![](media/image1.png){width="1.398611111111111in"
height="1.3777777777777778in"}

**Table of Contents**

[**PART I: Georgia's Organizational Structure for the Implementation of
Title II A
2**](#part-i-georgias-organizational-structure-for-the-implementation-of-title-ii-a)

[Title II Part A: State Organization 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293157)

[PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Funding
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293158)

[LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293159)

[PSC Goals 2](#psc-goals)

[Title II Part A - Administration 2](#title-ii-part-a---administration)

[Georgia's Highly Qualified Teacher Definition
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293162)

[PART II: Revisions to the Title II, Part A Plan
2](#part-ii-revisions-to-the-title-ii-part-a-plan)

[Requirement 1 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293164)

[Table01: Statewide HiQ Data 2003-2004
2](#table-01-state-wide-hiq-data-2003-2004)

[Table02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005
2](#table-02-state-wide-hiq-data-2004-2005)

[Table03: State-wide HiQ Data 2005-2006 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293167)

[Table04: 2004-2005 Core Academic Classes Taught by Non Highly Qualified
Teachers 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293168)

[Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified
Teachers
2](#table-05-2003-04-core-academic-classes-taught-by-highly-qualified-teachers)

[Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified
Teachers
2](#table-06-2004-05-core-academic-classes-taught-by-highly-qualified-and-non-highly-qualified-teachers)

[Table 07: 2005-06 School System HiQ Summary Data
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293171)

[Requirement 2 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293172)

[Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293173)

[Requirement 3 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293174)

[Requirement4 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293175)

[Requirement 5 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293176)

[Requirement 6 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293177)

[Table 09: Preliminary Data Compaing High Poverty School Enrollment and
Percentage of Non Highly Qualified Teachers
42](#__RefHeading___Toc147293178)

[Table 10: 2005-06 HiQ School System Data: Title I and Non-Title I
Schools 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293179)

***Table 11: Equity
Parameters..............................................................................................
53***

[Table 12: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293180)

[PART III: APPENDICES 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293181)

[APPENDIX #1: 2004-2005 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN
SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293182)

[APPENDIX #2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293183)

[APPENDIX #3: RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISITS
2](#appendix-3-results-of-monitoring-and-technical-assistance-visits)

[APPENDIX \# 4: PSC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND
PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293185)

[APPENDIX #5: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04
2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293186)

[APPENDIX #6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO CERTIFICATION
IN GEORGIA 2](#__RefHeading___Toc147293187)

**APPENDIX #7: TEACHER QUALITY
REFERENCES......................................**

**101**

# PART I: Georgia's Organizational Structure for the Implementation of Title II A

**Title II, Part A: State Organization**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293157
.anchor}

Four state agencies in Georgia have responsibilities for the
preparation, certification, teaching assignments, discipline,
professional development, and resulting publicly reported student
achievement that define highly qualified teachers. These are:

1.  The Professional Standards Commission (PSC) -- Responsible for
    setting and enforcing the teacher and paraprofessional preparation
    standards, state teacher assessments and certification; sanctioning
    teachers and paraprofessionals for professional misbehavior; teacher
    recruiting, and reporting teacher work force data for Georgia.

2.  The Board of Regents (BOR) - Governs the 15 state institutions that
    prepare teachers for initial and advanced degrees in content majors
    and education pedagogy; the Board of Regents sets principles and
    course requirements for teacher preparation at public institutions
    of higher education, and manages grant initiatives for innovative
    programs such as a teacher induction program or the higher education
    grants that are part of Title II, Part A.

3.  Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) - Responsible for
    professional development of teachers, setting the state teacher pay
    scale, establishing the state curriculum that teachers teach,
    student assessments, school improvement efforts and NCLB programs.

4.  The Office of Student Achievement (OSA)-Responsible for collecting,
    analyzing and reporting state student achievement data. Georgia
    operates a single statewide accountability system for public
    education that provides a focus for schools, creates a reward
    structure for success and gives parents information about how their
    children are performing. The system provides an accountability
    profile for each public school and public school district. The
    profiles include (1) adequate yearly progress for schools and school
    districts (2) a performance index for schools (3) performance
    highlights for schools and school districts.

**PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A
Funding**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293158 .anchor}

As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and
certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of
NCLB Title II, Part A:

-   Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state
    application for NCLB funds

-   Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use

-   Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE)
    and local funds

-   Report annually on the state's progress toward meeting the state's
    annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting
    teacher quality requirements

-   Assess the impact of the funding on student learning

-   Assess the impact of the funding on improving teacher quality

-   Provide an educational role in interpreting the purpose and use of
    the federal funds allotment in collaboration with DOE

-   Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a
    highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA

-   Develop mechanisms to support certification requirements with
    educational opportunities

-   Develop and implement state activities that complement LEA
    activities and needs

-   Work with the IHE to develop competitive grants for the state and
    LEA activities

**LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part
A**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293159 .anchor}

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic
    subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified
    by the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the
    district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the
    end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within
    the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than
    the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year's progress toward
    a highly qualified teaching staff

-   Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year
    beginning with 2001 through 2006

#### PSC Goals

1.  To provide technical assistance and guidance to Local Education
    Agencies (LEAs) as they develop an ongoing process to ensure quality
    teachers in every classroom

2.  To identify and implement state-wide activities that complement and
    support the local activities to ensure quality teachers in every
    classroom. These activities are related to the Department of
    Education (DOE) responsibilities for professional learning and the
    Committee on Quality Teaching (CQT) efforts to support educator
    quality

3.  To report on compliance of local school systems in meeting the goal
    of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006

### Title II, Part A - Administration

The Professional Standards Commission uses a portion of the Title II,
Part A administrative funds to employ seven state consultants who work
in assigned regions of the state to assist school district personnel in
understanding and applying the requirements of Title II, Part A in each
of Georgia's 183 school districts and the state schools.

![](media/image2.pct){width="5.048611111111111in"
height="6.621527777777778in"}

Additional PSC staff hired with Title II, Part A funds include a data
specialist, a part-time program coordinator, an administrative assistant
and a clerk. The PSC provides in-kind support with the services of the
Director of Educator Preparation, who is the Title II, Part A program
administrator, the Director of Certification, the Director of Special
Projects, the Director of Technology and two education staff
specialists. The Board of Regents appointed the University of Georgia as
the higher education institution to handle the state IHE grant funds of
Title II, Part A. The University has a Director of Teacher Quality who
collaborates with the PSC and the GDOE. The GDOE uses a portion of the
Title II, Part A funds to pay the salary of the Associate Director of
Teacher Quality, and provides in kind service of the Director of Teacher
Quality. A staff member in the Title I program and a staff specialist in
the DOE Department of Special Education also provide input. OSA
coordinates the data collection for the state report card including the
list of highly qualified teachers by school and district.

Federal funds for NCLB are granted to the Georgia Department of
Education. The Department in turn contracts with the Professional
Standards Commission to carry out the work of Title II, Part A.

**Georgia's Highly Qualified Teacher
Definition**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293162 .anchor}

In 2002-03, Georgia adopted a basic definition of a highly qualified
teacher as one who holds a bachelor's degree or higher, has a major in
the subject area or has passed the state teacher content assessment, and
is assigned to teach his/her major subject(s). A veteran teacher is one
who has had three or more years of successful teaching experience. A set
of state guidelines located at <http://www.gapsc.com/> defines the
highly qualified status of every type of teacher in Georgia who serves
as teacher of record for core academic content, including the special
education teacher.

## PART II: Revisions to the Title II, Part A Plan

**Requirement 1:** []{#__RefHeading___Toc147293164 .anchor}**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 the HQT standards, and examine whether or not there are particular
hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by non-highly qualified
teachers.**

**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?**

#### In the 2002-03 during the early phase of NCLB Title II, Part A, the PSC developed a software program referred to as HiQ (see [**www.gapsc.org**](http://www.gapsc.org/)) that compares the PSC teacher and paraprofessional state certification data with the Department of Education's teacher employment data to determine the highly qualified status of every teacher, in every school, in every school district in the state. Local school district personnel can review the highly qualified status of their teachers, act on this information to inform parents and the community, as well as work with the PSC to upgrade and make changes and corrections to the status of the teachers. Highly qualified paraprofessional data are also reported through HiQ as is the number of long-term substitute teachers. These data reports are used as a basis for informing parents that their children's teachers may not be highly qualified, and provides the reasons for those decisions. 

# 

Table 01 and Table 02 show the statewide summary data reported for
2003-04 and 2004-05. For these data, a teacher is defined as an
individual who provides instruction in the core academic content areas
who teaches in kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or un-graded classes,
or individuals who teach in an environment other than a classroom
setting (and who maintain daily student attendance records). These
2003-04 data were used as a baseline and reported by school and school
district for them to use to set their yearly objectives to achieve 100%
highly qualified teacher work force by 2005-06. The tables included here
are aggregated statewide.

# Table 01: State-wide HiQ Data 2003-2004

+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***Sta     |             |             |             |             |
| te-wide*** |             |             |             |             |
|            |             |             |             |             |
| ***School  |             |             |             |             |
| Year       |             |             |             |             |
| 20         |             |             |             |             |
| 03-2004*** |             |             |             |             |
+============+=============+=============+=============+=============+
| ***Highly  |             |             |             |             |
| Qualified  |             |             |             |             |
| Teachers   |             |             |             |             |
| (FTE) by   |             |             |             |             |
| Subject    |             |             |             |             |
| Area***    |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| The        |             |             |             |             |
| following  |             |             |             |             |
| summary    |             |             |             |             |
| data was   |             |             |             |             |
| calculated |             |             |             |             |
| for the    |             |             |             |             |
| entire     |             |             |             |             |
| school     |             |             |             |             |
| system,    |             |             |             |             |
| for Title  |             |             |             |             |
| I schools  |             |             |             |             |
| (if any),  |             |             |             |             |
| and for    |             |             |             |             |
| Charter    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| (if any).  |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| are        |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| that       |             |             |             |             |
| received   |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| funding    |             |             |             |             |
| under a    |             |             |             |             |
| S          |             |             |             |             |
| chool-wide |             |             |             |             |
| Program or |             |             |             |             |
| a Targeted |             |             |             |             |
| Assistance |             |             |             |             |
| Program.   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***NCLB    | ***Group*** | ***Co       | ***%        | ***Total    |
| Subject    |             | nsidered*** | Highly***   | FTE***      |
| Area***    |             |             |             |             |
|            |             |             | *           | ***%*       |
|            |             |             | **Qualified | *Highly***  |
|            |             |             | FTE***      |             |
|            |             |             |             | *           |
|            |             |             |             | **Qualified |
|            |             |             |             | FTE***      |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | All schools | 71444.7     | 69448.7     | 97.2        |
| subjects   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Charter     | 671.7       | 585.8       | 87.2        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Title I     | 35511.9     | 34497.8     | 97.1        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | All schools | 4274.6      | 4103.1      | 96.0        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Charter     | 46.2        | 36.8        | 79.5        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Title I     | 1832.9      | 1721.8      | 93.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | All schools | 27.2        | 23.0        | 84.6        |
| Government |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | Title I     | 7.2         | 7.2         | 100.0       |
| Government | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | All schools | 17.3        | 11.4        | 65.8        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | Title I     | 0.7         | 0.5         | 67.6        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | All schools | 39252.4     | 38538.3     | 98.2        |
| I          |             |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Charter     | 360.3       | 305.1       | 84.7        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Title I     | 24986.3     | 24482.8     | 98.0        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | All schools | 6668.8      | 6510.5      | 97.6        |
| Language   |             |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Charter     | 55.2        | 50.9        | 92.2        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Title I     | 2136.7      | 2076.8      | 97.2        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | All schools | 1859.5      | 1785.0      | 96.0        |
| Languages  |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Charter     | 33.6        | 31.0        | 92.3        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Title I     | 376.7       | 348.9       | 92.6        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | All schools | 28.1        | 16.9        | 60.0        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | Title I     | 15.1        | 9.1         | 60.1        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | All schools | 5752.4      | 5507.3      | 95.7        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Charter     | 49.3        | 45.1        | 91.5        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Title I     | 1653.8      | 1568.7      | 94.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | All schools | 6949.1      | 6701.1      | 96.4        |
| athematics |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Charter     | 59.6        | 57.3        | 96.2        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Title I     | 2277.0      | 2196.9      | 96.5        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | All schools | 1011.9      | 897.8       | 88.7        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Charter     | 14.4        | 11.1        | 76.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Title I     | 571.4       | 515.2       | 90.2        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | All schools | 5603.4      | 5354.3      | 95.5        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Charter     | 53.0        | 48.5        | 91.5        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Title I     | 1654.1      | 1570.0      | 94.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

The data are disaggregated by school system level, by school, by type of
school and by subject area, by classes taught and by each AYP status.
The analysis includes the schools that are not making adequate yearly
progress. The analysis also identifies the districts and schools in
which teachers do not meet HQ requirements and examines the subject
areas taught by teachers.

## Table 02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005

+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***Sta     |             |             |             |             |
| te-wide*** |             |             |             |             |
|            |             |             |             |             |
| ***School  |             |             |             |             |
| Year       |             |             |             |             |
| 20         |             |             |             |             |
| 04-2005*** |             |             |             |             |
+============+=============+=============+=============+=============+
| ***Highly  |             |             |             |             |
| Qualified  |             |             |             |             |
| Teachers   |             |             |             |             |
| (FTE) by   |             |             |             |             |
| Subject    |             |             |             |             |
| Area***    |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| The        |             |             |             |             |
| following  |             |             |             |             |
| summary    |             |             |             |             |
| data was   |             |             |             |             |
| calculated |             |             |             |             |
| for the    |             |             |             |             |
| entire     |             |             |             |             |
| school     |             |             |             |             |
| system,    |             |             |             |             |
| for Title  |             |             |             |             |
| I schools  |             |             |             |             |
| (if any),  |             |             |             |             |
| and for    |             |             |             |             |
| Charter    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| (if any).  |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| are        |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| that       |             |             |             |             |
| received   |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| funding    |             |             |             |             |
| under a    |             |             |             |             |
| S          |             |             |             |             |
| chool-wide |             |             |             |             |
| Program or |             |             |             |             |
| a Targeted |             |             |             |             |
| Assistance |             |             |             |             |
| Program.   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***NCLB    | ***Group*** | ***Total    | ***Highly   | ***% Highly |
| Subject    |             | FTE         | Qualified   | Q           |
| Area***    |             | Co          | FTE***      | ualified*** |
|            |             | nsidered*** |             |             |
|            |             |             |             | ***FTE***   |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | All schools | 75306.1     | 72924.0     | 96.8        |
| subjects   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Charter     | 698.8       | 629.7       | 90.1        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Title I     | 36219.3     | 35104.3     | 96.9        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | All schools | 4405.3      | 4255.3      | 96.6        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Charter     | 43.2        | 39.2        | 90.7        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Title I     | 1839.4      | 1742.0      | 94.7        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | All schools | 177.7       | 166.9       | 94.0        |
| Government |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | Charter     | 0.1         | 0.1         | 100.0       |
| Government | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | Title I     | 35.8        | 32.5        | 90.7        |
| Government | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | All schools | 150.9       | 147.3       | 97.7        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | Charter     | 0.1         | 0.1         | 100.0       |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | Title I     | 22.1        | 21.1        | 95.5        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | All schools | 39111.5     | 38494.3     | 98.4        |
| I          |             |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Charter     | 351.1       | 315.6       | 89.9        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Title I     | 24411.8     | 24001.5     | 98.3        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | All schools | 7873.1      | 7622.3      | 96.8        |
| Language   |             |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Charter     | 64.4        | 60.0        | 93.1        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Title I     | 2536.7      | 2430.9      | 95.8        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | All schools | 1977.2      | 1898.9      | 96.0        |
| Languages  |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Charter     | 37.7        | 33.7        | 89.4        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Title I     | 401.1       | 372.6       | 92.9        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | All schools | 247.9       | 229.0       | 92.4        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | Title I     | 83.7        | 78.0        | 93.2        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | All schools | 5837.8      | 5659.5      | 97.0        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Charter     | 54.7        | 52.6        | 96.2        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Title I     | 1712.7      | 1637.7      | 95.6        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | All schools | 7697.8      | 7391.9      | 96.0        |
| athematics |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Charter     | 68.5        | 64.0        | 93.3        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Title I     | 2527.7      | 2422.5      | 95.8        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | All schools | 1434.6      | 1205.3      | 84.0        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Charter     | 19.2        | 13.7        | 71.1        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Title I     | 799.5       | 678.9       | 84.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | All schools | 6159.8      | 5853.1      | 95.0        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Charter     | 56.3        | 50.8        | 90.2        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Title I     | 1801.3      | 1686.6      | 93.6        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | All schools | 231.5       | 0.0         | 0.0         |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | Charter     | 3.5         | 0.0         | 0.0         |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | Title I     | 46.4        | 0.0         | 0.0         |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Table 03: State-wide HiQ Data
2005-2006**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293167 .anchor}

+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***Sta     |             |             |             |             |
| te-wide*** |             |             |             |             |
|            |             |             |             |             |
| ***School  |             |             |             |             |
| Year       |             |             |             |             |
| 20         |             |             |             |             |
| 05-2006*** |             |             |             |             |
+============+=============+=============+=============+=============+
| ***Highly  |             |             |             |             |
| Qualified  |             |             |             |             |
| Teachers   |             |             |             |             |
| (FTE) by   |             |             |             |             |
| Subject    |             |             |             |             |
| Area***    |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| The        |             |             |             |             |
| following  |             |             |             |             |
| summary    |             |             |             |             |
| data was   |             |             |             |             |
| calculated |             |             |             |             |
| for the    |             |             |             |             |
| entire     |             |             |             |             |
| school     |             |             |             |             |
| system,    |             |             |             |             |
| for Title  |             |             |             |             |
| I schools  |             |             |             |             |
| (if any),  |             |             |             |             |
| and for    |             |             |             |             |
| Charter    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| (if any).  |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| are        |             |             |             |             |
| schools    |             |             |             |             |
| that       |             |             |             |             |
| received   |             |             |             |             |
| Title I    |             |             |             |             |
| funding    |             |             |             |             |
| under a    |             |             |             |             |
| S          |             |             |             |             |
| chool-wide |             |             |             |             |
| Program or |             |             |             |             |
| a Targeted |             |             |             |             |
| Assistance |             |             |             |             |
| Program.   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ***NCLB    | ***Group*** | ***Total    | ***Highly   | ***% Highly |
| Subject    |             | FTE         | Qualified   | Q           |
| Area***    |             | Co          | FTE***      | ualified*** |
|            |             | nsidered*** |             |             |
|            |             |             |             | ***FTE***   |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | All schools | 93081.1     | 87447.4     | 94.0        |
| subjects   |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Charter     | 1069.0      | 962.6       | 90.0        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All        | Title I     | 43185.2     | 40943.2     | 94.8        |
| subjects   | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | All schools | 4620.3      | 4503.6      | 97.5        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Charter     | 60.1        | 57.0        | 94.8        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arts       | Title I     | 1939.6      | 1879.0      | 96.9        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | All schools | 290.3       | 259.6       | 89.4        |
| Government |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | Charter     | 1.5         | 0.1         | 6.7         |
| Government | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Civics and | Title I     | 50.9        | 45.7        | 89.9        |
| Government | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | All schools | 203.6       | 194.5       | 95.5        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | Charter     | 1.5         | 1.3         | 87.0        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Economics  | Title I     | 28.8        | 27.2        | 94.2        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | All schools | 43810.4     | 42333.6     | 96.6        |
| I          |             |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Charter     | 564.0       | 521.1       | 92.4        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Elementary | Title I     | 26808.7     | 25883.8     | 96.5        |
| I          | schools     |             |             |             |
| nstruction |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | All schools | 12012.6     | 10912.2     | 90.8        |
| Language   |             |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Charter     | 107.9       | 94.4        | 87.5        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| English    | Title I     | 3956.2      | 3590.3      | 90.8        |
| Language   | schools     |             |             |             |
| Arts       |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | All schools | 2110.3      | 2026.1      | 96.0        |
| Languages  |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Charter     | 43.0        | 37.6        | 87.3        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Foreign    | Title I     | 429.4       | 399.7       | 93.1        |
| Languages  | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | All schools | 317.6       | 289.5       | 91.2        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Geography  | Title I     | 1.0         | 1.0         | 100.0       |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | All schools | 96.3        | 87.5        | 90.8        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Charter     | 8147.0      | 7705.0      | 94.6        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| History    | Title I     | 2474.1      | 2344.3      | 94.8        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | All schools | 10878.8     | 9787.0      | 90.0        |
| athematics |             |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Charter     | 109.8       | 98.5        | 89.7        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| M          | Title I     | 3694.2      | 3380.7      | 91.5        |
| athematics | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | All schools | 2512.2      | 2056.8      | 81.9        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Charter     | 23.0        | 11.1        | 48.3        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reading    | Title I     | 1268.4      | 1091.9      | 86.1        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | All schools | 8157.2      | 7376.5      | 90.4        |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Charter     | 71.7        | 64.5        | 89.8        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Science    | Title I     | 2428.8      | 2210.2      | 91.0        |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | All schools | 17.9        | 0.0         | 0.0         |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | Charter     | \-          | \-          | \-          |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown    | Title I     | 6.8         | 0.0         | 0.0         |
|            | schools     |             |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Table 04: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Being Taught by Non Highly
Qualified Teachers**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293168 .anchor}

