Getting Future Teachers in Front of Students

Eric Mason
Sep 26, 2025
10 min read

Updated: Sep 30, 2025

Introduction: Time, Experience, and My Own Path into Teaching

Time is the most precious, non-renewable resource in education. How we use it—whether in the length of the school day, the structure of the school year, or the preparation of teachers—shapes outcomes for both students and educators. My own path into teaching showed me just how important early and ongoing classroom experience can be.

When I first entered the classroom in Donna, Texas, I had not taken a single education course. I was emergency certified to teach theater and speech, and I struggled mightily in my first year. More than half of my students did not speak English, and I was unprepared for the realities of teaching in a multilingual middle school classroom. The saving grace of that year was being paired with a legend of a teacher, John Farr, who literally gave his life for his students. His mentorship—practical, immediate, and grounded in deep care—was worth more than any textbook I might have read. From 1997 to 1999, I taught at a Jesuit private school in Houston. None of the English teachers around me were state-certified, but they were experts in their subject fields and masterful in their pedagogy. The school was among the highest-performing in the city, not because of credentials alone, but because of the depth of content knowledge, mentoring, and professional community that shaped the teaching environment.

I did not take my first formal education class until 2011, when I entered the 100% online alternative certification program at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. By then I had already lived the realities of the classroom, and coursework came alive because I could connect theory to practice.

Looking back, I am not sure how traditional education courses during my undergraduate career could have helped me without some practical application. I have always learned best when I can put what I am learning into action. On reflection, I have often wondered why our local schools are not filled with undergraduate students from teacher education programs. In the days I felt overwhelmed with providing interventions for 30+ students, I wished I had a bright undergraduate student in my room to support small group instruction. Not only would that have lightened my load, it would have given the future teacher authentic practice in the art of differentiation.

On reflection, I have often wondered why our local schools are not filled with undergraduate students from teacher education programs.

I also remember carefully preparing an English lesson over several days, only to feel that the success of that lesson was a hidden secret. No one observed it, no one gave feedback, and there was no opportunity to share what had gone well with a colleague or a teacher candidate in training. Buried in those moments of practice are answers to some of the most persistent challenges in education: teacher shortages, uneven quality of instruction, and the need for more individualized student support.

Could increasing the amount of field experience in teacher preparation by 250% be part of the solution? If more teacher candidates were embedded in classrooms earlier and more often, they could serve as vital supports for practicing teachers while gaining the hands-on experience they need. At the same time, classrooms would become laboratories of teaching where both mentors and candidates refine their craft, and students receive more attention.

These experiences impressed upon me the reality that teacher preparation cannot be delayed until the final year of a degree program. Candidates need real classrooms, real students, and real mentorship from the beginning.

The U.S. Approach: Early and Embedded Fieldwork

Many U.S. teacher preparation programs still follow a traditional model: two to three years of coursework capped by a semester of student teaching. Research suggests that extending the length of student teaching alone does not guarantee better outcomes for new teachers. Instead, it is the quality of those experiences — particularly mentorship, alignment, and feedback — that predicts later effectiveness (Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012).

Recent work by Goldhaber and colleagues at the American Institutes for Research reinforces this point: candidates who are paired with highly effective mentor teachers are more effective once they enter the classroom, with impacts equivalent to starting their careers as second- or third-year teachers rather than novices (Goldhaber, Krieg, Naito, & Theobald, 2019).

"...the average teacher who is mentored by an effective teacher (one standard deviation above average value added) begins her career with the same effectiveness as the average second-year teacher in the state, whereas those who are mentored by a highly effective teacher (two standard deviations above average value added) begin their career with the same effectiveness as the average third-year teacher in the state."

That is why U.S. programs that embed early and continuous field experiences deserve praise. When undergraduates begin visiting classrooms in their freshman year, or when alternative pathways like Colorado’s require full-time teaching with ongoing coaching, they not only learn pedagogy — they live it. Programs that integrate coursework with classroom practice throughout the degree help candidates connect theory to reality from the start (Boyd et al., 2009).

