. Meeting the demand of qualified teachers and improving teacher effectiveness depends on having useful information about what drives teacher productivity and retention and what is needed to help teachers and students thrive to the best of their abilities. Further research is needed to help us understand how educator preparation pathways impact teacher and student outcomes and teacher retention. Without this knowledge, we lack the evidence base needed to make informed decisions for improving programs and policies within the Texas public education system. The Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study highlighted some significant differences between university and alternative certification pathways on teacher effectiveness and retention. However, this work is ongoing, and we still need further information about what factors motivate teachers to pursue certification in the first place, the experiences that lead to more positive teacher and student outcomes, and what motivates teachers to stay in teaching.

24 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

We’d like to conclude this report by acknowledging the most significant research gaps. Student Performance • More qualitative research is needed to discover the multiple factors that lead to better student outcomes. For example, what individual and/or environmental factors create positive or negative learning trajectories for students? What role does the teacher play in changing these trajectories? •

•

We have shown that learning differences between low-income and not-low-income students accumulate over time. We were able to estimate the effect in every subject and grade level when students have universitycertified rather than alternatively certified teachers. However, we need additional research to investigate how student learning differences build up over time based on preparation pathways of their teachers.

Teacher Retention and Mobility • The current study fails to consider the hidden contextual factors that play into teacher retention and effectiveness. A more qualitative research approach is needed through the form of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and/or case studies to understand what teachers experience throughout the educator pipeline. For example, what training experiences (pre-service and in-service), support systems (in-service), and professional development have been most useful and other important measures, such as salary regarding quality of life as a teacher that impact longevity in the field? •

We have very little information about what fosters teacher mobility. What are the contributing factors within different pathway models or schools that impact teacher mobility within and outside the education system? Are there specific state and school district policies that can be modified to increase teacher retention? This information is vital for improving policies and procedures around teacher retention and advancement in the field.

•

Finally, the Texas Education Preparation Pathways study followed teachers between 2010 and 2019. A lot has changed in education since then, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic, and with new EPP regulations put in place by SBEC. Ongoing research is needed to investigate the practices within different educator pathways that led to positive teacher and student outcomes during this turbulent time in the education system.

We should direct more attention to late hires, more than half of Texas’ new teachers, who defer most educator preparation requirements until after they begin teaching full-time, and the effects they have on student performance.

We believe that we can learn from existing pathway models to advance teacher production, retention, and effectiveness in the Texas public education system. We urge further research and collaborative discussions on how to create better systematic support for early career teachers, more accessible and affordable pathways to teacher certification that demonstrate effectiveness, and greater transparency around the practices and outcomes of different educator preparation pathway models to help pave a better future for Texas teachers and students.

Appendix: Methodology

Data source Data for these studies were provided by the Texas Education Research Center (ERC). The ERC is a research and evaluation center that provides access to high quality, longitudinal data from the Texas PK-12, Texas higher education, Texas workforce, and other data for the state of Texas. The ERC’s mission is to maintain a longitudinal data system for the state and to provide social scientists and other researchers access to study and analyze significant questions to improve educational policy and outcomes. Data analysis Student Performance (led by Marder, M., Rhodes, A., and Marshall, J.; see bios in Appendix) We focused on the ways policies related to teacher preparation impact student achievement. Given that 60% of Texas teachers are prepared through alternative pathways, more research is needed to understand the impact this preparation has on student learning in K-12 contexts, as well as post-secondary access. Our research was informed by the following question: How do elementary and secondary student outcomes in Texas depend upon the policies that regulate production of new teachers? We analyzed student learning gains, from one year to the next, using test scores. We used value-added models to compare university and alternatively certified teachers with data between 2012 to 2019. These models are hierarchical linear models, and we employed lmer in R. For subjects where a given student was tested in two consecutive years, we modeled the student score in the second year as a cubic polynomial in the student’s score the preceding year. The models included campus, teacher, and class as random effects, and a range of demographic variables as fixed effects. These included both individual student demographics and classroom averages of demographic variables. We did not run just a single model, but a progression of models with increasing numbers of random and fixed effects to check the robustness of the results.