+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| **TEACHER    |          |                     |                     |
| AND          |          |                     |                     |
| PAR          |          |                     |                     |
| APROFESIONAL |          |                     |                     |
| QUALITY**    |          |                     |                     |
|              |          |                     |                     |
| Data from    |          |                     |                     |
| the 2004-05  |          |                     |                     |
| school year  |          |                     |                     |
| for classes  |          |                     |                     |
| in the core  |          |                     |                     |
| academic     |          |                     |                     |
| subjects     |          |                     |                     |
| being taught |          |                     |                     |
| by "highly   |          |                     |                     |
| qualified"   |          |                     |                     |
| teachers (as |          |                     |                     |
| the term is  |          |                     |                     |
| defined in   |          |                     |                     |
| Section      |          |                     |                     |
| 9101(23) of  |          |                     |                     |
| the ESEA),   |          |                     |                     |
| in the       |          |                     |                     |
| aggregate    |          |                     |                     |
| for all      |          |                     |                     |
| schools and  |          |                     |                     |
| in           |          |                     |                     |
| "h           |          |                     |                     |
| igh-poverty" |          |                     |                     |
| and          |          |                     |                     |
| "            |          |                     |                     |
| low-poverty" |          |                     |                     |
| elementary   |          |                     |                     |
| schools (as  |          |                     |                     |
| the terms    |          |                     |                     |
| are defined  |          |                     |                     |
| in Section   |          |                     |                     |
| 1111(h)      |          |                     |                     |
| (1)(C)(viii) |          |                     |                     |
| of the       |          |                     |                     |
| ESEA).       |          |                     |                     |
| Section      |          |                     |                     |
| 1111(h)      |          |                     |                     |
| (1)(C)(viii) |          |                     |                     |
| defines      |          |                     |                     |
| "h           |          |                     |                     |
| igh-poverty" |          |                     |                     |
| schools as   |          |                     |                     |
| schools in   |          |                     |                     |
| the top      |          |                     |                     |
| quartile of  |          |                     |                     |
| poverty in   |          |                     |                     |
| the State    |          |                     |                     |
| and          |          |                     |                     |
| "            |          |                     |                     |
| low-poverty" |          |                     |                     |
| schools as   |          |                     |                     |
| schools in   |          |                     |                     |
| the bottom   |          |                     |                     |
| quartile of  |          |                     |                     |
| poverty in   |          |                     |                     |
| the State.   |          |                     |                     |
+==============+==========+=====================+=====================+
| **School     | *        | **Number of Core**  | **Percentage of     |
| Type**       | *Total** |                     | Core**              |
|              |          | **Academic          |                     |
|              | **Number | Classes**           | **Academic          |
|              | of**     |                     | Classes**           |
|              |          | **Taught by         |                     |
|              | **Core** | Highly**            | **Taught by Not     |
|              |          |                     | Highly**            |
|              | **Ac     | **Qualified         |                     |
|              | ademic** | Teachers**          | **Qualified         |
|              |          |                     | Teachers**          |
|              | **C      |                     |                     |
|              | lasses** |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| All Schools  | 220240   | 210797              | 4.3                 |
| in State     |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Elementary   |          |                     |                     |
| Level        |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| High-Poverty | 14342    | 13674               | 4.7                 |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Low-Poverty  | 26900    | 26408               | 1.8                 |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| All          | 61032    | 59291               | 2.9                 |
| Elementary   |          |                     |                     |
|              |          |                     |                     |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Secondary    |          |                     |                     |
| Level        |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| High-Poverty | 100645   | 97906               | 2.7                 |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Low-Poverty  | 44600    | 44046               | 1.2                 |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| All          | 159218   | 151506              | 4.8                 |
| Secondary    |          |                     |                     |
|              |          |                     |                     |
| Schools      |          |                     |                     |
+--------------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+

+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| For those classes in core academic subjects    |                     |
| being taught by teachers who are **not highly  |                     |
| qualified** as reported in the above table,    |                     |
| estimate the percentages of those classes in   |                     |
| the following categories (note: percentages    |                     |
| should add to 100 percent of the classes       |                     |
| taught by not highly qualified teachers).      |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| Reason For Being Classified as Not Highly      | Percentage          |
|                                                |                     |
| Qualified Percentage                           |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| a\) Elementary school classes taught by        | 6%                  |
| certified                                      |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| general education teachers who did not pass a  |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| subject-knowledge test or (if eligible) have   |                     |
| not                                            |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| demonstrated subject-matter competency         |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| through HOUSSE                                 |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| b\) Elementary school classes taught by        | 2%                  |
| teachers                                       |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| who are not fully certified (and are not in an |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| approved alternative route program)            |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| c\) Secondary school classes taught by         | 59%                 |
| certified                                      |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| general education teachers who have not        |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| subjects (e.g., out-of-field teachers)         |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| d\) Secondary school classes taught by         | 20%                 |
| teachers                                       |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| who are not fully certified (and are not in an |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| approved alternative route program)            |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| e\) Other (please explain) (Insufficient       | 12%                 |
|                                                |                     |
| information provided                           |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| by LEA's)                                      |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+

**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?**

Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03 indicates that the not
highly qualified teachers were assigned to teach in all of the core
academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign
language, the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data
indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in these core academic content
areas (See <http://www.gapsc.com/>). The data indicate that non HQT
teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the
state. The percentage of not highly qualified teachers varies widely in
schools not making AYP across the state. There is no apparent pattern in
the percentages of teachers who are not highly qualified in schools not
making AYP. However, monitoring and assistance to all districts and
schools will be prioritized based on those not making AYP with the
highest percentage of teachers not highly qualified. See Appendix 01 for
the percentages of non-highly qualified teachers teaching in schools
that did not make AYP in 2004-05.

### 

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

#### Special Education Teachers

For years, Georgia prepared its special education teachers using a
categorical approach. Teachers were prepared as learning disabilities,
mental retardation, or behavior disorders teachers. Core academic
content preparation was not required as part of the preparation to
become certified as a special education teacher. Special education data
are included in 2005-2006 tables.

Georgia has taken actions to assure that special education teachers are
highly qualified as noted in the Fact Sheet for Georgia Special
Education Teachers (see Appendix 2).

The results showing the numbers of highly qualified special education
teachers and their assignments will not be available until October 2006.
Table 07 illustrates progress special education teachers have made to
date toward obtaining highly qualified teacher status.

In addition to special education, three additional core academic content
areas including reading, civics and government, are listed with higher
percentages of non HQT teachers for AYP schools. For civics and
government, Georgia has moved to change the certification requirements
to individual core academic content areas that have replaced broad field
social sciences. For reading, in addition to an extensive Reading First
program, the state has used the Voyage project for selected school
districts.

Analysis of state data provided in Table 05 shows that there is a gap in
the percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are not
highly qualified in both elementary and secondary schools that are
identified as high-poverty. The greatest gap appears to be for
elementary schools with a differential of almost 3 percent between low
and high-poverty schools. See Requirement 6 for Georgia's plan to use
this and additional data to inform the state's Equity Plan.

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

An analysis of school system data indicates that seven LEAs have
significant numbers of teachers not meeting Highly Qualified standards
(15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%),
Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%),
Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical assistance
will be provided to these districts by Title IIA Consultants (See Table
07).

Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ
teachers will be targeted for monitoring. These districts include:
Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly
County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski
County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter
County (14%), Twiggs County (12%).

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

Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all
schools as they monitor the LEA plans and their progress toward meeting
the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans developed for each
teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA
consultants will monitor the use of funds within the local district to
ensure that the resources for high quality professional development are
targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to
become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills
to become more effective classroom teachers, and that these funds are
focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools, especially
those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students.

In the fall of 2003, the PSC used the HIQ software to collect the first
set of highly qualified teacher data, by school district and by state
for the 2002-03 school year. The data were published as percentages for
the number of teachers highly qualified and were based on the October
2002 Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) report.

Since 2002-03, the PSC has refined the HiQ software each year so that
individual each school districts could update teachers' HiQ status as
they completed requirements to become highly qualified during the school
year. These data were again reported to the USDOE in 2003-04, but the
format for the report was based on classes taught, not individual
teachers. See Table 08 and Table 09 for the 2004-05 data.

## Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

  ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------
  School Type         Total Number of Number of Core     Percentage of Core
                      Core Academic   Academic Classes   Academic Classes
                      Classes         Taught by Highly   Taught by Highly
                                      Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers

  All Schools in      430,521         418,585            97.2
  State                                                  

  All Elementary      324, 956        317,958            97.8
  Schools                                                

  All Secondary       105,565         100,627            95.3
  Schools                                                

  High-poverty        91,895          88,798             96.6
  Schools                                                

  Low-poverty Schools 127,264         125,180            98.3
  ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------

## Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified and non Highly Qualified Teachers

  --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
  School Type     Total Number Number of Core Percentage of  Percentage of
                  of Core      Academic       Core Academic  Core Academic
                  Academic     Classes Taught Classes Taught Classes Taught
                  Classes      by Highly      by Highly      by non-HQT
                               Qualified      Qualified      
                               Teachers       Teachers       

  All Schools in  220,240      210,797        95.7           4.3 %
  State                                                      

  All Elementary  61,032       59,291         97.1           2.9 %
  Schools                                                    

  All Secondary   159,218      151,506        95.2           4.8 %
  Schools                                                    

  High-poverty    114,986      111,580        97.0           03 %
  Schools                                                    

  Low-poverty     71,500       70,454         98.5           1.5%
  Schools                                                    
  --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------

**Table 07: 2005-06 HiQ School System Summary
Data**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293171 .anchor}

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **2005-06 School                                
  System Data: Overall                            
  Summary**                                       
  ---------------------- ------------ ----------- ---------------------------
  \"Classes\" are                                 
  inferred from the                               
  class subject and the                           
  \"part-of-day\"                                 
  reported for each                               
  educator in each                                
  class. One full                                 
  \"part-of-day\" in the                          
  \"elementary\" subject                          
  (coded as 920 or 928                            
  on CPI) is treated as                           
  one class. One full                             
  \"part-of-day\" in any                          
  other subject is                                
  treated as                                      
  representing five                               
  classes.                                        

  **School system**      **Classes    **All       **% Classes Taught Not
                         Taught Not   classes**   Highly Qualified Teachers**
                         Highly                   
                         Qualified                
                         Teachers**               

  Appling County         40           646         6%

  Atkinson County        9            264         3%

  Atlanta Public Schools 1,699        9,773       17%

  Bacon County           5            322         2%

  Baker County           \-           78          0%

  Baldwin County         11           731         2%

  Banks County           7            391         2%

  Barrow County          15           1,684       1%

  Bartow County          236          2,541       9%

  Ben Hill County        19           523         4%

  Berrien County         12           487         2%

  Bibb County            690          3,952       17%

  Bleckley County        13           387         3%

  Brantley County        54           653         8%

  Bremen City            2            295         1%

  Brooks County          30           407         7%

  Bryan County           15           1,044       1%

  Buford City            14           472         3%

  Bulloch County         58           1,568       4%

  Burke County           18           820         2%

  Butts County           65           601         11%

  Calhoun City           20           536         4%

  Calhoun County         19           142         14%

  Camden County          57           1,696       3%

  Candler County         7            348         2%

  Carroll County         39           3,602       1%

  Carrollton City        \-           598         0%

  Cartersville City      10           670         1%

  Catoosa County         155          1,676       9%

  Charlton County        19           309         6%

  Chatham County         357          5,669       6%

  Chattahoochee County   14           133         10%

  Chattooga County       12           496         2%

  Cherokee County        106          5,993       2%

  Chickamauga City       \-           194         0%

  Clarke County          98           3,446       3%

  Clay County            1            64          2%

  Clayton County         1,334        11,473      12%

  Clinch County          36           290         12%

  Cobb County            1,409        18,186      8%

  Coffee County          96           1,204       8%

  Colquitt County        20           1,416       1%

  Columbia County        40           3,573       1%

  Commerce City          9            264         3%

  Cook County            \-           504         0%

  Coweta County          135          3,180       4%

  Crawford County        20           306         6%

  Crisp County           \-           661         0%

  Dade County            1            358         0%

  Dalton City            34           1,472       2%

  Dawson County          6            538         1%

  Decatur City           10           628         2%

  Decatur County         9            994         1%

  DeKalb County          780          16,201      5%

  Dodge County           12           576         2%

  Dooly County           44           358         12%

  Dougherty County       174          2,611       7%

  Douglas County         170          3,111       5%

  Dublin City            55           580         9%

  Early County           3            546         0%

  Echols County          9            118         8%

  Effingham County       7            1,658       0%

  Elbert County          35           673         5%

  Emanuel County         11           830         1%

  Evans County           14           380         4%

  Fannin County          17           618         3%

  Fayette County         100          4,755       2%

  Floyd County           65           1,820       4%

  Forsyth County         50           3,955       1%

  Franklin County        13           635         2%

  Fulton County          706          13,617      5%

  Gainesville City       17           815         2%

  Gilmer County          8            755         1%

  Glascock County        8            118         6%

  Glynn County           48           1,964       2%

  Gordon County          9            1,035       1%

  Grady County           20           764         3%

  Greene County          14           357         4%

  Gwinnett County        1,254        24,852      5%

  Habersham County       \-           1,005       0%

  Hall County            103          3,649       3%

  Hancock County         49           237         21%

  Haralson County        5            572         1%

  Harris County          7            747         1%

  Hart County            3            604         1%

  Heard County           15           319         5%

  Henry County           356          5,504       6%

  Houston County         124          4,546       3%

  Irwin County           2            308         1%

  Jackson County         12           1,057       1%

  Jasper County          14           410         3%

  Jeff Davis County      \-           472         0%

  Jefferson City         6            337         2%

  Jefferson County       9            572         2%

  Jenkins County         24           327         7%

  Johnson County         24           236         10%

  Jones County           38           776         5%

  Lamar County           39           406         10%

  Lanier County          13           289         5%

  Laurens County         143          935         15%

  Lee County             26           878         3%

  Liberty County         144          2,025       7%

  Lincoln County         4            250         2%

  Long County            14           314         4%

  Lowndes County         82           1,576       5%

  Lumpkin County         19           609         3%

  Macon County           51           389         13%

  Madison County         11           799         1%

  Marietta City          38           1,498       3%

  Marion County          7            326         2%

  McDuffie County        \-           810         0%

  McIntosh County        17           341         5%

  Meriwether County      38           601         6%

  Miller County          16           223         7%

  Mitchell County        60           739         8%

  Monroe County          9            600         1%

  Montgomery County      33           246         13%

  Morgan County          19           640         3%

  Murray County          29           1,179       2%

  Muscogee County        570          6,113       9%

  Newton County          92           2,766       3%

  Oconee County          4            1,096       0%

  Oglethorpe County      10           419         2%

  Paulding County        173          3,761       5%

  Peach County           68           726         9%

  Pelham City            12           244         5%

  Pickens County         16           770         2%

  Pierce County          19           512         4%

  Pike County            \-           430         0%

  Polk County            67           1,160       6%

  Pulaski County         46           332         14%

  Putnam County          107          571         19%

  Quitman County         6            64          9%

  Rabun County           \-           459         0%

  Randolph County        34           274         12%

  Richmond County        278          5,118       5%

  Rockdale County        40           2,544       2%

  Rome City              17           1,045       2%

  Schley County          \-           200         0%

  Screven County         24           652         4%

  Seminole County        45           314         14%

  Social Circle City     20           433         5%

  Spalding County        136          1,715       8%

  Stephens County        9            733         1%

  Stewart County         12           142         9%

  Sumter County          120          886         14%

  Talbot County          7            146         5%

  Taliaferro County      24           89          27%

  Tattnall County        36           710         5%

  Taylor County          6            267         2%

  Telfair County         35           361         10%

  Terrell County         9            211         4%

  Thomas County          32           896         4%

  Thomaston-Upson County 17           877         2%

  Thomasville City       15           518         3%

  Tift County            4            1,209       0%

  Toombs County          18           746         2%

  Towns County           8            444         2%

  Treutlen County        61           189         32%

  Trion City             \-           210         0%

  Troup County           84           2,040       4%

  Turner County          11           339         3%

  Twiggs County          28           243         12%

  Union County           49           477         10%

  Valdosta City          82           1,220       7%

  Vidalia City           26           584         4%

  Walker County          46           1,379       3%

  Walton County          29           1,737       2%

  Ware County            20           1,097       2%

  Warren County          8            137         6%

  Washington County      64           702         9%

  Wayne County           20           816         2%

  Webster County         4            66          6%

  Wheeler County         \-           238         0%

  White County           16           1,020       2%

  Whitfield County       69           1,901       4%

  Wilcox County          22           295         8%

  Wilkes County          6            352         2%

  Wilkinson County       11           279         4%

  Worth County           8            617         1%
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Requirement 2**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293172 .anchor}**: 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.**

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

Since fall of 2003, the PSC has used the HiQ software program to
identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives for highly
qualified teachers. HiQ compares the PSC teacher and paraprofessional
state certification data with the Department of Education's teacher
employment data to determine the highly qualified status of every
teacher in each school for every school district in the state. Using
this web-based program, LEA personnel have the ability to review the
highly qualified status of their teachers, to identify remedial
strategies to pursue with individual teachers, and to work with the PSC
staff to upgrade and make changes and corrections to teacher status
records.

With this information, LEAs identified annual benchmarks that were
established to measure progress at the school and LEA levels (all
schools combined and disaggregated by Title I and non-Title I schools).
LEAs were able to make comparisons with State HQT data. LEAs then
develop annual action plans to achieve the goal of 100% highly qualified
teachers and monitor their progress toward meeting annual benchmarks.

Using HiQ and the data reports generated from HiQ, the State can
continually monitor LEA HQT status by system and school, as well as
disaggregation by subject areas and high/low poverty levels. Since the
first year of HiQ use, the PSC has systematically refined the software
to provide more accurate data, allowing for needed corrections, and
*enhanced uses of the HiQ resource*.

An analysis of school system data in Table 07 (page 20) indicates that
seven LEAs have significant numbers of teachers not meeting Highly
Qualified standards (15% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb
County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County
(19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical
assistance will be provided to these districts by Title IIA Consultants.

Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ
teachers will be targeted for monitoring. These districts include:
Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly
County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski
County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter
County (14%), Twiggs County (12%).

Wendy **LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability**

LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title
II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT
plans:

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic
    subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the
    district served by the LEA are highly qualified

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within
    the district served by the LEA are highly qualified

-   Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year's progress toward
    a highly qualified teaching staff

-   Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year

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

**LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability**

LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title
II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT
plans:

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic
    subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified
    by the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the
    district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the
    end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within
    the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than
    the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year's progress toward
    a highly qualified teaching staff

-   Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year
    beginning with 2001 through 2006

LEAs are responsible for reviewing their HQT data and conducting an
annual needs assessment using the HiQ information. The LEAs are required
to develop an annual Title II-A Plan based on the needs assessment to
determine the specific issues that have prevented the district and/or
schools from meeting the HQT goal (see Title II-A Handbook, Section VI
<http://www.gapsc.com/>). The LEAs analyze major differences among
schools overall, within specific subject areas, and for high and low
poverty schools in terms of equitable distribution of HQT. The LEAs
include an analysis as to how the district will reassign and/or recruit
highly qualified teachers to fill gaps in current staffing in core
academic subjects. The LEAs provide timelines of how teachers who are
not highly qualified will be provided support via technical assistance,
professional development, and financial and/or other incentives. The
LEAs' annual Title II-A Plans provide information on how the district
will meet the annual measurable objective to have 100% of their teachers
highly qualified. LEAs are required to report specific remediation steps
for each non-highly qualified teacher using the Remediation Method
function/tool in HiQ. In addition, the LEAs' Title II-A Plans includes
specific steps to meet AMO, as delineated below.

Remediation steps for individual teachers who do not meet HQT
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

-   [Testing]{.underline}. The LEA identifies testing options, provide
    test preparation material or tutorial support, and/or reimburse
    testing fees.

-   [Course work]{.underline}. LEA helps identify course providers and
    may reimburse tuition fees or provide stipends.

-   Conduct HOUSSE evaluations, as appropriate.

