![](media/image1.wmf)

**The Rhode Island HQT Plan**

**Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education**

## 

**Commissioner Peter McWalters**

***Prepared by the Office of Educator Quality & Certification***

***Paulajo Gaines, NBCT- Director***

***Steven E. Olsen, NBCT- Education Specialist***

## 

## *Amended April 2007*

**Table of Contents**

## GLOSSARY OF TERMS --\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--3

## 

## SECTION ONE -- Introduction/Data Analysis\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--5

**SECTION TWO -- Activities planned to meet the
requirements\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--13**

**Requirement
One:\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--14**

**Requirement
Two:\-\-\-\-\-\--**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--15**

**Requirement
Three:\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--15**

**Requirement
Four:\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--19**

**Requirement
Five:\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--22**

**SECTION THREE -- Requirement Six (The Equity
Plan)\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--24**

**Element One:** Data and Reporting
Systems**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--25**

**Element Two:** Teacher
Preparation**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--26**

**Element Three:** Out-of-Field
Teaching**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--26**

**Element Four:** Recruitment and Retention of Experienced
Teachers**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--29**

**Element Five:** Professional
Development**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--30**

**Element Six:** Specialized Knowledge and
Skills**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--30**

**Element Seven:** Working
Conditions**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--31**

**Element Eight:** Policy
Coherence**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--33**

**Conclusion\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--35**

**APPENDICES --
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--Available
Upon Request**

**Glossary of Terms**

**Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)** - An individual state\'s measure of
yearly progress toward achieving state academic standards. \"Adequate
Yearly Progress\" is the minimum level of improvement that states,
school districts and schools must achieve each year.

**Alternative Certification** - Most teachers are required to have both
a college degree in education and a state certification before they can
enter the classroom. No Child Left Behind encourages states to offer
other methods of qualification that allow talented individuals to teach
subjects they know.

**Core Subjects** - Federal law defines core academic subjects as
English, Reading or Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, History, Civics
and Government, Geography, Economics, The Arts (visual, theater, dance,
and music), Foreign Language

**Corrective Action** - When a school or school district does not make
yearly progress, the state will place it under a \"Corrective Action
Plan.\" The plan will include resources to improve teaching,
administration, or curriculum. If a school continues to be identified as
in need of improvement, then the state has increased authority to make
any necessary, additional changes to ensure improvement.

**Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)** -, First enacted in
1965, ESEA is the principal federal law affecting K-12 education. The No
Child Left Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA.

**High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE)** -
allows states to develop an additional way for current teachers to
demonstrate subject-matter competency and meet highly qualified teacher
requirements. Proof may consist of a combination of teaching experience,
professional development, and knowledge in the subject garnered over
time in the profession.

**Highly Qualified (HQ)** - The law requires that teachers hold a
bachelor's degree, full state certification, and demonstrate subject
matter competency in the core academic subjects that teachers teach.

**Local Education Agency (LEA)** - A public board of education or other
public authority within a State which maintains administrative control
of public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a state.

**State Educational Agency (SEA)** - is the agency primarily responsible
for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary schools.

**Title I** - The first section of the ESEA, Title I refers to programs
aimed at America\'s most disadvantaged students. Title I Part A provides
assistance to improve the teaching and learning of children in
high-poverty schools to enable those children to meet challenging State
academic content and performance standards. Title I reaches about 12.5
million students enrolled in both public and private schools.

**Transferability** - A new ESEA flexibility authority that allows
states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to transfer a portion of
the funds that they receive under certain Federal programs to other
programs that most effectively address their unique needs to certain
activities under Title I.

###  {#section-4}

###  {#section-5}

###  {#section-6}

###  {#section-7}

###  {#section-8}

###  {#section-9}

###  {#section-10}

###  {#section-11}

###  {#section-12}

###  {#section-13}

###  {#section-14}

###  {#section-15}

###  {#section-16}

### Section One

###  {#section-17}

### *Introduction* 

### *Foreword*

*The charts and tables referenced throughout this plan were originally
submitted on July 7, 2006 using 2005-06 school year data. Where ever
possible, we have added current 2006-07 school year data as
supplementary information. As predicted in our original submission, with
the implementation of intensive technical assistance workshops and an
enhanced data collection system, we are now seeing accelerated progress
toward accomplishing our State Plan.*

### Introduction

Rhode Island is a state with 48 local education agencies (LEAs): 36
locally operated public school districts, 8 charter schools and 4
state-operated schools. The locally operated districts range in size
from New Shoreham (with 140 students) to Providence (with 26,741
students). In the 2004-05 school year, there were 153,560 students and
15,081 teachers in the 324 public schools.

**[Background]{.underline}**

Rhode Island\'s Comprehensive Education Strategy (CES), the state\'s
blueprint for comprehensive system-wide restructuring of the state\'s
public schools, was developed in 1996 by a broadly representative panel
appointed by then Governor Lincoln C. Almond and Commissioner Peter
McWalters. There are two central themes within CES: Improving Teaching
and Learning and Creating Responsive Support Systems.

In 1997, the Rhode Island General Assembly and the governor assured
major implementation support through funding for the CES by enacting the
Rhode Island Student Investment Initiative, popularly known as Article
31. This law focuses on the need to improve student performance and
provides key resource support in the form of targeted investments.

The enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, enabled Rhode Island to
use the momentum gained from prior years of education reform initiatives
to develop and demonstrate both a commitment and a good-faith effort to
implement procedures and policies that will ensure all Rhode Island
public school students are taught by Highly Qualified teachers in core
content area subjects.

**[Data Analysis]{.underline}**

During the 2005/2006 School Year staff from the Office of Educator
Quality & Certification within the Rhode Island Department of Education
worked diligently to ensure that all schools and districts completed a
sophisticated online data collection system called the Personnel
Assignment Process (PAP). All personnel data, including an educator's
Highly Qualified status, is collected through this process. During the
2005/2006 school year building level administrators entered the teacher
data, including the Highly Qualified status of teachers. The data show
82% of secondary core academic classes and 81% of elementary core
academic classes were taught by Highly Qualified teachers during the
2005/2006 school year. Overall, Highly Qualified teachers taught 81% of
core academic classes during the 2005/2006 school-year (Chart A).

# Chart A

![](media/image2.wmf)

As we disaggregate these data further, we find that there is a 9%
difference between the percentage of core academic subjects being taught
by Highly Qualified teachers (Charts B and C) in schools designated as
high poverty. We designate schools with 35% or more students on free or
reduced lunch as "high poverty" for this data analysis.

# Chart B

![](media/image3.wmf)

## Chart C

![](media/image4.wmf)

Charts D and E demonstrate that there is equal distribution of classes
taught by Highly Qualified teachers at the elementary and secondary
level in schools designated as High Poverty.

# Chart D 

![](media/image5.wmf)

### Chart E

![](media/image6.wmf)

Currently we have 48 schools making inadequate yearly progress: 24
elementary schools and 24 secondary schools (13 high schools and 11
middle schools). School AYP classifications were only released on
September 21, 2006 due to lengthy negotiations between the US Department
of Education and the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education regarding the acceptance of 2005-06 assessment results for
elementary and middle schools. This plan has been modified to reflect
those recent classifications.

Rhode Island has instituted a comprehensive Progressive Support and
Intervention (PS&I) strategy to assist those schools/districts not
meeting Adequate Yearly Progress. Appendix 1 includes the Progressive
Support and Intervention Guidance Document. Currently we have 4
districts in Corrective Action within Rhode Island. They are Providence,
Central Falls, Woonsocket, and Pawtucket. Consequently, these four
districts are also districts with the highest percentages of poverty.
Table 1 details the Highly Qualified percentages for each district. It
is evident that our efforts to train districts on the data entry of
educators have resulted in a significant increase in our Highly
Qualified numbers.