New teachers themselves report dissatisfaction with the late introduction of fieldwork. A national survey by the American Federation of Teachers found that 80% of novice teachers believed clinical training should begin at the start of their preparation, not near the end (American Federation of Teachers [AFT], 2012). Similarly, the National Council on Teacher Quality (2021) has emphasized that full-time student teaching should not be the first time candidates engage meaningfully with students.

Does More Early Experience Help? What Research Says

Intuitively, one would expect that more time in classrooms makes for better-prepared teachers. Research findings generally support the importance of field experience, but also add nuance. A study by Ronfeldt & Reininger (2012) examined whether extending the length of student teaching (e.g. moving from one semester to a longer placement) led to better outcomes for new teachers. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that simply increasing the duration of student teaching had little effect on teachers’ later self-efficacy or observed teaching effectiveness[14]. However, the quality of the student teaching experience had significant positive effects on new teachers’ preparedness[14]. In other words, a shorter but high-quality practicum (with a skilled mentor teacher, strong feedback, and relevant practice opportunities) was more beneficial than a longer placement of lower quality. Notably, the positive impact of a good student-teaching experience was even greater when the placement was shorter[14] – suggesting that when time is limited, the need for quality mentoring and purposeful practice is paramount.

How does this relate to embedding experiences early? This research implies that quantity alone is not a silver bullet; simply piling on more weeks in the classroom won’t automatically produce better teachers. The field experiences throughout a program need to be well-designed and integrated with coursework to be truly effective. Early field experiences (EFEs) can indeed be valuable, but only if they are meaningful. For example, an early field stint where a sophomore just passively observes a classroom might have limited impact, whereas an early field experience that actively engages the candidate in teaching tasks (with guidance and reflection) can build practical skills over time[5][12]. A literature review on teacher preparation concluded that quality, coherence, and variety of field experiences are key components of effective teacher education[6]. Programs that carefully sequence field experiences – starting with guided observation, moving to tutoring or small-group instruction, and culminating in full-class instruction – help preservice teachers progressively develop confidence and competence.

There’s also evidence that alignment matters for early experiences. One study found that candidates benefited when their early field placements were in settings similar to their eventual teaching jobs, or when the content of these experiences was tied to what they were currently learning in university classes[6]. This means an early practicum in, say, a diverse urban classroom is particularly useful if the candidate plans to teach in that environment and is simultaneously taking courses on urban education or classroom management for diverse learners. Alignment and timing go hand-in-hand: field experiences yield more learning when they occur in tandem with relevant coursework and at a point when candidates can connect and apply pedagogical concepts in practice.

The Finnish Model: More Time, Higher Standards

By contrast, Finland has built its international reputation on both extensive field practice and academic rigor. Primary school teacher candidates spend about 15% of their entire program in classroom practice, while secondary (subject) teachers spend nearly one-third of their studies in schools (Sahlberg, 2010). This amounts to 1,000–3,000 hours of structured practice, often in university-affiliated training schools staffed by master teachers.

Equally important, Finland requires subject-specific master’s degrees for secondary teachers. A mathematics teacher is first and foremost a mathematician — with 90 ECTS credits in advanced subject studies — and then trained in didactics and pedagogy. This dual emphasis on disciplinary depth and pedagogical skill has become a hallmark of Finnish teacher professionalism (Westbury, Hansen, Kansanen, & Björkvist, 2005).

How Finland Embeds More Classroom Experience

The comparison between the U.S. and Finland highlights a striking difference in how much classroom exposure future teachers receive during their preparation:

U.S. teacher candidates typically complete one semester of full-time student teaching plus a few smaller early field assignments. Altogether, this averages 600–750 hours of hands-on classroom experience before graduation.
Finnish primary teachers devote about 15% of their entire university program to classroom practice—roughly 1,000–1,200 hours across five years. This is nearly double the U.S. average, and it begins earlier in the program, not just at the end.
Finnish subject teachers (secondary-level math, science, etc.) spend about one-third of their preparation program in schools. That translates to 2,500–3,000 hours of structured classroom practice—three to four times more than the U.S. average.

