A Model for Recruitment and Retention of Minority Students in Teacher Preparation Programs

1988 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest J. Middleton ◽  
Emanuel J. Mason ◽  
William E. Stilwell ◽  
William C. Parker
1989 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Nataraj Kirby ◽  
Linda Darling-Hammond ◽  
Lisa Hudson

This paper focuses on nontraditional training programs that train recruits for mathematics and science teaching. These recruits include recent college graduates with degrees in mathematics or science, individuals in science-related fields who are retiring or who want to make a midcareer switch to teaching, and teachers who initially prepared to teach in areas other than mathematics or science. We find that not all programs are equally effective and that the quality and intensity of preparation make a difference in how well prepared recruits feel to teach. Our study also indicates that, for all their promise, nontraditional teacher preparation programs cannot fully overcome other attributes of teaching that make recruitment and retention of teachers difficult.


Author(s):  
K. L. DeSutter

Educating a diverse population in America’s K-12 schools continues to receive attention in the media and professional literature. Consequently, professionals within university teacher preparation programs are making continual attempts to find ways to attract students from diverse backgrounds. Yet, these attempts have not provided the needed solution to diversifying America’s K-12 teaching force. This chapter summarizes current literature regarding the lack of minority students in teacher preparation programs across the United States. The chapter explores both institutional level and societal level challenges related to attracting minority students into teacher preparation programs. Current recruitment and retention systems are explored along with discussion of other factors that pose challenges such as stereotypes, systematic biases, and competing professional opportunities. The chapter ends with a discussion related to potential solutions at both the institutional and societal level.


Author(s):  
Frank C. Worrell ◽  
Mary M. Brabeck ◽  
Carol Anne Dwyer ◽  
Kurt F. Geisinger ◽  
Ronald W. Marx ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 1275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria S. Pak ◽  
Antony N. Lyovkin ◽  
Michael J. Sanger ◽  
Erik L. Brincks ◽  
Amy J. Phelps

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 508-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory Koedel ◽  
Eric Parsons ◽  
Michael Podgursky ◽  
Mark Ehlert

We compare teacher preparation programs in Missouri based on the effectiveness of their graduates in the classroom. The differences in effectiveness between teachers from different preparation programs are much smaller than has been suggested in previous work. In fact, virtually all of the variation in teacher effectiveness comes from within-program differences between teachers. Prior research has overstated differences in teacher performance across preparation programs by failing to properly account for teacher sampling.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 728-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Brady ◽  
Katie Miller ◽  
Jazarae McCormick ◽  
Lawrence A. Heiser

Educators struggle with “value-added” teacher evaluation models based on high-stakes student assessments. Despite validity and reliability threats, these models evaluate university-based teacher preparation programs (TPPs), and play a role in state and professional accreditation. This study reports a more rational value-added evaluation model linking student performance to teacher candidates’ lessons during Practicum and Student Teaching. Results indicate that K-12 students showed learning gains on these lessons, with mixed findings on comparisons of part-time to full-time internships, academic and functional lessons, and candidates’ grade point averages (GPAs). Results indicated that teacher candidates’ lessons are a viable value-added model (VAM) alternative for TPPs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document