In one of the largest and most rigorous studies of alternatively certified teachers ever conducted, researchers found that the students of teachers certified through alternative preparation programs did no worse on achievement tests than students whose teachers chose the traditional route. Research to date on the effectiveness of teachers certified through alternate routes has not been conclusive. Despite this fact, alternative certification programs have increased considerably in popularity, with more than one-third of new hires coming from alternative certification programs into the profession.
There is no statistically significant difference in reading or math achievement for students placed in a classroom with traditionally or alternatively certified teachers, according to An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification 
conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., on behalf of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The study also found no correlation between teacher effectiveness and the amount of coursework that teachers received as part of their alternative or traditional teacher training programs.
In the Mathematica study, students were randomly assigned to an alternatively certified or a traditionally certified teacher teaching in the same school and grade level. This process ensured that effects on student achievement were due to teachers, and not differences in classroom, grade, or school characteristics.
Implemented during the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years, the study tracked 2,600 students in 63 schools in 20 medium and large school districts in 6 states (including Texas). The study involved 87 alternatively certified teachers from 28 alternative certification programs and 87 traditionally certified teachers from 52 traditional programs.
Researchers did not examine two of the best-known alternative certification programs, Teach for America and The New Teacher Project. Instead, the study focused on less selective alternative certification programs because those programs produce most teachers certified through alternate routes and are similar in terms of admission requirements to traditional programs. The research does not speak to the effectiveness of different types of certification programs, but rather to the effect on student achievement of teachers who attend different types of programs.
“While many are concerned that alternatively certified teachers are less effective in raising student achievement in the classroom, this study does not support that claim,” notes Jill Constantine, associate director of research at Mathematica and director of the study. “Our study reveals that alternatively certified teachers do not produce harmful consequences for students.” Although the findings indicated that individual teachers appear to have an effect on student achievement, the researchers were unable to identify what it is about a teacher that makes a difference.
Following the release of the Mathematica study, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) indicated its disappointment with the study and called the findings questionable. Dr. Sharon Robinson, president and chief executive officer of AACTE, questioned the study’s findings and said, “Unfortunately, the report does not inform a path forward, and that is what we really need.” She noted that the study provides no information helpful to improving teacher preparation. “It does not change what we already know from the existing body of research that clearly shows that high quality teacher preparation and extended coursework—especially in mathematics—do make a difference in student achievement.” Robinson based her conclusions about the study and its findings on expert analyses of the report, including those of Linda Darling-Hammond, professor, Stanford University School of Education, and Barnett Berry, president and chief executive officer, Center for Teaching Quality.
