Assessing State Progress in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT)
Goals

Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine

Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans

State: NORTH DAKOTA

Date of Review: 5/5/06

Overall Recommendation:

\_\_\_\_\_ Revised Plan Not Required: The State is making substantial
progress and is not required to submit a revised HQT plan

\_\_X\_\_ Revised Plan Required: The State has shown good-faith effort
in meeting the HQT goal but a revised HQT plan is required

\_\_\_\_\_ Revised Plan Required, Possible Sanctions: The State has not
shown good-faith effort in meeting the HQT goal. A revised HQT plan is
required and the Department will consider appropriate administrative
actions or sanctions

Comments to support recommendation:

-   North Dakota has made significant progress on implementing its HQT
    definitions and procedures.

-   North Dakota's annual report card is not in compliance with the NCLB
    HQT requirements. The State plans to post a corrected report card in
    July 2006.

-   The State has reported complete and accurate data for the 2004-05
    CSPR.

-   North Dakota has a variety of strategies that address staffing
    inequities between high- and low-poverty schools. The State,
    however, lacks a comprehensive equity plan that would provide a
    blueprint statewide to ensure that all children have access to a
    high-quality teacher.

-   While the State has made substantial gains in meeting the HQT goal,
    it still faces significant challenges at the secondary level where
    one-third of classes are not taught by HQTs.

Decision

Approve \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Signature [Miriam Lund
/s/]{.underline} Date [5/10/2006]{.underline}

Disapprove \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Signature
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Requirement 1: [Appropriate HQT Definitions]{.underline}---A State must
have a definition of a "highly qualified teacher" that is consistent
with the law, and it must use this definition to determine the status of
all teachers, including special education teachers, who teach core
academic subjects \[ESEA §9101(23); IDEA §602(10)\].

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

  Y                Does the State have an appropriate HQT definition in
                   place?

  Y                Do the definitions apply to all teachers of core
                   academic subjects, including special education
                   teachers?

  Y                Has the State used these definitions to determine the
                   HQ status of all teachers?

  N                If the State has established HOUSSE procedures, has it
                   completed its review of teachers who are not new to
                   the profession?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 1 has been partially met

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

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

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline[^1]

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   The U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducted an NCLB Title II,
    Part A, monitoring review of North Dakota and is satisfied that the
    State has implemented the correct HQT definitions and procedures.
    North Dakota was issued a finding with regard to determining the HQT
    status of new and veteran elementary teachers and secondary special
    education teachers, but has provided an acceptable corrective action
    plan to ED to address the issue.

-   North Dakota is in the process of conducting the final HOUSSE review
    of its veteran teachers.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the December 1-2,
2004 visit (1/24/05); HOUSSE resolution letter (2/1/05); North Dakota
State Response (3/15/05); ED Resolution Letter (9/21/05).

Requirement 2: [Public Reporting of HQT Data]{.underline}---A State must
provide parents and the public with accurate, complete reports on the
number and percentage of classes in core academic subjects taught by
highly qualified teachers. States and districts must provide these data
to parents through school, district, and State report cards. Parents of
students in schools receiving Title I funds must be notified that they
may request information regarding the professional qualifications of
their children's teachers, and they must be notified if their children
have been assigned to or taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a
teacher who is not highly qualified \[ESEA §1111(h)(6) and §1119(i)\].

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

  N                Does the State have an Annual State Report Card that
                   contains required information on the qualifications of
                   teachers, including the percentage of classes not
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  N                Does the State have annual report cards for all of its
                   LEAs and schools that contain required information on
                   the qualifications of teachers, including the
                   percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified
                   teachers?

  Y                Does the State assure that all report cards are
                   available to the public?

  Y                Does the SEA assure that principals in all Title I
                   schools send the required notification to parents when
                   children are taught by teachers who are not HQ? Does
                   the SEA have evidence that notification occurs in a
                   timely way?

  Y                Does the SEA ensure that parents of students in Title
                   I districts are notified that they may request
                   information regarding the professional qualifications
                   of their children's teachers?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 2 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

Website link to report cards:
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/Profile/index.shtm

The most recent report card data are for the 2004-2005 year.