-   [Employment agreements]{.underline}. LEAs negotiate with teachers
    the necessary steps and timeline to meet HQT requirements for
    contract renewal.

-   [Reassignment of the teacher]{.underline}. LEAs can use the CAPS
    tool provided by the PSC to determine appropriate teaching
    assignments for specific courses based on the teacher's
    certification.

Other steps that LEAs may take to meet HQT goals include the following:

-   Recruitment of highly qualified teachers. LEAs fill hard to staff
    positions by recruiting recent graduates from traditional programs,
    teachers in alternative preparation programs, teachers from out of
    state, teachers returning to the profession, including retired
    teachers.

-   Retention of highly qualified teachers. LEAs implement strategies to
    increase retention rates of currently employed highly qualified
    teachers.

-   Hiring practices. LEAs implement policies that require only hiring
    teachers who are highly qualified to teach assigned core academic
    subjects.

-   Master schedule adjustments. The LEAs offer courses aligned with the
    qualifications of its teaching staff.

**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 Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of
    Education will take the following actions to ensure that LEAs have
    plans to assist teachers to become highly qualified.

#### PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance

As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and
certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of
NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance with and accountability
for their HQT plans:

-   Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state
    application for NCLB funds

-   Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use

-   Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE)
    and local funds

-   Collect data on LEAs' and schools' progress toward meeting HQT
    goals, and provide formative data throughout the academic year to
    inform LEA and school progress.

-   Report annually on the state's progress toward meeting the state's
    annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting
    teacher quality requirements

-   Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a
    highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA.

### Review of LEAs' Consolidated Applications

Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs' consolidated
applications annually. Review criteria related to meeting highly
qualified teacher requirements include:

-   LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and
    paraprofessionals are highly qualified by August 31, 2006

-   LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of
    all teachers and paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that
    they remain highly qualified if applicable.

-   LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals
    disaggregated by subject taught and grade level that lack
    certification and are not designated as highly qualified as well as
    data on those that are certified and highly qualified.

-   LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right
    to request the professional qualifications of their children's
    teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA notifies parents if
    their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered
    highly qualified for 20 consecutive days or more

-   LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and
    paraprofessionals in their efforts to become highly qualified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not
    taught more frequently by teachers who are not high qualified.

-   The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in
    English and any other language of instructions.

-   LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and
    approved until the LEA's Consolidated Application is approved by the
    DOE.

### State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement

The Title II-A consultants assigned to the Local Education Agencies
(LEAs) monitor the LEAs' efforts to meet the state's highly qualified
teacher requirements. The consultants monitor all 183 school districts
as well as state schools. The purpose of the monitoring is to ensure
that annual needs assessments and multi-year planning are the basis for
the budgeting and expenditures of Title II-A funding to LEAs and that
the process is carried out within the state and federal requirements for
NCLB. LEAs complete a self-monitoring checklist (see
[[http://www.gapsc.com/]{.underline}](http://www.gapsc.com/)) that
indicates their compliance with Title II-A requirements. The checklist
is also used to help LEAs prepare for monitoring visits by the Title
II-A consultants. The consultants use a monitoring form to gather
information about the districts' planning process, highly qualified
teacher and paraprofessional data, expenditure of funds appropriated to
LEAs, private school participation, and other documentation. The
monitoring form is located at [gapsc.com/.]{.underline} Monitoring
results are aggregated (see Appendix 03) by the Title II-A staff and
reviewed to help the consultants know what technical assistance is
needed and where focus should be placed in the next monitoring cycle.

LEAs developed their individual plans to have all teachers highly
qualified during the 2006-07 school year and they reported the
remediation methods to the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist LEAs with
this effort, the Remediation Method feature was added to the HiQ
program. All LEAs with any non-highly qualified teachers were required
to use the Remediation Method feature to report to the SEA to report how
each teacher will meet HQT requirements.

**Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006**
[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293173 .anchor}

+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| **Remediation Method** | **      | *        | **Lo    | **Pa | **T |
|                        | Regular | *Special | ng-Term | rapr | ota |
|                        | Ed      | E        | Substi  | os** | l** |
|                        | ucation | ducation | tutes** |      |     |
|                        | Cl      | C        |         |      | **  |
|                        | asses** | lasses** |         |      | Cla |
|                        |         |          |         |      | sse |
|                        |         |          |         |      | s** |
+========================+=========+==========+=========+======+=====+
| A highly qualified     | 1,978   | 2,077    | 344     | 132  | 4,  |
| teacher will be placed |         |          |         |      | 532 |
| in this class          |         |          |         |      |     |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| Class will be removed  | 188     | 375      | \-      | 32   | 595 |
| from master schedule   |         |          |         |      |     |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| Coursework - this      | 210     | 252      | 5       | 20   | 487 |
| teacher will become    |         |          |         |      |     |
| highly qualified for   |         |          |         |      |     |
| this class by          |         |          |         |      |     |
| coursework             |         |          |         |      |     |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| HOUSSE - this teacher  | 125     | 540      | \-      | \-   | 666 |
| will become highly     |         |          |         |      |     |
| qualified for this     |         |          |         |      |     |
| class by HOUSSE        |         |          |         |      |     |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| Testing - this teacher | 3,693   | 3,658    | 9       | 97   | 7,  |
| will become highly     |         |          |         |      | 457 |
| qualified for this     |         |          |         |      |     |
| class by testing       |         |          |         |      |     |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+
| Unknown                | 420     | 579      | 288     | 327  | 1,  |
|                        |         |          |         |      | 614 |
+------------------------+---------+----------+---------+------+-----+

For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form, the
Title II, Part A consultants will monitor LEAs' progress in meeting the
requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode on HiQ.
Using the HiQ correction feature, LEAs will indicate the change in
highly qualified status of each teacher as remediation types are
implemented, and the consultants will monitor these changes. In March
2007, a summary report of highly qualified teacher status will be
disseminated to each LEA and reviewed by the SEA for compliance
monitoring.

#### Technical Assistance Provided

When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because
of extenuating circumstances, each school district has the
responsibility to assure that teachers become highly qualified in a
timely manner. Title II, Part A consultants provide a constant source of
technical assistance to LEAs to help all teachers become highly
qualified. Each consultant provides whatever assistance is needed, from
answering questions to conducting workshops and/or working with
system-level personnel. At times, consultants will also address concerns
of individual teachers. Staff at the PSC and the DOE are also available
to answer questions and provide data to the LEAs as needed.

For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title
II, Part A. She attends the monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A
consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE have offered
numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the
state ranging from a statewide Title II, Part A conference,
presentations to the Georgia Association of School Personnel
Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and
to a University forum for special education faculty. A question and
answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is immensely helpful to LEAs
and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide
presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special
education certification changes are all part of the effort to provide
the best information about changes. Copies of slide presentations and
other information are located at <http://www.gapsc.com/>.

Georgia has also used Title II-A state funds for a number of projects
that help LEAs and their teachers meet the HQT requirements. (See
Appendix 3 for a summary of the projects undertaken by the PSC to
support the major goals of Title II-A).

A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the
development of 4 online mathematics courses and 3 online science courses
by Darton College. These courses are made available throughout Georgia
by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the
Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using
these courses to add to their content expertise in mathematics and
science. Part-time faculty are hired and trained by the RESAs to teach
the online courses. Training sessions for instructors have been
conducted in three regions throughout the state. In addition, an advisor
was appointed to assist the participants with inquiries, admission, and
getting their grades and transcripts. The first two courses were offered
in January of 2006, the second in March; all of the courses are being
offered during summer 2006. By the end of July 2006, 616 special
education teachers will have completed 902 of these content courses
offered by Darton College.

In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II,
Part A compliance, and consultants selected school systems by zip code
at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist is located at
<http://www.gapsc.com/>. These results are being tabulated.

For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for
2004-05, the Title II Part A consultants will monitor for progress in
meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode
on HiQ for each district. The LEA will indicate the change in the highly
qualified status of each teacher, and the consultant will monitor these
changes. In March 2007, a report of highly qualified teacher status will
be run for the entire state. For those systems with teachers who are not
highly qualified, the state will monitor each system and follow the
local guidance provided by the USDOE.

Each school district must determine how it plans to get all teachers
highly qualified during 2006-07, and report the remediation methods to
the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist LEAs with this effort, a new
feature, called the Remediation Method, has been added to the HiQ
program. The Remediation Method is a drop-down box that has been added
to the HiQ editor. When a record displays "not HiQ status", the
Remediation Method dropdown will be visible. The initial (default)
remediation method of "unknown" will be displayed. HiQ operators will
replace "unknown" from among several choices and click the "apply
corrections" button to save the remediation method chosen.

**Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals**

The Title II, Part A consultants will work with the DOE School
Improvement teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in
schools that need improvement. They will identify why the school system
hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school
system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified
in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title
II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met
for these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and
needs to complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should
see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility for
having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district
and the principal who does the hiring. (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 --Appendix
4)

**Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals**

It should be noted that not only does Georgia processes met the
requirements 2141 but procedures are being implemented that goes beyond
2141 to address schools that do not meet AYP goals.

The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement
teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that
need improvement. They will identify why the school system hired a
teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school system plans
to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely
manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to
ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for these
schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to
complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should see that
this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility for having
highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and
the principal who does the hiring (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 --Appendix 4)

Annual Time Table of Ongoing Activities

Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants
who have the responsibility of working with school systems in assigned
regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in their assigned
regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school
system Title II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide
technical assistance whenever they are needed by school systems. (See
page five of this report).

**July 1^st^ (each year)**

1.  PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide \# of HIQ
    teachers by school system, by school and by class assignments on an
    ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI data and the
    state certification database. School systems have immediate access
    to the data and make updates as teachers become highly qualified.

2.  Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and
    disseminate information about methods school systems can use to get
    teachers highly qualified.

**August 31^st^ (each year)**

3\. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and
class assignments and indicate using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system
intends to provide correction(s). Each school system files a remediation
report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission

**August 1^st^-September 30^th^ (each year)**

4\. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the
school systems budgets for Title II Part A. Approval is determined by
the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either through
recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions.

**September 15^th^ (each year)**

5\. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for
the previous school year and prepares individual reports for each school
system as well as an aggregated report for the state. Each school
system's superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance
that the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These
assurance forms are filed with the Professional Standards Commission.
The data are used to compile the highly qualified data report that is
issued to the U. S. Department of Education.

**December 1^st^-January 31^st^. (each year)**

6\. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½
and make an onsite visit. Paper review is used with the other systems. A
monitoring form is provided to each school system so they can be aware
of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the
distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority
students.

**March 1^st^ (each year)**

7\. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made
available by the Professional Standards Commission.

**March 1^st^-June 30^th^ (each year**

8\. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made
available on an annual basis by the Professional Standards Commission
and the State Board of Education.

**Requirement 3**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293174 .anchor}**: 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.**

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

When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because
of extenuating circumstances, each school system has the responsibility
to assure that teachers become highly qualified in a timely manner.

Titles II, Part A consultants provide on-going technical assistance to
LEAs to help all teachers become highly qualified. Each consultant
provides whatever assistance is needed, from answering questions to
conducting workshops and/or working with system-level personnel. At
times, consultants will also address concerns of individual teachers.
Staffs at the PSC and the DOE are also available to answer questions and
provide data to the LEAs as needed.

For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title
II, Part A. She attends the monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A
consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE have offered
numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the
state ranging from a statewide Title II, Part A conference, and
presentations to the Georgia Association of School Personnel
Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and
to a University forum for special education faculty. A question and
answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is immensely helpful to LEAs
and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide
presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special
education certification changes are all part of the effort to provide
the best information about changes. Copies of slide presentations, and
other information are located at <http://www.gapsc.com/>.

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

The Title II, Part A consultants will target their work in schools with
the DOE School Improvement teams to report the highly qualified status
of teachers in schools that do not make AYP. They will identify why the
school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what
the school system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly
qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use
available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional
development needs are met for these schools. For example, if the teacher
is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher assessment,
the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner.
The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed
with the school district and the principal who does the hiring. Title
IIA consultants recommend strategies and allowable expenditures of Title
II, Part A funds for improvement activities within the local district.

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

Programs and services are provided to assist LEAs with:

#### Recruitment and Retention of Highly Qualified Teachers

-   National Board Candidate Recruitment/training - Assistance with
    teachers' preparation for national board teacher certification

-   Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities - Preparation of marketing
    materials, development of the TeachGeorgia recruitment site; and
    recruitment of minority students

-   Professional Development in Core Content Areas

-   Content Course Development for Special Education Teachers -
    Development of web-based modules for certified education teachers to
    add content in reading and mathematics

-   Voyager Reading Project - Professional development program for
    teaching reading strategies with a web-based module format,
    developed by Voyager

A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the
development of four online mathematics courses and three online science
courses by Darton College. These courses are made available throughout
Georgia by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the
Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using
these courses to add to their content expertise in mathematics and
science.

#### Alternative Preparation Programs for Teachers

-   Development of Alternative Preparation - Development of web-based
    modules for the Georgia TAPP program

-   Development of Special Education Modules - Editing and completion of
    11 web-based modules for interrelated special education preparation
    offered statewide through Armstrong Atlantic State University

-   Transcript Analyses for Verification of Subject Matter for Certified
    Special Education Teachers - Analyses of certified special education
    teachers' transcripts to assess the number of content courses and
    amount of preparation in the core academic content areas

-   Alternative North Georgia Consortium -- Formation of a regional
    consortium between college/universities, regional education state
    agency, and schools districts to provide alternative preparation for
    teachers

**Recruiting a Workforce of Highly Qualified Teachers**

Georgia has signed the 2005-2010 NASDTEC Interstate Contract and
currently has reciprocity with more than 50 states, territories, and
countries to provide a smooth transition to Georgia certification.
Significant changes in Georgia certification rules has helped with
reciprocity (see Appendix 5 for Georgia Certification Changes).

**TeachGeorgia.org**

TeachGeorgia is an educational recruitment available through the
Professional Standards Commission and is free to all teachers and LEAs
for their use. The site lists LEA jobs that are available and leads
applicants through the process of creating an electronic resumes for
appropriate placement. Available jobs are posted on the PSC website and
candidates are matched to them.

**International Teachers**

International certificates are issued to applicants who are from a
country other than the United States who have completed at least a
bachelor's degree with a major in the teaching field and have met all
cultural/educational visa requirements. The certificate can be renewed
up to two additional years at the request of the school district
provided that the teacher has met all state requirements during the
first year. These teachers often meet critical needs in hard-to-staff
geographical and subject areas, especially special education, secondary
math and sciences, and foreign languages.

**Troops to Teachers**

Troops to Teachers is a cooperative program between the Professional
Standards Commission and the US DOE designed to assist retired and
separated members of the Armed Forces, as well as Guard and Reserve
personnel with obtaining certification and employment as teachers.
Troops to Teachers provides support to personnel who are making a
transition to teaching and to the districts that hire them. Eligible
veterans receive either a stipend of not more than \$5,000 to assist in
attaining teacher certification or \$10,000 incentive grant bonus for
participants who teach for three years in a high needs high school.
<http://www.tttga.net/>.

**NBPTS Certification Support**

Georgia has a large population of teachers who have achieved
certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS), due largely to a substantial investment the State has
made to assist teachers with the costs of the certification and pay
increases once the certification is achieved. Teachers who receive NBPTS
certification in 2006 or later must agree to teach in high needs
schools.

**Retired Teacher Incentives**

Members of the Georgia Retirement System who are eligible for service
retirement may elect to participate in the Retired Teachers Program.
Teachers may work up to five years as a retiree, while accumulating a
retirement annuity and drawing a salary as a full-time employee.
Legislation was amended to lift the earning limitation on teachers who
choose to reenter their profession subsequent to retirement.

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

Review of the statewide data for non-highly qualified teachers indicates
that the assignments to teach in all of the core academic content areas
including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas
listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic
shortage of teachers in these core academic content areas. (See
<http://www.gapsc.com/>) The data indicate that not highly qualified
teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the
state. Appendix 4 summarizes the projects undertaken by Georgia to
support the identified needs of teachers in the areas of reading,
mathematics, science, and foreign language.

**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?**

All federal funds and targeted state funds are directed toward high need
schools in local districts with an emphasis on teachers who are not
highly qualified. Georgia has and will continue to use these funds for a
number of projects that help LEAs and their teachers meet the
requirements for being highly qualified teachers.

Title IIA Consultants -- Team of field specialists available to provide
technical support to districts, schools, and teachers on options for
teachers to become highly qualified and supporting available resources.

**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?**

Title II-A consultants will work with LEAs who have schools that did not
make AYP to ensure the system has a written plan to address the
requirement of 100% Highly Qualified teachers in all classrooms
including assistance for each teacher who is not highly qualified to
become so in a timely manner. Systems will be required to use available
Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs
are met for these schools.

The Georgia Department of Education [School Improvement
Division](http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/SIRegionMap.pdf?p=39EF345AE192D900F620BFDE9C014CE65F48E7E4CC653240504EB3D2B367434FD7F923B114C1C3DB&Type=D)
will work collaboratively with Georgia's [Regional Education Service
Agencies
(RESAs)](http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/tss_school_improve.aspx?PageReq=TSSSchoolImpRESAS)
to provide technical support for school improvement to LEAs with schools
not making AYP through five [Regional Support
Teams](http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/Collaborative.pdf?p=39EF345AE192D900F620BFDE9C014CE65F48E7E4CC653240FB35D5F11BB46BAFDE5C8AAE614C6F50&Type=D)
across the state. The Regional Support Teams are made up of educators
from School Improvement, Title I and Curriculum and Instruction Georgia
Department of Education personnel,
[RESA](http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/tss_school_improve.aspx?PageReq=TSSSchoolImpRESAS)
School Improvement Specialists, Professional Standards Commission Title
IIA Regional Staff, GLRS Regional Representatives, Education Technology
Training Center Regional Representatives, and College and University
Representatives. Schools in Needs Improvement Years 1-7 receive the
support of a Georgia Department of Education Leadership Facilitator
(on-site coach). See Appendix 6: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE
160-7-1-.04

Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND CONSEQUENCES.

Schools that are not making AYP are given priority for state grants for
an academic coach.

The Georgia Department of Education is developing state rules to
implement a state law passed in 2006 that will provide financial
incentives for principals of middle and high schools who have had high
student achievement within the past five years to relocate to a Needs
Improvement school.

**Requirement 4** []{#__RefHeading___Toc147293175 .anchor}**: 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.**

**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?**

#### LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability

LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title
II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT
plans:

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic
    subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified
    by the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the
    district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the
    end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within
    the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than
    the end of the 2005-06 school year

-   Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year's progress toward
    a highly qualified teaching staff

-   Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year
    beginning with 2001 through 2006

#### PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance

As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and
certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of
NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance with and accountability
for their HQT plans:

-   Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state
    application for NCLB funds

-   Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use

-   Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE)
    and local funds

-   Collect data on LEAs' and schools' progress toward meeting HQT
    goals, and provide formative data throughout the academic year to
    inform LEA and school progress.

-   Report annually on the state's progress toward meeting the state's
    annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting
    teacher quality requirements

-   Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a
    highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA.

### Review of LEAs' Consolidated Applications

Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs' consolidated
applications annually. Review criteria related to meeting highly
qualified teacher requirements include:

-   LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and
    paraprofessionals are highly qualified by August 31, 2006

-   LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of
    all teachers and paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that
    they remain highly qualified if applicable.

-   LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals
    disaggregated by subject taught and grade level that lack
    certification and are not designated as highly qualified as well as
    data on those that are certified and highly qualified.

-   LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right
    to request the professional qualifications of their children's
    teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA notifies parents if
    their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered
    highly qualified for 20 consecutive days or more.

-   LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and
    paraprofessionals in their efforts to become highly qualified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not
    taught more frequently by teachers who are not high qualified.

-   The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in
    English and any other language of instructions.

-   LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and
    approved until the LEA's Consolidated Application is approved by the
    DOE.

### State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement 

The Title II, Part A consultants assigned to the Local Education
Agencies (LEAs) monitor the LEAs' efforts to meet the state's highly
qualified teacher requirements. In 2003-04, the consultants monitored
all 183 school districts as well as the state schools. The purpose of
the monitoring was to ensure that an annual needs assessment and
multi-year planning are the basis for the budgeting and expenditures of
the Title II, Part A funding to local systems, and that the process is
carried out within the state and federal requirements for NCLB. The
consultants used a monitoring form to gather information about the
districts' planning process, highly qualified teacher and
paraprofessional data, expenditure of funds appropriated to LEAs,
private school participation, and other documentation. The monitoring
form is located at <http://www.gapsc.com/> . The data were aggregated by
the Title II, Part A staff. Ninety-six percent of LEAs provided evidence
for monitoring criterion I-E of planning for improved teacher and
principal quality. These data were not disaggregated based on whether or
not school districts met AYP goals.