# Table 1 

  -------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------
  **District**   **04/05 Data**   **05/06 Data**      **06/07 Data\***

  Providence     72%              71%                 92%

  Pawtucket      70%              70%                 99%

  Central Falls  77%              80%                 88%

  Woonsocket     73%              75%                 86%
  -------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------

\*Preliminary data as of November 1, 2006

[]{.mark}

Table 2 lists the reported 2005-06 Highly Qualified percentages for each
district. You will note a substantial increase in the percentages for
the 2006-07 school year. This is a direct result of the support,
training and intensive technical assistance we are providing to
districts as we fully implement the newly enhanced PAP data collection
system.

# Table 2 

+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| ##  {#section-18}                   | ## Perce      |               |
|                                     | ntage of Clas |               |
| ##  {#section-19}                   | ses Taught by |               |
|                                     |  Highly Quali |               |
| ## District                         | fied Teachers |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
|                                     | ## 2005-06    | ## 2006-07\*  |
|                                     | {#section-20} | {#section-21} |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Barrington                          | 82%           | 83%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Bristol Warren                      | 80%           | 94%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Central Falls                       | 80%           | 88%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Chariho                             | 92%           | 96%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Coventry                            | 90%           | 95%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Cranston                            | 81%           | 91%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Cumberland                          | 69%           | 81%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| E. Greenwich                        | 73%           | 82%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| E. Providence                       | 73%           | 79%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Exeter-W. Greenwich                 | 73%           | 99%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Foster                              | 100%          | 100%          |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Foster-Glocester                    | 76%           | 83%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Glocester                           | 97%           | 98%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Jamestown                           | 93%           | 92%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Johnston                            | 87%           | 95%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Lincoln                             | 77%           | 93%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Little Compton                      | 94%           | 99%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Middletown                          | 85%           | 92%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| N. Kingstown                        | 85%           | 97%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| N. Providence                       | 86%           | 89%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| N. Smithfield                       | 77%           | 82%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Narragansett                        | 96%           | 95%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| New Shoreham                        | 45%           | 60%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Newport                             | 89%           | 97%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Pawtucket                           | 70%           | 99%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Portsmouth                          | 81%           | 85%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Providence                          | 71%           | 92%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| S. Kingstown                        | 88%           | 97%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Scituate                            | 82%           | 97%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Smithfield                          | 96%           | 99%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Tiverton                            | 73%           | 92%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| W. Warwick                          | 78%           | 86%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Warwick                             | 85%           | 95%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Westerly                            | 66%           | 76%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Woonsocket                          | 75%           | 86%           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

\*Preliminary data as of November 1, 2006

A detailed disaggregating of the personnel data show that, not
dissimilarly from the rest of the nation, Rhode Island reportedly has a
high proportion of special educators in the percentage of core classes
not taught by Highly Qualified teachers. Six percent of our working
teacher population is comprised of special educators (Chart F). However,
Chart G shows that statewide, 34% of our teachers reported as not Highly
Qualified are special educators. This is a disproportionate amount.
Similarly, although our elementary teachers comprise 65% of our working
teachers, only 23% represent those teachers reported as not Highly
Qualified. This demonstrates a higher percentage of secondary teachers
reportedly not Highly Qualified. When analyzed closer, it becomes
evident that within the sub category of "secondary teachers" there is an
over-representation of middle school teachers. Prior to 2005, elementary
teachers could earn a middle school endorsement without an academic
major (24 credits in the core content area). Comparatively, high school
core content teachers have been required to hold a content major since
1982. There is no substantive difference in the composition of teachers
reported as not Highly Qualified in High Poverty Schools by
certification area (Chart H).

It should be noted that the Foster School District (100% HQ) and the New
Shoreham School District (45% HQ) are both one school districts. As
such, their percentages are dependent upon extremely small numbers of
teachers and their scores are regarded as outliers and not indicative of
the general trend in Rhode Island.

At this time of this report Rhode Island has developed and placed into
test data tools that will give us the capability to disaggregate down to
the course level to examine if a particular course has a higher
percentage of teachers reported as not Highly Qualified. These software
developments are a direct result of the findings from our July 7, 2006
submission and are being funded through Title IIA SEA Teacher Quality
funds.

#  {#section-22}

# Chart F

![](media/image7.wmf)

**Chart G**

![](media/image8.wmf)

**Chart H**

![](media/image9.wmf)

Finally, we looked at the data for each school that has been designated
as "In Need of Improvement". For the purposes of this report, schools
classified as not making AYP and those under the Commissioner's
Progressive Support and Intervention are shown as "In Need of
Improvement." Table 3 shows individual schools in the various stages of
the PS&I process and their reported Highly Qualified percentages. It is
evident that reported percentages of Highly Qualified teachers tend to
decrease in schools that have been designated as "In Need of
Improvement" for 2 years or more.

#  {#section-23}

# Table 3 2005-2006 School Year

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Schools Identified for Improvement -- | **Percentage of Classes    |
| 1 year**                                | Taught by**                |
|                                         |                            |
|                                         | ######                     |
|                                         |  Highly Qualified Teachers |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Hope Arts School                        | 100%                       |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Hope Information Technology             | 92%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Hope Leadership School                  | 96%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Woonsocket High School                  | 73%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Schools Identified for Improvement -- | **Percentage of Classes    |
| 2 years**                               | Taught by Highly Qualified |
|                                         | Teachers**                 |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Carl G. Lauro                           | 92%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Charles Fortes Academy & Annex          | 80%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Citizens Memorial School                | 62%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Elizabeth Baldwin School                | 86%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Gov. Del Sesto Middle School            | 67%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Greenbush Elementary School             | 94%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Harry Kizirian Elementary School        | 71%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Henry J. Winters School                 | 92%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Laurel Hill Avenue Annex                | 41%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Laurel Hill Avenue School               | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Leo A. Savoie School                    | 78%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| M. Virginia Cunningham School           | 80%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Northern Lincoln Elementary             | 87%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Pleasant View School                    | 65%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Reservoir Avenue School                 | 81%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Saylesville Elementary School           | 88%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Sgt. Cornel Young, Jr. Elementary       | 89%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Veterans Memorial Elementary            | 85%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Wickford Middle School                  | 89%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Windmill St. Elementary School          | 61%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Woonsocket Middle School                | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Alternate Learning Project              | 73%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Central High School                     | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| RI Training School                      | 75%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Shea Sr. High School                    | 60%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| W. Warwick Sr. High School              | 72%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| William E. Tolman Sr. High School       | 67%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Schools Identified for Improvement -- | **Percentage of Classes    |
| 3 years**                               | Taught by Highly Qualified |
|                                         | Teachers**                 |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Alfred Lima, Sr. Elementary School      | 52%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Alfred Lima, Sr. Elementary Annex       | 55%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| George J. West Elementary School        | 74%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Gilbert Stuart Middle School            | 72%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Springfield Middle School I             | 68%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Charlotte Woods Elementary              | 81%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Central Falls Senior High               | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Schools Identified for Improvement -- | **Percentage of Classes    |
| 4 years**                               | Taught by Highly Qualified |
|                                         | Teachers**                 |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Esek Hopkins Middle School              | 75%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Flora S. Curtis Memorial School         | 87%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Nathan Bishop Middle School             | 73%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Nathaniel Greene Middle School          | 81%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Roger Williams Middle School            | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Samuel Bridgham Middle School           | 64%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Veazie St. School                       | 75%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Feinstein High School                   | 67%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Mt. Pleasant High School                | 76%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Schools Identified for Improvement -- | **Percentage of Classes    |
| 5 years**                               | Taught by Highly Qualified |
|                                         | Teachers**                 |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School       | 52%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