26 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

To examine the effect of teacher preparation pathways, we included flags for teacher preparation programs of different types. For example, in some models we grouped together all university certification programs and compared with all other programs, while in other models we compared all for-profit certification programs with all other programs. In comparison to previous studies that used one year of data, examined every educator preparation program separately or limited grade levels or subject areas, this study used eight years of data, grouped preparation programs together, and examined end-of-grade exams in Grades 3 through 8 and end-ofcourse exams in Algebra 1, Biology, English, and History. We also conducted a longitudinal analysis, where we identified students in third grade and grouped them according to their math or English scores. They were in the first score group if they scored between 90% and 100%, the second score group if they were between 80% and 90% and so on. We also grouped them depending on whether they were eligible for free or reduced lunch or not. Thus, for math each third-grade student was in one of 20 groups and for English each third-grade student was in one of 20 groups. Then we followed all the students in each of the groups forward, finding their average math and English scores in each group each year. This enabled us to estimate the effect of poverty on student test performance over time, for students whose performance in third grade was the same.

Teacher Retention and Mobility (led by Reyes, P., Alexander, C., Joshi, M., and Solis Rodriguez, J.; see bios in Appendix) We examined how long teachers stay in the field of education, where they teach, and their mobility across varying school contexts. This research was needed to understand how to increase teacher stability, particularly in historically underserved school communities that face the highest forms of teacher turnover. Specifically, we focused on teachers’ backgrounds, school working conditions, as well as organizational characteristics of preparation programs that impact retention, mobility, and attrition rates for teachers. Longitudinal data from the Texas Education Research Center (Texas ERC) at The University of Texas at Austin was used to follow a cohort of over 14,000 certified teachers from IHE-based university certification pathways (49%) and alternative certification pathways (51%) from 2010 to 2019. Our analysis aimed to illuminate factors that attribute to teacher retention, such as teacher preparation pathways programs, teachers’ highest degree and years of experience, teachers’ access to campus support staff, and school leader characteristics. The analytic strategies used for teacher retention, attrition, and mobility study began with using propensity score weighting to create equivalent comparison groups of university and alternatively certified teachers. First, we looked at teacher employment using a linear probability model. This was to examine the effect of the mode of entry on employment, and we created dichotomous variables indicating whether a teacher was employed as a teacher in the school years 2010 to 2019. Secondly, we examined retention with the survival analysis technique. In survival analysis the outcome variable of interest is time until an event occurs. In this case the event is teacher attrition (not surviving) and survival is retention. Survival analysis estimates the probability of a teacher “surviving” or being retained in the nine years we observed in our data. Additionally, hazard ratios, which are an estimate of the ratio of the hazard rate in the one group versus the other group, was used to capture a case’s instantaneous chance of “failure” or attrition to identify the most powerful predictors of teacher retention. Finally, multinomial logistic regression (MNLR) was used to examine teacher mobility. MNLR was used to evaluate the impact of teacher preparation pathway upon the different mobility pathways (moved to an advanced professional position, changed campus, changed district, or left education). As such, we were interested in a teacher’s status at specific intervals after their first year (3, 5, and 8 years).

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the teacher demographics included in the educator preparation pathways study. The cohort (14, 825) studied included teachers that were certified during September 2009 to August 2010 and were followed for nine years. Table 3. Demographic breakdown University-certified teachers Includes IHEtraditionally certified teachers (N=7,245)

What was the race/ ethnicity breakdown of teachers in our study? *2011 snapshot

Alternatively certified teachers Includes alternatively certified teachers (N=7,580)

35% were teachers of color

100%

40% were teachers of color 100%

64%

60%

23%

20% 5%

11%

Black

Other

0% White

Hispanic

Where were teachers placed? Percent in schools where at least half of students received free/ reduced-priced lunch *2013 snapshot

Percent of teachers in a high minority campus *2013 snapshot

Percent of teachers in a charter school *2013 snapshot

*2013 Snapshot. We chose year three (2013) since the university and alternatively certified teachers were in fairly equal numbers (after university-certified teachers began teaching).

