USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00520
usfldc handle - e11.520
System ID:
SFS0024511:00519


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 15issue 13series Year mods:caption 20072007Month June6Day 2525mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2007-06-25



PAGE 1

Readers are free to copy display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for noncommercial purposes only, and no alte ration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http:/ /creativecommons.org/licen ses/by-nc-nd/2.5/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA EPAA is published jointly by the Mary Lou Fulton College of Education at Arizona State Universi ty and the College of Educ ation at the University of South Florida. Articles are indexed by H.W. Wilson & Co. Please contribute commentary at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Sherman Dorn (epaa-editor@shermandorn.com). EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Sherman Dorn College of Education University of South Florida Volume 15 Number 13 June 25, 2007 ISSN 1068–2341 Bureaucratic Discreti on and Alternative Te acher Certification: Understanding Program Variation in Missouri1 Ethan B. Heinen Central Connecticut State University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri-Columbia Citation: Heinen, E. B., & Scriber, J. P. (200 7) Bureaucratic discretion and alternative teacher certificati on: understanding program variation in Missouri. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(13) Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n13/ Abstract Alternative teacher certification literature has contributed significantly to our understanding of this approa ch to teacher preparation. However, this literature has more often than not treated alternative te acher certification pr ograms (ATCPs) as a black box, thus ignoring program heterogen eity. The present study examines how and why five ATCPs in Misso uri have evolved in different ways. To understand this variation and its potentia l significance for researcher s and practitioners, we use political science literature on bureaucrat ic discretion to understand programs’ varied responses within the same state policy context. Using a multiple case study design, we present two key findings. Firs t, external factors such as the state’s regulatory approach, programs’ relationsh ips with school districts, and programs’ relationship with external partners shap e program coordinators’ perceptions of their discretionary authority. Second, with in an environment of limited regulation, programs responded to these external fact ors in ways that shaped programs in 1 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0335523 as part of the Evaluation Resear ch Evaluation Capacity Building Program.

PAGE 2

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 2 dramatically different ways. These approaches ranged from formal partnerships with large urban school districts and philanthropic funders to alternative certification programs that were at least partially blen ded with existing undergraduate and post baccalaureate te acher preparation programs. In our discussion, we explore how state atte mpts to widen the discretionary space between the rules may have allowed external interests (e.g., school districts, and external funders) to backfill that sp ace in ways that limit the potential for programs to provide high quality prepar ation experiences. This study explores these consequences and trade offs in order to inform policy makers and practitioners who are concerned with fostering innovativ e and creative ways to prepare high quality teachers. Keywords: Teacher education; alternative certification; politics of education. Discrecin burocrtica y certificacio nes alternativas de maestros/as: Entendiendo la variacin de programas en Missouri Resumen La literatura sobre certif icaciones alternativas de docentes ha contribuido significativamente para nuestro entendimie nto sobre este modelo de formacin. Sin embargo, muy frecuentemente esa literatu ra ha tratado estos modelos como si fueran una caja negra, ignorando la heter ogeneidad de los prog ramas. Este estudio examina como y porque cinco programas de formacin docente en el estado de Missouri desarrollaron variante s diferentes de certificacin. Para entender esas variaciones y su potencial para la inve stigacin, la prcti ca, as como para comprender las diferencias entre las resp uestas de cada programa a una misma poltica estatal, utiliza mos la literatura de las ciencias polticas sobre la discrecin burocrtica. Utilizando un diseo de estu dios de casos mltip les, presentamos dos conclusiones relevantes. Primero, es qu e los factores externos, tales como el modelo de marco regulatorio del estado, la s relaciones del prog rama de formacin con los distritos escolares y las relaciones del programa con instituciones asociadas dan forma las percepciones de los coordi nadores del programa acerca de la autoridad discrecional. Segundo, en un contexto de regulacin limitada, los programas respondieron a los factores externos de maneras dramticamente diferentes. Esas maneras variaron desde crear asociaciones formales con distritos escolares de gran tamao y asociaciones f ilantrpicas hasta la fusin con programas de formacin docente a nivel de licenciatura y de post-licenciatura. En nuestro anlisis, discutimos como lo s esfuerzos del estado para expandir el espacio de discrecin de las normas puede haber pe rmitido que aquellos intereses externos (por ej. distritos escolares y financiadores externos ocup ar espacios que limitan el potencial de los programas para proveer experiencias de formacin de buena calidad. Este estudio explor a las consecuencias, positiva s y negativas para informar a quienes toman e implementa n las decisiones polticas para estimular formas innovadoras y creativas en la formacin de docentes. Palabras clave: formacin de docentes.; certificaciones alte rnativas; polticas educativas.

PAGE 3

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 3 In this era of high stakes accountability for public education the role and quality of teacher education has come under increasing scrutiny. As traditional four-year preparation models prepare teachers in over 1,300 colleges and universities across the US (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001), alternative teacher certifica tion programs (ATCPs) have also pr oliferated as states attempt to address teacher shortages (Ingersoll, 2001). Unlike traditional teach er preparation, ATCPs ostensibly recruit professionals from fields such as law, busine ss, and engineering into the teaching ranks at an accelerated pace. Several assumptions are inherent in the ATCP logic. For instance, policy makers often assume that efforts to attract professionals with substantive and relevant backgrounds are successful, and that those efforts result in the recruitment of substantial numbers of these experienced professionals. Many also assume that these professionals bring deep content knowledge that they can organize, access, and present in ways that improve student learning. While our larger agenda examines these and other assumptions, this paper focuses on program variation across ATCPs and the effects of this variation on policy implementation. This study takes a step back to ask how and why ATCPs in one state, Missouri, respond to their policy context and what implications these decisions have for program variation. By understanding ATCP variation future researchers will be better situated to tease out different types or aspects of ATCPs that best serve aspiring teachers and under what conditions. This study presents findings from the first phase of a multi-year project to evaluate the preparation, experience, and performance of alterna tively certified mathematics and science teachers in Missouri. To understand how and why Missouri’s ATCPs have evolved in such varied form we purposively selected the five ATCPs that prep are approximately 80 percent of Missouri’s alternatively certified mathematics and science te achers. To achieve our purpose we borrowed from bureaucratic theory—specifically bureaucratic discretion—to examine each program within its unique context. Several questions guided this stud y, including: How, and in what ways, do ATCP stakeholders (e.g., program coordinators and instru ctors) make sense of their policy contexts as they shape their programs? What factors influence the le vel of discretion perceived by stakeholders? And, what impact do these varying levels of disc retion have on how these programs develop? ATCPs: The National an d Missouri Contexts The National Context In the 1980s ATCPs emerged as a policy respons e to teacher shortages by accelerating the certification process (National Center for Educati on Information [NCEI], n.d. b; Dial & Stevens, 1993). In many cases ATCPs served specific need s including training teachers for specific content areas and/or particular locations (i.e., rural or urban). NCEI (n.d. b) offered a comprehensive definition of ATCPs: The term commonly refers to becoming a credentialed teacher ranging from emergency teacher certification to very sophisticated and well-designed programs that address the professi onal preparation needs of the growing population of individuals who already have at least a ba ccalaureate degree an d considerable life experience who want to become teachers.

