Field Directors’ Forum Spring Meeting

Columbus Airport Marriott

Columbus, Ohio

April 19, 2006

http://www.tqpohio.edu

Goals for Today

• Overview of TQP as a unique Ohio collaborative research project

• Selected findings - TQP Preservice Survey

• Selected findings -TQP Inservice Survey

• Discussion and Questions

Factors and Forces• Higher Education Act

– Title II Report on Teacher Quality

• Ohio Report Card Task Force– OCTEO Focus Groups

• Decision to research indicators of quality teacher preparation programs, including graduates’ ability to facilitate student learning.

• Ohio’s Standards-based Curriculum Aligned with Required Statewide Grade Level Exams

• Desire to increase the ability of P-12 students to pass grade level exams

• Value-added Assessment and Structural Equation Modeling

Stakeholders and Participants

• 50 Ohio Teacher Preparation Institutions

• Faculty– Principal Investigators– Research Design Teams– Field Researchers

• Ohio Advisory Board

• External Audit Panel

• District Partners

• Battelle for Kids (Liaison to SAS)

TASK FORCE COMMITMENT TO QUALITY OHIO TEACHER EDUCATION

• “Charged with the responsibility for preparing individuals to become teachers for Ohio’s children, we express our long standing and enduring commitment to ensure that every teacher licensed in Ohio is prepared to be competent, caring and committed to student learning. Recognizing and valuing our differing missions, sizes, locations, and students, we who are educators in both public and independent colleges and universities alike have used and will continue to use data, Ohio teacher licensure standards, systemic reviews, guidelines of learned societies, wisdom of practice, and other evidence to evaluate and strive to maintain high quality teacher education programs in this state.”

Signed by Public and Private Chairs for All 50 Institutions

TQP Research Questions

1. Do variables of teacher background, initial preparation, and on-going professional learning relate to teacher practices, student learning and achievement?

2. How do specific elements of teacher preparation and aspects of school contexts impact novice teachers’ development during their first three years of teaching?

3. Do HVATs have characteristics, instructional practices, and understandings that differ from other teachers along the value-added continuum?

4. What specific school contexts are associated with HVA novice and experienced teachers?

William Loadman, Ph.D

Ohio State University

TQP Leadership Team

Sandra Stroot, Ph.DOhio State University

Patricia Hart, Ph.DUniversity of Dayton

Stephanie Cappel, Ed.D.

University of Cincinnati

Judith Wahrman, Ph.D.

University of Findlay

Kent Seidel, Ph.D.University of

Cincinnati

Ohio Teacher Education Graduates

SEM SampleAEL

Novice

Sonja Smith, Ph.DMount Vernon

Nazarene University

Robert Yinger, Ph.DUniversity of

Cincinnati

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

’03-‘04 Cohort I

Pre-service Hard copy

N=1544

In-service HC/Web N=1051

In-service Web

In-service Web

In-service Web

’04-‘05

Cohort II Pre-service

HC N=4941

In-service HC/Web

In-service Web

In-service Web

’05-‘06

Cohort III Pre-service

HC/Web N=1500+

In-service HC/Web

In-service Web

’06-‘07

Cohort IV Pre-service

HC/Web

In-service HC/Web

’07-‘08

Cohort V Pre-service

HC/Web

Ohio teacher preparation programs are attracting academically talented students

21

21.4

22.52

18

19

20

21

22

23

ACT Score

National State Teacher CompletersTotal

Cohort I and II Teacher Completers GPA Scores

3.50 3.46 3.47

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

GPA

GP

A S

core

s

Private Public Total

Most Ohio teacher preparation graduates are still white and female

0.3 0 0 13

17

7 70.6 1 0.2 2 0.9 2 0.4

5

93

77

93

85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Black/AfricanAmerican

AsianAmerican

Hispanic Caucasion

Ohio TQP Completer Profile Ohio Student Profile Ohio Teacher Profile National Teacher Profile

2003-2005 Demographic Data: Frequency Count by Gender and Private/Public Status

5329

1660

2812

821

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Male Female

Gender

Frq

ue

nc

y

Public Private

110301 361

1624

2455

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Student teaching evaluations consistent with methods courses

Mean = 4.24

51 196368

19672288

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Consistent Understandings

Mean = 4.28

63 180 219

1138

3282

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Observed and Worked with Several Teachers

Mean = 4.51

130 322 358

1380

2685

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Opportunities to Work with Successful Teachers with Inclusion

Mean = 4.27

125294 359

1381

2713

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Opportunitites to Observe Outstanding Veteran Teachers

Mean = 4.29

170376

499

1470

2359

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

Outstanding Teachers Explain Teaching - Why and How

Mean = 4.12

274674 548

1173

2180

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

CT Knew Little about TP Program

Mean = 3.89

476

976

749

12381402

0

500

1000

1500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

CT Taught Different from Professors

Mean = 3.44

146 192 326

1007

3169

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

CT Was an Excellent Teacher

Mean = 4.42

166 180 304909

3282

01000200030004000

StronglyDisagree

NeitherDisagree/Agree

Strongly Agree

CT Was a Worthy Role Model

Mean = 4.44

2.28 2.32 2.61

3.82 3.983.49

0

2

4

E S MS HS Methods CT Other

Essential ly, I teach the way I was taught by...

44 142

707

1512

2444

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Not At All Poorly Adequately Well Very Well

I Use the State's Curriculum Framework

Mean = 4.27

Teacher preparation graduates feel well prepared to assess student learning

3.964.08 4.1

3.64

1

2

3

4

5

MeanScore

Preparation inAssessment

Use a variety of readingassessments

Evaluate if students arelearning

Work with parents andfamilies

Teacher preparation graduates feel less prepared to work with special needs and minority children

3.84 3.71

3.46

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Foundation inmeeting the needs of

children withdisabilities

Addresses speciallearning needs

and/or difficulties

Address the needsof students fromdiverse culturalbackgrounds

Teacher preparation graduates feel well prepared to teach reading…less so in mathematics

4.03

3.19

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Solid foundation in reading Solid foundation in mathematics

Teacher preparation graduates report positive clinical teaching experiences

4.294.13

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Had opportunities to observeoutstanding veteran teachers

Had opportunities to haveoutstanding veteran teachers

explain their teaching

New Ohio teachers rate highly the work of teaching… but not their working conditions

6.185.76

5.59

5.03 5.02 4.82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mean Score

Inte

ract

ions

with

stu

dents

Inte

ract

ion

with

col

leag

ues

Level

of p

erso

nal/p

rofe

ssio

nal c

halle

nge

Opp

ortuni

ties

for p

rofe

ssio

nal a

dvance

men

t

Gen

eral w

ork

cond

itions

Salar

y/fri

nge ben

efits

372

515

116 117

12

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

None < 1 Hour 1 - 3 Hours 3 - 5 Hours > 5 Hours

Hours a mentor spends observing in your classroom in an average week

New Ohio teachers report that their mentors spend little time observing in their classrooms

113

469

311

67 63

0

100

200

300

400

500

None < 1 Hour 1 - 3 Hours 3 - 5 Hours > 5 Hours

Hours spent with a mentor in an average week

New Ohio teachers spend little time with their mentors