###  {#section-24}

###  {#section-25}

###  {#section-26}

### Section Two

###  {#section-27}

### *Activities Planned to Meet the Requirements* 

###  Activities Planned to Meet the Requirements

**Requirement One: The revised plan must provide a detailed analysis of
the core academic subject classes in the State that are currently not
being taught by Highly Qualified teachers. The analysis must, in
particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly progress
and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do other
schools in attracting Highly Qualified teachers. The analysis must also
identify the districts and schools around the State where significant
numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards, and examine whether or
not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by
non-Highly Qualified teachers. **

The Rhode Island Department of Education has embarked upon a
comprehensive plan, with an aggressive timeline, to ensure that all
districts meet the 100% annual measurable objective. An essential
component of the plan has been the designation a single point of contact
within each LEA for Highly Qualified issues. A listserve administered by
the Office of Educator Quality & Certification has been established to
provide for enhanced two-way communication between districts and the RI
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

On September 21, 2006, Governor Donald Carcieri and Commissioner Peter
McWalters released the list of elementary and middle schools that did
not make AYP for the 2005-06 school year. Due to the timing of this
release, we rescheduled our initial meeting with HQT representatives to
later this fall. In order to support districts as they analyze and
interpret these data, the workshop/seminar series will provide each LEA
with the necessary technical assistance to uncover and address staffing
needs with a particular focus on schools that are not making AYP.
Additional periodic [mandatory]{.underline} technical assistance
sessions will be conducted with district representatives throughout the
year that will include analysis of district data down to the course
level. In order to provide this information to LEAs and based upon the
feedback received from our initial submission on July 7, 2006, we have
targeted Title IIa SEA Teacher Quality funds to the enhancement of our
data collection system to include the specificity needed to cull data to
the classroom level. We anticipate being able to provide our districts
with disaggregate data during this school year.

It is through our work with each LEA that we are developing a
comprehensive plan to ensure that 100% of teachers of core content are
Highly Qualified. This plan will include data gathered concerning equity
and a bifurcated action plan for those schools designated as not making
AYP or with higher poverty levels and a disproportionate number of
teachers that are reported as not Highly Qualified.

An analysis of the 2005/2006 data reveal, one school district has
reached the AMO of 100% of core academic courses taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers. As discussed earlier in this report, Foster is an
LEA comprised of one elementary school and has met their AMO. The
others, although some are close, have not met the AMO. The Rhode Island
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as detailed in the
following timeline and technical assistance explanation, will submit a
report to all districts including the total number of core classes,
total number of core classes taught by Highly Qualified teachers, and
the reported percentage of Highly Qualified teachers. It will also
include a listing of each core class delineated as being taught by a non
Highly Qualified teacher, the teacher's name and certification area by
LEA.

The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is
following a comprehensive timeline including specific steps that will be
taken by each LEA to ensure they reach 100% combined with the specific
steps the Rhode Island Department of Education will take to ensure that
all LEAs have plans in place to assist all teachers reported as not
Highly Qualified to become Highly Qualified as quickly as possible.

To explain the comprehensive technical support system we have in place
for LEAs, we are presenting Requirements 2 and 3 in a combined
narrative.

# Requirements 2 and 3: 

**The revised plan must provide information on HQT status in each LEA
and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has plans in
place to assist teachers who are not Highly Qualified to attain HQT
status as quickly as possible.**

**The revised plan must include information on the technical assistance,
programs, and services that the SEA will offer to assist LEAs in
successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly where large groups
of teachers are not Highly Qualified, and the resources the LEAs will
use to meet their HQT goals.**

#  {#section-28}

# Revised Timeline for annual measurable goals and objectives

-   Districts designated a Highly Qualified representative

-   Office of Educator Quality and Certification created a HQ Listserve
    for LEA representatives

-   LEA representatives review 2005/2006 Highly Qualified data with
    support from Educator Quality and Certification staff

-   Districts will be provided with a template to develop a
    comprehensive plan to ensure 100% of core content teachers will be
    Highly Qualified. The plan (Appendix 2) must include:

    -   The identification of over representation of non-HQ teachers in
        particular content/certification areas

    -   Documentation of hiring practices that ensure all new employees
        are Highly Qualified

    -   Action steps to provide those non-HQ teachers with support to
        become HQ

    -   A comprehensive timeline for the acquisition and submission of
        personnel data for the Personnel Assignment Process

    -   Attestation that proper records are being verified and
        maintained for each educator

-   The Office of Educator Quality and Certification will develop and
    recommend to the RI Board of Regents and Commissioner of Elementary
    and Secondary Education, policy regarding the non-compliance of the
    Annual Measurable Objective considering the state's definition of
    "Good Faith Effort".

-   A mandatory technical assistance session will be provided for LEA
    representatives to aide in the interpretation of the data and the
    creation of a plan

-   Representatives from the Rhode Island Department of Education will
    provide regional workshops on the Highly Qualified designation and
    the new automated system open to all educators

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Representatives of the Rhode Island Department of Education will
    review the submitted District Plans for approval

-   All districts will be monitored for updated submissions to the
    Personnel Assignment Process.

-   Provide mandatory technical assistance meeting for Highly Qualified
    to LEA representatives

    -   Review HQ data in relation to the plan

    -   Review progress toward AMO

    -   Begin revisions of the submitted district plan as needed

-   Provide mandatory technical assistance meeting for Highly Qualified
    to LEA representatives with an invitation to all union
    representatives

    -   Review HQ data in relation to the plan

    -   Review progress toward AMO

    -   Begin revisions of the submitted district plan as needed

-   Provide mandatory technical assistance meeting for Highly Qualified
    to LEA representatives with an invitation to all union
    representatives

    -   Review HQ data in relation to the plan

    -   Review progress toward AMO

    -   Begin revisions of the submitted district plan as needed

#### Technical Assistance Details

The technical assistance provided to districts will serve a number of
purposes. Initial sessions will focus on the review of previously
submitted data and the upcoming submission of accurate data through the
enhancement of the Personnel Assignment Process(PAP) collection of
Highly Qualified data. We have successfully achieved a 100%
participation rate in the completion of the annual PAP by districts and
are confident that through this enhanced process we will avoid the
duplication of data we saw in previous submissions. Subsequent sessions
will focus on monitoring, compliance and support to schools failing to
make AYP and the mapping of inequities regarding the placement of HQ
teachers in those settings.

This past summer, we successfully developed and piloted an upload
feature that will enable our LEAs personnel offices to submit PAP data
directly to the Department. This feature will dramatically reduce the
previous errors made by having multiple administrators submitting data
for each LEA. The technical assistance we provide is designed to reduce
the number of errors in reporting. We recognize that historically, some
designations entered were incorrect due to administrators having
preferred to err on the side of caution when reporting HQ status. They
were concerned with mistakenly reporting a teacher as Highly Qualified
and when in doubt, chose to report them as not Highly Qualified. This
enhancement to our data collecting system is designed to substantially
decrease this potential for human error. The automated system has been
successfully tested with the largest LEA in the state and we are
confident that it will yield a reliable data source.

This system allows each educator that is Highly Qualified through
testing, and/or an academic major or its equivalent to be automatically
designated and reported as Highly Qualified. When the LEA representative
logs on to enter an educator of core content who meets the requirements
to be reported as Highly Qualified, the system will automatically
populate a "yes" by linking to the teacher's certification file. We have
utilized Title IIa SEA funds combined with state funds to design,
develop, test and put into production these software enhancements.

