Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: GEORGIA

Date: July 25, 2006

Peer Review Panel's Consensus Determination:

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

[X]{.underline} The plan has the deficiencies described below.

Comments to support determination:

The State plan meets or partially meets four of the six requirements.
Reviewers noted that the State has made significant changes to its
teacher certification rules since 2002. The 2004-2005 percentage
(95^+^%) of core academic subject teachers may be attributed to these
early changes. It was noted, however, that core academic subject special
education teachers are not included in that reported percentage.

The revised State plan does not specifically identify LEAs that have not
met annual measurable objectives for highly qualified teachers. Steps
that LEAs will take to assist all non-highly qualified teachers are
unclear to the reviewers. Similarly, it is not specified that
State-provided technical assistance and related programs and services
will give priority to the staffing and professional development needs of
teachers in LEAs and schools not making AYP.

While the revised plan indicates that the State will "follow the local
guidance provided by the USDOE" (Page 34) in working with LEAs that have
teachers who are not highly qualified, there is no specific reference to
assistance or corrective actions that the State will apply if LEAs fail
to meet highly qualified teacher and AYP goals.

The revised State plan does not provide evidence for elements in
Requirement 5 and Requirement 6 to demonstrate that those requirements
are met.

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
                   schools 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]{.underline} 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}

An analysis of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified
was included in the revised plan. For example, Table 2 on Page 2 of the
plan is a sample of summary data calculated for each LEA which depicts,
in the aggregate for all core academic subjects and separately for each
core academic subject, the percent of classes taught by highly qualified
teachers (calculated as FTEs). Separate tables are provided to show
statewide data for multiple years. The analysis appears to be based on
accurate classroom-level data derived from a comparison of teacher
certification records maintained by the state and teacher employment
data provided by each LEA.

The State acknowledged that their data, which indicates that in
2004-2005 only 4.3% of core academic subject classes were taught by
teachers who were not highly qualified, do not include special education
teachers. According to the plan, data for special education teachers
will be available in Fall 2006 and the State is focusing efforts toward
getting special education teachers who teach core academic subjects
highly qualified.

The staffing needs of schools not making AYP were analyzed. The analysis
revealed that the percentage of teachers who are not highly qualified
for their assignments varies widely in schools not making AYP. Data
reported in Table 6 do not reveal an obvious relational pattern between
low student achievement and the percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified.

The data analysis identified, as shown in Table 6 on Pages 14 -- 21 of
the plan, LEAs and their schools not making AYP where significant
numbers of teachers do not meet highly qualified teacher standards.
While it can be assumed that there may be significant numbers of
non-highly qualified teachers in some schools and LEAs districts that
are making AYP, the plan does not identify by any such schools and
districts.

The State noted on Page 14 of the plan that non-highly qualified
teachers "were assigned to teach in all of the core academic content
areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language\..."
Table 4, which depicts state-wide highly qualified teachers by subject
for School Year 2004-2005, reflects a comparatively low percentage (84%)
of highly qualified teachers in "All Schools" in the area of Reading.
These data, however, include only general education teachers. There was
no in-depth analysis of subjects by LEA and/or school or in relation to
demographics of students taught in the schools.

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?

  No               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}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

[X]{.underline} 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}

The State does not specifically identify LEAs that have not met annual
measurable objectives for highly qualified teachers. The 2004-2005 data
in Table 6 -- Percentage of Not Highly Qualified Teachers in Schools Not
Making AYP -- names only LEAs that had schools not making AYP and the
corresponding schools that had not met the 100% goal at that time.

The plan indicates that LEAs that have not met annual measurable
objectives will be required to use the "Remediation Method" feature on
the electronic HiQ program to record remediation methods that will be
used to get all teachers highly qualified during 2006-2007. It was
noted, however, that the remediation methods listed as choices are
applicable to individual teachers. It is unclear as to what specific
steps will be taken by LEAs to assist all teachers.

Specific steps the State will take to ensure that all LEAs have
strategies in place to assist non-highly qualified teachers to become
highly qualified as quickly as possible were delineated. For example,
the State has employed regional Title II consultants to provide
technical assistance and progress-monitoring in LEAs and a state
Department of Education staff person in the special education office has
been assigned to work full-time with Title II, Part A requirements.

