Teacher Quality Partnership Pres

Teacher Quality Partnership Project: Linking Student Academic Progress with Teacher and Teacher Preparation Institution Profiles: 

Teacher Quality Partnership Project: Linking Student Academic Progress with Teacher and Teacher Preparation Institution Profiles KACTE Annual Meeting Georgetown, Kentucky April 20, 2007

Factors and Forces: 

Higher Education Act of 1998 Title II Report on Teacher Quality Ohio Report Card Task Force (1999-2001) OCTEO Focus Groups Political will formed between Ohio Department of Education, Ohio Board of Regents, Private Colleges, and Public Colleges Factors in Ohio Standards Based Curriculum Value-added Assessment SB311 – signed into law January 3, 2007 Factors and Forces

Slide3: 

Factors and Forces: 

Confidentiality Promise Promotes Collaboration Participants (all data coded) Colleges and Universities Preservice, Demographics, Inservice data Ohio aggregated data reported publicly Institutions get their own data to use in program review and accreditation reports Districts Inservice data Ohio aggregated data reported publicly District gets their own data to use in EY, PD review FERPA ruling from OSU attorney Factors and Forces

Factors and Forces: 

History of Trust Sustains Collaboration TQP Leadership Team in variety of statewide leadership roles OACTE officers and board members ODE grants and projects OBR grants and projects TQP Leadership Team active with districts BASA officers Teacher Education Administration courses Factors and Forces

Stakeholders and Participants: 

All 50 Ohio Teacher Preparation Institutions Institutional Representatives (50) Principal Investigators (UC, OSU, UD, Findlay) Research Design Teams (13 IHEs) Field Researchers (10 IHEs – changes as needed) District Partners Entry Year Coordinators Administrators in field study districts Ohio Advisory Board External Audit Panel Multiple federal, state, corporate, and foundation funders Stakeholders and Participants

Slide7: 

Slide8: 

TQP Research Questions: 

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?

Slide10: 

Slide11: 

Two-year non-renewable mid-career license effective January, 2000 Created in response to current and expected teacher shortages in grades 7-12 and in special education Intended to be a nontraditional route for qualified mid-career, baccalaureate-degree holders from non-teaching fields Candidates must meet the coursework or experience requirements and pass the required Praxis II assessment(s) in the content area Alternative Educator License Study

AEL Political Challenges: 

AEL Political Challenges AEL may be a solution to HQT requirements, but is not solving the Ohio supply/demand problems. Policy makers who have supported AEL options are not always ready to accept what the data says. AEL may be perpetuating the problem of the most needy students having the least prepared teachers. There is limited evidence that the significant State investment in AEL 'programs' is paying off.

AEL Research Challenges: 

AEL Research Challenges Ohio doesn’t require a 'program', so communication with these teachers is difficult AEL only in Mathematics 7-8 for TQP needs Too few AEL teachers to get VAM data to compare with traditional teachers 80% of AEL teachers already had a certificate or license of some type, so are not really novices. Poor retention of AEL teachers, so 3-year follow-up is difficult.

Field Studies: 

Field Studies Teachers in 4th – 6th grade reading and teachers in 4th – 8th grade mathematics Follow 50 novice teachers for three years Follow 3 cohorts of 25 experienced teachers one year each Protocol Structured Interviews Observations - CLASS Surveys – TQP Inservice or Experienced Teacher, Content Knowledge, School Climate

Field Study Political Challenges: 

Field Study Political Challenges Access to teacher level value-added data Teachers trusting that their data will not be seen by anyone outside, especially those who would use it for evaluation Teachers intimidated by content knowledge survey, especially in mathematics Recruiting enough teachers to participate in the studies (1 year or 3 years)

Field Study Research Challenges: 

Field Study Research Challenges Recruitment of teachers Representative of Ohio school districts Representative of Ohio teacher education programs Training of researchers NTS and ExTS protocol CLASS observation and scoring Instrument for pedagogical content knowledge Keeping the NTS researchers focused on data collection and not mentoring the EYTs

Large-Scale Longitudinal Study Political Challenges: 

Large-Scale Longitudinal Study Political Challenges Access to teacher level value-added data Trust that data will be kept secure: Teachers: CLASS data collected one day in spring Transcripts Institutions Syllabi Faculty Interview Data Districts School Context Data Recruiting and retaining teachers in the study

