In Spring 2007, educators in 63 participating Ohio school districts across the state spoke out on working conditions in their schools by participating in a web-based survey that addressed key teaching and learning conditions related to time, empowerment, school leadership, professional development, and facilities and resources. This is the final of three reports that focus on the responses of Ohio educators to the 2007 Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey. The first report presented an overview of initial findings based on a preliminary scan of survey responses. The second report supplemented these findings with an overview of educator responses in each of the five aforementioned teacher working conditions domains. This final report investigates responses in all of these areas in greater detail by proposing possible explanations for some of the patterns revealed herein. Overall, Ohio's educators are positive about many aspects of their teaching and learning conditions. Most of them agree that their school is a good place to work and learn, and 90 percent plan to continue teaching at their current school, a higher percentage than has been recorded in previous statewide teaching and learning condition surveys. As was the case in those previous surveys, it is clear that leadership is critical to retaining educators; however, only slightly more than half of the educators who responded to the 2007 Teaching and Learning Conditions survey have positive perceptions of school leadership in important areas. In closing, teaching and learning conditions clearly matter for educators in many different ways. Many of the responses from almost 8,000 Ohio educators suggest a need for both considerable action and reflection. In many cases, relatively small percentages of teachers believe they work under the conditions that allow them to be effective. By analyzing the data in this report, Ohio stakeholders can begin to ask important questions about how the findings can drive reform. Appendices include: (1) Implied Per-School Attrition Rates; and (2) Methodology. (Contains 5 figures, 19 tables and 24 notes.) [This paper was written with Alice Williams and Ursula Lobacz.]