Title: Evaluating the Efficacy of College-to-Career Teacher Preparation
Programs
Ed.D. Candidate: Ana M. Gutierrez, San Francisco State University
Research Question(s):
1. How effective are Career Teacher Pathways (CTPs) at preparing
students to start a successful teaching career?
2. How effective are CTPs at recruiting and retaining students of color in
the program?
3. How effective are CTPs’ academic and social supports, such that they
ensure persistence in higher education?
4. How are teaching strategies embedded into the program? How
successful are these strategies at making sure that students have the
skills necessary to address diverse learners in afterschool settings?
Conceptual Framework and Guiding Purpose of the Study:
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), from 20092021, public elementary and secondary school enrollment is expected to
increase from 49.3 million students to 52.7 million students in the United States
(NCES, 2011). However, the condition of education for public school students
will not undergo significant change. White students are leaving public schools in
favor of private or charter schools, which will leave a disproportionate amount of
students of color and socioeconomically disadvantaged students in public
schools (NCES, 2011). In addition, students of color (i.e., Black, Hispanic, and
American Indian/Alaskan Native) will be more likely to be enrolled in highpoverty public schools than White students and these high-poverty schools will
remain mostly in urban and suburban areas (NCES, 2011).
Even as the proportion of students of color in public schools increases, the
teacher workforce has yet to reflect the same level of diversity. White female
teachers make up the majority of full-time teachers, and the modest rise in the
percentage of teachers of color entering the profession is cancelled out by their
higher rate of attrition compared to White teachers (NCES, 2011). In addition, in
terms of teaching experience, data from 2007-2008 highlight that the public
schools’ teacher work force have fewer years of experience than in previous
years (NCES, 2011).
These student and teacher conditions lead to the need to increase the number
of teachers who are trained to meet the challenges of working with diverse
learners. These conditions also suggest the need to recruit and retain teachers
that can not only understand and relate to the students they serve, but empower
them to succeed. It stands to reason that to find teachers that can be effective in
high poverty areas, potential teachers need to be recruited ways that ensure
that teachers share a background of experience with their students. The guiding
purpose of this study is to situate the California Teacher Pathways (CTP) within
the efforts made across the state to increase recruitment and retention of
teachers in areas with the greatest need. This study seeks to evaluate the
CTP’s effectiveness, as it relates to preparing underserved students to become
effective teachers in their own communities.
When factoring race and socioeconomic status, underachieving students of
color and low-income students have the highest academic needs, and when
those needs are not addressed the status quo is maintained. If students at the
bottom of the academic ladder of achievement continue to underperform, a
limited population of students will be ready to meet the challenges of succeeding
in higher education. To this point, Mortenson, (2009) notes that as a greater
proportion of students of color move through the K-12 education pipeline,
California will face challenges since this population of students have never been
served well by higher education.
The CTP grew from the belief that California can make progress towards
transforming our educational system by developing effective educators who
understand, care, and are prepared to mitigate the challenges students face.
Effective teachers will not only ensure students become critical thinkers, but
they will also help supply our economy with the properly trained human capital
necessary to remain competitive (Mortenson, 2011). The CTP program
concentrates on meeting these diverse students’ needs by improving the quality
of teachers, especially since students of color are more likely to attend poorer
schools where less qualified and less experienced teachers are most likely to
work (McKinsey & Co., 2009). Less qualified and experienced teachers are
three times less effective at delivering instruction to a groups of students who
have the most academic needs than highly effective teachers (McKinsey & Co.,
2007). Consequently, the status quo is maintained when it comes to the
academic inequities reflected in the achievement gap data that indicate Black
and Latino student are two to three years behind their White peers (McKinsey &
Co., 2007). Improving the quality of teachers for these marginalized students is
one way to improve learning and academic outcomes.
In order to counter the inequalities in society, individualized support systems
and quality instruction play an important role in providing increased opportunities
for students of color (McKinsey, 2007). The CTP programs were designed to
address the inequalities in two ways. First, CTPs were primarily developed to
help underserved students with the academic and social support services
needed to persist through higher education. Second, upon graduating from the
program, CTP participants serve as role models for students of color by
returning to their communities to serve as effective teachers. The design of the
CTPs was done purposefully in an effort to improve the academic opportunities
for two generation of underserved students.
