**South Dakota's Revised State Plan**

**"Demonstrating Good Faith Effort"**

South Dakota has made strong efforts to improve teacher quality over the
past four years. The State of South Dakota was awarded a Teacher Quality
Enhancement grant that helped us to clearly focus on creating a succinct
plan for improving teaching quality. We have created a "Theory of
Action" that measures quality against time over the career path of
teachers. (See Appendix 5). This theory of action has guided activities
as well as resulted in policy making that will provide sustainability
for the grant. Additionally, the South Dakota Department of Education
has partnered with the South Dakota Board of Regents as well as the
private and tribal universities across the state to make a coherent plan
of action for Pre-K-16 education.

NCLB legislation has emphasized the need for teacher quality as well by
requiring that all teachers be highly qualified by the end of the
2005-06 school year. South Dakota is in a good position to achieve this
lofty goal. We currently have 92.7% of core courses taught by highly
qualified teachers (based on 2004-05 data). When we disaggregate the
data, although we have not closed the gap completely with filling our
high and low-poverty schools equitably with highly qualified teachers,
we are only 3 percentage points apart.

South Dakota is well on its way to meeting the challenge of the NCLB
requirements of 100% of its teachers by the end of the 2006-2007 school
year. We intend to phase out the HOUSSE plan over the next year and
currently require all incoming core content teachers to validate their
content knowledge with the corresponding Praxis II test.

When South Dakota was confronted with the new requirements for highly
qualified teachers, a task force was rallied to discuss how best to
approach the initiative. It became clear that without testing available
in the state, it would be difficult to meet the standards of NCLB.
Strong efforts were put forth to validate over 40 content specific
Praxis II tests and another five Principals of Teaching and Learning
(pedagogy) tests that went beyond the core content areas. Rules were put
into place that require testing in both content and pedagogy to be
certified in the State of South Dakota effective July 1, 2005. For those
elementary teachers that were new to the profession, the South Dakota
Department of Education required they pass the Praxis II Elementary
content test prior to being hired in the 2005-06 school year. Major
efforts were made to contact and inform teachers across the state of
this requirement. In addition, South Dakota has gone above and beyond
the NCLB requirements for middle and high school core content teachers.
While Title I allows these teachers to be highly qualified based on a
major in the content, South Dakota requires all new teachers to take the
Praxis test to be certified and highly qualified.

In the effort to correctly collect and maintain accurate data based on
the federal requirements and South Dakota's HOUSSE rules, a new data
system was created that matches teacher preparation to all core content
subject areas. Logic is in place that determines the highly qualified
status of teachers in each core content subject they are assigned to
teach as a result of the yearly data submission of the personnel record
form system. This database is a dynamic system that is accessible to
districts at all times to reflect the current highly qualified status of
a teacher throughout the year. School districts can monitor their HQT
status throughout the year in the effort to achieve 100% of core courses
being taught by highly qualified teachers. We believe our system
accurately reflects the status of teachers as it is not self-reported by
districts, but rather is matched to the certification and HOUSSE rule
database. If for example a teacher takes a Praxis II test, the data is
automatically downloaded into the system to update the teacher's HQT
status in that particular content area, which is then reflected
instantly on the highly qualified teacher district report.

The South Dakota Department of Education has full intentions to continue
to update data systems as needed. Discussions are occurring as how SDDOE
will phase out the HOUSSE rules and how the data system will need to be
changed to meet this requirement. Additionally, over the past year
extensive programming was put into place to collect data on each special
education teacher that is teaching core content. This system gives us an
accurate picture of the status of these teachers across the state.

**South Dakota's Revised Plan**

The following plan has provided the South Dakota Department of Education
a valuable in-depth look at the distribution of highly qualified
teachers across the state. SD DOE has always been exceptionally strong
in the ability to collect and maintain strong data systems that
accurately reflect an array of information. However, whether it is time
constraints or lack of resources in personnel, we are probably not
unlike a lot of other states in not taking time to analyze the data. A
prime example of the value of data analysis has been brought to the
forefront as SD DOE led the way by providing districts with data
retreats to scrutinize their assessment data. We recognized that
analyzing the data was not enough without an action plan to determine
next steps to improving instruction. Thus, statewide efforts were made
to train districts in curriculum mapping that took things one step
further by helping teachers to alter curriculum based on their previous
analysis of the data. The data collection circle became valuable and
complete.

Working through this plan provides us the same opportunity for SD DOE to
analyze the immense amount of data we have collected regarding the
highly qualified status of teachers across our state. This includes
specific content needs and equitable distribution of teachers in core
content. The most valuable and important step is how as we outline our
intentions to address the obvious needs as a result of the data
analysis.

As a result of the equity plan and our revised state plan, it has been
determined that the South Dakota Department of Education will create as
website that will highlight the updates, issue the news releases on
improvements on teacher quality and equity issues, highlight the
progress on the Governor's 2010E initiative, etc. Additionally, as a
result of this analysis, it is important to note that the SD Department
of Education, under the advisement of the Secretary of Education, Dr.
Melmer, is creating a position that will devote half of its time to
analyzing and reporting our data and the other half to research funding
sources to support the analysis. We are data rich, analysis poor. The
research and analysis done thus far in the revised state plan and in the
equity plan have only scratched the surface of information that can be
of value for not only teacher quality issues, but for educational issues
in general. The SD Department of Education is currently is a study to
restructure school funding. Without in-depth analysis of our data, we
are making assumptions. The exercise in the creation of these two plans
has created a valuable precedent for the South Dakota Department of
Education.