The key distinction isn’t just the number of hours but also the timing. Whereas U.S. programs often “back-load” real classroom teaching into the final semester, Finland integrates practice teaching continuously, beginning early and building in complexity each year. The result is a teacher workforce that enters the profession with significantly more experience managing classrooms, applying theory in practice, and working under the guidance of expert mentors.

What the U.S. Can Learn

American teacher education does not need to mirror Finland to improve. In fact, the United States already has promising models:

Alternative certification programs that embed candidates in classrooms while providing aligned coursework toward a master’s degree.
Residency and apprenticeship models that pair candidates with highly effective mentor teachers for extended, supported practice.
Undergraduate programs that start classroom exposure early and sustain it through all four years.

The lesson from both research and international comparison is clear: it is not the sheer length of student teaching that matters, but the timing, quality, and mentoring embedded throughout the program.

What would it take?

What would it look like for the US to transform teacher preparation? The shift for post-secondary institutions would be significant. Moving from a siloed model of allowing each professor to guide teacher classes, the school would have to commit either to a direct classroom-to-school partnership or to opening their own laboratory schools (such as the ones that functioned in the early part of the 20th century or the like the one that passed into the dustbin of history at the University of Northern Colorado years ago). Professors in the lab model would actually have to start teaching K12 students again and someone might have to model the work of running a school. That is how it works in Finland’s lab schools. My guess is that moving the culture of post-secondary institutions is a great challenge than school turn-around. Or, school districts could take the lead on this change.

If districts and states opened opportunities for future teachers and current college students to work in schools as paraeducators, thousands of students in a region could get the benefits of apprenticeship while earning money. Rather than working at the college bookstore, as a barista in the nearby Starbucks, or taking tickets at the college theater productions, future teachers could be working and learning in a nearby elementary, coaching interventions for students behind in math, or even calling parents about absences. Any of these jobs would teach them about the real challenges of education as a career and provide an insulation to the shock of the first year in the classroom. Under the guidance of master educators, these students would find out quickly if teaching is in their future. However, the byzantine and overprotective regulations that keep people from serving as paraeducators, tutors, and classroom support in some states would need to be rolled back in favor of teacher education.

A Policy Mandate for Time Well Used

Educational leaders should be given both the freedom and the mandate to reimagine teacher education. This means:

Embedding classroom experience from the first semester of training.
Incentivizing and compensating highly effective teachers to serve as mentors.
Aligning coursework with fieldwork so that theory is applied immediately in practice.
Supporting accelerated and alternative pathways that integrate teaching, coursework, and graduate study.

The United States can, in fact, lead in this area — if it commits to using its most precious resource, time, with intention and purpose.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2013). The changing teacher preparation profession: A report from AACTE’s professional education data system (PEDS). Washington, DC: Author.

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129

Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Naito, N., & Theobald, R. (2019). Making the most of student teaching: The importance of mentors and scope for change. Education Finance and Policy, 15(3), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00305

Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003

Sahlberg, P. (2010). The secret to Finland’s success: Educating teachers. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Westbury, I., Hansen, S.-E., Kansanen, P., & Björkvist, O. (2005). Teacher education for research-based practice in expanded roles: Finland’s experience. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(5), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830500267937

Additional Sources:

Boyd, D. et al. (2009). Survey of Teacher Preparation Program Graduates – as cited in [6]. (Found positive links between extensive student-teaching, strong supervision, and new teachers’ effectiveness.)

Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8). (Found that quality of student teaching mattered more than length[14].)

REL Central (2016) – “Understanding field experiences in traditional teacher preparation programs in Missouri.” (Survey of first-year teachers on their prep experiences: average 16-week student teaching, etc.[3][10].)

AACTE (2013) – The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession (PEDS Data Report). (Noted most programs include early field experience hours and a 13–16 week student teaching; only 5% had year-long internships[4].)

AFT (2012) – Raising the Bar report on teacher prep. (Reported 80% of new teachers want clinical experience to start at the beginning of training[7].)

NCTQ (2021) – Clinical Practice Guide. (Recommends early and frequent field experiences; “student teaching should not be the first time in a classroom”[16], with examples of programs embedding early fieldwork.)

[1] [2] [3] [6] [9] [10] Understanding field experiences in traditional teacher preparation programs in Missouri