View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Rise of For-Profit Teacher Preparation Programmes: Investigating Career Outcomes for Novice Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Rise of For-Profit Teacher Preparation Programmes: Investigating Career Outcomes for Novice Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Wesley Edwards (ORCID 0000-0001-9221-6260), Kevin Russel Magill (ORCID 0000-0002-1438-1460)
Source: Educational Review. 2024 76(7):1955-1979.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: For Profit Colleges, Teacher Education Programs, Career Readiness, Outcomes of Education, Education Work Relationship, Beginning Teachers, Employment Potential, Educational Legislation, Politics of Education, Employment Qualifications, Teacher Certification, Content Analysis, Personnel Data, Elementary Secondary Education
Geographic Terms: Texas
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2024.2327575
ISSN: 0013-1911
1465-3397
Abstract: The increased privatisation of educational systems is a global trend with several important implications for teachers' preparation and workforce outcomes. With many countries facing teacher shortages, retention for novice teachers is a key area of focus for educational leaders and policymakers -- yet there is a lack of evidence related to the relationship between new alternative pathways into the profession and retention patterns. In this paper, we add to the limited literature on for-profit teacher preparation Programme outcomes. Our results extend work related to educational market deregulation and contribute to research about novice teachers. Drawing on longitudinal employment files and certification records for over 160,000 individual teachers, our results demonstrate meaningful variation in the demographic characteristics and retention outcomes of for-profit prepared novice teachers. Our findings have implications for educational leaders, preparation Programme leaders, and state/district, national, and international policymakers. The realities of for-profit Programmes may have global implications.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450153
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG4wecPy-0hHWz6Hk2wT0i5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJ74m2dssP0TUXHIcgIBEICBmx4RetCJLXKl-acmbLb7ywn0hfmFZC3t8U8KjGYoAAbPGr4n7EGaaZLpZOGBS-6GiLGxALPVYs99Uqcpdtvc-LeO8oNEP-W8rFi8BZLoMGs4ulDO_F5MCa0YoXOCMlID8GbOHOysdRf-AJ-9hD70x9ynuoa4EF2ZRziBxLmv7oddJ0vyU3CmvUF6u1-jFY0ROn70m-fkMdgS572r
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181054527;edi01nov.24;2024Nov27.05:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181054527-1">The rise of for-profit teacher preparation programmes: investigating career outcomes for novice teachers </title> <p>The increased privatisation of educational systems is a global trend with several important implications for teachers' preparation and workforce outcomes. With many countries facing teacher shortages, retention for novice teachers is a key area of focus for educational leaders and policymakers – yet there is a lack of evidence related to the relationship between new alternative pathways into the profession and retention patterns. In this paper, we add to the limited literature on for-profit teacher preparation Programme outcomes. Our results extend work related to educational market deregulation and contribute to research about novice teachers. Drawing on longitudinal employment files and certification records for over 160,000 individual teachers, our results demonstrate meaningful variation in the demographic characteristics and retention outcomes of for-profit prepared novice teachers. Our findings have implications for educational leaders, preparation Programme leaders, and state/district, national, and international policymakers. The realities of for-profit Programmes may have global implications.</p> <p>Keywords: Education privatisation; teacher preparation; retention; quantitative research; novice teachers; teacher labour markets</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The increased privatisation of formerly public educational systems is a global trend with several key implications for teachers' preparation and workforce outcomes. There is evidence that private actors in the K-12 public education space seek to reduce the cost of preparing and compensating teachers, even though this strategy is associated with teacher turnover and deleterious impacts on student achievement (Molnar & Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref1">67</reflink>]; Peurach et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref2">72</reflink>]; Ronfeldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref3">77</reflink>]). Internationally, private control of K-12 and higher education organisations has increased (Verger et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref4">93</reflink>]). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) recently reported that wages for teachers in most countries remain stagnant with interest in teaching as a profession continuing to wane (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref5">70</reflink>]). Meanwhile, many countries and U.S. school districts are facing a teacher workforce sustainability crisis and job retention for novice teachers represents a key area of focus for educational leaders and policymakers.</p> <p>In the wake of COVID-19, policy makers in varying labour market contexts deregulated components of teacher licensure pathways, such as waiving assessment, performance, and student teaching requirements (Backes & Goldhaber, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]; DeArmond et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]). This deregulatory context also changed the organisational decisions of preparation Programmes. In Texas, for-profit preparation Programmes leveraged online Programme delivery formats to increase their market share of student enrolments (Bland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]; Partelow, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref9">71</reflink>]). From a policy efficiency perspective, for-profit Programme models are likely to produce quick increases in teacher supply – implemented in a way that is less costly to governments in the short-term. This is because their primary mode of curriculum delivery is online (Kirksey & Gottlieb, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]), and as for-profit firms they receive less federal and state funding (Kelchen, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref11">48</reflink>]). Yet, educational leaders and policymakers know very little about how growth in the for-profit teacher preparation sector impacts longer term outcomes, such as teachers' career trajectories. While there is prior research investigating the impacts of increased marketisation on teachers' experiences (Winchip, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref12">98</reflink>]), and the influence of for-profit companies on teacher preparation policies (Aydarova, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]), to date there are no large-scale empirical investigations of teacher career outcomes associated with for-profit preparation.</p> <p>Deregulation of the teacher preparation marketplace has clear implications for schools and teachers, as both U.S. and international educational communities continue to navigate shortages and chronically low retention rates. A recent teacher workforce report found that 63% of large U.S. school districts reported increased teacher retirements and resignations (Carver-Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). Other research indicates that teachers prepared in traditional university-based teacher preparation Programmes are less likely to leave their current classroom position. One study found that teachers prepared in traditional Programmes were 66% less likely to leave compared to alternatively prepared teachers (Van Overschelde & Wiggins, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref15">92</reflink>]). Yet student enrolments in traditional preparation Programmes are declining (Reyes et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref16">74</reflink>]), while recent cohorts of novice teachers are more racially/ethnically diverse (Ingersoll et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]). Thus, support for novice teachers is needed within their preparation experiences and in the classroom – especially considering the evidence that teachers of colour experience discrimination and isolation in the workplace (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]; Rogers-Ard et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref19">76</reflink>]). Educational leaders, preparation Programme leaders, and policymakers need a better understanding of how to support these groups of teachers as they prepare to enter the classroom and into their initial years of employment.</p> <p>While for-profit teacher preparation Programmes are often billed as a solution to teacher shortages, there is currently no evidence that these Programmes are alleviating staffing issues in a way that policymakers and Programme operators might have envisioned (King & Yin, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref20">49</reflink>]). There is concerning evidence that teachers prepared through alternative, and mostly for-profit, Programmes are more likely to teach out-of-field with little subject and content knowledge, leading to lower average student achievement outcomes (Van Overschelde, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref21">90</reflink>]; Van Overschelde & Piatt, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref22">91</reflink>]). In state policy contexts similar to the U.S. state of Texas, where our investigation is situated, this is a key concern as overall novice teacher production has levelled off in the past decade, while enrolments in for-profit teacher preparation Programmes have risen (Bland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]). The result also represents a disinvestment in public teacher education institutions, where there are higher levels of oversight and accountability. This backdrop motivates our study design. As the size of the for-profit teacher preparation sector continues to grow, researchers need to ask exploratory and evaluative questions about the sector as a whole, to provide more evidence to leaders and policymakers who are focused on strengthening the K-12 teacher workforce.</p> <p>In this study, we address this lack of evidence, drawing on ten years of administrative data across the state of Texas, representing employment information for more than 160,000 novice teachers working in K-12 public schools. Within our research questions we explore: how the share of novice teachers prepared in for-profit preparation Programmes has changed over time, the average demographic characteristics of novice teachers prepared through a for-profit teacher education Programme, the average school characteristics where novice teachers prepared through a for-profit teacher education Programme are employed, and whether or not for-profit prepared teachers are more or less likely to remain in their current school at one-, three-, and five-year retention markers. Our definition of novice teachers includes those who are in their first year as full-time teachers of record employed at a public or charter K-12 school between the 2012 and 2020 school years.</p> <p>The context of our analysis is important. In Texas, there is evidence of a decline in interest in the teaching profession (Bartanen & Kwok, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]). Actual enrolments in traditional and university-based teacher preparation Programmes declined while those in for-profit preparation Programmes increased (García & Weiss, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). In Texas, the for-profit preparation Programme sector has more than doubled the number of teachers prepared in recent years – preparing around 4,000 new teachers in 2012 to nearly 11,000 teachers in 2021 (Bland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]; Templeton et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref27">86</reflink>]). For-profit preparation Programmes have increased their market share due to an educator preparation policy framework in Texas which is relatively deregulated, compared with other states (Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref28">57</reflink>]). Yet, our results hold implications reaching beyond Texas, as a handful of states are now pursuing similar deregulatory teacher preparation policy frameworks (Baumhardt et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings indicate that novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes have distinct demographic characteristics. For example, we found suggestive evidence that for-profit pathways are more attractive to male teachers and teachers of colour. Our results provide a direct contribution to literature related to teacher preparation Programme leadership/policy as well as research related to early career teachers' pathways into the profession. Finally, we highlight novice teacher retention patterns associated with for-profit preparation – providing policymakers with key evidence about the ramifications of deregulating the teacher preparation marketplace. Our results speak to the challenges and opportunities within teacher education resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic – and we discuss how our findings provide important implications for future teachers, school system leaders, preparation Programme leaders, as well as educational policymakers.