PAGE 4

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 4 Although ATCP effectiveness is routinely debated, they have had a significant impact on teacher certification (NCEI, n.d. b). As of 2003, more than 175,000 teachers had been certified through alternative routes, and 45 of 50 states had some type of alternative program managed at the state level. A National Center for Ed ucation Information report (N CEI) (n.d. a) suggests that alternative routes could soon contribute as mu ch as one-third of all new hires. According to Reichardt (2002), the teacher preparation system is implemented through the loose interaction of state educati on agencies that regulate programs and certify teachers, higher education institutions that prepare teachers, and school districts that hire teachers. For decades, this loose confederation prepared, certified, and hi red teachers without one institution unduly influencing the practices of the others. Recently, th is dynamic has begun to change. For example, in some states large urban districts have instit uted their own ATCPs or have partnered with organizations outside mainstream higher educat ion to recruit and train teachers (Kwiatkowski, 1999). Overall, ATCPs remain overwhelmingly si tuated in universities of higher education. Regardless of where they sit, ATCPs have changed th e landscape of teacher pr eparation by creating new avenues to teaching. The proliferation of ATCPs has been accelerated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that requires all teachers in core subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005–2006 school year. Furthermore, the US Department of Education (Secretary’s Report, 2002) has supported ATCPs as a way to lower barriers to teaching certification for non-traditional teachers (i.e., experienced professionals with subject rele vant backgrounds) (Hess, Rotherham, & Walsh, 2004). The Missouri Context Teacher supply and demand According to the most recent supply and demand analysis for mathematics and science teachers in Missouri, th e state’s preparation programs meet only 25% of the state’s demand for new secondary mathematic s and science teachers (Building Engineering and Science Talent, 2006). The shortfall is resolved by hiring teachers with emergency certifications, hiring teachers from other states, or assigning ex isting teachers to teach outside their certification area. The fact that approximately one-third of newl y certified teachers do not enter teaching and up to 40 percent of Missouri’s new teachers leave the profession in their first three years (Scribner, Bickford, & Heinen, 2003) further limits the supply of mathematics and science teachers in Missouri. The evolution of ATCPs in Missouri. In 1998, Missouri created the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP) which the state’s teacher preparation programs, including ATCPs, must meet. MoSTEP provided overarching guidelines that approved teacher preparation programs must follow (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, n.d. a). MoSTEP also requires that teachers pass the Praxis exit exam prior to certification, including the Praxis’ subject matter and pedagogy portions. In addition to MoSTEP, in 2000 Missouri introduced Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) regulation 80-805. 030 (Innovative and Alternative Professional Education Programs) to specifically regulate AT CPs and other innovative programs (Missouri Department of Education, n.d., b). Based on information obtained through interviews, state officials explained that regulations were minimal to allow program administrators some room to innovate. State officials were not experts about how ATCPs should work, and did not have adequate statelevel resources to oversee and evaluate ATCPs. This regulation defined ATCPs as “a progra m for the preparation of professional school personnel that provides a curriculum for post-bacca laureate degree candidates without professional

PAGE 5

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 5 education preparation to enable them to meet th e requirement for state certification” (Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education, no date, a) Furthermore, regulations state that alternative teacher certification in Missouri is for ce rtification of secondary education teachers only. Finally, it is important to note that Missouri’s regu lation explicitly required that ATCPs be delivered through an institution of higher education. As a result, ATCPs in Missouri are not offered through other entities such as school districts; however, un iversity partnerships with school districts and/or non-profit organizations are permitted. Regulations also stipulate requirements for in dividuals eligible for alternative teacher certification in Missouri. ATCP teach er candidates must have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in a field related to the desired certification area. Furt hermore, teacher candidates are required to have earned a minimum GPA of 2.5 (out of 4.0) both cumulatively and in their major. In a departure from regulations guiding traditional routes to certification, individuals in ATCPs are candidates for certification (2-year provisional certification unt il program completion) upon admission into their ATCP. Finally, regulations stipulate that individual s in ATCPs are assigned a mentor by their school district in the same subject and approximately the same grade, receive additional assistance as determined by the ATCP, participate in school dist rict professional development, and participate in the employing district’s Performance-Based Teache r Evaluation program (Missouri Department of Education, n.d., b). Bureaucratic Discretion and Variability among Programs Each program’s purpose, structure, and proce sses were shaped in part by the decisions program coordinators made in response to local, state, and even national policy contexts. We used bureaucratic discretion theory to explore how thes e programs took shape in different ways in one state. Bureaucratic discretion theory suggests that the decisions of program deliverers are bounded and shaped by external forces (e.g., political, econo mic, or social) that determine the extent of discretion available to decision-makers. Bureaucratic di scretion theory serves as a useful lens to study variation among ATCPs precisely because ATCPs ha ve become an explicit strategy to address teacher shortages as elected officials and program administrators respond to school district pressure to increase the number of teacher candidates. In addition, by using bureaucratic discretion as a conceptual lens we are able to acknowledge the heterogeneity of ATCPs, understand why this difference exists, and open avenues for discussion regarding the relative effectiveness of ATCP policy at the state level, and program stru cture and process at the program level. Bureaucratic Discretion: The Space between the Rules Discretion refers to the degree to which choice is available to those responsible for program implementation. As Handler (1986) noted, while bureaucratic discretion is “ubiquitous and difficult to define [it] involves the existence of choice, as contrasted with decisions purportedly being dictated by rules” (p. 331). Thus, discretion is exercised through the interpretation of policy implementers (Keiser, 2001)—i.e., how rules and regulations are interpreted and carried out. The degree of latitude made available to those who im plement policy is contingent on the explicitness of rules and regulations promulgated by the govern ing agency and the capacity of said agency to enforce the rules and regulations (Hummel, 1987). Hawkins (1986) described the extent to which those responsible for implementing programs and policy have discretion to interpret policy as the “space between rules” (p. 11; see also Keiser, 2001).

