**District of Columbia Statewide Highly Qualified Teacher Plan**

**Office of the State Superintendent of Education**

With the implementation of the Public Education Reform Act of 2007 (D.C.
Law 17-9) in October, 2007, the Office of the State Superintendent of
Education (OSSE) gained full responsibility for all State Education
Agency (SEA) functions. Since that time, the OSSE has been reviewing all
policies, programs and procedures related to federal grants and their
effective use in the District of Columbia. In alignment with these
activities and as requested in the May, 2008 United States Department of
Education (USDE) Monitoring Report, the OSSE has revised the state
highly qualified teacher (HQT) plan. Additionally, the OSSE has done the
following to improve HQT policies and their coordination:

> • Hired a Director of Educator Quality to be the agency lead on
> improving HQT numbers and providing assistance to local education
> agencies (LEAs) in doing so.
>
> • Received approval from the D.C. State Board of Education to update
> the state's HQT definition in alignment with the *No Child Left
> Behind* (NCLB) requirements.
>
> • Coordinated an Educator Quality Task Force to develop proposed
> revisions to the state's licensure structure and requirements.

It is our expectation that the actions outlined above, in addition to
those detailed in the state's revised HQT plan will result in a
significant increase in the number of highly qualified teachers
statewide.

# 

# [Requirement 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Data Analysis]{.underline} 

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

The OSSE has completed the Employed Educator Reporting (EER) process,
the state's method for collecting HQT data, for school year 2007-08.
Forty-seven of 47 LEAs that were required to submit the EER have done so
for a 100% reporting rate.

The District of Columbia is comprised of 56 LEAs, of which the District
of Columbia Pubic Schools (DCPS) is the largest, serving 75% of the
state's student body; the charter LEAs serve the remaining 25 percent.
Of the 56 LEAs, nine were not required to submit because those LEAs do
not teach core academic subject classes (e.g., adult education,
pre-school programs). The significance of DCPS data will be prominent in
this plan for some of the following reasons:

• DCPS accounts for 80% of the state's core subject class count.

> • 50.7% of classes in DCPS are taught by HQTs; 84% of classes under
> the authority of the D.C. Public Charter School Board (DCPCSB) are
> taught by HQTs.

• DCPS has a 22% out-of-field teaching rate, resulting in 2257 classes
taught by non-HQTs.

> • There are 181 elementary-level DCPS teachers with Special Education
> licensure who have not demonstrated knowledge in the elementary
> content areas.
>
> • There are 113 multi-subject, self-contained secondary teachers in
> DCPS with Special Education licensure who have not demonstrated
> content knowledge in the core subject areas they are teaching.

The last two bulleted items above address the following findings from
the USDE's 5.27.08 monitoring report: I.2; II.A.1, Finding 2; II.B.1,
Finding 1; and II.B.2, Finding 1 regarding the collection of highly
qualified data that is both NCLB and IDEA compliant. These data further
reflect the challenges that DCPS faces in the number of teachers who
must demonstrate content knowledge. The OSSE met with DCPS in May and
July 2008 to discuss Special Education staffing models, i.e., reducing
the number of core subject area assignments that special educators must
carry, and the LEA's plans to reduce the number of special education
centers and implement more inclusion models.

These special education teachers, and others, will now also benefit from
the recent State Board decision to permit the flexibility in
demonstrating content knowledge that NCLB allows. In years past, state
regulations required a teacher to hold licensure in each subject area
taught to be deemed highly qualified. With the passage of the updated
HQT definition (see below), along with the proposed teacher licensure
regulations (see Section 1601.12 of Appendix I), teachers in the
District of Columbia will be able to demonstrate content knowledge using
the full flexibility to do so that is outlined in NCLB.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Previous SEA HQT Definition**    | **Current SEA HQT Definition**  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1\) Must have Bachelor's degree,   | 1\) Must have Bachelor's        |
| AND                                | degree, AND                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2\) Must have full state           | 2\) Must have a full state      |
| certification **in the appropriate | certification that has not been |
| teaching area** that has not been  | waived on a temporary basis     |
| waived on a temporary basis        | (charter schools exempted), AND |
| (charter schools exempted), AND    |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **3) Elementary teachers:**        | **3) Elementary teachers:**     |
|                                    |                                 |
| • pass the Elementary content area | • pass an Elementary content    |
| Praxis II                          | test, OR                        |
|                                    |                                 |
| **Secondary teachers (Charter LEA  | • Veteran teachers have the     |
| teachers only\*):**                | option to achieve               |
|                                    |                                 |
| • pass the appropriate Praxis II   | HQT status via a HOUSSE process |
| content area test; OR              | (available                      |
|                                    |                                 |
| • have a major or its equivalent   | October 2008).                  |
| in the content area; OR            |                                 |
|                                    | **Secondary teachers:**         |
| • have an advanced degree in the   |                                 |
| content area; OR                   | • pass the appropriate content  |
|                                    | area test, OR;                  |
| • have National Board              |                                 |
| Certification in the content area. | • have a major or its           |
|                                    | equivalent in the content       |
| \*DCPS teachers do NOT have the    |                                 |
| options listed above unless they   | area, OR                        |
| are licensed in the subject area   |                                 |
| (they cannot proceed beyond #2     | • have an advanced degree in    |
| above).                            | the content area, OR            |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | • have National Board           |
|                                    | Certification in the content    |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | area, OR                        |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | • Veteran teachers have the     |
|                                    | option to achieve HQ            |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | status via a HOUSSE process     |
|                                    | (available October              |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | 2008\)                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

In October 2008, the OSSE met with DCPS and the Charter School Board's
NCLB Liaison regarding the updated HQT definition adopted by the State
Board, and the timeline for HQT reporting requirements and HOUSSE
procedures. The OSSE believes the recently adopted HQT definition,
including the full release of HOUSSE procedures, and the proposed
teacher licensure regulation changes will result in a much greater
increase in the number of HQTs than we have seen in the past. Obtaining
the goal of significantly increasing the number of HQTs will require
appropriate LEA implementation of the new requirements, and the OSSE has
scheduled various trainings to provide technical assistance on the new
HQT procedures. Please see the table below for the LEA training and
reporting timeline. Draft HOUSSE Rubrics are available in Appendix II
(awaiting OSSE Legal clearance).