As Freire (1970) asserts, a truly liberating education is one in which educators
and students learn from each other through established practices that seeks to
transform today’s school system. In application, the link between relationship
building and instruction is such that students and educators work collaboratively
towards achieving individual and community goals that will propel students
toward a college degree. In order to counter the negative factors that hinder
students from reaching their full potential, the evaluation of programs like the
CTP will help highlight the effectiveness of specific strategies for increasing the
recruitment and retention teachers of color and addressing the needs of diverse
learners.
Relevant Theoretical and Empirical Literature:
My study is informed by both the theoretical lens of culturally relevant pedagogy
and current empirical literature that situate the need to develop and retain
effective teachers, and particularly teachers of color. While some may argue
that a teacher’s race should not be indicative of his or her ability to effectively
teach students of color, studies have shown (Lau, Dandy, Hoffman, 2007;
Bragg, 2007; Ingersoll & May 2011) that teachers who have experienced lives
similar to their students can establish caring relationships with those students
and thereby improve learning. Researchers such as Ladson-Billings (1995) and
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) emphasize the importance of effective
teachers who understand and validate their students’ cultures and languages.
Researchers also advocate increasing the recruitment and retaining of teachers
of color (Lau et al., 2007; Ingersoll and May, 2011). Together, these
researchers support the notion that career teacher pathway programs hold the
potential to increase the educational and employment opportunities for students
of color.
Ladson-Billings (2008) asserts there are three criteria of culturally relevant
pedagogy: “an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to nurture
and support cultural competence, and the development of a sociopolitical or
critical consciousness.” (p. 483) These three guiding principles of culturally
relevant pedagogy help to frame the cultural awareness that enables teachers to
more effectively address the diverse learning needs of students of color.
Teachers who engage their students within the framework of culturally relevant
pedagogy not only understand where students come from, but also build upon
students’ prior knowledge and experiences to reach learning goals. LadsonBillings’s findings suggest that teachers who adopt critically relevant pedagogy
in their classrooms facilitate learning in and out of the school setting, such that
teachers become a part of the communities they serve and empower their
students to make positive changes around them.
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) advance this notion by asserting that their
students in urban schools who were engaged in critical pedagogy sought social
change outside of their classroom and increased their content knowledge in
meaningful ways. Students’ academic competencies grew as they applied their
academic knowledge to effect change in their communities. Therefore, teachers
who connect with their students in culturally relevant ways have the ability to
improve student learning and also help students improve their communities.
In the recent study “Recruitment, Retention, and the Minority Teacher Shortage”
Ingersoll and May (2011) use quantitative data to describe recruitment efforts for
increasing the number of teachers of color. Their analysis of data shows that
there is still a gap between the number of teachers of color and the students of
color who are enrolled in public schools. The researchers identify the
compound nature of this gap as an area of concern. Students of color in urban
schools are less likely than their suburban White peers to have access to
qualified teachers, less likely to go to college, and less likely to have
opportunities for better employment (Ingersoll & May, 2011). The CTPs operate
at all three of the levels. However, even if programs such as the CTPs are
available to recruit and support marginalized youth through the teacher
education process, the issue of retention of teachers of color remains.
Based on their initial findings, Ingersoll and May attribute higher attrition rates
for teachers of color to the restrictive organizational structures of high poverty
schools where they are more likely to work. This study helps identify how key
components, such as recruitment of teachers of color, are in line with the
concepts strongly connected to the goals of CTPs. By developing teachers from
the very communities that are in highest need of qualified teachers, issues such
as preparing youth to be positive role models, effective instructors, and caring
educators is closer to being addressed.
