Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date: July 25, 2006

Peer Review Panel's Consensus Determination:

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

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

Comments to support determination:

The District of Columbia has submitted a revised state plan that meets
four of the six requirements. The reviewers noted that the SEA created a
well thought out and comprehensive revised state plan for the district.
The SEA has designed a plan that, if implemented, should enable the LEAs
to make great strides in achieving their Highly Qualified Teacher Goals.
The reviewers noted, however, that a tremendous amount of effort is
needed to reach desired goals. This will require the allocation of
targeted fiscal and human resources for the 2006-2007 school year.

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

  Yes              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?

  Yes              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?

  Yes              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?

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

  Yes              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}:

\_X\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

A review of the data in the state plan reflects that all of the elements
of requirement 1 have been provided. The revised plan provided an
analysis of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified
(Table II) and focused on schools that are not making AYP. The analysis
identified five core subject areas with the greatest need of
improvement. The reviewers noted that data about special education
teachers was not addressed in the analysis.

The District of Columbia has implemented a new data collection system,
the Educator Licensing Information System (ELIS). Continued attention to
this new data collection system is needed to ensure the reliability of
the data and the ability to manipulate the data for analysis purposes.
Particular attention needs to be focused on the DC public schools where
75% of the teachers are employed.

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

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

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

  Yes              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}:

\_\_X\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_\_\_ 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}

A review of the data in the state plan reflects that all of the elements
of requirement 2 have been provided. The District of Columbia's revised
plan provided a list of LEAs that have not met HQT Annual Measurable
Objectives (Table V). The plan describes the implementation of an LEA
Highly Qualified Compliance Action Plan (HQCAP) for LEAs that have not
met annual measurable objectives. In addition, the plan clearly reflects
the role of the SEA to ensure that all LEAs have plans in place to
assist non-HQ teachers to become HQ in a timely manner. The SEA will
conduct LEA benchmarking meetings four times a year.

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes              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?

  Yes              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}:

\_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}

A review of the data in the state plan reflects that all of the elements
of requirement 3 have been provided. A description of the technical
assistance from the SEA in carrying out LEA HQT plans is provided in the
plan by a list of initiatives (pages 14-15) for implementation by the
SEA. The plan specifically states that staffing and professional
development needs of schools not making AYP will be targeted for
additional resources, but more detail and specific information should be
provided. The SEA has established benchmarks for monitoring LEA
progress. The plan identifies specific subgroups of teachers from the
analysis conducted in requirement 1 and indicates that the SEA will
target available Title I, II and other appropriate federal funds to
teachers who are not HQ and to schools not making AYP.

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

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Yes           | 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?                              |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Yes           | 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?                                          |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Yes           | 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?                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Yes           | 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}:

\_\_X\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_\_\_ 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}

A review of the data in the state plan reflects that all of the elements
of requirement 4 have been provided. The plan shows how the SEA will
monitor LEA compliance by the increasing LEA HQT progress visits from
one per year to four per year. Clear sanctions/corrective actions are
outlined on page 17. LEAs are required to submit quarterly benchmarks to
ensure progression towards 100 % compliance. The plan indicates in Table
VI on page 14 that Title II funds will not be released to the LEA unless
their HQCAP plans are completed and evaluated by the SEA. In addition,
the SEA has implemented a High Risk designation for LEAs not
demonstrating good faith efforts in achieving state minimum
requirements. The plan clearly shows how the SEA will provide extensive
programmatic support to schools not making AYP.

Requirement 5: The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will
complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who
were hired prior to the end of the 2005-06 school year, and how the SEA
will discontinue the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after
the end of the 2005-06 school year (except for the situations described
below).

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Yes           | 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?                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| No            | Does the plan describe how the State will            |
|               | discontinue the use of HOUSSE after the end of the   |
|               | 2005-06 school year, except in the following         |
|               | situations:                                          |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural        |
|               |     schools who, if HQ in one subject at the time of |
|               |     hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence   |
|               |     in additional subjects within three years of the |
|               |     date of hire; or                                 |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject special education teachers who are |
|               |     new to the profession, if HQ in language arts,   |
|               |     mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may |
|               |     use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in          |
|               |     additional subjects within two years of the date |
|               |     of hire.                                         |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 5 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The revised state plan did describe how the SEA plans to end the use of
HOUSSE for teachers hired prior to the 2006-2007 school year, but the
plan did not describe how the SEA will limit the use of HOUSSE to the
designated categories of teachers. The reviewers noted that the District
of Columbia doesn't plan to phase out HOUSSE until the 2007-2008 school
year.

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

  No               Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?

  No               Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher
                   assignment exist?

  No               Does the plan delineate specific strategies for
                   addressing inequities in teacher assignment?

  No               Does the plan provide evidence for the probable
                   success of the strategies it includes?

  No               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 revised state plan did not provide an Equity Plan. While an
analysis of 2004-2005 data was completed that indicates poor or minority
children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field
teachers at higher rates than other children, the SEA indicates that an
Equity plan will be submitted in September 2006.**