**SY 2008-2009 HQT LEA Training and Reporting Schedule**

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Activity**                                      | **Date**         |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Announcement of training and reporting schedule   | By November 14,  |
| sent to LEAs with LEA HQT Resource Guide          | 2008             |
| (inclusive of EER forms, 4-week verification      |                  |
| requirements; LEA HQT Plan Review Guide, etc.)    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Web-enabled Teleconference HQT Training           | November 19-20,  |
|                                                   | 2008             |
|                                                   |                  |
|                                                   | November 24-25,  |
|                                                   | 2008             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Community-based HQT Training                      | December 2, 2008 |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Technical Assistance visits/conference calls      | December 3-12,   |
| available upon request                            | 2008             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Due date for all LEA HQT Plans, including the HQ  | December 12,     |
| Progress Report (individual teacher plans will be | 2008             |
| required of LEAs w/ten or fewer non-HQTs in lieu  |                  |
| of the LEA HQT Plan)                              |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| OSSE/LEA 2141(c) Agreement Sign-offs              | Week of December |
|                                                   | 15^th^           |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Initial 2008-2009 Employed Educator and HQ        | February 20 ,    |
| Progress Reports due to OSSE; conference calls    | 2009             |
| will be scheduled with those LEAs not             |                  |
| demonstrating HQT improvement. The OSSE may also  |                  |
| opt to increase the frequency of HQT reporting.   |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Final 2008-2009 Employed Educator and HQ Progress | May 18,          |
| Reports due to OSSE; conference call will be      | 200              |
| scheduled with those LEAs not demonstrating HQT   | 9                |
| improvement.                                      |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Final LEA EER profiles created by the OSSE and    | June 15, 2009    |
| sent to LEAs for validation                       |                  |
|                                                   | July 3, 2009     |
| LEA EER validation reports due                    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| SEA HQT Report finalized and published            | July 31, 2009    |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

Per the Requirement 1 request for a current analysis of statewide and
LEA HQT data, Table I below reflects LEA HQT and Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) data, while Table II reflects school-level HQT and AYP data.

**Table I: D.C. LEA Highly Qualified Teacher and Annual Yearly Progress
Data; July 2008**

+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| **LEA NAME**              | **\#   | ** | **%   | *   | *   | *   |
|                           | Core   | \# | Cl    | *05 | *06 | *07 |
|                           | Cla    | Cl | asses | -06 | -07 | -08 |
|                           | sses** | HQ | HQ**  | AY  | AY  | AY  |
|                           |        | ** |       | P** | P** | P** |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| MEI Futures               | 14     | 14 | 1     |     |     | \*  |
|                           |        |    | 00.0% |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Nia Community PCS         | 6      | 6  | 1     |     | \*  | N   |
|                           |        |    | 00.0% |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Septima Clark PCS         | 1      | 1  | 1     |     |     |     |
|                           |        |    | 00.0% |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Tri-Community PCS         | 5      | 5  | 1     | N   | \*  | Y   |
|                           |        |    | 00.0% |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Washington Math, Science  | 147    | 1  | 1     | N   | Y   | Y   |
| & Tech PCS                |        | 47 | 00.0% |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Maya Angelou PCS          | 95     | 92 | 96.8% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Hyde Leadership PCS       | 128    | 1  | 96.1% | N   | N   | N   |
|                           |        | 23 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Capital City PCS          | 49     | 47 | 95.9% | N   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| City Lights PCS           | 24     | 23 | 95.8% | \*  | \*  | \*  |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Two Rivers PCS            | 68     | 65 | 95.6% | N   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Howard Road Academy PCS   | 37     | 35 | 94.6% | Y   | Y   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Thurgood Marshall PCS     | 122    | 1  | 94.3% | N   | N   | Y   |
|                           |        | 15 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Arts and Technology PCS   | 52     | 49 | 94.2% | Y   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| St. Coletta Special       | 15     | 14 | 93.3% |     | N   | Y   |
| Education PCS             |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Booker T. Washington PCS  | 47     | 43 | 91.5% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Paul PCS                  | 206    | 1  | 90.8% | N   | N   | Y   |
|                           |        | 87 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Options PCS               | 144    | 1  | 89.6% | N   | N   | N   |
|                           |        | 29 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Barbara Jordan PCS        | 36     | 32 | 88.9% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| IDEA PCS                  | 175    | 1  | 88.0% | N   | N   | Y   |
|                           |        | 54 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Cesar Chavez PCS          | 162    | 1  | 87.0% | N   | N   | N   |
|                           |        | 41 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Mary McLeod Bethune PCS   | 34     | 29 | 85.3% | \*  | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| DC Preparatory Academy    | 84     | 73 | 86.9% | N   | N   | N   |
| PCS                       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| City Collegiate           | 15     | 13 | 86.7% |     | Y   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| KAMIT Institute PCS       | 51     | 44 | 86.3% | Y   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Community Academy PCS     | 103    | 87 | 84.5% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Children\'s Studio PCS    | 6      | 5  | 83.3% | \*  | \*  | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Elsie Whitlow Stokes PCS  | 18     | 15 | 83.3% | N   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| William E. Doar Jr. PCS   | 24     | 20 | 83.3% | N   | Y   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| SEED PCS                  | 48     | 39 | 81.3% | N   | Y   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Washington Latin School   | 96     | 77 | 80.2% |     | Y   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Potomac Lighthouse PCS    | 5      | 4  | 80.0% | \*  | \*  | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Howard University Math    | 19     | 15 | 78.9% | N   | Y   | Y   |
| and Science MS            |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Academy for Learning      | 9      | 7  | 77.8% | \*  | \*  | N   |
| Through the Arts (ALTA)   |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| PCS                       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| DC Bilingual PCS          | 17     | 13 | 76.5% |     |     | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| E. L. Haynes PCS          | 17     | 13 | 76.5% | N   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Academia Bilingue de la   | 44     | 33 | 75.0% | N   | N   | N   |
| Communidad PCS            |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| SAIL PCS                  | 11     | 8  | 72.7% | N   | N   | Y   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Meridian PCS              | 25     | 18 | 72.0% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| KIPP DC PCS               | 166    | 1  | 71.1% | N   | N   | Y   |
|                           |        | 18 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Young America Works PCS   | 86     | 61 | 70.9% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Friendship-Edison PCS     | 214    | 1  | 69.2% | N   | N   | N   |
|                           |        | 48 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Hospitality PCS           | 30     | 20 | 66.7% | N   | \*  | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Tree of Life Community    | 13     | 8  | 61.5% | N   | N   | N   |
| PCS                       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Ideal Academy PCS         | 133    | 73 | 54.9% | N   | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Hope Community PCS        | 15     | 8  | 53.3% | \*  | N   | N   |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| DCPS                      | 10249  | 52 | 50.8% | N   | N   | N   |
|                           |        | 08 |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| Early Childhood Academy   | 2      | 0  | 0.0%  |     |     |     |
| PCS                       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| **Statewide HQT Totals**  | **1    | ** | **58  | **  | **  | **  |
|                           | 3098** | 75 | .0%** |  ** |  ** |  ** |
|                           |        | 98 |       |     |     |     |
|                           |        | ** |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+
| ***\*** indicates the LEA |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| did not have 40 students  |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| and did not have to       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| report AYP*               |        |    |       |     |     |     |
|                           |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| *DNS = DID NOT SUBMIT*    |        |    |       |     |     |     |
|                           |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| *Blue = flagged for an    |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| Improvement Plan per      |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| NCLB, Sec. 2141(a)*       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
|                           |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| *Yellow = flagged for a   |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| SEA/LEA agreement per     |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| NCLB, Sec. 2141(c)*       |        |    |       |     |     |     |
|                           |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| *Gray = LEA not open or   |        |    |       |     |     |     |
| no testing grade(s)*      |        |    |       |     |     |     |
+---------------------------+--------+----+-------+-----+-----+-----+

