Although charter schools were created to be laboratories of innovation, regulations and policies often prevent them from reaching their full potential. Take, for instance, teacher education and certification requirements that can obstruct schools from training educators in the manner that best meets their unique missions, values, and goals. According to a new case study from the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, a few highly successful charter schools have overcome these obstacles by creating their own teacher certification and master’s degree programs. These schools include High Tech High in San Diego; Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First in New York; and Match Education in Boston.
Each of these schools began their forays into teacher credentialing because they had trouble finding teachers whose “philosophies and methods” aligned with their missions. In addition, they found that many of the teachers they hired lacked the skills to be immediately successful in the classroom. By creating their own teacher training programs, these schools were able to connect formal teacher education with what happens on the ground in actual classrooms. Each program focuses on its parent school’s innovative instructional approach: For High Tech High, it’s project-based learning; for Relay (the graduate school created by Uncommon, KIPP, and Achievement First), it’s competency-based training; and for Match Education, it’s an emphasis on tutoring.
The study provides an overview of the programs’ focuses and structures, the teachers they train, tuition, accreditation status, and plans for future expansion. Interestingly, each program includes a performance-based graduation requirement. High Tech High has different requirements for their various programs including state performance assessments or final projects; Relay requires that second-year candidates in their Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and teaching residency programs demonstrate that their students achieved at least one year of academic growth using quantitative and qualitative measures; and Match requires that second-year candidates in their Master in Effective Teaching (MET) program outperform rookie teachers who aren’t trained by Match on an evaluation system that includes principal observations and student survey data.
Unfortunately, the programs also share common obstacles, the two largest of which are (1) meeting the regulatory requirements necessary to obtain state and accreditation approval and (2) developing revenue and cost structures that allow for a sustainable business model. While the process of overcoming these obstacles took years (in some cases, it’s still ongoing), each of these programs offers a valuable look at the benefits of allowing innovative schools to train teachers in customized ways. Kudos to these charter schools for stepping up to the plate and strengthening teacher preparation.
SOURCE: Thomas Arnett, “Startup Teacher Education: A Fresh Take on Teacher Credentialing,” Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (June 2015).