**Important Note: 2004-05 Data**

It needs to be noted that the following analysis is based on 2004-05
data. Our state\'s data collection cycle requires LEAs to report their
data at the very end of the school year and the system is officially
closed on June 30^th^. Additionally, our preliminary AYP determinations
are not made until mid-July, and thus it is not possible to compare
teacher status to schools identified as not having made AYP. Therefore,
we cannot process the information in-depth in time for this submission.
However, this "process" and outline of the data analysis provides the
guideline for us to use over the next few months with the 2005-06 data.
The value in this report for SD DOE is creating the "process" for
analyzing data as we move forward as well as giving us a baseline to
compare the new data to last years' analysis.

***[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.]{.underline}***

**[Requirement 1- \#]{.underline}1 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?**

**ANALYSIS:**

Analysis was made of all core content courses taught by teachers across
the state. (Appendix 1) This data was pulled from the live database that
matches teachers' certification to their assignments. Logic based on the
federal definition and SD HOUSSE rules is applied that creates the HQT
status of teachers in each core content area. These reports are
available to districts and are updated as teachers meet the HQT
requirements throughout the year (Appendix 2).

The data indicates that 13,719 core content classes are being taught by
highly qualified teachers. 1075 core content classes are being taught by
teachers that are not highly qualified in that particular content area.
In 2004-05 this translated into 7.3% of classes not taught by highly
qualified teachers or 92.7% of core content classes being taught by
highly qualified teachers statewide. Of those classes, only 0.3% was
taught by teachers with emergency or provisional certificates. The state
report card gives the aggregate information which is available online at
both the district and school level.
<https://sis.ddncampus.net:8081/nclb/index.html>

**[Requirement 1 - \#]{.underline}2 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?**

**ANALYSIS:**

An analysis of the staffing needs was made of those schools that did not
make AYP (Appendix 3).

a)  26 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP had 100% of its teachers
    highly qualified (28.8%)

b)  50 of the 90 schools fell below the state's 7.3% of classes not
    taught by highly qualified teachers (55.5%)

> In comparison, those that exceeded the state's 7.3% of classes not
> taught by highly qualified teachers:

c)  40 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP ranged from 9.09% to
    61.54% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (44.4%)

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **90 Schools did not    **Number of Schools**   **Percentage of
  make AYP**                                      Schools**

  100% classes taught by  26                      28.8%
  HQT                                             

  Less than 7.3% (state   50                      55.5%
  average) classes NOT                            
  taught by HQT                                   

  More than 7.3% classes  40                      44.4%
  not taught by HQT                               
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Based on the above comparison, although there is a large percentage of
schools identified as not making AYP if they have ANY amount of non-HQT
(71.2%) the percentage of classes is relatively small until you reach
the 7.3%. In many of these schools, they are quite small in number and
the percentage translates into only ONE or TWO classes. A better
comparison is at the state's point of 7.3% where only 44.4% of the
schools have classes not taught by HQT

d)  23 of the 50 schools that fell below the state's 7.3% of classes not
    taught by highly qualified teachers were elementary, (46%), 14 were
    middle school (28%), 6 were high school (12%), and 7 were
    alternative schools (14%).

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > **Less than 7.3% of classes not | > **More than 7.3% of classes not |
| > taught by HQT**                 | > taught by HQT**                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   46% Elementary                | -   45% Elementary                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   28% Middle School             | -   32.5% Middle School           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   12% High School               | -   15% High School               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   14% Alternative Schools       | -   7.5% Alternative Schools      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

e)  18 of the 40 schools that were above the state's 7.3% of classes not
    taught by HQT were elementary (45%), 13 were middle schools (25%), 6
    were high schools (15%) and 3 were alternative schools (0.75%)

> Based on the above analysis, there does not appear to be a correlation
> of classes not taught by HQT and those schools that did not make AYP
> in relation to the type of attendance center.

f)  48 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP were identified as being
    in the highest quartile for schools indicating poverty. (53%)

g)  13 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP were identified in the
    lowest quartile (14%) and 29 were in the middle (32%).

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Highest Quartile    | **Middle Quartile     | **Lowest Quartile     |
| (25%)**               | (50%)**               | (25%)**               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| -   53%               | -   32%               | -   14%               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

> Based on this analysis, it appears that poverty may be a significant
> indicator on student achievement.

h)  46 of the 90 schools (51%) that did not make AYP are within
    districts have a significant Native American population, which is
    the largest minority in South Dakota

i)  24 of the 40 schools (60%) that were above the state's 7.3% of
    classes not taught by HQT are within districts of a significant
    Native American population.

**CONCLUSIONS:**

There appear to be a number of factors that may influence whether or not
schools make AYP. The data supports our assumptions that low income,
minorities, and non-highly qualified staff contribute to the lack of
student success. This plan will later address how the South Dakota
Department of Education is focusing its resources on improving
instruction, recruitment, and retention of teachers in these areas.

However, the data does NOT indicate other factors such as school size,
which sometimes impacts the size of the sub-group from being accountable
due to the small numbers. This allows many smaller districts to make AYP
in subgroups where there may be issues. Secondly, the data does not show
what sort of professional development the district has been providing
for staff to help them properly analyze and improve instruction.
Thirdly, data does not show what sort of leadership is available to the
district and the schools. Although we require teachers to be "highly
qualified" we do not set the same standard for administration.

**[Requirement 1 - \#]{.underline}3) 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?**

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

(See Appendix 1).

