Recruitment, Access, and Resident Supports: Supporting Residents to and Through Preparation

• In Event: Reconfiguring University-District Roles in Teacher Preparation: Residency Partnerships and Equitable Workforce Pathways

Abstract

Introduction:

Historically, teacher preparation has presented multiple barriers that limit access for potential candidates, particularly candidates of color, which has led to a predominantly White teacher workforce that does not represent the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of students (Matthews et al., 2024). Common barriers to teaching include complex application and admissions processes, standardized testing requirements, tuition costs, and student teaching clinical expectations which require candidates to work in classrooms without compensation (Guha et al., 2016).

The teacher residency model aims to improve access to high quality preparation by partnering with local education agencies (LEAs) to develop programs that support candidates to and through preparation. In this presentation, we share findings from studies of teacher residencies in California and Texas that describe the ways in which they recruited candidates, provided more equitable access to teacher preparation, and supported candidate success through resident supports.

Methods:

This presentation draws on findings from seven case studies of effective residency programs in California and Texas. Data collection included interviews with program administrators, faculty, teacher candidates, program alumni, mentor/cooperating teachers, principals, and district administrators, as well as educator preparation program (EPP), LEA, and state-level document analysis.

Findings:

Recruitment. Programs worked to recruit candidates whose identities aligned with those of the communities they would be serving, particularly by focusing on attracting candidates who already lived and/or worked in the communities served by the partner LEAs. For example, some programs focused recruitment on classified staff or after-school support providers in partner LEAs, while others partnered with local community colleges to provide streamlined pathways into credential programs. In addition to diversifying local workforces, programs and LEAs believed that these recruitment practices would also increase the likelihood of long-term retention of residency-prepared new hires.

Access. The financial supports provided by the studied programs were designed to improve access for candidates interested in pursuing preparation. All studied residency programs provided residents with stipends, which provided residents much-needed financial support while they completed their clinical experience. Programs also assisted residents in identifying and applying for eligibility-based state and federal grants, with the goal of promoting uptake of all available financial resources.

Resident Supports. Program supports were designed with an equity focus, aiming to promote the success of each and every enrolled resident. Supports included emotional, academic, clinical, and credentialing supports. For example, residency coordinators and other staff monitored residents’ academic progress, clinical relationships, and emotional affect, offering support when necessary. Programs also provided direct financial support and test preparation resources, explicit preparation for required credentialing exams in coursework, and frequent program communication about credentialing timelines and milestones.

These and other supports disrupt the historical marginalization of candidates of color and helped the studied residency programs and their partner LEAs recruit, graduate, and hire diverse cohorts of well-prepared residents to fill LEA-specific vacancies and reduce shortages in high-need credential areas such as STEM, bilingual, and special education.

Authors

• Julie Fitz, Learning Policy Institute

• Cathy Yun, Learning Policy Institute

• Steven Wojcikiewicz, Learning Policy Institute

• Victoria Wang, Learning Policy Institute

• Wesley Wei, Learning Policy Institute

• Kimberlee Ralph, Learning Policy Institute

• Jennifer A. Bland, Learning Policy Institute