The Recruitment and Preparation, and Retention of Teachers for High Quality STEM Teaching Dr. Doug Larkin Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ AACTE-STEM conference, Washington, DC 9 June 2015
The Recruitment and Preparation, and Retention of Teachers for High Quality STEM Teaching
Dr. Doug Larkin!Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ!
AACTE-STEM conference, Washington, DC!9 June 2015
Overview of the session
• Quick tour of STEM teacher demographics and retention rates in New Jersey
• The system of STEM teacher education and its components
• STEM teacher education at Montclair State University
• New directions in STEM teacher education
A word about “STEM”
Economic imperative, education priority or overused buzzword?
http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/06/losing-sparta
% o
f Tot
al
0
20
40
60
80
100
Asian White Hispanic African American
Below BasicBasicProficientAdvanced
from 2011 NAEP and NJDOE data
90% above basic
NJ Science Achievement: 8th grade NAEP
39% above basic
45% above basic
83% above basic
% o
f Tot
al
0
20
40
60
80
100
Non-Low SES (Not Poor) Low SES (Poor)
Below BasicBasicProficientAdvanced
from 2011 NAEP and NJDOE data
NJ Science Achievement: 8th grade NAEP
80% above basic
44% above basic
In a fair society, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status would have no correlation with academic
achievement.
In a fair society, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status would have no correlation with academic
achievement.
What would that look like?
% o
f Tot
al
0
20
40
60
80
100
Asian White Hispanic African American Poor Not Poor
Below BasicBasicProficientAdvanced
In a fair society, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status would have no correlation with academic
achievement.
(completely fabricated ideal statistics)
STEM teacher demographics and retention rates in New Jersey
Of the 144,000 teachers in NJ 7,400 have a science certification 10,700 have a math certification
87%
7%5%
All Science All Math Other Certifications
Source: NJSMART, EPP, NJDOE Certificated Staff reports 2010-2014
NJ Teachers 2013-2014 Population by gender
Perc
enta
ge o
f tea
cher
s id
entif
ying
by
ge
nder
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
All NJ Teachers (n=144,102)
NJ Math Teachers (n=10,701)
NJ Science Teachers (n=7,380)
MaleFemale
NJ Teachers 2013-2014 Population by race/ethnicity
Perc
enta
ge o
f peo
ple
iden
tifyi
ng b
y ra
ce/e
thni
city
0%
30%
60%
90%
Hispanic White Black Asian
NJ Math Teachers (n=10,701)
NJ Science Teachers (n=7,380)
Total NJ population (n=8,911,502)
Note: Teachers were permitted to make more than one selection. Fewer than 1% of individuals identified as Native American or Pacific Islander
Years of Experience for NJ Math Teachers 2013-2014 (n=10,703)
# of
Mat
h Te
ache
rs
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Years of Experience for NJ Math Teachers 2013-2014 (n=10,703)
# of
Mat
h Te
ache
rs
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
More than 25% of all NJ math teachers have less than 5 years experience.
Years of Experience for NJ Science Teachers 2013-2014 (n=7,359)
# of
Sci
ence
Tea
cher
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Years of Experience for NJ Science Teachers 2013-2014 (n=7,359)
# of
Sci
ence
Tea
cher
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
# of
Sci
ence
Tea
cher
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
25% of all NJ science teachers have less than
5 years experience.
Longitudinal Secondary Science Teacher Retention
# of
Sec
onda
ry S
cien
ce T
each
ers
0
200
400
600
800
Traditional Alternate Route
748
332
Certified 2010-2012Still teaching 2014
Longitudinal Secondary Science Teacher Retention
# of
Sec
onda
ry S
cien
ce T
each
ers
0
200
400
600
800
Traditional (67% retention) Alternate Route (43% retention)
320
222
748
332
Certified 2010-2012Still teaching 2014
# of
teac
hers
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
no dataTraditionalAlternate Route
NJ Science Teachers 2013-2014 Longitudinal Traditional vs. Alternate Route
(n=7,359)
Longitudinal Secondary Mathematics Teacher Retention
# of
Sec
onda
ry S
cien
ce T
each
ers
0
150
300
450
600
Traditional Alternate Route
599
484
Certified 2010-2012Still teaching 2014
Longitudinal Secondary Mathematics Teacher Retention
# of
Sec
onda
ry S
cien
ce T
each
ers
0
150
300
450
600
Traditional (69% retention) Alternate Route (38% retention)
226
334
599
484
Certified 2010-2012Still teaching 2014
Longitudinal Traditional vs. Alternate Route NJ Math Teachers 2013-2014 (n=10,670)
# of
Mat
hem
atic
s Te
ache
rs
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Years of Experience
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
no dataTraditionalAlternate Route
• The loss of so many STEM teachers in the first three years represents a tremendous economic strain on schools.
• Most states put very little resources into induction support.
