1. Field Directors’ Forum Spring Meeting Columbus Airport Marriott Columbus, Ohio April 19, 2006 http://www.tqpohio.edu

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

8. 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?

9. William Loadman, Ph.D Ohio State University TQP Leadership Team Sandra Stroot, Ph.D Ohio State University Patricia Hart, Ph.D University 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 Sample AEL Novice Sonja Smith, Ph.D Mount Vernon Nazarene University Robert Yinger, Ph.D University of Cincinnati

12. Ohio teacher preparation programs are attracting academically talented students

13. 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 GPA Scores PrivatePublicTotal

14. Most Ohio teacher preparation graduates are still white and female

16. Student teaching evaluations consistent with methods courses Mean = 4.24

17. Mean = 4.28

18. Mean = 4.51

19. Mean = 4.27

20. Mean = 4.29

21. Mean = 4.12

22. Mean = 3.89

23. Mean = 3.44

24. Mean = 4.42

25. Mean = 4.44

27. Mean = 4.27

28. Teacher preparation graduates feel well prepared to assess student learning

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

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

31. Teacher preparation graduates report positive clinical teaching experiences

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

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

34. New Ohio teachers spend little time with their mentors