**Analysis of the data:**

a)  170 of the 1075 classes (15.8%) not taught by HQT were elementary.
    Of the 170 in this group, all but 15 are new to the profession. In
    taking a quick audit of 15 of the 170 individuals listed as not HQT,
    all but one now has record of the test. Additionally, of this group,
    4 classes were taught by non-certified personnel.

b)  79 of the 1075 classes (7.3%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were reading classes at middle and elementary school. In analyzing
    some of the reasons for the number it was again due to the high
    number of individuals "new to the profession" that most likely did
    not have test results back at the time of the HQT report. This
    percentage should greatly decrease this year as only one person was
    a non-certified educator.

c)  31 of the 1075 classes (2.9%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were foreign language. Probably the biggest difference in this group
    is the high number of classes taught by persons that are
    non-certified (10) or non-authorized (14 -- these are people that
    are certified in another content area but out of field). This is 77%
    of this particular group of 31 classes taught by non-HQT teachers
    teaching foreign language. The remaining 7 are state certified with
    a bachelor's degree, but not with a major or a test in the specific
    foreign language.

d)  215 of the 1075 classes (20%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were in the area of language arts. This includes both middle and
    high school courses that are often taught by the same individual.
    Language arts preparation in South Dakota includes a Language Arts
    Composite (grammar, composition, and literature), as well as
    individual preparations of speech, drama, theater, literature,
    composition, and mass media. Some preparations are combined. 129 of
    the classes were taught by existing teachers, while the remaining 86
    were new to the profession. 21 of the classes taught by existing
    teachers were non-certified, and because these are disaggregated by
    individual content areas, it appeared that it accounted for only 3
    teachers who were the "language arts departments" and taught
    multiple language arts courses in their small districts. Of the 86
    classes taught by teachers new to the profession, only one
    individual was non-certified and taught 6 different classes of
    language arts in his school. Composition/grammar had the largest
    number of classes taught by non-HQT teachers, followed by speech.

e)  149 of the 1075 classes (13.8%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were in the area of math. This includes both middle and high school.
    89 of the 149 classes were taught by existing teachers and the
    remaining 60 classes by teachers new to the profession. Only one
    teacher that taught a single class was non-certified, while the
    others lacked a major, the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules.

f)  142 of the 1075 classes (13.2%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were in the area of science. This is inclusive of both middle and
    high school teachers. South Dakota prepares teachers in each
    individual science area at either the major or minor level. There is
    a general science for middle school and a composite program at one
    of the universities that allows for two areas of emphasis, but with
    the new rules requires a content test for each area. The largest
    number of classes taught by non-HQT teachers was in the specific
    area of physical science (39 classes = 27.4% of all science taught
    by non-HQT). Chemistry (15 classes = 10.6%) and Physics (13 classes
    = 9.1%) were next two closest content areas other than general
    science taught at the 8^th^ grade (18 classes = 12.7%). 76 of the
    classes were taught by existing teachers, 66 by new teachers. Only 3
    of the teachers were non-certified, while the others lacked a major,
    the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules.

g)  165 of the 1075 classes (9.4%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were in the area of social science. 40 of the 165 (24.2%) classes in
    social science taught by non-HQT were in geography. History to
    include American and world, was the second content area with 35 of
    the 165 classes (21%), followed by social science in the 8^th^ grade
    to include 24 of the 165 classes (14.5%). Existing teachers
    comprised 92 of the classes taught by non-HQT and the remaining 73
    were new to the profession.

h)  16 of 1075 classes (1.5%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were
    in the area of art. Two of the teachers were non-certified, while
    the others lacked a major, the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules. Six of
    the classes were taught by existing teachers while the remaining 10
    were by teachers new to the profession. 3 classes were taught by
    non-certified personnel (18.7%).

i)  111 of the 1075 classes (10.3%) taught by teachers that were not HQT
    were in the area of music, to include both vocal and instrumental.
    Once again, this represented many of the same teachers who are the
    music department in their schools teaching multiple classes. This
    group (music) has the largest number of non-certified individuals
    teaching 39 of the 111 classes (35%).

j)  Note: Special education was NOT calculated separately in 2004-05. If
    special education teachers taught core content, they were figured
    into the collection as a whole. If they were NOT the core content
    instructor and using the inclusion model, they indicated such in the
    personnel record form system and no calculation was run. The year,
    2005-06, a special report has been created for SPED (see appendix)
    and a separate calculation will be made to meet the requirements.

+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **Core    | **\#      | **% of    | **\#     | **%      | **% of    |
| Content** | Classes   | Classes   | Classes  | Classes  | Classes   |
|           | taught by | taught by | taught   | taught   | taught by |
| **(Total  | non-HQT** | non-HQT   | by       | by       | non-HQT   |
| \#        |           | in        | non-c    | non-c    | compared  |
| classes   |           | non-HQT   | ertified | ertified | to all    |
| NOT       |           | group**   | per      | per      | core      |
| taught by |           |           | sonnel** | sonnel** | content   |
| HQT =     |           |           |          |          | classes** |
| 1075)**   |           |           |          |          |           |
|           |           |           |          |          | **(       |
|           |           |           |          |          | 14,794)** |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Art       | 17        | 1.6%      | 3        | 17.6%    | .01%      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Foreign   | 31        | 2.9%      | 10       | 32%      | .02%      |
| Language  |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Reading   | 79        | 7.3%      | 1        | 1.3%     | .53%      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Music     | 112       | 10.4%     | 39       | 34.8%    | .76%      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Math      | 139       | 12.9%     | 1        | .7%      | .94%      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Science   | 143       | 13.3%     | 7        | 4.9%     | .97%      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Social    | 166       | 15.4%     | 12       | 7.2%     | 1.12%     |
| Science   |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| E         | 172       | 16.1%     | 4        | 2.3%     | 1.16%     |
| lementary |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Language  | 216       | 20.1%     | 21       | 9.7%     | 1.47%     |
| Arts      |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | 1075      | 100%      |          |          |           |
| *TOTALS** |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+

