Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: ARKANSAS

Date: 7/27/06

Peer Review Panel's Consensus Determination:

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

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

Comments to support determination:

Recommendation: that Arkansas substantially revise its plan and resubmit
it for additional review because the SEA did not address all six USDE
requirements. It appears that Arkansas used USDE's protocol for
determining "good-faith efforts."

Requirement 1 has not been met. The report does not present a detailed
analysis of the core academic subjects that are currently not taught by
HQTs. The report does not provide district- or school-level data, and no
analyses are presented to determine whether schools that are not making
AYP have greater difficulty attracting highly qualified teachers.

Requirement 2 has not been met. The report presents no district-level
data, and therefore does not identify LEAs that have not met annual
measurable objectives. The plan does not include specific steps that
will be taken by LEAs to meet their annual measurable objectives, and
the plan provides insufficient information about the specific steps that
the SEA will take to ensure that LEAs have plans in place to bring all
teachers to HQT status as quickly as possible.

Requirement 3 has been partially met. The plan does describe some of the
ways in which the SEA will help LEAs carry out their HQT plans. However,
the state is not currently able to analyze the needs of particular
groups of teachers. The plan needs to include a description of how the
State will use its available funds to address the needs of teachers who
are not HQT. In addition, the plan needs to describe how available
funding will be prioritized for the staffing and professional
development needs of schools that are not making AYP.

Requirement 4 has been partially met. The report does not say how the
state will hold LEAs accountable for fulfilling their own plans, and
does not address plans for corrective action if LEAs fail to meet HQT
and AYP goals. The plan needs to describe in greater detail how the
state will target assistance to schools in need of improvement and in
corrective action to help the teachers who work in them to become HQT.

Requirement 5 has not been met. The report does not describe how and
when the state will complete the HOUSSE process for veteran teachers,
nor does it describe how the SEA intends to phase out its use.

Requirement 6 has not been met. The report does include a number of
strategies that Arkansas is using to attract and retain teachers in
high-need schools, but additional work is needed to develop these
strategies into a cohesive plan of action with timelines, targets, and
performance measures. The equity plan needs to include a measure of
teacher experience, as required by statute, in order to determine
whether the least experienced teachers are disproportionately
concentrated in the highest-need schools. The report does not provide
evidence for the probable success of the strategies that it presents and
does not discuss how the SEA intends to examine the issue of equitable
teacher assignment during monitoring visits and other contact with LEAs.

Requirement 1: The revised plan must provide a detailed analysis of the
core academic subject classes in the State that are currently *not*
being taught by highly qualified teachers. The analysis must, in
particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly progress
and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do other
schools in attracting highly qualified teachers. The analysis must also
identify the districts and schools around the State where significant
numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards, and examine whether or
not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by
non-highly qualified teachers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

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

\_X\_ Requirement 1 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The report says that Arkansas is "in the process of identifying the
credentials and circumstances of those teachers who are not HQT" (p.
11). The report lists the numbers of core academic classes *statewide*
taught by non-HQTs in different subjects (pp. 11-12), but not the
percentages, and data are not disaggregated at the district or school
level. The report says that "the State is currently able to identify
teachers who are not HQT as being Special Education teachers, long-term
substitutes who are unlicensed, or licensed but teaching out-of-field
and unable to demonstrate HQT," but no data are presented to support
this (p. 15).

The report presents no analyses of classes taught by non-HQTs according
to the poverty status of the school, other than to note that the
statewide percentages of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty
elementary and secondary schools are actually higher than in the state's
low-poverty schools (pp. 11, 15). Though the report says that the SEA
has reviewed district-level data on percentages of classes taught by
non-HQTs in schools identified for improvement or corrective action, the
report presents no analyses other than to note that the percentage of
classes taught by highly qualified teachers is lower in districts that
have been in school improvement for a longer period of time (p. 13).

Improved data collection and reporting is a high priority for the state,
and Arkansas has received a substantial grant to develop a data
collection and management system that will allow the SEA to track
improvements in teachers' HQT status over time, identify teachers who
are teaching out-of-field, and analyze the distribution of qualified,
experienced teachers (p. 14). This will allow the state to meet USDE
data reporting requirements and vastly improve the state's ability to
identify areas of need.

Requirement 2: The revised plan must provide information on HQT status
in each LEA and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has
plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain
HQT status as quickly as possible.