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-3">Literature</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181054527-4">For-profit teacher education</hd> <p>The for-profit teacher education sector, particularly in Texas, has seen new entities entering the market to help fill the growing demand for teachers. For-profit institutions can be attractive to prospective teachers because they appear to be practical, supportive of job-relevant skills, and result in relatively fast certification (Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref30">102</reflink>]). This approach to credentialing can be particularly popular with certain policymakers and educational leaders – potential employers – who approach teacher hiring from an economic perspective, where novice teachers with lower salaries are brought in to replace less effective senior teachers (Edwards & Magill, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]; Grissom et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). For-profit Programmes are less expensive because they have less robust systems of student supports (Lubienski & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref33">59</reflink>]). The Programmes are commonly stripped down to the most basic of curricula taught by instructors utilising unresponsive pedagogy that does little to model quality instruction practices (Aydarova, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]). A finance first perspective allows policymakers to prioritise the financial well-being of the organisation rather than ensuring teachers are supported.</p> <p>While leaders of for-profit preparation Programmes prioritise efficiency and cost-effectiveness, they may lack the capacity to adequately guide teachers in ways that allow them to support the needed learning experiences for their students. Yet, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, for-profit Programmes have expanded, using a lower-cost post-disaster business model to capture a more long-term market share of the teacher preparation demand (Miller & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref35">64</reflink>]). These Programmes can be more cost-effective, from a neoliberal perspective, because they offer private sector solutions to what is traditionally a public sector issue. Under this perspective, less funding from state and national governments is needed to subsidise education at state universities and non-profit colleges (e.g. tuition grants, financial aid). And since for-profit Programme coursework delivery models are mostly online, they can more efficiently scale up and increase their enrolments (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref36">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, there is evidence that market-based Programmes and the continued de-professionalisation of teachers in for-profit Programmes ensure teachers become rigid in their approach to curriculum and pedagogy (Mehta & Fine, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref37">63</reflink>]). By de-professionalisation, we refer to measures that prioritise expedited licensure and train teachers to understand their primary activity as the administration of a narrowly scripted curriculum. Experiences and perceptions gleaned from this instructional foundation, coupled with policies that tie teacher evaluations to value-added assessment standardized test score gains, directly impact the way teaching is perceived and occurs in practice (Milner, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref38">65</reflink>]). Further, market based, charter school and other non-university teacher training commonly neglect to help teachers understand the historical relationships between race, gender, language, and other forms of inequity in schools. These particular policy reforms are considered because of their contemporary prominence and impact on teacher demoralisation and teacher turnover (Wronowski, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref39">99</reflink>]).</p> <p>Critics of market-based teacher education Programmes suggest they may be further contributing to the marketisation of teacher education and the erosion of teacher professionalism. Examining for-profit teacher education more closely, these Programmes tend to be less selective, commonly resulting in lower academic standards than traditional higher education Programmes (Kraft et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref40">53</reflink>]; Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref41">57</reflink>]). As a result, many teacher educators, administrators, and scholars have concerns about the quality of an alternative and for-profit preparation experience (Kwok & Cain, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref42">55</reflink>]; Weiner, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref43">95</reflink>]). There is evidence that the for-profit sector tends to promote a narrow and standardised view of teaching and learning, which may not align with the complex realities of classroom practice–leading to the credentialing of less qualified teachers (Yin & Partelow, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref44">100</reflink>]). Similarly, the focus on quick and measurable results in educational contexts has led to overreliance on scripted curriculum in many instances and a lack of emphasis on supporting the development of teachers' critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]; Milner, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-5">Who are for-profit teacher candidates and where do they teach?</hd> <p>In general, for-profit, and alternative higher education institutions attract and recruit from more historically marginalised groups who tend to earn less than their peers from traditional Programmes (Cellini & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]; Grossman & Loeb, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]). Low-income students and students of colour tend to be targeted by these Programmes with the promise that the process of credentialing will be more affordable and less restrictive. These Programmes can be predatory in nature, by which we mean these Programmes frame themselves as "expanding access to a valuable opportunity" but have "significant costs and risks" when compared to university preparation Programmes (Cottom, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]; Charron-Chénier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>], pp. 372). For-profit Programmes are not alone in under-supporting students in favour of the financial well-being of the institution. Non-profit four-year education similarly struggles to support minoritised students, particularly in their online programming. Poorer students, students of colour, and older students are disproportionately represented in non-profit online Programmes when compared to their in-person Programmes, which have worse outcomes than their in-person Programmes and may increase student debt more than for-profit Programmes (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref51">80</reflink>]). However, non-profit universities are more likely to invest profits in Programmes that will support students (Whitman, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref52">97</reflink>]).</p> <p>Neighbourhoods and communities where most of the residents are people of colour are significantly more likely to house at least one for-profit school, compared to neighbourhoods where most of the residents are White (Student Borrower Protection Center [SBPC], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref53">85</reflink>]). Similarly, veterans are often recruited to these Programmes at higher rates (SBPC, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref54">85</reflink>]). A higher proportion of students from low-income backgrounds, students of colour, and first-generation college students also tend to enroll specifically in for-profit teacher training and online Programmes (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>]). For example, Mitani et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref56">66</reflink>]) studied the variation in pathways to teaching in Texas and found that teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes were more likely to identify as Black and male. The authors also found that for-profit-prepared teachers were older and less likely to pursue teaching at an elementary school. The authors (Mitani et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref57">66</reflink>]) further documented some evidence that suggests graduates of for-profit teacher education Programmes are more likely to teach subjects like math, science, and special education because fewer high-quality teachers are being credentialed in these areas.</p> <p>In terms of geographic school locale, graduates of for-profit Programmes appear to be hired in rural or urban schools where teacher shortages exist and in areas with a greater demand for teachers (Callahan & Brantlinger, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]). Overall, teachers from alternative certification Programmes, including those that are for-profit, are more likely to leave their school within the first two years of teaching. These teachers commonly cite a lack of adequate preparation, support, and mentorship, demonstrating the work that needs to be done with teachers before their in-service teaching (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref59">24</reflink>]). Students in alternative certification Programmes in general are more likely to leave the profession because they lack supportive structures and develop less pedagogical content knowledge. Further, these teachers appear less likely to pass and retake licensure exams and are less likely to make it to the classroom (Ingersoll, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>]; NCTQ, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref61">69</reflink>]). Other teacher labour markets research finds that the privatisation of traditionally public education systems is linked with lower pay, fewer work benefits, decreased job security, and increased barriers to job mobility (Guthery & Bailes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref62">40</reflink>]; Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref63">46</reflink>]; Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref64">56</reflink>]) – impacts that are often most acute for historically marginalised groups of teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-6">Programme marketing and teacher outcomes</hd> <p>Often these Programmes are developed to be more affordable or flexible to attract those individuals who would be less likely to attend a university teacher training Programme (Deterding & Pedulla, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]). There is also research indicating that university-based preparation Programmes can be unwelcoming to teachers of colour (Gorski, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref66">37</reflink>]; Souto-Manning & Emdin, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref67">82</reflink>]), making this group of prospective teachers more likely to seek out alternative and for-profit Programme models. Students who are older and changing careers to teach benefit from the flexibility for-profit teacher preparation Programmes provide. The lower upfront cost can remove a significant barrier to enroling in a preparation Programme (Wallace & Gagen, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref68">94</reflink>]). The reduced cost and effective marketing can make these Programmes appealing to a potential student when comparing a for-profit option with a traditional university experience. The marketing approaches of for-profit teacher preparation Programmes, similarly, tend to be characterised by low cost and fast completion pitches (Castro & Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]; Kutz, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref70">54</reflink>]). However, for-profit preparation Programmes recruit and accept far more teacher candidates than they successfully credential (Yin & Partelow, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref71">100</reflink>]). Related evidence suggests that students in these Programmes account for a disproportionate amount of federal student loan defaults (Hershcopf et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]). Moreover, students from for-profit Programmes tend to experience higher unemployment, lower earnings, and greater loan default rates than teachers attending other universities (Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref73">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>An additional concern in using a for-profit model for teacher preparation is that it does not adequately emphasise cultural responsiveness, ideological clarity, and self-reflection (Bartolomé, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]; Cellini & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref75">17</reflink>]; Gist et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]). As private actors assert more control and influence within the teacher preparation landscape, there is concern that an emphasis on human development and K-12 student needs will diminish, replaced by fiscal pressures and profit motives. Therefore, beyond broad critiques of for-profit teacher education, it is important to consider how Programmes impact teachers who drive classroom experiences. This is especially important considering evidence that some private teacher preparation Programmes are associated with negative effects on student achievement (Gansle et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref77">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>While university-based teacher education Programmes are more likely to provide coursework that engages with the complexity of culture, social issues, and related concepts, for-profit Programme curricula often lack depth, time for self-reflection, and critical analysis (Magill & Salinas, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref78">61</reflink>]; Matias & Zembylas, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref79">62</reflink>]; Sleeter, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref80">79</reflink>]). Teachers are often not supported in critically examining their ideological perspectives and how they impact their approach to teaching and learning (Magill, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref81">60</reflink>]; Utt & Tochluk, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref82">89</reflink>]). Instead, these Programmes focus on how culture is symbolically incorporated into the teaching process, rather than how cultural differences and inequalities impact the educational experience (Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref83">75</reflink>]). This lack of critical and transformative approaches to learning in for-profit teacher training can result in schools becoming less supportive of students' growth, discovery, and human development.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-7">Conceptual framework</hd> <p>Our research questions are framed by prior theories and conceptual research related to market deregulation, neoliberal reforms, and rapid policy shifts allowing for private entities to exert more control over traditionally public K-12 educational organisations (Andrews et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>]; Buras, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]; Carrasco & Gunter, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref87">101</reflink>]). Within this larger theoretical area, we draw from studies of how teachers navigate deregulated contexts, and associated changes in their professional identity (Castro et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>]), job effectiveness (Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref89">57</reflink>]), and job search behaviours (Cannata & Penaloza, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref90">12</reflink>]; Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref91">46</reflink>]). We hypothesise that as an increasing share of the novice teacher workforce in Texas becomes prepared by for-profit preparation Programmes, within-Programme oversight will diminish, and the overall quality of teacher preparation will decline (Morey, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref92">68</reflink>]). By overall quality, we refer to preparation that includes research informed clinical practice, opportunities to learn from formative experience and evaluation, the inclusion of many forms of professional knowledge, and a programmatic focus on ways ideology, diversity, intellectual activity, and community impact students (Burn & Mutton, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref93">10</reflink>]; Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref94">23</reflink>]; Magill, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref95">60</reflink>]). From a policy perspective, this paper is motivated by calls for more restrictive standards and regulations directed at for-profit preparation Programmes in Texas, with some of the strongest calls coming from top policymakers in the state (TEA, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref96">87</reflink>]). As such, our results inform state policy discussions.</p> <p>To understand patterns of teacher outcomes associated with this deregulatory context, we extend prior theory illustrating how private actors in educational marketplaces implement policies and practices motivated by increased competition, profit, and efficiency (Higham, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref97">42</reflink>]) – rather than prioritising outcomes for the consumer – partly driven by their "technicist view of the role of teachers," (Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref98">101</reflink>], p. 1545). For example, in Texas, there is a record of surging student enrolment initiatives amongst the largest for-profit teacher preparation Programmes, with scarce evidence that the students enrolled in these Programmes become successfully credentialled or go on to persist in the workforce. This practice is inherently problematic considering the personnel shortages that many districts face (Carver-Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>]), but also because it could suggest a larger predatory marketing strategy, with outcomes disparately impacting prospective teachers of colour and first-generation higher education students (Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref100">56</reflink>]) – for whom access to, and support within traditional higher education spaces has been restricted due to discriminatory structural barriers embedded in K-16 educational settings (Kohli, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref101">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the teachers who successfully enroll and complete for-profit Programmes, prior theory helps to understand that less regulation leads to lower quality training and workforce outcomes (Guthery & Bailes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref102">40</reflink>]). As such, we predict that the novice teachers prepared in for-profit preparation Programmes will have lower average retention rates and that these patterns might be driven by lower quality mentorship, exposure to less effective curriculum and pedagogy, and inferior pre-service field experiences (Fox Garrity, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref103">31</reflink>]). We assert that our findings, and the way that our results build on prior theory, have the potential to inform teacher preparation Programme leaders, faculty of preparation Programmes, state policymakers, and educational leaders who are under increased pressure to recruit and retain novice teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-8">Data & methods</hd> <p>Using the theoretical framing outlined above, we drew on longitudinal certification and employment data across the entire state of Texas from the 2012 to 2020 school years. The following research questions motivated our data and methods decisions outlined in the paragraphs below:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How has the share of novice teachers prepared in for-profit preparation Programmes changed over time?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the average demographic characteristics of novice teachers prepared through a for-profit teacher education Programme, compared to those prepared through all other Programme types?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the average school characteristics where novice teachers prepared through a for-profit teacher education Programme are employed, compared to those prepared through all other Programme types?</item> <p></p> <item> Controlling for teacher demographic and school-level characteristics, to what extent are novice teachers prepared through a for-profit teacher education Programme more or less likely to stay in their current school after one, three, and five years?</item> </ulist> <p>The data used for this study are located within the Texas Education Research Center (ERC) educational data clearinghouse. The ERC provides access to longitudinal, individual-level data to researchers conducting policy-relevant studies. To answer our research questions, we drew on files in the ERC related to employment information gathered by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), including data related to teacher demographics and experience. We also used certification records from the Texas State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) and created average measures of K-12 school characteristics from TEA files that we could then link to each employed novice teacher. Certification records include the preparation Programme linked to each novice teacher, which we used to identify teachers prepared through for-profit preparation Programmes. We drew from prior studies which characterise the teacher preparation landscape in Texas (Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref104">57</reflink>]). This prior work established a typology for preparation Programmes – which was especially useful given the wide variation in Programme models statewide. As mentioned above, we define novice teachers as teachers in their first year as full-time teachers of record employed at a public or charter K-12 school between the 2012 and 2020 school years.</p> <p>To create our final analytic file with only novice teachers we cleaned each year of employment data, keeping only first-year teachers from public or charter K-12 schools. We used the statistical software Programme Stata for all our data cleaning and analysis. We linked teachers to their SBEC records, providing information about what type of preparation Programme they attended (e.g. university-based Programme).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>] We then appended all years of data, creating one long file where each row represented a unique teacher-year observation. Since we only capture the initial year of teachers' employment each teacher only appears once in our analytic file. Table 1 shows the frequency of employed novice teachers by preparation Programme attended. Novice teachers prepared in a university-based Programme represented half of our sample. Novice teachers prepared in a for-profit Programme represented 35% of our sample. Novice teachers prepared in alternative non-profit Programmes were eight percent of our sample and those prepared in either district, charter, or community college Programmes accounted for seven percent of all novice teachers in our sample.</p> <p>Table 1. Proportion of novice teachers by preparation Programme and year.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Preparation Programme</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td><td>2019</td><td>2020</td><td>All years</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>University-based</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.46</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td>For-profit</td><td char=".">0.24</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char=".">0.38</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">0.38</td><td char=".">0.39</td><td char=".">0.39</td><td char=".">0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative (non-profit)</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>District/Charter</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Community College</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>12,071</td><td>17,495</td><td>20,607</td><td>20,851</td><td>19,201</td><td>18,168</td><td>19,120</td><td>16,160</td><td>16,909</td><td>160,582</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To code the for-profit indicator (1 = for-profit prepared, 0 = not a for-profit prepared), we first generated a list of all the alternative preparation Programmes. We then consulted documentation and data published by the Texas Education Agency indicating whether a Programme was private or for-profit as well as recent published reports evaluating the private teacher preparation sector in Texas (Bland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref106">8</reflink>]; SBEC, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref107">83</reflink>]). Next, we cross-checked this information with a strategy employed by Mitani et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref108">66</reflink>]), by searching each Programme name and labelling the Programme as for-profit if the Programmes website had a ".com" rather than a ".org" website domain. We identified 40 total for-profit teacher preparation Programmes linked to 55,538 individual novice teachers who were employed between 2012 and 2020. The share of for-profit prepared teachers provides us with a sample that is large enough to make comparisons between for-profit prepared teachers and those prepared through all other Programme types (<emph>n</emph> = 105,044).