**CONCLUSIONS:**

a)  Elementary teachers - At the time this data was collected (June 30,
    2005), the requirements for the test were not yet effective (July 1,
    2005). Additionally, we had been informed by USDOE in the spring of
    2005 that ALL elementary teachers new to the profession must take
    the Elementary Content Praxis II test before being rehired the next
    fall in a Title I school. Correspondence was sent to all elementary
    teachers that were new to the profession informing them of this
    requirement. It would be expected that this year's number of classes
    in the elementary being taught by HQT will be greatly improved due
    to requiring the Praxis II test.

b)  Although the percentage of classes in art and music (fine arts) that
    are taught by teachers that are not highly qualified is not as
    significant as other content areas, it is significant to note the
    percentage of teachers that are 'non-certified'. This attests to the
    problem of finding certified teachers in the "fine arts" in many of
    our smaller communities. When there are no other options for
    carrying out a music or art program, it is not uncommon for the
    schools to have to find a community member to teach in those content
    areas who has no teaching experience. Often times, they have strong
    ability but lack in the pedagogy and/or teaching degree. This issue
    lends itself to promoting the alternative programs to teacher
    certification that could be supported as the individual is teaching
    in the district. The other content area with a large percentage of
    non-certified individuals was foreign language. Districts will
    sometimes be able to identify a person with the language ability
    that may not be a certified teacher. (This will be addressed later
    in the equity plan).

c)  The most surprising finding was the largest number of classes being
    taught by a non-HQT was in the content area of language arts. We
    have assumed for years that our need was in the math and sciences.
    If reading is added INTO the languages arts, it increases the
    percentage even more to 27%. Additionally, language arts also has
    the 3^rd^ highest percentage of non-certified personnel teaching. A
    couple of things may influence this: a) we have stricter
    requirements for language arts HQT definitions than is required in
    that each content area is tracked for meeting the HOUSSE, major, or
    test rather than an umbrella heading of "language arts" (i.e.
    speech, literature, drama, etc.), b) our language arts preparation
    rules group various areas together that make it difficult for
    someone from out of state to achieve HQT status, and c) we do not
    have a test for mass communications, thus anyone with a previous
    "minor" has no way to achieve HQT status without extensive
    coursework. This includes subject areas of mass communications,
    journalism, etc. We are in the process of rewriting teacher
    preparation standards and are looking to group our language arts
    preparations differently which may help. Additionally, we may need
    to reevaluate how we are determining HQT status for this area and
    perhaps allow a more flexibility within the limits of the guidance.

d)  It is common knowledge that attracting math, science, and foreign
    language teachers is an issue nationwide and particularly in our
    isolated, rural areas. Thus, it was surprising to note that this was
    not as much of a need in South Dakota as other content areas. This
    issue has been addressed by our Dakota Digital Network (DDN) and the
    E-learning Center at Northern State University. The university
    offers two-way audio/video classes in math, science, and foreign
    language to high school students that are located in districts that
    are sparsely populated. The teachers are certified and highly
    qualified in content and this service has filled a large need which
    is evidenced in the data. It is interesting to note that a smaller
    percentage of classes in the high needs areas are found in these
    three content areas than in the other content areas, which can most
    likely be attributed to the availability of the DDN system for
    students in sparse communities.

e)  Special education -- as noted earlier, SD has created a separate and
    integrated special education data collection to determine HQT
    status. In 2004-05, the special education calculation was part of
    the entire HQT calculation. This may also have contributed to some
    of the areas in which individuals were not previously HQT. A HUGE
    effort was made in the past year to work with special education
    teachers to help them to become highly qualified. This included test
    preparation sessions and school districts paying for Praxis II
    tests. This data will be available after July 2006.

f)  General comments: We anticipate there will be a significant
    improvement in the data this year (2005-06) due to the availability
    of testing this past year. This allowed many teachers who were
    either teaching out of content , who did not have majors in content
    area, or who had not completed the HOUSSE to become HQT.
    Additionally, all teacher preparation programs have students take
    the content tests within their preparation and passage of the
    content specific exams is required for certification in SD as of
    July 1, 2005.

**[Requirement 1 - #4]{.underline} Does the analysis identify districts
and schools around the State where significant numbers of teachers do
not meet HQT standards?**

**ANALYSIS: (Appendix 4)**

a)  The state has 694 attendance centers for which a highly qualified
    status is calculated. Of those, 336 or 48.4% have 100% of their
    classes taught by highly qualified teachers. Of the 165 districts,
    23 or 13.9% have all their classes taught by highly qualified
    teachers.

  ------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------
                            **\# with 100%**    **Percentage taught by
                                                HQT**

  **Attendance centers -    336                 48.8%
  694**                                         

  **District - 165**        23                  13.9%
  ------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------

b)  Nine of the 165 districts in the state have less than 200 core
    content classes. Of the 9 larger districts, one has 100% of it
    classes taught by HQT. This district is located in a university
    community.

c)  136 of the 165 districts (82%) have less than 100 core content
    courses. Of those 136 districts, 21 (15.4%) have 100% of their
    classes taught by HQT. The remaining 29 districts with more than 100
    core content courses, only 3 (10.3%) have 100% of their classes
    taught by HQT. This speaks to the challenge of filling multiple
    classes in larger districts with HQT.

  ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------
                     \# districts       \# with 100% HQT  \% with 100% HQT

  Less than 100 core 136 - (82%)        21                15.4%
  content classes                                         

  More than 100 core 29 - (18%)         3                 10.3%
  content classes                                         
  ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------

d)  In arbitrarily choosing a percentage of more than 10% of classes not
    taught by HQT, there are 47 districts. In analyzing those districts,
    12 or 25.5% have a high minority population in at least one of their
    attendance centers.

e)  Of those 47 districts with more than 10% of classes not taught by
    HQT, 28 (59.5%) have at least on attendance center that falls in the
    highest quartile, indicating a high needs area

f)  Of those 47 districts with more than 10% of classes not taught by
    HQT, 11 or 23%, have a high minority population (primarily Native
    American).