In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II,
Part A compliance, and consultants selected school systems by zip code
at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist is located at
<http://www.gapsc.com/>. These results are being tabulated, and will be
disaggregated based on whether or not school districts meet AYP goals
and on whether school districts include a high proportion of poor and/or
minority students.

For 2006-2007, a prioritized monitoring list will be used that is based
on districts that did not meet AYP that have the highest percentages of
non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools or schools with a high
proportion of poor and/or minority students. On-site monitoring will be
conducted first in those districts with high numbers of non-HiQ teachers
teaching in needs improvement schools with a high proportion of poor
and/or minority students**.**

For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for
2004-05, the Title II Part A consultants will monitor for progress in
meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode
on HiQ for each district using the HiQ data base. Title II A consultants
will carefully review the data and schedule monitoring visits to
districts, giving priority to those that do not make AYP. Districts will
provide appropriate documentation of plans and progress toward meeting
the 100% goal. A plan for corrective action will be mandated for
districts that do not fulfill their plans or make sufficient progress.

In March 2007, a report of highly qualified teacher status will be run
for the entire state. This report will be the basis for the annual Title
IIA report to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in 2007.

**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?**

### Georgia DOE Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Technical Assistance

As the state agency responsible for student achievement and LEA goals in
K-12 schools, the Georgia Department of Education has established a
method for determining whether schools and districts meet AYP goals
annually. Leadership facilitators from the school improvement division
of the department of education will use HiQ data as part of their data
analysis in developing school improvement plans for needs improvement
schools.

The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement
teams to prioritize the delivery of technical assistance to schools not
meeting AYP with the highest percentage of non-HQT. LEAs will provide
evidence as to why the school system hired a teacher not highly
qualified for a school not meeting AYP, and determine what the school
system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified
in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title
II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met
first for these teachers and schools. The responsibility for having
highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and
the principal who does the hiring; progress will be monitored using the
HiQ data base as it is updated regularly.

The Georgia Board of Education has adopted an Accountability System with
Awards and Consequences (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 --Appendix 6) for public
schools based on annual yearly progress determinations. The
Accountability Profile and GDOE guidance informs the nature and degree
of the required improvement plans (i.e. school improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring). The GDOE provides, in accordance with the
NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117(a), a system of intensive and sustained
support and improvement for LEAs and schools identified as needs
improvement. Included in this support is the monitoring of the highly
qualified status of teachers in needs improvement schools, with plans
for remediation to meet the 100% HiQT requirement.
<http://www.gaosa.org/>

**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?

Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all
schools as they monitor the LEA plans and their progress toward meeting
the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans developed for each
teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA
consultants will monitor the use of funds within the local district to
ensure that the resources for high quality professional development are
targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to
become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills
to become more effective classroom teachers, and that these funds are
focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools, especially
those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. The
monitoring form will be used to gather this data.

The Georgia School Standards (GSS) are the foundation for Georgia's
comprehensive, data-driven system of school improvement and support.
Correlated to several well-known and respected research frameworks,
including the National Staff Development Councils Professional Learning
standards, the Standards describe the effective, high impact practices
for schools. The GSS will serve as the summary document to identify a
school's level of implementation in each of the eight strands, including
high quality Professional Learning, to inform the development of
improvement plans to address specific areas of need.

<http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GSS_06.pdf?p=39EF345AE192D900F620BFDE9C014CE65F48E7E4CC653240B75F2273979D62CC72C6AE49F194013B&Type=D>

The GSS is combined with data collected using the Georgia Assessment of
Performance on School Standards instruments. The GAPSS Analysis provides
instruments and tools that can be applied to the GSS strands, including
professional learning, to determine the level of implementation of the
standards at each school. Schools not making AYP have used this
instrument since the 2004-05 school year to inform their school
improvement plans with assistance from leadership facilitators from the
DOE.

<http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GAPSSManual06-07.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F612E2DBF71E5D5022E1DFA879E823D051FB4805D8DB4937D1&Type=D>

**Consistent with ESEA Section 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 school system must attempt to meet annual measurable objectives, or
targets, as identified by HiQ (a web-based teacher quality inventory
program developed by the GAPSC) and established for the LEA Title II-A
Plan. The identified targets allow for assessment of the school system's
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal of having all
teachers "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

If, after the 2005--2006 school year a school system failed to make
adequate progress, the SEA will enter into an agreement with the school
system on its use of Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
program funds, which will be evidenced through their consolidated
application for NCLB. The consultants will review LEA plans (AYP schools
and those who did not meet the100% goal) and provide targeted technical
assistance.

**Requirement 5:** []{#__RefHeading___Toc147293176 .anchor} **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
teachers who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or
science at the time of hire.**

**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 use of HOUSSE has been limited since its inception. The HOUSSE has
been used to date to establish the highly qualified status of
approximately 669 teachers, or less than 1% of Georgia's teachers. The
HOUSSE instrument has been used for Georgia's life certificate holders,
international teachers who are in Georgia for a three year period only
and veteran teachers moving from out of state without a state teacher
assessment requirement, e.g., teachers from Alabama. The HOUSSE
instrument has not been used to assess the highly qualified status for
regular teachers teaching multiple subjects because state assignment
rules require that teachers be assigned according to the content in
which they are certified. See Certification Rule 505-2-.26. Georgia
certifies early childhood, Preschool -- Grade 5; Middle Grades 4-8; and
Secondary Grades 6-12. To accommodate these groups, Georgia developed a
HOUSSE instrument to determine the highly qualified status of teachers
in regular education with three or more years of teaching experience who
did not meet the basic certification credentialing.

Georgia has required a passing score on a state content assessment for
certification since the 1980's. A major for secondary content areas and
subject matter concentrations for middle grades has been required since
1995. Georgia's highly qualified teacher definition is aligned closely
with its state certification requirements. During 2003-04, 2004-5 school
years, the Title II, Part A consultants conducted regional training on
the use and potential of the HOUSSE instrument. A copy of The HOUSSE
instrument can be found at <http://www.gapsc.com/>.

**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 year?**

The HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession in the state
of Georgia, except for a small number of multi-subject special education
teachers, has been completed. Georgia, consistent with USED Improving
Teacher Quality State Grants Non-regulatory Guidance (August 3, 2005),
will offer HOUSSE only in the following circumstance:

-   Multi-subject special education teachers

.

This group is the only group of veteran teachers still eligible for
HOUSSE in the state of Georgia, and it will be available to them only
through the 2006 -- 07 academic year.

**Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools**

Georgia's certification requirements prohibit use of HOUSSE for this
purpose because state assignment rules require that teachers be assigned
according to the content in which they are certified. (See Certification
Rule 505-2-.26)

**Use of HOUSSE prior to the end of 2005 -- 2006**

To date, approximately 669 teachers have established highly qualified
credentials through the use of HOUSSE. Georgia's HOUSSE has been used in
the following situations to allow teachers to establish highly qualified
status:

-   Georgia's Life Certificate holders

-   International teachers who in Georgia for a three year period only

-   Veteran teachers moving from out of state without a teacher
    assessment requirement, e.g., teachers from Alabama.

**Requirement 6:** []{#__RefHeading___Toc147293177 .anchor} **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 other children.**

[\
]{.mark}

#### Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?

Georgia's Equity Plan

####### [Statement of the Problem]{.underline}

Georgia's school systems have 48 % white students, 38.3 % black
students, 8.4% Hispanic students and 2.8% other students. An overall 97%
of the teachers assigned to teach this student population is highly
qualified, or 3% are not highly qualified according to the state's
accepted definition of highly qualified teacher. (See page 4 of this
report for state definition). Examination of the highly qualified
teacher data by school system, by individual school, and by class
indicates a disparity in the availability and in the assignments of the
highly qualified teachers: (a) within specific geographic regions of the
state; (b) for schools statewide that have not made AYP; (c) within
specific core content areas designated as critical teaching fields
statewide; (d) with access to highly qualified teachers being far less
likely in the middle grades than in elementary schools; (e) with a
disproportionate number of teachers statewide who have little or no
teaching experience assigned to teach poor and minority children; (f) in
the % of teachers who fail Praxis content tests multiple times before
passing the tests assigned to teach poor and minority children.

(a) **Distribution of highly qualified teachers within Geographic
    Regions of the State**

The 97% estimate of highly qualified teachers on a statewide basis
includes a majority of the 183 school systems that have either reached
the 100% goal, or have attained a percentage in the 95-100% range with
effective local needs assessment plans in place to recruit highly
qualified teachers. However, seven of the 183 school systems have
significant numbers of teachers not meeting highly qualified standards
(15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%),
Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%),
Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%).

Eleven additional districts have between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers
include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County
(12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%),
Pulaski County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%),
Sumter County (14%), Twiggs County (12%). (See map on Page 5 of this
report for the locations of these counties in the state). These school
systems have high percentages of minority students and high poverty.
Among these systems also are a number of schools on the needs
improvement list. (See <http://www.gapsc.com/>) and the Georgia
Department of Education website.

Although the Title I schools have a slightly higher percentage of highly
qualified teachers statewide, inspection of the data reveal that many of
them represent percentages of teachers with the least experience and are
highly qualified based on their content expertise, not their knowledge
and experience with teaching.

**(b) AYP Status**

##### Data comparing high minority school enrollment and the percent of not highly qualified teachers and AYP status shows an inequitable distribution of teachers for some students as illustrated in Table 09 ***of this report*.** 

**Table 09: Preliminary Data Comparing High Minority School Enrollment,
Percentage of Not Highly Qualified Teachers and AYP status**

> **(NI+2=needs improvement 2+ years); NI1 =needs improvement 1 year;
> AP1=made AYP the most recent reporting year, not the year before; AP2
> had made AYP for 2 consecutive years; AP3=distinguished, has made AYP
> for 3 or more consecutive years.)**

**(c). Content Areas**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293178 .anchor}As reported in the 2003 through
2005-06 HQ data listed on pages 13-17, Requirement One of this report,
availability and assignment of highly qualified teachers vary by core
academic content. Specific core academic content areas designated as
critical fields in Georgia reflect the shortage of these teachers
statewide. Title I schools reflect an overall higher % of highly
qualified teachers than do Non-Title I schools. These data represent
school systems' efforts to comply with the NCLB requirements since its
implementation in 2002. Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03
of this report indicates that the not highly qualified teachers were
assigned to teach in all of the core academic content areas including
reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas listed as
critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage
of teachers in these core academic content areas. (See
<http://www.gapsc.com/>). The data indicate that not HQT teachers in
these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state.

##### Preliminary system level data comparing Title I and Non-Title I Schools and the percent of not Highly Qualified teachers does not indicate a larger percent overall of not Highly Qualified teachers assigned to teach in Title I schools. In fact, in most school districts, the reverse is true. (See table 10) 

**Table 10: 2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I
Schools**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293179 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **2005-06 System                                                                   
  Data: Title I and                                                                  
  Non-Title I                                                                        
  Schools**                                                                          
  ------------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------
  \"Classes\" are                                                                    
  inferred from the                                                                  
  class subject and                                                                  
  the                                                                                
  \"part-of-day\"                                                                    
  reported for each                                                                  
  educator in each                                                                   
  class. One full                                                                    
  \"part-of-day\" in                                                                 
  the \"elementary\"                                                                 
  subject (coded as                                                                  
  920 or 928 on CPI)                                                                 
  is treated as one                                                                  
  class. One full                                                                    
  \"part-of-day\" in                                                                 
  any other subject                                                                  
  is treated as                                                                      
  representing five                                                                  
  classes.                                                                           

                     **Title I**                           **Non-Title               
                                                           I**                       

  **School system**  **Classes    **All       **% Classes  **Classes     **All       **% Classes
                     Taught Not   classes**   Taught Not   Taught Not    classes**   Taught Not
                     Highly                   Highly       Highly                    Highly
                     Qualified                Qualified    Qualified                 Qualified
                     Teachers**               Teachers**   Teachers**                Teachers**

  Appling County     19           408         5%           22            237         9%

  Atkinson County    1            176         1%           8             88          9%

  Atlanta Public     1,360        8,018       17%          339           1,755       19%
  Schools                                                                            

  Bacon County       5            209         2%           \-            114         0%

  Baker County       \-           \-          \_           \-            78          0%

  Baldwin County     10           442         2%           1             289         0%

  Banks County       3            266         1%           5             125         4%

  Barrow County      \-           394         0%           15            1,290       1%

  Bartow County      16           598         3%           221           1,944       11%

  Ben Hill County    4            352         1%           15            171         9%

  Berrien County     \-           320         0%           12            167         7%

  Bibb County        399          2,421       16%          290           1,531       19%

  Bleckley County    3            136         2%           10            251         4%

  Brantley County    25           483         5%           29            171         17%

  Bremen City        \-           98          0%           2             197         1%

  Brooks County      30           407         7%           \-            \-          \_

  Bryan County       11           383         3%           4             661         1%

  Buford City        2            303         1%           12            169         7%

  Bulloch County     38           1,101       3%           20            467         4%

  Burke County       13           544         2%           5             276         2%

  Butts County       21           398         5%           44            204         21%

  Calhoun City       7            162         4%           13            375         3%

  Calhoun County     19           142         14%          \-            \-          \_

  Camden County      14           1,005       1%           43            691         6%

  Candler County     7            348         2%           \-            \-          \_

  Carroll County     \-           1,355       0%           39            2,247       2%

  Carrollton City    \-           123         0%           \-            475         0%

  Cartersville City  5            461         1%           5             208         2%

  Catoosa County     12           423         3%           143           1,253       11%

  Charlton County    \-           129         0%           19            180         10%

  Chatham County     203          2,954       7%           154           2,715       6%

  Chattahoochee      3            51          5%           11            82          13%
  County                                                                             

  Chattooga County   1            301         0%           11            195         6%

  Cherokee County    \-           476         0%           106           5,517       2%

  Chickamauga City   \-           36          0%           \-            158         0%

  Clarke County      9            971         1%           89            2,475       4%

  Clay County        \-           30          0%           1             34          3%

  Clayton County     310          4,832       6%           1,023         6,641       15%

  Clinch County      12           173         7%           23            117         20%

  Cobb County        181          2,903       6%           1,228         15,283      8%

  Coffee County      10           359         3%           86            845         10%

  Colquitt County    12           957         1%           9             459         2%

  Columbia County    1            824         0%           39            2,749       1%

  Commerce City      1            85          1%           8             179         4%

  Cook County        \-           227         0%           \-            276         0%

  Coweta County      5            396         1%           130           2,784       5%

  Crawford County    20           293         7%           \-            13          0%

  Crisp County       \-           466         0%           \-            195         0%

  Dade County        1            95          1%           \-            263         0%

  Dalton City        12           834         1%           23            638         4%

  Dawson County      \-           132         0%           6             407         1%

  Decatur City       10           449         2%           \-            179         0%

  Decatur County     8            935         1%           1             58          2%

  DeKalb County      537          9,983       5%           243           6,218       4%

  Dodge County       12           576         2%           \-            \-          \_

  Dooly County       23           274         8%           21            84          24%

  Dougherty County   129          2,064       6%           45            547         8%

  Douglas County     16           207         8%           154           2,904       5%

  Dublin City        54           441         12%          1             139         1%

  Early County       \-           378         0%           3             169         2%

  Echols County      9            118         8%           \-            \-          \_

  Effingham County   2            578         0%           5             1,080       0%

  Elbert County      6            252         2%           30            421         7%

  Emanuel County     9            630         1%           2             200         1%

  Evans County       4            297         1%           10            84          12%

  Fannin County      7            433         2%           10            184         6%

  Fayette County     10           734         1%           90            4,021       2%

  Floyd County       35           456         8%           31            1,364       2%

  Forsyth County     1            308         0%           49            3,647       1%

  Franklin County    3            446         1%           10            189         5%

  Fulton County      85           2,015       4%           622           11,602      5%

  Gainesville City   17           771         2%           \-            44          0%

  Gilmer County      8            755         1%           \-            \-          \_

  Glascock County    8            118         6%           \-            \-          \_

  Glynn County       14           1,043       1%           34            922         4%

  Gordon County      1            663         0%           8             372         2%

  Grady County       \-           413         0%           20            352         6%

  Greene County      \-           247         0%           14            111         13%

  Gwinnett County    197          3,325       6%           1,057         21,527      5%

  Habersham County   \-           343         0%           \-            662         0%

  Hall County        21           917         2%           82            2,732       3%

  Hancock County     44           148         30%          5             90          6%

  Haralson County    5            400         1%           \-            172         0%

  Harris County      1            395         0%           6             352         2%

  Hart County        2            425         0%           1             179         1%

  Heard County       1            124         1%           14            195         7%

  Henry County       32           497         6%           324           5,006       6%

  Houston County     68           2,278       3%           56            2,268       2%

  Irwin County       2            184         1%           \-            124         0%

  Jackson County     7            703         1%           5             354         1%

  Jasper County      8            180         5%           6             229         3%

  Jeff Davis County  \-           472         0%           \-            \-          \_

  Jefferson City     \-           117         0%           6             220         3%

  Jefferson County   9            572         2%           \-            \-          \_

  Jenkins County     9            209         4%           15            118         13%

  Johnson County     24           236         10%          \-            \-          \_

  Jones County       \-           136         0%           38            640         6%

  Lamar County       39           356         11%          \-            51          0%

  Lanier County      13           113         12%          \-            176         0%

  Laurens County     2            247         1%           141           688         20%

  Lee County         24           638         4%           2             241         1%

  Liberty County     89           1,493       6%           56            532         10%

  Lincoln County     4            165         2%           \-            85          0%

  Long County        14           314         4%           \-            \-          \_

  Lowndes County     26           653         4%           56            923         6%

  Lumpkin County     14           412         3%           5             197         3%

  Macon County       5            120         4%           45            269         17%

  Madison County     1            551         0%           10            248         4%

  Marietta City      32           1,003       3%           6             495         1%

  Marion County      7            326         2%           \-            \-          \_

  McDuffie County    \-           272         0%           \-            538         0%

  McIntosh County    12           223         5%           5             118         4%

  Meriwether County  23           398         6%           15            204         7%

  Miller County      7            142         5%           9             81          11%

  Mitchell County    25           503         5%           35            236         15%

  Monroe County      9            399         2%           \-            202         0%

  Montgomery County  33           246         13%          \-            \-          \_

  Morgan County      \-           193         0%           19            447         4%

  Murray County      27           961         3%           2             218         1%

  Muscogee County    188          2,110       9%           382           4,003       10%

  Newton County      48           1,638       3%           44            1,129       4%

  Oconee County      2            456         0%           2             640         0%

  Oglethorpe County  3            301         1%           8             119         6%

  Paulding County    22           436         5%           151           3,325       5%

  Peach County       12           247         5%           56            480         12%

  Pelham City        8            171         5%           4             73          5%

  Pickens County     11           405         3%           5             365         1%

  Pierce County      19           512         4%           \-            \-          \_

  Pike County        \-           180         0%           \-            250         0%

  Polk County        7            334         2%           60            826         7%

  Pulaski County     23           184         13%          23            148         16%

  Putnam County      50           384         13%          57            187         30%

  Quitman County     6            64          9%           \-            \-          \_

  Rabun County       \-           247         0%           \-            212         0%

  Randolph County    34           269         13%          \-            5           0%

  Richmond County    149          2,221       7%           129           2,897       4%

  Rockdale County    10           794         1%           30            1,751       2%

  Rome City          5            624         1%           12            422         3%

  Schley County      \-           117         0%           \-            83          0%

  Screven County     24           640         4%           \-            13          0%

  Seminole County    45           314         14%          \-            \-          \_

  Social Circle City 1            248         0%           19            186         10%

  Spalding County    21           480         4%           115           1,235       9%

  Stephens County    3            181         2%           6             552         1%

  Stewart County     12           142         9%           \-            \-          \_

  Sumter County      74           641         11%          46            245         19%

  Talbot County      7            146         5%           \-            \-          \_

  Taliaferro County  24           89          27%          \-            \-          \_

  Tattnall County    8            523         1%           29            187         15%

  Taylor County      1            186         1%           5             81          6%

  Telfair County     35           356         10%          \-            5           0%

  Terrell County     2            63          2%           8             148         5%

  Thomas County      \-           172         0%           32            723         4%

  Thomaston-Upson    9            605         2%           8             272         3%
  County                                                                             

  Thomasville City   \-           287         0%           15            231         6%

  Tift County        \-           246         0%           4             963         0%

  Toombs County      9            403         2%           10            343         3%

  Towns County       3            144         2%           5             300         2%

  Treutlen County    5            54          9%           56            135         42%

  Trion City         \-           72          0%           \-            138         0%

  Troup County       10           520         2%           74            1,520       5%