PAGE 6

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 6 Extant literature on bureaucratic discretion su ggests that policy makers often go to great lengths to control agency behavior and thus discreti onary latitude. If policymakers trust an agency, they tend to delegate broadly. When trust wanes policymakers write restrictive and prescriptive mandates in an attempt to control discretion at the implementation level (Huber, Shipan, & Pfhaler, 2001). This study challenges this assumption by suggesting that environments permissive of broad ATCP discretion may have less to do with policymaker s’ trust in these organizations and more to do with trust in competitive and market forces driven by the needs of school district superintendents. Findings from this study underscore the lack of a uniform process for policy implementation based on standardized goals and objectives. Instead, po licymakers acted on salient issues (e.g., enrollment increases, teacher shortages) as they arose in the policymaking context. Bureaucratic Discretion and the Street-level Bureaucrat First, it is important to note that discretion is inherently neutral. That is, the degree to which government agents act on their own is neither inhere ntly good nor bad. Instead, this paper explores the effects of discretionary behavior on program implementation. The limited regulation of ATCPs in Missouri provides an interesting case for expl oring how this policy context influences program development and implementation. Our study was al so informed conceptually by literature on the street level bureaucrat to understand how progra m stakeholders exercise discretionary authority (Lipsky, 1980) as they operate in the “spa ce between the rules.” Lipsky’s notion of street-level bureaucrats extends the concept of bureaucratic di scretion into the realm of those persons “interacting directly with citizens in th e course of their jobs” (1980, p. 3). The amount of the street level bureaucrat’s di scretionary authority determines the extent to which he or she can interpret organizational goal s and direction as they enact the organization’s mission through decision-making. According to Lips ky (1980), as the stre et level bureaucrat’s discretion is limited feelings of alienation may increase. However, as Lipsky also points out, the dynamism of environments in which organizations operate also dictates the amount of discretion street level bureaucrats can exercise. Dynamic envi ronments that cannot be reduced to prescribed formats, or standard operating procedures, provid e more space for street level bureaucrats to wield discretion (Lipsky, 1980). Street level bureaucrats struggle in this opaque world as they interpret and implement policies within their unique contexts, while also attempting to ensure fidelity of implementation. However, these roles of policy formulation, impl ementation, and oversight are challenged in a variety of ways. Most notably, bureaucracies are illsuited for dealing with the nuances of distinct cases. As a result, bureaucracies balance tensions created by demands to standardize procedures, to be proficient (producing a high-quality, sustainabl e teaching force), and to be efficient (accelerating the rate of teacher training) with thei r operations (Hammond & Miller, 1985). In response to these tensions, bureaucracies typically attempt to maximize efficiency of service delivery by controlling the ways in whic h agents exercise discretion through training, socialization, and routine-making (Feldman, 1986 ). Bureaucratic organizati ons attempt to clearly define the nature of work, develop performance measures, and utilize mechanisms for rewards and sanctions (Hammond & Miller, 1985). However, as decision-making becomes decentralized—and points of service are increased—bureaucratic expert ise shifts from the centralized core to the decentralized satellites of the bureaucratic chain of command (West, 1975). For better or worse, decentralization lessens the static nature of bure aucracies and opens the system to pressure from clientele groups (West, 1975). While opening bure aucracies to external pressure can increase their responsiveness to client needs, it can also lead to agency capture by the most powerful client groups.

PAGE 7

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 7 The case of ATCPs in Missouri offers an ideal pl atform to explore how discretion leads to program variety. Design and Method We employed a multiple-case study design and focused on five ATCPs from the sixteen universities with ATCPs in the state (Yin, 1994; Stak e, 1994). Yin (1994) argues that multiple case designs are useful because they allow the researcher to explore patterns across cases, which inform or are informed by theory. Thus, while findings fr om a case study(ies) may not be generalizable per se, the bounded nature of case studies allows researchers to make claims applicable to the case(s) studied (Yin, 1994, Hamel, Dufour, & Fortin, 1993) This study represents a subset of findings from a larger longitudinal study of alternative certifi cation policy and practice for secondary mathematics and science teachers in Missouri. Case studies were selected purposively (Erlandson, Skipper, & Allen, 1993) to include programs that prepared ap proximately 80 percent of alternatively certified mathematics and science teachers. According to Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) administrative files, in 2003–2004, 122 newly certified mathematics and science teachers flowed from Missouri’s school s and colleges of education to Missouri’s public schools. Based on DESE’s data estimates of annual hiring needs for mathematics and science teachers are 270 and 262 respectively. As Table 1 indicates, ATCPs prepared between 11 and 79 mathematics and science aspiring teachers during the 2003–2004 academic year for a total of 151 teachers. Of the 18 ATCPs preparing teachers in Misso uri in 2003–2004, 12 were preparing six or fewer mathematics and science teachers. One private university was preparing about 16 mathematics and science teachers, but that university’s border lo cation led the majority of those teachers to teach or plan to teacher in another state. In addition, the cases in this study represented a diversity of contexts. As Table 1 shows, two programs served two large urban districts; two programs served a large number of mostly rural districts; and one program prepared solely mathematics and science teachers for employment in primarily suburban and ru ral districts. In addition, the cases chosen also represent different instructional and structural models, including cohorts, non cohorts, and partnerships.

PAGE 8

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 8 Table 1 Salient Characteristics of Alternati ve Teacher Certification Programs Program Districts Math & Science Teachers, 2003–04 Location Funding x Prog ram Structures & Features A 100 18 Rural Tuition Some integration with other existing program courses Certification only Field-based adjuncts Unsequenced curriculum B 1 11 Urban Local foundation and DESE Cohort Certification and Masters degree options University faculty Sequenced curriculum C 10 43 Suburban and rural Federal grant Cohort Certification and Masters degree options University faculty Sequenced curriculum D 50 79 Predominantly rural Tuition Semi-structured cohort (some coursework shared with other certific ation routes) Certification and/or Masters degree Mostly university faculty Partially sequenced curriculum E 1 13 Urban Local foundation and DESE Semi-structured cohort (some coursework shared with other certific ation routes) Certification and Masters degree options Mostly university faculty Partially sequenced curriculum

