**Please note: Thursday morning session has been CLOSED**

Tentative Public Agenda* STUDY OF TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMSIN THE UNITED STATES Meeting #3: June 21-23, 2006
The National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Room 201 Washington, DC 20001
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21
8:30a.m.	Open Session* Public Welcome and Introductions
8:40 a.m.	Study Question #1: Who Enters Teacher Preparation? (Topic tentative)
10:00 a.m.	Break
10:15 a.m.	Study Question #2: What Do We Know About Teacher Preparation Programs and Faculty? (Topic tentative)
Noon – 1:00 p.m.	Closed Session: Committee Working Lunch
1:00 p.m.	Panel Presentation Open Session* Public Welcome and Introductions:
1:10 p.m.	Panel 1: Describing Teacher Preparation
	Robert Yinger, Ohio Teacher Quality Partnership (U. of Cincinnati) Pam Grossman, Karen Hammerness, and Jim Wyckoff (Teacher Pathways Project) Susan Moore Johnson, Project on the Next Generation of Teachers (Harvard)
3:00 p.m.	Panel 2: Describing Subject Matter Courses
	Kate Walsh, Study on Teacher Preparation in Reading (National Council on Teaching Quality) Raven McCrory, Mathematical Education of Elementary Teachers Project (Michigan State)
4:30 – 5:30 p.m.	Closed Session
THURSDAY, JUNE 22
8:30 – Noon	Closed Session
Noon – 1:00 p.m.	Closed Session: Committee Working Lunch
1:00 p.m.	Open Session*
	Study Question #4: What Model for Data Collection Can Provide Good Information on the Success of Teacher Preparation Graduates? (Topic tentative)
2:30 p.m.	Adjourn Open Session
2:45– 5:15 p.m.	Closed Session
FRIDAY, JUNE 23 Closed Session
*NOTE: This meeting is being held to gather information to help the committee conduct its study. This committee will examine the information and material obtained during this, and other public meetings, in an effort to inform its work. Although opinions may be stated and lively discussion may ensue, no conclusions are being drawn at this time; no recommendations will be made. In fact, the committee will deliberate thoroughly before writing its draft report. Moreover, once the draft report is written, it must go through a rigorous review by experts who are anonymous to the committee, and the committee then must respond to this review with appropriate revisions that adequately satisfy the Academy's Report Review committee and the chair of the NRC before it is considered an NRC report. Therefore, observers who draw conclusions about the committee's work based on today's discussions will be doing so prematurely. Furthermore, individual committee members often engage in discussion and questioning for the specific purpose of probing an issue and sharpening an argument. The comments of any given committee member may not necessarily reflect the position he or she may actually hold on the subject under discussion, to say nothing of that person's future position as it may evolve in the course of the project. Any inferences about an individual's position regarding findings or recommendations in the final report are therefore also premature.