  Turner County      5            246         2%           6             93          7%

  Twiggs County      28           243         12%          \-            \-          \_

  Union County       1            64          2%           48            414         12%

  Valdosta City      36           573         6%           46            648         7%

  Vidalia City       7            415         2%           19            169         11%

  Walker County      30           912         3%           16            467         3%

  Walton County      12           596         2%           17            1,141       1%

  Ware County        20           1,006       2%           \-            91          0%

  Warren County      8            137         6%           \-            \-          \_

  Washington County  33           506         7%           31            196         16%

  Wayne County       3            224         1%           17            592         3%

  Webster County     \-           \-          \_           4             66          6%

  Wheeler County     \-           218         0%           \-            20          0%

  White County       \-           552         0%           16            468         3%

  Whitfield County   4            710         1%           65            1,191       5%

  Wilcox County      4            210         2%           18            85          21%

  Wilkes County      5            259         2%           1             93          1%

  Wilkinson County   \-           71          0%           11            209         5%

  Worth County       3            412         1%           5             205         2%
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) **Differences between middle grades and elementary school teacher
    attributes**

> Preliminary reports using equity parameters including years of
> experience teaching in Georgia, age, Praxis I and Praxis II
> performance, advanced degrees, highly qualified status and route to
> certification indicate that middle grades students in Georgia are far
> less likely to receive instruction from teachers who are highly
> qualified than are elementary grades. The following table 12,
> illustrates these findings.
>
> Table 11: Teacher attributes of equity parameters by school level

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

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

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- -- -------------- ---------------
  **High Schools**                                                   

                    **Attributes   **Attributes of    **Attributes   **Attributes of
                    of Teachers    Replacements:      of Teachers    Replacements:
                    Who Left NI2+  New Hires in       Who Left AP3+  New Hires in
                    Schools after  NI2+ Schools       Schools after  AP3+ Schools
                    2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =     2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =
                    (n=573 \*)**   658 \*\*)**        (n=815         969 \*\*\*\*)**
                                                      \*\*\*)**      

  **Average GA      **13.2 Yrs**   **8.7**            **12.7**       **8.2**
  Experience**                                                       

  **Age**           **42.8**       **39.4**           **41.8**       **38.6**

  **Praxis I        **4.2 % had    **7.9% had         **2.9% had     **6.4% had
  Performance**     failed some    failed some        failed some    failed some
                    part**         part**             part**         part**

  **Praxis II       **14.5% had    **18.1% had        **11.5% had    **13.2% had
  Performance**     failed Praxis  failed Praxis      failed Praxis  failed Praxis
                    II**           II**               II**           II**

  **Advanced        **63.9%**      **54.6%**          **62.8%**      **52.4%**
  Degrees**                                                          

  **Not Highly      **8.9%**       **12.3%**          **5.5%**       **9.1%**
  Qualified**                                                        

  **Certified       **6.8%**       **18.1%**          **2.8%**       **17.9%**
  Through                                                            
  Alternative                                                        
  Routes**                                                           

  \* Of the 573                                                      
  leavers from NI2+                                                  
  high schools, 254                                                  
  left the                                                           
  workforce and 319                                                  
  transferred out                                                    
  to other schools                                                   

  \*\* Of the 658                                                    
  replacements in                                                    
  NI2+ high                                                          
  schools, 325 were                                                  
  not employed in                                                    
  2004 and 333                                                       
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           

  \*\*\* Of the 815                                                  
  leavers from AP3+                                                  
  high schools, 345                                                  
  left the                                                           
  workforce and 470                                                  
  transferred out                                                    
  to other schools.                                                  

  \*\*\*\* Of the                                                    
  969 replacements                                                   
  in AP3+ high                                                       
  schools, 508 were                                                  
  not employed in                                                    
  2004 and 461                                                       
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           

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

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- -- -------------- ----------------
  **Middle                                                           
  Schools**                                                          

                    **Attributes   **Attributes of    **Attributes   **Attributes of
                    of Teachers    Replacements:      of Teachers    Replacements:
                    Who Left NI2+  New Hires in       Who Left AP3+  New Hires in
                    Schools after  NI2+ Schools       Schools after  AP3+ Schools
                    2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =     2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =
                    (n=1172 \*)**  1359\*\*)**        (n=691         684\*\*\*\*)**
                                                      \*\*\*)**      

  **Average GA      **10.0 Yrs**   **7.0 Yrs**        **11.2 Yrs**   **8.3 Yrs**
  Experience**                                                       

  **Age**           **40.4**       **35.6**           **40.4**       **38.4**

  **Praxis I        **4.4% had     **9.4% had         **2.2% had     **5.1% had
  Performance**     failed some    failed some        failed some    failed some
                    part**         part**             part**         part**

  **Praxis II       **21.8% had    **23.0% had        **9.6% had     **11.1% had
  Performance**     failed Praxis  failed Praxis      failed Praxis  failed Praxis
                    II**           II**               II**           II**

  **Advanced        **56.7%**      **49.3%**          **59.5%**      **53.9%**
  Degrees**                                                          

  **Not Highly      **12.5%**      **16.1%**          **3.6%**       **7.7%**
  Qualified**                                                        

  **Certified       **8.7%**       **20.5%**          **1.4%**       **7.3%**
  Through                                                            
  Alternative                                                        
  Routes**                                                           

  \* Of the 1172                                                     
  leavers from NI2+                                                  
  middle schools,                                                    
  429 left the                                                       
  workforce and 743                                                  
  transferred out                                                    
  to other schools.                                                  

  \*\* Of the 1359                                                   
  replacements in                                                    
  NI2+ middle                                                        
  schools, 679 were                                                  
  not employed in                                                    
  2004 and 680                                                       
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           

  \*\*\* Of the 691                                                  
  leavers from AP3+                                                  
  middle schools,                                                    
  228 left the                                                       
  workforce and 463                                                  
  transferred out                                                    
  to other schools.                                                  

  \*\*\*\* Of the                                                    
  684 replacements                                                   
  in AP3+ middle                                                     
  schools, 265 were                                                  
  not employed in                                                    
  2004 and 419                                                       
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           

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

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- -- -------------- ---------------
  **Elementary                                                       
  Schools**                                                          

                    **Attributes   **Attributes of    **Attributes   **Attributes of
                    of Teachers    Replacements:      of Teachers    Replacements:
                    Who Left NI2+  New Hires in       Who Left AP3+  New Hires in
                    Schools after  NI2+ Schools       Schools after  AP3+ Schools
                    2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =     2003-2004      2004-2005 (n =
                    (n=81)**       99)**              (n=7212)**     7606)**

  **Average GA      **9.9 Yrs**    **8.3 Yrs**        **11.3 Yrs**   **7.9 Yrs**
  Experience**                                                       

  **Age**           **38.8**       **37.7**           **40.5**       **37.5**

  **Praxis I        **2.5% had     **7.1% had         **3.6% had     **8.0% had
  Performance**     failed some    failed some        failed some    failed some
                    part**         part**             part**         part**

  **Praxis II       **14.8% had    **18.2% had        **11.4% had    **13.3% had
  Performance**     failed Praxis  failed Praxis      failed Praxis  failed Praxis
                    II**           II**               II**           II**

  **Advanced        **59.3%**      **59.6%**          **57.4%**      **50.2%**
  Degrees**                                                          

  **Not Highly      **1.2%**       **7.1%**           **3.6%**       **5.2%**
  Qualified**                                                        

  **Certified       **8.6%**       **7.1%**           **1.9%**       **5.9%**
  Through                                                            
  Alternative                                                        
  Routes**                                                           

  \* Of the 81                                                       
  leavers from NI2+                                                  
  elementary                                                         
  schools, 32 left                                                   
  the workforce and                                                  
  49 transferred                                                     
  out to other                                                       
  schools.                                                           

  \*\* Of the 99                                                     
  replacements in                                                    
  NI2+ elementary                                                    
  schools, 53 were                                                   
  not employed in                                                    
  2004 and 46                                                        
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           

  \*\*\* Of the                                                      
  7212 leavers from                                                  
  AP3+ elementary,                                                   
  2959 left the                                                      
  workforce and                                                      
  4253 transferred                                                   
  out to other                                                       
  schools.                                                           

  \*\*\*\* Of the                                                    
  7606 replacements                                                  
  in AP3+                                                            
  elementary                                                         
  schools, 3577                                                      
  were not employed                                                  
  in 2004 and 4029                                                   
  transferred in                                                     
  from other                                                         
  schools.                                                           
  ----------------- -------------- --------------- -- -------------- ---------------

**(e) Little or no initial teaching experience or experience teaching a
core academic content area for the first time**

For teacher candidates who are participating in an alternative
preparation program, the state grants an intern certificate or a
nonrenewable certificate. These candidates are considered highly
qualified on the basis of their content expertise, but they are
beginning teachers who are learning to teach and earning their full,
renewable certificate on the job; they have little or no teaching
experience. Of the 3,383 teachers in this category, 1944 or 57% are
assigned initially to teach children in poverty, and 1944 or 43 % are
assigned to other types of settings.

**(f) Praxis II Data Results**

Preliminary data analysis comparing high minority school enrollment and
% of Praxis II failures by AYP classification suggest that minority
students in schools that need improvement are more likely to be assigned
teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at least twice before
receiving a passing score. Preliminary data comparing high minority
school enrollment and % of Praxis II failures by AYP classification
suggest that minority students in schools that need improvement are more
likely to be assigned teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at
least twice before receiving a passing score. See Table 11 listed here)

**Table 12: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II
Failures**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293180 .anchor}

![](media/image3.pct){width="5.625in" height="3.1840277777777777in"}

![](media/image4.pct){width="6.0in" height="3.4506944444444443in"}

**Georgia's Equity Plan**

Neither the Georgia Professional Standards Commission nor the Georgia
Department of Education

has authority to intervene directly in local level decisions about the
hiring or assignments of educator personnel. However, the two state
agencies can have a positive impact on the school systems' use of Title
II Part A funds used for the recruitment, preparation, assignment and
retention of highly qualified teachers by the state approval of the NCLB
budgeted funds; by monitoring the local systems' actions taken to assure
appropriate highly qualified teacher assignments; and publicly reporting
the distribution of teachers by school and by class for poor and
minority students, on an ongoing annual basis. The Professional
Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education have the
following goals to accomplish equity in the selection and assignment of
highly qualified teachers for all children in Georgia's 183 school
systems.

Equity Goals

1.  Ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by
    inexperienced, unqualified, or mis-assigned teachers at higher rates
    than are other children.

####### 2. Ensure that children in low performing schools in all geographic regions of the state have access to experienced, qualified and appropriately assigned teachers on an equitable basis. 

**Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing inequity in
teacher assignment?**

Georgia's Equity Plan focuses on five major areas: 1. availability of
accurate and appropriate data to assist local school systems in making
decisions about their needs for and assignments of highly qualified
teachers to teach children of poverty and minority children; 2. using
the data to increase the supply of teachers; 3. using the data to
redistribute existing teachers within a local school system; 4. using
the data to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers and (5) using
the data to improve the working conditions for teachers. In each of
these areas, the state will identify and disseminate information about
appropriate strategies to all school systems, monitor the school
systems' decisions made, and report the results of their efforts. (See
research base to support these recommendations included in Appendix
\*\*). All of these recommendations are supported by existing state
level preparation, certification and work assignment polices and
procedures for hiring and assigning teachers.
(See<http://www.gapsc.com/>)

**Strategy #1: Collection and Dissemination of Information**

First, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia
Department of Education will continue to work together to provide data
that are helpful to local school systems as they make decisions about
the hiring and assigning of teachers to establish an equitable
distribution for all children. This will be accomplished through the use
of the HQ software currently used to monitor and report on the state's
highly qualified teacher status.

Second, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia
Department of Education will recommend the following to increase the
supply of highly qualified teachers:

-   Scholarships, loans, loan forgiveness programs to recruit and
    prepare a pool of teachers specifically for high-poverty, low
    performing schools

-   Alternative routes to teaching

-   International teachers

-   Targeted teacher preparation programs, such as the Georgia Teacher
    Alternative Preparation Program (GA TAPP) to prepare teachers
    specifically to work in high-need schools

Third, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia
Department of Education will recommend the following to accomplish
redistribution of existing teachers:

-   Systems' offering compensation as a way to attract experienced
    teachers to high-need schools, high poverty schools

-   Financial incentives including the use of the Title II Part A funds

-   Non-monetary incentives

-   Assure that National Board certified teachers are placed in
    high-need schools

-   Hire retired teachers

Fourth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia
Department of Education will recommend the following to improve the
knowledge, skills and training of teaching already working in high need
schools:

-   Provide targeted professional development

-   Fund mentoring programs

-   Use master teachers and coaches

-   Transition to Teaching Program

Fifth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia
Department of Education will recommend the following:

-   Develop policies and procedures to attract effective principals and
    teachers

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop and implement programs to attract principals and teachers

-   Reallocate resources to high-need schools

-   Improve safety and discipline in high-needs schools

**Strategy \# 2: Data Collection and Analysis of Highly Qualified
Teacher Data**

The PSC and DOE will enhance HQ, the state data management and reporting
system for the use of school districts, so that each local school system
can continuously update its data on the qualification and experience of
teachers who are teaching Georgia's poor and minority students to assure
that they are not being taught at higher rates than other students by
inexperienced, unqualified, and out-of-field teachers.

The data collection and analysis on an annual basis will include:

a\. Percentage of core academic subjects taught by teachers by school,
school system and regions of the state who do not meet the NCLB HQT
requirements in school districts for sp and schools with the highest
concentration of children in poverty and minority children.

b\. Percentage of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in
school districts and schools not making AYP with the highest
concentration of children in poverty and minority children.

c\. A report of the experience levels of teachers who do not meet the
NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools with the highest
concentration of children in poverty and minority children.

d\. Percentage of the teachers who have taken Praxis content exams
multiple times prior experience level of teachers who do not meet the
NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools with the highest
concentration of minority children.

e\. Compilation of data on the actions taken by school systems to either
increase the supply of highly qualified teachers, redistribute existing
teachers; improve the knowledge and skills of teachers teaching in
high-need areas, improve working conditions for teachers in high need
schools.

Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment exist?

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

Strategy \# 3: Monitoring of local school systems actions to achieve
equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers for all children

Ongoing state level monitoring and public reporting of local system
efforts to establish and maintain an equitable distribution of teachers
will provide an accountability of the state's efforts to provide highly
qualified teachers for all children.

The statewide monitoring will involve:

1.  Conduct statewide monitoring of local systems efforts to achieve
    100% highly qualified for all children.

2.  Monitor specific uses of local systems' budgeted Title II Part A
    funds to address the needs of not highly qualified teachers assigned
    to teach poor and minority children. Monitoring efforts are
    described in Requirement #2 of this report.

**Strategy 4: Development of a Framework for Instructional Capacity**

The Professional Standards Commission will conduct research on the
development of a framework for school system use to measure school
faculty instructional capacity by tabulating data appropriate to the
highly qualified teacher expectations as a means of determining
appropriate equitable teacher distribution.

-   Data subdivided into secondary middle and elementary will include:

    -   Minority and high poverty counts, with data

    -   School AYP status

    -   Minority school enrollment

    -   Teacher highly qualified status

    -   Teacher Praxis I results

    -   Teacher Praxis II results

    -   Stability of Principalship

Variables will be compared using standard statistical methods to
establish a baseline for planning, such as chi square techniques to test
for association of AYP status with other variables; Spearman rank
correlation to test AYP status with other variables; Pearson correlation
test variables in high school middle schools and elementary schools.

Preliminary findings in a study to examine relationships between AYP
classification and educator attributes show that in a correlation of
Middle schools teacher performance on basic skills testing with school
AYP status; the schools most in need of improvement had a greater
percentage of teachers who had failed part of the Praxis I multiple
times. In a correlation of elementary teacher qualifications with school
AYP status; schools most in need of improvement had a greater percentage
of teachers who were/are not highly qualified.

Further preliminary findings indicate that:

Schools most in need of improvement had a greater principal turnover

Minority students were most likely to have teachers with low experience

Minority students were most likely to have teachers who were not highly
qualified.

Further work will be done with the data to develop an instructional
capacity index for schools as a tool to examine inequities and make
appropriate decisions to provide for an equitable distribution. Student
achievement data, when it becomes available, will also be studied to
identify which teacher attributes contribute to differences in student
achievement.

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

**Strategy \# 5: Annual State Report of school efforts to achieve 100%
of highly qualified teachers for minority children and children in
poverty**

The data to be collected in the State Equity Plan will provide
information on the efforts of school systems to provide equitable
distribution of teachers in classes and the results of their efforts
will be reported by school. The gathering of these school level data
will begin to provide insight into the actual inequities in teacher
distribution throughout the state. The requirement for LEAs to develop
plans to address inequities with specific strategies targeted to address
local needs with annual measured targets and goals will increase the
probable success of the strategies identified in local plans to address
inequities. On-going monitoring of LEA plans and attention to
identifying "best practices" will further increase the impact of local
and state plans to address this area of need.

The following measures will be included:

-   Compilation of teacher experience and highly qualified status

-   Compilation of out-of-field teacher assignments by school

-   Compilation of state basic skills assessments by school.

-   Compilation of subject area assessments by educator personnel by
    school

-   Compilation of teacher preparation routes by teacher by school

-   Compilation of educator turnover by school

Local education systems will be instructed to use their Title II, Part A
funds to ensure that highly qualified teachers are placed in schools
with larger numbers of poor and/or minority children. Georgia law
requires that teachers are to be paid according to their certificates as
appropriate for their teaching assignments.

**Annual Time Table for the Equity Plan Activities**

Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants
who have the responsibility of working with school systems in assigned
regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in their assigned
regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school
system Title II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide
technical assistance whenever they are needed by school systems.

**July 1^st^ (each year)**

1\. PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide \# of HIQ
teachers by school system, by school and by class assignments on an
ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI data and the
state certification database. School systems have immediate access to
the data and make updates as teachers become highly qualified.

2.  Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and
    disseminate information about methods school systems can use to get
    teachers highly qualified.

**August 31^st^ (each year)**

3\. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and
class assignments and indicate using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system
intends to provide correction(s). Each school system files a remediation
report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission

**August 1^st^-September 30^th^ (each year)**

4\. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the
school systems budgets for Title II Part A. Approval is determined by
the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either through
recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions.

**September 15^th^ (each year)**

5\. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for
the previous school year and prepares individual reports for each school
system as well as an aggregated report for the state. Each school
system's superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance
that the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These
assurance forms are filed with the Professional Standards Commission.
The data are used to compile the highly qualified data report that is
issued to the U. S. Department of Education.

**December 1^st^-January 31^st^. (each year)**

6\. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½
and make an onsite visit. Paper review is used with the other systems. A
monitoring form is provided to each school system so they can be aware
of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the
distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority
students.

**March 1^st^ (each year)**

7\. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made
available by the Professional Standards Commission.

**March 1^st^-June 30^th^ (each year**

8\. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made
available on an annual basis by the Professional Standards Commission
and the State Board of Education.