An analysis of the LEA data reveals the D.C. has:

Based on the above, and the fact that the largest LEA, DCPS, is in the
50-59% group, the OSSE will prioritize Title II-A state activities
programming to first meet the needs of those LEAs in the 0 -- 79% range
for the number of classes taught by HQTs; over half of the funding
dedicated to this priority will go towards significantly improving DCPS'
ability to meet HQT requirements. We will further ensure that those LEAs
that are 80 -- 99% HQT prioritize spending their Title II funds on
meeting the 100% goal.

**Table II: D.C. School-Level Highly Qualified Teacher and Adequate
Yearly Progress Data by Schools that Made AYP; July 2008**

  ---------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------
  **Name of School**                 **\# Core   **\# Cl    **% Classes **07-08
                                     Classes**   HQ**       HQ**        AYP**

  Burroughs ES                       21          21         100.0%      Y

  Lafayette ES                       25          25         100.0%      Y

  Thomas ES                          21          21         100.0%      Y

  Tri-Community PCS                  5           5          100.0%      Y

  Washington Math, Science & Tech    147         147        100.0%      Y
  PCS                                                                   

  Powell ES                          51          50         98.0%       Y

  Capital City PCS                   49          47         95.9%       Y

  Two Rivers PCS                     68          65         95.6%       Y

  Thurgood Marshall PCS              122         115        94.3%       Y

  Arts and Technology PCS            52          49         94.2%       Y

  St. Colleta Special Education PCS  15          14         93.3%       Y

  Key ES                             22          20         90.9%       Y

  Paul PCS                           206         187        90.8%       Y

  Reed, Marie LC                     18          16         88.9%       Y

  IDEA PCS                           175         154        88.0%       Y

  Cleveland ES                       23          20         87.0%       Y

  Montgomery ES                      13          11         84.6%       Y

  Raymond ES                         19          16         84.2%       Y

  Elsie Whitlow Stokes PCS           18          15         83.3%       Y

  Potomac Lighthouse PCS             5           4          80.0%       Y

  KIPP DC - KEY PCS                  73          58         79.5%       Y

  Community Academy PCS - Amos I     29          23         79.3%       Y

  Howard University Math and Science 19          15         78.9%       Y
  PCS                                                                   

  KIPP DC - WILL PCS                 42          33         78.6%       Y

  E. L. Haynes PCS                   17          13         76.5%       Y

  Schools w/o Walls SHS              289         213        73.7%       Y

  SAIL PCS                           11          8          72.7%       Y

  Mann ES                            16          11         68.8%       Y

  Benning ES                         6           4          66.7%       Y

  Emery ES                           21          13         61.9%       Y

  Seaton ES                          26          16         61.5%       Y

  Wilson, JO ES                      23          14         60.9%       Y

  Ferebee Hope ES                    10          6          60.0%       Y

  Savoy ES                           19          11         57.9%       Y

  Watkins ES                         33          19         57.6%       Y

  Draper ES                          11          6          54.5%       Y

  Stoddert ES                        13          7          53.8%       Y

  Winston EC                         28          15         53.6%       Y

  Bell Multicultural SHS             250         131        52.4%       Y

  Langdon ES                         21          11         52.4%       Y

  Ketcham ES                         23          12         52.2%       Y

  Shepherd ES                        16          8          50.0%       Y

  Truesdell ES                       24          12         50.0%       Y

  Randle Highlands ES                19          9          47.4%       Y

  Bunker Hill ES                     15          7          46.7%       Y

  Hardy MS                           121         55         45.5%       Y

  Miner ES                           38          15         39.5%       Y

  Noyes ES                           14          5          35.7%       Y

  Orr ES                             16          5          31.3%       Y

  Banneker SHS                       134         36         26.9%       Y

  Kimball ES                         23          6          26.1%       Y

  Eaton ES                           26          6          23.1%       Y

  Francis MS                         58          13         22.4%       Y

  Garrison ES                        10          2          20.0%       Y

  McKinley SHS                       271         54         19.9%       Y

  Bowen ES                           11          2          18.2%       Y

  Shaed ES                           17          2          11.8%       Y

  Plummer ES                         18          1          5.6%        Y

  Hyde ES                            12          0          0.0%        Y

  Simon ES                           21          0          0.0%        Y

  **HQT Totals**                     **2919**    **1879**   **64.5%**   ** **
  ---------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------

**Table III: D.C. School-Level Highly Qualified Teacher and Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) Data by Schools that Did Not Make AYP; July 2008**

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------
  **Name of School**                  **\# Core   **\# Cl    **% Classes **07-08
                                      Classes**   HQ**       HQ**        AYP**

