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.

1

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.

2 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.

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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.

7 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).

8 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

9 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.

10 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

11 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.

12 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,

13 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

14 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?

15 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.

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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.

21 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.

22 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.

23 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.

24

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.

25

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)

26 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 MT Surveys (15-16) - coaching/mentoring Rasch measures Teacher candidates' perceptions of the quality and frequency of coaching/mentoring, PST Surveys (15-16) – of the mentor’s teaching effectiveness, and of the TEP 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 PST Surveys (15-16) teacher, program director/faculty, K-12 school administrator) and mentor teacher 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 PST Surveys (15-16) CPS, whether a parent. (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 PST Surveys (15-16) students) (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)

27 Table 5b: PST Perceptions of Preparedness Planning and Preparation Classroom Environment (PST reliability=.935; PST separation=3.797, PST (PST reliability=.906; PST separation=3.098, PST variance= 23.583) 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 Developing Classroom Communities for Learning Anticipating student misconceptions about content when planning for class Instruction Professional Responsibilities (PST Reliability = .935; PST separation=3.797, PST (PST reliability = .907; PST separation=3.127; PST variance=24.583) variance=16.138)

Table 6a: Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of PST Characteristics as a Function of Pathway

Traditional Pathway Alternative Pathway Residency Pathway (vs. Non-Traditional) (vs. Non-Alternative) (vs. Non-Residency) PST Characteristic Model Model Model Estimate Mean/% Estimate Mean/% Estimate Mean/% 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

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).

28 Table 6b: Top five reasons PSTs reported for choosing their pathway Traditional (n=537) Alternative (n=98) Residency (n=85) Reason Reason N (%) Reason N (%) Reason N (%) Rank Allowed yearlong 222 20 21 1 Strong reputation Other student (41.3%) (20.4%) (24.7%) teaching/residency 61 17 15 2 Less expensive Strong reputation Faster to complete (11.4%) (17.3%) (17.6%) Gives training in 60 Has financial 11 Gives training in my 10 3 my area (11.2%) aid/support (11.2%) area (11.8%) Teach temporarily Has financial 54 10 9 4 before pursuing Strong reputation aid/support (10.1%) (10.2%) (10.6%) other career 43 9 9 5 Results in a degree Less expensive Results in a degree (8.0%) (9.2%) (10.6%)

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).

29 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics and Estimates of Features of Preparation as a Function of Pathway

Traditional Pathway Alternative Pathway Residency Pathway (vs. Non-Traditional) (vs. Non-Alternative) (vs. Non-Residency) Model Model Model Estimate Mean/% Estimate Mean/% Estimate Mean/% 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

30 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 3.8 0.56* (0.26) 3.3 -0.40 (0.33) 3.2 -0.56 (0.35) 730 feedback^ PST: Frequency of MT’s feedback^ 3.0 -1.50*** 4.9 1.74*** (0.47) 4.1 0.63 (0.65) 732 (0.37) PST: MT’s job search assistance^ -0.5 1.91*** (0.43) -3.2 -2.28*** -1.7 -1.31 (0.71) 728 (0.62) PST: Frequency of MT’s mentoring activities^ -0.1 0.13 (0.20) -0.9 -0.82*** 0.3 0.47* (0.23) 634 (0.21) 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 6.4 0.82 (0.45) 4.6 0.33 (0.60) 6.9 -1.85*** (0.40) 574 observations^

31

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 Alternative Pathway Residency Pathway (vs. Non-Traditional) (vs. Non-Alternative) (vs. Non-Residency) Model Estimate Model Estimate Model Mean/% Mean/% Mean/% 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 65.8% 3.21*** (1.13) 19.2% 0.25** (0.13) 46.5% 0.41 (0.22) 507 generally Planning over ten years teaching 32.1% 0.76 (0.34) 16.3% 0.88 (0.55) 33.3% 1.63 (0.85) 509 in CPS 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 20.4% 0.32*** (0.09) 45.4% 1.77 (0.98) 50.6% 3.50** (1.48) 759 students 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 Northeastern Illinois University 106 Roosevelt University 17 (N=569) 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 11 Culture Illinois State University 26 University of Illinois Urbana- 9 Champaign 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 Teach for America 99 (N=111) Grand Canyon University 11 Western Governors University 1 Residency Academy for Urban School 58 (N=87) Leadership/National Louis or DePaul Universities Urban Teacher Education 20 Program/University of Chicago 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 527 52.9% 172 50.6% 0.29 major Teaching 471 76.4% 157 79.6% 0.68 subject major 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 MT: Mentoring effectiveness in instructional instructional domains domains Reliability = 0.802; separation = 2.011; (Reliability = 0.758; separation=1.771; variance=10.608) variance=7.113) How effectively did mentor… How effectively was your mentoring… PST: teach in cult. resp. ways? MT: in planning lessons? PST: plan and prepare? MT: in Common Core? PST: create/maintain pos. environment? MT: in culturally responsive teaching? PST: model professional responsibility? MT: in delivering instruction? PST: deliver instruction.? MT: in creating/maintaining positive classroom environment? MT: in modeling professionalism? PST: Overall evaluation of mentor feedback, MT: Frequency/Quality feedback provided observations, and relationship (Reliability = 0.913; separation=3.242; variance = (Reliability = 0.780, separation=1.885, 9.995) variance=5.941) Mentor… How often in your feedback did you… PST: gave feedback consistent with field instructor MT: share specific data? PST: provided PST with feedback often enough MT: refer to areas for improvement? PST: let PST take instructional risks MT: ask reflective quest? PST: gave feedback that helped PST learn to teach MT: offer general observations? PST: had appropriate expectations of PST MT: offer concrete suggestions for improvement? PST: allowed PST to make instructional decisions MT: refer to areas of strengths? PST: observed PST teach often enough PST: was available to help if needed PST: Frequency/Responsiveness Feedback MT: Job Search Assistance Received (Reliability = 0.843; separation=2.314; (Reliability = 0.896, separation=2.928, variance=9.352) variance=11.765) How often the mentor… How often you… PST: asked reflective questions MT: gave PST feedback on resume? PST: referred to specific areas for improve. MT: helped PST prepare for an interview? PST: referred to specific things done well MT: discussed with PST job openings at FPS? PST: gave concrete suggestions MT: discussed job openings beyond FPS? PST: offered general observations MT: offered PST advice on jobs to apply for? PST: Job Search Assistance Received MT: Frequency/Responsiveness Feedback (Reliability = 0.866; separation=2.540; (Reliability = 0.759, separation=1.776, variance=10.804) variance=11.651) How often the mentor… Agree/disagree PST: gave advice on types of jobs to apply? MT: My feedback was consistent with my PST's PST: discussed specific job openings at FPS? field instructor’s feedback PST: discussed specific job openings beyond FPS? MT: My feedback helped my PST learn to teach

PST: offered feedback on PSTs resume? MT: I provided my PST feedback frequently PST: helped PST prepare for an interview? enough MT: I observed my PST teach frequently enough

PST: Amount learned in conversation with MT: Mentor Training and Support mentor about instructional domains (Reliability = 0.837; (Reliability = 0.176; separation=0.462 separation=2.267;variance=11.978) ;variance=4.139) How much did you learn in conversations with Training/support received from TEP: your mentor about… MT: training on how to mentor my student teacher PST: Common Core ? MT: PD in mentoring/coaching strategies PST: Culturally responsive teaching MT: someone from program explained PST: Planning and preparation expectations PST: Professional responsibilities MT: orientation meeting for MTs PST: Positive classroom environment MT: met with field instructor PST: Delivering instruction 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.