oh, the excitement!
DESCRIPTION
Ohio’s Entry Year Teacher Program Review Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations Spring Conference April 2, 2008 Presenters: Lori Lofton, Sue Rieger ODE Office of Educator Quality. Oh, the excitement!. Entry Year Teacher Program Review Committee. Recent Entry Year Teachers - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Ohio’s Entry Year Teacher Program Review
Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations Spring ConferenceApril 2, 2008Presenters: Lori Lofton, Sue RiegerODE Office of Educator Quality
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
Oh, the excitement!
Entry Year Teacher Program Review Committee
• Recent Entry Year Teachers• Mentors and/or Praxis III assessors• Entry Year Coordinators from private and public
schools/ESCs• Principals• OFT and OEA staff members• Educator Standards Board • ODE staff• Representatives of Private and Public Education
Preparation Programs• Facilitators from the New Teacher Center at the
University of California at Santa Cruz
ODE Overarching Goals• Develop a shared vision for a statewide
system and infrastructure of high quality induction based upon and supporting teachers in realizing Ohio’s Standards for the Teaching Profession.
• Identify program components for compre-hensive standards-based induction as a lever to improve teacher effectiveness in Ohio.
• Draft a comprehensive induction policy frame-work and policy agenda to advance high- quality teacher induction in Ohio.
ODE Induction Review Process Long Term Outcomes
• Analyze Ohio’s current induction practices.
• Recommend a research-based system of teacher induction and component program elements that are congruent and aligned with Ohio’s Standards for the Teaching Profession.
• Discuss a pre-service and licensure system that aligns with and complements the recommended induction program and identified components.
• Examine current national research and trends on teacher induction and credentialing.
• Examine and clarify the role of formative and summative assessments in this continuum of teacher development.
Data Sources• Teacher Quality Partnership Study
• Praxis III Regional Coordinators’ Data
• CORE Data
• New Teacher Center (NTC) Studies
• National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)
• Other states’ induction programs and legislation
Number of Ohio Entry-Year Teachers 2001 to 2007
1412
2680
3459
4411
52385684
5816
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
60002001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-2008
*
*currently registered
Praxis III Aggregated Data (2001-2007)Ohio #
Taking Praxis
III
# Passing Praxis III
# Failing Praxis III
Pass Rate
State Total (2001-2002) 1,412 Pilot Year
State Total (2002-2003) 2,680 Pilot Year
State Total (2003-2004) 3,459 3,440 9 99.45%
State Total (2004-2005) 4,411 4,384 27 99.39%
State Total (2005-2006) 5,238 5,171* 67* 98.72%
State Total (2006-2007) 5,684 5,640 44 99.22%
* Cut Scores Raised
Positive Results of the Entry Year Program
• IHEs have embraced and imbedded Praxis III into their educator preparation programs
• Provided a common language among various stakeholder groups
• Provided a tremendous professional development opportunity for both mentors and assessors
• Provided a consistent performance assessment across the state
Induction ExperiencesExperience Percent Reported
Reduced teaching schedule or number of class preparations
Less than 10%
Peer coaching and release time to observe other teachers
42% - 60%
Mentor observes classroom less than one hour a week
50%
No mentor observations on a weekly basis
30% – 46%
Less than one hour of time with mentor in an average week
40% - 52%
No time in an average week with mentor* Teacher Quality Partnership Study
15%
National Retention 46% teacher turnover within first 5 years Ohio - 28% teacher turnover within first 5
years 33% of teachers leave after their first 3
years Ohio - 21% leave after the first 3 years
“Pouring teachers into a bucket with a
fist size hole in the bottom”
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz
Ohio Supply and Demand Study
New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz
Teachers are not “finished products”when they complete a teacher preparation program. Guided entry into teaching, via residencies and mentored induction, should become a standard feature of every high quality teacher preparation approach.
No Dream Denied, January 2003 report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Washington, D.C.
New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz
Growth of Induction Programs From 1990 to 2000, percent of new
teachers who received induction grew from 51% to 83% (Smith & Ingersoll, 2003)
In 1998 – 14 states required induction/mentoring
In 2006 – 30 states required it and 16 provided some state funding. Only 5 required a multi-year program.
(Education Week, Quality Counts 2006)
New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz
Induction ProgramsBuddy System Induction/Learning Community
Four packages (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004):3% No induction 40% turnover
56% Basic 39% turnover
26% Basic+collaboration 27% turnover
1% Basic+collaboration+teacher network+ resources 18% turnover
Teacher turnover decreases as the models scale up
New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz
Percent of Classes with Achievement Gains: Data for New Teachers in Three California DistrictsFletcher, Strong & Villar (2008)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
District A (non-SCNTP)
District B (non-SCNTP)
District C(SCNTP)
Classes w/Achievement Gains on the SAT9 %
• All three districts have a 1:15 mentor-novice ratio for Year 1 Teachers
• For Year 2 Teachers, A has a buddy system, B has 1:35 ratio, whereas C maintains 1:15 ratio
Formative Assessment• System of providing feedback to inform teacher
professional growth• Multiple opportunities for teachers to learn,
demonstrate knowledge, understand and apply the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession and Ohio’s Academic Content Standards
• Multiple sources of data and reflection on classroom practice
• Parallels and models the key role of assessment in effective instructional practice
HB 347 Proposed HB 347 Proposed AmendmentsAmendments
Goals:
1. More structure and consistency at pre-service
2. Flexibility with accountability
3. Formative assessment at all levels
4. Transition time and field testing of various components