• If we retained more science and math teachers we would solve the labor shortage. (Ingersoll and May, 2012)
• The high number of alternate route certification likely represents the labor shortage in STEM teachers
Retention and recruitment
Retention and recruitment
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
from Zeichner, K. (2006). Studying teacher education programs: Enriching and enlarging the inquiry. In C. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 79-93). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
from Zeichner, K. (2006). Studying teacher education programs: Enriching and enlarging the inquiry. In C. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 79-93). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Access to !high-quality!mentoring!
and!feedback. !
Engagement with !professional communities!
Knowledge !about !
planning, !curriculum &!assessment!
!
Pedagogical skills, !technology use &!
knowledge about learning !
Knowledge of !students,!schools,!society!
Experiences!with scientific!
inquiry & !knowledge !generation!
Rich clinical!experiences with !opportunities to!
rehearse !high-leverage !
disciplinary practices
Opportunities to !reinforce subject !
matter competence!
Knowledge !of!
subject-!specific!
pedagogy!
App
ropr
iate
ass
essm
ents
of r
eadi
ness
to te
ach!
Rig
orou
s A
dmis
sion
s Pr
oces
s!
Time and opportunity for
critical!reflection on
practices, beliefs, and goals!
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
Focus on urban teaching or !district-specific contexts
!!
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
Discipline specializations !(e.g. integrated STEM,
Mathematics)
Focus on urban teaching or !district-specific contexts
!!
!!
The system of STEM teacher education and its components
Focus on special needs populations (SPED/ELL)
Discipline specializations !(e.g. integrated STEM,
Mathematics)
Focus on urban teaching or !district-specific contexts
!!
!!
!!
Residency programs
Site-based!courses
Fast-track !preparation
Cohort! programs
“Alternate route” programs
Curriculum-based !certification
“Traditional”! programs
Experiments in recruitment, !selection,!induction, !& retention
There is tremendous diversity in how science teachers are currently
being prepared.
What kinds of STEM teachers?
• Experts in their subject matter who know how to teach it to their students.
• Able to model the informed, active citizenship and critical thinking skills that students are expected to demonstrate.
• Knowledgeable professionals who make decisions about practice, NOT technicians following instructions from afar.
Teacher education with a secondary STEM focus at !Montclair State University
• Undergraduate preparation—Subject area certification & BS
• MAT program/post-baccalaureate subject area certification
• Dual certification in subject area &Teacher of Student with Disabilities
• $1.4 Million, 5-‐year grant from the National Science Foundation • 2-‐year certification program for chemistry, physics, earth science, &
biology majors.Part of the larger MSU teacher education program, but with additional supports (cohort meetings, summer experiences, etc).
• Candidates graduate with a BS degree in their major and a certification in secondary science teaching.
• Noyce Scholars receive tuition plus a $3000 stipend for two years. Comes with a commitment to teach for 4 years in one of New Jersey’s 1200+ high-‐needs schools.
• Partnered with local community colleges for recruitment. • Mentoring support upon graduation
Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
• Funded by two TQP grants by USDOE (NMUTR) and by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellow-‐ ship Foundation. ($12+ million)
• Graduates of this 1 year program complete 34 credits to earn a Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT).
• Strong recruiting and admissions component— application and 2 days of structured interviews.
• Residents receive $30,000 stipend. Partner districts commit varying levels of resources. Comes with a commitment to teach for 3-‐4 years in one of New Jersey’s 1200+ high-‐needs schools.
• Partnered with Orange (WWTF only) and Newark Public Schools. Strong commitment to hiring program graduates in partner districts.
• Mentoring support upon graduation
Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship Program (WWTF) &
Newark-‐Montclair Urban Teacher Residency Program (NMUTR)
• Funded by United States Department of Education and the Office of Special Education Programs — $1.5 Million, 5-‐year
• Graduates of this 2.5-‐year program complete 48credits to earn a Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT), NJ Initial Teaching Certification in math or science, and NJ Teacher of Students with Disabilities Endorsement.
• Part of the larger MSU teacher dual certification program, but with an inclusive and integrated STEM focus. 120 hours of fieldwork.
• Summer courses in Integrated STEM (iSTeM I and II) use Content Driven Design Challenges to implement STEM concepts.
• All field experiences take place in a single district (Bloomfield, NJ) with well-‐trained partner teachers.
!
Dual Certification MAT Program: Inclusive iSTeM
• Collaborative observations: 6 conducted collaboratively by the Mentor Teachers, University Supervisor, Content Supervisor, and the candidate followed by a collaborative debrief and a structured reflection
• Weekly facilitated co-‐planning. Collaborate with the Mentor Teachers (general and special ed) and a facilitator to do co-‐planning for the week. This process is scaffolded across the professional year so that by the end of student teaching, the candidate is leading it.
!
Dual Certification MAT Program: Inclusive iSTeM
• Small-‐group Instruction observations: 2 formal observations during Fieldwork of RtI-‐based small-‐group instruction in the general ed, ICS classroom.
