The proliferation of alternative routes to certification in special education: a critical review of the literature.

In this article we review research on alternative routes to certification (ARC) in special education. First, ARC is defined, and the confluence of factors that has hastened its growth and popularity, particularly in specialized, high-need areas such as special education, is discussed. Second, available research in the area of ARC in special education is summarized, with particular attention to the efficacy of the various approaches and programs and to the process and outcome variables used to assess program impact. Third, programmatic features associated with successful ARC programs are described, and what remains unknown about ARC programs is discussed. We conclude with a series of recommendations for policymakers and teacher educators.

**********

Conventional wisdom holds that desperate circumstances require bold action, If so, then the rapid growth of alternative paths to special education teacher certification could be viewed as a legitimate and justified response to market conditions. For decades, there simply have not been enough qualified teachers to address the educational needs of the growing numbers of students with disabilities. Moreover, the traditional source of supply for special education classrooms, freshly minted graduates of college or university degree programs, has not met the growing demand for teachers. As a result, in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, H. R. 1 (NCLB), the U.S. Department of Education has encouraged the development of alternative routes to teacher certification (ARC), noting that these approaches, "as opposed to the traditional routes offered by colleges of education, streamline the process of certification to move candidates into the classroom on a fast-track basis" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 15).

Not surprisingly, alternative certification has become a growth industry. Feistritzer, Haar, Hobar, and Losselyong (2004) reported that 43 states plus the District of Columbia have over 144 alternative route programs available for individuals who seek a license to teach. As of 2004, over 200,000 persons had received certification through such programs. Historically, teacher certification has served as a proxy for professional competence, and it is related empirically to both student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2000b) and public confidence in schools (Boe & Barkanic, 2000; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). However, in these studies, certification has implied completion of a standard preparation program. With the emergence and rapid growth of ARC, however, our understanding of what it means to be certified is changing.

In this article, we consider what research has shown about the efficacy of alternative route preparation in special education. First, we define ARC and discuss the confluence of factors that has hastened its growth and popularity. We then synthesize and analyze the available research in special education, focusing on the efficacy of the various approaches and programs as well as the process and outcome variables used to assess program impact. We identify programmatic features associated with successful ARC programs, and conclude by highlighting what remains unknown about ARC and presenting a series of policy recommendations.

What Is An ARC Program?

Defining the critical features of ARC programs is difficult because programs vary greatly. Also, the term ARC has multiple meanings and applications and has been used to refer to avenues to teaching ranging from Spartan emergency certification survival training to sophisticated, high-tech programs for individuals with unique life experiences (Feistritzer et al., 2004; Hillkirk, 2000). So variable have ARC programs become that treating them as a homogeneous class no longer seems reasonable. In fact, teacher preparation may best be represented as a continuum along which the point where alternative ends and standard begins is uncertain.