Large-Scale Longitudinal Study Research Challenges: 

Large-Scale Longitudinal Study Research Challenges Recruitment of teachers Representative of Ohio school districts Representative of Ohio teacher education programs Training of researchers CLASS observation and scoring

Longitudinal Graduate Follow-up Study: 

Survey student teachers ‘03-’04 through ’07-’08 Anticipate 30,000+ participants Printed or on-line surveys administered by institutional liaisons Expect to add value-added scores of graduates Follow novice teachers each year through ’07-’08 Anticipate 5,000+ participants Printed or on-line surveys Longitudinal Graduate Follow-up Study

Graduate Follow-up Study Political Challenges: 

Graduate Follow-up Study Political Challenges Ohio institutions and districts willing to trust that TQP will keep their data confidential Gaining support from policy-makers such as state department, regents, Standards Board Use of data to support policy decisions Ensure that the research across studies is sound Challenges of developing and accessing a state-wide multi-agency, multi-level relational database

Graduate Follow-up Study Research Challenges: 

Graduate Follow-up Study Research Challenges Unique identifier requires last 4 SSN Accurate contact information for follow-up Maintain participation across years Inability to connect with those not in jobs Missing data due to inconsistent completion of surveys by participants Challenges of developing and accessing a state-wide multi-agency, multi-level relational database

Challenges of Large-Scale, State-wide Collaboration: 

Challenges of Large-Scale, State-wide Collaboration Ownership, Turf, and Trust Data Collection on Main and Regional Campuses Multiple Data Bases that Don’t Connect Well Communication Both Internal and External Resources vs. Costs Setting Priorities Follow-through on Tasks Recruitment of Participants Maintaining Political Will

Sustaining Complex Partnerships: 

Sustaining Complex Partnerships Ability to share and use local data with statewide norm Common language used statewide Some issues transcend local context; other issues vary according to resources and other local decisions Respond to emerging needs Revise protocol to collect needed data Work with ODE/OBR/ESB to develop legislated reports Enable on-line surveys, submission and retrieval of data Communication through email, conference calls, meetings, newsletters

Slide24: 

Sample mid-point findings from: Demographic Database (submitted by Institutional Representatives at each IHE) TQP Preservice Teacher Survey (completed during student teaching, usually in a seminar) TQP Inservice Teacher Survey (completed each spring 2004 – 2008 hard copy or on-line)

Slide25: 

Slide26: 

Average GPA of 15,248 teacher completers = 3.48 * As High School Seniors ** National Percentiles N = 17,127 teacher completers in Ohio from Academic Years 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Slide27: 

N for Ohio TQP Teacher Completers = 17,127

Slide28: 

Scale: 1=Not At All; 5=Very Well N=11,085 Note: Preparation in Reading is comprised of 14 items and Preparation in Mathematics is comprised of 11 items.

Slide29: 

Scale: 1=Very Negative; 7=Very Positive N=2,805-2,812 depending on the item

New Ohio teachers report being observed little by their mentors in a typical week: 

N=2,305 New Ohio teachers report being observed little by their mentors in a typical week

Slide31: 

Preparation for Classroom Management Cohort I Preservice, EYT 1 and EYT 2 N = 1541, 1051, 565

Slide32: 

Outcomes Data-driven decisions to improve teacher preparation programs. Beginning trends from pre-service and in-service surveys Expectation for powerful findings when value-added scores are included in the data system IRs report using their own data to: Provide evidence for NCATE/TEAC Inform administrators Work with faculty to review programs Begin thinking about course and clinical adjustments Districts report using their own data to: Provide data on their teachers’ Praxis III success Improve their induction programs, including mentoring

Lessons Learned: 

Lessons Learned Partnerships should not be an edict from 'above'. It is possible for private/public institutions to cooperate on a shared initiative. Expectations need to manage well. Must have equal investment in methodological and political decisions. Longitudinal data of this magnitude are extremely expensive and difficult. Partnership between state department and organization should be clearly defined with access to data ensured. Funding should be secured before study begins. Identify needed expertise and get them at the table.

Slide34: 

What questions or comments do you have ? For Additional Information: http://www.tqpohio.org