Comparing Structures & Strategies across programs
1. Science methods courses
2. Field experiences
3. Access to mentoring and feedback
Program# of Science
Teaching Methods Courses
MSU Teacher Ed(K-12 Subject areas, BS & Cert)
1
MSU Noyce 2
Integrated iSTeM 3+
Woodrow Wilson 1+
NMUTR ~½
NJ Alternate Route (non-MSU)
0
1. Science methods courses
Includes methods + two summer courses
Student teaching seminar is Methods II
Methods integrated with other coursework
Only general pedagogy methods offered
What should happen in a Science Teaching Methods Class?
http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/
Program Field experiences in addition to full-time student teaching
MSU Teacher Ed(K-12 Subject areas, BS & Cert)
Preq. 30 hours, practicum w/ site-based seminar. MSUNER partners
MSU Noyce Preq. 30 hours, Summer career survey experience practicum w/ site-based seminar. MSUNER partners
Integrated iSTeM 120 hours of fieldwork, all in Bloomfield, NJ intensive scaffolded co-planning
Woodrow Wilson Summer programs in Orange & Newark Full immersion in mentor’s class from Sept-June.
NMUTR Summer programs in Newark Full immersion in mentor’s class from Sept-June.
NJ Alternate Route (non-MSU)
4 hours of observation. Hired as teacher of record.
2. Field Experiences
Program Feedback providers
MSU Teacher Ed(K-12 Subject areas, BS & Cert)
Cooperating teachers and University supervisors(primarily STEM faculty & retired administrators)
MSU Noyce Cooperating teachers and University Supervisors,(primarily STEM faculty & retired administrators)
Integrated iSTeM Education faculty, Cooperating teachers, and Subject Area Mentors in collaborative observations
Woodrow Wilson faculty, program directors, STEM faculty, Cooperating teachers
NMUTR Cooperating teachers, Education faculty
NJ Alternate Route (non-MSU)
School Administrators, peer mentors
3. Access to mentoring and feedback
• What are the admission requirements?
• Duration? Are summer semesters involved?
• Who is involved in the program?
• What is the nature of the methods coursework?
• What is the nature and purpose of the fieldwork?
• Who are the cooperating teachers? Are they compensated in money, time, or both?
• Are the cooperating teachers themselves mentored in some way?
20 Questions for designing STEM Teacher Education programs
• What sort of supervision will candidates receive?
• What is the program’s orientation to student diversity, justice, and teachers as agents of change?
• To what degree will STEM teachers certified in the program be prepared to teach English language learners? Students with special needs?
• Are students paid a stipend or a salary? Do they pay tuition?
20 Questions for designing STEM Teacher Education programs
• What commitments are made to and by partner districts?
• How much power do partner districts have within the program?
• Will the improvement of candidates’ content knowledge be within the purview of the program?
• Will it include pedagogical content knowledge from practitioners?
20 Questions for designing STEM Teacher Education programs
• What is the intensity of the program?
• What is the vision of STEM?
• What are the exit criteria for the program?
• How does a program fit into other institutional and governmental structures (e.g. CAEP) or align with science education reform efforts (NGSS)?
20 Questions for designing STEM Teacher Education programs
These questions are discussed in more detail in:!!Larkin, D. B. (2014). Structures and strategies for science teacher education in the 21st century.
Teacher Education & Practice, 27(2). !
What is the future of STEM teacher education?
• 3-5 year timespan
• Mentoring during first years just as important as preservice.
• More use of high-leverage practices (e.g. eliciting student ideas, model-based inquiry, argumentation)
• More robust and valid assessments of teacher quality
What is the future of STEM teacher education?
New directions in !STEM teacher education?
• Maybe teacher education ought to look like demonstrating competence in martial arts—what might a Black Belt Science Teacher know and be able to do?
• If we think about STEM teacher education as a five-year enterprise, what are the consequences for universities?
• Achievement Gap is situated in massive inequity. SAT vs. income. We’ll work on our 16% effect, but the rest needs attention too.
• Characterizing STEM education in an era of globalization for “the workforce” may be less useful than framing it in terms of solving national and global problems.
• The “deregulation” of teacher education is a big problem for STEM. Need to address the problem of supporting alternate route teachers.
New directions in !STEM teacher education?
• State or Federal government could just pay STEM teachers directly.
• What are the right incentives? Maybe not pay, but should science teachers teach the same number of students as PE teachers? Does incentivizing STEM teachers for high-need schools work?
• 100k in 10 is an anemic solution to the problem of recruitment.
• Need to solve the problem of creating structures for mentoring. “Moon shot” approach may be needed for recruitment & retention.
• Quality STEM teacher preparation is possible, but needs funding. Let’s start with free college (See work by Sara Goldrick-Raab).
• Science and math teacher education is a multi-year enterprise that requires discipline-specific methods instruction, rich clinical experiences, and access to mentoring and feedback. We cannot afford to keep thinking of STEM education as just curricular.
• When we short circuit the STEM teacher learning process, the cost is in teacher attrition—though school-based factors are important too.
• Recruitment and retention are wide open areas for innovation and experimentation.
Takeaway Message
Thank youDoug Larkin [email protected]