  Amidon ES                           16          15         93.8%       N

  Anacostia SHS                       384         226        58.9%       N

  Backus MS                           41          7          17.1%       N

  Ballou SHS                          353         125        35.4%       N

  Bancroft ES                         25          15         60.0%       N

  Barnard ES                          24          11         45.8%       N

  Beers ES                            24          11         45.8%       N

  Birney ES                           20          19         95.0%       N

  Brent ES                            19          7          36.8%       N

  Brightwood ES                       28          10         35.7%       N

  Brookland ES                        17          11         64.7%       N

  Brown, Ronald H. MS                 71          48         67.6%       N

  Browne Center                       13          0          0.0%        N

  Browne MS                           88          83         94.3%       N

  Bruce-Monroe ES                     22          10         45.5%       N

  Burrville ES                        19          18         94.7%       N

  Cardozo SHS                         398         220        55.3%       N

  Clark ES                            14          8          57.1%       N

  Cook, JF ES                         11          1          9.1%        N

  Cooke, HD ES                        4           3          75.0%       N

  Coolidge SHS                        222         104        46.8%       N

  Davis ES                            24          10         41.7%       N

  Deal JHS                            135         54         40.0%       N

  Drew ES                             26          17         65.4%       N

  Dunbar Senior HS                    399         268        67.2%       N

  Eastern SHS                         526         287        54.6%       N

  Eliot MS                            66          45         68.2%       N

  Ellington SHS                       644         400        62.1%       N

  Gage-Eckington ES                   12          0          0.0%        N

  Garfield ES                         20          10         50.0%       N

  Garnet Patterson MS                 80          28         35.0%       N

  Gibbs ES                            11          8          72.7%       N

  Green ES                            8           2          25.0%       N

  Hamilton Center                     12          11         91.7%       N

  Harris, CW ES                       25          5          20.0%       N

  Harris, PR EC                       79          59         74.7%       N

  Hart MS                             165         85         51.5%       N

  Hendley ES                          9           8          88.9%       N

  Hine MS                             55          11         20.0%       N

  Houston ES                          17          1          5.9%        N

  Janney ES                           30          17         56.7%       N

  Jefferson MS                        123         55         44.7%       N

  Johnson MS                          52          18         34.6%       N

  Kelly Miller MS                     95          40         42.1%       N

  Kenilworth ES                       21          13         61.9%       N

  King, ML ES                         25          7          28.0%       N

  Kramer MS                           118         30         25.4%       N

  Lasalle ES                          1           1          100.0%      N

  Leckie ES                           17          1          5.9%        N

  Lincoln MS                          83          41         49.4%       N

  Ludlow Taylor ES                    20          12         60.0%       N

  MacFarland MS                       108         44         40.7%       N

  Malcolm X ES                        16          14         87.5%       N

  Mamie D. Lee                        20          18         90.0%       N

  Maury ES                            13          13         100.0%      N

  Merritt MS                          54          46         85.2%       N

  Meyer ES                            17          12         70.6%       N

  Moten Center                        11          4          36.4%       N

  Moten ES                            13          1          7.7%        N

  Murch ES                            27          24         88.9%       N

  Nalle ES                            28          23         82.1%       N

  Oyster/Adams Bilingual School       49          9          18.4%       N

  Park View ES                        6           0          0.0%        N

  Patterson ES                        20          6          30.0%       N

  Payne ES                            7           2          28.6%       N

  Peabody ES                          11          4          36.4%       N

  Prospect LC                         16          1          6.3%        N

  River Terrace ES                    10          0          0.0%        N

  Roosevelt SHS                       298         155        52.0%       N

  Ross ES                             5           5          100.0%      N

  Rudolph ES                          17          8          47.1%       N

  Sharpe Health School                130         57         43.8%       N

  Shaw MS                             38          3          7.9%        N

  Slowe ES                            9           4          44.4%       N

  Smothers ES                         20          6          30.0%       N

  Sousa MS                            76          29         38.2%       N

  Spingarn SHS                        264         111        42.0%       N

  Stanton ES                          23          18         78.3%       N

  Stevens ES                          12          10         83.3%       N

  Stuart Hobson MS                    106         50         47.2%       N

  Taft Center                         23          19         82.6%       N

  Takoma EC                           60          16         26.7%       N

  Terrell, MC/McGogney ES             33          24         72.7%       N

  Thomson ES                          16          11         68.8%       N

  Thurgood Marshall EC                104         68         65.4%       N

  Tubman ES                           21          7          33.3%       N

  Turner ES                           11          2          18.2%       N

  Tyler ES                            26          5          19.2%       N

  Walker Jones/R.H. Terrell EC        49          33         67.3%       N

  Washington, MM SHS                  64          35         54.7%       N

  Webb/Wheatley ES                    18          8          44.4%       N

  West ES                             4           4          100.0%      N

  Whittier ES                         23          17         73.9%       N

  Wilkinson ES                        23          13         56.5%       N

  Wilson SHS                          427         235        55.0%       N

  Woodson, HD SHS                     286         126        44.1%       N

  Young ES                            DNS         DNS        DNS         N

  Academia Bilingue de la Comunidad   44          33         75.0%       N
  PCS                                                                    

  Academy for Learning Through the    9           7          77.8%       N
  Arts (ALTA) PCS                                                        

  Barbara Jordan PCS                  DNS         DNS        DNS         N

  Booker T. Washington PCS            47          43         91.5%       N

  Cesar Chavez PCHS - Capitol Hill    65          57         87.7%       N

  Cesar Chavez PCS - Bruce            14          10         71.4%       N

  Cesar Chavez PCS - Parkside         83          74         89.2%       N

  Children\'s Studio School PCS       6           5          83.3%       N

  City Collegiate PCS                 15          13         86.7%       N

  Community Academy PCS - Randall     21          16         76.2%       N
  Elementary                                                             

  DC Bilingual PCS                    17          13         76.5%       N

  DC Preparatory Academy PCS - ES     36          32         88.9%       N

  DC Preparatory Academy PCS - MS     48          41         85.4%       N

  Friendship PCS - Blow-Pierce        35          24         68.6%       N

  Friendship PCS - Chamberlain        35          17         48.6%       N

  Friendship PCS - Southeast          20          14         70.0%       N

  Friendship PCS - Woodridge          40          32         80.0%       N

  Friendship PCS - Woodson            84          61         72.6%       N

  Hope Community PCS                  15          8          53.3%       N

  Hospitality PCS                     30          20         66.7%       N

  Howard Road Academy PCS             37          35         94.6%       N

  Hyde Leadership PCS                 128         123        96.1%       N

  Ideal PCS                           133         73         54.9%       N

  KAMIT Institute PCS                 51          44         86.3%       N

  KIPP DC - AIM PCS                   51          27         52.9%       N

  Mary McLeod Bethune PCS - Slowe     11          9          81.8%       N

  Maya Angelou PCS - Evans            55          55         100.0%      N

  Maya Angelou PCS - Shaw             40          37         92.5%       N

  Meridian PCS                        25          18         72.0%       N

  Nia Community PCS                   6           6          100.0%      N

  Options PCS                         144         129        89.6%       N

  Roots PCS                           4           4          100.0%      N

  SEED PCS                            48          39         81.3%       N

  Tree of Life PCS                    13          8          61.5%       N

  Washington Latin PCS                96          77         80.2%       N

  Barbara Jordan PCS                  36          32         88.9%       N

  William E. Doar Jr. PCS             24          20         83.3%       N

  Young America Works PCS             86          61         70.9%       N

  **HQT Totals**                      **8975**    **5113**   **57.0%**   ** **
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------