Were HQT data included in the report cards? Yes

Other information (if available):

-   North Dakota publishes an annual State report card. However, the
    report card provides data on the percentage of classes taught by
    HQTs, not the inverse. The report card does not include information
    on the qualifications of teachers or on the number of teachers on
    waivers. ED issued the State a finding on its report card. North
    Dakota indicated the corrected report card will be posted on its
    website in July 2006.

-   The LEA report cards do not contain HQT data.

-   North Dakota received a finding on Title I hiring and parental
    notification, but submitted a corrective action plan that satisfies
    the compliance issues.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the December 1-2,
2004 visit (1/24/05); HOUSSE resolution letter (2/1/05); North Dakota
State Response (3/15/05); ED Resolution Letter (9/21/05).

Requirement 3: [Data Reporting to ED]{.underline}---States must submit
complete and accurate data to the U.S. Secretary of Education on their
implementation of the HQT requirements as part of their Consolidated
State Performance Report (CSPR). In addition to reporting the number and
percentage of core academic classes being taught by highly qualified
teachers in all schools, States must report on the number and percentage
of core academic classes being taught in "high-" and "low-poverty"
schools \[ESEA §1111(h)(4)(G) and §9101(23)\]. States must also provide
additional information in the CSPR that describes, for classes taught by
non-HQ teachers, the reasons why the teachers are not highly qualified.

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

  Y                Did the State submit complete HQT data in the 2004-05
                   CSPR?

  Y                Are the submitted HQT data reported at the classroom
                   level?

  Y                Were data disaggregated for elementary and secondary
                   schools?

  Y                Were data disaggregated by high- and low-poverty
                   elementary schools and high- and low-poverty secondary
                   schools?

  Y                Did the State provide specific information describing
                   the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ Requirement 3 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   North Dakota reported complete 2004-05 HQT data in its 2006 CSPR by
    the required disaggregated categories.

-   The State reported its greatest challenge in meeting the HQT goal is
    secondary classes taught by certified general education teachers who
    have not demonstrated subject-matter competence in those subjects
    (100 percent of the classes not taught by HQT).

Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, March 2006.

Requirement 4: [Equity Plans]{.underline}---States must have a plan in
place to ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates
than are other children \[ESEA §1111(b)(8)(C)\].

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

  U                Does the State have a plan in place to ensure that
                   poor or minority children are not taught by
                   inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers
                   at higher rates than are other children?

  U                Does the plan include specific strategies for
                   addressing inequities in teacher assignment?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 4 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   During the State's monitoring review, ED did not ask North Dakota
    about its plan to ensure that poor or minority children are not
    taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at
    higher rates than are other children A review of the State's website
    and use of State Activities Funds found that North Dakota has
    various strategies for recruiting and retaining experienced and
    high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools. However, it appears
    that the State lacks a written plan to ensure that poor and minority
    children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or
    out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other children.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the December 1-2,
2004 visit (1/24/05); HOUSSE resolution letter (2/1/05); North Dakota
State Response (3/15/05); ED Resolution Letter (9/21/05).

[Analysis of the State's Progress Toward Meeting the HQT
Goal:]{.underline}

Has the State made annual progress in increasing the percent of classes
taught by highly qualified teachers?

[2002-03 data (from 2004 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total   | **Number of    | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number of | Core Academic  | Core Academic    |
|                     | Core      | Classes Taught | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic  | by Highly      | by Highly        |
|                     | Classes** | Qualified      | Qualified        |
|                     |           | Teachers**     | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **NA**    | **NA**         | **91**           |
| ll Schools in State |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| > Schools**         |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **NA**    | **NA**         | **94**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+

[2003-04 data (from 2005 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total  | **Number of     | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number   | Core Academic   | Core Academic    |
|                     | of Core  | Classes Taught  | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic | by Highly       | by Highly        |
|                     | C        | Qualified       | Qualified        |
|                     | lasses** | Teachers**      | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **       | **27,096**      | **77.2**         |
| ll Schools in State | 35,102** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **       | **16,983**      | **100.0**        |
| > Schools**         | 16,983** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **       | **10,113**      | **55.8**         |
| Schools**           | 18,119** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | *        | **4,133**       | **82.9**         |
| Schools**           | *4,986** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **       | **8,959**       | **73.2**         |
| Schools**           | 12,248** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+