PAGE 9

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 9 Data Collection, Participants, and Analysis We used qualitative methods to investigate the ro le of bureaucratic discretion in our ATCP cases. The primary data collection method was interviewing; however, documents (e.g., program documents and syllabi) and observations of classroom preparation also served as data sources. We employed a snowball approach to participant selection in order to increase the sphere of potential stakeholders we interviewed who made critical deci sions regarding ATCPs at each university. It is difficult to know in advance who actually makes programmatic decisions. We began our research at each site by interviewing deans to gain entre and to determine where to begin our investigation. In each case, deans directed us to ATCP program coordinators to begin ou r investigations. In all cases, ATCP coordinators also encouraged us to inter view instructors. In one case, we interviewed a college’s certification officer on the suggestion of the program coordinator. In all, six ATCP coordinators (one site had two coordinators), 15 instructors, one college certification office, and three state education officials who oversaw alterna tive teacher certification and teacher quality were interviewed. Instructors interviewed were either math ematics or science education instructors, but three instructors taught topics such as educationa l foundations or classroom management. The state education officials were interviewed to unders tand the teacher certification policy and the regulations guiding ATCPs. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended to encourage spontaneity and free flowing thought. Interviews lasted 30–60 minutes. All AT CP coordinators were interviewed at least twice. Follow-up interviews usually focused on clarifying in formation already gathered. All interviews with coordinators, instructors, and teacher candidates were conducted on-site and were tape-recorded. Interviews with state agency officials were conducted on-site and were not tape-recorded. In addition to interviews, observations of instruction wer e conducted to better understand the nature of teachers’ preparation experiences. At four sites initial summer courses and coursework during the academic year were observed to understand the nature and content of material delivered to teachers. At one case study site, most courses were taught via the internet. In those cases content was reviewed on-line. Twenty-six class sessions across the programs were observed. Documents gathered from the sites and from the state agency were used to verify factual knowledge, explore espoused program logics, and to inform questions asked during interviews (Yin, 1994). Documents were especially helpful in un derstanding program designs, philosophies, and goals. State-level policy documents were analyzed to understand formal regulations that govern ATCPs. Analysis of data was supported by qualitativ e analysis software (NVivo) to help facilitate thematic development and theorizing. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method to “generate theory by using explicit coding an d analytic procedures” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 102). The constant comparative method consisted of categorizing data and reducing data into themes that enabled theorizing around our central concepts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Data were categorized by applying techniques of open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Open coding was used to categorize data and to elicit questions from the data; axial coding was used to make connections across categories and to develop theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Results In this section we present two principal findin gs. First, we present data on the policy context and other external forces that influenced pr ogram discretion; second, we explore how ATCP

PAGE 10

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 10 coordinators responded to these forces as they exer cised discretion in different ways and to different degrees that resulted in substantial program variation. Bureaucratic discretion is a tricky concept. Stak eholders’ discretion to make decisions can be fostered or curtailed by myriad factors. In addition, discretion (or lack thereof) is neither inherently positive nor negative. As we will show below, AT CP coordinators made sense of and responded differently to an ambiguous alternative certificati on policy and accompanying regulations in different ways. Their experiences with external environment pressures also differed. As a result of these factors that influenced discretion, programs de veloped and implemented ATCPs that varied in significant ways. Determinants of Discretion Making sense of the “space between the rules.” As we described above, the state of Missouri—like other states—originally adopted alte rnative teacher certification policy to address teacher shortages. With the onset of NCLB, alterna tive certification also became a strategy to increase the number of highly qualified teachers by increasing the percentage of certified teachers teaching in their subject area. State certification o fficials acknowledged that Missouri adopted broad regulations in an attempt to foster creativity, innovation, and timely development of programs. However while this space between the rules created potential for programs to exercise broad discretion, the decisions made within th is space varied in interesting ways. Our data suggest that because Programs B, C, and E were newly conceived and extraordinary for Missouri, coordinators sought more state guidance during program development and early implementation phases. In particular, th ese three cases responded directly to a call for proposals by the state agency for new models of pr ogram delivery, thus inviting higher levels of oversight from the beginning. In these cases, program coordinators sought oversight as they developed and implemented their novel programs in order to ensure that program practices would not be challenged later by stated offi cials. Program E’s coordinator commented: We had to get special perm ission from the state for ou r program to provide the Masters [degree] as well as the certificati on and we had to submit coursework. I would say that the state expectations and guidelines have been very instrumental…and we try to follow them. However, complicating this prog ram-state relationship was the ambiguity of the oversight when coordinators sought guidance. One program coordi nator called it the “w e’ll know it when we see it” syndrome when referring to guidance rece ived from the state. As a result, while these programs with their novel partnership structure s and instructi onal delivery models were careful to practice within the confines of their writ ten program design, they grew accustomed to a general laissez faire approach to state oversight. For instance, Program B’ s coordinator indicated that over time her communicati on with the state agency increasi ngly focused on administrative details. Likewise, the Program C coordinator de scribed how her interactions with state agency officials were “front loaded” at program outset. In practice, what discretion these program coordi nators exercised was within the confines of their clearly defined program missions, such as “p reparing alternatively certified science and mathematics teachers” or “preparing teachers for the urban school environment.” Programs B, C, and E’s deliberate focus on their well-defined missi ons was also shared by multiple stakeholders (e.g., coordinators and instructors) involved in cu rriculum development and delivery. For example, Program C faculty were able to describe their pr ogram in similar terms, and all faculty interviewed

PAGE 11

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 11 had a shared understanding of the purpose and goals of the program. A Program C coordinator described this process: As we designed our progra m, we had to think not only what would the graduate school work with, but what our fa culty would work with, and how our certification office would respond. There were all those pieces of the puzzle, as well trying to figure out what we believe about tea cher education. On the other hand, the ca se study programs that developed their ATCPs mo re explicitly on the chassis of existing teacher preparation prog rams perceived less oversight from the state education agency. Notably, Programs A and D de livered at least some ATCP programming via existing undergraduate or master’s courses. Pr ogram documentation support ed the fact that in many cases ATCP teachers in these two progra ms not only received the same coursework content but in some cases attended the same clas ses as aspiring teachers in other preparation tracks. While reasons for the different nature of state-program interact ions are difficult to unequivocally discern, coordinato rs suggested that the structural familiarity of Programs A and D would have reduced the percep tion that they were creating new programs and thus reduced the perceived need for state oversight. Regardless of the program stakeholders’ percepti ons of state oversight, each of the ATCP coordinators agreed that it was difficult to k now if their programs always aligned with state regulations. Coordinators believed that most inconsistencies and disconnects between their programs and the state’s intentions for the programs were due to at least three factors. First, broad state regulations allowed for a wide berth of inter pretation at the program level. Second, the state’s lack of ongoing oversight and guidance created a situation in which ATCPs flourished around the state but did not benefit from systematic co mmunication and coordination. As one program coordinator put it, “programs around the state were reinventing the wheel” as a result of lack of communication among programs and the state. And thir d, the state generally responded reactively to program coordinators’ questions but tended to res pond proactively with new programs, particularly in the early stages. A Program C coordinator commented: We had a lot of struggles internally with interpreting the policy. Policies [are] interpretable on many levels and there certainly were conflicts about how we interpret the policy . There’s policies on paper and then there’ s stuff that’s in people’s heads abou t the interpretation of those policies or that traditional practice that come out of these po lices, and they are not the same. Along this same vein, a Program B coordina tor described the gap between st ate level policymakers and the realities of program implementation: There aren’t even standards. How would th ey know if you’re a program? For one thing, it is all a document game. I give them documents that say we’re going to cover all the standards in 33 hours. And they are sittin g down to a meeting with five PhDs who can talk the talk and how do th ey have time to go and find out? State agency officials agreed that consensus on what ATCPs should look like did not exist, nor was there agreement about how they should fun ction. As a result, offi cials informally gave discretion to program directors and coordinators to develop prog rams as they saw fit. Data illustrate the give and take be tween state officials and progra m personnel. Belo w we show how other factors influenced discretion and ultimately program variation. Leveraging discretion from the bottom up. Program coordinator’s choices regarding how proactively they worked with school district superin tendents and brokered school district needs with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) also contributed to the level of discretion coordinators exercised. Unlike the case study ATCPs that served fewer school districts, Programs A and D proactively served as agents for superintendents of Missouri’s numerous and

