Examining the Recruitment, Placement, and Career Trajectories of Secondary Mathematics Teachers Prepared for High-Need Schools

Abstract

BackgroundSchool leaders are challenged by the relatively limited supply and high turnover of qualified secondary school mathematics teachers. In response, policy makers and teacher educators have developed various pathways and incentives to recruit, train, place, and support highly qualified mathematics teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools.Focus of StudyIn this study, we investigate the recruitment, placement, and early career trajectories of 158 Grades 6–12 mathematics teachers from two preparation programs focused on staffing “high-need” schools in the same region.SettingThe contrasting programs were both supported by the same university in the Northeast United States.Participants & ProgramsThe participants were 158 secondary school (Grades 6–12) mathematics teachers. Of these, 48 were recruited and prepared through a teacher education program with financial support from the National Science Foundation-funded Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. The other 110 school mathematics teachers were recruited and trained through the Greater Boston office of Teach For America. Both programs required two years of service in high-need schools.Research DesignIn this study, we used a comparative design. Descriptive profiles of teachers from each program were created. Then, participants’ early career trajectories were compared using logistic regression and survival analysis.Data Collection and AnalysisWe administered a longitudinal survey and created a database combining survey data and each program's administrative data.ConclusionsOur data illustrate that the Noyce scholarship-supported pathway was generally successful in recruiting individuals with STEM majors, training them to be mathematics teachers, and placing those individuals as secondary school mathematics teachers in high-need schools. The comparison of the scholarship-pathway teachers with the secondary school mathematics teachers in the alternative-certification pathway provides a useful contrast. On the one hand, the alternatively certified secondary school mathematics teachers were less likely than the scholarship-pathway teachers to have STEM majors, and the attrition rate for the alternatively prepared teachers was higher than the attrition rate for the scholarship-supported teachers, particularly after they had completed the two-year service requirement. On the other hand, the alternative-certification program recruited a more diverse pool of potential teachers and placed these teachers in schools serving a higher proportion of low-SES students.