**PART III: APPENDICES**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293181 .anchor}

**APPENDIX 1: 2004-05 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN
SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293182 .anchor}

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **System   **System Name**   **Building   **Building Name**             **Percent Not
  ID**                         ID**                                       Highly
                                                                          Qualified**
  ---------- ----------------- ------------ ----------------------------- -------------
  761        Atlanta Public    289          Crim Evening Program          \-
             Schools                                                      

  761        Atlanta Public    2664         Crim High School              \-
             Schools                                                      

  614        Brooks County     2050         Brooks County High School     \-

  619        Calhoun County    4050         Calhoun County Middle/High    \-
                                            School                        

  622        Carroll County    198          Bay Springs Middle School     \-

  622        Carroll County    101          Jonesville Middle School      \-

  766        Carrollton City   1050         Carrollton High School        \-

  627        Chattooga County  1050         Chattooga High School         \-

  629        Clarke County     296          Burney-Harris-Lyons Middle    \-
                                            School                        

  629        Clarke County     102          Cedar Shoals High School      \-

  629        Clarke County     196          Coile Middle School           \-

  629        Clarke County     3058         Fowler Drive Elementary       \-
                                            School                        

  629        Clarke County     4060         Oglethorpe Avenue Elementary  \-
                                            School                        

  629        Clarke County     391          Whit Davis Road Elementary    \-
                                            School                        

  631        Clayton County    173          Kilpatrick Elementary School  \-

  631        Clayton County    295          Lake Ridge Elementary School  \-

  631        Clayton County    2060         Riverdale Elementary School   \-

  631        Clayton County    377          Riverdale High School         \-

  631        Clayton County    5060         Swint Elementary School       \-

  632        Clinch County     201          Clinch County Elementary      \-

  633        Cobb County       2054         Clarkdale Elementary School   \-

  633        Cobb County       502          Cooper Middle School          \-

  633        Cobb County       202          Lindley Middle School         \-

  633        Cobb County       294          Smitha Middle School          \-

  633        Cobb County       3056         South Cobb High School        \-

  636        Columbia County   183          Harlem High School            \-

  636        Columbia County   283          Harlem Middle School          \-

  638        Coweta County     1056         Evans Middle School           \-

  638        Coweta County     301          Smokey Road Middle School     \-

  638        Coweta County     103          Willis Road Elementary        \-

  639        Crawford County   202          Crawford County Middle School \-

  640        Crisp County      197          Crisp County Middle School    \-

  641        Dade County       295          Dade Middle School            \-

  773        Decatur City      3050         Decatur High School           \-

  647        Dougherty County  3058         Northside Elementary School   \-

  647        Dougherty County  4060         Sherwood Acres Elementary     \-
                                            School                        

  648        Douglas County    2054         Turner Middle School          \-

  774        Dublin City       102          Dublin Middle School          \-

  651        Effingham County  390          Effingham County High School  \-

  651        Effingham County  290          Effingham County Middle       \-
                                            School                        

  651        Effingham County  297          South Effingham Middle School \-

  654        Evans County      2050         Claxton High School           \-

  660        Fulton County     386          Independence Alternative      \-
                                            School                        

  660        Fulton County     189          McNair Middle School          \-

  661        Gilmer County     196          Gilmer High School            \-

  664        Gordon County     292          Ashworth Middle School        \-

  664        Gordon County     286          Gordon Central High School    \-

  665        Grady County      174          Washington Middle School      \-

  667        Gwinnett County   304          Berkmar Middle School         \-

  667        Gwinnett County   388          Gwinnett InterVention         \-
                                            Education (GIVE) Center       

  667        Gwinnett County   491          Oakland Center                \-

  667        Gwinnett County   186          Pinckneyville Middle School   \-

  667        Gwinnett County   394          Simonton Elementary School    \-

  669        Hall County       289          East Hall Middle School       \-

  669        Hall County       101          Martin Elementary School      \-

  669        Hall County       103          Sugar Hill Elementary         \-

  671        Haralson County   104          Tallapoosa Primary School     \-

  676        Houston County    200          Perry Middle School           \-

  676        Houston County    204          Thomson Middle School         \-

  682        Jenkins County    201          Jenkins County High School    \-

  684        Jones County      1050         Califf Middle School          \-

  685        Lamar County      105          Lamar County Elementary       \-
                                            School                        

  685        Lamar County      199          Lamar County Middle School    \-

  692        Lowndes County    5050         Lowndes High School           \-

  697        McDuffie County   194          Thomson Middle School         \-

  702        Monroe County     177          Banks Stephens Middle School  \-

  702        Monroe County     305          William M. Hubbard Middle     \-
                                            School                        

  704        Morgan County     1050         Morgan County High School     \-

  705        Murray County     190          Murray County High School     \-

  706        Muscogee County   300          Baker Middle School           \-

  706        Muscogee County   178          Fort Middle School            \-

  706        Muscogee County   180          Marshall Middle School        \-

  707        Newton County     195          Clements Middle School        \-

  707        Newton County     398          Indian Creek Middle School    \-

  707        Newton County     198          Middle Ridge Elementary       \-
                                            School                        

  711        Peach County      197          Byron Middle School           \-

  784        Pelham City       201          Pelham City Middle School     \-

  714        Pike County       188          Pike County Primary School    \-

  715        Polk County       1056         Elm Street Middle School      \-

  716        Pulaski County    195          Pulaski County Middle School  \-

  721        Richmond County   4056         Lamar Elementary School       \-

  721        Richmond County   5566         Laney High School             \-

  722        Rockdale County   378          Edwards Middle School         \-

  785        Rome City         293          Rome Middle School            \-

  724        Screven County    4052         Screven County High School    \-

  726        Spalding County   201          Cowan Road Middle School      \-

  745        Thomaston-Upson   395          Upson-Lee Middle School       \-
             County                                                       

  741        Troup County      191          Gardner-Newman Middle School  \-

  741        Troup County      297          Long Cane Middle School       \-

  742        Turner County     190          Turner County Middle School   \-

  747        Walton County     193          Carver Middle School          \-

  748        Ware County       195          Ware County High School       \-

  748        Ware County       395          Ware County Middle School     \-

  756        Wilcox County     195          Wilcox County Elementary      \-
                                            School                        

  759        Worth County      193          Worth County Middle School    \-

  781        Marietta City     101          Marietta High School          0.25

  623        Catoosa County    2552         Lakeview Middle School        0.42

  651        Effingham County  203          Ebenezer Middle School        0.54

  706        Muscogee County   401          Double Churches Middle School 0.57

  667        Gwinnett County   2058         Snellville Middle School      0.63

  705        Murray County     4050         Gladden Middle School         0.65

  678        Jackson County    197          East Jackson Middle School    0.67

  710        Paulding County   2352         Herschel Jones Middle School  0.85

  710        Paulding County   394          East Paulding Middle School   0.89

  741        Troup County      1052         LaGrange High School          0.96

  634        Coffee County     295          West Coffee Middle School     1.10

  717        Putnam County     276          Putnam County High School     1.22

  635        Colquitt County   1554         Colquitt County High School   1.27

  675        Henry County      5052         Stockbridge Middle School     1.33

  633        Cobb County       1069         Wheeler High School           1.34

  755        Whitfield County  275          Southeast Whitfield County    1.34
                                            High School                   

  743        Twiggs County     201          Twiggs County High School     1.37

  667        Gwinnett County   187          Meadowcreek High School       1.39

  633        Cobb County       103          Kell High School              1.42

  667        Gwinnett County   283          Shiloh Middle School          1.42

  669        Hall County       4556         South Hall Middle School      1.42

  710        Paulding County   2552         Paulding County High School   1.47

  629        Clarke County     291          Fourth Street Elementary      1.54
                                            School                        

  663        Glynn County      4752         Glynn Academy                 1.57

  674        Heard County      3050         Heard County Elementary       1.57
                                            School                        

  648        Douglas County    5050         Stewart Middle School         1.66

  633        Cobb County       4050         Awtrey Middle School          1.76

  667        Gwinnett County   1505         Louise Radloff Middle School  1.77

  751        Wayne County      101          Wayne County High School      1.87

  772        Dalton City       201          Dalton Middle School          1.94

  657        Floyd County      203          Model Middle School           1.95

  737        Tift County       299          Eighth Street Middle School   1.96

  687        Laurens County    297          East Laurens Middle School    1.99

  605        Baldwin County    189          Baldwin High School           2.00

  605        Baldwin County    104          Eagle Ridge Elementary School 2.04

  616        Bulloch County    2054         Statesboro High School        2.08

  631        Clayton County    175          Brown Elementary School       2.08

  705        Murray County     204          New Bagley Middle School      2.11

  709        Oglethorpe County 2050         Oglethorpe County High School 2.11

  635        Colquitt County   3052         Gray Middle School            2.13

  736        Thomas County     191          Thomas County Central High    2.14
                                            School                        

  633        Cobb County       1066         Norton Park Elementary School 2.20

  625        Chatham County    2069         Thunderbolt Elementary School 2.30

  633        Cobb County       475          Tapp Middle School            2.39

  669        Hall County       5052         Lyman Hall Elementary School  2.41

  635        Colquitt County   5052         Willie J. Williams Middle     2.44
                                            School                        

  675        Henry County      206          Dutchtown Middle School       2.44

  633        Cobb County       5058         Floyd Middle School           2.45

  622        Carroll County    2052         Central High School           2.47

  638        Coweta County     395          Arnall Middle School          2.50

  721        Richmond County   1156         Hephzibah Middle School       2.50

  669        Hall County       176          Myers Elementary School       2.54

  675        Henry County      603          Luella Middle School          2.58

  644        DeKalb County     1055         Dresden Elementary School     2.63

  663        Glynn County      1554         Jane Macon Middle School      2.63

  737        Tift County       199          Tift County High School       2.66

  644        DeKalb County     101          Avondale Middle School        2.71

  638        Coweta County     289          East Coweta Middle School     2.74

  675        Henry County      4050         Henry County Middle School    2.75

  644        DeKalb County     1051         Avondale High School          2.78

  625        Chatham County    399          Savannah High School          2.81

  733        Taylor County     105          Taylor County Upper           2.85
                                            Elementary                    

  669        Hall County       3054         Lanier Elementary School      2.86

  721        Richmond County   3756         Josey High School             2.86

  681        Jefferson County  196          Jefferson County High School  2.87

  622        Carroll County    177          Central Middle School         2.93

  730        Talbot County     190          Central Elementary/High       3.00
                                            School                        

  631        Clayton County    305          Kemp Elem School              3.03

  646        Dooly County      104          Dooly County Elementary       3.06
                                            School                        

  792        Valdosta City     2052         Southeast Elementary School   3.13

  644        DeKalb County     597          Miller Grove Middle School    3.23

  774        Dublin City       3050         Dublin High School            3.23

  609        Ben Hill County   291          Fitzgerald High School        3.25

  669        Hall County       294          West Hall Middle School       3.26

  644        DeKalb County     1071         Woodward Elementary School    3.31

  634        Coffee County     4550         East Coffee Middle School     3.33

  676        Houston County    1054         Perry High School             3.33

  699        Meriwether County 102          George E. Washington          3.33
                                            Elementary School             

  750        Washington County 199          T. J. Elder Middle School     3.33

  754        White County      174          White County Middle School    3.33

  649        Early County      2050         Early County High School      3.34

  644        DeKalb County     301          Columbia Middle School        3.40

  647        Dougherty County  1050         Albany High School            3.42

  671        Haralson County   2050         Buchanan Primary School       3.45

  677        Irwin County      2050         Irwin County High School      3.47

  607        Barrow County     2052         Winder-Barrow Middle School   3.56

  789        Thomasville City  3050         MacIntyre Park Middle School  3.57

  671        Haralson County   3050         Haralson County High School   3.62

  622        Carroll County    102          Temple Middle School          3.64

  631        Clayton County    197          Kendrick Middle School        3.64

  741        Troup County      101          Callaway Middle School        3.70

  721        Richmond County   197          Glenn Hills Middle School     3.85

  636        Columbia County   176          Evans Middle School           3.88

  650        Echols County     1050         Echols County High/Elementary 3.93
                                            School                        

  648        Douglas County    4050         Douglas County High School    3.99

  737        Tift County       4052         Matt Wilson Elementary School 4.00

  615        Bryan County      402          Bryan County Middle School    4.05

  611        Bibb County       405          Rosa Taylor Elementary School 4.08

  721        Richmond County   2056         Hephzibah High School         4.17

  751        Wayne County      194          Martha Puckett Middle School  4.20

  644        DeKalb County     189          Peachtree Middle School       4.21

  710        Paulding County   192          South Paulding Middle School  4.22

  660        Fulton County     176          Banneker High School          4.25

  633        Cobb County       2066         Osborne High School           4.33

  737        Tift County       3052         Northeast Campus, Tift County 4.34
                                            High School                   

  644        DeKalb County     775          Open Campus High School       4.35

  709        Oglethorpe County 3050         Oglethorpe County Middle      4.41
                                            School                        

  633        Cobb County       4066         Pebblebrook High School       4.49

  615        Bryan County      502          Bryan County High School      4.55

  644        DeKalb County     3070         McNair High School            4.65

  699        Meriwether County 4050         Manchester High School        4.65

  721        Richmond County   3054         Glenn Hills High School       4.65

  633        Cobb County       2560         Griffin Middle School         4.67

  644        DeKalb County     1068         Leslie J. Steele Elementary   4.67
                                            School                        

  676        Houston County    4056         Warner Robins High School     4.69

  701        Mitchell County   282          Mitchell-Baker High School    4.72

  644        DeKalb County     290          Sequoyah Middle School        4.76

  677        Irwin County      173          Irwin County Middle School    4.80

  644        DeKalb County     4054         Cross Keys High School        4.84

  611        Bibb County       386          Southwest High School         4.86

  644        DeKalb County     193          Chapel Hill Middle School     4.88

  721        Richmond County   3062         Sego Middle School            4.88

  644        DeKalb County     4053         Clarkston High School         4.94

  699        Meriwether County 400          Greenville Middle School      5.00

  663        Glynn County      4054         Risley Middle School          5.17

  611        Bibb County       305          Rutland Middle School         5.22

  667        Gwinnett County   276          Sweetwater Middle School      5.31

  726        Spalding County   187          Griffin High School           5.31

  647        Dougherty County  2052         Dougherty Comprehensive High  5.39
                                            School                        

  633        Cobb County       1056         East Cobb Middle School       5.47

  702        Monroe County     184          Mary Persons High School      5.56

  792        Valdosta City     195          Newbern Middle School         5.62

  758        Wilkinson County  3050         Wilkinson County High School  5.62

  711        Peach County      2052         Peach County High School      5.67

  721        Richmond County   184          Morgan Road Middle School     5.71

  669        Hall County       102          Chestatee High School         5.73

  751        Wayne County      294          Arthur Williams Middle School 5.77

  625        Chatham County    3056         Groves High School            5.79

  629        Clarke County     5058         Hilsman Middle School         5.84

  644        DeKalb County     697          Stone Mountain Middle School  5.88

  631        Clayton County    191          Lovejoy Middle School         5.90

  625        Chatham County    2068         Spencer Elementary School     5.97

  721        Richmond County   1052         Butler High School            6.00

  644        DeKalb County     172          Cedar Grove High School       6.07

  663        Glynn County      4052         Burroughs-Molette Elementary  6.12
                                            School                        

  706        Muscogee County   5062         Jordan Vocational High School 6.15

  673        Hart County       3050         Hart County High School       6.16

  761        Atlanta Public    3067         Sutton Middle School          6.29
             Schools                                                      

  629        Clarke County     1058         Clarke Middle School          6.33

  706        Muscogee County   2067         Rothschild Middle School      6.37

  631        Clayton County    104          Mundy's Mill High School      6.45

  721        Richmond County   1058         Langford Middle School        6.45

  721        Richmond County   5058         Murphey Middle School         6.45

  721        Richmond County   5062         Tubman Middle School          6.45

  629        Clarke County     5556         Clarke Central High School    6.49

  729        Sumter County     205          Americus Sumter County High   6.54
                                            North                         

  786        Social Circle     103          Social Circle Middle School   6.58
             City                                                         

  741        Troup County      201          Callaway High School          6.63

  669        Hall County       1552         East Hall High School         6.68

  745        Thomaston-Upson   195          Upson-Lee High School         6.73
             County                                                       

  631        Clayton County    100          M. D. Roberts Middle School   6.76

  644        DeKalb County     291          Salem Middle School           6.78

  633        Cobb County       290          Campbell Middle School        6.80

  706        Muscogee County   5052         Carver High School            6.86

  625        Chatham County    2052         Beach High School             6.98

  686        Lanier County     101          Lanier County Middle School   7.09

  653        Emanuel County    189          Swainsboro High School        7.12

  663        Glynn County      4952         Glynn Middle School           7.14

  694        Macon County      199          Macon County Middle School    7.14

  789        Thomasville City  4052         Thomasville High School       7.14

  611        Bibb County       505          Weaver Middle School          7.22

  733        Taylor County     205          Taylor County Middle School   7.25

  660        Fulton County     691          Tri-Cities High School        7.26

  721        Richmond County   390          Spirit Creek Middle School    7.32

  665        Grady County      1050         Cairo High School             7.37

  625        Chatham County    299          Southwest Middle School       7.48

  634        Coffee County     195          Coffee County High School     7.52

  667        Gwinnett County   4058         Summerour Middle School       7.55

  631        Clayton County    1056         Jonesboro High School         7.62

  726        Spalding County   1054         Flynt Middle School           7.69

  660        Fulton County     383          McClarin Alternative School   7.77

  608        Bartow County     190          South Central Middle School   7.78

  611        Bibb County       2052         McEvoy Middle School          8.00

  681        Jefferson County  396          Wrens Middle School           8.06

  717        Putnam County     198          Putnam County Elementary      8.11
                                            School                        

  668        Habersham County  296          South Habersham Middle School 8.21

  625        Chatham County    201          DeRenne Middle School         8.26

  741        Troup County      387          Troup County High School      8.30

  617        Burke County      288          Burke County High School      8.33

  681        Jefferson County  296          Louisville Middle School      8.33

  721        Richmond County   2562         East Augusta Middle School    8.33

  660        Fulton County     505          Sandtown Middle School        8.34

  706        Muscogee County   100          Midland Middle School         8.38

  701        Mitchell County   197          Mitchell County Middle School 8.39

  644        DeKalb County     401          Mary McLeod Bethune Middle    8.47
                                            School                        

  706        Muscogee County   2066         Richards Middle School        8.66

  625        Chatham County    2060         Hubert Middle School          8.77

  625        Chatham County    2056         Gould Elementary School       8.82

  679        Jasper County     201          Jasper County Middle School   8.89

  689        Liberty County    197          Lewis Frasier Middle School   8.96

  726        Spalding County   188          Taylor Street Middle School   9.09

  687        Laurens County    3054         West Laurens High School      9.82

  712        Pickens County    198          Pickens County High School    9.98

  625        Chatham County    100          Tompkins Middle School        10.00

  644        DeKalb County     2054         Columbia High School          10.00

  622        Carroll County    189          Temple High School            10.08

  644        DeKalb County     205          Redan Middle School           10.17

  644        DeKalb County     201          Freedom Middle School         10.19

  726        Spalding County   101          Spalding High School          10.31

  644        DeKalb County     202          Lithonia High School          10.45

  761        Atlanta Public    373          King Middle School            10.56
             Schools                                                      

  631        Clayton County    106          Jonesboro Middle School       10.71

  761        Atlanta Public    4568         Washington High School        10.75
             Schools                                                      

  746        Walker County     390          Rossville Middle School       10.77

  631        Clayton County    3050         Babb Middle School            11.00

  698        McIntosh County   104          New McIntosh County Academy   11.04

  614        Brooks County     197          Brooks County Middle School   11.11

  611        Bibb County       298          Miller Magnet Middle School   11.33

  725        Seminole County   196          Seminole County Middle/High   11.51
                                            School                        

  611        Bibb County       286          Northeast High School         11.74

  611        Bibb County       185          Martin Luther King Elementary 11.76
                                            School                        

  631        Clayton County    174          Mundy's Mill Middle School    11.94

  631        Clayton County    277          Pointe South Middle School    12.20

  611        Bibb County       204          Rutland High School           12.48

  706        Muscogee County   378          Spencer High School           12.50

  644        DeKalb County     105          Miller Grove High School      12.54

  611        Bibb County       3054         Bruce Elementary School       12.78

  706        Muscogee County   5058         Eddy Middle School            12.86

  618        Butts County      100          Henderson Middle School       13.11

  735        Terrell County    4050         Terrell County Middle/High    13.44
                                            School                        

  625        Chatham County    198          Coastal Middle School         13.52

  631        Clayton County    2054         Forest Park Middle School     14.17

  639        Crawford County   193          Crawford County High School   14.29

  644        DeKalb County     1057         McNair Middle School          14.29

  689        Liberty County    101          Midway Middle School          14.67

  625        Chatham County    4054         Ellis Elementary School       15.19

  729        Sumter County     105          Americus Sumter County High   15.31
                                            South                         

  646        Dooly County      182          Dooly County High School      15.38

  729        Sumter County     188          Sumter County Elementary      15.38
                                            School                        

  608        Bartow County     577          Cass High School              15.84

  625        Chatham County    199          West Chatham Middle School    15.90

  644        DeKalb County     3069         Toney Elementary School       16.27

  644        DeKalb County     705          DeKalb: PATH Academy Charter  16.67
                                            School                        

  644        DeKalb County     4069         Towers High School            17.47

  644        DeKalb County     276          Stone Mountain High School    17.48

  647        Dougherty County  1058         Monroe High School            18.07

  608        Bartow County     301          Adairsville Middle School     18.13

  625        Chatham County    5060         Jenkins High School           18.37

  631        Clayton County    177          Adamson Middle School         18.52

  631        Clayton County    3060         Riverdale Middle School       18.97

  699        Meriwether County 300          Greenville High School        19.60

  761        Atlanta Public    191          Turner Middle School          20.00
             Schools                                                      

  694        Macon County      2060         Macon County High School      21.03

  761        Atlanta Public    173          Long Middle School            21.14
             Schools                                                      

  720        Randolph County   201          Randolph Clay High School     21.29

  666        Greene County     401          Greene County High School     21.50

  625        Chatham County    301          Myers Middle School           21.69

  611        Bibb County       303          William S. Hutchings Career   21.98
                                            Center                        

  611        Bibb County       5050         Appling Middle School         22.08

  602        Atkinson County   103          Atkinson County High School   22.13

  630        Clay County       204          Clay County Elementary        22.22

  761        Atlanta Public    5056         Coan Middle School            23.53
             Schools                                                      

  728        Stewart County    201          Stewart-Quitman High School   27.54

  761        Atlanta Public    504          Harper-Archer Middle School   27.69
             Schools                                                      

  731        Taliaferro County 102          Taliaferro County School      28.69

  761        Atlanta Public    5664         Parks Middle School           29.32
             Schools                                                      

  629        Clarke County     104          Classic City Performance      33.33
                                            Learning Center               

  761        Atlanta Public    703          School for Integrated         50.00
             Schools                        Academics and Technologies    

  761        Atlanta Public    403          APS-CEP Partnership School    94.51
             Schools                                                      
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**APPENDIX 2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293183 .anchor}

Fact Sheet for Georgia Special Education Teachers

# Certification and Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements

This Fact Sheet provides a summary of changes for Special Education
(SpEd) teachers in Georgia as a result of the highly qualified (HiQ)
teacher requirements of NCLB and IDEA. These changes are being
implemented during the 2005-06 school year along with the state
certification rule changes that became effective August 15, 2005. This
is not an exhaustive explanation of all requirements and changes but
hopefully provides a helpful summary.

