The Role of Teacher Preparation Programs in STEM Teacher Retention in High-Need Schools

• In Event: 63.076 - Stemming STEM Teacher Attrition: Implications From Evidence-Based Retention Efforts Across the Continuum for Preparation Programs

Abstract

Objective: This report chronicles the results associated with an upcoming convening (involving researchers, preparation programs, former Noyce Scholars, national STEM organizations, employers, and funders) that seeks to explore and advance the role of teacher preparation programs in retention of STEM teachers in the workforce, particularly in high-need districts. While there are many factors influencing teachers’ decisions to stay in positions for which they were prepared, this report focuses attention on those factors which are directly in the control of teacher preparation programs or which may be meaningfully influenced by them.

Perspective: For the present purposes, retention is defined as 5 or more years in the K-12 STEM teacher workforce. Retention levers explored from the understudied role of preparation programs include:
• loan forgiveness (as well as loan repayment and scholarship) program structure, value, and retention tools (e.g., Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2008; Podolsky & Kini, 2016; Cowan & Goldhaber, 2015).
• importance of mutually beneficial partnerships between teacher preparation programs and schools/districts to key aspects of teacher preparation including pipelines from program recruitment through clinical and job placements, and retention – and location-specific problem solving (e.g., NRC, 2010);
• evidence-based induction support strategies utilized by teacher preparation programs (Youngs, Bieda, & Kim 2018);
• quality, duration, and timing of clinical experiences – including substance and content of pedagogical preparation (e.g., Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2014)
• the importance of cooperating teachers (e.g., Greenberg, Pomerance, & Walsh, 2011; Behrstock-Sherratt, Bassett, Olson, & Jaques, 2014; Ronfeldt, Brockman, & Campbell, 2018);
• the role of faculty relationships and environment (e.g., Cooper & Alvarado, 2006);
• alternative and traditional program structure and features in terms of similarities and differences in relation to retention, particularly in terms of teacher candidate population served (e.g., Fuller & Pendola, 2018);
• differences across STEM fields in relation to retention (physics, chemistry and math often hardest subjects to fill (Marder, 2016) along with computer science (Maio, 2016));
• variation exploitation across preparation program models, operating in multiple locations (e.g., UTeach), in relation to fidelity of implementation;
• best practices for preparing teachers to survive in difficult school cultures;
• the role of teacher leadership preparation and opportunity promotion (e.g., New Teacher Center, 2017); and
• teacher preparation program–driven policy advocacy (e.g., licensure practices, state data systems, improving and sharing state teacher retention and evaluation data, national accreditation and program recognition, etc.).

Findings and Significance: Ultimately, the report 1) highlights and share some of the identified evidence-based STEM teacher preparation program features (i.e., practices, policies, and programmatic components) that may have contributed positively toward STEM teacher retention in the workforce in hopes that they may serve as case studies to inspire replication and/or be built upon and adapted, and 2) puts forth a focused set of research questions to direct future STEM teacher retention research and program experimentation efforts toward persistent gaps in the field’s knowledge, particularly in areas where quick wins may be achieved or longer-term findings may likely have the biggest impact on STEM teacher preparation program’s ability to effectively prepare STEM teachers likely to be retained in high-need districts.

Authors

• Yolanda S. George, American Association for the Advancement of Science

• Shirley M. Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science

• Jennifer E. Carinci

• Quincy Brown, American Association for the Advancement of Science

• Iris Wagstaff, North Carolina State University

• Audra M. Watson, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation