From the Department of Education Specialties, St. John’s University, Queens, New York.
Sable E. Sanders, MA
Sable.sanders24@my.stjohns.edu
This review compares traditional and alternative teacher certification programs to determine which best prepares teachers for the classroom. The literature search was conducted using databases such as Google Scholar, Ebsco, ERIC, and JSTOR. Key terms used in the search included teacher preparation, traditional teacher certification, alternative teacher certification, and effective classroom instruction. The literature review provided inconclusive results. Some studies have shown that traditional teacher certification programs led to better student achievement, while others have shown that alternative programs did. Further studies could be conducted to determine the impact teacher certification has on students in different subjects, such as social studies or English, which were both underrepresented in the research. Future educators can use this review to help determine if traditional or alternative certification is right for them. Leaders and policymakers in the education field can use this review to adjust the expectations placed on teachers.
As teacher shortages persist throughout the United States, school districts have to come up with ways to fill the empty positions in the classroom. Alternative certification programs allow people to enter the teaching profession without a degree in education. Instead, they can use whatever degree they already have, take a few courses, pass their certification exams, and enter the classroom. Many alternative certification programs even allow preservice teachers to have their own classrooms before they are certified. While these programs are helping to fill the positions in schools, are they equipping teachers with the skills needed to teach literacy effectively in the classroom?
This review paper will start by examining the history and policies that affect teacher preparation. Then, it will examine both traditional and alternative certification programs. This paper will review studies related to traditional and alternative teacher certification and student achievement to determine which better prepares teachers for the classroom. The driving force behind this paper is to help inform policy in the field of education, while also helping future educators determine which is the best path for them. To conclude, gaps in the literature will be identified, and ideas for future research will be proposed.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his Great Society program (Klein, 2015). The ESEA created a large role for the federal government in K-12 education policy through offering aid to districts that serve disadvantaged students. Though the law has been changed since it was originally passed, Johnson’s funding, Title 1, is still used to help schools today.
In 1983, David P. Gardner and the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a report titled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, which drew attention to the high level of academic underachievement both nationally and internationally. The report examined high school student achievement and found that SAT scores declined by 40 points in math and 50 points in the verbal section between 1963 and 1980. The report determined that new graduation requirements for students were needed, and higher expectations were required of teachers. The commission named the following 5 areas of improvement: content, standards and expectations, time, teaching, and leadership and fiscal support (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
A Nation at Risk had an influence on the federal government as well. Replacing the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was passed in 2002 and aimed to improve education by implementing more accountability for schools and teachers, hoping to drive student achievement. NCLB specifically aimed to improve the performance of minority groups, and while states did not have to follow the requirements, they could lose the Title 1 funding if they did not. Academically, the NCLB required that schools bring all students up to the proficient level by the 2013-14 school year; however, each state was able to individually determine what “proficient” looked like and what tests were used to determine it. Professionally, the NCLB required that teachers be highly qualified, meaning they have at least a bachelor’s degree and a state certification. In the 2006-07 school year, 94% of teachers were considered highly qualified (Birman et al., 2009). Times have changed, though, and in 2024, around 12% of teaching positions were either unfilled or filled by an uncertified teacher (Saunders & Skinner, 2025).
Though NCLB placed a strong emphasis on teacher effectiveness being rooted in student achievement, this viewpoint may be a reason that teachers have left the profession. Judging teachers solely on their students’ performance on assessments does not fully define their effectiveness. Teacher effectiveness relates to classroom management, student engagement, social-emotional connections, and many other factors (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). By defining one’s effectiveness based on a test score, many teachers have left the field because they find it to be a difficult task.
Following the NCLB era of the early 2000s, the US government established the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015. ESSA gave states more flexibility to design their own teacher accountability systems. ESSA was created out of necessity after the Obama administration (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) recognized how NCLB was creating an unworkable and inequitable environment for teachers and students. The ESSA still remains the main federal law for K-12 education as of this review in 2026.
Between the NCLB era and ESSA being introduced, many teachers began to leave the profession due to their effectiveness being determined by test scores. ESSA did not remove these pressures from teachers and instead allowed state-level governments to determine what it means to be an effective teacher. The pressure to meet these benchmarks and the transition of teaching from an autonomous career into one that is run like a business began to lead to teacher attrition.
Wide-scale national teacher shortages have not been a persistent problem until recent years. Due to the Great Recession, teachers faced a weak job market, resulting in hundreds of applications being submitted to fill limited positions (Malatras et al., 2017). Since the 1970s, the number of teachers has increased by around 52%, while the number of students has increased by around only 10%. Despite these numbers, there have been persistent shortages in high-need areas like special education, science, and English as a second language, and schools with minority populations are harder to staff than other schools. Furthermore, teacher shortages are highly specific to the geographic region and are subject to district demographics. Affluent areas tend to maintain a stronger applicant pool while high-poverty areas struggle to keep teachers in the classroom. These shortages are felt most deeply in highly specialized disciplines, leaving students who need good instruction without a strong teacher. To combat these issues, many states and districts have implemented stipends for certified teachers in high-need subjects and schools. During the 2024-25 school year, one Louisiana school district (Caddo Parish Public Schools, 2024) offered certified teachers an incentive of $1,000 per class period taught in high-demand subject areas and $1,000 for all newly hired teachers, certified or not.
On top of the shortage in high-need subjects, teachers have begun leaving the profession for many reasons, creating many unfilled positions. Over 200,000 teachers leave the profession each year (Podolsky et al., 2016) citing compensation, challenging work conditions, and inadequate preparation as some of the primary reasons for their departure. Declining wages are one factor that has pushed teachers out of the profession and prevents new teachers from entering the field. When adjusted for inflation, teacher salaries have decreased by over 6% in the last decade (Walker, 2023). With the average starting salary for new teachers at $42,845 and a single adult needing to earn at least $80,000 to live comfortably (DeJohn, 2025), it should come as no surprise that teachers are leaving the profession due to compensation concerns.
Working conditions have also been a key factor in the number of teacher shortages across the US. A 2012 survey (Podolsky et al., 2016) found that poor administrative support and accountability systems were the top reasons teachers left the profession. Lack of professional collaboration and a lack of resources were also cited as key influences on teacher turnover, especially at schools that serve high-poverty students (Theobald, N.D., 1990).
Despite the above reasons that have led to a teacher shortage, the most recent event that exacerbated the issue was the COVID-19 pandemic (Schmitt & deCourcy, 2022). A 2024 teacher shortage report by state (Tan et al.) found that over 406,000 teaching positions were not filled by a certified teacher, a 25% increase from the 2021-22 to 2023-24 school year. While many of the issues within education were preexisting, the COVID-19 pandemic shed light on how quickly the problems were growing. The US government tried to maintain the public school system by putting money into initiatives such as the American Rescue Plan and Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds; however, this only proved to bring temporary relief.
To combat the growing number of openings in the classroom, states and districts have begun implementing alternative teaching programs. These programs are meant to make it easier to enter the classroom, but some (Shen, 1997) believe that lessening the standards for entering the classroom will lead to a decrease in instructional quality.
One prominent economic theory is the human capital theory, which posits that an educated population is a productive population (Almendarez, 2013). In this theory, education is viewed as an investment in the future (Schultz, 1979) that should bring about a higher national income. This theory has been supported throughout history in studies that show a positive correlation between years of schooling or education level and individual earnings (Theobald, 1990). Human capital theorists believe that the government, as well as the public, should make financial investments in the education system (Almendarez, 2013). Though human capital theory seems to be grounded in rational thinking, our current education system does not appear to be benefiting from public or government investments. While money is being funneled into education, we are missing out on critical areas. If we are to believe that an educated population will lead to a productive society, we need to find ways to make sure teachers are adequately prepared for the classroom.
Teacher preparation is an issue that affects both those in the profession and those yet to enter it. Strong teacher preparation leads to a higher sense of self-efficacy and increases teacher effectiveness (Podolsky et al., 2016), while also leading to higher retention rates (US Department of Education, 2022). Traditional teacher certification can be traced back to the 19th century. Horace Mann, an educational reformer, viewed education as a means of “social redemption” (Warder, 2015) and advocated for universal public schools. Because of his advocacy, the country needed a trained teaching force. Mann’s influence eventually led to the establishment of “normal schools,” where teaching practices were taught to teacher candidates (Patterson, 2021). The first public normal school in the United States opened in 1893, providing a 2-year preparation course. At the time, teacher preparation programs focused on elementary teachers and teaching the pedagogy needed for younger students. Darling-Hammond (2000) conducted a landmark review examining the correlation between teacher preparation and student achievement. The study found that teachers who are better prepared to enter the classroom tend to produce students with higher levels of achievement.
Aside from traditional certification programs, teaching candidates can also pursue an alternative certification. Alternative certification can be difficult to define since there are several different types. Dating back to 1985, New Jersey and Texas implemented formal alternative certification programs. These states were influenced by A Nation at Risk and aimed to attract new liberal arts graduates to the teaching profession (Husbands, 2008). Teach for America, started by Wendy Kopp in 1989, is one of the most prominent alternative certification programs today. The program became part of AmeriCorps in 1990, receiving federal funding to help attract graduates (Zukauskas, 2025). Kopp desired to see strong teachers in low-income communities and designed the program to give intense training to recent graduates before placing them in classrooms. The program recruits college graduates for a 2-year teaching commitment, offering incentives such as possible loan forgiveness (Zukauskas, 2025). Teacher candidates, or corps members in the program, undergo an intense 6-week summer training before entering the classroom in the fall (Teachers of Tomorrow, 2023). Though Teach for America has made its place in the field of education, it also has critics who believe the short training does not cover enough to send them into their own classrooms (Zukauskas, 2025). Other types of alternative certification programs are not as rigorous as Teach for America, with many taking up to 2 years to complete. Due to the discrepancies between each program, it is challenging to make a comprehensive comparison.
While alternative routes to certification have been around since the 1980s (Husbands, 2018), they have become more prevalent in recent years, with nearly 18 percent of teachers in the 2015-16 school year entering the profession through an alternative program (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). The number has continued to rise due to COVID-19 and widespread teacher shortages (Schmitt & deCourcy, 2022). With traditional and alternative certifications both being widely available, many have begun to wonder which leads to better student achievement in the classroom. Although more studies need to be conducted on the topic, sufficient research has been conducted to begin analyzing the common themes.
Traditional certification is achieved by completing a bachelor’s program in education at an accredited university (Bell, 2021). These programs provide coursework to prepare students to enter the classroom offering classes on pedagogy, classroom management, and subject-specific skills. Though course offerings vary by university, one can expect research-based practices, connections between theory and classroom application, as well as clinical experience (Saint Xavier University, 2025). At the end of most traditional certification programs, candidates complete a period of student teaching, where they are in a classroom with a mentor teacher and gain hands-on experience. Traditional certification programs have been shown to have higher retention rates than alternative programs (Bowe et al., 2011). One study focusing on Texas teachers (Zientek, 2007) found that traditionally certified teachers showed higher self-efficacy, preparedness, and better communication than those from alternate certification programs. A 2012 study by Moss found that teachers who underwent traditional certification reported fewer issues with classroom management compared to those teachers who were alternatively trained. Since traditional programs typically conclude with candidates earning a bachelor’s degree in education, they are best suited for individuals who are confident about pursuing a career in education (Teachers of Tomorrow, 2023).
The negative aspects of traditional teacher certification can be categorized into 3 main categories: time and cost commitment, limited flexibility, and disconnect between theory and practice.
When going to college to pursue a teaching certification, candidates commit to a minimum of 4 years before being able to enter the classroom. Since traditional programs are obtained through colleges and universities, a high cost is associated with traditional certification. People may opt for an alternative to help lower the cost of tuition, but may sacrifice the quality of the education (Jang & Horn, 2017). Traditional certification programs do not give candidates much flexibility. The courses are typically offered on a fixed schedule, making it difficult for people to have a job while working on their certification. While many programs have online offerings, most still require people to be on campus for at least part of the time.
One of the main disadvantages of traditional teacher certification is the disconnect between theory and practice. While candidates who take the traditional route to certification may acquire more knowledge about classroom management and teaching practices, many find that the classes they take do not adequately prepare them for the real-world experiences they encounter in the classroom. Until the student teaching portion of the program, candidates have no real-life application of the pedagogical skills they are learning, adding to the criticism that traditional certification programs lack content-specific guidance during training (Whitford et al., 2018). As a result, many traditionally certified teachers struggle to apply what they have learned in the classroom.
Alternative certification programs allow people who have a bachelor’s degree in a non-education subject to enter the classroom. Alternative certification programs accelerate the training process, creating qualified teachers in a fraction of the time (Whitford et al., 2018). These programs enable candidates to receive a salary while completing their licensure requirements (Saint Xavier University, 2025), making them more attractive to parents who need to support their families. Being in the classroom while completing the program allows candidates to gain hands-on experience in applying what they are learning and to experience what a real classroom environment is like. These programs also provided candidates with a mentor who could help them adapt to the classroom setting on a daily basis. Alternative programs are also more cost-efficient. Teachworthy, an alternative program, offers a partnership with Texas schools at a cost of only $4,155 (Bell, 2021). Alternative certification programs also typically increase the number of minority teachers in high-need areas (Bowe et al., 2011). Alternate certification programs often require candidates to undergo tests and interviews, making the screening process more rigorous than traditional programs (Husbands, 2008).
Cons of Alternative Certification
Although candidates going through alternative certification programs are gaining hands-on experience, they sometimes feel as though they are thrown into the classroom without being fully prepared. Because of this, unqualified individuals are taking on sole responsibility for student success (Bowe et al., 2011). Moss’s (2012) study found that teachers who underwent alternative certification programs reported struggling with classroom management due to a lack of student teaching experience (Whiteford et al., 2018). The coursework for alternative certification programs is accelerated, which can add extra stress on candidates as they are trying to complete the courses while teaching full-time (Saint Xavier University, 2025). On top of this, since candidates in alternative certification programs are not certified in the area they are teaching, they struggle to know the content knowledge needed to teach the subject (Bowe et al., 2011). These programs have also been shown to have lower retention rates compared to traditional certification programs.
Empirical literature surrounding certification type and its impact on student achievement has shown mixed results, making it difficult to find a true one-to-one comparison. While some studies (Clotfelter et al., 2010; Moss, 2012) found that traditionally certified teachers produced better results, others (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Lincove et al., 2015) found that the differences were negligible and that alternative teaching certification programs are just as viable. Program differences are the main reason for these mixed results. Not all programs are designed the same way, so it is difficult to compare their effectiveness side-by-side. In addition, the term “alternative certification” can be applied to programs with varying degrees of competition and rigor, resulting in conflicting data. A breakdown of each certification type and its impact on student achievement is below.
Though traditional certification is more popular, some believe that it does not necessarily produce better-prepared teachers (Bowe et al., 2011; Whitford et al., 2018). According to Hess (2001), the argument is that teaching programs tend not to have rigorous screening processes compared to medical or law programs, meaning that incompetent individuals can become teachers. Despite this argument, most studies (Jang & Horn, 2017) have found that traditional programs produce better instructional knowledge of curriculum and teaching strategies, and several studies (Clotfelter et al., 2010; Moss, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000) detail how student achievement results are higher from teachers who are traditionally certified. A study in North Carolina (Clotfelter et al., 2010) used student achievement on end-of-course testing to determine that 10th grade students taught by teachers with traditional certification performed better than those taught by teachers with alternative certification. This study also found that high school math and science scores, as well as middle school math scores, from traditionally certified teachers outperformed those with all types of alternative certifications, except for Teach for America. In Mississippi, similar results were found (Moss, 2012) when they used a Kruskal-Wallis test to analyze achievement by grade level and determined that 6th grade students of traditionally certified teachers performed better in math than the alternatively prepared ones. Darling-Hammond’s (2000) study also found that students perform better when their teachers are fully certified. This finding was confirmed by Goldhaber and Brewer (2000), who discovered that traditionally certified teachers had a greater impact on their 12th grade students’ math scores than uncertified teachers.
It can be challenging to accurately compare alternative certification programs based on student success due to the diverse range of alternative certification programs. Alternative certification programs such as Teach for America (Whitford et al., 2018; Zukauskas, 2025) and Troops to Teachers have been shown to prepare teachers who are just as capable as those who went through traditional programs (Bowe et al., 2011). However, less selective alternative programs were found to be less effective in numerous studies (Jang & Horn, 2017). A study conducted in Texas (Lincove et al., 2015) found there to be negligible differences in 4th through 10th grade math achievement scores between students with traditionally and alternatively certified teachers. This was further demonstrated in a study conducted by Goldhaber and Brewer (2000). In their study, the results showed that on math and science assessments, traditional and alternative certified teachers produced similar achievement levels. One study found that Teach for America teachers produce higher math scores across elementary, middle, and high school compared to teachers with traditional certifications (Jang & Horn, 2017). The Teach for America program is highly selective, which provides evidence that more selective teaching programs produce more effective teachers. This is supported by Whitford et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis, which found that students with teachers who have completed the Teach for America program perform better than students with traditionally certified teachers. Moss’s (2012) study, which found that 6th graders with traditionally trained teachers did better than those with alternatively trained ones, also found that in 7th grade the alternatively trained teachers had better achievement. Some studies, including one by Darling-Hammond (2000), suggest that certified teachers produce better results in their students. While this may suggest that alternatively trained teachers are not as qualified, it also shows that there is room for improvement. These teachers are just as capable of producing high-achieving students; it may just take more time for them to adjust to the classroom setting.
While studies provide quantitative data showing the effectiveness of different teaching certification types, teacher perceptions also need to be considered. In her dissertation, Kristi Goodwin (2011) sought to determine how teachers viewed the effectiveness of their preparation program in equipping them for the classroom. She focused her research on 16 teachers in northeast Georgia, using 2 schools with varied sizes and racial compositions.
One of the participants who took the alternative route to certification felt that she was dropped into a classroom with no help and said it felt like a sink-or-swim moment. Betty said she had 2 hours of training on the Read 180 platform but no other training before entering the classroom. Although her teaching journey had a stressful start, she now believes that she was handpicked to help her students and that teacher effectiveness, regardless of the type of preparation program, is about building relationships with them.
Another participant, Elizabeth, also went the alternate route but never felt unprepared. Elizabeth obtained her bachelor’s degree in biology before pursuing a career as a teacher. Her background in science may suggest that in alternative certification programs the person’s educational background has a significant impact on their experience. Elizabeth mirrored Betty’s sentiment about building relationships with students; she said that teachers have to engage with the students and bring the material to their level to see success.
Scott, another participant in the study, took the traditional route to becoming a teacher, and also said that building relationships with students is the hallmark of an effective teacher. He felt confident in the preparation he received; although he knows that teaching is a challenging profession, he felt equipped to continue pursuing his passions.
A 4th participant, Jessica, initially went to school to pursue a career in pharmacy, but later changed her major to education, a decision she looks back on fondly. Her background in science helped prepare her for the content she would be teaching, and she still believes that her subject knowledge is her biggest strength. Jessica also emphasized the importance of building relationships with students to support student achievement. She stated that being an effective teacher is about developing mutual respect with your students and finding ways to make the curriculum relevant to students.
