Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: FLORIDA

Date: July 27, 2006

Peer Review Panel's Consensus Determination:

\_\_\_\_\_ The plan is acceptable

\_\_\_\_X\_ The plan has the deficiencies described below.

Comments to support determination:

-   Within each requirement, the review team labeled each of
    subrequirements a, b, c, d, etc. to facilitate easy analysis and
    provide feedback.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requirements 1-4 have not been met (there are some undecided items
    on requirements 3 and 4);

-   Requirement 5 was met

-   Requirement 6 was partially met

-   We suggest that the SEA consider submitting a revised plan that
    follows the rubric provided by USDOE to facilitate the matching of
    evidence of state responses to requirements and subrequirements.

Requirement 1: 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.

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U/NA         Evidence

  N                Does the revised plan include an analysis of classes
                   taught by teachers who are not highly qualified? Is
                   the analysis based on accurate classroom level data?

  N                Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of
                   school that are not making AYP? Do these schools have
                   high percentages of classes taught by teachers who are
                   not highly qualified?

  N                Does the analysis identify particular groups of
                   teachers to which the State's plan must pay particular
                   attention, such as special education teachers,
                   mathematics or science teachers, or multi-subject
                   teachers in rural schools?

  N                Does the analysis identify districts and schools
                   around the State where significant numbers of teachers
                   do not meet HQT standards?

  N                Does the analysis identify particular courses that are
                   often taught by non-highly qualified teachers?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided; NA=Not applicable

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been partially met

X\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  "Florida reported complete 2004-05 HQT data in its 2006 CSPR by the
    required disaggregated categories. Florida corrected the 2004-05
    CSPR data as a result of its finding on special educators...." (p.6)
    (determining HQT status of new and veteran elementary special
    education teachers) (p2) The department plans to identify subject
    area needs for HQT by school, but in the revised plan analysis of
    classes taught by teachers who are not HQ is not provided.

b.  The staffing needs of schools not making AYP was not analyzed. The
    department plans to "analyze teacher course records and review
    school level AYP data to define and identify high priority schools
    for HQT resources" (p9) Without current analysis, subpoint b is not
    met.

c.  "The state reported its greatest challenge in meeting the HQT goal
    is secondary classes taught by general education teachers who have
    not demonstrated subject-matter competence in those subjects." (p6)
    But this is a large group; there is no disaggregation of this group
    by core content subject (such as special education teachers, math or
    science teachers, or multi-subject teachers in rural schools).

d.  Districts and schools are not identified.

e.  Particular courses are not identified.

Requirement 2: 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.

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

  N                Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met annual
                   measurable objectives for HQT?

  N                Does the plan include specific steps that will be
                   taken by LEAs that have not met annual measurable
                   objectives?

  N                Does the plan delineate specific steps the SEA will
                   take to ensure that all LEAs have plans in place to
                   assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ as quickly as
                   possible?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_\_ Requirement 2 has been partially met

\_X\_\_ Requirement 2 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  The SEA does not identify LEAs not meeting annual measurable
    objectives for HQT.

b.  The plan does not include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs
    that have not measurable objectives.

c.  While LEAs are required to specifically address needs related to
    teacher quality in high-poverty and/or low performing schools
    through the district improvement plan, this revised plan does not
    delineate specific steps the SEA will take to ensure that all LEAs
    have plans in place to assist all non HQ teachers to become HQ as
    quickly as possible.

> Requirement 3: 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.

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

  N                Does the plan include a description of the technical
                   assistance the SEA will provide to assist LEAs in
                   successfully carrying out their HQT plans?

  U                Does the plan indicate that the staffing and
                   professional development needs of schools that are not
                   making AYP will be given high priority?

  U                Does the plan include a description of programs and
                   services the SEA will provide to assist teachers and
                   LEAs in successfully meeting HQT goals?

  N                Does the plan specifically address the needs of any
                   subgroups of teachers identified in Requirement 1?

  N                Does the plan include a description of how the State
                   will use its available funds (e.g., Title I, Part A;
                   Title II, Part A, including the portion that goes to
                   the State agency for higher education; other Federal
                   and State funds, as appropriate) to address the needs
                   of teachers who are not highly qualified?

  U                Does the plan for the use of available funds indicate
                   that priority will be given to the staffing and
                   professional development needs of schools that are not
                   making AYP?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been partially met

\_\_X\_ Requirement 3 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  In requirement 2b, we found no evidence that the SEA has required
    LEAs not meeting annual measurable objectives to submit written HQT
    plans. Therefore, the SEA cannot provide a description of the
    technical assistance it would provide to LEAs, based on lack of
    plans.

b.  We are undecided about whether the plan indicate that the staffing
    and professional development needs of schools that are not making
    AYP will be given high priority. In the equity plan (p22-23) it says
    that struggling schools (non-AYP presumably) will be given priority
    for some professional development activities, but it does not say
    that the activities will be intended to assure that all teachers are
    HQT.

c.  Because there is no evidence that districts have established HQT
    plans, it is unclear how the strategies listed on p 22-24 are going
    to assist LEAs in reaching their indeterminate HQT goals.

d.  There were no subgroups identified in Requirement 1, so this is not
    met.

e.  The plan did not include a description of how the state will use its
    available funds to address the needs of teachers who are not HQ.

f.  While the legislative action described on pages 7-8 clearly is
    intended to give priority to staffing needs of schools not making
    AYP, we do not see evidence that priority will be given to funding
    for the professional development needs of schools not making AYP.

Requirement 4: The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with
LEAs that fail to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the
2006-07 school year.

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Does the plan indicate how the SEA will monitor LEA  |
|               | compliance with the LEAs' HQT plans described in     |
|               | Requirement 2 and hold LEAs accountable for          |
|               | fulfilling their plans?                              |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| U             | Does the plan show how technical assistance from the |
|               | SEA to help LEAs meet the 100 percent HQT goal will  |
|               | be targeted toward LEAs and schools that are not     |
|               | making AYP?                                          |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Does the plan describe how the SEA will monitor      |
|               | whether LEAs attain 100 percent HQT in each LEA and  |
|               | school:                                              |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   in the percentage of highly qualified teachers   |
|               |     at each LEA and school; and                      |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   in the percentage of teachers who are receiving  |
|               |     high-quality professional development to enable  |
|               |     such teachers to become highly qualified and     |
|               |     successful classroom teachers?                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include    |
|               | technical assistance or corrective actions that the  |
|               | SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP      |
|               | goals?                                               |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been partially met

\_X\_\_ Requirement 4 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  Since there is no evidence that the SEA has required the development
    of LEA HQT plans (see supporting narrative for Requirement 2c), it
    is unclear how those plans could be monitored.

b.  We see some evidence of SEA assistance. The SEA provides some
    technical assistance by providing data on HQT high priority schools
    to districts (p9-10 under the data monitoring plan); it also
    provides assistance that is tailored to the needs and activities
    described in the LEA improvement plans (p.23). But we do not have
    enough detail on what the extent of SEA assistance is on helping
    teachers become HQT.

c.  The plan does describe how the SEA will monitor whether LEAs attain
    100% HQT in each LEA and school in the percentage of HQT at each LEA
    and school (p9). We found no evidence that the SEA will monitor
    whether LEAs are ensuring that non HQT teachers will receive HQ PD
    to enable such teachers to become highly qualified and successful.
    Information is provided regarding teachers receiving HQ PD but not
    tied to this performance indicator.

d.  We do not see evidence that the plan includes technical assistance
    or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet
    HQT and AYP goals.

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 discontinue the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after
the end of the 2005-06 school year (except for the situations described
below).

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y             | Does the plan describe how and when the SEA will     |
|               | complete the HOUSSE process for all teachers not new |
|               | to the profession who were hired before the end of   |
|               | the 2005-06 school year?                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y             | Does the plan describe how the State will            |
|               | discontinue the use of HOUSSE after the end of the   |
|               | 2005-06 school year, except in the following         |
|               | situations:                                          |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural        |
|               |     schools who, if HQ in one subject at the time of |
|               |     hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence   |
|               |     in additional subjects within three years of the |
|               |     date of hire; or                                 |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject special education teachers who are |
|               |     new to the profession, if HQ in language arts,   |
|               |     mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may |
|               |     use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in          |
|               |     additional subjects within two years of the date |
|               |     of hire.                                         |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_\_ Requirement 5 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 5 has been partially met

\_\_\_ Requirement 5 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

> The procedure eliminating HOUSSE is well-done. The memo dated 7/7/06
> is evidence that the procedure is operational.

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.

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

  Y                Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?

  N                Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher
                   assignment exist?

  Y                Does the plan delineate specific strategies for
                   addressing inequities in teacher assignment?

  N                Does the plan provide evidence for the probable
                   success of the strategies it includes?

  Y                Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the
                   issue of equitable teacher assignment when it monitors
                   LEAs, and how this will be done?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 6 has been met

\_X\_\_ Requirement 6 has been partially met

\_\_\_ Requirement 6 has not been met

\_\_\_ Additional information needed to make determination

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  A written equity plan was included; it can be found on pages 7-10 of
    the plan.

b.  There is no information provided on where inequities in teacher
    assignment exist, other than to say at the secondary level there is
    a 6% gap between high and low poverty schools. No data on individual
    districts is provided.

c.  Specific, delineated strategies for addressing inequities in teacher
    assignment were provided. The strategies include salary incentives
    for teachers to work in failing schools and for the state board to
    initiate actions when districts fail to provide such incentives.

d.  Evidence is not provided.

e.  "The monitoring work papers include monitoring protocol to verify
    and ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher
    rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified or out of
    field teachers." (p. 23)