  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  **More than 10%        **\# out of 47 total     **% out of 47 total
  classes taught by      districts**              districts**
  non-HQT**                                       

  Districts in highest   28                       59.5%
  quartile (low income)                           

  Districts with high    11                       23%
  minority population                             
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

g)  There are nine districts with over 20% of classes taught by non-HQT.
    Each of these have different things that may contribute to the high
    percent of classes not taught by HQT but common are: 1) small in
    size, (all) 2) isolated districts (in red), high minority population
    (in blue), and ALL low income. Midland District (highest) is closing
    this upcoming year.

  --------------------------- --------- --------- -------------------------
                              Number of Total     Percentage not taught by
                              classes   Core      HQT
                              not       Content   
                              taught by classes   
                              HQT                 

  Montrose School District    48        61        21.31%
  43-2                                            

  Iroquois School District    42        54        22.22%
  02-3                                            

  Pollock School District     29        38        23.68%
  10-2                                            

  Newell School District 09-2 44        59        25.42%

  Harding County School       55        74        25.68%
  District 31-1                                   

  Isabel School District 20-2 29        41        29.27%

  Andes Central School        55        78        29.49%
  District 11-1                                   

  Smee School District 15-3   27        41        34.15%

  Midland School District     14        37        62.16%
  27-2                                            

                                                  
  --------------------------- --------- --------- -------------------------

> h\) Teaching salaries in the above nine districts are extremely low as
> well. The state average is around \$34,000 and all are well below
> that, with eight of the salaries below \$30,000.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Andes Central \$31,211

  Harding County \$27,722

  Iroquois \$25,970

  Isabel \$27,068

  Midland \$25,185

  Montrose \$28,730

  Newell \$26,308

  Pollock \$26,753

  Smee \$29,165
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**CONCLUSIONS:**

The factors that are most commonly attributed to being unable to attract
and retain highly qualified teachers are also common in South Dakota:
low income, high minority population (aligns with poverty), and
small/isolated areas. These school districts often have low salaries and
little incentive for advancement on a pay scale. In comparing salaries
in these districts with those that we traditionally consider to be our
highest needs districts in terms of minorities and low income, they rank
well below, which may be part of the reason that some of those districts
were not in the top of the list for classes not being taught by HQT. We
have aimed resources at many of the districts where there is a large
minority and low income and perhaps those districts are doing a better
job of working retention of HQT staff. These issues will be addressed in
the equity plan.

**[Requirement 1 - \#]{.underline}5) Does the analysis identify
particular courses that are often taught by non-highly qualified
teachers? See Appendix 1**

This analysis was made within question #3 above down to the course. In
many of our small rural districts, teachers are asked to teach multiple
subjects and it is not specific to a "math teacher". Thus the analysis
done in #3 covers this quite thoroughly.

*[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.]{.underline}*

**[Requirement 2 - \#]{.underline}1) Does the plan identify LEAs that
have not met annual measurable objectives for HQT?**

Our state has a live, online database that is accessible to all LEAs.
This database identifies the individual teacher(s) and content are in
which they are not currently HQT (Appendix 2). This online database
generates the final data that is used to make the yearly determination
of the percentage of classes not taught by HQT at both the district and
attendance center level. It is currently based on South Dakota's HOUSSE
rules, which will need to be reprogrammed as we phase the HOUSSE rules
out over the upcoming year.

This database generates the final data for South Dakota's online report
card, which gives the teacher qualifications for each district and
attendance center as well.
<https://sis.ddncampus.net:8081/nclb/index.html>

Appendix A lists the LEA's that have not met the 100% classes being
taught by HQT (based on 2004-05 data). This same analysis will be made
of the 2005-06 data shortly after this submission.

**[Requirement 2]{.underline} - #2) Does the plan include specific steps
that will be taken by LEAs that have not met annual measurable
objectives?**

The South Dakota Department of Education has traditionally taken the
approach that if we supply the data, good decisions would be made as a
result. Perhaps the best lesson we learned came from our data retreats
that were held statewide after our first few test administrations.
Simply having the data at hand did not help districts take the extra
step to analyze and make decisions about what to do with the data once
they had it. This is where the next step was taken to provide curriculum
mapping for the districts to complete the data analysis circle and to
make positive approaches to correcting needs.

We are now at that point with LEAs that have not met annual measurable
objectives in achieving the goal of having 100% of their classes taught
by HQT. We have given them the necessary information to identify
individual teachers who were not properly qualified, however, we did not
give them a planning tool to make the next step in moving towards 100%
of all classes taught by HQT. The following steps will occur in the
upcoming year with the attached HQT Plan Template. Due to our reporting
cycle, we feel it is best to allow districts to be able to analyze their
staff after inputting the assignments into the PRF system, which is
required by all LEAs by October 15.

a)  School districts (LEAs) were sent a memo requesting they review the
    HQT online report to assure DOE (SEA) of any inaccuracies in teacher
    status in May 2006;

b)  The SD DOE generated the final report of the each district/school
    percentage of courses not being taught by HQT on June 30, 2006 for
    the 2005-06 school year;

c)  This data will populate the online report card for 2005-06;

d)  Changes in staffing will be indicated in the Personnel Record Form
    system this fall, due October 15, 2006;

e)  The online database will reflect the status of any class not being
    taught by HQT (accessible by individual districts 24/7);

f)  Based on the online database, LEAs will be asked to submit a plan to
    SD DOE by November 15, 2006, that indicates how they intend to have
    their teachers on the path to being HQT in all core content by the
    end of the 2006-07 school year (see Appendix 4 & 5 - Guidance for
    Meeting and Maintaining the 100% Goal and LEA HQ Plan Template);

g)  The plan will be reevaluated by the LEA prior to the end of the year
    and a progress report will be submitted to the SEA by May 15, 2007.