Of the 194 schools included in the statewide HQT data collection that
also have 2007-08 AYP designations:

• 60 or 31% made AYP, and had 64.5% of their classes taught by HQTs

• 134 or 69% did not make AYP, and had 57.0% of their classes taught by
HQTs

• 60.9% of classes on the elementary level (includes K-8 schools) were
taught by non-HQTs

• 55.6% of classes on the secondary level were taught by non HQTs

Since the overall state HQT average is 57.8%, it was not surprising to
see that there is only a 7.6% difference in the number of HQT classes
between LEAs that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. There is a
need to increase the number of highly qualified teachers statewide, as
well as improve student achievement since less than a third of the
state's schools made AYP this year. The data are not difficult to
analyze when they are significantly low across wards, poverty
designations and AYP status. Since D.C.'s first submission of HQT data
to the USDE for school year 2004-05 (51.6% HQT), there has been a 6.2%
increase in the number of HQT classes taught, equivalent to a two
percent increase each year. At that rate, D.C. would not reach 100%
compliance until 2029. The OSSE is committed to reversing this trend by
significantly increasing the pace by which teachers become highly
qualified through collaborating with and providing resources and
technical assistance to high-need LEAs. Further details on state efforts
to assist LEAs with HQT compliance are provided on page 12 in
Requirement 3.

Table IV below reflects statewide highly qualified data by the core
subject areas.

**Table IV: Core Academic Subjects Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers;
June 2008**

+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Core Assignment   | **Number of  | **Number    | **Percent Taught |
| Area**              | A            | Taught by   | by HQT**         |
|                     | ssignments** | HQT**       |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Arts (K-12)**     | **1889**     | **901**     | **47.7%**        |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Elementary        | **1745**     | **947**     | **55.6%**        |
| Education**         |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **English, Reading, | **3046**     | **1550**    | **50.9%**        |
| Language Arts**     |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Foreign           | **740**      | **529**     | **71.5%**        |
| Languages**         |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Mathematics**     | **1868**     | **1025**    | **54.9%**        |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Science (All)**   | **1469**     | **812**     | **55.3%**        |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| > General Science   | 453          | 254         | 56.1%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| > Biology           | 742          | 358         | 48.2%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| > Chemistry         | 176          | 133         | 75.6%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| > Physics           | 98           | 67          | 68.4%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| **Social Studies    | **1827**     | **1394**    | **76.3%**        |
| (All)**             |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Economics           | 7            | 3           | 42.9%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| History             | 211          | 187         | 88.6%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Geography           | 940          | 719         | 76.5%            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Civics and          | 361          | 312         | 86.4%            |
| Government          |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| General Social      | 308          | 173         | 56.2%            |
| Studies             |              |             |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+

The need to significantly increase HQTs across all core subject areas
remains a specific focus of the Revised State HQT Plan. Based on the
number of assignments and the percentage of non-highly qualified
teachers, the top five core subject areas with the greatest need of
improvement are (by core area and percentage of non-HQTs):

**Statewide Top Five, June 2008 DCPS Top Five, March 2008**

1\) Arts (47.7%) 1) Science (41.9%)

2\) English, Reading, Lang. Arts (43.3%) 2) English, Reading, Lang. Arts
(50.9%)

3\) Mathematics (48.3%) 3) Mathematics (54.9)

4\) Science (55.3%) 4) Elementary Education (62.2%)

5\) Elementary Education (55.6%) 5) Arts (67.1%)

As the top five areas show, the core subjects in greatest need of
improvement statewide are the same for DCPS. Also, as noted on pages
1-2, there are 294 Special Education-licensed teachers in DCPS who have
not demonstrated content knowledge in the subjects they are teaching. By
addressing the needs of the state's largest LEA, the OSSE will also have
an impact on improving statewide HQT compliance.

The overall school-level data analysis reveals a significant need to
increase the number of HQTs across schools that meet and do not meet
AYP. The state recognizes that with a state-wide average of 57.8% of
classes taught by HQTs, there is need for improvement across all core
academic subject areas; across schools that have met/not met AYP goals;
and across schools in both high and low-poverty areas.

For school year 2008-09, the OSSE will receive the LEA HQT Plans and
current year data in November 2008, and will revise the subject area and
LEA areas for improvement above as necessary.

# 

# [Requirement 2: OSSE Oversight of LEA Highly Qualified Teacher Plans]{.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.**

The OSSE will implement a new LEA Highly Qualified Teacher Plan review
process (see Appendix III), and will continue to require the submission
of the Highly Qualified Compliance Action Plan (HQCAP) for school year
2008-09 (see Appendix IV). The HQCAP will serve as an update of LEA HQT
data and progress made on the implementation of the LEA HQT Plan. LEAs
with ten or fewer non-HQTs will submit HQT data and plans via the
Individual Teacher HQT Update (see Appendix V) in lieu of the LEA HQT
Plan.

The LEA Highly Qualified Teacher Plan will be required of the following
LEAs that are not 100% HQT compliant, and have therefore not met annual
measurable HQT objectives.

