![](media/image1.png){width="5.878472222222222in"
height="0.7743055555555556in"}

**Oregon's**

**Highly Qualified Teacher Plan**

**December 2007**

**Requirement 1: 4**

1.1 4

> 1.2 8
>
> 1.3 10
>
> 1.4 13
>
> 1.5 14

Requirement 2: 17

2.1 17

2.2 18

2.3 20

**Requirement 3: 21**

3.1 21

3.2 23

3.3 26

3.4 31

3.5 32

3.6 33

**Requirement 4: 33**

4.1 33

4.2 34

4.3 35

4.4 37

**Requirement 5: 38**

5.1 38

5.2 38

**Requirement 6: See Equity Plan**

6.1 -- 6.5

**Appendix A: Non-AYP Secondary Subgroups**

**Appendix B: Template for District Highly Qualified Teacher Plan**

**Appendix C: Template for Individual Teacher Plans To Become Highly
Qualified**

**Appendix D: Inequity Data**

**[REQUIREMENT 1]{.underline}:**

The Oregon Department of Education (ODE), in collaboration with the
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC), has worked diligently
over the past few years to achieve the goal that every core content
class will be taught by HQ staff. ODE has worked extensively with
districts over the past two data submissions to ensure the accuracy of
the data that is reported. Using the definition under the No Child Left
Behind Act, 90.3% of all classes in Oregon's public schools in 2004-05
were taught by a "highly-qualified teacher". In 2005-06, 91.66% of all
classes were taught by HQT, but in 2006-07 it was reported that 89.90%
of all classes were taught by HQT.

Oregon enacted a new data collection process for the school year of
2006-07. This has allowed Oregon, for the first time, to analyze data at
the classroom and teacher level. The collection uses the codes of the
NCES *Federal School Codes for the Exchange of Data*. These codes have
been aligned to Oregon teaching credentials and endorsements, and also
to classes and grade levels taught. Districts entered a NCES code for
each class a teacher was teaching. These codes were then checked against
the teacher's license to determine if they were HQ for the course.

> While the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers
> has decreased from 91.66% to 89.90%, this was the first year districts
> have not self reported, and we are confident that the accuracy of our
> data for the 2006-07 school year is a truer reflection of Oregon's HQT
> picture.

Table 1.1 (A): Overview: Core Content Classes Taught by Non-HQT

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                   2004-05               2005-06               2006-2007   

  Core Academic    Number of  Percent of Number of  Percent of Number of   Percent of
  Subject          Classes    Classes    Classes    Classes    Classes     Classes
                   Taught by  Taught by  Taught by  Taught by  Taught by   Taught by
                   Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ      Non-HQ
                   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers    Teachers

  All              6,288      9.7%       5,785      8.6%       6466        10.10%

  Self-Contained   359        2.8%       421        3.6%       260         2.10%

  English          1,767      13.7%      1,409      9.9%       1452        11.99%

  Reading                                                      309         27.96%

  Foreign          419        11.0%      357        9.1%       297         8.54%
  Languages                                                                

  The Arts         605        9.3%       600        8.9%       646         9.71%

  Science          1,004      10.8%      887        9.1%       1305        14.11%

  Math             1,244      11.8%      1,234      10.9%      1133        10.45%

  Social Sciences  883        9.4%       877        8.7%       1157        13.01%
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

Table 1.1 (B): Elementary: Core Content Classes Taught by Non-HQT

  ---------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  *ELEMENTARY*                 2006-2007             

  CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECT        NUMBER OF CLASSES     PERCENT OF CLASSES
                               TAUGHT BY NON-HQ      TAUGHT BY NON-HQ
                               TEACHERS              TEACHERS

  All Subjects                 783                   5.15%

  Self-Contained               165                   1.42%

  English                      105                   16.23%

  Reading                      59                    15.45%

  Foreign Languages            26                    31.71%

  The Arts                     70                    8.16%

  Science                      129                   24.48%

  Math                         133                   21.49%

  Social Sciences              96                    20.78%
  ---------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Table 1.1 (C): Secondary: Core Content Classes Taught by Non-HQT

[]{.mark}

  ---------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
  *SECONDARY*                  2006-2007             

  CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECT        NUMBER OF CLASSES     PERCENT OF CLASSES
                               TAUGHT BY NON-HQ      TAUGHT BY NON-HQ
                               TEACHERS              TEACHERS

  All Subjects                 5534                  11.44%

  Self-Contained               53                    7.91%

  English                      1315                  11.55%

  Reading                      245                   34.36%

  Foreign Languages            268                   7.94%

  The Arts                     559                   9.7%

  Science                      1154                  13.32%

  Math                         980                   9.66%

  Social Sciences              960                   12.53%
  ---------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------

***Implications:***

Through a very thorough data collection, the overall needs of the state
are clear. The areas needing the greatest attention are Math (10.45%),
English (11.99%), Reading (27.96%), and Science (14.11%).

While the data shows an increase in non-HQT in Social Science, this is
misleading. A number of different factors have contributed to the
reported data showing a high percentage of classes taught by non-HQT.
Through the process of separating Social Studies into Geography,
Civics/Politics, History, and Economics, many veteran teachers now no
longer fit the definition of HQ as defined by NCLB. This issue is being
addressed through HOUSSE evaluations and teachers choosing to take the
PRAXIS exam. Since most "Social Studies" courses integrate History,
Geography, Civics/Politics, and Economics, coding the courses with NCES
codes proved to be challenging. When combining these factors in the
process of matching NCES codes to teacher endorsements, a high number of
non-HQT classes were recorded. The ODE is currently working to properly
match courses, NCES codes, and endorsements to gain a true statistical
representation of HQT in Social Studies. By aligning NCES codes at the
district level, ODE is building consistency in reporting across the
state, so all schools are utilizing the same codes for the same classes.
For those veteran teachers now designated as non-HQ, HOUSSE is being
used to verify HQ status through experience and coursework.

At this time, we do not have data to answer the question of why teachers
are not HQ. While we know there is enough production and recruitment of
teachers (see Equity Plan: Issues Affecting Highly Qualified Teacher
Data), there appears to be a lack of licensing in specific areas
(Chemistry, Physics, Advanced Math, etc.), resulting in teachers being
miss-assigned into those areas. ODE is currently working on a
recruitment and retention report to be able to fully analyze and address
the state's current needs.

**1.2.**

Table 1.2(A): HQT in Elementary Schools Not Making AYP 2006-07

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><p>Did Not Meet AYP</p>
<p>(40 Schools)</p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Met AYP</p>
<p>(747 Schools)</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Total</p>
<p>(787 Schools)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">#</td>
<td colspan="2">% of did not meet AYP</td>
<td>#</td>
<td colspan="2">% of met AYP</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>% of all schools</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">100% of classes are taught by HQT</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>57.5%</td>
<td colspan="2">565</td>
<td>75.64%</td>
<td colspan="2">588</td>
<td>74.71%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">90% or more classes are taught by HQT</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>75.0%</td>
<td colspan="2">679</td>
<td>90.90%</td>
<td colspan="2"><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>709</p></td>
<td><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>90.09%</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Less than 90% of classes are taught by HQT</td>
<td><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>10</p></td>
<td><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>25.0%</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>68</p></td>
<td>9.10%</td>
<td colspan="2"><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>78</p></td>
<td><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>9.91%</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

-   Only 5.08% (40 out of 787 elementary schools) did not make AYP

-   Only 57.50% of schools not meeting AYP have 100% of classes taught
    by HQT -- 18.14% less than in schools making AYP.