PAGE 12

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 12 sometimes far-flung rural districts As state officials acknowledged, DESE’s regulatory function was less important in practice than its mission of meeting the needs of school districts. This organizational stance further facilitated the provid er-client relationships between Programs A and D and school districts they served. Program A’s coordi nator described the relationship with the state agency as his program met school district needs: A lot of the communication [with the state education agency] is informal. I’ll give you an example. I’m up there chatting with the state official and he said, “Oh by the way, you may not realize this, but I know you have a lot of [alternative certification teachers] down there in busi ness ed….They kind of flow down to seventh and eight grade and we probably won’t worry about it.” I said, “So you’re telling me that I can go ahead and run an academic contract and that I can go ahead and run [alternative teacher certific ation] down to the middle school?” He said, “Yeah go ahead and do that.” So there’s nothin g in writing. Not a damn thing. But we’ve been do ing that. A lot of that. Of the five case studies, Prog ram A exercised the most discretion when negotiating with the state education agency to meet the employment ne eds of school district s. Program A served a large, mostly rural, geographic ar ea in which schools had difficult ies filling teaching vacancies. As such, school districts active ly engaged Program A’s coordinator to expedite the certification process and passed along these concerns to state officials. The result was a symbiotic relationship in which Program A focused on certifying teachers (as opposed to post baccalaureate degrees, instructiona l cohorts etc.) and responding to districts needs on a case by case basis. Program A’s coordi nator described the situation: Superintendents and principa ls come to us. Th ey had holes they couldn’t fill. That’s one problem endemic to this area So it’s been the demand from the superintendents and the principals for help not the state agency. So it was that kind of demand that drove it. To respond to this demand, Program A’s c oordinator devised meth ods to increase the program’s ability to re spond quickly to te acher shortages. For example, in addition, to preparing teachers within the ATCP regula tory framework described earlie r (e.g., 2.5 GPA, bachelor’s degree in a related area, etc.), Program A’s co ordinator created a side route to alternative certification for teachers who did not meet those minimum criteria. Program A’s coordinator described this process: At one point early in the fall, we had over 350 st udents in the program. Now they’re [teachers] not all even officially alternative certification… for lack of a better term we call them advisees… [W]hat happens is they’ll actually get in, and they’re usually lacking a su bject area… We let them take some of the initial courses that are in the alt-cert sequence versus our normal un dergraduate. Sure, why not? What am I going to do, turn tuition away? Unlike the more tightly coupled structures and missions of Programs B, C, and E, the responsiveness of Program A to sc hool district needs resulted in a more fluid program but with less shared understanding between the program coordinator and instructors. One interview with a Program A instructor illust rates the resulting gap: Interviewer : Are there any overarching goal s that you try to stick to? Respondent : No. Interviewer : Because there aren’t any? Do they exist formally and aren’t operationalized? Respondent : I am sure they exist formally. But, well, actually, I shouldn’t say that. I’m not even sure they exist formally.

PAGE 13

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 13 Interviewer : So the alt cert instruct ors don’t have any sens e of . [respondent cuts off interviewer] Respondent. …The alt cert people never get together. These data suggest th at within the Missouri cont ext of limited regulations, program coordinators who chose to respond directly to district needs exercised considerable discretionary authority. As our data will show below, those programs who worked closely wi th external partners narrowed their own discretionary authority, particul arly in central aspects of teacher preparation. External partnerships and program discretion. While Programs A and D partnered informally with school districts, Programs B and E partnered formally with one large urban school district and third party organizations with a variet y of significant roles. Program C did not have a formal partner as such; however, Program C received federal funding to implement a program with specific goals—i.e., the preparation and placement of secondary mathematics and science teachers in Missouri’s public schools. Working with a small number of school districts increased accountability to partner school districts and decreased overall program discretion. In programs that served a larger number of school districts, accountability was distributed ac ross partner districts, and ATCPs had access to many partner school districts for teacher placements In effect, their risk was spread across many districts and the power relations were more equal or in favor of the programs. These programs could afford to have a poor relationship with a particular school and did not have to sacrifice time and resources on non-productive relationships Program D’s coordinator explained: We work with a lot of neighboring schools and districts, and it gives us flexibility in terms of placements. We have a closer working relationship with some, but we try to work with as many we can. And so me of them are very different from one another. We have a lot of access. Generally, formal partnerships increased accounta bility of the program to external entities and reduced the program’s level of di scretion. Discretion was curtaile d for these programs in terms of teacher placement and mentoring situations. Where program funding was provided in part or completely by local philanthropic organizati ons, the input on program decisions such as recruitment, admittance, and job placement were not under the so le purview of ATCP coordinators or instructors. Tension was palpable in Progra ms B and E in which external partners provided significant funding and influenced key ar eas for decision-making. For example, while Program E personnel expressed c oncern for preparing teachers in the areas of pedagogy, content knowledge, and classroom management, the coordinator believed that external partners we re more concerned about placin g teachers in schools quickly. Similar sentiments were expressed at Program B where program and partner goals were not closely aligned. Program B had long-term goals to train teachers who would stay in the field for a significant period of time. According to Prog ram B’s coordinator, however, the school district partner used these teachers to fill difficult positions in schools with the greatest need. The result was a significant drain on the program, in addition to raising concerns about long-term sustainability and impact. A Program B coordinator stated: One of the problems we’ve had is that we want to find our career transition folks what we would consider to be better pl acements. [The district] doesn’t. And you have to understand these schools. They pu t some of our people into some of the roughest, most dead-end scho ols where the faculty is already burned out. It’s just a bad place, and it is the ki nd of place that loses firstyear teachers each year and we didn’t want that. In short, the number of distri cts served and the presence or absence of external partners appeared to influence program discretion. In rura l areas, programs A and D actively served large