**Table V: D.C. LEAs with less than 100% Highly Qualified Teachers; July
2008**

+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| **LEA NAME**                         | **\#   |   | **\# | **%      |
|                                      | Core   |   | Cl   | Classes  |
|                                      | Cla    |   | HQ** | HQ**     |
|                                      | sses** |   |      |          |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Maya Angelou PCS                     | 95     |   | 92   | 96.8%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Hyde Leadership PCS                  | 128    |   | 123  | 96.1%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Capital City PCS                     | 49     |   | 47   | 95.9%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| City Lights PCS                      | 24     |   | 23   | 95.8%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Two Rivers PCS                       | 68     |   | 65   | 95.6%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Howard Road Academy PCS              | 37     |   | 35   | 94.6%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Thurgood Marshall PCS                | 122    |   | 115  | 94.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Arts and Technology PCS              | 52     |   | 49   | 94.2%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| St. Coletta Special Education PCS    | 15     |   | 14   | 93.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Booker T. Washington PCS             | 47     |   | 43   | 91.5%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Paul PCS                             | 206    |   | 187  | 90.8%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Options PCS                          | 144    |   | 129  | 89.6%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Barbara Jordan PCS                   | 36     |   | 32   | 88.9%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| IDEA PCS                             | 175    |   | 154  | 88.0%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Cesar Chavez PCS                     | 162    |   | 141  | 87.0%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Mary McLeod Bethune PCS              | 34     |   | 29   | 85.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| DC Preparatory Academy PCS           | 84     |   | 73   | 86.9%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| City Collegiate                      | 15     |   | 13   | 86.7%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| KAMIT Institute PCS                  | 51     |   | 44   | 86.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Community Academy PCS                | 103    |   | 87   | 84.5%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Children\'s Studio PCS               | 6      |   | 5    | 83.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Elsie Whitlow Stokes PCS             | 18     |   | 15   | 83.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| William E. Doar Jr. PCS              | 24     |   | 20   | 83.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| SEED PCS                             | 48     |   | 39   | 81.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Washington Latin School              | 96     |   | 77   | 80.2%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Potomac Lighthouse PCS               | 5      |   | 4    | 80.0%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Howard University Math and Science   | 19     |   | 15   | 78.9%    |
| MS                                   |        |   |      |          |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Academy for Learning Through the     | 9      |   | 7    | 77.8%    |
| Arts (ALTA) PCS                      |        |   |      |          |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| DC Bilingual PCS                     | 17     |   | 13   | 76.5%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| E. L. Haynes PCS                     | 17     |   | 13   | 76.5%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Academia Bilingue de la Communidad   | 44     |   | 33   | 75.0%    |
| PCS                                  |        |   |      |          |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| SAIL PCS                             | 11     |   | 8    | 72.7%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Meridian PCS                         | 25     |   | 18   | 72.0%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| KIPP DC PCS                          | 166    |   | 118  | 71.1%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Young America Works PCS              | 86     |   | 61   | 70.9%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Friendship-Edison PCS                | 214    |   | 148  | 69.2%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Hospitality PCS                      | 30     |   | 20   | 66.7%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Tree of Life Community PCS           | 13     |   | 8    | 61.5%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Ideal Academy PCS                    | 133    |   | 73   | 54.9%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Hope Community PCS                   | 15     |   | 8    | 53.3%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| DCPS                                 | 10249  |   | 5208 | 50.8%    |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| Early Childhood Academy PCS          | 2      |   | 0    | 0.0%     |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+
| *Blue = flagged for an Improvement   |        |   |      |          |
| Plan per NCLB, Sec. 2141(a)*         |        |   |      |          |
|                                      |        |   |      |          |
| *Yellow = flagged for a SEA/LEA      |        |   |      |          |
| agreement per NCLB, Sec. 2141(c)*    |        |   |      |          |
+--------------------------------------+--------+---+------+----------+

During the months of October - November, all LEAs will receive OSSE
technical assistance via one or more of the following to complete their
HQT Plan: web seminars, conference calls, city-wide trainings, and
on-site visits (see Requirement 1 for the OSSE training schedule). All
LEAs that are not 100% HQT compliant and have not made AYP for three
consecutive years (highlighted in yellow on the above table) are
required to enter into an agreement with the OSSE per NCLB, Section
2141(c). These LEAs will be specifically scheduled for on-site or
conference call assistance for plan development, and discussion of the
2141(c) requirement regarding the usage of federal funds to ensure that
Title II-A funds are directed towards reaching the 100% HQT goal (see
Requirement 3 of Appendix III). These LEAs will also be prohibited from
spending Title I funds for paraprofessional salaries. To formalize the
agreement, an on-site visit will be scheduled to obtain LEA and OSSE
signatures on an agreement cover page, citing 2141(c) language that will
be added to the LEA HQT Plan. All plans will be due in December, 2008
and will include the following components:

• HQT Needs Assessment

• Strategies for HQT Improvement

• HQT Hiring Plan

• HQT Retention Plan

The OSSE will approve of all plans submitted by the November deadline
that meet the review requirements (see Appendix III) in early January,
2009. In the interim, to ensure proper spending of Title II-A funds in
LEAs that require a 2141(c) spending agreement, the OSSE has built this
check into the LEA NCLB Consolidated Application review process.
Required set-asides are highlighted for reviewers, and the OSSE Title
II-A program officer must sign off on each LEA's Title II-A spending
plan and proposed activities to ensure that funds are prioritized
towards meeting 100% HQT compliance. The program officer also ensures
that Title I funds are not being used for paraprofessional salaries if
the LEA is required to enter into an agreement with the OSSE per NCLB
2141(c).

The LEA HQT Plan meets takes a comprehensive approach to HQT planning
due to its incorporation of a LEA's longer-term strategies to stay in
HQT compliance; recruit and retain highly effective teachers; and ensure
that poor and minority students are not being taught at higher rates by
inexperienced, unqualified teachers. The OSSE will monitor plan
compliance through the established reporting schedule (see p.3). LEAs
that must enter into a 2141(c) agreement with the OSSE will have
regularly scheduled conference calls when reports are due, and on a more
frequent basis as necessary. We have scheduled DCPS for a monthly
conference call, and will provide updates to the Public Charter School
Board's NCLB liaison when reports are due and analyzed.

# 

# [Requirement 3: SEA Plan for LEA Technical Assistance, Programs and Services]{.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 HQT goals.**

In March, 2008, the D.C. State Board of Education approved an updated
HQT definition that is aligned with NCLB requirements (please see
Requirement 1 for more information). This revision will permit LEAs to
access the full flexibility outlined in NCLB for teachers to demonstrate
content knowledge (major/equivalent; state content test, etc.),
including the option for veteran teachers to use a High, Objective,
State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) process to meet highly qualified
requirements. Therefore, there is a great need for assisting LEAs with
understanding the updated definition and the option for teachers to use
the HOUSSE. The OSSE training schedule for LEAs on new state HQT
policies is outlined below. In July and August 2008, the OSSE provided
DCPS Human Resources and LEA Grants employees with two three-hour
technical assistance sessions on licensure and highly qualified
requirements, including the upcoming HOUSSE release. In early October
2008, we met again with DCPS and engaged the Public Charter School Board
on the upcoming roll-out of new state HQT procedures and requirements.