Further, organizations like the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) advocate for teacher education programs to embed more
opportunities for prospective teachers to gain valuable teaching experiences
earlier and more frequently in their programs. To facilitate this embedded clinical
practice, the NCATE promotes developing strong partnerships between school
districts, community organizations, and teacher education programs such that
“each partner’s needs can be met better by defining clinically based teacher
preparation as common work for which they share responsibility, authority, and
accountability” (NCATE, 2010, p. 6). A key aspect of the CTP is participating
students’ extensive experience in the classroom that begins in the first year of
community college. This clinical teacher model allow students to reduce the
challenges they will face as new teachers by using community partnerships and
extended learning opportunities outside of the college classroom to engage
participating students’ content and teaching strategies on a continuous basis.
Thus, CTP students are able to be more aware of and prepared for the
challenges of teaching diverse learners because of the systematic approach to
working with youth in a variety of educational settings.
The movement towards a clinical teacher preparation model converges the
multiple interests of each of the CTP partners, such that the main beneficiaries
of the collective efforts of the program are not only participating students in the
program, but the youth they work with who have the most academic and social
needs. CTP graduates can then return to their communities to empower and
make positive changes in future generations of students.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis:
This study is structured around gathering the qualitative and quantitative data
necessary to address research questions centered on measuring the
relationships between the CTPs goals and the participants’ success and
outcomes. In effect, I am interested in a cross-case study of the development
and implementation of existing CTP programs in the state. I expect to conduct
an individual as well as a cross-case analysis of two CTPs to examine the
design of each program and how its implementation facilitates the development
of more effective teachers while building up the communities they are from and
serve. I will be focusing on the CTPs located in the Bay Area, as well as the first
CTP at Harbor College in Los Angeles, which serves as a model for other
statewide CTPs.
I will conduct interviews with key instructors/professors, support providers, and
administrators in each of the CTP programs. In addition, I will conduct
interviews and focus groups with current and past CTP participants. These
interviews will be transcribed and analyzed to develop a set of themes related to
the efficacy of CTPs. On-going observations of participating students’
classrooms, communities, and after- school program employment will also serve
as a basis for exploring the ways in which the CTPs have a positive impact on
students’ academic and personal outcomes.
Overall, the data collected will provide feedback that will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the CTPs across the state. The practical implications of this
study will help to determine the areas of strengths within specific CTPs and
recommendations for the areas of improvement. The policy implications of this
study will bring to light the effectiveness of a clinical teacher preparation model
that has the potential to change the way in which teachers are trained by CSUs
to meet the challenge of working with diverse student populations.
Instruments:



Interviews with participating cohort students in teacher pathway programs,
elementary and secondary students served by teacher pathway programs,
and key instructors/professors/support providers and administrators in the
pathway program.
Ethnographies based on observations of students’ classroom, community,
and the after school programs that employ them.
Student documents pertaining to completion of coursework, graded
assignments, and syllabi.

Students’ performance on a pre and post assessments, progress towards
graduation, and employers’ evaluation on job performance at the after
school programs.
Timeline of Data Collection:
August 2012 – September 2012
 Begin analysis of summer 2012 quantitative data (pre-Institute and
post-Institute surveys, pre- and post-assessment of science classes,
course grades)
 Begin analysis of summer 2012 qualitative data (interview, focus
group, document analysis)
October 2012 – December 2012
 Continue analysis of summer 2012 quantitative data (pre-Institute and
post-Institute surveys, pre- and post-assessment for science classes,
course grades)
 Continue analysis of summer 2012 qualitative data (interview, focus
group, document analysis)
 Attend qualitative data coding and analysis training at CSU Fullerton
 Complete IRB process for summative evaluation
 Write preliminary report of the Bay Area Summer STEM Institute
January 2013 – April 2013
 Begin analysis of student documents, such as course syllabi,
transcripts, etc.
 Begin synthesizing data and writing initial report
 Collect data at Harbor College in Los Angeles on the Urban Teacher
Fellows (UTF) program
 Transcribe and code focus group and interview data
May 2013 – June 2013
 Set up follow up interviews with past UTF graduates and program
manager
 Analyze data and write final report
 Observe UTF participants working with youth in after school settings
Data Analysis:
Data Source
Documents
Proposed Analysis
Review documents pertaining to the
essential component of a CTP.
Index the documents to identify
emerging themes.