PAGE 14

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 14 numbers of small rural districts, districts that had few other te acher suppliers. The dependence of so many districts on their pr ograms may have cultivated a service approach towards their relationship with these districts. On the other ha nd, in cases where formal partnerships existed, the discretion and input of professional ed ucators’ on important decisions regarding recruitment, selection, and placement was limited. Program Responses to Varying Levels of Discretion The previous sections shed light on how ATCP decision-makers made sense of their discretionary authority in relation to external factors such as state oversight, school district pressure, and formal partnerships. In this section we explore how these perceptions may have led to different programmatic responses and perceived challenges. These responses influenced program structure and process decisions such as numbers of studen ts admitted, standards for admittance, and modes of instructional delivery. In addition, programs with less perceived discretion seemed to struggle with the tension between delivering an accelerated curriculum and meeting the learning needs of the teachers more than the programs that res ponded to the needs of many districts. With higher levels of perceived discreti on, programs A and D used the most open admissions standards and program choices. For in stance, these programs’ coordinators made choices that ensured the utmost responsiveness to key constituents in their external environment. Choices made included accepting students based on the minimum requirements of a 2.5 GPA in a bachelor’s degree and a forgiving interpretation of the relatedness of past experience to either science or mathematics than programs with less perceived discretion. While Programs A and D did not actively recruit teachers, they prepared the most alternatively certified teachers (see Table 1). In Program A the coordinator accommodated as many prospective teachers as possible. For example, as we showed above Program A teachers who did not meet minimum coursework for alternative certification were allowed in the program unoffici ally while they completed their prerequisites. These programs also exercised flexibility in the options available to teachers to earn their alternative certification. Although Program A onl y offered certification, the program coordinator delivered a flexible and individualized curriculum in order to attract teachers into the program and move teachers into the field as quickly as possible. Program A teachers were often paired with adjuncts such as principals to address a required topic for course credit. Program A’s coordinator explained that separating alterna tive certification from degree pr ograms afforded him the utmost flexibility in responding to district needs. On the other hand, Program D ensured flexibility by combining aspiring teachers from various tracks in some of the same preparation courses. For example, we observed courses focused on child development and learning theory in which both alternative certification teachers and undergradua te education majors were in attendance. In other cases, alternative certification tea chers attended classes with master s students. Ultimately, Programs A and D succeeded in recruiting large numbers of st udents in spite of their location in low density population areas. As Program D’s coordinator desc ribed, “we have to de-recruit because we can’t accommodate all the potential teachers interested in alt cert.” In short, Programs A and D were designed to accommodate many teachers quickly, while other programs planned around a central cohort that moved through the program uniformly. In contrast, Programs B, C, and E structure d their programs differently in response to perceived state oversight and influences from ex ternal partners and funders. As one coordinator said, “By being innovative, by using cohorts, by interfacing with local philanthropic organizations, and by working closely with troubled urban school districts, we invite oversight [by the state and partners].” Programs B, C, and E also delivered program content in more tightly structured formats

PAGE 15

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 15 than the other programs. For example, programs B, C, and E grouped teacher candidates in cohorts to deliver their program. As a result, teacher ca ndidates received content together and in planned sequence. These programs actively recruited students with backgrounds or interests relevant to the subject areas and contexts in which they would te ach. For instance, Program B and E’s teacher candidates were recruited by partner organizati ons across multiple subject areas. However, teacher candidates were sought who had a desire to teach in the urban context. On the other hand, Program C’s external funding included support for recruitment which they used to recruit solely mathematics and science teachers using radio advertisements, highway billboards, websites, as well as more traditional forms of recruitment. A Program C coordinator described this: With recruiting we are working with th e Human Services dire ctor at the local school district. We’ve been trying to reach people who are coming right out of college with bachelors in math or scien ce. We’ve contacted the placement offices in the colleges around Misso uri. We even went to a co uple of county job fairs. Programs that coupled certificat ion and a master’s degree described more pointedly the struggle to offer both advanced curriculum and high quality learning experiences to alternative certification teachers, rather than simply addressing district need s or partner wants as quickly as possible. A Program C Instructor described this philosophy: The issue was, “How do I cr eate a course that will help students who historically are very content-centered and help them become more student-centered?” One of the ongoing dichotomies in virtually every college of education are those people who are student-focused and those who are content-focused. The tension created by accelerating te acher preparation while focusi ng on program quality was a challenge for all programs. In so me cases, the rhetoric of program quality juxtaposed with observation and interview data suggested progra m quality was in danger of being merely an espoused value. Reviews of syllabi and coordinato r, instructor, and teache r interviews suggested that teacher coursework focused primarily on surviv al tactics rather than deeper pedagogical and content learning. For example, a Program B instru ctor described his appr oach to teaching and the curriculum: I met with people that were originally supposed to teach th e course and they suggested things that would be good to co ver. Which was great, but I didn’t set it up that way. I let the students pick whic h chapters they wan ted to cover because they knew what they needed to know mo re than anyone else . and I think they’re more invested in it because they got to choose. While also faced with the same challenges, one program managed to addr ess more than survival tactics to a great extent than the other prog rams. Observations, interviews and documents all suggest that Program C was desi gned and implemented in a wa y that exposed teachers to relevant content knowledge, pedagogical practi ces and philosophies, an d practical classroom management experience. Data would suggest that this success was due to the tight coherence of the program (i.e., cohorts, prescribed sequenc ing and content of cour sework, interface of classroom learning and field experience) and a fo cus on solely mathematics and science teachers that enabled program instruct ors to connect all content to teachers’ subject areas. More highly structured programs tended to pr oduce fewer teachers, offered longer periods of training prior to placements, and were held mo re accountable or were otherwise constrained by partnership arrangements. Lesser degrees of discreti on appeared to force programs or their partners to actively recruit teachers to fill these positions. Th ese findings also showed that programs with less perceived discretion acknowledged the tension pose d by moving teachers to the field quickly and providing them with the appropriate depth and breadth of preparation needed to succeed. Unfortunately, across most programs, coursework did not focus on teaching as a discipline but

