Research in Brief - April 2007 - Volume 107 (4)

Challenges of Recruiting Candidates with Strong Academic Credentials

Jon Denton and Trina Davis
Texas A&M University

A major challenge to improving science education lies in the shortage of qualified science teachers (Chaika, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000; National Center for Education Statistics, 2001; National Research Council [NRC], 2000a, 2000b; United States Department of Education [USDE], 2000; Urban Teacher Collaborative [UTC], 2000). “Research has generally shown that high school math and science teachers who have a major in the subjects they teach elicit greater gains from their students than out-of-field teachers, controlling for the student's prior academic achievement and socioeconomic status” (USDE, 2002). A potential solution to this challenge consists of directing the energy and talent of graduate students and postdoctoral scientists to reinvigorate science education in schools (Alberts, 1999). This requires creating new, more accessible pathways for science professionals to enter teaching careers. One study included the finding that while 36% of doctoral-level mathematics and science graduate student/postdoctoral fellows surveyed had considered secondary school teaching in their career decision-making, only 0.8% of science and mathematics Ph.D.s work in K-12 education. Reasons for not pursuing teaching careers include perceptions about the difficulty of obtaining teacher certification (NRC, 2000b). Paradoxically, many undergraduate teacher preparation programs produce teachers who are weak in one or more science content areas, while at the same time, existing alternative certification requirements are thought to be so rigid and time consuming that content experts, such as scientists and engineers, are discouraged from transitioning into teaching.

We established a program to provide a flexible alternative certification program for grades 8-12 to address teacher supply in science and mathematics. This program was developed from a partnership between a College of Education and Human Development and a College of Medicine that has provided a talent pool of candidates with strong academic backgrounds in science and mathematics. The curricular elements of the program consist of an on-line curriculum with web-supported field experiences. The online curriculum consists of 35 online modules developed to engage the candidate with concepts and skills identified as necessary for a beginning teacher.

Participant status has been closely monitored in determining our progress in implementing this program across three years of operation. When we examined the status of 170 applicants partitioned by highest degree earned, we found of the 28 applicants who held PhD/MD degrees that seven had completed certification, 16 had not been admitted, four were candidates, and one had dropped out of the program. Of 19 applicants who held MS degrees, five had completed certification, eight had not been admitted, four were candidates and two had dropped out of the program. For the 123 applicants with BS degrees, 50 had completed certification, 48 had not been admitted, 20 were candidates and three had dropped during their internship.

A sizeable number of applicants across all levels of academic preparation were not admitted into our online certification program. Attrition ratios partitioned by highest degree attained were found to be .57 for PhD/MD, .42 for MS and .42 for BS applicants. Reviewing admission criteria and corresponding data, four factors were found that informed our non-admission decisions. The most common reason for non-admission was failing to complete the application process by 72 applicants (16 PhD/MD, 8 MS, 48 BS). Apparently a “change of heart” about becoming a teacher occurred for the applicant during the process of preparing a complete application packet. Possibly the tasks of obtaining transcripts to document their GPA and course work in their specialization, the background check of criminal activity, obtaining two support letters, and the prospect of not successfully completing the state required content test caused some applicants to reconsider their career decision about becoming a teacher. Perhaps these admission requirements were too rigid and time consuming that scientists and engineers, and some recent graduates with science majors, were discouraged from transitioning into teaching as suggested by recent reports (NRC 2000b; USDE, 2002). Yet these admission procedures are thought to be necessary to assure ourselves and employing school districts the applicant has at least been carefully screened to teach secondary students.

Low undergraduate grade point ratios resulted in non-admit decisions for 5 applicants with BS degrees, although each of these individuals had transcripts that documented sufficient academic courses in the teaching field to meet admission requirements. Less pronounced but meaningful is that two applicants were not being admitted because personal views and expectations about teaching were expressed during their interviews that are quite incongruent with actual classroom environments.

Twenty-eight applicants did not attain the state content test criterion score for admission. Masters level applicants performed as expected with all of these applicants reaching or exceeding the criterion score. Yet similar results did not occur for the PhD/MD applicants with six applicants holding advanced degrees not achieving the criterion score. Although reasons for the less than expected performance of PhD/MD applicants have not been determined, one conjecture is that these applicants have become so specialized in their graduate or professional studies that some areas of the content domain addressed on the test had not been considered for several years. A second hypothesis is that these individuals over-analyzed the test questions. Whatever the reason or reasons for these less than expected performances, this content test criterion score standard for admission has impacted whether an applicant has become a candidate in our teacher preparation program. This finding suggests the content test admission standards are not as lax as has been suggested in the literature (USDE, 2002).

References

Alberts, A. (1999). Are our universities producing too many PhDs? Trends in Cell Biology 2(1), M73-M75.

Chaika, G. (2005). The teacher shortage: Apply please. Education World. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/ admin/admin155.shtml

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Condition of education 2001. NCES publication 2001-072. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (2000a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000b). Attracting science and mathematics Ph.D.s to secondary school education. Prepared by the Committee on Attracting Science and Mathematics Ph.D.s to Secondary School Teaching for the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel Advisory Committee and the Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

United States Department of Education. (2000). Before it's too late: A report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

United States Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Office of Policy Planning and Innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Urban Teacher Collaborative. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.