**SY 2008-2009 HQT LEA Training and Reporting Schedule**

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Activity**                                      | **Date**         |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Announcement of training and reporting schedule   | By November 14,  |
| sent to LEAs with LEA HQT Resource Guide          | 2008             |
| (inclusive of EER forms, 4-week verification      |                  |
| requirements; LEA HQT Plan Review Guide, etc.)    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Web-enabled Teleconference HQT Training           | November 19-20,  |
|                                                   | 2008             |
|                                                   |                  |
|                                                   | November 24-25,  |
|                                                   | 2008             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Community-based HQT Training                      | December 2, 2008 |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Technical Assistance visits/conference calls      | December 3-12,   |
| available upon request                            | 2008             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Due date for all LEA HQT Plans, including the HQ  | December 12,     |
| Progress Report (individual teacher plans will be | 2008             |
| required of LEAs w/ten or fewer non-HQTs in lieu  |                  |
| of the LEA HQT Plan)                              |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| OSSE/LEA 2141(c) Agreement Sign-offs              | Week of December |
|                                                   | 15th             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Initial 2008-2009 Employed Educator and HQ        | February 20 ,    |
| Progress Reports due to OSSE; conference calls    | 2009             |
| will be scheduled with those LEAs not             |                  |
| demonstrating HQT improvement. The OSSE may also  |                  |
| opt to increase the frequency of HQT reporting.   |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Final 2008-2009 Employed Educator and HQ Progress | May 18,          |
| Reports due to OSSE; conference call will be      | 200              |
| scheduled with those LEAs not demonstrating HQT   | 9                |
| improvement.                                      |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Final LEA EER profiles created by the OSSE and    | June 15, 2009    |
| sent to LEAs for validation                       |                  |
|                                                   | July 3, 2009     |
| LEA EER validation reports due                    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| SEA HQT Report finalized and published            | July 31, 2009    |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

To immediately assist LEAs with implementing the testing route as an
option for meeting HQT requirements, the OSSE provided a Praxis Test Fee
Assistance Program statewide for core subject teachers to take relevant
tests during the September 2008 Praxis administration. Over 200 teachers
took 400 Praxis assessments as part of this initiative. In addition, the
OSSE is creating a Praxis Resource Take-Away Library for teachers to
obtain free test preparation materials.

The OSSE is also researching qualified organizations to provide Praxis
prep classes to teachers in the core subject areas. As mentioned in
Requirement 1, a majority of the resources will be directed to DCPS as
the largest LEA with the highest number of non-HQTs. In addition to
providing LEAs assistance via the technical assistance and training
schedule outlined above, the OSSE will implement the following programs
and services to LEAs in need of becoming 100% HQT compliant, and keep as
a priority those services needed by schools not making AYP (see Table
III, on pgs. 6-9). The responsible OSSE office for coordinating the
implementation of the activities outlined throughout the Revised State
HQT Plan is the Office of Educator Licensure and Quality.

**SEA HQT Programs and Services**

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **OSSE Programs and Services**            | **Implementation         |
|                                           | Timeline**               |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| • Create test fee fund for Praxis I and   | At least twice per year, |
| II completion                             | beginning in September   |
|                                           | 2008                     |
| • Create Praxis Resource Take-Away        |                          |
| Library                                   | October 2008             |
|                                           |                          |
| • Fund test preparation classes for core  | January 2009             |
| subject teachers.                         |                          |
|                                           | (based on need as        |
|                                           | determined by LEA        |
|                                           | submission of HQT data   |
|                                           | in November 2008)        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Complete analyses of current Praxis cut   | October 2008             |
| score requirements; areas for revisions   |                          |
| and content area test adoption (for. ex., | Spring 2009              |
| the OSSE currently has no exams for       |                          |
| middle school teachers)                   |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| •Implement new test score requirements    |                          |
| pending results of standards-setting      |                          |
| process and approval by the State         |                          |
| Superintendent                            |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Provide LEAs information and resources to | January 2009             |
| obtain professional development;          |                          |
| coursework, etc. in the top five areas    | (based on need as        |
| identified by the state with the highest  | determined by LEA        |
| number of non-HQTs.                       | submission of HQT data   |
|                                           | in November 2008)        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Create state fund to replicate proven     | February 2009            |
| programs to recruit and/or retain highly  |                          |
| qualified and effective teachers.         |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Align SAHE grant priorities with          | RFA scheduled for        |
| statewide HQT and student achievement     | January 2009 release     |
| needs.                                    |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

In addition to the use of Title II-A state activity funds to increase
the number of highly qualified and effective teachers in the District of
Columbia, for FY 2009 the OSSE has committed \$1,151,450 in local
funding for Teach For America (TFA) and Teachers-Teachers.com. The TFA
grant will accomplish two broad goals:

> • Increase the number of highly qualified teachers recruited and
> selected to teach in public schools in the District of Columbia; and
> develop training and support models for their further development; and
>
> • Support the expansion of the TFA-DC alumni network, as alumni grow
> in positions of school and LEA leadership.

The contract with Teachers-Teachers.com funds a national educator
recruitment website for D.C. LEAs. LEAs may establish a free account
with Teachers-Teachers.com to post jobs, recruit, and track applicant
status. In the past, LEAs paid individual subscription fees that the
OSSE now covers through the state-wide contract. Teachers-Teachers.com
will also provide assistance with state-wide job fairs and other
marketing related to teaching in the District of Columbia.

Lastly, the OSSE is establishing systems and processes to ensure
coordination across grant programs. Relevant to the Revised State HQT
Plan, entitlement program leads from Title I (set-asides for HQTs and
high quality professional development); Title II-B (Math & Science
Partnerships); Title II-D (Technology); Reading First; and Title II --
SAHE meet weekly for program updates, collaboration and coordination.

# [Requirement 4: OSSE Plan for LEAs that have not met 100% HQT Goal by end of School Year 2008-09]{.underline} 

**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.**

LEA targets for becoming 100% HQT compliant will be established by
taking the current LEA HQT percentage, and expecting a quarterly
increase that will meet the 100% goal by June 2009. Table V. in
Requirement 3 provides further information on the OSSE's plan for
monitoring LEA compliance with their HQT plans. LEAs will be held
accountable for meeting HQT targets by submitting evidence of plan and
strategy implementation in the HQCAP updates. Those LEAs that fail to
demonstrate progress and/or implementation of the LEA plan will be held
to the Progressive Sanction Policy outlined on the following page.