For those teachers holding certification in core areas for whom we
cannot use information on our system to automatically designate them as
Highly Qualified, the system now requires the individual educator to
attest to his/her Highly Qualified status. The educator will be sent a
correspondence explaining that he/she must use our system to designate
Highly Qualified status. The educator will be allowed to do this for all
core content certification areas. The system will allow the educator to
use a test, National Board Certification, academic major or an advanced
degree to designate him or herself as Highly Qualified (per the Rhode
Island HOUSSE plan). If the educator cannot use those options he/she
must attest to the fulfillment of the HOUSSE rubric requirements. If
self-designated as Highly Qualified the educator must then select an
approved verifier (typically the building principal) to electronically
sign the self-report. If the educator is not Highly Qualified, he/she
uses the system to document and submit a comprehensive plan to become
Highly Qualified.

The automated system will then populate the response for each educator
in the PAP. By allowing the educator to go through this process for all
core content area certifications held we are avoiding the assignment of
veteran educators who may be certified but not Highly Qualified to teach
a given area. Superintendents/District Hiring Authorities have web-based
access to reports that detail each certification an educator holds and
his/her Highly Qualified status in each area.

LEA representatives will be given their 2005/2006 Highly Qualified
report as submitted through the PAP for review. This report will include
individual teachers and assignments designated as not Highly Qualified.
District representatives will then be given extensive assistance in
reviewing the data and pinpointing where educators may be listed as not
Highly Qualified in error.

The focus will then shift to addressing the schools not making AYP.
There are a number of issues to be explored. The first analysis will be
for each district to analyze and interpret the data regarding the
percentage of teachers reported as not Highly Qualified. Next LEAs will
review the data for the district to identify and report where there
appear to be higher numbers of poor and minority children taught by not
Highly Qualified teachers. Action plans will be developed with those
districts to address immediate staffing needs and Article 31(18) state
professional development funds will be restricted to use for
high-quality professional development for those teachers.

Training will also be provided to LEA representatives on the submission
of the district plan. In addition, a comprehensive guidance document
will be available to districts (Appendix 2). This document, the Local
Education Agency (LEA) Plan for Highly Qualified Teachers, is a plan for
district level analysis of those sub groups of teachers that may be
overrepresented and how to begin to address those areas of inequity.

Considering the data, the Rhode Island Department of Education will
provide LEAs with specific tool kits to assist both Special Educators
and Middle School teachers of core content in becoming Highly Qualified.
Districts will be provided with the various options available to these
sub groups and will be directed to utilize appropriate funding sources
to provide the necessary professional development to these sub groups.
Strategies being compiled include the use of test preparation programs
and test fee subsidies for Middle School teachers, providing content
specific professional development for those teachers going through the
HOUSSE rubric, partnering with state and private colleges/universities
to provide core content course work to these sub groups of teachers,
resources to implement and support team teaching for special educators,
and strategies for re-assigning staff to positions for which they are
Highly Qualified.

Currently state and federal funds are utilized to provide professional
development to our LEAs in corrective action. For example, two math and
science specialists are partially funded using Title IIa SEA funds.
These specialists provide content specific professional development in
the areas of math and science, specifically in those districts under
Progressive Support and Intervention corrective action. State funds
support the continued progress of the negotiated agreements between
those districts not meeting their AYP and the Rhode Island Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education. Article 31(18) funds are
legislatively mandated to support professional development and will be
targeted in LEAs where schools are not making AYP or show significant
equity gaps regarding the placement of Highly Qualified teachers. The
plans of districts and schools not meeting AYP must connect to their
data-based improvement plans with specific attention to equity trends
that are focused toward meeting AYP. LEAs have been required to target
all Title IIa funds to those schools that did not meet the 100% AMO. The
Consolidated Resource Plan application process specifically asked
districts to address this issue.

# Requirement 4:

**The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with LEAs that
fail to reach the 100% HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year.**

As detailed in the comprehensive technical assistance timeline, after
the September review of the district plans, three technical assistance
sessions will be mandatory for districts. The goal for these sessions is
two-fold. First, to provide the help needed by districts to meet the
AMO, but also to monitor compliance. Since the PAP is a fluid process we
can capture a moment in time and review data in relation to the
submitted plans. Districts are required to provide updates regarding the
monitoring of progress and the entry of new hires into the system
periodically throughout the year.

Commissioner McWalters has a significant presence in the LEAs where
schools are classified as "In Need of Improvement". In these cases he
has used his Progressive Support and Intervention authority to reassign
personnel, intervene in the daily operation of schools and redirect or
withhold of state and federal funds where possible. We anticipate he
will continue to take such actions with LEAs who fail to meet AYP and
HQT goals.

The Rhode Island Department of Education recognizes the need to create
policy around the non-compliance of districts that may be classified as
not making AYP and over which the commissioner does not have PS&I
authority to intervene. Currently, the Director of the Office of
Educator Quality and Certification is working with a team of legal
representatives and the Deputy Commissioner to develop draft policy to
vet through the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and
Secondary Education. The team is using the concept of "good faith
effort" as defined by the State of Rhode Island in this plan as a basis
for this policy. All policy must go through a comprehensive approval
process.

The redirection of state and federal funds by the State of Rhode Island
will be dependent upon each LEAs demonstration of a good-faith effort
through active and ongoing participation in the following:

-   Development and submission of LEA professional development
    strategies and activities based upon scientifically based research
    that will ensure those teachers who have not met the Highly
    Qualified requirement have an enacted personal professional
    development plan that will ensure that they become Highly Qualified
    no later than June 2008 or within 2 years of hire.

-   Monitoring and reporting of teacher assignments made through
    negotiated contract agreements (including seniority-based job
    bidding) so that the optimal number of teaching positions are filled
    by highly qualified teachers.

-   Representation at all data review sessions with SEA staff to report
    progress and report challenges in order to collaboratively address
    any areas of high need where they may be having difficulty securing
    Highly Qualified teachers.

-   Requiring that those teachers who are not currently Highly Qualified
    attend co-sponsored HOUSSE review sessions conducted jointly by the
    Office of Educator Quality and LEA representatives in each district.

-   Implementation of programmatic change where pedagogically
    appropriate resulting in the increase core content subjects taught
    by Highly Qualified teachers.

If an LEA does not demonstrate progress, in good faith, towards the 100%
goal, they will be subject to a two-step process for the determination
of non-compliance. A district that has not demonstrated a good faith
effort for two consecutive years may be subject to the redirection of
state and/or federal funds and the implementation of a monthly
monitoring process. The redirection of all Title IIa and Article 31 (18)
Professional Development funds is at the discretion of the Rhode Island
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and may be targeted
solely toward the 100% goal. If the district has not demonstrated a good
faith effort after the third year of redirection and monitoring, the
Rhode Island Department of Education will enter into an agreement with
the district(s) requiring the written documentation that explains the
LEA's inability to make a good faith effort and the state will develop
an intervention plan and recapture state and federal funds in accordance
with ESEA Section 2141c in order to implement said plan.

# Requirement 5:

**The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will complete the
HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who were hired
prior to the end of the 2005-06 school year, and how the SEA will limit
the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after the end of the
2005-06 school year to multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools
eligible for additional flexibility, and multi-subject special education
who are Highly Qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at
the time of hire.**

####  {#section-29}

HOUSSE Procedures. As a part of Rhode Island's compliance and monitoring
plan for the 2006-2007 school year, technical assistance will be
provided to LEAs to assist them in completing the HOUSSE process for all
teachers [not]{.underline} new to the profession and who were hired
before the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Additionally, staff from
the Office of Educator Quality and Certification will reinstitute
monthly educator information forums to explain the RI HOUSSE process.
While the US Department of Education has recently acknowledged a
relaxation of an immediate end to HOUSSE, Rhode Island continues to be
committed to the successful phase-out of HOUSSE and its unavailability
to new hires after the 2005-06 school year.

As detailed previously, we have enhanced our data collection system to
automatically designate teachers as Highly Qualified based upon data
available in their electronic certification file. Those without
electronic test results or confirmation of an academic major, are
allowed to verify their status online. They are given the opportunity to
do this for each certification they hold, even those not in use. Up
until this point, we directed educators to only go through the HOUSSE
verification process for the certificate in use.

Currently all teachers newly certified in Rhode Island are Highly
Qualified, with the exception of some secondary special educators that
may be placed as the teacher of record in self-contained classrooms
serving severely disabled students. For these students the least
restrictive environment is not a general education classroom setting.
These students receive their core content instruction within the
self-contained classroom, usually from their special education teacher.
Various co-teaching models are being examined within districts for
implementation to ensure that Highly Qualified teachers will also teach
children with special needs while the children continue to receive the
specialization provided by certified special educators they are entitled
to under IDEA. These efforts will be discussed in Section Three: The
Equity Plan.

Educators who are not designated as Highly Qualified will be informed
through email and postal correspondence and invited to informational
seminars throughout the 2006-07 school year to initiate the process. We
are proposing that any educator wishing to utilize the HOUSSE rubric
initiate it by June 30, 2008.

Special educators for mild/moderate disabilities must qualify for a
regular education certificate to be eligible for a special education
certificate. However, we allow those holding an elementary certificate
to obtain middle/secondary special education certification. This is an
issue because a small portion of our newly certified teachers are not
Highly Qualified in any core academic area at the secondary level.
Therefore, they do not qualify for the two-year extension.

**Determining Subject Matter Competence**

In anticipation of the phase out of the availability of the HOUSSE
rubric for veteran teachers, we are proposing a combination of two
possible solutions for special educators and secondary teachers who
teach multiple core content areas. We will institute the use of a
Multi-Subject HOUSSE for those select educators for as long as it is
permissible under ESEA '01 while providing the option of content area
assessments for

those teachers who teach a population of students whose least
restrictive environment is truly a self-contained setting. This proposal
would require secondary special educators to initially demonstrate core
content expertise by passing at least one test if they do not have a
content major in a core academic area. Becoming Highly Qualified in a
core content area would allow a two-year extension to be utilized as
they continue take and pass additional core content area tests. The
State of Rhode Island believes that every child, regardless of
disability, is entitled to have a Highly Qualified teacher. We are also
cognizant of an already alarming shortage of special educators and
regard this proposal as responsive to and supportive of the requirements
of ESEA '01.

Rhode Island does not have an issue with rural schools, therefore does
not have a plan in place. Currently we have no districts eligible for
RLIS funds.

###  {#section-30}

###  {#section-31}

###  {#section-32}

### Section Three

###  {#section-33}

###  {#section-34}

### *Equity Plan* 

###  Equity Plan

> An analysis of the Rhode Island's data has revealed concerning yet not
> unexpected equity gaps. The first was discussed earlier in this
> report. Charts B and C indicate a 9% difference between the percentage
> of Highly and not Highly Qualified teachers in high poverty schools.
> Many of the schools in Rhode Island that have failed to make AYP are
> indeed high poverty schools. Rhode Island has historically classified
> its schools as being "In Need of Improvement" and it appears that the
> longer a school has been classified as such, the higher the reported
> percentage of not Highly Qualified teachers it has teaching in core
> content areas. While this simple analysis cannot be interpreted as
> causal without taking into account all possible confounding factors,
> the data are compelling enough to warrant further exploration of the
> relationship between the two.

#  {#section-35}

# Requirement 6:

**The revised plan must include a copy of the State\'s written \"equity
plan\" for ensuring that poor or minority children are not taught by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates
than are other children.**

#  {#section-36}

**Data and Reporting Systems**\
*How is the state planning to develop the teacher data and reporting
systems needed to identify and correct inequities in the distribution of
quality teachers in high-poverty/high-minority schools vs.
low-poverty/low-minority schools?*

The submission of our July 2006 Revised State Plan has reinvigorated the
need for Rhode Island to address equity gaps in all areas of education.
While the current data collection system does not provide for the
disaggregation of data that would sufficiently produce an analysis of
inequities at the district level, we recognize the critical need for
access to such data. As a result, we will now conduct a much more
in-depth analysis of the differences in specific teacher assignments in
high-poverty/high-minority schools vs. low-poverty/low-minority schools.
In order to do this, we must invest a significant amount of resources,
financial and human, to the development of a refined data collection
system that has the capability of 'drilling down' to the classroom
level. Title IIa SEA funds have been redirected toward the development
of software that will allow our data system to capture these data and
make them available at the SEA and LEA level for analysis and
comparison.

The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
continues to be committed to the elimination of gaps in the quality of
instruction, availability of resources and opportunities to learn for
all populations especially poor and minority, English language learners,
and students with disabilities. While this Equity Plan is not yet a
living, comprehensive force, we hope that the US Department of Education
will recognize our efforts and continue to provide the valuable
technical assistance and flexibility necessary for Rhode Island to
successfully meet the spirit and intention of ESEA '01.

###  {#section-37}

### Upgrading LEA and School Level Databases

As discussed previously, the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education has further developed its annual PAP to provide more
in-depth knowledge relevant to the requirements of the Highly Qualified
teacher provisions of ESEA '01. Rhode Island has developed the capacity
to collect data to track teacher mobility, certification, and Highly
Qualified status and will work with LEAs and teacher unions to collect
data on teacher experience. In order to gain more information on why
teachers leave a school or district, the Department will develop a
working conditions survey as a part of its mentoring/induction programs
using federal funding. \[Add info regarding proposed special ed exit
survey\]

With the introduction of a Unique Staff Identifier (USID) the department
will have the ability to track all certified personnel and teacher
assistants from their initial certification, through retirement. For the
first time, we will be able to track teacher mobility within and between
LEAs. We will have at our fingertips the data necessary to map attrition
rates and follow teacher supply and demand trends. The USID is a key
element in the development of the Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education's Data Warehouse. The data are being linked from
all offices within the Department that collect teacher, student,
assessment and LEA data. The Office of Network Information Systems is
coordinating this project and anticipates a summer 2007 date for the
warehouse to go live.

For the Office of Educator Quality and Certification, this means for the
first time our databases will be fully integrated and searchable for
teacher status, credentials, experience and work history. The resulting
reports will greatly improve the Department's capacity to identify
schools and LEAs in need of targeted assistance in any number of areas
and will provide the much needed data regarding service to children in
poor and minority communities.

**Teacher Preparation**\
*How is the state planning to build a pipeline of prospective teachers
for high-poverty, low-performing schools?*

Rhode Island Beginning Teacher Standards (RIBTS) - Newly licensed
teachers must meet the Highly Qualified teacher requirements based on
revised preparation program requirements.

Induction brings beginning teachers, experienced teachers, and school
leaders together in collaborative settings to create a professional
culture of ongoing learning, which can lead to positive change in the
school climate. Rhode Island Mentor Programs based on research encourage
implementation of RI Beginning Teaching Standards into practice, provide
for job-embedded professional development, promote reflective practice
and continuous learning, and initiate reciprocal and collaborative
learning. These qualities are aligned with the goals of the I-Plan
system for recertification, which is based on the premise of the
importance of sustained, high quality professional development.