</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-9">Demographic and school characteristic measures</hd> <p>To produce our teacher- and school-level measures, we first created a set of novice teacher demographic variables including a categorical measure of teachers' race and ethnicity, as well as their gender identity (0 = male, 1 = female). Next, we generated a set of variables that would provide information about the schools where novice teachers were first employed. These include students' race/ethnicity, average student economic disadvantage, school geographic locale (e.g. urban, rural), school-level (e.g. elementary), average teacher characteristics (e.g. experience, teacher race/ethnicity), and whether the school was a charter or traditional public school. Refer to Table 2 and 3 in the Findings section below where we report summary statistics on all the measures used in our analysis.</p> <p>Table 2. For-profit prepared novice teacher demographic characteristics<emph>.</emph></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Full sample</td><td>FP prep teachers</td><td>All other prep teachers</td></tr><tr><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Female</td><td char="(">0.75 (0.43)</td><td char="(">0.67* (0.47)</td><td char="(">0.79 (0.41)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td char="(">0.03 (0.16)</td><td char="(">0.02* (0.15)</td><td char="(">0.03 (0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td char="(">0.12 (0.32)</td><td char="(">0.18* (0.39)</td><td char="(">0.08 (0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Latinx</td><td char="(">0.28 (0.45)</td><td char="(">0.26* (0.44)</td><td char="(">0.29 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td char="(">0.56 (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.52* (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.59 (0.49)</td></tr><tr><td>Intern/probationary cert.</td><td char="(">0.48 (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.96* (0.20)</td><td char="(">0.23 (0.42)</td></tr><tr><td>1-year retention</td><td char="(">0.73 (0.45)</td><td char="(">0.70* (0.46)</td><td char="(">0.74 (0.44)</td></tr><tr><td>3-year retention</td><td char="(">0.54 (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.51* (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.56 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td>5-year retention</td><td char="(">0.26 (0.44)</td><td char="(">0.23* (0.42)</td><td char="(">0.28 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>160,582</td><td>55,538</td><td>105,044</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: The column labelled "FP prep teachers" reports statistics only for novice teachers prepared through a for-profit Programme. The column labelled "All other prep teachers" reports statistics for novice teachers prepared through all other Programmes. Our measure for teacher race/ethnicity includes teachers who identify as American Indian or Indigenous and those who identify as two or more race/ethnicities. Because these two groups represent less than one percent of the total sample of novice teachers, we do not report statistics for them. (*) represents a statistically significant difference in means at the <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 level, based on results of a two-sample <emph>t</emph> test.</p> <p>Table 3. For-profit prepared novice teachers' school characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Full sample</td><td>FP prep teachers</td><td>All other prep teachers</td></tr><tr><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>% Asian students</td><td char="(">0.04 (0.07)</td><td char="(">0.03* (0.07)</td><td char="(">0.04 (0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>% Black students</td><td char="(">0.15 (0.17)</td><td char="(">0.17* (0.19)</td><td char="(">0.14 (0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>% Latinx students</td><td char="(">0.55 (0.28)</td><td char="(">0.55 (0.28)</td><td char="(">0.55 (0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>% White students</td><td char="(">0.24 (0.24)</td><td char="(">0.22* (0.23)</td><td char="(">0.25 (0.24)</td></tr><tr><td>% Eco-dis students</td><td char="(">0.65 (0.25)</td><td char="(">0.67* (0.24)</td><td char="(">0.64 (0.26)</td></tr><tr><td>% LEP students</td><td char="(">0.20 (0.19)</td><td char="(">0.19* (0.19)</td><td char="(">0.20 (0.20)</td></tr><tr><td>Total students</td><td char="(">982 (762)</td><td char="(">1,097* (842)</td><td char="(">922 (709)</td></tr><tr><td>Elementary</td><td char="(">0.45 (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.33* (0.47)</td><td char="(">0.51 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td char="(">0.23 (0.42)</td><td char="(">0.28* (0.45)</td><td char="(">0.21 (0.41)</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td char="(">0.32 (0.46)</td><td char="(">0.39* (0.49)</td><td char="(">0.28 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Charter</td><td char="(">0.09 (0.29)</td><td char="(">0.09 (0.29)</td><td char="(">0.09 (0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td char="(">0.45 (0.50)</td><td char="(">0.43* (0.49)</td><td char="(">0.46 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Suburban</td><td char="(">0.28 (0.45)</td><td char="(">0.31* (0.46)</td><td char="(">0.27 (0.44)</td></tr><tr><td>Town</td><td char="(">0.10 (0.30)</td><td char="(">0.10 (0.30)</td><td char="(">0.10 (0.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td char="(">0.17 (0.37)</td><td char="(">0.17 (0.38)</td><td char="(">0.17 (0.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Avg. teacher experience</td><td char="(">9.45 (3.32)</td><td char="(">9.42* (3.17)</td><td char="(">9.46 (3.40)</td></tr><tr><td>% Teachers of colour</td><td char="(">0.43 (0.28)</td><td char="(">0.45* (0.28)</td><td char="(">0.41 (0.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Principal retention rate</td><td char="(">0.77 (0.42)</td><td char="(">0.76* (0.43)</td><td char="(">0.77 (0.42)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>160,582</td><td>55,538</td><td>105,044</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Note: The column labelled "FP prep teachers" reports statistics only for novice teachers prepared through a for-profit Programme. The column labelled "All other prep teachers" reports statistics for novice teachers prepared through all other Programmes. (*) represents a statistically significant difference in means at the <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 level, based on results of a two-sample <emph>t</emph> test.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-10">Retention measures</hd> <p>To investigate retention, we first created a retention outcome variable linked to each individual teacher record. This measure was created separately using a file with repeated observations of teachers across multiple years. If a teacher was employed at a school in year <emph>t</emph>, but not employed at that school in the following year (<emph>t </emph>+ 1), retention was coded as equal to 0. If a teacher was employed in the same school in the following year, retention was coded as equal to 1. We then used the same approach to code three-year (<emph>t </emph>+ 3) and five-year (<emph>t </emph>+ 5) retention outcome variables. Each retention measure was then merged into our original novice teacher analytic file.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-11">Analysis</hd> <p>To answer our first research question, we tabulated the rate of for-profit prepared novice teachers in each year of our data, allowing us to observe the change in representation amongst this group between 2012 and 2020. To address research questions two and three we employed a series of paired sample <emph>t</emph> tests, where the group identifier was our for-profit preparation Programme binary indicator variable linked to each novice teacher observation (Raymond-West & Rangel, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref109">73</reflink>]). This approach provided us with mean estimates for a set of teacher demographics and school characteristics, and indicated whether mean differences between the two groups – for-profit prepared teachers compared to teachers prepared in all other Programmes – were statistically significant.</p> <p>Finally, for research question four, we estimated the relationship between preparation at a for-profit Programme and novice teacher retention outcomes using an ordinary least squares regression with school fixed effects. Regression modelling with fixed effects has become more common as a methodological tool within the educational research literature in recent years due to the increased availability of longitudinal administrative data (e.g. Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref110">21</reflink>]; Edwards et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref111">29</reflink>]), and it has been useful in prior research involving data where novice teachers are nested within multiple schools/Programmes (Edwards & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref112">28</reflink>]; Kirksey, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref113">50</reflink>]). There are observed and unobserved differences between the schools where novice teachers find employment, and these differences could influence our research question related to retention outcomes. Thus, by using fixed effects at the school-level we attempt to omit school-level variation from the other relationships between variables estimated in our models. To provide an example, a fixed effects approach allows us to account for variables such as disciplinary policies, school leadership quality, and parent engagement – all of which are school level measures with the potential to influence novice teacher retention patterns. With the data science statistical software, Stata, we ran all of our regression models using the reghdfe command (Correia, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref114">19</reflink>]; Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref115">47</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>]</p> <p>In our preferred models, we predicted 1-yr, 3-yr, and 5-yr retention outcomes from a binary indicator of for-profit preparation Programme completion (0 = novice teacher not linked to a for-profit Programme, 1 = novice teacher linked to a for-profit Programme). Prior literature demonstrates that variables such as student demographic characteristics, student economic status, and school leader retention are often correlated with teacher retention (Simon & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref117">78</reflink>]), so we included a rich set of time-varying school-level controls to each of our models. In Equation (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>) shown below, we estimate the probability of retention for teacher <emph>i</emph> in school <emph>j</emph> in year <emph>t</emph> as a function of whether a teacher was prepared in a for-profit Programme or not (<emph>B</emph><subs>1</subs>), teachers' race/ethnicity and gender identity (<emph>T<subs>ijt</subs></emph>), school-level (<emph>S<subs>ijt</subs></emph>) covariates, as well as a school fixed effect (<emph>α<subs>j</subs></emph>). We also include a year fixed effect (<emph>y<subs>t</subs></emph>), and an error term (<emph>u<subs>ijt</subs></emph>). Covariates at the school level include student enrolment, student race/ethnicity, student economic disadvantage, and the percentage of teachers of colour employed. Refer to Table 3 for the full list of covariates included. Finally, <emph>u<subs>ijt</subs></emph> represents our error term and across all models, standard errors are clustered at the school level.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mo movablelimits="true" form="prefix">Pr</mo><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mrow><mrow><mi>Retention</mi></mrow><msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mrow><mi>ijt</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">For</mi><mo>−</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">Profit</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>ijt</mi></mrow></msub></mrow><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>T</mi><mrow><mi>ijt</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>S</mi><mrow><mi>ijt</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>α</mi><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>y</mi><mi>t</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mi>ijt</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>)</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-12">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181054527-13">The rise of the for-profit sector</hd> <p>To answer our first question about the growth of the for-profit sector, we calculated the total number of novice teachers employed in each school year, who had a preparation record linked to a for-profit Programme. Figure 1 displays results related to the proportion of novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes. Between 2012 and 2020, the share of novice teachers prepared in for-profit preparation Programmes grew steadily, in terms of the annual proportion of novice teachers who were trained through a for-profit Programme. In 2012, 24% of novice teachers were linked with preparation in a for-profit Programme (2,869 teachers), and in 2020 this proportion grew to 39% (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref120">6</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib661" id="ref121">661</reflink>). Based on recently published data from the state education agency in Texas, we were not surprised by this high factor of growth (SBEC, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref122">84</reflink>]). However, our results allow us to see the rate of growth more clearly in the number of novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Proportion of for-profit prepared novice teachers (2012–2020).