SEA HQT Progressive Sanction Policy

+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+
|             | > **HQT Sanction**            | **Current Status and  |
|             |                               | Action Steps**        |
+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **          | 1)  Per NCLB, Section         | 1)  See Appendix III; |
| Progressive |     2141(a), require LEAs     |     due November 2008 |
| Sanction    |     that have not met annual  |                       |
| Policy I:** |     measurable objectives to  | 2)  Ongoing analysis  |
|             |     submit an improvement     |     of HQCAP data,    |
| LEAs that   |     plan.                     |     status reports    |
| have not    |                               |     and individual    |
| MET         | 2)  Require LEAs to submit    |     teacher HQ Action |
| required    |     HQCAP data and status     |     Plans.            |
| benchmarks  |     reports every three       |                       |
| (100% HQT   |     months to monitor whether | 3)  Will be reviewed  |
| status)     |     effective                 |     as part of the    |
|             |     programs/services are in  |     2008-2009 LEA     |
|             |     place to increase HQT     |     Consolidated      |
|             |     compliance.               |     Application       |
|             |                               |     process, and LEA  |
|             | 3)  Ensure the LEA redirects  |     HQT Plans and     |
|             |     funding to the most       |     HQCAP updates.    |
|             |     effective programs and    |                       |
|             |     eliminates programs that  | 4)  No later than     |
|             |     do not result in a        |     November 2008.    |
|             |     significant increase of   |                       |
|             |     HQTs.                     |                       |
|             |                               |                       |
|             | 4)  Require that individual   |                       |
|             |     teachers who are not      |                       |
|             |     highly qualified be on a  |                       |
|             |     LEA-approved action plan  |                       |
|             |     that includes the most    |                       |
|             |     expedient route for       |                       |
|             |     becoming highly           |                       |
|             |     qualified.                |                       |
|             |                               |                       |
|             | > *LEAs that fail to make     |                       |
|             | > timely submissions two or   |                       |
|             | > more times will proceed to  |                       |
|             | > the subsequent sanction     |                       |
|             | > policy.*                    |                       |
+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **          | 1)  All of the items in       | 1)  Please see #1     |
| Progressive |     Progressive Sanction      |     above.            |
| Sanction    |     Policy I; AND             |                       |
| Policy      |                               | 2)  Hold individual   |
| II:**       | 2)  Per NCLB, Section         |     meetings with LEA |
|             |     2141(c), enter into an    |     representatives   |
| LEAs that   |     agreement with the State  |     to determine most |
| have failed |     on mutually agreed upon   |     effective use of  |
| to meet the |     action plan steps and an  |     funding. LEAs     |
| HQT annual  |     agreement on the use of   |     placed under this |
| measurable  |     Title II, Part A funds.   |     sanction will be  |
| objectives  |                               |     visited on-site   |
| for three   | > *LEAs that fail to make     |     for technical     |
| consecutive | > timely submissions two or   |     assistance when   |
| years, and  | > more times will proceed to  |     increases in the  |
| have also   | > the subsequent sanction     |     numbers of HQTs   |
| failed to   | > policy.*                    |     are not apparent  |
| make AYP    |                               |     on HQCAP updates. |
| for three   |                               |                       |
| years       |                               |                       |
+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **          | 1)  LEAs will be notified     | With a 100% EER       |
| Progressive |     that the 3^rd^ level of   | reporting rate for SY |
| Sanction    |     the Progressive Sanction  | 2007-08, no LEA is    |
| Policy      |     Policy will apply.        | currently being held  |
| III:**      |                               | to this sanction      |
|             | 2)  The HQCAP Quarterly       | policy.               |
| LEAs that   |     reporting requirement     |                       |
| fail to     |     will be adjusted such     |                       |
| comply with |     that the LEA must report  |                       |
| the         |     on a monthly basis.       |                       |
| r           |                               |                       |
| equirements | 3)  LEAs must participate in  |                       |
| of Policies |     on-site or workshop       |                       |
| I and/or    |     activities provided by    |                       |
| II.         |     OSSE to address           |                       |
|             |     compliance issues and     |                       |
|             |     develop appropriate       |                       |
|             |     polices and procedures.   |                       |
|             |                               |                       |
|             | 4)  This status will remain   |                       |
|             |     in effect until the LEA   |                       |
|             |     has met its quarterly     |                       |
|             |     benchmarks for two        |                       |
|             |     consecutive quarters. The |                       |
|             |     demonstration of fiscal   |                       |
|             |     and programmatic          |                       |
|             |     responsibility to the     |                       |
|             |     satisfaction of the State |                       |
|             |     will also be required.    |                       |
+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **          | 1)  The state may withhold    |                       |
| Progressive |     funds as appropriate; or  |                       |
| Sanction    |                               |                       |
| Policy      | 2)  The award will be         |                       |
| IV:**       |     suspended or terminated   |                       |
|             |     in whole or in part.      |                       |
| LEAs that   |                               |                       |
| fail to     |                               |                       |
| comply with |                               |                       |
| the above   |                               |                       |
| r           |                               |                       |
| equirements |                               |                       |
| or fail to  |                               |                       |
| show good   |                               |                       |
| faith in    |                               |                       |
| meeting HQT |                               |                       |
| re          |                               |                       |
| quirements. |                               |                       |
+-------------+-------------------------------+-----------------------+

Based on past failure to demonstrate progress in becoming HQT compliant,
some LEAs already qualify for one of the phases outlined in above table.
Using data from SYs 2005-06; 2006-07; and 2007-08, the SEA has
determined that 26 LEAs will be held to Progressive Sanction Policy I;
and 16 to Progressive Sanction Policy II (see Table V, pgs.10-11). The
plans and agreements required under the sanction policies and NCLB, Sec.
2141(a) and (c) will be due to the state in December, 2008.

The OSSE is committed to significantly improving the number of highly
qualified teachers statewide. We will work diligently with the 42 LEAs
that must submit HQT Improvement Plans that are aggressive and
achievable. We are also committed to assisting LEAs with identifying
mechanisms to recruiting and retaining highly qualified and effective
teachers.