PAGE 16

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 16 instead emphasized procedures of lesson/unit planning and classroom management. While knowledge and skill related to these matters were ind eed vital to a teacher success, the fact was that in the more loosely structured programs th e how-to’s of teaching were given priority. The integration of pedagogy and content knowledge with the procedural knowledge of teaching was even less evident. Discussion Describing catalysts for bureaucratic change Nelson (1982) explained that high profile events are often responsible for creating the polit ical forces that instigate change in public organizations. In Missouri, the impetus to expand the pipeline of newly minted teachers was spurred by NCLB requirements for highly qualified teachers (i.e ., certified teachers, teaching in their area of certification), chronic and acute teacher shortages, and increased skepticism of traditional modes of teacher preparation. One response to these cataly sts was to foster discretionary authority among ATCPs in Missouri’s colleges and via broad regulati ons. The bureaucratic tension between efficiency and effectiveness (Hammond & Miller, 1985) is evident in Missouri’s ATCP experience. The external pressure to move more teachers to the classroom outweighed most programs’ ability to create and implement preparation models capable of providing teachers th e breadth and depth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of n ew teachers that extant literature suggests (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). This tension recalls West’s (1975) assertion that bureaucratic drift (Epstein & O’Halloran, 1999) may result from agency capture in which clientele groups (e.g., school districts) exert sufficient influence to ove rride intended organizational missions regardless of regulation and oversight (Gailmard, 2002). Based on five cases studies, we draw several conclusions that we believe are worthy of further consideration and future investigation by re searchers and practitioners alike. This multiple case study suggests that broadening the discretionary space between the rules may foster new and even innovative practices, but increased discr etion may also create conditions for program proliferation in ways the invite external pr essures at odds with program missions. Market-oriented advocates for educational refo rm argue that education stakeholders are better served when choice is expanded and government regulation is limited. These advocates argue that choice and broad discretion at the street level will lead to innovation. Most would agree that fostering and identifying new, different, and effecti ve methods of getting high quality teachers into the class is a laudable goal. Nor does it seem th at limiting the discretion of those closest to the action would enhance our ability to alleviate teac her shortages or prepare high quality teachers. However, this study sheds light on how programs within the same policy context, operating under the same state approved program standards, and give n the same regulatory latitude respond to their environments in ways that lead to significant an d profound program variation. This variation holds the potential for innovation. Yet, it neither guarantees the emergence of innovative program delivery, nor does it inoculate ATCPs from pra ctices that could undercut program quality. The important question explored here (and worthy of continued exploration) is, “What factors constrain or facilitate discretion—i.e., the ability to respond to one’s environment in order to pursue program goals—and to what effect?” The wide variety of programmatic approaches and decisions supported the notion that broad regulations foster program innovation and creativity in the face of vexing problems. However, broad discretionary latitude should not occur at th e expense of oversight to ensure high quality preparation. Nor should broad discretion su pplant continuous communication between state officials, program coordinators, and school di strict personnel. Concern should extend beyond

PAGE 17

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 17 placing teachers in classrooms to include concern for continuous program improvement for the sake of new, non-traditional teachers—many of w hom are teaching in our most challenging environments. The state should play a stronger facilitative role in this effort to continuously move toward effective preparation practices. Moving to ward open systems of teacher preparation without consideration of what works dooms teachers to more of the same. On the other hand, new partnerships that bring together ATCPs, school districts, and other outside organizations can provide contexts for pr ograms to address specific district needs. This study showed how most of the program coordina tors developed partnerships in one form or another to pursue their alternative certification mission. Programs in the two urban districts were part of formal partnerships in which roles wer e defined. In practice the urban-serving ATCPs entered into novel program partnerships, yet they abdicated influence over important program aspects such as recruitment and placement. Programs that were free to react to their clie nts appeared to develop programs capable of responding to external needs arguably at the ex pense of consistent, coherent, and integrated preparation for teachers. Bottom-up pressure from school district superintendents with pressing personnel needs may have compromised the quality of teacher training as programs have striven to meet market demands. Programs A and D illustrated this tension well. These programs dutifully responded to the needs of their constituent superintendents who served rural areas with limited pools of potential teachers. As a result of superin tendents’ pressing needs and the serviceand hands-off orientation role of the state educati on agency, these ATCPs’ mi ssions were captured by the market force to provide certified teachers to classroom as expeditiously as possible. While a laudable and rationale goal, one must also que stion how to ensure quality preparation for these teachers in order that they will serve students well and remain in the field. In short, without some form of oversight to ensure that professionals ha ve the authority to make decisions within their realm of expertise—and that tensions between efficiency and effectiveness are managed—ATCPs are susceptible to compromising one value in attempting to emphasize the other. This study shows the importance of balancing pressure on programs. On one hand, from the desperate need to fill teaching vacancies in areas that do not attract applicants bottom-up pressure from school districts to ATCPs can spur responsiven ess but at the potential expense of quality On the other hand, top-down pressure from the sta te education agency on ATCPs should be used to ensure that program responsiveness is not only to sc hool districts but to aspiring teachers and their eventual students as well. The challenge to place teachers in hard to fill positions such as mathematics and science while also providing tea chers the foundation necessary to be effective should be at the forefront of all stakeholders ve sted in the preparation and induction of new public school teachers. Implications Even in tightly regulated industries, discr etion exists for most organizational decision makers. When considering discretion’s influence on ATCPs, one must consider how, why and under what conditions discretion is or is not exercised. Why do programs with similar purposes, operating under the same sets of state and national stan dards for teacher preparation programs look so different? In this study we attempted to explore these issues in order to inform scholars and practitioners interested in understanding ATCP pol icy and program implementation. In the future, others may consider this complexity in order to discern differential impacts of various types of ATCPs on important outcomes such as teacher quality and student achievement.

PAGE 18

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 18 In order for decisions regarding teacher prep aration, certification, and licensure to be thoughtfully addressed in the public arena, policymakers should attend to several important issues. First, they should challenge themselves and other stakeholders to make explicit their beliefs on teaching and teacher quality. Questions such as “What content knowledge should alternatively certified teachers possess prior to entering the field?” and “What should their induction and inservice learning experiences look like?” should be answered. Future research should be designed to measure the quality of teachers emerging from these programs in ways that tease out the influence of the variety of alternative certification appr oaches. Finally, policymakers and educators should consider the long-term goals (i.e., teacher quali ty and student learning) of alternative teacher certification in the face of more pressing short-ter m issues (e.g., addressing the teacher shortage). References Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 33 5–18. Bickman, L., & Petersen, K. (1990). Using prog ram theory to describe and measure program quality. New Directions for Program Evaluation 47 61–72. Building Engineering and Scienc e Talent. (2006). Making Miss ouri a national leader in mathematics, engineering, technology, and science. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Governor’s Office. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.gov.mo.gov/ mets/metsleader.pdf Chen, H. (1990). Issues in constructing program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation 47 7–18. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qu alified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based” research actually tell us? Educational Researcher 34 (9), 1325. Dial, M, & Stevens, C. J. (1993). The co ntext of alternative teacher certification. Education and Urban Society, 26 (1), 4–17. Dill, V. (1996). Alternative teacher ce rtification. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 932–957) New York: Macmillan. Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Feldman, S. (1986). Social limits to discretion: an organizational perspective. In J. Handler (Ed.), The conditions of discretion: Au tonomy, community, bureaucracy (pp. 163–183). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gailmard, S. (2002). Expertise, subv ersion, and bureaucratic discretion. Journal of Law, Economic and Organizations, 18 (2), 536–555.