Special education teachers are encouraged to discuss requirements and
concerns with their system level administrators. These administrators
receive frequent updates and technical assistance, and should be
considered the best sources of information. Some systems have
requirements for their teachers in addition to state and federal
requirements.

## 

## HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS

**Federal law requires that all special education teachers, including
special education teachers in Title I and non-Title I schools, be
"highly qualified" on or before August 31, 2006 just as all other
teachers of core academic content subjects.**

-   NCLB "highly qualified" teacher requirements refer specifically to
    the qualifications and certification of teachers who assigned to
    teach core academic **content** courses.

-   Certified Special Education teachers are highly qualified to offer
    expertise in teaching students with disabilities and to provide
    opportunities for those students to be successful academically in
    inclusive classroom settings or in pull-out, resource delivery
    models. Although highly qualified in the area of special education,
    IDEA and NCLB now require that all teachers, including special
    education teachers, provide evidence that they are highly qualified
    and certified in the content subjects that they teach.

-   Core academic concentrations in Reading, Language Arts, Math,
    Science, and/or Social Studies must be listed on the Special
    Education teacher's teaching certificate in order for the teacher to
    serve as the **teacher of record** for any of these subjects.
    Special Education teachers may meet the highly qualified
    requirements by meeting the certification requirements to teach the
    core academic subjects at the required cognitive level **and** by
    being assigned to teach the content area listed on their
    certificate.

-   Core concentration areas are acquired by (a) having a combination of
    college course work and/or PLUs totaling 15 semester hours (5
    quarter hours or 5 PLUs = 3 semester hours) OR (b) a major in the
    content area, OR (c) passing the appropriate PRAXIS II ECE,
    Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge test or individual Middle
    Grades or Secondary subject tests, OR (d) obtaining, at a minimum,
    100 points on the Special Education HOUSSE evaluation (veteran
    teachers only). Core concentrations at the secondary cognitive level
    are acquired by (a) having a major or 21 semester hours and/or PLUs
    (3 semester hours = 5 PLUs), OR (b) passing the appropriate Praxis
    II subject test(s), OR (c) obtaining, at a minimum, 100 points on
    the Special Education HOUSSE rubric (veteran teachers only.)

-   Special Education teachers are not required to meet highly qualified
    requirements if they are not providing core academic content
    instruction as the teacher of record. However, all students enrolled
    in grades K -- 12 must be provided core academic content instruction
    by either a Special Education teacher or one who is certified in the
    content area.

## CERTIFICATE CHANGES

-   The names of most SpEd certificates have changed. Many were changed
    by adding "Consultative Special Education" to the beginning of the
    certificate title. Some that were given completely new names
    include:

(a) Interrelated is now Special Education General Curriculum

(b) Mental Retardation is now Special Education Adapted Curriculum and
    Special Education General Curriculum

(c) Hearing Impaired is now Special Education Deaf Education

(d) Orthopedically Impaired is now Special Education Physical and Health
    Disabilities

-   These certificates allow teachers to provide Special Education
    support to students with disabilities within a "consultative" or
    co-teaching model. In other words, the Special Education teacher can
    work with another teacher who holds certification in the core
    content concentration area as a co-teacher or as a consultant,
    providing special education expertise for students in an inclusive
    classroom setting.

-   These certificates do not allow Special Education teachers to be the
    **teacher of record** for core content subjects (including
    English/Language Arts, Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies),
    unless the teacher has a core academic concentration on his/her
    certificate for the subject.

## CORE ACADEMIC CONTENT CONCENTRATIONS

-   The PSC has evaluated transcripts for teachers who have renewable
    certificates in Special Education and who were employed by Georgia
    school systems during the last two years. Core academic content
    concentration areas were added to their Special Education
    certificates during the conversion to the new titles. The
    concentrations were identified based on 15 semester hours of core
    academic content credit on any available college transcripts. These
    content areas were added at the P-5 and 4-8 cognitive level only.

-   An appeals procedure to request consideration of additional core
    content concentration areas at the middle grade cognitive level is
    available until August 31, 2006. Send an e-mail message to
    <spedappeal@gapsc.com> with the following information:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Your name and Social Security number or Certificate number

-   The specific Core Academic Content Concentration for which you think
    you qualify

-   The specific college transcript/s (15 sem hr) or PLU
    transcript(s)**\*** (25 PLUs) or combination of the two that reflect
    the content courses (not methods courses) you think will qualify.
    The specific content course numbers and titles must be listed along
    with the institution/s from which they were earned.

-   If you believe that you qualify for a Cognitive Level that is not
    reflected on your certificate. Please reference in your e-mail the
    **specific content area exam** that you think will qualify **in
    addition to ALL the information above** that is requested for the
    Concentration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Although PLUs were not considered in the transcript analysis that
    was completed before August 15, 2005, PLUs will be considered with
    proper documentation that they are content and not pedagogy courses.
    A combined total of the equivalent of 15 sem. hours (5 PLUs = 3 sem.
    hrs.) is required to add a content concentration at the middle
    grades level. A combined total of the equivalent of 21 sem. hours (5
    PLUs = 3 sem. hrs.) is required to add a content concentration at
    the secondary level.

-   In addition to the transcript analysis described above, there are
    other ways to add content concentration areas:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \*Content Assessment(s), OR

-   Recommendation from Approved Provider (approved under the new
    rules), OR

-   Transcript showing a major in a content field, OR

-   HOUSSE Criteria (for veteran Special Education teachers teaching
    content)

\*The currently applicable content tests and cognitive levels are
provided on the Testing Options Table, which is available at
<http://www.gapsc.com/>, Section 8.

### All options above except the transcript analysis option will continue to be available after August 31, 2006.

## DEFINITIONS

**Consultative** is used to refer to the specific roles that special
education teachers have when they are providing services in their
area(s) of exceptionality(ies). The term incorporates references such as
inclusion, mainstreaming, collaborative or co-teacher.

The **"teacher of record"** is defined as the teacher who is responsible
for direct instruction of core academic content subjects. Students being
taught core academic subjects must be taught by a teacher who is highly
qualified to teach that content area and grade level. For special
education students this may be either a general education or special
education teacher who is certified to teach the subject and grade level.

**Core academic content concentration areas** for special education
teachers include language arts, mathematics, science, reading, and
social science. Eligibility for a concentration is based on five content
courses (15 semester hours/25 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate
content area exam (Praxis II, etc.). Eligibility for concentration at
the secondary **cognitive level** is based on seven content courses (21
semester hours/35 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate content area
exam (Praxis II,etc.) or completion of HOUSSE.

**Cognitive level** refers to the grade level of instruction provided to
Special Education students and is based on a description of how well the
student is performing on the curriculum being provided, as described in
the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). Cognitive levels
included grades P-5, 4-8, and 6 -- 12 and parallel certification grade
spans except for P-12 certificates.

**HOUSSE** is an assessment that may be used to verify a veteran
teacher's competency if the teacher has not met either the content or
testing requirement in a specific core academic content area. A score of
100 points or more on the Georgia Content Area Rubric is required to
determine that a veteran regular education teacher or special education
teacher is "highly qualified," and/or to add core academic content
concentrations to special education teachers' certificates. Since HOUSSE
is not time limited, it will remain available for teachers in Georgia. A
**veteran teacher** is one who is not new to the profession and is
defined as a teacher in a public school who has been teaching a total of
three or more complete school years. The document and instructions for
its completion can be found at <http://www.gapsc.com/>.

## ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Specific information regarding these changes can be found at the
following web sites:

  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
  Georgia Professional Standards  Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher
  Commission                      Quality

  <http://www.gapsc.com/>         <http://www.gapsc.com/>

  Certification Rules, Testing    Highly Qualified Requirements
  Information                     

                                  *GA Implementation Guidelines* (Section
                                  8), *HOUSSE Rubric & Instructions*,
                                  *Special Education Testing Chart*,
                                  *Frequently Asked Questions for Special
                                  Educators*
  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

### APPENDIX 3:  RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISITS

### Section I: Planning

![](media/image5.pct){width="3.03125in"
height="2.203472222222222in"}![](media/image6.pct){width="3.0208333333333335in"
height="2.202777777777778in"}

![](media/image7.pct){width="3.1493055555555554in"
height="2.1458333333333335in"}![](media/image8.pct){width="3.0243055555555554in"
height="2.0819444444444444in"}

####  ![](media/image9.pct){width="3.020138888888889in" height="2.308333333333333in"} {#section-3 .unnumbered}

#### Section II: Expenditure of Funds

![](media/image10.pct){width="3.3986111111111112in"
height="2.4819444444444443in"}![](media/image11.pct){width="3.401388888888889in"
height="2.4902777777777776in"}

> ![](media/image12.wmf){width="3.3979166666666667in"
> height="2.2993055555555557in"}![](media/image13.wmf){width="3.2756944444444445in"
> height="2.254166666666667in"}

![](media/image14.wmf){width="3.3881944444444443in"
height="2.372916666666667in"}![](media/image15.wmf){width="3.4118055555555555in"
height="2.327777777777778in"}

![](media/image16.pct){width="3.388888888888889in"
height="2.4118055555555555in"}![](media/image17.pct){width="3.5256944444444445in"
height="2.397222222222222in"}

![](media/image18.pct){width="3.411111111111111in"
height="2.384027777777778in"}

#### Section III: Parent Notices

![](media/image19.pct){width="3.411111111111111in"
height="2.3194444444444446in"}![](media/image20.pct){width="3.397222222222222in"
height="2.347916666666667in"}

#### Section IV: Private School Participation

![](media/image21.pct){width="3.3979166666666667in"
height="2.325in"}![](media/image22.pct){width="3.3875in"
height="2.3402777777777777in"}

![](media/image23.pct){width="3.3965277777777776in"
height="2.202777777777778in"}

[Section V: Other Documentation]{.underline}

![](media/image24.pct){width="3.279166666666667in"
height="2.317361111111111in"}![](media/image25.pct){width="3.404166666666667in"
height="2.345833333333333in"}

> ![](media/image26.pct){width="3.28125in"
> height="2.214583333333333in"}![](media/image27.pct){width="3.404861111111111in"
> height="2.2263888888888888in"}

![](media/image28.wmf){width="3.2881944444444446in"
height="2.3854166666666665in"}![](media/image29.wmf){width="3.404861111111111in"
height="2.3986111111111112in"}

![](media/image30.pct){width="3.3979166666666667in"
height="2.604861111111111in"}

**APPENDIX 4**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293185 .anchor}: **PSC ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND
CERTIFICATION**

List of PSC Activities Related to Reforming Teacher and Principal
Preparation and Certification

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  **State Activity**         **Description**

  Praxis I Project           *Workshop Assistance to students preparing
                             for Praxis I Basic Assessments by Kaplan
                             organization*

  Assessment of Preparation  *Analyses conducted with the Board of
  Programs                   Regents to determine the data elements that
                             could be used for performance assessment of
                             the candidates in preparation programs*

  Paraprofessional           *State provided paraprofessional assessment
  Assessment                 during the summer of 2002 prior to the
                             development of the ETS paraprofessional
                             assessment, which is used presently*

  Performance Assessment and *Beginning development of a state managing
  Program Activities         and reporting system for annual reporting of
                             candidates' and units' performance on state
                             standards*

  Program Development for    *Focus Group meetings and surveys with
  Special Education Teacher  special education teachers on issues of
  Preparation and            certification for special education*
  Certification              

  Transcript Analyses for    *Analyses of certified special education
  Verification of Subject    teachers' transcripts to assess the number
  Matter for Certified       of content courses and amount of preparation
  Special Education Teachers in the core academic content areas*

  Orientation and Training   *Series of training sessions and meetings
  for New State              statewide by the PSC on certification
  Certification Rules        reforms*

  Performance Assessment of  *Determination of data elements to be used
  Educator Preparation       for the statewide approval of preparation
  Activities                 programs based on performance standards for
                             candidates and education unit*

  Content Course Development *Development of web-based modules for
  for Special Education      certified education teachers to add content
  Teachers                   in reading and mathematics*

  Birth to Five Preparation  *Development of innovative delivery for
  Program                    birth to five curriculum to prepare and
                             certify teachers for early childhood 0-5*
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

## List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Mentoring

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **State Activity**         **Description**
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  Program Development and    *Development of 7 web-based modules by
  Training for Teacher       E-School for the preparation of teachers who
  Support Specialists (TSS)  mentor candidates and provide induction*

  TSS statewide training     *Orientation and statewide training on the
                             use of the TSS Modules as preparation*
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

List of PSC Activities Related to Creation or Expansion of Alternative
Routes to Certification

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  **State Activity**         **Description**

  Development of Special     *Editing and completion of 11 web-based
  Education Modules          modules for interrelated special education
                             preparation offered statewide through
                             Armstrong Atlantic State University*

  Development of Alternative *Development of web-based modules for the
  Preparation                Georgia TAPP program*

  Program Development and    *State provided paraprofessional assessment
  Training for Special       during the summer of 2002 prior to the
  Education Preparation      development of the ETS paraprofessional
                             assessment, which is used presently*

  Program Development and    *Continuation of the development of
  Training for Georgia       web-based modules for the Georgia TAPP
                             program*

  Alternative North Georgia  *Formation of a regional consortium between
  Consortium                 colleges/universities, regional education
                             state agency, and school systems to provide
                             alternative preparation for qualified
                             candidates*

  Georgia TAPP -- Evaluation *Evaluation study to determine the outcomes,
  of Programs                attrition of the GA TAPP program after 4
                             years of operation*
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

## List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Recruitment and Retention

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **State Activity**         **Description**
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  National Board Recruitment *Funds used to recruit and provide
                             assistance with teachers' preparation for
                             national board teacher certification*

  National Board Candidate   
  Recruitment                

  National Board Recruitment 

  National Board             
  recruitment/training       

  Teacher/principal          *Preparation of marketing materials,
  Recruitment Activities     development of the TeachGeorgia recruitment
                             site; and recruitment of minority students*

  Teacher/principal          
  Recruitment Activities     

  Teacher/principal          
  Recruitment Activities     
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

List of PSC Activities Related to High-quality Professional Development
in Core Academic Areas

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **State Activity**           **Description**

  Voyager Reading project      *Professional development program for
                               teaching reading strategies with a
                               web-based module format, developed by
                               Voyage*

  Professional Development     *Analysis of a survey on professional
  Survey                       development by DOE*

  Professional Development     *Development of a videotaped interview
                               with the national staff development
                               president, on the national standards for
                               staff development*

  Teacher Professional         *This project will develop a mechanism to
  Assessment using HiQ Data    use the HiQ data by school system or by
                               RESA as a needs assessment instrument to
                               determine teacher preparation needs and
                               professional learning on teacher
                               qualifications*
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**APPENDIX 5**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293186 .anchor}**: GEORGIA STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04**

**Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND
CONSEQUENCES.**

1.  **(1) Awards.**

    \(a\) Each public school shall be eligible for Awards based on its
    Accountability Profile, including primarily its Performance Index
    determination. Awards may include public recognition, increased
    flexibility, with regard to state or federal requirements (to the
    extent permitted under state and federal law), and financial awards
    (subject to appropriation). Detailed information regarding Awards
    and criteria for Awards shall be included in the Accountability Plan
    presented annually to the State Board of Education, described in
    Rule 160-7-1-.03 Accountability Profiles.

    **(2) School-Level Consequences.**

    \(a\) In accordance with state and federal law, each public school
    identified as Needs Improvement shall be subject to consequences
    designed to help improve student achievement based on its Adequate
    Yearly Progress (AYP) determination. The Accountability Profile and
    Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) guidance will inform the
    nature and degree of the required improvement plans (i.e., school
    improvement, corrective action, or restructuring). The GDOE shall
    provide, in accordance with the NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117 (a),
    a system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs
    and schools identified as Needs Improvement.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  A school shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the
    school has not made AYP in the same subject for two consecutive
    years.

2.  A school shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the
    school has made AYP for two consecutive years.

3.  Escalation in levels of Needs Improvement status shall be based on
    the school's failure to make AYP in the same subject for two or more
    consecutive years. A school that fails to make AYP, but does not
    fail to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years, will
    remain in its existing Needs Improvement status for the following
    school year. A school that makes AYP for one year will also remain
    in its existing Needs Improvement status for the following year.

4.  Pursuant to recommendations of the School Performance Review and
    needs assessment conducted by the GDOE, schools identified as Needs
    Improvement 7 or beyond may be, at any time, subject to escalating
    consequences to include, but are not limited to, an Improvement
    Contract, pursuant to paragraph (g) (2), or a Management Contract,
    pursuant to Section (i) (2).

5.  The LEA must promptly notify parents of each student enrolled in
    such schools of the school's classification. The notice must be in
    an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable,
    in a language that parents understand. Additionally, it must honor
    the privacy of all students and their families. The notice must
    include:

> \(i\) An explanation of a school's status under this rule and the
> school's performance relative to other schools in the LEA and the
> state.
>
> \(ii\) Reasons the school is identified for improvement.
>
> \(iii\) An explanation of actions by the school to improve student
> achievement.
>
> \(iv\) An explanation of what the LEA and/or the GDOE are doing to
> improve student achievement.
>
> \(v\) An explanation regarding the means for parent involvement in
> issues which contributed to the school's failure to make AYP.

6.  The LEA shall provide technical assistance to the school identified
    as Needs Improvement.

(**b) Needs Improvement Year 1.** A school that has not made AYP for a
period of two consecutive years in the same subject shall be identified
as **Needs Improvement Year 1** and shall be subject to the following
requirements:

1.  The school shall develop, no later than 3 months after being
    identified as Needs Improvement, a School Improvement Plan. The
    School Improvement Plan shall be for a minimum of a two-year period.
    The plan shall be subject to a peer review process by the LEA within
    45 days of receipt, shall be coordinated by the LEA, shall be
    approved by the local board of education, and shall be made
    available to the GDOE upon request. The School Improvement Plan
    shall meet the requirements of NCLB Act of 2001, section 1116, as
    applicable and as provided in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook.
    The school shall implement the School Improvement Plan upon approval
    by the LEA.

2.  The LEA shall provide students enrolled in the school the option to
    transfer to another public school that has not been identified as
    Needs Improvement within the LEA.

    0.  \(i\) LEAs shall provide or ensure transportation to students
        exercising the option to transfer to another public school in
        the LEA that has not been identified as Needs Improvement. For
        the 2004-05 school year and any subsequent year in which the
        legislature does not appropriate funds for the provision of
        transportation to non-Title I students exercising the option to
        transfer to another public school pursuant to this rule, the
        parent or guardian assumes responsibility for the transportation
        of that student. The LEA shall provide transportation for
        students transferring from Title I schools in accordance with
        federal law.

        \(ii\) For students transferring from non-Title I schools, the
        LEA is not required to exceed facility capacity when determining
        school choice options and shall give priority to the lowest
        achieving students. For students transferring from Title I
        schools, the LEA may not use lack of capacity to deny school
        choice to those students.

**(c) Needs Improvement Year 2.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 2** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to
all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 1 as
well as to the following requirement:

1.  The LEA shall offer students enrolled in the school access to
    instructional extension services in accordance with SBOE Rule
    160-4-2-.14 Instructional Extension prioritizing the school's lowest
    achieving students. For Title I schools, Supplemental Educational
    Services shall be provided in accordance with federal law and State
    Board of Education Rule 160-4-5-.03 Supplemental Educational
    Services.