</p> <p>There is evidence that this trend has accelerated since 2020, as the pandemic forced many teacher candidates to seek Programmes that could be completed fully online (Edwards & Magill, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref123">30</reflink>]). As such, these findings provide policymakers at the state and national level a glance at some key outcomes related to a rapid loss of public accountability in the teacher preparation Programme landscape. Our results suggest a clear pattern of growth in the for-profit teacher preparation Programme sector in Texas; the findings in the following paragraphs help us understand average characteristics of a teacher who enters the profession through a for-profit program, and average characteristics of schools where they find employment.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-14">Teacher demographics</hd> <p>We found some evidence that novice teachers prepared through a for-profit Programme had demographic characteristics distinct from teachers prepared in other Programmes. Table 2 displays results of our analysis comparing teacher demographic characteristics for for-profit prepared novice teachers to all other novice teachers. For-profit prepared novice teachers were more likely to identify as Black and as male. For example, while novice Black teachers represented 12% of all novice teachers, they represented 18% of all novice teachers prepared in a for-profit preparation Programme. Thus, novice Black teachers in Texas during the timeframe of our study were overrepresented in for-profit preparation Programmes. Meanwhile, novice White teachers were underrepresented in for-profit preparation Programmes, representing 56% of all novice teachers and 52% of all for-profit prepared novice teachers. Finally, Latinx teachers were marginally underrepresented in for-profit preparation Programmes, representing 28% of all teachers and 26% of all for-profit prepared novice teachers.</p> <p>Considering gender identity allowed us to find that novice male teachers represented 25% of all teachers in our sample and 33% of all teachers who attended a for-profit preparation Programme. To summarise, our analysis provides suggestive evidence that new Black teachers, and male teachers, in Texas were more likely to enter the profession through a for-profit preparation Programme. Our findings could be important to both school and district leaders, especially in terms of recruitment strategies for schools seeking to hire more Black male teachers. And while our data did not allow us to understand why certain groups of novice teachers were more likely to enter the profession through a for-profit Programme, we predict that specific characteristics of these Programmes (e.g. online curriculum, more flexible student-teaching, marketing), could explain some of the teacher demographic patterns that we observed.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-15">The schools where for-profit prepared teachers work</hd> <p>We found that for-profit prepared novice teachers found employment in schools serving a slightly larger proportion of historically marginalised students and communities. For example, Table 3 shows that for-profit prepared teachers worked in schools where on average, 17% of students were Black and 67% of students were classified as economically disadvantaged. Novice teachers prepared in all other Programmes worked in schools where 14% of the students were Black and 64% of students were economically disadvantaged. These are marginal differences, yet they are all statistically significant. We therefore argue that they are practically meaningful considering the fast rate at which the for-profit preparation sector grows, as well as the prior research illustrating teacher quality gaps with a disparate impact on historically marginalised students (Goldhaber et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref124">36</reflink>]). On the other hand, there is a potential upside of our finding that for-profit prepared teachers appear more likely to be Black and serve a larger proportion of Black students. If this pathway into the workforce is linked with increased student-teacher racial/ethnic matching for students of colour, prior research indicates this could lead to positive student achievement outcomes (Lindsay & Hart, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref125">58</reflink>]). For-profit prepared novice teachers and novice teachers prepared through all other Programmes were equally distributed across the other student demographic school-level characteristics that we compared. However, we found interesting differences when exploring additional school measures beyond those related to student background and identity, such as school-level and school locale.</p> <p>Our results suggest that for-profit prepared novice teachers were less likely to work in an elementary school, and therefore more likely to work in a high school or middle school. Table 3 shows that across all observations of for-profit prepared novice teachers, 33% found employment at an elementary school, while 51% of novice teachers prepared in all other Programmes were employed at the elementary level. The opposite trend was observed when looking at employment in middle and high schools. Nearly 40% of for-profit prepared novice teachers found employment at a high school, compared to only 28% of all other novice teachers. And 28% of for-profit prepared novice teachers found employment at a middle school, compared to 21% of all other novice teachers. Research indicates higher demand for secondary teachers with specific content backgrounds (Goldhaber, Krieg et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref126">35</reflink>]), therefore our finding could be underscoring a pathway into the profession for prospective teachers who did not attain an undergraduate degree in teaching, nonetheless who might be looking for a faster, and more flexible pathway into a teaching position.</p> <p>Finally, we found a few meaningful differences in the school locale (e.g. urban, rural) where novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes found employment. Results in Table 3 indicate that 43% of for-profit prepared novice teachers found employment in an urban school, 31% in a suburban school, and 27% in a town or rural school. However, when comparing for-profit prepared novice teachers to all other novice teachers our results demonstrate that this group was slightly less likely to find employment in an urban school (43%, 46%), and slightly more likely to become employed in a suburban school (31%, 27%). Nonetheless, it is important to note that for-profit Programmes prepared a large share of the novice teacher workforce in urban areas in the years studied. Two out of every five urban novice teachers in our sample attended a for-profit preparation Programme between 2012 and 2020, representing nearly 24,000 teachers. This trend could be a cause for concern for educational leaders and policymakers, considering the research demonstrating that schools in urban locales can be the most likely to suffer higher turnover rates and longer spells of high turnover (Holme et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref127">43</reflink>]). Our results in the following section add new evidence to support this concern–we discuss findings showing lower predicted retention rates for for-profit prepared novice teachers, across all school locales.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-16">Retention patterns of for-profit prepared teachers</hd> <p>Our results suggest that net of teacher and school characteristics, novice teachers prepared through for-profit Programmes had a consistently lower predicted probability of one-, three-, and five-year retention, compared to novice teachers prepared in all non-profit Programmes. Table 4 displays the results of our school and year fixed effects models estimating the relationship between for-profit teacher preparation and the likelihood of retention. A novice teacher prepared through a for-profit Programme was about 2.5 percentage points less likely to stay in their current school after their first year of employment, compared to novice teachers prepared in all other Programme. To interpret this predicted probability in practical terms, for-profit teacher preparation is associated with four new teachers out of every one hundred new teachers leaving their current school after one year, compared to the rate for non-profit prepared teachers. The magnitude of this association grew as we estimated our three- and five-year retention outcomes. For example, our five-year retention estimates, shown in the last column of Table 4 indicate that a for-profit prepared novice teacher was 3.3 percentage points less likely to remain in their current school through their fifth year, compared to a novice teacher prepared in any other Programme.</p> <p>Table 4. Association between for-profit preparation and retention outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>1-yr Retention</td><td>3-year Retention</td><td>5-year Retention</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>For-profit preparation</td><td>−0.025*** (0.002)</td><td>−0.030*** (0.003)</td><td>−0.033*** (0.003)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char="(">0.035*** (0.003)</td><td char="(">0.031*** (0.003)</td><td char="(">0.012*** (0.003)</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td char="(">0.041*** (0.004)</td><td char="(">0.059*** (0.004)</td><td char="(">0.040*** (0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Latinx</td><td char="(">0.044*** (0.003)</td><td char="(">0.070*** (0.003)</td><td char="(">0.068*** (0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>School-level controls</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>School and year FE</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Observations, <italic>N</italic></td><td>160,278</td><td>160,278</td><td>108,029</td></tr><tr><td><italic>R</italic>²</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.13</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Note: Coefficients represent the probability of 1-, 3-, and 5-year retention outcomes for novice teachers prepared in a for-profit Programme, relative to novice teachers prepared in any other type of preparation Programme (e.g. traditional university based, district/charter). Estimates corresponding to Black and Latinx novice teachers are relative to a White novice teacher. Total observations are of all novice teachers across all years (2012-2020). The number of observations for our 5-year retention measure is smaller because novice teachers in more recent years (e.g. 2019, 2020) have not been in the workforce long enough to measure this outcome. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are shown here in parentheses. *<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>Taken together, these results suggest that novice teachers prepared in a for-profit Programme were less likely to remain in their current teaching position. We acknowledge that our estimates have magnitudes that are relatively small, but we argue that the growing size of the for-profit sector makes these results practically meaningful. These results also have practical significance for educational leaders who expend high levels of effort and school financial resources towards recruitment and hiring each year. A three-percentage point difference in the probability of retention – which in our sample was equivalent to thousands of teachers leaving their school – could be important for principals in "hard-to-staff" contexts who are working endlessly to create instructional stability for historically resilient students and communities. In the following section, we discuss how the results from this study build on prior empirical research and provide implications for future policy, practice, and research in this area.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-17">Discussion & implications</hd> <p>Prior researchers have signalled the need for more investigations of who for-profit prepared teachers are, what types of schools they teach at, and how retention outcomes vary for for-profit prepared teachers (Fox Garrity, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref128">31</reflink>]). To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly examine these questions using large-scale administrative data that is focused on novice teachers, a key group of educators representing the future of the teacher workforce. Three key findings emerged from the present research. First, we found that the share of novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes grew rapidly – two out of every five newly employed teachers in Texas were prepared in a for-profit Programme between 2012 and 2020. Secondly, we found that novice for-profit prepared teachers were more likely to identify as Black, identify as male, hold an intern or probationary teaching certificate, work in schools with a larger proportion of economically disadvantaged and Black students, and work in suburban and secondary schools (especially high schools). Third, our results indicate that for-profit prepared novice teachers were significantly less likely to remain in their current school at one-, three-, and five-year retention markers.