The two steps above in red are NEW requirements imposed by SD DOE that
will be used as a planning tool for districts to measure their own
progress.

**[Requirement 2]{.underline} - #3) 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?**

> The LEA HQ Plan Template includes the following components:

a.  Needs assessment

b.  Target audience

c.  Planning collaboration

d.  Lea actions to get all teachers highly qualified

e.  Lea actions to retain highly qualified teachers

f.  Lea assurances related to highly qualified teachers

g.  Individual teacher plan for achieving highly qualified status

***[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.]{.underline}***

**[Requirement 3 - #1]{.underline} Does the plan include a description
of the technical assistance the SEA will provide to assist LEAs in
successfully carrying out their HQT plans?**

> The SD Department of Education has been thoughtful in the creation of
> the database that is accessible to LEAs in monitoring the status of
> their HQT percentages. SD DOE plans to provide statewide meetings via
> the Dakota Digital Network that will review the requirements of the
> HQT plans. Every district has two-way audio/video systems in place
> that minimize travel time and allow for interactive meetings between
> districts and SD DOE.

a)  October 2006 -- Meetings to review requirements of the HQT plan

b)  November 2006 -- Meetings for districts with concerns prior to
    November 15, deadline for plan submission

c)  April 2007 -- Meetings to discuss progress based on SEA review on
    online progress

d)  May 2007 -- Monitoring of HQT progress reports.

> A final update will be required of all districts prior to the June
> 2007 submission which calculates the 2006-07 HQT status of all
> districts/attendance centers. Districts will need to justify any
> reasons for not meeting the 100% HQT status before the end of year.

**[Requirement 3 - #2]{.underline} Does the plan indicate that the
staffing and professional development needs of schools that are not
making AYP will be given high priority?**

> AYP determinations are finalized in August each year, and thus many
> decisions regarding professional development needs to be made prior to
> that time. However, SD DOE has focused a number of their initiatives
> on the districts that have not made AYP:

1)  [Mentoring]{.underline} -- SD DOE has a mentoring program mandated
    in statute which is not funded. However, through efforts of the
    Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, money was targeted for mentoring
    at schools that did not make AYP. Mentoring teams were established
    and will continue to have funding for one additional year through
    the grant. Efforts are being made to repurpose funds in SD DOE that
    will be taken to the 2007 Legislature.

2)  [Grants to assist school districts that fail to achieve
    AYP]{.underline} -- the 2006 Legislature passed laws requiring that
    any district failing to make AYP apply to SD DOE for a grant to
    assist them in meeting future academic targets. This includes, but
    is not limited to, ways in which they will properly staff their
    schools and provide professional development. SDCL 13-3-72

3)  [Educational Service Agencies (ESAs)]{.underline} -- ESAs were
    established in 2004. One of their primary focuses is to assist
    schools by delivering educational services and technical assistance
    in a sustainable format. School Improvement Specialists provide
    leadership and support in the areas of federal and state legislative
    mandates, data analysis, school improvement, and professional
    development to LEAs that have not met AYP.

**[Requirement 3 - #3]{.underline} Does the plan include a description
of programs and services the SEA will provide to assist teachers and
LEAs in successfully meeting HQT goals?**

> **Assistance for LEAs**

a.  [E-Learning Center]{.underline} -- The Legislature appropriates
    funds to Northern State University to provide courses via the
    Digital Dakota Network, South Dakota's two-way video/audio system.
    The university hires highly qualified staff to offer core content
    courses that are difficult for some of the smaller districts to find
    qualified staff. These courses are limited to districts that qualify
    for the sparcity factor where some of the highest needs are for
    qualified staff. elearning.northern.edu/e-intro/

b.  [Virtual High School]{.underline} -- The 2006 Legislature gave the
    SD DOE the authority to create the South Dakota Virtual High School.
    An advisory council is underway to create rules that will govern the
    approval of courses and providers that must meet the standards of
    highly qualified staff. The intention of the Virtual High School is
    to provide classes that may otherwise not be available to districts
    across the state who do not have highly qualified staff.

c.  [Educational Service Agencies (ESAs)]{.underline} -- ESAs were
    established in 2004. One of their primary focuses is to assist
    schools by delivering educational services and technical assistance
    in a sustainable format. School Improvement Specialists provide
    leadership and support in the areas of federal and state legislative
    mandates, data analysis, school improvement, and professional
    development to LEAs.

> **Assistance for teachers**

d.  [Praxis II test preparation website --]{.underline} In collaboration
    with the South Dakota Board of Regents and with funds through the
    Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, a website is being completed that
    supports teachers in preparing for the Praxis II tests. Each
    university that offers the individual program has submitted study
    guides for the supporting tests.
    <http://www.sdbor.edu/grants/everyteacher/login.cfm?CFID=231596&CFTOKEN=59728341>

e.  [Support for advanced degrees]{.underline} -- Through funds of the
    Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, master degree cohorts were
    created across the state in collaboration with the five public
    universities. The grant pays 1/3, the district 1/3, and the teacher
    1/3 of the cost towards the completion of a master's degree. Over
    100 teachers statewide are participating in the program and it is
    geared specifically to curriculum and instruction in their content
    area.

f.  [National Board Certification]{.underline} -- In 2001, South Dakota
    had only 7 teachers who had achieved NBC status. Through focused
    efforts from the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, the state
    developed a support program:
    <http://everyteacher.tie.net/content/docs/NationalBoardFlyer.pdf> To
    date, over 40 teachers are NBC with another 35 in candidacy. There
    is a strong mentoring team in place for those who are working
    through the process. South Dakota supports NBC teachers with a
    reimbursement of application fees upon passing the certification and
    they are paid \$1000 from both their district and the SD DOE for
    five years. New 2006 legislation extend the time to ten years, if
    the district commits to paying the additional funds.