Mentoring, as a component of induction, is one example of professional
development that can advance school improvement initiatives and teaching
practice while being used toward an aligned I-Plan goal. Currently, all
Rhode Island teachers, new and veteran, holding 5-year professional
certificates are rolling onto the I-Plan system for the first time. In
the future, Rhode Island's first year teachers will be looking to their
mentors who have experience with I-Plans for help in developing an
I-Plan. Mentor Programs that contain I-Plan training and support will be
an integral component of the Induction process strengthening the
pipeline and reducing the loss of new and veteran teachers in our poor
and minority schools.

A study of the efficacy of the current mentoring initiatives required by
the State of Rhode Island has just been approved and will commence in
January 2007. The result of the external review of each LEA mentor
program along with a newly designed "new teacher" survey will inform the
development of higher education/LEA induction partnerships designed to
reduce teacher turnover in our most challenging schools.

**Out-of-Field Teaching**\
*How is the state planning to reduce the incidence of out-of-field
teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education, and
bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty,
low-performing schools?*

The annual administration of the Personnel Assignment Process (PAP) by
every school district and charter school identifies discrepancies
between teacher certification and assignment. For the 2005-06 school
year, we found a number teachers employed in out-of-field assignments.
Notification was sent to all LEAs in July 2006 reminding them that under
RI General Law 16:11:1, the state shall withhold funds for the total
compensation provided to any uncertified teacher in their employ.
Employees who do not hold appropriate certification put their LEA at
risk of sanction and are unlawfully employed. LEAs have been given a
protocol for running out-of-area reports and determining whether or not
their teachers have applied for certification renewal in a timely
manner. This process has been helpful to high-poverty LEAs and schools
because they have not been able to devote the resources to the ongoing
monitoring of the credentials of their staff, instead choosing to target
the resources to instruction and assessment.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recognizes the need
for the continued monitoring of teacher certification by LEAs as the
employer, however we also recognize the fiscal crisis many LEAs find
themselves in. We have taken a more active role in the monitoring and
compliance of certification status by refining the PAP so that
uncertified and out-of-field teachers are cannot be entered into the
system. This safeguard requires immediate action from the LEA,
instructing the teacher to contact the Office of Educator Quality and
Certification to resolve the certification issue that is preventing them
from being entered into a valid assignment through the PAP.

##  {#section-38}

##  {#section-39}

##  {#section-40}

## *[Project RITER-Aspiring Teacher Program]{.underline}*

## *[Secondary Special Education/Secondary Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry]{.underline}*

The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
supports targeted alternate routes to certification in our high-need
areas, of special education, science, and mathematics. The RITER
Aspiring Teacher Program provides a pathway for teachers to gain
certification and Highly Qualified status.

Responding to the need for math and science high school teachers in the
state\'s urban school districts, an alternative route for prospective
teachers to gain certification has been developed. The Aspiring Teachers
Program is part of the Rhode Island Teacher Education Renewal (RITER)
project based at the University of Rhode Island. The program is
supported by a \$7.5 million U. S. Department of Education Teacher
Quality Enhancement grant that was awarded to URI in 2004 to reform
teacher education and strengthen the preparation of the next generation
of Rhode Island teachers. The Aspiring Teacher Program is funded through
Objective 5 of the TQE.

The first cohort of the Aspiring Teacher Program currently has teachers
employed in the high-poverty districts of Providence and Central Falls.
They are teaching in the areas of special education, mathematics and
science. Recruitment for cohorts two and three are well underway and a
Program Approval visit is being scheduled for the fall or spring of
2007-08.

While the Aspiring Teacher Program is one attempt to develop a
successful alternate route program, there are other opportunities we
plan to explore. In order to significantly reduce the issuance of
emergency permits, we will design an alternate route program that will
require those seeking emergency status to enroll in an alternate route
program to gain the content knowledge and pedagogy needed to be
effective in the classroom. Preliminary discussions have revealed a
willingness on the part of higher education partner with interested
districts to create a mechanism to induct new teachers that will
incorporate coursework and mentoring. This programming could
dramatically reduce the number of emergency permits issued each year and
will provide a pathway for those interested in teaching who are
mid-career changers.

Responding to the Transition to Teaching RFP in the spring of 2007 will
provide another opportunity for the State of Rhode Island to assist
districts in attracting qualified candidates willing to work in
hard-to-staff schools. Many of our high-poverty districts find
experienced content people from outside of the teaching field and seek
emergency permits for them while mentoring and supporting them through
the required coursework. By seeking Transition to Teaching funding, we
hope to provide another pathway for districts to attract highly
qualified professionals in the core content areas to the teaching
profession and enhance opportunities for collaboration between
institutions of higher education and high-poverty districts.

**Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers**\
*How is the state planning to build a critical mass of qualified,
experienced teachers willing to work in hard-to-staff schools?*

Studies have shown teacher turnover to be highest in high-poverty
schools, contributing to lower levels of student achievement. Poor,
hard-to-staff schools struggle to recruit and retain high-quality
teachers due to challenging working conditions, the lack of effective
training, and valuable induction programs (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin,
2002). This statistic can be offset by induction and mentoring programs,
which are attributed to teachers being twice as likely to remain in the
profession as those who did not have these resources.

The TQE grant provides funding for Mentoring and Induction Partnerships
between Institutions of Higher Education and high-need, high-poverty
districts. Currently funded through Objective 4 of the grant, the
Mentoring and Induction Partnerships are working 4 high-poverty
districts of Newport, Providence, Central Falls and Pawtucket.
Additional funding has been targeted to these LEAs through their Title
IIa LEA funds and Title IIa SEA Teacher Quality funds.

While analyses of years of service did not show a difference between
placements of teachers in high poverty vs. not high poverty districts,
insufficient data prevented us from drilling down to the
teacher/classroom level and from comparing minority student rates to
teacher experience levels. As stated earlier, we recognize the value of
having such information and have enhanced our data collection system to
capture these data from the present forward.

***[State Action for Educational Leadership Program
(SAELP)]{.underline}***

In a time of sweeping educational reform, the role of school leadership
in improving student achievement has received increased attention. The
authority of both principals and superintendents is seen as essential to
implement effective programmatic and organizational changes in schools.
Rhode Island, one of fifteen states to receive an award from the Wallace
Foundation to strengthen educational leadership, has designed a
well-articulated strategy to address this complex issue.

As part of the State Action for Education Leadership Project (SAELP),
Rhode Island established a consortium including the state board and
commissioner of education, the governor, and legislators to redesign
state policies around leadership. This core group was expanded to
include representatives of professional associations, local school
boards, higher education, and business. Since 2001, the consortium has
worked to understand and address the complex factors that make
recruiting, preparing, and retaining educational leaders so difficult.

Teacher and school leader quality are considered essential and integral
components of Rhode Island's effort to narrow the achievement gap of
students in all districts. The SAELP project is working with a
demonstration group to identify and define best practices that assist
all districts in educating their students. During the 2006-07 school
year the SAELP project will join forces with the Center for Teacher
Quality (CTQ), of which Rhode Island is a Case Study State, to design
and pilot Rhode Island Leadership Standards. They will be based upon the
revised ISLLC standards and piloted within the high-need, high-poverty
LEAs. The feedback that is received from administrators and teachers in
these districts will inform the entire state on the refinement and
adoption of RI Leadership standards.