</p> <p>The first finding is consistent with previous literature that demonstrates a rising trend of privatisation in the teacher preparation marketplace (Bland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref129">8</reflink>]; Castro & Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref130">15</reflink>]). Our results build on prior work demonstrating how rapid privatisation of traditional public education systems can have harmful effects – often for historically marginalised groups of teachers (Guthery & Bailes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref131">40</reflink>]; Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref132">56</reflink>]). It is important to pair this finding with our results showing that for-profit prepared teachers were consistently less likely to remain in their current school after 1, 3, and 5 years of teaching. This retention data is problematic considering our other set of findings showing that novice teachers prepared through the rapidly growing for-profit preparation sector are also more likely to be teachers of colour and to work in schools serving a greater share of students who are economically disadvantaged and Black. Thus, further investigations are needed that can continue to explore outcomes associated with rapid privatisation of the teacher preparation sector – especially studies that can link student outcomes to this shift (Molnar & Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref133">67</reflink>]; Peurach et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref134">72</reflink>]; Ronfeldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref135">77</reflink>]). Our results, showing lower predicted retention rates for for-profit prepared teachers, also has implications for educational leaders and policy makers – who we argue should consider how decisions to privatise modes of teacher education, training, and professional development might disproportionately harm communities of colour.</p> <p>On the other hand, given the widespread efforts to increase the racial/ethnic diversity of the teacher workforce, our results could inform the work of teacher preparation Programme leaders and the development of more traditional university-based pathways designed to support prospective teachers of colour (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref136">27</reflink>]). We found novice teachers prepared in for-profit Programmes were more likely to identify as Black and male, and to work in schools serving a larger share of Black students. Our results provide some suggestive evidence that for-profit Programmes might be providing a more attractive pathway into the profession for historically underrepresented groups of novice teachers. This is supported by prior research indicating that traditional university-based preparation Programmes can be unwelcoming to prospective teachers of colour (Gorski, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref137">37</reflink>]; Souto-Manning & Emdin, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref138">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, our results imply the need for explanatory research that can help leaders and policymakers better understand the structure and quality of for-profit preparation Programmes, especially considering prior evidence related to the shortcomings of the for-profit higher education sector (Kutz, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref139">54</reflink>]). We argue that improved data collection and reporting at the preparation Programme level could help prospective teachers understand the components of various Programmes – such as differences across curriculum and mentoring. Improved public-facing information for consumers could allow students considering a teaching career to make a more informed decision about where to receive their training. For example, if a faster track into the workforce is preferred, it would be helpful to know what type of mentoring and induction support novice teachers might be able to rely on in the first few years of their career, or whether they are teaching a subject aligned with their training, potentially influencing their retention decisions (Van Overschelde & Piatt, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref140">91</reflink>]). We suggest these lines of inquiry for future studies.</p> <p>Finally, at a more macro policy level, our results build on studies of how teachers navigate deregulated contexts. For example, prior work suggests that teachers of colour face increased barriers within districts that are more saturated with market-based reforms (e.g. charter schools), preventing them from obtaining equitable pecuniary and non-pecuniary work benefits (Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref141">46</reflink>]; Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref142">56</reflink>]) and in some cases leading to increased levels of turnover, displacement, and job mobility (White, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref143">96</reflink>]). This body of research provides evidence of the potential for increased racial/ethnic discrimination for teachers of colour within more deregulated policy contexts. Perhaps for teachers of colour, the experience of finding a new position, searching for higher pay, or seeking better working conditions are more favourable within a policy environment that includes higher levels of government oversight. And while some research has explored whether deregulation of teacher preparation Programmes is associated with variation in student and school outcomes (Lincove et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref144">57</reflink>]), our study is one of the first to explore how increased privatisation of the teacher preparation Programme landscape is linked with variation in outcomes for teachers of colour.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-18">Limitations</hd> <p>There are a few limitations related to the nature of our data and our research design which deserve mentioning. We drew on administrative data for this investigation, meaning that we were limited to observational records of novice teachers' preparation background, employment records, and retention patterns. Therefore, our data do not provide details related to the actual decisions or perceptions of the novice teachers in our sample. For example, we were not able to discern whether novice teachers with specific demographic characteristics were more likely to choose for-profit Programmes due to convenience, cost, or other reasons. While we observed associational patterns, our data provided no information as to why novice teachers chose to enter the workforce through specific preparation Programmes. We also did not assess whether novice teachers taught out-of-field, a common occurrence for alternatively prepared teachers, which prior literature suggests influences student achievement and potentially teacher career trajectories (Van Overschelde, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref145">90</reflink>]). Similarly, we were also unable to understand the reasons behind why teachers left their school. Another limitation is that this investigation was non-causal. Our findings illustrate relationships between variables that help us understand patterns in novice teacher preparation backgrounds and retention outcomes, but our results are not generalisable to other state contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study contributes to the empirical literature related to teacher preparation and novice teacher outcomes. Specifically, our analysis provides new evidence related to deregulation of the teacher preparation marketplace and outcomes for novice teachers. Importantly, our results help educational leaders, policymakers, and preparation Programme leaders better understand the characteristics of novice teachers who matriculate through for-profit preparation Programmes, as well as characteristics of the schools where this group finds employment. Though proponents of increasing market-based reforms in teacher education might argue that deregulation has the potential to increase innovation and open pathways for historically underrepresented groups of prospective teachers, we provide evidence that continued deregulation could lead to lower retention rates, and thus prove costly to districts and the students they serve.</p> <p>Through the loosening of market regulations and state-level policies encouraging experimentation in teacher preparation, for-profit teacher preparation companies in Texas with surging enrolments and complex marketing campaigns, have reshaped the landscape of teacher training over the past few decades. The results of our study offer a complex picture of what is essentially the privatisation of a once mostly public sector. We argue that this pattern of privatisation should be closely monitored as the landscape of teacher preparation options continues to evolve in Texas, nationally, and likely, internationally. Shifts in the pathways and quality of training across cohorts of novice teachers offer educational leaders, policymakers, and researchers a glimpse into the future of our K-12 and workforce thus has important implications for communities and students that teachers serve.</p> <hd id="AN0181054527-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0181054527-21"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref84" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> In Texas there is a growing share of uncertified teachers who appear in the employment data but who do not have any record of certification (including records of out of state or international certifications). Because we did not have complete certification-to-employment data for these teachers they were omitted from our final analytic file.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref34" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The basic syntax we used in Stata for our regression models was: <emph>reghdfe retention for_profit_indicator teacher_demographics school_covariates, absorb (school year)</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181054527-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Andrews, D. J. C., Richmond, G., & Stroupe, D. (2017). Teacher education and teaching in the present political landscape: Promoting educational equity through critical inquiry and research. Journal of Teacher Education, 68 (2), 121 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117691243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aydarova, E. (2021). Building a one-dimensional teacher: Technocratic transformations in teacher education policy discourses. Educational Studies, 57 (6), 670 – 689. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2021.1969934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aydarova, E. (2022). Shadow elite of teacher education reforms: Intermediary organizations' construction of accountability regimes. Educational Policy, 36 (5), 1188 – 1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048209511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Backes, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2023). The relationship between pandemic-era teacher licensure waivers and teacher demographics, retention, and effectiveness in New Jersey (Working Paper No. 286-0623). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). https://caldercenter.org/publications/relationship-between-pandemic-era-teacher-licensure-waivers-and-teacher-demographics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bartanen, B., & Kwok, A. (2023). From interest to entry: The teacher pipeline from college application to initial employment. American Educational Research Journal, 60 (5), 941–985. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231185733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref74" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31 (1), 97 – 122. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478420">www.jstor.org/stable/23478420</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baumhardt, A., Craft, W., & Robinson, S. (2021, July). Texas company fuels rise of for-profit teacher training programs. American Public Media. https://<ulink href="http://www.apmreports.org/story/2021/07/28/texas-teachers-of-tomorrow-fuels-rise-of-forprofit-training-programs">www.apmreports.org/story/2021/07/28/texas-teachers-of-tomorrow-fuels-rise-of-forprofit-training-programs</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bland, J. A., Wojcikiewicz, S. K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Wei, W. (2023). Strengthening pathways into the teaching profession in Texas: Challenges and opportunities. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/957.902</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref85" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buras, K. (2011). Race, charter schools, and conscious capitalism: On the spatial politics of whiteness as property (and the unconscionable assault on black New Orleans). Harvard Educational Review, 81 (2), 296 – 331. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.6l42343qqw360j03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2015). A review of 'research-informed clinical practice' in initial teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 217 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callahan, P. C., & Brantlinger, A. (2022). Altruism, jobs, and alternative certification: Mathematics teachers' reasons for entry and their retention. Education and Urban Society, 0, 0. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245221110559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cannata, M. A., & Penaloza, R. (2012). Who are charter school teachers? Comparing teacher characteristics, job choices, and job preferences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20, 29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n29.2012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrasco, A., & Gunter, H. (2019). The "private" in the privatisation of schools: The case of Chile. Educational Review, 71 (1), 67 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1522035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver-Thomas, D., Burns, D., Leung, M., & Ondrasek, N. (2022). Teacher shortages during the pandemic: How California districts are responding. Learning Policy Institute, https://doi.org/10.54300/899.809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro, A. J., & Edwards, W. (2021). Innovation to what end? Exploring the dynamic landscape of Texas teacher preparation pathways. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29 (January–July), 63. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro, A. J., Jabbar, H., & Miranda, S. N. (2022). School choice, teachers' work, and professional identity. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30, 104 – 104. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cellini, S. R., & Turner, N. (2019). Gainfully employed? Assessing the employment and earnings of for-profit college students using administrative data. Journal of Human Resources, 54 (2), 342 – 370. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.2.1016.8302R1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charron-Chénier, R. (2020). Predatory inclusion in consumer credit: Explaining black and white disparities in payday loan use. Sociological Forum, 35 (2), 370 – 392. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Correia, S. (2016). A feasible estimator for linear models with multi-way fixed effects. <ulink href="http://scorreia.com/research/hdfe.pdf">http://scorreia.com/research/hdfe.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cottom, T. M. (2017). Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. The New Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, C., Bal, A., Goff, P., & Mitchell, N. (2021). Estimating the relationship between special education de-identification for emotional disturbance and academic and school discipline outcomes: Evidence from Wisconsin's longitudinal data. Education and Urban Society, 53 (1), 83 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2), 35 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42 (1), 60 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1704464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., & Oakes, J. (2021). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeArmond, M., Goldhaber, D., & Payne, S. (2023). COVID's under-the-radar experiment with teacher licensure. CALDER Research Brief. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). https://caldercenter.org/publications/covids-under-radar-experiment-teacher-licensure.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deterding, N. M., & Pedulla, D. S. (2016). Educational authority in the "open door" marketplace: Labor market consequences of for-profit, nonprofit, and fictional educational credentials. Sociology of Education, 89 (3), 155 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716652455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, W. (2021). Persistence despite structural barriers: Investigating work environments for Black and Latinx teachers in urban and suburban schools. Urban Education, 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211063431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, W., & Anderson, C. Q. (2023). Teacher-principal ethnoracial matching, geography, and novice teacher career outcomes. AERA Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231213344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, W., Boggs, R., & Reyes, P. (2023). Student-principal racial/ethnic match, geographic locale, and student disciplinary outcomes. Journal of School Leadership, 33 (3), 313 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221134009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, W., & Magill, K. R. (2023). Rethinking the educational ecology in the wake of COVID: Intellectual solidarity, teacher prestige, and educational humanization. Policy Futures in Education, 21 (2), 220 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221101762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox Garrity, B. K. (2013). Enrollment of education majors at public, not-for-profit, and for-profit postsecondary institutions: An empirical analysis. Educational Studies, 49 (6), 522 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.844149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63 (5), 304 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112439894</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). US schools struggle to hire and retain teachers. The Second Report in "The Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market" Series. Economic policy institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gist, C., Jackson, I., Nightengale-Lee, B., & Allen, K. (2019). Culturally responsive pedagogy in teacher education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Theobald, R., & Brown, N. (2015). Refueling the STEM and special education teacher pipelines. Phi Delta Kappan, 97 (4), 56 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715619921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44 (5), 293 – 307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15592622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorski, P. (2009). What we're teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (2), 309 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom, J. A., Viano, S. L., & Selin, J. L. (2016). Understanding employee turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration Review, 76 (2), 241 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12435</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P., & Loeb, S. (2021). Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthery, S., & Bailes, L. P. (2023). Unintended consequences of expanding teacher preparation pathways: Does alternative licensure attenuate new teacher pay? AERA Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231159900</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hershcopf, M., Puckett Blais, M., Taylor, E. D., & Pelika, S. (2021). Student loan debt among educators: A national crisis. Washington, DC: National Education Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/Student%20Loan%20Debt%20among%20Educators.pdf">www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/Student%20Loan%20Debt%20among%20Educators.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higham, R. (2023). Do free schools create "competitive threats"? The perceptions of neighbouring schools. Educational Review. Advance online publication, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2240978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holme, J. J., Jabbar, H., Germain, E., & Dinning, J. (2018). Rethinking teacher turnover: Longitudinal measures of instability in schools. Educational Researcher, 47 (1), 62 – 75. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17735813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Misdiagnosing the teacher quality problem. (CPRE Policy Briefs No. RB-49), Consortium for Policy Research in Education. University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., Collins, G., & Harrison, B. (2021). The demographic transformation of the teaching force in the United States. Education Sciences, 11 (5), 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabbar, H., Castro, A., & Germain, E. (2019). To switch or not to switch? The influence of school choice and labor market segmentation on teachers' job searches. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41 (3), 375 – 399. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719857689</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, E., Doan, S., & Springer, M. G. (2018). Student-teacher race congruence: New evidence and insight from Tennessee. AERA Open, 4 (4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418817528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelchen, R. (2017). How much do for-profit colleges rely on federal fundsm? Brookings Institution Chalkboard.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, J., & Yin, J. (2022). The alternative teacher certification sector outside of higher education. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/AltCertification-report%5fCX.pdf">www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/AltCertification-report%5fCX.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirksey, J. J. (2022). Preparedness and experiences of novice teachers in the sociopolitical context of heightened immigration enforcement: Evidence from a survey of California teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 73 (1), 37 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871211045980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirksey, J. J., & Gottlieb, J. J. (2023). Teacher preparation goes virtual in the wild west: The impact of fully-online teacher preparation in Texas. Center for Innovative Research in Change, Leadership, and Education. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/96067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohli, R. (2019). Lessons for teacher education: The role of critical professional development in teacher of color retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 70 (1), 39 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118767645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M. A., Brunner, E. J., Dougherty, S. M., & Schwegman, D. J. (2020). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 188, 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kutz, G. D. (2010). For-profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged fraud and engaged in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. Testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, US Senate. GAO-10-948 T. US Government Accountability Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwok, A., & Cain, C. (2023). Alternatively certified teachers' perceptions of new teacher induction. Professional Development in Education, 49 (5), 784 – 796. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1879226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincove, J. A., Barrett, N., & Strunk, K. O. (2018). Lessons from Hurricane Katrina: The employment effects of the mass dismissal of New Orleans teachers. Educational Researcher, 47 (3), 191 – 203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18759542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincove, J. A., Osborne, C., Mills, N., & Bellows, L. (2015). Teacher preparation for profit or prestige: Analysis of a diverse market for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 66 (5), 415 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay, C. A., & Hart, C. M. (2017). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary outcomes for Black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39 (3), 485 – 510. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717693109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubienski, C. A. & Brewer, T. J. (Eds.). (2019). Learning to teach in an era of privatization: Global trends in teacher preparation. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magill, K. R. (2023). "I can't believe I said that": An analysis of preservice teacher ideological transformation in a social-issues-in-education course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 124, 104046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magill, K. R., & Salinas, C. (2019). The primacy of relation: Social studies teachers and the praxis of critical pedagogy. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47 (1), 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2018.1519476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matias, C. E., & Zembylas, M. (2014). 'When saying you care is not really caring': Emotions of disgust, whiteness ideology, and teacher education. Critical Studies in Education, 55 (3), 319 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.922489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, R., & Liu, K. (2022). After the virus: Disaster capitalism, digital inequity, and transformative education for the future of schooling. Education and Urban Society, 0 (0), https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211065419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. (2013). Policy reforms and de-professionalization of teaching. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved December, 2023, from <ulink href="http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/policy-reforms-deprofessionalization">http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/policy-reforms-deprofessionalization</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitani, H., Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2022). Attrition and turnover among beginning teachers in Texas by preparation program. Teachers College Record, 124 (4), 3 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221093011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molnar, A., & Garcia, D. R. (2007). The expanding role of privatization in education: Implications for teacher education and development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34 (2), 11 – 24. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23479015">www.jstor.org/stable/23479015</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morey, A. (2001). The growth of for-profit higher education: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (4), 300 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052004004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council on Teacher Quality. (2020). NCTQ teacher prep review: Teacher licensure pass rates. National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). Retrieved April 23, 2023, from https://<ulink href="http://www.nctq.org/review/passrates">www.nctq.org/review/passrates</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partelow, L. (2019). What to make of declining enrollment in teacher preparation programs. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2019/12/03/477311/make-declining-enrollment-teacher-preparation-programs">www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2019/12/03/477311/make-declining-enrollment-teacher-preparation-programs</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). Governments, markets, and instruction: Considerations for cross-national research. Journal of Educational Administration, 57 (4), 393 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raymond-West, T., & Rangel, V. S. (2020). Teacher preparation and novice teacher self-efficacy in literacy instruction. Education and Urban Society, 52 (4), 534 – 560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519879425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes, P., Marder, M., Alexander, C., Solis Rodriguez, J., & Rhodes, A. (2022). Texas educator preparation pathways study. Policy Brief. Texas Education Research Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624546.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, A. (2008). Toward a transformative teaching practice: Criticity, pedagogy and praxis. The International Journal of Learning, 15 (3), 345 – 352. https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/esl_facpubs/15/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers-Ard, R., Knaus, C. B., Epstein, K. K., & Mayfield, K. (2013). Racial diversity sounds nice; systems transformation? Not so much: Developing urban teachers of color. Urban Education, 48 (3), 451 – 479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912454441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50 (1), 4 – 36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simon, N., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117 (3), 1 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52 (2), 155 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. M., Villalobos, A. D., Hamilton, L. T., & Eaton, C. (2024). Promising or predatory? Online education in non-profit and for-profit universities. Social Forces, 102 (3), 952 – 977. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics 2016 (NCES 2017-094). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Souto-Manning, M., & Emdin, C. (2020). On the harm inflicted by urban teacher education programs: Learning from the historical trauma experienced by teachers of color. Urban Education, 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920926249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Board for Educator Certification. (2018). Accountability system for educator preparation annual reports. Texas Education Agency, https://tea.texas.gov/2018asep.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Board for Educator Certification. (2023). Educator preparation dashboards. Texas Education Agency, https://tea4avcastro.tea.state.tx.us/ELQ/educatorprepdatadashboard/ASEPoverview.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Student Borrower Protection Center. (2021). Mapping exploitation: Examining for-profit colleges as financial predators in communities of color. https://protectborrowers.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/SBPC-Mapping-Exploitation-Report.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Templeton, T., Horn, C., Sands, S., Mairaj, F., Burnett, C., & Lowery, S. (2022). 2022 Texas teacher workforce report. University of Houston. https://charlesbuttfdn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/12/Texas-Teacher-Workforce-Report-2022.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Education Agency. (2022, April 29). Approval of proposed Agreed order for A + Texas Teachers educator preparation. State Board for Educator Certification. https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/april-agenda-item-17.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker, F. (2021). For-profit colleges: Neither educationally nor economically equivalent. Research in Higher Education Journal, 40, 1 – 15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1296449.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Utt, J., & Tochluk, S. (2016). White teacher, know thyself: Improving anti-racist praxis through racial identity development. Urban Education, 55 (1), 125 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916648741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Overschelde, J. P. (2022). Value lost: The hidden costs of teacher misassignment. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Out-of-field teaching across the teaching disciplines and contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9328-1_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Overschelde, J. P., & Piatt, A. (2020). U.S. every student succeeds: Negative impacts on teaching out-of-field. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2 (1), 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.02.01.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Overschelde, J. P., & Wiggins, A. (2020). Teacher preparation pathways: Differences in program selection and teacher retention. Action in Teacher Education, 42 (4), 311 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1656116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The privatization of education. A political economy approach to global education reform. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, D. L., & Gagen, L. M. (2020). African American males' decisions to teach: Barriers, motivations, and supports necessary for completing a teacher preparation program. Education and Urban Society, 52 (3), 415 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519846294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner, L. (2007). A lethal threat to US teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (4), 274 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107305603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, T. (2016). Teach for America's paradoxical diversity initiative: Race, policy, and black teacher displacement in urban schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24 (16). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitman, D. (2018). The cautionary tale of correspondence schools. New America. https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/The_Cautionary_Tale_of_Correspondence_Schools_2018-12-10_132917.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winchip, E. (2022). Open for business: A quantitative analysis of teachers' experiences of marketisation in international schools. Educational Review, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2094343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wronowski, M. L. (2021). De-professionalized and demoralized: A framework for understanding teacher turnover in the accountability policy era. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20 (4), 599 – 629. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1734209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, J., & Partelow, L. (2020). An overview of the alternative teacher certification sector outside of higher education. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Overview-of-Alternative-Certification1.pdf">www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Overview-of-Alternative-Certification1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (8), 1544 – 1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40 (5), 551 – 568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.956544</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wesley Edwards and Kevin Russel Magill</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib661" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref143"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450153
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Rise of For-Profit Teacher Preparation Programmes: Investigating Career Outcomes for Novice Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wesley+Edwards%22">Wesley Edwards</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9221-6260">0000-0001-9221-6260</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kevin+Russel+Magill%22">Kevin Russel Magill</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1438-1460">0000-0002-1438-1460</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Review%22"><i>Educational Review</i></searchLink>. 2024 76(7):1955-1979.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22For+Profit+Colleges%22">For Profit Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Readiness%22">Career Readiness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Education+Work+Relationship%22">Education Work Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Teachers%22">Beginning Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Potential%22">Employment Potential</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Qualifications%22">Employment Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Certification%22">Teacher Certification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personnel+Data%22">Personnel Data</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00131911.2024.2327575
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-1911<br />1465-3397
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The increased privatisation of educational systems is a global trend with several important implications for teachers' preparation and workforce outcomes. With many countries facing teacher shortages, retention for novice teachers is a key area of focus for educational leaders and policymakers -- yet there is a lack of evidence related to the relationship between new alternative pathways into the profession and retention patterns. In this paper, we add to the limited literature on for-profit teacher preparation Programme outcomes. Our results extend work related to educational market deregulation and contribute to research about novice teachers. Drawing on longitudinal employment files and certification records for over 160,000 individual teachers, our results demonstrate meaningful variation in the demographic characteristics and retention outcomes of for-profit prepared novice teachers. Our findings have implications for educational leaders, preparation Programme leaders, and state/district, national, and international policymakers. The realities of for-profit Programmes may have global implications.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450153
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450153
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00131911.2024.2327575
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 1955
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: For Profit Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Education Work Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Potential
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Politics of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Certification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personnel Data
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Rise of For-Profit Teacher Preparation Programmes: Investigating Career Outcomes for Novice Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wesley Edwards
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kevin Russel Magill
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-1911
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3397
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 76
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1