[2004-05 data (from 2006 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total  | **Number of     | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number   | Core Academic   | Core Academic    |
|                     | of Core  | Classes Taught  | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic | by Highly       | by Highly        |
|                     | C        | Qualified       | Qualified        |
|                     | lasses** | Teachers**      | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **       | **30,647**      | **89.0**         |
| ll Schools in State | 34,446** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| #####               |          |                 |                  |
| ## Elementary Level |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **       | **16,013**      | **100.0**        |
| Schools**           | 16,013** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | *        | **7,170**       | **100.0**        |
| Schools**           | *7,170** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **       | **23,183**      | **100.0**        |
| > Schools**         | 23,183** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| # Secondary Level   |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | *        | **5,155**       | **66.3**         |
| Schools**           | *7,779** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | *        | **2,309**       | **66.3**         |
| Schools**           | *3,484** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **       | **7,464**       | **66.3**         |
| Schools**           | 11,263** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ The State is making annual progress in increasing the percentage
of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

\_\_\_ The State is not making annual progress in increasing the
percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   The State has made annual progress in meeting the HQT goal. The
    percentage of classes taught by HQT increased from 77 percent in
    2003-04 to 89 percent in 2004-05. The State reported increases in
    the percentage of HQTs in all categories.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.

The 2004-05 CSPR data must show that the State has made substantial
progress in reaching the goal that, after the 2005-06 school year, 100
percent of all core academic classes will be taught by a highly
qualified teacher.

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

  Y                Is the percentage of classes taught by highly
                   qualified teachers in high-poverty elementary schools
                   reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 points) the
                   percentage of classes taught by highly qualified
                   teachers in low-poverty elementary schools?

  Y                Is the percentage of classes taught by highly
                   qualified teachers in high-poverty secondary schools
                   reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 points) the
                   percentage of classes taught by highly qualified
                   teachers in low-poverty secondary schools?

  U                Has the State made substantial progress since 2002-03
                   in reaching the goal of 100 percent of classes taught
                   by highly qualified teachers?

  N                Are at least 90 percent of classes, in total, taught
                   by highly qualified teachers?

  Y                Are at least 90 percent of elementary school classes
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  N                Are at least 90 percent of secondary school classes
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  NA               If more than 90 percent of classes are taught by
                   highly qualified teachers, do the data on teachers who
                   remain non-HQT suggest special cases that may make it
                   difficult for the State to meet the HQT goal?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

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

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ The State has made substantial progress in meeting the HQT goal

\_\_\_ The State has not made substantial progress in meeting the HQT
goal

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   The percentage of classes in North Dakota taught by HQT increased
    from 77 percent in 2003-04 to 89 percent in 2004-05.

-   Though North Dakota reported that 100 percent of elementary classes
    were taught by HQTs, the State is facing significant challenges at
    the secondary level, where 66 percent of classes are taught by HQTs.

-   The State reported that there were no gaps in the percentage of
    classes taught by HQTs between high- and low-poverty schools.

How does the State's progress in meeting the HQT goal align with its
progress in ensuring that all schools make adequate yearly progress
toward the goal of improvement in student achievement in reading and
mathematics?

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

  N                Does improved and exemplary statewide student
                   achievement on NAEP or on the State assessment
                   indicate that significant revision to the State's HQT
                   plan is not required, even if more than 10 percent of
                   classes are taught by teachers who are not HQ?

                   Do districts or schools that are in need of
                   improvement or in corrective action status have higher
                   percentages of teachers who are not highly qualified
                   than do other schools?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ The State is making adequate yearly progress in student
achievement in nearly all of its districts and schools

\_\_\_ The State is not making adequate yearly progress in student
achievement in a substantial number of its schools or districts

\_\_\_ The State is not making substantial progress in meeting the HQT
goal in many of the schools and districts that are not making AYP

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

[^1]: ^\*^ In general, the submission deadline for additional
    information will be 30 business days after the date of the request.