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?

  No               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?

  No               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]{.underline} 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 description of technical assistance the State will provide to LEAs to
assist them in successfully completing their Highly Qualified Teacher
plans is included, as is demonstrated by the State's provision of
regional Title II, Part A consultants and other services provided
through the system of Regional Educational Service Agencies.

The plan indicates that the percentage of classes taught by non-highly
qualified teachers "varies widely" among schools identified for
improvement. While it is noted on Page 35 of the plan that regional
"Title II, Part A consultants will work with DOE School Improvement
teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that
need improvement" and to determine what the LEA will do to assure that
teachers become highly qualified, there is no specific indication that
schools not making AYP will be given priority.

The plan does include a description of the specific programs and
services the State will provide to assist teachers and LEAs in
successfully meeting highly qualified teacher goals. For example, the
State developed and implemented online courses in mathematics and
science to increase content knowledge among special education teachers
and implemented a web-based professional development program for
teaching reading strategies.

The needs of subgroups on non-highly qualified teachers identified in
Requirement 1 are specifically addressed as noted in the previously
mentioned examples.

The plan includes a description of how the State will use its available
funds to address the needs of teachers who are not highly qualified.
Examples of programs and services funded through Title II, Part A are
provided in Tables 11-15 (on Pages 24-27). However, the plan does not
indicate, specifically, that priority for use of available funds will be
given to the staffing and professional development needs of schools that
are 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?                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Undecided     | 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]{.underline} 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 State indicates how it will monitor and hold LEAs accountable for
their Highly Qualified Teacher plans. This is indicated by assignment of
regional Title II, Part A consultants to work with other Department
staff and stating, specifically, that getting teachers highly qualified
is the responsibility of the employing LEAs and school principals.

The plan shows how technical assistance from the State to help LEAs meet
the 100% goal will be provided to LEAs and schools that are not making
AYP. For example, the plan describes how regional Title II, Part A
consultants will work with the Department of Education School
Improvement Teams to provide needed assistance.

How the State will monitor where each LEA and school attains 100% highly
qualified teachers is described. A series of annotated charts (Pages
28-34) illustrates the results of State monitoring of criteria included
in the annual monitoring instrument. Among the criteria are: Highly
Qualified Teacher Benchmarks, Teachers in Alternative Routes Making
Progress Toward Full HiQ Status, and Participation in Design,
Development, and Implementation of Professional Learning.

The plan indicates on Page 34 that the State will follow federal
guidance in working with LEAs that do not meet highly qualified teacher
and AYP goals; however, specific corrective actions are not described in
the plan.

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                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| No            | 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

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

[X]{.underline} Requirement 5 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The revised plan did not explain specifically how and when the State
will complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession
who were hired before the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The plan
describes how the HOUSSE has been, and will continue to be, used to
assist "veteran" special education teachers who teach multiple subjects.
Further, the HOUSSE will be used until the State completes development
and standardization of a content assessment for special education
teachers who teach multiple subjects. At that unspecified time, the
State expects use of the HOUSSE to diminish.

The plan does not specify that the State will limit use of the HOUSSE
after the end of the 2005-2006 school year to one or both of the allowed
exceptions.

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]{.underline} Requirement 6 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

A detailed plan that describes the State's intent and proposed process,
strategies, and timeline for developing a written equity plan was
included. The proposed equity plan is defined by five goals that
include, among others: development of a data and reporting system that
addresses teacher qualifications, availability, assignment, and
demonstrated effectiveness; policies and programs to increase the number
and availability of highly qualified and effective teachers; and using
the data system to achieve equitable distribution of such teachers. The
revised State plan includes a detailed set of strategies and specifies
for each the person and or entity responsible, the resources required,
and a projected date of completion toward a proposed operational date of
July 2007.

Probable success of yet-to-be-developed equity plan is indicated in the
proposed use of a data and reporting system to support related policy
decisions and practices. Goal 4 of the proposed plan relates to
identification of indicators for calculating equitable distribution of
teachers and proposed strategies describe the anticipated system of
annual reporting.