Teacher Quality Partnership: Meeting the Teacher Education Accountability Challenge

1. Teacher Quality Partnership: Meeting the Teacher Education Accountability Challenge Symposium on Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning Centers of Excellence for Mathematics and Science Teaching Friday, October 19, 2007

2. Presenter:Dr. William E. Loadman The Ohio State University Graduate Follow-up Study Project Investigator

3. Factors and Forces Leading to TQP • 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. What is theTeacher Quality Partnership? TQP is a unique collaboration of all 50 Ohio teacher preparation institutions and other education stakeholders studying the impact of teacher education on the performance of our graduates. Now in year five of a seven year multi-method research project.

5. 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)

8. Purposes of TQP • Link quality learning to quality instruction to quality teachers to quality teacher preparation. • Identify characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of teachers whose students make more academic progress than expected. • Compare traditionally prepared and Alternative Educator License teachers on measures of student achievement. • Suggest policy reforms likely to improve the quality of Ohio teacher education graduates. • Contribute to the knowledge base on quality teaching and quality teacher education. • Improve the learning of P-12 students through more effective teachers.

10. 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 high value-adding teachers (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?

11. 0 Examples of extraordinary range of Middle Childhood (4-9) Mathematics preparation • In a “well-aligned” State: • Praxis III • NCATE requirements for all Units • K12 Standards / assessments

12. 0 Content / Pedagogy (methods) Preparation: • 9 (semester) hours math content with 9 hours math methods… • 27-hour math major from A&S, with no math-specific methods courses… • And many combinations in between.

13. Graduate Surveys • Instrument development • Ensuring the quality of the data • Establishing the data base • Demographic data • Survey data • Reporting/Dissemination of data • Use of data

14. Establishing the Data Base • Demographic datasets • Survey Data Responses • Data Already Collected • 2006-2007 Data Collection • Future Data • ODE Praxis II and III • Institution program of study • Value added scores

15. Instrument Development • Preservice, Inservice and AEL survey • Resources • Item and Subscale Development • Pilot Testing • Hard-Copy and Web based

16. Preservice Survey Variables • Program characteristics • Coherence, • Quality, … • Teacher Preparation • Reading/Writing, • Mathematics, • Diversity, • Assessment, … • Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy • Instructional Orientation • Teachers’ Concerns

17. Demographic Data • Date of Birth • Gender • Ethnicity • Grade Point Average • Praxis I Reading, Writing, Mathematics • Praxis II Specialty Exam(s), PLT • Praxis III (in Entry Year Program) • Domains A, B, C, D and Composite • Licensure Area • High School Name • High School Rank • Graduate/Undergraduate Status

18. Cohort 4 Composite Student Teacher Demographics

19. Cohort 4 ACT Scores

20. Ohio TQP Academic Year 2007 Demographic Data: Percentage by Ethnicity N for Ohio TQP Teacher Completers = 6,568, N for Ohio TQP Preservice Math Teachers = 752; N for Ohio TQP Inservice =194

21. 2007 Cohort 4 Gender for Teachers Seeking Licensure (Preservice) and Math Teachers (Inservice)

22. Preservice Survey:Preparation to Teach Math * All items within this subscale are on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 "Strongly Disagree" to 5 "Strongly Agree". ** Please note that the Middle School and High School Ns will not sum to the composite for Math licensure because some educators are licensed in both.

23. Preservice Survey:Preparation to Teach Math * Mathematics subscales are on a 5-point scale: 1 = Not at All; 5 = Very Well

24. Inservice Math Subscale Means by Licensure by Cohort

25. Inservice Survey:Mathematics Subscales * All items within the Mathematics subscales are on a 5-point scale. ** Please note that the Middle School and High School Ns will not sum to the composite for Math licensure because some educators are licensed in both.

26. Inservice Math Subscale Means by Licensure

27. Preparation to Teach Mathematics Preservice Cohort 4 & Inservice Cohort 3 Note: Sample sizes for Middle and AYA licensure categories do not add to the combined Middle and AYA licensure category because some people reported seeking or are licensed in both middle school and AYA. Scales are Measured on a 5 point scale: 1 = Not at all; 5 = Very Well. Fifteen items comprise this subscale.

28. Reporting and Dissemination of Data • Roll out of OCTEO by institution • Results by district • Annual Reports • Preservice statewide and institutional • Inservice statewide, district, and institutional • Technical Reports • Policy Briefs • State and national conference presentations • Journal articles

29. Third Annual Ohio Report • Statistical analysis by item and subscale: • Cohorts I and II, Preservice and Inservice • Cohort I through III, Preservice • Companion report given to each IHE • Companion report given to each district where 5 or more teachers responded • Annual reports through fall of 2009 • Annual technical reports will be posted on the TQP website

30. Use of Data • Reports to institutions are being used as part of unit and program annual reviews • Findings are likely to impact: • Teacher Education program entrance and exit criteria • Teacher preparation curriculum and field experiences • Entry Year Programs • Professional development programs • District hiring practices • Learning opportunities of PK-12 students

31. Challenges • Financial Resources • Ohio stakeholders such as ODE/OBR • Ohio foundations and corporations • Government agencies • National foundations and corporations • Buy-in by teacher preparation institutions • Collaboration - researchers from 11 IHEs • Value-added scores at teacher level • Connections to similar studies • Political risks of institutions and districts • Support from Ohio education and governmental stakeholders

32. The Opportunity • Meeting the Teacher Education Accountability Challenge • Through new partnerships • Using new research tools • Comparing state and national data • Linking quality learning to quality instruction to quality teachers and teacher preparation