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been partially met

\_X_Requirement 2 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The report presents no district-level data, and therefore does not
identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives, nor does
the plan describe the steps that LEAs will take to meet them. The report
does say that all non-HQTs must develop an individual plan to become
highly qualified and that the SEA will review this information and
establish what these teachers will need to do to become HQT. However,
the report says only that "the State will work with LEAs/Districts to
assure that such teachers will follow the plan for becoming highly
qualified in order to meet all requirements in a timely manner" (p. 14).
The report provides no specifics about how this will be done, other than
allowing districts to use Title IIA funds for this purpose.

Requirement 3: The revised plan must include information on the
technical assistance, programs, and services that the SEA will offer to
assist LEAs in successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly
where large groups of teachers are not highly qualified, and the
resources the LEAs will use to meet their HQT goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been met

\_X\_ 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}

Though the report lists a number of programs, initiatives, and
incentives to address the recruitment and retention of highly qualified
educators for every classroom (e.g., housing programs, stipends,
recruitment fairs -- p. 16 and pp. 18-23), the report does not address
what the SEA will do to help LEAs carry out their local HQT plans or
discuss how it will give priority to the staffing and professional
development needs of schools that are not making AYP. However, the
report does note that districts in school improvement have higher
percentages of non-HQTs and these districts will receive a scholastic
audit during Years 3, 4, or 5 (p. 15).

The state is not currently able to analyze the needs of particular
groups of teachers, but is working toward that goal with the new data
collection and management system. At present, the state says that it is
"currently able to identify teachers who are not HQT as being Special
Education teachers, long-term substitutes who are unlicensed, or
licensed but teaching out-of-field and unable to demonstrate HQT." No
information is provided to indicate where these teachers are located or
the specific technical assistance that will be provided by the state to
help these particular groups of teachers become HQT.

There is no discussion of how the state intends to use its Title II and
other funds to address the needs of non-HQTs.

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_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}

The report says that the SEA will review HQT credentials and
documentation during Title I and Title IIA audits and work with LEAs to
ensure that teachers follow their plans to become highly qualified, but
the report lacks specificity and does not say how the state will hold
LEAs accountable for fulfilling their own plans (p. 14). The report does
not address plans for corrective action if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP
goals.

The report says that Arkansas is heavily engaged in technical assistance
with schools in need of improvement and that individual school
improvement plans include strategies for focused professional
development. The report also says that the state will require a
scholastic audit during years 3, 4, or 5 of school improvement and that
the state has selected a comprehensive school reform plan to turn around
these low-performing schools. The state needs to address this topic more
fully and describe how it will target assistance to these schools to
help the teachers who work in them become HQT. For example, what types
of focused professional development will be provided? How will it be
aligned with the subjects in which the school did not make AYP?

The report does not address how the state will monitor LEAs to ensure
that non-HQTs are receiving high-quality professional development to
enable them to become highly qualified.

Requirement 5: The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will
complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who
were hired prior to the end of the 2005-06 school year, and how the SEA
will limit the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after the end
of the 2005-06 school year to multi-subject secondary teachers in rural
schools eligible for additional flexibility, and multi-subject special
education who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or
science at the time of hire.

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 5 has been met

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

\_X\_ Requirement 5 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The report does not describe how and when the state will complete the
HOUSSE process for veteran teachers, nor does it describe how the SEA
intends to phase out its use.

Requirement 6: The revised plan must include a copy of the State's
written "equity plan" for ensuring that poor or minority children are
not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at
higher rates than are other children.

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

  N                Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 6 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The report does include a number of strategies that Arkansas is using to
attract and retain teachers in high-need schools (e.g., rural school
district consortium, grow-your-own program, Troops to Teachers, Teach
for America). Appendix F, for example, presents a list of programs that
could be developed into an equity plan. Additional work is needed to
develop these strategies into a cohesive plan of action with timelines,
targets, and performance measures so that the SEA knows which strategies
are most effective, which should be adjusted over time, and which might
need to be discontinued.

Because the state does not have its data system fully operational yet,
the SEA is not able to target and align its strategies to the areas of
greatest need. The report does not address how the state will ensure
that inequities in the distribution of *inexperienced* or *out-of-field*
teachers will be addressed, as the NCLB legislation requires. The report
does not provide evidence for the probable success of the strategies
presented and does not discuss how the SEA intends to examine the issue
of equitable teacher assignment during monitoring visits and other
contact with LEAs. Information that is provided lacks specificity and
should be strengthened (e.g., "To ensure that there is an equitable
distribution and to ensure that continually more classes are taught by
highly qualified teachers, representatives of the ADE have scheduled
summer meetings with school district administrators to share information
regarding HQT." p. 15).