Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

All those responsible for the preparation of teachers agree that having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom is essential to student academic achievement. The research of the past decade by William Sanders and others clearly demonstrates the significance of the teacher in fostering student growth and academic achievement. What researchers and practitioners are having difficulty agreeing on is the essential characteristics of the teachers who create value-added learning and the ways in which professional development experiences need to be structured in order to foster and develop those critical teacher characteristics. The Ohio Teacher Quality Partnership represents one state's approach to better understand the relationship between teacher behaviors and student achievement and how a wide variety of stakeholders are collaborating to create a more vital educational system for P-12 students.

Keywords

teacher preparation Ohio Teacher Quality Partnership professional development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Belcher, E. (2004, December 12). Among kids, Ohio doesn't compare. Dayton Daily News, p. B6-B6.

Brophy, J. , & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(pp. 328-375). NewYork: Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 295-299.

Cochran-Smith, M. , & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research on Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: Areview of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/2000

Darling-Hammond, L. , & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanstoroom, M. , & Finn, C. E., Jr. (1999). Better teachers, better schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Olsen, L. (2004, November 17). Researchers debate merits of “value-added” measures. Education Week, pp. 14-15.

10.

RAND Corporation . (2004). The promise and peril of using value-added modeling to measure teacher effectiveness(Education Research Brief No. RB-9050-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: Author.

11.

Sanders, W. L. (1998). Value-added assessment. The School Administrator, 55(11), 24-27.

12.

Vergari, S. , & Hess, F. M. (2002). The accreditation game. Education Next, 2(3), 48-57.

13.

Viadero, D. (2005, June 22). Review panel turns up little evidence to back teacher ed. practices. Education Week, pp. 1-1, 20-20.

14.

Walsh K. , & Snyder, E. (2004). NCTQ reports. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

15.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

A Systemic Approach to Enhancing Teacher Quality

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References