**[Requirement 3 - #4]{.underline} Does the plan specifically address
the needs of any subgroups of teachers identified in Requirement 1?**

g.  It is important to note that at the time of this plan, we do not
    have the current data for the 2005-06 school year. It is anticipated
    that there will be some significant changes and until then, it would
    not be appropriate to make final determinations as to where to
    target resources. It is anticipated that many of the same issues
    will reside in Language Arts, but with a new look at teacher
    preparation standards and how we currently code these persons
    through the Praxis II tests, this may also change. This will be
    re-evaluated with the new data.

**[Requirement 3 - #5]{.underline} 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?**

h.  **Title II Part A** -- The SD DOE has prioritized part of its funds
    to support the Governor's New Teacher Academy. This Academy which is
    in its 2^nd^ year, is focused on retaining teachers who are new to
    the profession. Support from educational agencies and higher
    education are part of the agenda and teachers are advised on how to
    become HQT if they are assigned in a content area outside of their
    preparation.

i.  **Title II Part A -- SAHE** -- SD DOE has met with the
    representatives of the Board of Regents regarding the SAHE portion
    of the Title II Part A money. The SAHE makes competitive grants to
    eligible partnerships comprised of at least one institution of
    higher education (IHE) and at least one high need local education
    agency (LEA). In recent conversations, the revised teacher quality
    plan was discussed, and it was determined that after the final
    re-analysis of the data from 2005-06, SD DOE and the SAHE partners
    would write the grant application specific to the needs found in the
    data. The previous approach was one of finding a university faculty
    person with an interest and finding a matching district. Instead, we
    will identify the need and then find an appropriate higher education
    institution to work with. These ideas will be brought to the South
    Dakota Association of Colleges of Teachers Education meeting in the
    fall of 2006.

j.  **Title II Part B - The Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP)
    grant** program is authorized under Title II, Part B of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No
    Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The purpose of the program is
    to fund partnerships of high-need school districts, four-year
    institutions of higher education (IHEs), and other organizations, to
    improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics.
    <http://doe.sd.gov/octa/title/IIpartb/RFP/index.asp>

> The primary goal of the South Dakota MSP is a focused statewide
> professional development program designed to build broad-based
> expertise and leadership for improving student achievement in
> elementary mathematics instruction. This program will develop a
> statewide educational community with a cadre of skilled professionals
> to serve as resources and trainers in the ongoing effort to improve
> elementary mathematics instruction.
>
> The K-5 mathematics professional development project for this RFP
> utilizes research based strategies which have been evidenced to be
> effective with students of diverse backgrounds. It is the intent of
> this grant that participating teachers complete all components of the
> training to effectively impact mathematics instruction. Common
> assessment tools will be utilized across all projects to assist the
> state in evaluating and providing feedback on the overall state level
> project as well as ensure a means to conduct research around all
> awarded projects. 
>
> During the next three years, SD MSP Program will:

-   Increase student academic achievement as measured by the state
    mathematics standards.

-   Train and place one mathematics specialist in up to 9 different
    sites in South Dakota.

-   Provide training for one mathematics teacher leader for potentially
    each elementary building in South Dakota.

-   Support work in each participating district to train additional
    interested K-5 teachers.

-   Conduct training for building principals to support the work of the
    mathematics teacher.

-   

k.  **Title I Part A** -- These funds continue to support professional
    development and data analysis across all districts but are focused
    intently in districts and schools that fail to make AYP. The
    Educational Service Agencies are working in close collaboration with
    the Title I staff to support those districts/school not making AYP.

**[Requirement 3 - #6]{.underline}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?**

l.  AYP determinations are not made until August. At that point, many of
    the grants and projects have been awarded or started. Thus we have
    tried to focus many of our PD opportunities for schools in high
    needs areas that are either currently on school improvement or have
    the highest risk. The MSP program above gave preference to schools
    that have been identified as high need.

m.  The conversations with the SAHE representatives focused on
    identifying schools that had not made AYP for the next round of
    grants. The RFPs will go out in the fall, thus it is time
    appropriate.

n.  SD DOE has placed a renewed interest in Alternative Certification
    programs and in placing content experts in high needs schools.
    Troops to Teachers, Teach for America, and Project Select have all
    focused on areas with high needs in both income and minorities. This
    has been given special attention in the Governor's 2010E plan and
    ways in which we can attract second career persons into teaching.
    <http://www.2010education.com/>

***[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.]{.underline}***

**[Requirement 4 - \#]{.underline}1) 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?**

a)  With the HOUSSE rules elimination, the LEAs' HQT plans will most
    likely give one of three options: 1) reassignment of teachers, 2)
    additional degree in content, and 3) Praxis II test. The database
    that calculates the status of classes being taught by HQT is a live
    database. Any changes in teaching assignments are indicated in the
    Personnel Record Form system which automatically updates the HQT
    online report. Additionally, if another degree is added --
    bachelors, advanced, or NBC -- the DOE certification system is
    updated and this automatically updates the HQT report. Finally,
    after each Praxis II test administration, SD DOE receives an
    automatic upload of test scores from ETS. Any person with a passing
    score is automatically updated in the certification system, which
    again automatically updates the HQT online report. With these
    automatic updates occurring through the school year, DOE will be
    able to compare the initial HQT status from the fall of 2006, the
    LEA HQT plans, and the final HQT status in the spring of 2007. This
    comparison is NOT self reported from the districts but instead based
    on collected data. This will allow the SEA to monitor LEA progress.

b)  LEAs will be required to assess their progress towards the HQT goal

**[Requirement 4 - \#]{.underline}2) 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?**

> a\) SD DOE intends to provide technical assistance to all LEAs to meet
> the 100 percent HQT goal. Because AYP is a moving target from year to
> year, it appears to be important that we provide support and technical
> assistance across the state for all teachers that are not currently
> HQT.