Survey
Interviews
Focus Group
Gather students’ perspectives on
the CTP based on questions related
to how well they perceived the CTP
helped to prepare to transfer to a
four-year university and teach
through the academic and social
support. Open-ended questions will
also provide more specifics about
students’ experiences in the
program. Data from the survey will
be analyzed to determine the
effectiveness of the CTP based on
student perceptions and
experiences.
Through open-ended interviews
and semi-structured interview,
analyze students’ perceptions
associated with their participation
and success in the program
(current and past students).
Transcribe data and code for them
to develop emerging themes.
Gather students’ collective voices
pertaining to: academic and work
experiences, relevance of the
programs’ components, expected
outcomes, future goals, and
suggestions for improving the
program. Transcribe data to
triangulate with other sources.
Findings and Recommendations:
My findings and recommendations, based on the pre- and post- institute surveys,
focus groups, interviews, and observation data collected at the Bay Area STEM
Summer Institute, are as follows:
Theme #1: Recruitment
While recruitment efforts led to first year STEM Summer Institute participants
who were primarily from underrepresented backgrounds (of the 20 students with
paired data from the pre- and post- institute survey, 40% of students were Latino
and 30% were Black), the small cohorts of first-year students (10 in one cohort
and 19 students in the other cohort) suggests that there is a need to increase
recruitment efforts.
During an interview with one instructor, she also highlighted recruitment as a
major challenge to the institute’s stated outcome of producing more science and
math teachers. She attributed the low enrollment numbers to the lack of effective
recruiting methods and a delay in the recruitment process. In addition, the
instructor suggested that recruitment efforts include a more personal approach
that is more effective in forming relationships with prospective students.
Some of the students in one of the focus groups were very passionate about
changing recruitment efforts to recruit others who have a genuine interest in
teaching and working with youth. They expressed their dissatisfaction with
having to work with other students who did not share the same high level of
commitment and interest in working with youth. Students in the focus group also
noted that those with a lack of interest were more disengaged from their coteaching responsibilities because they perceived their work with youth as a job
instead of an opportunity to gain valuable experience. The post-institute survey
also suggests that there were students who lost interest in teaching, as there was
a 44% drop in students who planned to teach or work with youth and families
from the pre-institute survey.
Recommendation #1: Start Recruitment Efforts Earlier and Incorporate a
More Personal Approach:
Recruitment in the STEM Summer Institute should begin early in the year (in
February or March). Efforts should be made to recruit students through a variety
of means, such as presentations to graduating high school students,
presentations to community college students in early childhood education
courses (and other relevant courses), promoting the institute on community
college websites, and reaching out to community organizations for student
recommendations. Follow up face-to-fact contact, such as interviews, with
prospective students should be conducted through to the beginning of the
institute. Starting recruitment early and forming personal connections with
prospective students prior to the beginning of the institute, should help with not
only increase the number of students who are aware of the program and
participate in the summer, but it will also help to identify candidates that are
committed and passionate about working with the youth they will serve.
Theme #2: Teacher Preparation
A major component of the CTP is to provide participants with the academic and
social support and field experience needed to persist in teaching. Students are
given opportunities to work with youth in an afterschool setting to apply the
content and teaching strategies they learn throughout the program.
During the STEM Summer Institute, students were given training that would
provide them with background knowledge and teaching strategies to teach a
specific STEM module to youth. Students, an instructor, and a supervising
teacher, expressed concern that the modules did not embed enough effective
teaching strategies to fully engage students in the science behind the modules.
Students felt there was little to no connection between the science they were
learning in their summer classes and the science that the STEM modules were
based on. They did not feel empowered to apply their science content
knowledge to create their own more interesting and relevant modules to teach
youth in their classes.
Students also expressed that they did not feel adequately prepared to meet
challenges related to discipline and personal issues that arose with the youth
they were teaching. Students in one of the focus groups wanted to learn more
strategies to deal with the emotional issues the youth brought into the classroom.
They also wanted to have the chance to make connections with the youth’s
families and their community in an effort to increase communication about the
progress that the youth were making in the afterschool program. An instructor
and supervising teacher echoed the same sentiments students shared about the
need to embed more teaching strategies in the program so that as future urban
educators, participating students are not perpetuating ineffective practices that
further disengage youth. However, due to time constraints, the program did not
include opportunities to infuse more teaching strategies for students.