Black

Other

White

Hispanic

Appendix: Researcher Biographies

Pedro Reyes, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin. He serves as the executive director of The University of Texas at Austin’s Education Research Center (ERC). His work is focused on the intersection of policy and leadership that facilitates student success. His research has focused on culturally and linguistically diverse, and often marginalized students such as urban students, language learners, migrant students, and border students, among others. Dr. Reyes is passionate about teaching and research on student success.

Celeste Alexander, PhD, serves as the director of The University of Texas at Austin’s Education Research Center (ERC). The ERC is a research and evaluation center that provides access to high quality, longitudinal data from the Texas PK-12, Texas higher education, Texas workforce, and other data for the state of Texas. Dr. Alexander has over 40 years of combined experience in child development, psychology, education, research and evaluation. Her work in education focuses on policy and practice.

Megha Joshi, PhD, is a quantitative researcher at the American Institutes for Research. She graduated from The University of Texas at Austin Quantitative Methods Program. Her research interests include causal inference and meta-analysis. She has developed methodological direction and the codebase infrastructure for program evaluation analyses and meta-analyses.

Janet Solis Rodriguez is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at The University of Texas at Austin. Her current research explores ways to create a sustainable pipeline of educators of color, especially in STEM subject areas. She currently focuses on the professional life cycle of school leaders and teachers of color, including their preparation, retention, and mobility patterns. Before her doctoral studies, Solis was a math teacher, teacher mentor, district curriculum writer, and served as an analyst and liaison for the Texas Education Agency.

Annelies Rhodes is a doctoral student in the STEM Education program at The University of Texas at Austin. Her current research explores teacher quality and educator pathways, especially in STEM subject areas. She currently works on the research team at E3 Alliance as a graduate research assistant, where her focus is on datadriven educational policy. Before her doctoral studies, Annelies was a middle school science teacher, team leader and teacher mentor.

28 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

Michael Marder, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Physics in the College of Natural Science at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a co-founder of UTeach Natural Sciences and has served as co-director of UTeach since 1998. In addition, Dr. Marder has participated in the expansion of UTeach to more than 49 universities across the U.S., and currently serves as the executive director of the UTeach Science Program. He has published two textbooks, including Research Methods for Science. He has studied observation instruments and analyzed national and Texas data sets, including value-added studies of student learning gains in high school science and mathematics.

Jill Marshall, PhD, is co-director of UTeach, Elizabeth Glenadine Gibb Teaching Fellow in Mathematics Education, and an associate professor of STEM education and physics at The University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include cognitive issues in learning, teaching and assessing understanding in STEM, as well as gender issues in science, engineering and technology.

Ex Officio committee members Charles R. Martinez, Jr., is the 12th dean of the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Martinez’s scholarly work focuses on identifying factors that hinder or promote the success of children and families from vulnerable and underserved populations. He is particularly interested in how immigrant Latino families adjust to life in the U.S. and how to better harness culturally specific protective factors to ensure their success in navigating the many challenges associated with immigration. Martinez has led numerous national and international research projects designed to examine risk and protective factors involved in linking social and cultural factors to education and behavioral health disparities for Latino children and families, and to develop and test culturally specific interventions for at-risk families in the U.S. and in Latin America. Prior to joining Texas, Martinez was the Philip H. Knight Professor in the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership at the University of Oregon, where he also served as founding director of the Center for Equity Promotion. He is a nationally recognized scholar on organizational equity, cross-cultural research, and community engagement. A first-generation college graduate, Martinez received his bachelor’s degree in psychology from Pitzer College, and his master’s degree and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology. Martinez holds the Lee Hage Jamail Regents Chair in Education and the Sid W. Richardson Regents Chair. He is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and founding director of the Texas Center for Equity Promotion.