Goodwin’s (2011) study provided firsthand evidence of how both traditional and alternative certification programs can yield positive results in the classroom. Although personal experiences may differ, having a strong foundation in content knowledge appears to have a positive correlation with student achievement in the classroom. While Goodwin (2011) provides a good foundation for understanding teacher preparedness in the previous decade, Bowen and Williams (2024) and Huffman (2021) provide contemporary voices regarding the effectiveness of both preparation types.
Huffman (2021) conducted interviews with 10 teachers in an alternative teacher certification program and found that the majority of participants expressed they were prepared to build relationships with students, create classroom management plans, and effectively plan lessons. However, half of the participants reported a lack of instructional support from their programs and stated that in order to feel more confident, they would require additional professional development opportunities to prepare them.
Bowen and Williams (2024) focused their study on the National Teacher and Principal Survey from 2015 and found, similar to Huffman (2021), that alternatively certified teachers report feeling less prepared when compared to teachers who went through a traditional program. Specifically, the traditional program participants reported higher levels of preparedness in behavior management, subject matter, differentiating instruction, and instructional methods. While alternative program participants did not report higher levels of preparedness in any of the 11 variables from the survey, and the results of the study were statistically significant, the effect sizes were small.
Overall, Goodwin (2011), Bowen and Williams (2024), and Huffman (2021) all highlight that when taking teacher perception into account, alternative certification programs tend to come up short. Though some people feel adequately prepared, many report that they wish their program had more instructional support and more of a focus on content knowledge to better help them in the classroom.
While traditional certification may seem like the path more likely to lead to student success, data shows that teachers with both traditional and alternative certifications can achieve the same levels of student success. There are also various types of alternative certification programs, making it hard to determine which provides the best preparation for teachers. Jang & Horn (2017) determined, however, that aside from the Teach for America program, traditional teacher certification programs are more effective. When comparing candidates’ perceptions of traditional and alternative programs, Bowe et al. (2011) found that candidates from both types of programs felt equally prepared to teach in high-need schools. Moss (2012) used statistical analysis to determine that, on the Mississippi Curriculum Test 2nd Edition, there was no significant difference between middle school students of traditional and alternatively certified teachers. Moss analyzed achievement by grade level and found that while there were significant differences in 6th and 7th grade students, there was no significant difference between students with traditional or alternative certification for 8th graders. Some studies have shown that teachers with traditional certification had better results, while others have shown the opposite, making it difficult to determine which approach is more effective.
Moss (2012) also analyzed the effect that certification type had on achievement scores based on ethnicity or socioeconomic status. When comparing ethnicities, she found that Caucasian students performed better, whether their teacher went through traditional or alternative certification. In regard to socioeconomic status, the study showed that students who did not receive free or reduced lunch performed better on the Mississippi Curriculum Test 2nd Edition when taught by an alternatively prepared teacher.
Further research is needed on this topic to evaluate the effectiveness of both traditional and alternative certification programs in the continuously changing world of education. Teaching programs, both traditional and alternative, can produce more highly effective teachers if they become more selective (US Department of Education, 2022). If student achievement is what determines a teacher’s effectiveness at a school, programs need to do a better job of making sure candidates are capable of meeting the necessary demands. If teaching programs have bare minimum requirements and do not have rigorous expectations, the field of education will continue to struggle as teachers leave the profession after realizing it is not what they expected. Both traditional and alternative certification programs have shown they are capable of achieving the same level of success with their teachers, but somehow, students are still falling behind nationally. A push needs to be made for more rigorous preparation, as well as continuing education requirements, to ensure teachers are always finding ways to be as effective as possible. Since teachers are considered pillars of society (Saint Xavier University, 2025), we need to equip them not just to teach skills and knowledge (Schultz, 1979) but also to motivate and inspire students.
While this review focused primarily on pedagogical preparation and student success to determine which program type is better, it is lacking a systematic review of the economic factors that may also contribute to differences in program effectiveness. Follow-up work related to the economics of varying teacher certification programs as well as school district demographics are important and would provide a more detailed understanding of how effective traditional and alternative certification programs are.