**Professional Development**\
*How is the state planning to strengthen the skills, knowledge, and
qualifications of teachers already working in high-poverty,
low-performing schools?*

The Rhode Island Department of Education has a compelling interest in
assuring and supporting high quality teaching for all PK-12 students in
our schools. Staff in the Office of Office of Educator Quality and
Certification is working to create a seamless licensure system, based on
proposed RI Professional Teaching Standards, that defines teaching in
Rhode Island. To that end, we are committed to approving educator
preparation programs that assess candidate performance to standards, the
recertification of educators through the completion of Individual
Professional Development Plans (I-Plans), and providing on-going high
quality professional development for all Rhode Island educators. These
systems provide the Department of Education with a framework for
reaching its goal to ensure a high quality education for all Rhode
Island students.

Professional development is a system of continuous growth and learning
that builds the capacity of the education community to respond to the
needs of all learners.  With the reauthorization of ESEA '01, the
Federal Government has [defined High Quality Professional
Development. ](http://www.ride.ri.gov/Certification_PD/prodev/Documents/No Child Left Behind Federal Definition of High Quality Professional Development.pdf)
The Rhode Island Department of Education has reviewed the Rhode Island
Quality Professional Development Standards in relation to the Federal
definition and to the National Staff Standards. The Rhode Island Quality
Standards for Professional development (RIQSPD) are aligned with both
the federal definition and the National Staff Standards and serve as a
cornerstone to the re-design of teacher certification acknowledging that
high quality professional development is necessary to improve student
achievement. 

**Specialized Knowledge and Skills**\
*How is the state planning to ensure that teachers have the specialized
knowledge and skills they need to be effective with the populations of
students typically served in high-poverty, low-performing schools
(including Native American students, English language learners, and
other students at risk)?*

The Rhode Island Department of Education supports the notion that
induction programs are "a smart investment in the ongoing training,
support, and retention of beginning teachers, who, as a result of the
programs become more qualified, capable, and effective teachers.
Successful induction programs go a long way toward improving the quality
of teaching and ensuring student achievement." (Breaux and Wong, 2003)
These programs are multi-year programs that transition and guide
beginning educators from daily survival to reflection of practice and
student work, to analytical and flexible thinking.

These critical programs combine mentoring, professional development,
support, and evaluation for the first three to five years of a beginning
educator's professional career. Successful induction programs improve
teacher effectiveness, teaching techniques, promote a district's culture
and maximize the retention of Highly Qualified teachers. Research shows
that retention rates are increased substantially due to the
collaborative culture that is established when educators work together
with a shared vision for success and for increased student achievement
for all students.

The State of Rhode Island passed legislation to support new teachers by
requiring district strategic plans "include a process for mentoring new
teachers" (Law 16-7.1-2 Accountability for Student Performance). RI
General Law 16-7.1-10, Professional development investment fund, was
passed and calls for, the appropriation of funds "in order to continue
developing the skills of Rhode Island's teachers and staff". A portion
of these appropriated funds include the support of mentoring systems.
Since January 2002, the Rhode Island Mentor Program Guidelines have been
in use to assist districts in designing, implementing and evaluating
their programs. The Rhode Island Department of Education continues to
provide multi-level training for mentor coordinators each year to build
capacity for mentor training in each district.

Mentoring and Induction are paramount on Rhode Island's list for
supporting and sustaining Highly Qualified teachers in challenging
settings. We view many of the strategies in this Equity Plan as
cross-cutting---having a natural home under each component.

Teacher Preparation Program Approval and accreditation requirements
mandate that teacher education programs utilize Rhode Island's Beginning
Teacher Standards (RIBTS) that require teachers to have the knowledge
and skills to deal effectively with diverse learners. Teacher education
programs are approved and accredited with this as a key component of
their approval.

Rhode Island is preparing to adopt professional teaching standards and
is in the process of developing school leadership standards that address
the knowledge and skills needed by teachers and administrators to meet
the needs of diverse student populations.

The Aspiring Teacher Program offers targeted preparation in the
high-need areas of and special education, mathematics and science
assuring that alternate route teachers have the knowledge and skills
they need to teach diverse student populations.

**Working Conditions**\
*How is the state planning to improve the conditions in hard-to-staff
schools that contribute to excessively high rates of teacher turnover?*

Recent research has shown that working conditions can have significant
impact on teacher quality and retention. Unfortunately, working
conditions are often overlooked as a means to retain strong teachers and
are difficult to address at the state level. Local district policies and
practices often set the tone for school climate and culture.
Additionally, school leadership impacts how those policies are
implemented from school to school. Acknowledging that strategies dealing
with school leadership, safety, facilities, professional growth,
governance, and school climate/culture have an impact on working
conditions, the department has initiated a number of activities to
address this difficult, yet extremely important, element.

Rhode Island has extremely active teacher unions in the National
Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT). In order to address critical staffing issues in a meaningful way,
the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education must
work collaboratively with union leadership as well as with the LEAs.
Collaborative solutions must be developed to address the complex issues
of teacher assignment, experience and in some instances seniority where
it affects classroom assignment. Immediate actions to be taken include:

> Summer 2007

-   Notification of LEAs and teacher unions of equity gaps revealed
    through preliminary analyses

-   Monitoring of 2006/07 data for trends using the LEA Plan for Highly
    Qualified Teachers (Appendix 2)

-   Direct technical assistance to LEAs from PS&I Action Team:
    Recruiting, Supporting and Retaining Highly Qualified Teachers

-   Encouragement of LEAs to provide incentive/stipend for NBCTs willing
    to transfer to schools "in need of improvement" for 3 years

> Fall 2007

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility rates of
    teachers within school districts failing to make AYP

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility and
    retention rates of teachers within high poverty districts and
    schools

-   Establishment of partnership with institutions of higher education
    (IHEs), unions and LEAs to develop mentor and induction programs for
    recent graduates and veteran teachers employed in public schools to
    reduce teacher turnover

-   Use of Title IIA Teacher Quality funds to target mentoring and
    induction support to schools and districts with Highly Qualified
    teacher equity gaps

-   Providing targeted funding to schools failing to make AYP with a
    disproportionate percentage of teachers reported as not Highly
    Qualified, to increase professional development opportunities in
    core content areas

> Winter 2008

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility rates of
    teachers within school districts failing to make AYP

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility and
    retention rates of teachers within high poverty districts and
    schools

-   Review of mentoring and induction programs receiving targeted
    funding

-   Direct technical assistance to LEAs and unions from PS&I Action team
    regarding recruitment strategies for upcoming school year

-   Support of partnership with institutions of higher education (IHEs),
    unions and LEAs developing mentor and induction programs \[potential
    for targeted SEA IIa funds\]

> Spring 2008

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility rates of
    teachers within school districts failing to make AYP

-   Continued analysis of data to determine and track mobility and
    retention rates of teachers within high poverty districts and
    schools

-   Evaluation of mentoring and induction programs receiving targeted
    funding \[SEA IIa\]

-   Announcement of targeted funding (if available) to districts to pay
    NBCTs to teach in schools "in need of improvement" for 3 --5 years.

**Policy Coherence**\
*How is the state planning to improve internal processes or revise state
policies that may inadvertently contribute to local staffing
inequities?*

The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is
committed to assuring that high-need schools have the opportunity to
recruit and retain Highly Qualified teachers. However, it is important
to remember that local school districts assign teachers to schools,
grades, subjects, and classes. The Rhode Island Department of Education
monitors policy coherence through data collections such as the PAPand
evaluative processes like SALT. We will now take a more active role in
assuring that teachers are equitably distributed.