Recommendation #2: Provide broader opportunities students to learn how
to plan for instruction and to receive mentorship on early teaching:
Students should be provided with opportunities to apply the content and teaching
strategies they learn in their courses for a more authentic experience teaching
youth. Adequate time and resource materials should be available for students to
collaborate with each other to plan and debrief their experiences. The
collaboration process would be more effective with the guidance of a master
teacher who could engage students in reflective conversations within the
parameters of the institute. These conversations would allow students to
evaluate and interpret data from their own practice. These conversations have
the potential to assist students in developing as effective teachers for the
communities that they serve. Additionally, the teaching strategies in the program
should be explicitly taught and modeled for students. It would also be beneficial
for students to visit classrooms with a mentor or master teacher so that they can
observe effective strategies at work. Students in the institute should also be
closely monitored and provided with timely feedback that is specific to how well
they implement teaching strategies throughout the length of the program. In this
way, students can continue to develop their practice so that they will have a
strong foundation in teaching upon exiting the program. .
Theme #3: Time Constraints
Over the course of the summer institute, students had a tight schedule of STEM
trainings, science classes, and afterschool employment working with youth. Both
students and staff in the institute expressed their concern that students were not
given enough time to prepare and communicate with their teaching partners
about the STEM modules they were to teach.
When it came to teaching the STEM modules to the youth, students in the focus
group felt they did not have enough time to set up the materials for the STEM
experiments, which lead to a lack of preparation to teach the modules. Students
also reported that their daily schedules were so impacted that they “needed time
to breathe.”, They also mentioned the need to debrief with each other and
discuss how they were feeling academically and socially in the context of the
program. These student concerns reiterate the need for collaboration with each
other as well as under the guidance of a master teacher.
The institute’s staff validated the students’ concerns about time constraints. Staff
felt that students needed more time to be reflective about their teaching so that
they can self evaluate their progress and performance. An instructor also
expressed a desire for the institute to focus more time on the mentorship
component of program. She did not feel there was enough time for her and the
supervising teacher to mentor students so that students could feel better
equipped to handle situations that came up in the program, such as dealing with
discipline in the classroom.
Recommendation #3: Embed Time within the Institute for Students to
Collaborate with Each Other and Staff:
Students and staff in the institute should have a regularly scheduled period of
time during their day to collaborate and receive mentorship. By setting aside
time for staff to serve as mentors, students can have questions and concerns
addressed as they come up. In this way, students will have time to plan,
practice, modify, and connect the STEM modules for the youth in their
classroom. Collaborative time can also be used to connect students with the
broader community to discuss ways of incorporating more community and family
partnerships into the institute. Overall, students need time to reflect on their
practice and get support from staff and each other.
List of Related Presentations, Publications, Grant Applications, and
Professional Work:


Noyce Summer Science Bridge Evaluation Project: Program evaluation
across four institutional partnership studies
Packard California Teacher Pathway Project: Statewide CTP evaluation
project
Selected References:
Braggs, D. (2007). Teacher pipelines: Career pathways extending from high
school to community college to university. Community College Review, 35
(1), 10-29.
Duncan-Andrade, J. & Morrell, E. (2008). The Art of Critical Pedagogy. New
York: Peter Lang.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Ingersoll, R & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, retention, and the minority teacher
shortage. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/226/
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Education Research Association, 32 (3), 465-491.
Lau, K.F., Dandy, B., Hoffman, L. (2007). The pathways program: A model for
increasing the number of teachers of color. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34
(4), 27-40.
McKinsey & Co. (2009) The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s Schools. Retrieved from
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/achievement_ga
p_report.pdf
McKinsey & Co. (2007). How the world’s best performing systems come out on
top. Retrieved from
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_
Systems_Final.pdf
Mortenson, T. (2009). California at the edge of a cliff: The failure to invest in
public higher education is crushing the economy and crippling our kids’
future. Sacramento, CA: California Faculty Association.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). The condition of education
2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf
National Center for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare
effective teachers. Available from
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715