abstract - national louis university...abstract though non-traditional routes were designed to offer...
TRANSCRIPT
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.