Beth Maloch, is a professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction and Senior Associate Dean in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Maloch also holds the Elizabeth Shatto Massey Endowed Chair in Education. Her current research focuses on coaching and mentoring, teacher education and inservice teacher development, particularly for early career teachers. Most recently, she has helped lead the development and research of a collaborative early career support program, Texas Education START.

Mission

We serve the people of Texas, the nation, and the world through transformational research and teaching. Our work is guided by a deep commitment to community partnership and bridging research to practice. We respond to the most urgent problems in the field by implementing effective programs and policies and by developing the next generation of leaders to carry this work forward. We build upon individual, family, and community strengths in order to combat disparities in education and health, and to promote social justice.

Our signature impact areas align with our college’s strengths. They represent our major goals and help to determine how we will align our resources to reach our vision. ADVANCING EQUITY AND ELIMINATING DISPARITIES IN EDUCATION AND HEALTH We work to ensure that systems, and the people within them, are accountable for inequities that impact the most vulnerable. We recognize and build upon the strengths of individuals, families, and communities to advance equitable outcomes in education and health across the lifespan. We develop, test, and implement programs and interventions that contest these inequities. ATTENDING TO PLACE AND CONTEXT How and where people live matters. We respect the influence of home and community factors in the health and wellbeing of children and adults. We respond comprehensively to individual needs, and seek to understand and build on existing strengths within families and communities to improve education and health outcomes. THRIVING THROUGH TRANSITIONS We work to understand how people adapt to transitions in life, whether expected or unexpected. We seek to support resiliency and healthy adjustment in the face of life’s transitions, including those related to changing social, economic, health, school, and community circumstances.

For more information about us, please visit our website: education.utexas.edu/about/office-dean/reimagine-education

Note: Data for these studies were provided by the Texas Education Research Center (ERC). The ERC is a research and evaluation center that provides access to high quality, longitudinal data from the Texas PK-12, Texas higher education, Texas workforce, and other data for the state of Texas. The ERC’s mission is to maintain a longitudinal data system for the state and to provide social scientists and other researchers access to study and analyze significant questions to improve educational policy and outcomes. The ERC conducts survey research and evaluation studies; provides technical advice to design high-quality studies; offers technical assistance for data management; develops customized training for highly secured research environments; provides graduate students and postgraduates training in longitudinal data systems; and disseminates information to policy makers and educators from the latest research conducted at the center. 30 – Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study

Appendix: References

American Education Research Association. (2015). AERA statement on the use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 448-452. Bastian, K. C., Patterson, K. M., & Pan, Y. (2018). Evaluating teacher preparation programs with teacher evaluation ratings: Implications for program accountability and improvement. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(5), 429–447. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117718182 Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Michelli, N. M., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in new york city schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155–166. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285943 Boyd, D., Grossman, P. L., Hammerness, K., Lankford, R. 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. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319–343. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708322737 Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129 Cochran-Smith, M., & Villegas, A. M. (2015). Framing Teacher Preparation Research: An Overview of the Field, Part 1. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 7–20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072 Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(0), 1. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000 Henry, G. T., Thompson, C. L., Fortner, C. K., Hill, C., Zulli, R. A., & Kershaw, D. C. (2010). The impact of teacher preparation on student learning in North Carolina Public Schools. Carolina Institute for Public Policy. Lincove, J. A., Osborne, C., Mills, N., & Bellows, L. (2015). Teacher Preparation for Profit or Prestige: Analysis of a Diverse Market for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 415–434. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602311 Marder, M., David, B., & Hamrock, C. (2020). Math and science outcomes for students of teachers from standard and alternative pathways in Texas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 27. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4863 von Hippel, P. T., & Bellows, L. (2018). How much does teacher quality vary across teacher preparation programs? Reanalyses from six states. Economics of Education Review, 64, 298–312. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.005 Sutcher, L., Darling- Hammond, L., Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301–326. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200211 Zhang, G. & Zeller, N. (2016). A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship between Teacher Preparation and Teacher Retention. Teacher Education Quarterly.

Texas Educator Preparation Pathways Study – 32