PAGE 19

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 19 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theo ry: Strategies for qualitative theory Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Hamel, J., Dufour, S. & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Handler, J. (1986). Discreti on, power, quiescence, and trust. In J. Handler (Ed.), The conditions of discretion: Autonomy community, bureaucracy (pp. 333–360). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hassel, B. C., & Shelburne, M. E. (2004). Cultiv ating success through multiple providers: A new state strategy for improv ing the quality of prep aration. In F. M. He ss, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom? (pp. 201–222). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hawkins, K. (1986). The use of legal discretion: perspectives from law and social science. J. Handler (Ed.), The conditions of discretion: Autonomy community, bureaucracy (pp. 331– 360). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hess, F. M., Rotherham, A. J ., & Walsh, K. (Eds.). (2004). A qualified teacher in every classroom: Appraising old answers and new ideas Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group. Huber, J. D., Shipan, C. R., & Pfahler, M. (2001). Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. American Journa l of Political Science 45 (2), 330–345. Hummel, R. P. (1987). The bureaucratic experience New York: St Martin’s Press. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organizat ion of schools. University of Pennsylvania: Center fo r the Study of Teaching and Policy. Keiser, L. R. (2001). Street-level bureaucrats, administrative power and the manipulation of federal social security disability programs. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1 (2), 144– 164. Kwiatkowski, M. (1999). Debating alternative teacher certification. A trial by achievement. In M. Kanstoroom & C.E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=15 Levin, H. (1980). Teacher certificati on and the economics of information. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2 (4), 5–18. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services New York: Russell Sage Foundation. McClintock, C. (1987). Conceptual and acti on heuristics: tools for the evaluator. New Directions for Program Ev aluation, 33 43–58.

PAGE 20

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 20 Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education. (n.d., a). Missouri standards for teacher education prog rams. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://dese.missouri.gov/divteachqual/teached/standards.htm Missouri Department of Secondary an d Elementary Educ ation (n.d., b). Title 5-Department of Elementary and Secondar y Education Division: Te acher Quality and Urban Education, Chapter 805: Educator Preparation Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://dese.mo.gov/schoollaw/rulesregs/80805030.html National Center for Education Information (n.d., a). Alternative teacher certification: A state by state analysis Retrieved May 3, 2003, from http://www.ncei.com National Center for Educat ion Information (n.d., b). Alternative teacher cert ification: An overview Retrieved May 2, 2003, from http://www.ncei.com/ alt-teacher-cert.htm Nelson, M. (1982). A short, ironic histor y of the American national bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics 44, 747–778. No Child Left Behind Act of 200 1, Pub. L. No. 107–110 (2002). Reichardt, R. (2002). Alternative teacher education: Trends and implications in policies and practices Aurora, CO: Western Interstate Co mmission for Higher Education. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Scribner, J.P., Bickman, A., & He inen, E.B. (2003). Research on alternative certification. Paper presented at Alternative Certification: Me eting the Challenge in Math and Science Education, Columbia, MO. Scribner, J.P., Bickman, A. & Heinen, E. (2003). Alternate routes to teacher certification in Missouri: Evaluating a policy response to teache r shortages in mathematics and science Paper presented at the annual conference for the Un iversity Council for Educational Administration (Portland, OR). Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–248). Thou sand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques. Newbury Park, CA, SAGE. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Secretary’s fourth annual repo rt on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom Washington, DC: Author. West, W. F. (1995). Controlling the bureaucracy: Institutional constraints in theory and practice. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Wilson, J. Q. (1975). The rise of the bureaucratic state. The Public Interest, 41 77–103.

PAGE 21

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 21 Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government ag encies do and why they do it New York: Basic Books. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher pr eparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (3), 190–204. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

PAGE 22

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 22 About the Authors Ethan B. Heinen Central Connecticut State University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri-Columbia Email: ethanheinen@hotmail.com Ethan B. Heinen is a member of the faculty at CCSU in the Department of Educational Leadership and Professional Studies. His research interests in clude the politics of education, teacher education, and organizational theory. Dr. Heinen received his doctorate from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Jay Paredes Scribner is an associate professor of Ed ucational Leadership and Policy Analysis and Director of the Hook Center for Educational Leadership and Renewal at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His research fo cuses on professional le arning and preparation of teachers and principals, leadership as an organizational quality, and educational program evaluation.

PAGE 23

Bureaucratic Discretion and Al ternative Teacher Certification 23 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES http://epaa.asu.edu Editor: Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Production Assistant: Chris Murre ll, Arizona State University General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Sherman Dorn, epaa-editor@shermandorn.com. Editorial Board Noga Admon Jessica Allen Cheryl Aman Mi chael W. Apple David C. Berliner Damian Betebenner Robert Bickel Robert Bifulco Anne Black Henry Braun Nick Burbules Marisa Cannata Casey Cobb Arnold Danzig Linda Darling-Hammond Chad d'Entremont John Diamond Amy Garrett Dikkers Tara Donohue Gunapa la Edirisooriya Camille Farrington Gustavo Fischman Chris Frey Richard Garlikov Misty Ginicola Gene V Glass Harvey Goldstein Jake Gross Hee Kyung Hong Aimee Howley Craig B. Howley William Hunter Jaekyung Lee Benjamin Levin Jennifer Lloyd Sarah Lubienski Susan Maller Les McLean Roslyn Arlin Mickelson Heinrich Mintrop Shereeza Mohammed Michele Moses Sharon L. Nichols Sean Reardon A.G. Rud Lorrie Shepard Ben Superfine Cally Waite John Weathers Kevin Welner Ed Wiley Terrence G. Wiley Kyo Yamashiro Stuart Yeh

PAGE 24

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 15 No. 13 24 A rchivos A nalticos de P olticas E ducativas http://epaa.asu.edu Editores Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State University Pablo Gentili Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Asistentes editoriales: Rafael O. Serrano (ASU) & Lucia Terra (UBC) Hugo Aboites UAM-Xochimilco, Mxico Armando Alcnt ara Santuario CESU, Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila UMCE, Chile Dalila Andrad e de Oliveira UFMG, Brasil Alejandra Birgin FLACSO-UBA, Argentina Sigfredo Chiroque IPP, Per Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto UERJ, Brasil Roberto Leher UFRJ, Brasil Nilma Lino Gomes UFMG, Brasil Pia Lindquist Wong CSUS, USA Mara Loreto Egaa PIIE, Chile Alma Maldonado University of Arizona, USA Jos Felipe Martnez Fernndez UCLA, USA Imanol Ordorika IIE-UNAM, Mxico Vanilda Paiva UERJ, Brasil Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, Espaa Mnica Pini UNSAM, Argentina Romualdo Portella de Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo, Brasil Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia Jos Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Mlaga, Espaa Diana Rhoten SSRC, USA Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky UT-OISE Canad Susan Street CIESAS Occidente,Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist USC, USA Daniel Surez LPP-UBA, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona, Lisboa Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa Llian do Valle UERJ, Brasil


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20079999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00520
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 15, no. 13 (June 25, 2007).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c June 25, 2007
505
Bureaucratic discretion and alternative teacher certification : understanding program variation in Missouri / Ethan B. Heinen [and] Jay Paredes Scribner.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.520