With the launch of the Data Warehouse in the summer of 2007, the State
of Rhode Island will have the ability to track to the classroom level,
the rates of inexperienced and out of field teachers that are teaching
poor and minority children. If after examination of these data, it
appears that certain practices are contributing to the
overrepresentation of out of area and inexperienced teachers in schools
that have high populations of poor and minority children, they may be
regarded as being incompatible with this Equity Plan. We will then
require an LEA Plan of Action that will bring such LEA based activities
into compliance with this Equity Plan. As a common point of departure,
all LEAs will be required to annually develop, submit and enact policies
that ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher
rates by inexperienced and out of field teachers. Those LEAs that fail
to comply will be subject to sanctioning as referenced earlier in this
plan.

While sanctions remain an option, they are an option of last resort. It
is our preference to use these data to assist districts as they struggle
with the inequities. The State of Rhode Island is prepared to work with
LEAs, institutions of higher education and teacher unions to find
solutions to this complex issue. Equity monitoring will be an integrated
part of our overall monitoring and reporting strategy in each district
and around the state.

The Rhode Island Department of Education is committed to aggressively
eliminating equity gaps in all areas as they impact students. While this
equity plan requires that we address the areas of "poor or minority
children taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers
being taught at higher rates that other children" we recognize another
area that begs and equity plan of action. Teachers of children with
disabilities are reportedly at significantly higher rates as not Highly
Qualified. This response has addressed why that seems to be (see pp.5,
6; Charts H/I). Our equity plan will also address how we plan to
eliminate that inequity.

## *[Rhode Island State Improvement Grant (RISIG)]{.underline}*

The United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) awarded Rhode Island a grant to improve student
performance and increase access to general education for children with
disabilities. The grant award process was highly competitive and funding
was awarded for five years, effective November 1, 2002.

Rhode Island developed its grant to help the Rhode Island Department of
Education, Office of Special Needs (RIDE, OSN) to address need areas
identified through the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP),
and to support the achievement of the goals outlines in the Rhode Island
State Improvement Plan.

RISIG\'s three major goals:

**Goal 1**     To ensure that all students with disabilities are taught
by \"Highly Qualified teachers\"

**Goal 2**     To expand the opportunities available to children with
disabilities to participate in the general curriculum and to improve
their performance on state assessments and in other outcome measures

**Goal 3**     To develop and inform educational leaders who will
facilitate the participation and progress of children with disabilities
in the general curriculum

The Higher Education Coordinating Committee is responsible for
implementing Goal 1, ensuring that all students with disabilities are
taught by \'Highly Qualified teachers\'.  A wide variety of stakeholders
serves on the committee and brings diverse talents and perspectives to
the process.  The RISIG Coordinator, the Coordinators of Faculty
Academies, the Recruitment Coordinator and the CSPD Coordinator all
support the committee.

The Rhode Island Department of Education will collaborate with the
Higher Education Committee and the Office of Special Populations to
promote and encourage the use of inclusive practices for children with
disabilities. Efforts are underway to identify model inclusive settings
where general education teachers are the teacher of record and special
educators co-teach and provide in class and consultative support to
teachers and direct service to students with disabilities. As stated
previously in this document, this model will dramatically decrease the
numbers of students taught by teachers reported as not Highly Qualified,
while insuring that their special needs are met as required by IDEA
2004.

Additionally, the Higher Education Coordinating Committee will
participate in the discussion regarding the option of implementing core
content tests for new special educators if they do not have a content
major in a core academic area. The discussion of what to do with those
secondary special educators who teach multiple core content subjects in
self-contained classrooms must be fully explored and vetted with the
field. The Office of Special Populations, Rhode Island Technical
Assistance Program (RITAP) and the Higher Education Coordinating
Committee will add the voices of special educators, teacher preparation
programs and students and families to the discourse.

It is through the work of these groups, in concert with that of the
Commissioner's Policy Consortium, Certification Policy Advisory Board
and the Educator Quality Committee of the Rhode Island Board of Regents,
that we intend to have a recommendation for the Highly Qualified
designation of newly certified special educators teaching multiple core
content subjects.

**Conclusion**

The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
recognizes the complexity involved in improving outcomes for all
students. Systems change is often slow and labored however, ESEA '01 has
given us the leverage we need as an SEA support our LEAs, institutions
of higher education and teacher unions through the change. Now more than
ever the words funding, resources and capacity are heard throughout
school buildings. With the implementation of our Amended HQT Plan, the
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is
stepping towards the work that needs to happen in districts and schools.
That work we find so critically important starts with the transparent
examination of ourselves. What we have submitted is the initial step in
our State's reflection upon issues that we struggle with as a nation:
equity, quality and effectiveness.

There is much more work to do to actualize this plan and we have spent a
considerable amount of time laying the foundation. State and federal
funding has been redirected to the implementation of the activities in
this plan. Data systems have been updated and more improvements are to
be phased in. Attitudes are changing in districts and the Rhode Island
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is seen as a partner in
the effort to achieve the highest possible outcomes for all students.

Finally, the importance of having a Highly Qualified and effective
teacher in [every]{.underline} classroom cannot be overstated. Numerous
studies have measured the relationship between teacher quality and
student performance. While there may be intervening variables, the
evidence is clear that the single factor that is more powerful than any
other in influencing student achievement gains is the quality of the
teacher (Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, 1998). For that reason, the Rhode
Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will continue
follow ESEA '01, where it confronts and challenges the issues that
prevent every student from having a Highly Qualified and effective
teacher leading his or her class.

#  {#section-41}

This guidance document is meant to serve as a reference for school
officials whose schools or districts are targeted for Progressive
Support and Intervention (PSI) as a result of being designated as "in
need of improvement\" through the state\'s assessment system. The guide
first discusses the three elements of the Blueprint for Change:
standards, information systems, and tools to ensure effective
implementation. The second section describes how PSI teams will
integrate the Blueprint for Change with the accountability structure
dictated by the state Comprehensive Education Strategy and the No Child
Left Behind Act.

8

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -- ----------------------
                                                     

                                                     

                                                     

                                                     

                                                     

                                                     
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -- ----------------------

in decreased local authority. The expectations range from developing a
two-year plan to turn the school around and school choice through the
expectation of provision of supplemental educational services for
students to corrective action and restructuring. Each of these actions
is described in detail in the NCLB legislation and they are summarized
in the following table:

  ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------
                                      

                                      

                                      

                                      

                                      

                                      
  ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------

1 3

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Depending upon the shortcomings that RIDE identifies as barriers to
improving student

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 4 2 5

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 6

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 7

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Except for the mandated Title I Remedies listed below, these are
examples -- each district will be addressed based on particularized
local circumstances.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 9

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------------ ------ -- ------- -------------------------
                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   
  ------------------------------ ------ -- ------- -------------------------

  -------------- ------- ------------ ------------ ------- ----------------
                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           
  -------------- ------- ------------ ------------ ------- ----------------

  ---------------- -------------------- ------------------ ---------------
                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           
  ---------------- -------------------- ------------------ ---------------

\*Contact information for individuals is not needed by the State
Department of Education; however, it may been needed by the LEA to
contact the planning team regarding meetings, decisions, etc. --
particularly, since planning will be done during the summer.

Insert lines in the chart, as needed.)

  --------------------- -------------- ----------- ---------- -------------
                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              

                                                              
  --------------------- -------------- ----------- ---------- -------------

. (See instructions on Pages 5 of Guidance for LEA Plans. Expand the
table to include other actions, as needed.)

  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------------------
                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    
  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------------------

  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------
                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    
  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------

.)

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------
                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    

                                                    
  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------------------
                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------------------

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------------------
                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------------------