**[Requirement 4 - \#]{.underline}3) Does the plan describe how the SEA
will monitor whether LEAs attain 100 percent HQT in each LEA and
school:**

1.  **• in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and
    school; and**

> a\) The online database provides the SEA with the ability to spot
> check LEA progress throughout the year. Additionally, using the
> timeline prescribed above, districts will need to give justification
> for not having met the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the year.

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

> b\) As part of the consolidated application related to Title II Part
> A, districts are asked to describe how the professional development
> activities are based on scientifically based research and how they are
> expected to improve student academic achievement as well as how the
> district will develop initiatives to recruit and retain highly
> qualified instructional staff. These applications are reviewed and
> will be further scrutinized to assure they build on the LEAs HQT plan.

**[Requirement 4 - \#]{.underline}4) 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?**

The intent of the SEA is to monitor the LEAs for "good faith efforts" in
achieving the 100 percent HQT goals. It is unrealistic to believe that
South Dakota will ever achieve 100% of ALL core content courses taught
by highly qualified teachers. Teaching staff has a natural attrition of
personnel that is due to retirements, relocation, job changes, etc. As a
result, districts are often left with gaps in filling positions. Thus it
is sometimes necessary to hire staff that is not properly certified nor
highly qualified for their teaching assignments. The most important
decision a district can make is to determine what is in the best
interests of the students and if that requires them to hire someone that
is not properly qualified, they may need to do so. However, they THEN
need to put in place a plan with that individual to help them to become
highly qualified.

The role of the SEA will be to determine if districts truly are making
the good faith effort. It will be possible to monitor their progress
through the LEA HQT plans and match it to the online HQT report for each
district. Careful attention will be paid to those districts in which no
gains are made and technical assistance will be offered to LEAs based on
their efforts.

***[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.]{.underline}***

**[Requirement 5 - \#]{.underline}1) 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?**

The SEA will allow only those teachers not new to the profession who
were hired before the end of the 2005-06 school year to "complete"
HOUSSE **by the end of the 2006-07 school year** if they are currently
in the middle of completing requirements. Any new subject area must be
validated by a Praxis II content test from this date forward. We require
this of all majors and minors for initial certification as well as to
add additional authorizations to a certificate. The only exception would
be if someone were to become Nationally Board Certified in a particular
content area or if they were to obtain an advanced degree in content
area. We do not require the Praxis II test at that level.

**[Requirement 5 - \#]{.underline}2) 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:**

1.  **o 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**

    **o 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.**

> South Dakota requires all subjects to be validated with the Praxis II
> content test. For multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools,
> although they would have the additional time to demonstrate competency
> by obtaining a major or passing the appropriate Praxis II content
> test, they would still show up on the HQT report as not being HQT in
> that content area. The DOE is encourages districts to help their
> multi-subject teachers become HQT as quickly as possible so that it
> will not be reflected on their HQT report. The same guidance is being
> given to special education teachers so that their HQT reports are not
> affected adversely by not being HQT.
>
> As a testing state, we feel we have moved in the right direction by
> aligning our certification standards to the goals set forth for highly
> qualified. We have the support of our preparing institutions by
> testing all students prior to recommendation for certification. We
> require testing for all out of state teachers entering our state to
> assure they have proper content knowledge. We require testing for all
> existing teachers who are adding new authorizations to their
> certificate. While we know that passing a single does not assure that
> teachers bring the proper attitudes and dispositions to the field, we
> can assure hiring LEAs of teachers' content knowledge.

***[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.]{.underline}***

**Requirement 6 - #1 Does the revised plan include a written equity
plan?**

Yes, the equity plan is a separate document.

**Requirement 6 - #2 Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher
assignment exist?**

Yes -- Pages 2-5 discuss and analyze where the inequities exist. We do,
however, feel that we now want to do a much more in-depth analysis of
the specific teacher assignments within the identified districts. Using
the 2005-06 data, we have intend to expand our plan and research.

**Requirement 6 - #3 Does the plan delineate specific strategies for
addressing inequities in teacher assignment?**

The equity plan is based on eight different elements that the South
Dakota Department of Education feel will help us to address inequities
in the distribution of teachers across the state.

-   Reporting Systems

-   Teacher Preparation

-   Out-of-Field Teaching

-   Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers

-   Professional Development

-   Specialized Knowledge and Skills

-   Working Conditions

-   Policy Coherence

**Requirement 6 - #4 Does the plan provide evidence for the probable
success of the strategies it includes?**

Each element is analyzed by: 1) Inventory of what is in place, 2)
Strategies and implementation to support the plan, and 3) Methods for
measuring success.

**Requirement 7 - #5 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?**

The SEA takes the majority of responsibility for making opportunities
available to LEAs regardless of their location and regardless of their
level of poverty and minority status. The SEA feels that it needs to
make available resources that cannot be found in these districts due to
a number of factors. It is then incumbent on the LEA to make the right
choices when placing and hiring teachers and to take advantage of
statewide resources that may help increase the number of highly
qualified teachers in these districts. These resources and opportunities
are part of the equity plan.