-   25.0% of schools that did not meet AYP have less than 90% of their
    classes taught by HQT; that is 15.09% higher than in schools that
    did meet AYP

Table 1.2(B): HQT in Secondary Schools Not Making AYP

+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
|           | D |         |         | Met AYP |         | Total |       |
|           | i |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | d |         |         | (208    |         | (430  |       |
|           | N |         |         | S       |         | Sch   |       |
|           | o |         |         | chools) |         | ools) |       |
|           | t |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | M |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | e |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | e |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | t |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | A |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | Y |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | P |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | ( |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | 2 |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | 2 |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | 2 |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | S |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | c |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | h |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | o |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | o |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | l |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | s |         |         |         |         |       |       |
|           | ) |         |         |         |         |       |       |
+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
|           | \ |         | \% of   | \#      | \% of   | \#    | \% of |
|           | # |         | did not |         | met AYP |       | all   |
|           |   |         | meet    |         |         |       | sc    |
|           |   |         | AYP     |         |         |       | hools |
+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
| 100% of   |   | 23      | 10.36%  | 29      | 9.62%   | 43    | 10.0% |
| classes   |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| are       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| taught by |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| HQT       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
| 90% or    |   | 103     | 57.27%  | 106     | 50.96%  | 232   | 5     |
| more of   |   |         |         |         |         |       | 3.95% |
| classes   |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| are       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| taught by |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| HQT       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+
| Less than |   | 96      | 43.24%  | 102     | 49.04%  | 198   | 4     |
| 90% of    |   |         |         |         |         |       | 6.05% |
| classes   |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| are       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| taught by |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
| HQT       |   |         |         |         |         |       |       |
+-----------+---+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+

-   51.63% (222 out of 430 secondary schools) did not make AYP

-   Schools that did not meet AYP have higher percentages of classes
    taught by HQT than schools that did meet AYP.

**Subgroups Within Schools Not Meeting AYP: (See Non-AYP Secondary
Subgroups in Appendix A)**

To fully address the impact of how non-highly qualified teachers affect
schools' abilities to meet AYP, we looked at which subgroups were not
meeting AYP and compared this information with the data regarding areas
of greatest non-HQT. It is apparent that Special Education, English
Language Learners, and Limited English Proficient are the subgroups
struggling the most. Since many of these students with special needs
require supplementary assistance in Reading, English, and Mathematics
--our areas of highest Non-HQT -- the need for addressing these areas is
highlighted again.

***Implications:***

In Oregon's elementary schools, a statistical correlation exists between
a higher percentage of classes taught by HQT and schools meeting AYP.
Since most of Oregon's elementary schools consist of self-contained
classes (classes in which students remain within the same classroom and
with the same teacher for all subjects taught except for Music, Reading,
etc.), the impact of one teacher on his/her class is great; therefore,
it is intuitive that HQT status could have a more concentrated effect on
elementary students.

In secondary schools, there does not appear to be a direct correlation
between the percentage of classes taught by HQT and a school's meeting
AYP, as evidenced by the large number of schools that met AYP, but had
less than 90% of their classes being taught by HQT. With the large
majority of secondary students receiving instruction daily and yearly
from multiple teachers, the impact of a single non-HQ teacher appears to
be diluted.

Table 1.3(A): Elementary vs. Secondary: HQT in Core Academic Classes

  -------------- --------------- --------------------- -------------------
  School Type    Total \# Core   \# Core Academic      \% Core Academic
                 Academic        Classes Taught by HQ  Classes Taught by
                 Classes         Teachers              HQ Teachers

  All Elementary 15,201          14,418                94.85%
  Schools                                              

  All Secondary  48,381          42,847                88.56%
  Schools                                              

  **All          **64,025**      **57,559**            **89.90%**
  Schools**                                            
  -------------- --------------- --------------------- -------------------

-   The percentage of elementary classes taught by HQT is 94.85%
    compared to only 88.56% of secondary classes.

-   With a 6.29% discrepancy between the school types, it is apparent
    that a focus on addressing secondary schools' lack of
    highly-qualified teachers and the miss-assignment of teachers is
    necessary.

Table 1.3(B): ELEMENTARY: NUMBER OF CLASSES IN HIGH / LOW POVERTY /
MINORITY SCHOOLS TAUGHT BY INEXPERIENCED TEACHERS, BY HQ DETERMINATION

+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***E         | **HIGH      | **LOW       | **HIGH      | **LOW       |
| LEMENTARY*** | POVERTY**   | POVERTY**   | MINORITY**  | MINORITY**  |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *Number of   |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers who |             |             |             |             |
| were:*       |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **HQ** for   | 913         | 750         | 1052        | 592         |
| those        |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Not HQ**   | 28          | 225         | 30          | 51          |
| for those    |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of    | 941         | 975         | 1082        | 643         |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| within       |             |             |             |             |
| poverty /    |             |             |             |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| quartile     |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers     |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent of   | 26.68%      | 24.19%      | 26.68%      | 19.49%      |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| within       | 941 / 3527  | 975 / 4030  | 1082 / 4055 | 643 / 3300  |
| poverty /    |             |             |             |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| quartile     |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers     |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent of   | 6.19%       | 6.41%       | 7.14%       | 4.24%       |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| statewide    | 941 / 15201 | 975 / 15201 | 1082 /      | 643 / 15150 |
| that were    |             |             | 15150       |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers in  |             |             |             |             |
| poverty /    |             |             |             |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| schools      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

-   There is a smaller percent of classes taught by inexperienced
    teachers in high-poverty elementary schools than low-poverty
    elementary schools.

-   2.9% more classes are taught by inexperienced teachers in
    high-minority elementary schools than in low-minority elementary
    schools.

TABLE 1.3(C): SECONDARY: NUMBER OF CLASSES IN HIGH / LOW POVERTY /
MINORITY SCHOOLS TAUGHT BY INEXPERIENCED TEACHERS, BY HQ DETERMINATION

+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***          | **HIGH      | **LOW       | **HIGH      | **LOW       |
| SECONDARY*** | POVERTY**   | POVERTY**   | MINORITY**  | MINORITY**  |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *Number of   |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers who |             |             |             |             |
| were:*       |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **HQ** for   | 2058        | 2987        | 3404        | 1627        |
| those        |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Not HQ**   | 422         | 384         | 561         | 260         |
| for those    |             |             |             |             |
| classes      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of    | 2480        | 3371        | 3965        | 1887        |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| within       |             |             |             |             |
| poverty /    |             |             |             |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| quartile     |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers     |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent of   | 28.65%      | 20.15%      | 28.37%      | 23.09%      |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| within       | 2480 / 8656 | 3371 /      | 3965 /      | 1887 / 8172 |
| poverty /    |             | 16732       | 13978       |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| quartile     |             |             |             |             |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers     |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent of   | 5.13%       | 6.97%       | 8.28%       | 3.94%       |
| all classes  |             |             |             |             |
| statewide    | 2480 /      | 3371 /      | 3965 /      | 1887 /      |
| that were    | 48381       | 48381       | 47878       | 47878       |
| taught by    |             |             |             |             |
| i            |             |             |             |             |
| nexperienced |             |             |             |             |
| teachers in  |             |             |             |             |
| poverty /    |             |             |             |             |
| minority     |             |             |             |             |
| schools      |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

-   There is a smaller percent of all classes taught by inexperienced
    teachers in high-poverty secondary schools than low-poverty
    secondary schools.

-   4.34% more classes are taught by inexperienced teachers in
    high-minority secondary schools than in low-minority secondary
    schools (28.37% vs. 23.09%).

-   Non-HQ, inexperienced teachers teach 17.02% (422/2480) of classes
    taught by inexperienced teachers in high-poverty secondary schools
    (vs. 11.39% (384/3371) in low-poverty secondary schools)

-   Non-HQ, inexperienced teachers teach 14.15% (561/3965 of classes
    taught my inexperienced teachers in high-minority secondary schools
    (vs. 13.78% (260/1887) in low-minority secondary schools)

***Implications:***

In addition to the core subjects illuminated by the data (Mathematics,
Science, English/Language Arts, and Reading), the data shows a larger
issue at the secondary level for non-HQ teachers than at the elementary
level. Also, at both the elementary and secondary levels there is a
higher percentage of inexperienced teachers in high-minority schools
than in low minority schools. At the secondary level in both
high-poverty and high-minority schools, inexperienced teachers are not
HQ more often for the classes they are teaching than in low-poverty and
low-minority, putting inexperienced teachers at a disadvantage early in
their careers. The conclusion can be made that there are issues at both
levels, but there is a more pressing issue at the secondary level in
hiring, keeping, and scheduling highly qualified teachers. Through the
implementation of Reading programs, teacher education programs in
Reading, Math and Science grants, and the \$5 million mentoring bill,
Oregon is devoting attention and funding to fixing the deficit of HQ
teachers and support of inexperienced teachers in these areas.

Oregon has 197 school districts and 1,265 schools. Analysis of HQT data
shows the following:

*Elementary Schools*

-   74.7% of the 787 elementary schools have 100% of their classes
    taught by HQT (588 schools)

-   90.1% of elementary schools have 90% or more of their classes taught
    by HQT (709 out of 787 schools)

-   9.9% of elementary schools have less than 90% of their classes
    taught by HQT (78 out of 787 schools)

    -   Of the 78 elementary schools with less than 90% of their classes
        taught by HQT

        -   18 are high poverty schools

        -   13 are high minority schools

> []{.mark}

*Secondary Schools*

-   10.0% of 430 secondary schools have 100% of their classes taught by
    HQT (43 schools)

-   54.0% of secondary schools have 90% or more of their classes taught
    by HQT (232 out of 430 schools)

-   46.0% of secondary schools have less than 90% of their classes
    taught by HQT (198 out of 430 schools)

    -   Of the 198 secondary schools with less than 90% of their classes
        taught by HQT

        -   24.7% are high poverty schools (49 schools)

        -   24.2% are high minority schools (48 schools)

Table 1.5(A): Overall: Core Subjects Taught by non-HQT

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                   2004-05               2005-06               2006-2007   

  Core Academic    Number of  Percent of Number of  Percent of Number of   Percent of
  Subject          Classes    Classes    Classes    Classes    Classes     Classes
                   Taught by  Taught by  Taught by  Taught by  Taught by   Taught by
                   Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ     Non-HQ      Non-HQ
                   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers   Teachers    Teachers

  All              6,288      9.7%       5,785      8.6%       6466        10.10%

  Self-Contained   359        2.8%       421        3.6%       260         2.10%

  English          1,767      13.7%      1,409      9.9%       1452        11.99%

  Reading                                                      309         27.96%

  Foreign          419        11.0%      357        9.1%       297         8.54%
  Languages                                                                

  The Arts         605        9.3%       600        8.9%       646         9.71%

  Science          1,004      10.8%      887        9.1%       1305        14.11%

  Math             1,244      11.8%      1,234      10.9%      1133        10.45%

  Social Sciences  883        9.4%       877        8.7%       1157        13.01%
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

Table 1.5(B): Elementary: Percentage of Classes Taught by Non-HQT

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ***ELEMENTARY      **HIGH       **LOW        **HIGH        **LOW
  SCHOOLS***         POVERTY**    POVERTY**    MINORITY**    MINORITY**
  ------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------
  Self-Contained     1.50%        1.43%        1.27%         1.23%

  English / LA       4.30%        33.03%       4.26%         12.70%

  Art                4.40%        11.16%       2.62%         10.68%

  Foreign Language   11.11%       55%          0%            16.67%

  Science            10%          40.72%       5.41%         11.11%

  Math               11.46%       40.20%       12.20%        7.87%

  Reading            17.97%       25.53%       19.08%        14.86%

  Economics          33.33%       50%          0%            0%

  Geography          16.67%       33.33%       0%            5%

  History            19.30%       37.50%       33.33%        9.46%

  Civics &           18.18%       42.86%       33.33%        0%
  Government                                                 

  **All Subjects**   3.20%        9.83%        2.44%         4.76%
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> \* Students in high-minority schools are taught 4.33% more often by
> non-HQ teachers in Math than in low-minority schools.
>
> \* Students in high-minority schools are taught 4,22% more often by
> non-HQ teachers in Reading than in low-minority schools.
>
> \* In every subject area, high-poverty students are being taught less
> often by non-HQ teachers than low-poverty students.

Table 1.5(C): Secondary: Percentage of Classes Taught by Non-HQT

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ***SECONDARY         **HIGH       **LOW        **HIGH       **LOW
  SCHOOLS***           POVERTY**    POVERTY**    MINORITY**   MINORITY**
  -------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  Self-Contained       1.96%        0%           4.48%        6.48%

  English / LA         11.56%       10.58%       10.91%       8.41%

  Art                  8.83%        8.26%        8.50%        11.69%

  Foreign Language     9.85%        5.94%        6.96%        12.37%

  Science              14.44%       13.17%       11.64%       16.30%

  Math                 12.84%       7.79%        9.23%        9.11%

  Reading              24.18%       38.56%       28.7%        30.0%

  Economics            2.53%        10.39%       3.21%        15.52%

  Geography            13.60%       11.84%       10.11%       3.75%

  History              16.9%        12.97%       17.33%       5.59%

  Civics & Government  16.84%       5.77%        13.55%       4.04%

  **All Subjects**     12.51%       10.23%       10.96%       10.46%
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-   English, Science, and Math percentages all show a discrepancy
    between the high and low quartiles for poverty and minority.

-   5.05% more Math classes are taught by non-HQ teachers in high
    poverty schools than low poverty schools

-   While Economics, Geography, History, and Civics & Government appear
    to present large discrepancies and high percentages, please refer to
    the implications discussed in 1.1.

-   While students in high poverty/minority are being taught by non-HQ
    teacher less often than low poverty/minority, the percentage of
    non-HQT classes is too high and therefore an area of concern.

> []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

***Implications:***

Impoverished students at the elementary level are being taught at a
higher rate by HQ teachers than those in low-poverty schools; however,
more discrepancies can be seen in the secondary data. Consistently,
Mathematics, English, Science, and Reading classes are taught more often
by non-HQT. These core subjects have been designated as problem areas
and the Oregon Department of Education is addressing this need with a
variety of programs to assist teachers in the acquisition of knowledge
and endorsements to increase the number of classes taught by HQT in
these areas.

**[REQUIREMENT 2:]{.underline}**

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

Oregon used the following procedure to identify LEAs that have not met
the annual measurable objectives for HQT: (See Appendix A)

-   Districts who did not meet the 90% AMO for the 2004-05 school year
    were identified and required to participate in the October 2006
    Video conference regarding writing LEA and Teacher HQT plans.

-   District HQT data for the 2005-06 school year was analyzed and any
    district not reaching the 95% AMO was also required to participate
    in the October 2006 video conference regarding writing LEA and
    Teacher HQT plans.

-   All districts are required to complete both LEA and Teacher HQT
    plans.

-   All districts were expected to be 100% HQT by the end of the 2006-07
    school year.

Each year, in December, the Oregon Department of Education publishes a
report card for every school and district in Oregon. Oregon Department
of Education publishes the status of each district and individual
schools on its website at
[www.ode.state.or.us](http://www.ode.state.or.us/) the HQT data is part
of the district and school report cards.

These report cards provide information on:

-   Student Performance

-   Testing Participation

-   Attendance & Graduation

-   Staffing : Experience and level of education

-   District Expenditures

-   Percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

In the 2004-05 school year, Oregon had only 179 of 198 districts with at
least 90% of their elementary self-contained classes taught be highly
qualified teachers. Oregon also had 130 districts with at least 90% of
their secondary classes taught by teachers who were highly qualified.

In the 2005-06 school year, Oregon had 78 of 198 districts with at least
95% of their schools taught by teachers who were highly qualified.

In the 2006-07 school year, Oregon had 20 districts of 197 with 100% of
their schools taught by teachers who were highly qualified.

ODE has embedded the LEAs' focus on having all teachers be highly
qualified into other required plans and processes for all districts.
This allows HQ to be connected to district-level planning and state and
federal funding.

***[Application for Federal Funding]{.underline}***

ODE has made some major revisions to the application districts must
submit to receive their federal funding. The new electronic submission
format includes a direct tie to teacher HQT data and the Title II-A
funding page. Districts will have data on all teachers who were
determined to not be HQ for the course(s) for which they are teaching.
Particular attention will be focused on how districts not meeting HQT
AMOs are using their Title IIA funding to increase the number of HQT
staff in the specific areas of need within the district. Technical
assistance priority will be given to these districts as the plans are
implemented to help ensure they result in the desired increases of HQT.

***[Continuous Improvement Planning (CIP) Process]{.underline}***

The Oregon Department of Education fully implemented the Oregon CIP
process for school district reporting in fall of 2005. School districts
are required biannually to use their CIP to report on their progress
toward the goal of employing 100% highly qualified teachers. If the
state finds districts that have a disproportionately high number or
percentage of classes taught by teachers not meeting the state and/or
NCLB highly qualified provisions, ODE will require districts to develop
specific, detailed plans, using a variety of suggested state strategies,
to indicate how they will reach this goal. These plans are submitted and
approved by the ODE.

-   Their plans must include information on each of the following
    criteria:

> **Beginning with the fall of 2007, all students will be taught by
> highly qualified teachers in core content areas. Districts will also
> have a plan to maintain the goal of 100% of core content classes being
> taught by highly qualified teachers.**
>
> As evidenced by:

-   *A description of how teachers are being supported to meet the NCLB
    highly qualified teacher requirements.*

-   *Summary of schools and subjects where classes are not being taught
    by highly qualified teachers and the districts specific actions to
    address these issues.*

-   *District actions to ensure hiring only highly qualified teachers.*

-   *A description of the actions taken to ensure that poor and minority
    students and those in schools identified for improvement are not
    taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field teachers at
    higher rates than other students.*

-   *District actions to retain highly qualified teachers.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Standard 2 in the Standards for District Success specifically
    addresses the requirements for highly qualified teachers, mentoring
    and professional development

-   Districts are able to update their data as they make progress toward
    their CIP goals.

    -   Information on CIP is posted at:
        <http://www.ode.state.or.us/schoolimprovement/cdip/07-09revisedcipuide.doc>

**The CIP plans were due to ODE on November 21, 2007 for our review**.
Implementation of these plans is reviewed during the compliance
monitoring visits.

***[Technical Assistance]{.underline}***

In reviewing the district plans that were submitted ODE determined there
was a need for specific training to address Special Education and
Charter School requirements. Follow-up technical assistance was provided
to charter schools in conferences in both February and May of 2007. ODE
and TSPC provided training on specific HQT issues in charter schools.
One of the trainings was specifically designed for new charter schools
that will be opening in the 2007-08 school year.

To assist with HQT issues in Special Education the Office of Student
Learning and Partnerships collaborated with the Office of Educational
Improvement and Innovation to develop an IDEA Q & A document that
includes a section on Highly Qualified Staff requirements.

***[Compliance Monitoring]{.underline}***

The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has completed extensive
monitoring for the 2006-07 school year. One-third of the LEAs in the
state were monitored during the last school year. The monitoring
included an onsite review of 31 LEAs and desk audits of 33 LEAs. Each of
these LEAs was monitored for implementation of the district HQT plan as
well as individual teacher plans for each core academic class being
taught by a non-HQT. Sixteen LEAs, or 25% were found to be out of
compliance regarding HQT issues during last year's monitoring. Each of
those LEAs has been required to submit corrective action to show how
they will come into compliance. ODE is monitoring an additional
one-third of the LEAs during the 2007-08 school year. All LEAs within
the state of Oregon will be monitored by the end of the 2008-09 school
year. The complete 6 year cycle for NCLB monitoring being implemented in
Oregon is found at the following link
<http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/nclb/distmongrpa-f.xls> .

In the spring of 2006, ODE provided regional trainings to 146 out of 197
districts throughout the state. These trainings emphasized the need, as
well as the requirements, for plans for all teachers of core content who
are not highly qualified. Of the 75 districts identified as not meeting
HQT AMO in either the elementary or secondary level in 2004-2005, 65
districts attended these trainings.

In addition to providing districts with information regarding non-HQTs
through the district and school report cards, ODE is providing specific
tools for districts to use in monitoring and managing their on-going
efforts to achieve the 100% goal. We have developed a District HQT Plan
template which districts may use to track and monitor individual staff
member's progress in becoming highly qualified. This template includes a
needs-assessment designed to help ODE determine what assistance
districts feel they need, specific actions and timeline the district
will follow to monitor progress and how they will utilize funding
sources to achieve the 100% goal. Guidance that includes criteria for
the plans is also included. The template is included in this report as
*Appendix B.*

In October of 2006, ODE conducted video conferences for the purpose of
assisting the districts with their HQT plans. All districts in the state
have access to videoconferencing technology either through a local high
school or a regional Education Service District (ESD). All districts
identified as not meeting HQT AMO will be required to participate in
this conference.

District plans for all non-HQT staff were submitted to ODE on November
2067; plans were reviewed and are the foundation for the technical
assistance ODE provides to districts.

Districts are also required to have individual teacher plans for any
teacher who is not highly qualified. The template is included in this
report as *Appendix C.*

**[REQUIREMENT 3:]{.underline}**

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 goals.

ODE has developed a comprehensive plan to assist districts in carrying
out their HQT plans.

1.  **Determine highest need for assistance**

    a.  ODE uses current HQT data to determine which districts has
        highest percent of non-HQT.

    b.  Districts identified as not meeting AYP are given priority.

    c.  Targeted districts are using their Title IIA funding to increase
        the number of HQT staff in the specific areas of need within the
        district.

    d.  ODE requires districts to develop specific detailed plans, using
        a variety of strategies, suggested by the state, to indicate how
        they will reach their goal.

2.  **Assistance with the creation of HQT Plans (within the District's
    CIP)**

    a.  One-on-one technical assistance is provided via telephone prior
        to required submission. This allows districts to receive
        feedback on their specific plan.

    b.  In January 2008 ODE staff will review HQT plans and in February,
        ODE staff will provide feedback to districts.

3.  **Updating plans based on current data.** Since the data collection
    on HQT is completed annually, progress on HQT plan implementation
    will be monitored through out the academic year.

    a.  ODE is currently working with districts to ensure consistency in
        reporting.

    b.  ODE is addressing the challenges of consistency between
        individuals that influence data: teachers, district personnel,
        and school/district-level IT personnel.

4.  **NCLB Monitoring**

    a.  All districts have received planning template that is reviewed
        during both onsite and desk audit reviews.

    b.  Twenty-six of the districts who did not meet the AMO for HQT in
        2004-05 received a NCLB Consolidated monitoring visit during the
        2006-07 school year, in which the team was able to provide
        individualized technical assistance on location.

5.  **Support from other agencies**

    a.  School Support Teams, which are part of the statewide support
        for schools in improvement status, have been trained to provide
        onsite technical assistance with developing plans within the
        schools that they support.

    b.  Teachers Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) provides
        technical assistance through regional workshops, direct consults
        with districts, web-based inquiries, professional conferences
        and joint presentations with ODE.

    c.  Oregon Education Association in partnership with ODE is
        continuing to provide training and updates regarding HQT issues.

**The following technical assistance has been provided as districts
completed their plans:**

-   ODE provided technical assistance through a video conference
    training at 16 sites throughout the state. There were a total of 200
    participants at the trainings.

-   ODE partnered with the 20 Educational Service Districts located
    regionally throughout the state to facilitate discussions and
    provide additional technical assistance as districts completed their
    plans.

-   ODE continues to provide technical assistance by phone and e-mail to
    districts as they complete their HQT plans.

District HQT Plans were reviewed during December 2006. Follow-up
technical assistance was provided to districts whose plans need further
revisions. All Federal program applications are being reviewed during
November and December 2007 to ensure that districts had directed
sufficient funds to meet the 100% HQT goal.

Through the analysis of the HQT data collection, ODE identified a
significant number of middle and high schools that are not meeting AYP.
The Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction, Susan Castillo, has
identified these schools as the focus of her priorities. As a result
specific and targeted technical assistance is being provided to these
school districts. The SEA is working with its partners (e.g. school
districts, Educational Service Districts, the Northwest Regional
Education Lab, institutions of higher learning and various business and
community members) to respond to the need for additional resources and
supports in helping currently non-HQ teachers complete the necessary
requirements to become HQ. A wide variety of activities and
opportunities are available to districts but help is needed to
coordinate the efforts with the staffing needs.

-   **FIPSE Grant for Math and Science (Targeted to districts with
    schools that did not make AYP)**

> Oregon highly qualified teacher data has shown a shortage in the
> number of teachers with math and/or science endorsements. 'Teaching
> Research', a department at Western Oregon University, is continually
> looking for ways to improve the teaching force in Oregon. They were
> awarded a grant to support the development of an online program for
> both math and science similar to the READ Oregon design. This will
> allow teachers from all over the state the opportunity to take courses
> towards endorsements in math and/or science. Low performing districts
> are given priority for this grant.

-   **Rural Math Learning Community**

> Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center created a professional
> learning community for the SEAs in their region (Idaho, Montana,
> Oregon, Washington and Wyoming) in Fall 2007. The purpose of the PLC
> is to build capacity of the SEAs to provide support to rural schools
> and districts not making AYP in mathematics. A variety of issues
> confront rural schools, including recruitment and retention of
> qualified teachers, administrator turnover, student achievement and
> dropout, access to advance placement courses and effective
> professional development. The PLC will be exploring effective models
> for addressing mathematics needs in rural schools, effective
> mathematics instruction, retention and recruitment of qualified
> teachers and other issues.

-   **Title IIA Partnership grants**

> During the 2006-07 school year, grants were awarded to districts for
> mentoring and peer coaching to increase teacher effectiveness in
> Oregon. Priority will be given to districts who did not meet the HQT
> AMO. In the Eugene school district, which received a mentoring grant,
> all of the trained mentor teachers have requested to continue as
> mentors and 54 of the 55 new teachers who went through the induction
> program are continuing to teach in Eugene for the 2006-07 school year.
> Research indicates that mentoring and induction programs offer
> professional development needed to provide support for new teachers.
> In 1998, the American Federation of Teachers found "evidence that
> mentoring programs can affect teaching in a positive manner."
> Charlotte Danielson's review of research concluded that
> "well-conceived induction programs have been found to make a
> difference in all measures of success: attrition rates drop
> dramatically, and the teachers' skills and confidence in their work
> are significantly improved" (Mentoring Beginning Teachers", *Teaching
> and Change,* 6(3) 1999).

-   **Reallocation of Title II-A Funds.** ODE has recently released a
    grant application for districts to be able to apply for reallocated
    Title II-A funding that was never requested. The grant narrows the
    focus of activities for which the funds may be utilized to areas
    identified in the State Equity Plan. Grant recipients will be chosen
    based on their distinction as high need. High need categories
    include percent of children in poverty, percent of non HQ teachers,
    percent of students in ESL programs, as well as percent of teachers
    on waivers.

-   **School Support Teams**, which are part of the statewide support
    for schools in improvement status (schools that did not make AYP),
    are also being trained to provide onsite technical assistance in
    implementing teacher quality plans within the schools that they
    support. During the training, in October, support team members
    reviewed information regarding the AMO status of the schools they
    are supporting. They are also being given training in strategies
    schools may use to increase their number of HQT. As an example they
    provide onsite and ongoing guidance for schools in implementing
    improvement strategies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Innovative Teacher Preparation Programs -** The following are
    programs offered in Oregon to help build a qualified field of
    prospective teachers for high-poverty, low-performing schools. ODE
    provides supplemental funding for the Bilingual Teacher Pathway
    program. The Bilingual Teacher Pathway and the Indian Education
    Professional Development Grants are designed to specifically address
    the needs of our minority students by training teachers who are
    bicultural and/or bilingual and are currently working in these
    schools.

    -   **Bilingual Teacher Pathway -** The Bilingual Teacher Pathway
        (BTP) is a teacher preparation program designed to fill critical
        shortages of bilingual/bicultural teachers in the Portland and
        Southwest Washington regions. Working with district partners,
        the program recruits and prepares bilingual/bicultural
        instructional assistants for initial teacher licensure along
        with an ESL/Bilingual Endorsement. Students seek to integrate
        their cultural wisdom with an academic knowledge base to enhance
        their skills and services in the instruction of *all* students
        but particularly those with diverse cultural, linguistic and
        socioeconomic backgrounds. Through a strong foundation in the
        social and cultural bases of learning, students learn to apply
        their unique perspectives for student, family, community and
        cultural advocacy and effective service delivery.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Purposes of the Program**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Recruit 25 bilingual/bicultural paraprofessionals per year into
    BTP\'s teacher licensure program

-   Support and retain BTP students through to initial teacher licensure
    with an ESL/Bilingual Endorsement through individualized advising,
    assessment, student services, financial support, mentors and
    community building

-   Coordinate a seamless program of course work and field experiences
    for bilingual/bicultural paraprofessionals in the Portland Metro and
    Southwest Washington regions among community colleges, Portland
    State University and local school districts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provide a research-based program of coursework to prepare
    bilingual/bicultural pre-service teachers to effectively teach all
    students, especially those with limited English proficiency

-   Provide specialized field-work for BTP students

-   The BTP has currently trained 120 bilingual/bicultural teachers who
    are now working in high needs schools. The success of this program
    is due to the development of homegrown bilingual teachers who
    already have a proven record of success in our schools as
    paraprofessionals.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Indian Education Professional Development Grants -** The
    University of Oregon in consortium with the 9 federally recognized
    tribes in Oregon has trained 30 new Native American teachers over
    the past three years. This project, named Building Community: A
    Model for American Indian Teacher Development, is a comprehensive
    project providing recruitment, support, pre-service training, and
    induction mentorship of American Indian teachers serving Native
    communities. The participants will graduate in two years with a
    master\'s degree in education and full state teacher certification.
    Endorsements are earned in elementary, middle, secondary or special
    education.

The State of Oregon is diligently working to provide assistance,
statewide, to the content areas with the highest numbers of non-HQT.
Through state adopted programs, curricula, training, bills, and grants,
Oregon is moving closer to attaining 100% HQT.

-   ***Oregon Virtual School Districts***

> The 73rd Oregon Legislative session passed a ground-breaking measure
> for the Oregon education community. Senate Bill 1071 provides for the
> implementation of the Oregon Virtual School District (OVSD). The bill
> authorizes the Oregon Department of Education, with education and
> community partners, to set quality standards and to provide planning
> and oversight for the development and delivery of virtual content,
> teacher training, and collaborations that will constitute the OVSD.
>
> The OVSD is a consortium of Oregon-based virtual learning programs
> available to Oregon students who might otherwise not have access to
> instruction from a HQT, particularly in rural schools throughout the
> state, through one common portal. Offerings may be programs or
> individual classes. They may be developed by ESDs, school districts,
> or individual schools. The classes are offered in a variety of
> modalities like web-based instruction, online learning, interactive
> videoconferencing, or cable and digital networking. Each K-12 class or
> program aligns with the virtual school standards established by the
> State Board of Education and meets Oregon content standards. Teachers
> and course developers are highly qualified and trained in virtual
> delivery strategies. To access courses via the OVSD, Oregon students
> access OVSD courses through high speed Internet connection.

-   **Rural Math Learning Community**

> Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center created a professional
> learning community for the SEAs in their region (Idaho, Montana,
> Oregon, Washington and Wyoming) in Fall 2007. The purpose of the PLC
> is to build capacity of the SEAs to provide support to rural schools
> and districts not making AYP in Mathematics. A variety of issues
> confront rural schools, including recruitment and retention of
> qualified teachers, administrator turnover, student achievement and
> dropout, access to advance placement courses and effective
> professional development. The PLC will be exploring effective models
> for addressing mathematics needs in rural schools, effective
> mathematics instruction, retention and recruitment of qualified
> teachers and other issues.

**[Reading Programs:]{.underline}**

Over the past year the committee has been pleased to see the progress
that Reading First has produced in grades K-3 in Oregon, and their
emphasis now is on bridging the gap to grades 4-12.

A framework and priorities for the plan have been developed, and a
timeline agreed that allows for full implementation. One possibility
that the LLSSC is considering involves recommending statewide
professional development in the Kansas "Strategic Instruction Model".
Oregon's largest school district, Portland Public, received a Striving
Readers grant and is using this model district-wide. The LLSSC is
monitoring the results of this work to see whether it would be
beneficial to provide professional development statewide.

-   **Oregon's Reading Leadership Team**

> Oregon's Reading Leadership Team called the Literacy Leadership State
> Steering Committee (LLSSC) coordinates Oregon\'s efforts to improve
> literacy pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Michael Kamil, nationally
> renowned reading researcher from Stanford University, has been working
> with the LLSSC to develop a statewide literacy plan.
>
> Over the past year the committee has been pleased to see the progress
> that Reading First has produced in grades K-3 in Oregon, and their
> emphasis now is on bridging the gap to grades 4-12.
>
> A framework and priorities for the plan have been developed, and a
> timeline agreed that allows for full implementation. One possibility
> that the LLSSC is considering involves recommending statewide
> professional development in the Kansas "Strategic Instruction Model".
> Oregon's largest school district, Portland Public, received a Striving
> Readers grant and is using this model district-wide. The LLSSC is
> monitoring the results of this work to see whether it would be
> beneficial to provide professional development statewide.

-   **READ Oregon** is a consortium of five Oregon institutes of higher
    education with the support of ODE that offers three programs to
    allow teachers to receive their reading endorsements. READ Oregon
    provides courses through distance education to allow enrollees to
    take courses "meeting their professional development needs from any
    of the participating universities in an effort to better qualify
    teachers in the area of reading and literacy." Tuition assistance is
    provided for teachers from schools that did not make AYP, with a
    focus on teachers in grades 4-12.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Oregon K-3 Statewide Literacy Outreach (HQT Professional
    Development)**

> **At the elementary level our data shows that 15.45% of Reading
> teachers are not highly qualified.**
>
> The Oregon K-3 Statewide Literacy Outreach will include the following
> regional trainings for educators to help reading teachers gain the
> knowledge and expertise to meet the requirements for being considered
> highly qualified.
>
> **Reading Instruction for English Language Learners (HQT Professional
> Development)**
>
> This two-day training for K-3 educators is on instructional delivery
> issues for teaching reading to English language learners. The five
> components of reading instruction are explored with specific classroom
> strategies for understanding the relationships between the language
> and literacy development of English language learners.
>
> **Kindergarten Reading Academies (HQT Professional Development)**
>
> This two-day training for kindergarten educators increases teachers'
> knowledge of effective instructional practices that promote early
> reading success. "Teacher Reading Academies" research-based teaching
> methods and materials will be presented along with practical tips for
> implementation.
>
> **Getting More Out of Your Core Reading Program (HQT Professional
> Development)**
>
> This two-day training for K-3 educators enhances the daily delivery of
> the school's research-based core reading program. Specific suggestions
> will include providing extra practice directly related to the daily
> reading skills being taught, and engaging students continuously.

**[Inexperienced Teacher Mentoring]{.underline}**

-   **OTRM -- Oregon Teacher Recruitment & Mentoring, a
    Transition-to-Teaching Project (HQT Professional Development)**

> Responding to the need for highly qualified staff five Oregon public
> universities are partnering to prepare "second-career" and recent
> college graduates who did [not]{.underline} major in education to
> become K-12 classroom teachers. The focus is on preparing teachers in
> shortage areas (e.g., math, science, English as a second language,
> special education) and on preparing and mentoring them for teaching in
> hard-to-staff, high-need schools.
>
> Here are some notable successes by mid-point in Year 4 of this 5-year
> project:

-   195 scholarships of \$5,000 each (\$975,000 total) have been awarded
    to individuals who competed to enter teacher preparation programs at
    the five universities, primarily in the targeted teacher shortage
    areas. Scholarship recipients pledge to teach for three years in a
    high-need school in a designated high-need LEA. If they are unable
    to secure such a teaching position, the scholarship becomes a
    no-interest loan which is repaid to the university into a fund to
    award further scholarships with the same guidelines.

-   115 of the scholarship recipients are now fully licensed, mostly in
    teacher shortage areas. An additional 57 teachers are expected to be
    fully licensed by fall 2006. The remaining 23 are still pre-service
    teachers.

-   19 of the fully licensed teachers are currently employed by
    high-need schools in high-need LEAs. This number is lower than we
    hoped due to three conditions:

    1.  Oregon does not permit unlicensed individuals to be teachers of
        record (unlike in many other states' Transition-to-Teaching
        projects);

    2.  Federal requirements for school eligibility require 20%+
        school-aged children living in poverty according to US Census
        data in the LEA, plus a minimum percentage of teachers at the
        school classified as non-highly qualified. Oregon also considers
        a minimum percent of children qualifying for free or reduced
        price lunches as a school qualifier.

    3.  Although there are numerous pockets of poverty in many Oregon
        school districts, there are only 166 schools that currently
        qualify as high-need schools in high-need LEAs on the basis of
        poverty and many of these have not been hiring. Approximately
        half of the qualifying schools are in the Portland Public School
        district, which has been closing and consolidating schools. Most
        of the remaining qualifying schools are small schools in remote,
        rural areas. These factors continue to challenges for OTRM
        scholarship recipients to be hired in the qualifying schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Oregon Quality Assurance in Teaching II -** This statewide project
    provides scholarships and stipends to teachers to work in high-need
    schools (ie. Non AYP and schools at risk for non AYP). Nine public
    and independent universities work as subcontractors to award
    scholarships, develop partnerships with high-need schools, and
    evaluate the impact of their projects. Individual institutions
    partner with specific high-need districts or with arts and sciences
    faculty to prepare teachers in high-need areas and to offer
    innovative program delivery for ensuring existing teachers meet the
    HQ qualifications.

-   **Key Teacher Education Innovations:**

    -   Partnerships with high-need districts (a) provide preparation
        for teachers on emergency and temporary licenses, (b) develop
        programs and shared resource supports for minority teachers
        preparing to work with second-language learners, and (c) create
        new program delivery strategies to better accommodate working
        teachers' schedules.

    -   Changes in teacher education programs are improving preparation
        of minority and non-minority teachers for high-need schools. New
        distance education options are available through web-based
        courses and rural district consortia.

    -   Potential teachers are being identified for high-need content
        and specialty areas (e.g., special education, ESOL and
        ESOL/bilingual, math, and science) through focused recruiting
        and partnerships with arts and sciences faculty.

-   **Evaluation of Impact:**

    -   502 current or preparing teachers to date have received support
        through 700 scholarships and live and/or work in 29 of Oregon's
        36 counties. Of the recipients, over 10% reported being a member
        of a minority group. 78% of scholarship and stipend recipients
        are currently working in high-need schools.

    -   A further observational study completed on 22 completers working
        in high-need schools found that they were highly rated by master
        teacher observers, by their principals, and by a self-assessment
        on nine different teaching standards. These observational
        ratings were also compared with a previous group of 131
        early-career teachers and were found to have statistically
        significant higher ratings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Mentoring Programs**

> The three regional public universities (Eastern Oregon University,
> Southern Oregon University, and Western Oregon University) have
> instituted mentor training programs and are offering summer mentor
> training institutes.

-   **Prioritized Funding**

> Prioritized use of district funds through review of application for
> federal funds.

-   ODE specialists reviewing CIP Budget Narratives are checking that
    districts who have not met the HQT AMO have targeted Title II-A
    funds for schools that have the lowest percentage of HQT, have the
    largest class size, or identified for school improvement

-   During NCLB Monitoring visits expenditure reports are reviewed to
    verify the targeting of Title II-A funds

-   If LEA fails to make the AMO for 2 consecutive years

    -   **Targeting Funding**

> ODE is target federal funding to schools in the state that meet at
> least one of the following criteria:

-   lowest percentage of HQT

-   largest class size

-   non-AYP schools identified for school improvement (did not make AYP
    for 2 consecutive years)

    -   **Educational Service District**

> There are 20 Educational Service Districts (ESDs) serving 36 counties
> in Oregon. ESDs assist districts by providing educational services and
> technical assistance through a regional support system. Services
> provided by ESDs include school improvement, professional development
> and curriculum and staff development. ODE is working in partnership
> with these ESDs to provide additional technical assistance to schools
> in improvement status. The partnership has hired regional coordinators
> to collaborate with the School Support Teams and broker other
> resources to further assist the districts in implementing school
> improvement efforts and implementing their HQ plans.

Secondary English and mathematics were identified in Requirement 1 as
the two core content areas with the highest percentage of classes taught
by non-HQT. ODE is involved with several programs that directly improve
teacher knowledge in these two content areas.

-   **Math/Science Partnership** is intended to increase the academic
    achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the
    content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. In
    order to qualify to receive a grant in Oregon, partnerships have to
    be formed between mathematics, engineering or science faculty from
    schools of higher education and high-needs districts (defined as
    districts that did not meet AYP). In the RFP put out by ODE
    partnerships were directed to explain how they would determine
    success in increasing the number of teachers who attain high quality
    status.

> The first grants were awarded in the summer of 2004. Consequently,
> many partnerships are only in their first or second year and are in
> the process of compiling their data so that they can report progress
> in these areas. These reports are expected by the end of the year.
>
> The new RFP for Math/Science Partnerships was released in February
> 2007. ODE used the analysis of the 2005-06 HQT data to determine the
> highest needs in math and science in the state when writing the RFP.
> One focus was on the statewide need for more highly qualified Middle
> and High School math and science teachers.

-   **FIPSE Grant for Math and Science (Targeted to districts with
    schools that did not make AYP)**

> Oregon highly qualified teacher data has shown a shortage in the
> number of teachers with math and/or science endorsements. 'Teaching
> Research', a department at Western Oregon University, is continually
> looking for ways to improve the teaching force in Oregon. They
> received a grant to support the development of an online program for
> both math and science similar to the READ Oregon design. This will
> allow teachers from all over the state the opportunity to take courses
> towards endorsements in math and/or science. Low performing districts
> are given priority for this grant. This program will be called Prism
> (Preparation for Instruction in Science and Math). The goal of this
> program is to integrate Math and Science instruction in elementary
> schools, through labs and field work.

-   **READ Oregon** is a consortium of five Oregon institutes of higher
    education with the support of ODE that offers three programs to
    allow teachers to receive their reading endorsements. READ Oregon
    provides courses through distance education to allow enrollees to
    take courses "meeting their professional development needs from any
    of the participating universities in an effort to better qualify
    teachers in the area of reading and literacy." Tuition assistance is
    provided for teachers from schools that did not make AYP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **No Child Left Behind Oregon University /School Partnerships
    Grant** is funded by Title II-A SAHE funds. The SAHE administrators
    worked in conjunction with ODE to identify priorities and criteria
    for funding the competitive applications. An important requirement
    of the grant is the focus on high-need LEAs. The grant priorities
    for funding were to upgrade content, pedagogical knowledge and
    skills, and/or leadership skills of current K-12 teachers,
    particularly to improve their competency I the core academic
    subjects of English/Language Arts, Mathematics and Science.

ODE's office of Educational Improvement and Innovations (EII) is
developing a data team to analyze the data obtained from districts to
inform our work. The teacher and AYP data will be used as a template for
this type of analysis. The use of both federal and state funding will be
prioritized based on the review of the data.

The state of Oregon funds multiple programs for teachers to increase
their expertise and acquire endorsements to reach HQT status in classes
they teach. These programs are centered on Reading, Literacy, Math,
Science, and mentoring -- all areas of need as supported by the data
collected in 2006-07 (See section 1.2 for data). Refer to section 3.4
for the list programs.

ODE has developed a comprehensive plan to assist districts in carrying
out their HQT plans. To determine highest need, ODE uses current HQT
data to determine which districts has highest percent of non-HQT.
Districts identified as not meeting AYP are given priority. Targeted
districts are using their Title IIA funding to increase the number of
HQT staff in the specific areas of need within the district. ODE
requires districts to develop specific detailed plans, using a variety
of strategies, suggested by the state, to indicate how they will reach
their goal. (Refer to section 3.1)

**[REQUIREMENT 4:]{.underline}**

(Refer to Appendix D for the HQT data comparison over 3 years)

-   The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has completed extensive
    preparation for the implementation of a six year monitoring cycle
    for our 197 Local Education Authorities (LEAs). LEAs will be
    monitored during the cycle every three years. An onsite monitoring
    visit and a desk self-audit comprise the two components of the
    monitoring cycle. In addition to verifying that all grantees are
    meeting the federal requirements under NCLB, the ODE will also be
    providing technical assistance for LEAs needing additional support.

The SEA will hold LEAs accountable for fulfilling their plans by:

-   Reviewing the annually submitted CIP Budget Narrative Spending
    Workbook for compliance with the 100% HQT requirement using a
    scoring guide

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Plan will include a progress report indicating how the district will
    maintain the 100% requirement

-   Implementation of a new data reporting system that will collect data
    for each teacher at the class level which will allow for more in
    depth analysis of state, district and school needs

-   District HQT plans that were submitted in November are being
    reviewed during December. Technical assistance will be provided to
    districts whose plans need revisions to ensure successful
    implementation of the plans and will lead to increased numbers of
    HQT.

-   Data submitted in March 2007 was analyzed to determine whether LEAs
    had made the progress they stated in HQT plans.

-   NCLB compliance monitoring, both onsite and desk audits, during the
    2007-08 school year for one-third of the districts throughout the
    state.

District plans are reviewed during both onsite and desk audit monitoring
to ensure they are implementing the strategies listed for equitable
distribution of teachers. Teacher assignment and licensure information
is also reviewed to ensure that accurate data has been reported to ODE.

-   School Support Teams, which are part of the statewide support for
    schools in improvement status (schools that did not make AYP), will
    also be trained to provide onsite technical assistance in developing
    plans within the schools that they support. During the training, in
    October, support team members received information regarding the HQT
    status of the schools they are supporting. They will also be given
    training in strategies schools may use to increase their number of
    HQT.

-   Statewide Regional trainings were provided in the spring regarding
    the CIP submission in September of 2007. Special invitations,
    coordination with district staff -- etc. will be directed to
    districts who have not met the AMO and have not met AYP.

-   Technical assistance during onsite and desk audit monitoring

-   In September of 2007, Oregon utilized a new electronic submission of
    the CIP Budget Narrative Spending Workbook for districts to apply
    for federal funds. Data collected regarding HQT issues in the
    district will be downloaded into the application. Districts will
    then have to include a detailed narrative as to how they will be
    addressing teacher HQT and equity issues and the funding necessary
    to implement their strategies, as well as maintaining a highly
    qualified staff.

    -   **In the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and
        school.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **In the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and
    school;**

> **New data system:**
>
> In December of 2006, Oregon began developing a new data system to
> accurately determine the inequities in teacher distribution. The
> Oregon Department of Education in collaboration with Teacher Standards
> and Practices Commission (TSPC), has embarked on developing a new
> Teacher Data collection system. We anticipate the new system will be
> activated for the 2006-07 school year to determine where inequities
> exist in distribution across the districts and across the state. The
> current system for HQT data collection is being revised for the 06-07
> school year. The new system consolidates multiple teacher related
> collections, standardizes data elements and definitions and provides
> HQT data at the teacher level for the first time.
>
> As of March 2007, the new data system will be able to electronically
> match teacher credentials to teacher work assignments, and be able to
> determine if the teacher is HQ, including those determined to be HQ
> through the use of HOUSSE. Districts will be required to write a
> detailed plan for each teacher who is assigned to teach a course for
> which they are not highly qualified. This plan will demonstrate how
> the district will assist the teacher in becoming highly qualified. The
> current data collection system does not allow ODE to collect data at
> the teacher level.
>
> NCES course codes exist for secondary schools but not for elementary
> and middle schools. TSPC and ODE are developing 4 digit course codes
> for elementary and middle schools to allow the collection to use the
> same file format and data at all levels collected in a single
> collection. Standard course codes allow cross data collection
> comparisons. The "Staff Assignment" (Highly Qualified Teacher)
> collection will use the same course codes as the "Class Size"
> collection and allow the association of class size data to teaching
> staff at the course level. A separate record will be needed for each
> unique school, classroom, class period and course number combination.
>
> The new data system will also connect teaching experience, ethnicity,
> class size, and student gender to each course being taught. This will
> allow ODE to more accurately determine where inequities exist with
> both non-HQT and inexperienced teachers in low vs. high poverty
> schools. This data will then be disseminated to districts, as well as
> utilized by ODE to direct the use of SEA activity funds for Title IIA.

-   **In the percentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality
    professional development to enable such teachers to become highly
    qualified and successful classroom teachers?**

> During the review of the consolidated application related to Title
> II-A, ODE staff ensured the plans included the required descriptions
> of how the professional development activities are based on SBR and
> how they will increase student achievement. For the 2007 CIP
> submission the new performance standard for HQT will be:

-   Beginning with the fall of 2007, all students will be taught by
    highly qualified teachers in core content areas and have a plan to
    maintain the 100% goal as evidenced by:

    a.  Data submitted by districts to ODE in NCLB Staff Survey due
        April 2007.

    b.  Written plans submitted for all teachers who are not highly
        qualified on the NCLB Staff Survey submitted in April 2007.

    c.  Written plan submitted by LEAs to correct inequities in the
        distribution of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty and/or
        high-minority schools vs. low-poverty and/or low minority
        schools. Using targeted Title IIA funds.

    d.  Targeting of Title IIA funds to meet and maintain the 100%
        highly qualified staffing.

Compliance is monitored through required data submissions, on-site
monitoring and desk audits. ODE monitors LEA's efforts for reaching the
100% goal through a variety of methods:

-   CIP

-   District HQT plans

-   Review of data submitted through new data collection system

-   Consolidated monitoring

> Under section 2122(b)(3) districts have assured that they are
> targeting Title II-A funds to schools that:

-   Have the lowest proportion of HQT

-   Have the largest average class size, or

-   Are identified for School Improvement under section 1116(b) of Title
    IA

During NCLB consolidated monitoring visits as well as during the review
of Desk Self Audit materials LEAs are required to submit evidence that
they are in compliance with 2122(b)(3). If the LEA is found to not be in
compliance a finding is cited and the corrective action the LEA must
complete to come into compliance. If the LEA does not comply, federal
funds will be withheld until compliance is reached.

Section 2141 requires that after the 2^nd^ year of the SEA plan
described in 1119(a)(2), if the SEA determines that the LEA failed to
make progress toward meeting the annual measurable objectives described
in section 1119 (a) (2) for two consecutive years (2005-06 and 2006-07),
the specific LEAs identified shall develop an improvement plan to meet
those objectives. During the development of the plan, the ODE will
provide technical assistance to the LEA and, if applicable to schools in
the LEA. After the third year of the plan, if the ODE determines that
the LEA has failed to make adequate progress for three consecutive
years, the ODE will enter into an agreement with the LEA on the use of
that LEAs Title II-A funds.

**[REQUIREMENT 5:]{.underline}**

(Refer to Appendix A for the 04-05 and 05-06 HQT data)

-   The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has completed extensive
    preparation for the implementation of a six year monitoring cycle
    for our 197 Local Education Authorities (LEAs). LEAs will be
    monitored during the cycle every three years. An onsite monitoring
    visit and a desk self-audit comprise the two components of the
    monitoring cycle. In addition to verifying that all grantees are
    meeting the federal requirements under NCLB, the ODE will also be
    providing technical assistance for LEAs needing additional support.

The SEA will hold LEAs accountable for fulfilling their plans by:

-   Reviewing the annually submitted CIP Budget Narrative Spending
    Workbook for compliance with the 100% HQT requirement using a
    scoring guide

Secretary Spellings' letter dated September 5, 2006, "strongly
encouraged" states to eliminate the use of HOUSSE "to the extent
practicable." States are urged to reexamine our HOUSSE "procedures" to
ensure that veteran teachers assigned to teach "new subjects" are found
to demonstrate subject-matter competency through the HOUSSE procedures.

Oregon is relying on the most recent interpretation presented by the
USDOE which encourages states to ensure that their HOUSSE evaluation is
rigorous and appropriately applied.

-   Oregon has never embraced the HOUSSE models that awarded credit for
    awards or other non-relevant activities. Our HOUSSE has always been
    based on experience and academic work either at the university or in
    a professional development environment. Oregon's HOUSSE model ONLY
    allows for a HOUSSE evaluation (as opposed to a HOUSSE procedure)
    for veteran teachers who have taught the subject at least 3 years or
    more.

-   Oregon views the HOUSSE as a rigorous alternative evaluation of
    subject-matter competency, not a "procedure." Thus only coursework,
    validated professional development, and experience may contribute to
    a HOUSSE evaluation. Professional development carries very little
    "point value" in Oregon's HOUSSE evaluation (0.15 points for each
    hour of PD on a 100 point scale); and therefore, only university
    credit on a transcript above the 100 level in a core-academic
    subject is valuable in the Oregon HOUSSE evaluation.

-   In no case may an educator be determined to meet the definition of
    "highly qualified" using the HOUSSE evaluation without five years of
    experience in the subject and at least 17 quarter hours of credit in
    the subject. Therefore, it is impossible for a "new" educator in
    Oregon to meet the HOUSSE definition without already possessing a
    major or coursework equivalent to a major in the subject (one of the
    allowed routes for HQ determination).

-   Pursuant to the federal NCLB, only veteran teachers are eligible for
    HOUSSE. Any veteran teacher attempting to use "no experience" under
    our formula would be required to demonstrate coursework equivalent
    to a major (34 quarter hours of preparation) which falls under the
    other part of the "highly qualified teacher" definition and clearly
    outside of HOUSSE.

-   Veteran teachers who are eligible for a HOUSSE assessment of
    subject-matter competency will be evaluated and validated upon their
    licensure renewals with the state. Evaluations and validations may
    be completed by the state prior to renewal upon application with the
    state. Districts are encouraged to use the state's HOUSSE with all
    veteran teachers upon any assignment in a core-academic area that is
    not consistent with the educator's license immediately upon that
    assignment. The state will promptly assist the district with any
    determinations upon request.

-   Additionally, the state is creating an automated computer program to
    more quickly complete the HOUSSE evaluations. Currently they must be
    completed by hand which requires laborious transcript review and
    validation for verifying academic work completed in the core
    academic areas. The state will continue the work on this automated
    calculator. Any district calculations will become "official" upon
    validation by the state.

-   Oregon does not have a separate HOUSSE for special education
    teachers (the same HOUSSE used for general educators applies to
    special educators).

-   All teachers new to the profession ***and who hold a non-provisional
    special education license*** who are teaching multiple subjects to
    special education students and are highly qualified in language
    arts, mathematics or science at the time of hire have up to two
    years to become highly qualified in the other subjects they teach.