**(d) Needs Improvement Year 3.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 3** pursuant to Section (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to
all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 2 as
well as to the following requirements:

1.  The LEA shall develop and implement, no later than 3 months after
    being identified for corrective action, a School Corrective Action
    Plan. The Corrective Action Plan shall be approved by the local
    board of education, and shall be made available to the GDOE. The
    School Corrective Action Plan shall be in accordance with content,
    format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE in the
    GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The school shall implement the
    School Corrective Action Plan upon approval by the LEA. The LEA
    shall select at least one corrective action from the following:

    0.  \(i\) Replace the school staff that are relevant to the school
        not making AYP.

        \(ii\) Institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including
        providing appropriate professional learning opportunities that
        are grounded in scientifically-based or evidence-based research
        and offer substantial promise of improving educational
        achievement for low-achieving students.

        \(iii\) Significantly decrease management authority at the
        school level.

        \(iv\) Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its
        progress toward meeting required achievement targets.

        \(v\) Extend the school year and/or school day for the school.

        \(vi\) Restructure the internal organizational arrangement of
        the school.

**(e) Needs Improvement Year 4.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 4** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to
all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 3 as
well as to the following requirements:

1.  The LEA shall continue to implement the corrective action selected
    the previous year.

2.  The LEA shall develop a plan to restructure the governance
    arrangement of the school and shall assure that the School
    Restructuring Plan is received by the GDOE no later than six months
    after the school is identified for improvement and restructuring.
    The School Restructuring Plan shall be implemented for a minimum of
    a two-year period, shall be subject to a peer review process
    coordinated by the GDOE, and shall be approved by the GDOE. The
    School Restructuring Plan shall meet the requirements of NCLB Act of
    2001, section 1116, as applicable and as provided in the GDOE School
    Improvement Fieldbook. The LEA shall implement the plan no later
    than the beginning of the school year in which the LEA/school is
    identified as Needs Improvement Year 5. The LEA shall include in its
    plan at least one of the restructuring options from the following:

> \(i\) Reopening the school as a public charter school.
>
> \(ii\) Replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include
> the principal) who are relevant to the school not making AYP.
>
> \(iii\) Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private
> management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to
> operate the public school.
>
> \(iv\) Any other major restructuring of the school's governance
> arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant
> changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student
> academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of
> enabling the school to make AYP.

**(f) Needs Improvement Year 5.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 5** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to
all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 4 in
addition to the requirement that the LEA begin implementing the
restructuring plan developed and approved the previous year.

**(g) Needs Improvement Year 6.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 6** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall continue to
implement the Restructuring Plan. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing
monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate updates and
revisions to the Restructuring Plan during this second year of
implementation.

1.  The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 6 school shall be subject to a
    School Performance Review and needs assessment conducted by the
    GDOE. The GDOE School Performance Review team will make
    recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding
    school-level and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the
    findings from the School Performance Review.

2.  The Improvement Contract, outlining the LEA's commitment to
    implement the identified interventions with assistance from the
    GDOE, will be developed and signed by the LEA superintendent, the
    local board of education chair, the State Superintendent, and the
    State Board of Education chair. Failure of the LEA to enter into the
    Improvement Contract pursuant to this rule will result in a referral
    to the Office of Student Achievement (OSA) for non-compliance. The
    Improvement Contract must be implemented no later than the beginning
    of the school year the school is identified in Needs Improvement
    Year 7. The Improvement Contract shall be in effect for a minimum of
    a two-year period and shall be subject to ongoing review and
    evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Improvement Contract shall be
    developed in accordance with content, format, and procedures
    developed and disseminated by the GDOE.

3.  School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the
    removal of personnel at the school level relevant to the school not
    making AYP; appointment of a Principal Master and/or Instructional
    Coach; management of the school budget; and utilization of Georgia
    Performance Standards (GPS) Learning Frameworks and nine-week
    Progress Monitoring.

4.  LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the
    removal of personnel at the LEA level relevant to the school not
    making AYP; appointment of an LEA Support Specialist to manage and
    approve the financial, personnel, and program resources of the
    school; redirection of resources (state and federal) to support
    improvements; plan for a local conversion charter.

**(h) Needs Improvement Year 7.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 7** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified
as a Contract-Monitored School and shall implement the interventions
outlined in the Improvement Contract developed and agreed upon no later
than the beginning of the school year. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing
monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and
revisions to the Improvement Contract during this first year of
implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education.

**(i) Needs Improvement Year 8.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 8** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain
classified as a Contract-Monitored School and shall be subject to all
consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 7. The LEA
and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine
appropriate updates and revisions to the Improvement Contract during
this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of
Education.

1.  The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 8 school shall be subject to a
    System Performance Review and needs assessment conducted by the
    GDOE. The GDOE System Performance Review team will make
    recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding
    school-level and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the
    findings from the System Performance Review.

2.  The Management Contract, outlining the commitment to implement the
    identified interventions with assistance from the GDOE, will be
    developed and signed by the LEA superintendent, the local board of
    education chair, the State Superintendent, and the State Board of
    Education chair. Failure of the LEA to enter into the Management
    Contract pursuant to this rule will result in referral to OSA for
    non-compliance. The Management Contract must be implemented no later
    than the beginning of the school year the school is identified in
    Needs Improvement Year 9. The Management Contract shall be in effect
    for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be subject to ongoing
    review and evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Management
    Contract shall be developed in accordance with content, format, and
    procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE.

3.  School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to
    school closure; mandated charter school; complete reconstitution of
    the school; site-based expenditure controls; specified maximum class
    sizes.

4.  LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to a
    decrease of management authority for the superintendent and local
    board of education; assignment of a management team to operate all
    or part of the LEA; restructuring of the LEA's governance
    arrangement.

**(j) Needs Improvement Year 9.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 9** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified
as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all consequences
applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 8. The LEA and GDOE,
through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate
amendments and revisions to the Management Contract during this first
year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education.

**(k) Needs Improvement Year 10.** A school identified as **Needs
Improvement Year 10** pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain
classified as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all
consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 9. The LEA
and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine
appropriate amendments and revisions to the Management Contract during
this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of
Education.

**(3) LEA-Level Consequences.**

\(a\) Each LEA identified as Needs Improvement shall be subject to
consequences designed to help improve student achievement based on its
AYP determination. The Accountability Profile and GDOE guidance will
inform the nature and degree of the required improvement plans. The GDOE
shall provide assistance to LEAs identified as Needs Improvement.

1.  An LEA shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the LEA
    has not made AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years at
    both elementary/middle school and the high school levels.

2.  An LEA shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the LEA has
    made AYP for two consecutive years.

\(b\) An LEA that has not made AYP in the same subject for a period of
two consecutive years at both elementary/middle school and the high
school levels shall be identified as **Needs Improvement Year 1** and
shall be subject to the following requirements:

1.  The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified
    as Needs Improvement, an LEA Improvement Plan. The LEA Improvement
    Plan shall be for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be
    reviewed and approved by the GDOE. The LEA Improvement Plan shall be
    in accordance with content and procedures developed and disseminated
    by the GDOE. The LEA shall implement the plan expeditiously, but not
    later than the beginning of the next school year after the school
    year in which the LEA was identified for improvement.

\(c\) An LEA identified as **Needs Improvement Year 2** shall implement
the LEA Improvement Plan developed pursuant to subsection (3)(b), if not
previously implemented.

\(d\) An LEA identified as **Needs Improvement Year 3** pursuant to
subsection (3)

\(b\) shall be subject to the following requirements:

1.  The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified
    for corrective action, an LEA Corrective Action Plan. The LEA
    Corrective Action Plan, shall be integrated with the LEA Improvement
    Plan, shall be for a minimum of a two-year period, and shall be
    reviewed by the GDOE and approved by the State Board of Education
    upon recommendation of the GDOE. The LEA Corrective Action Plan
    shall be in accordance with content, format, and procedures
    developed and disseminated by the GDOE. The LEA shall implement the
    Corrective Action Plan no later than the beginning of the school
    year following the school year in which the LEA was identified for
    corrective action.

2.  The LEA Corrective Action Plan shall include at least one corrective
    action as defined in federal law, which may include major
    restructuring of the system's governance arrangement that makes
    fundamental reforms, consistent with the corrective action options,
    and has substantial promise of enabling the LEA to meet AYP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  **(4) OSA Audit Function and Record Retention Requirements.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Record Retention Requirements. In addition to all other records
    required to be maintained by federal and state law, LEAs and schools
    shall maintain current records of contact information for all
    teachers, parents, and school council members. Teacher contact
    information shall include subjects and grade level/s taught, class
    schedules, years of experience, and certificate level. Parent
    contact information shall include current school or schools attended
    by children and current grade levels of children. School council
    member contact information shall include name, title, and community
    relationship to the school.

2.  Right to Audit. OSA may, upon GDOE recommendation or upon its own
    initiative, investigate evidence of school or LEA noncompliance with
    the requirements of this rule at any time. Such investigation may
    include performing an on-site audit of any school or LEA at any
    time. The on-site OSA Audit may include, but is not limited to, a
    review of the school or LEA's records or procedures, including a
    review of school or LEA performance and accounting information and
    records. Auditors may gather school performance information from
    school administrators, teachers, and parents of students enrolled in
    the LEA.

3.  Upon conclusion of its investigation, OSA, where applicable, will
    prepare a draft audit report detailing the findings of its
    investigation. OSA will provide the affected LEA or school with a
    copy of the draft report and provide the school or LEA with thirty
    days to review and comment on the findings contained in the draft
    report. The affected school or LEA must submit its comments on the
    findings contained in the draft report to the attention of OSA's
    Executive Director. OSA may include, but is not required to include,
    the comments provided by the affected school or LEA in its final
    report. OSA will transmit its final report to the GDOE for
    submission to the SBOE.

4.  When applicable, OSA's final report may make a recommendation to the
    SBOE as to how to address the school or LEA's noncompliance with
    this rule. OSA may recommend sanctions including, but not limited
    to, withholding of federal and/or state funds pursuant to the
    procedures provided in State Board of Education Rule 160-5-2- .02.

> Authority O.C.G.A. § 20-14-26; 20-14-37; 20-14-38; 20-14-41.
>
> **Adopted: July 14, 2005 Effective: August 4, 2005**

**APPENDIX 6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO CERTIFICATION
IN GEORGIA**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc147293187
.anchor}![](media/image31.pct){width="4.393055555555556in"
height="2.7555555555555555in"}

**Changes Resulting From Georgia's Certification Changes with its Focus
On Highly Qualified Teachers And Paraprofessionals**

Developing the concept of the highly qualified teacher has brought about
a number of changes in Georgia's teacher certification rules. The
current definition for the HiQ software uses basic credentialing to
establish highly qualified teacher status. To clarify and strengthen the
HiQ requirements, a total revision of the certification rules has
resulted

As a specific example, the PSC enforced the concept of the middle grades
teachers being appropriately prepared in the content which they are
assigned to teach. State rules no longer permit teaching core academic
content based on a generic middle grades certificate. The rule change
requires the teacher to have specific preparation in the content taught
and/or a passing score on the appropriate content assessment with the
content areas listed on the certificate. This specific certification
rule has been in effect for five years. The graph in figure 1 shows the
changes resulting from that certification decision. It also illustrates
that changes in certification rules take time to implement. Therefore,
the impact of many changes resulting from Title II, Part A will not be
realized immediately. Another certification change is in the
out-of-field teaching rule. This change allows no out-of-field teaching
during any part of the school day. Rule 505-2-.26 In-field Assignments
states that all teachers must have assignments within their field and
grade level as specified on their certificate for one hundred percent of
the school day. Rule 505-2-.84 Middle Grades provides a phase-in period
which will result in all teaching assignments being in-field by the
beginning of 2006-2007 school year. For more information refer to

<http://www.gapsc.com/>.

Figure 1: Effect of PSC Middle Grades Certification Rule Changes on the
Certification of
Teachers![](media/image32.pct){width="5.776388888888889in"
height="3.9479166666666665in"}

APPENDIX SEVEN: REFERENCES FOR QUALITY TEACHING

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003). *Teachers and student
achievement in Chicago public*

Abernathy, T.V., Forsyth, A., and Mitchell, J. (2001). \"The Bridge from
Student to Teacher: What Principals, Teacher Education Faculty and
Students Value in a Teaching Applicant.\" *Teacher Education Quarterly,
28* (4), 109-119.

*achievement: A quantitative synthesis of the research*. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for

Adams, G.J. (1996). \"Using a Cox Regression Model To Examine Voluntary
Teacher Turnover.\" *Journal of Experimental Education, 64* (3),
267-285.

Adkins, K.R. and P.B. Oakes (1995). *Inside the Kentucky Teacher Intern
Program: Impressions of the Participants*.

Alexander, R. (2000). *Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons
in primary education*. Oxford, UK:

Allen, M. (2003). *Eight Question on Teacher Preparation: What Does the
Research Say?* Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
http://www.ecs.org/tpreport.

Allred, W.E., and Smith, R.B. (1984). \"Profile of Utah Teachers Leaving
the Teaching Profession.\" *Rural Educator, 5* (3), 2-5.

Alvermann, D.E. and G.G. Hruby (2000). \"Mentoring and Reporting
Research: A Concern for Aesthetics.\" *Reading Research Quarterly*,
35(1): 46-63.

American education. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), *Review of Research in
Education* (Vol. 14, pp. 169-238).

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (2003). *2003 Survey and Analysis
of Teacher Salary Trends* . Washington, DC: AFT.
http://www.aft.org/salary/.

Andrew, M.D. (1983). \"The Characteristics of Students in a Five Year
Teacher Education Program.\" *Journal of Teacher Education, 34* (1),
20-23.

Andrew, M.D., and Schwab, R.L. (1995). \"Has Reform in Teacher Education
Influenced Teacher Performance? An Outcome Assessment of Graduates of an
Eleven-University Consortium.\" *Action in Teacher Education, 17* (3),
43-53.

Applegate, J.H., and Shaklee, B. (1988). \"Some Observations about
Recruiting Bright Students for Teacher Preparation.\" *Peabody Journal
of Education, 65* (2), 52-65.

Archer, J. (2004, January 21). Leaders group faces shortcomings.
*Education Week*. Retrieved September

Arends, R.I. and A.J. Rigazio-DiGilio (2000). *Beginning Teacher
Induction: Research and Examples of Contemporary Practice*.

Arnold, C.L., Choy, S.P., and Bobbitt, S.A. (1993). *Modeling Teacher
Supply and Demand, with Commentary*. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Bainer, D.L., G.A. Kramer et al. (1999). \"Mid-Western Educational
Researcher, 1999.\" *Mid Western Educational Researcher*, 12(1).

Ballou, D. (1996). \"Do Public Schools Hire the Best Applicants?\"
*Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111* (1), 97-133.

Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1995). \"Recruiting Smarter Teachers.\"
*Journal of Human Resources, 30* (2), 326-338.

Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1997). *Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality*
. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1998). \"Teacher Recruitment and
Retention in Public and Private Schools.\" *Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 17* (3), 393-417.

Baltimore, MD. Retrieved August 5, 2003, from
c-b-e.org/martp/pubsinfo.htm

Basil Blackwell.

Beaudin, B.Q. (1993). \"Teachers Who Interrupt Their Careers:
Characteristics of Those Who Return to the Classroom.\" *Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15* (1), 51-64.

Beaudin, B.Q. (1995). \"Former Teachers Who Return To Public Schools:
District and Teacher Characteristics of Teachers Who Return To the
Districts They Left.\" *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17*
, 462-475.

Bell, R.H. (1999). \"On Becoming a Teacher of Teachers. Voices Inside
Schools.\" *Harvard Educational Review*, 69(4): 447-55.

Bennett, N. et al. (1995). *The Impact of Training and Role
Differentiation on the Nature and Quality of Mentoring Processes*.

Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), *Talks to teachers* (pp. 93-110). New
York: Random House.

Berliner, D. C. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple
theory of classroom instruction. In D. C.

Berliner, D. C. (2004). If the underlying premise for No Child Left
Behind is false, how can that act solve our

Berry, B. (1986). \"Why Bright College Students Won\'t Teach.\" *Urban
Review, 18* (4), 269-280.

Berry, B., Noblit, G.W., and Hare, R.D. (1985). \"A Qualitative Critique
of Teacher Labor Market Studies.\" *Urban Review, 17* (2), 98-110.

Boe, E. E., & Gilford, D. M. (Eds.). (1992). *Teacher supply, demand,
and quality: Policy issues, models,*

Boe, E.E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L., Whitener, S.D., and Weber, A.L.
(1997). \"Why Didst Thou Go? Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and
Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers from a National
Perspective.\" *The Journal of Special Education, 30,* 390-411.

Boe, E.E., S.A. Bobbitt et al. (1998). *National Trends in Teacher
Supply and Turnover for Special and General Education*. Data Analysis
Report No. 1998-DAR1. Philadelphia Center for Research and Evaluation in
Social Policy, Pennsylvania University.

Bradley, L. and S.P. Gordon (1994). \"Comparing the Ideal to the Real in
State-mandated Teacher Induction Programs.\" *Journal of Staff
Development*, 15(3): 44-48.

Brewer, D. J. (1961). Threat of discovery. *Harvard Education Review*,
*31*, 21-32.

Brewer, D.J. (1996). \"Career Paths and Quit Decisions: Evidence from
Teaching.\" *Journal of Labor Economics, 14* (2), 313-339.

.Broughman, S.P. and M.R. Rollefson (2000). *Teacher Supply in the
United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private
Schools, 1987-88 to 1993-94*. Statistical Analysis Report. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Broughman, S.P. and Rollefson, M.R. (2000). \"Teacher Supply in the
United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private
Schools: 1987-88 to 1993-94.\" *Education Statistics Quarterly, 2* (3),
28-32.

Brown, J.G. and C. Wambach (1987). *Using Mentors To Increase New
Teacher Retention: The Mentor Teacher Induction Project*. Annual Meeting
of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
Arlington, VA: Department of Elementary Education, San Francisco State
University.

Bullard, C. 1998. *Qualified Teachers for All California Students:
Current Issues in Recruitment, Retention, Preparation and Professional
Development*, CRB-98-012. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.

Burns, D. (1980). *The Evaluation of Student Teaching Practice -- An
Occupational Analysis Approach*.

Burns, D. (1982). *Trainers in Industry and Teachers in Schools: A
Comparative Analysis of Two Teaching Professions*.

Buttery, T.J. et al. (1990). \"First Annual ATE Survey of Critical
Issues in Teacher Education.\" *Action in Teacher Education*, 12(2):
1-7.

Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., & Guarino, C. (2000). *The distribution of
teachers among California's school*

Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., and Guarino, C., assisted by Mejia, A.
(2000). *The Distribution of Teachers Among California\'s School
Districts and Schools* (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Carter, M., and Carter, C.M. (2000). \"How Principals Can Attract
Teachers to the Middle Grades.\" *Schools in the Middle, 9* (8), 22-25.

Carter, P. and R. DiBella (1982). *Follow-up of 1980-81 Graduates at the
Ohio State University\'s College of Education Teacher Certification
Program*. Technical Report No. 7.

Case, C.W., Shive, R.J., Ingebretson, K., and Spiegel, V.M. (1988).
\"Minority Teacher Education: Recruitment and Retention Methods.\"
*Journal of Teacher Education, 33* (4), 54-57.

Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2002). *California's
teaching force: Key issues and*

Chapman, D.W., and Hutcheson, S.M. (1982). \"Attrition from Teaching
Careers: A Discriminant Analysis.\" *American Educational Research
Journal, 19* (1), 93-105.

Charles A. Dana Center. (2002). *Texas Beginning Educator Support System
Evaluation Report for Year Three -- 2001-02*. Austin, TX.

Cheng, M. and R.S. Brown (1992). *A Two-year Evaluation of the Peer
Support Pilot Project: 1990-1992*. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto
Board of Education, Research Department.

Cheung, O. (2000). *Privacy issues in education staff records:
Guidelines for education agencies*.

Clewell, B.C., and Villegas, A.M. (2001). *Evaluation of the DeWitt
Wallace-Reader\'s Digest Fund\'s Pathways to Teaching Careers Program* .
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Colbert, J.A. and D.E. Wolff (1992). \"Surviving in Urban Schools: A
Collaborative Model for a Beginning Teacher Support System.\" *Journal
of Teacher Education*, 43(3), 193-199.

*College Record, 107*(1), 186-215.

Condliff, S. (2001). *Teacher demand and supply projections for the
Mid-Atlantic Region: A macro*

Council for Basic Education (2000). *Steps towards data driven policy: A
profile of teacher supply and*

Council, National Academy Press.

Cyphert, F.R. and K.A. Ryan (1984). \"Extending Initial Teacher
Preparation: Some Issues and Answers.\" *Action in Teacher Education*,
6(1-2): 63-70.

Danielson, C. (1999). \"Mentoring Beginning Teachers: The Case for
Mentoring.\" *Teaching and Change*, 6(3): 251-57.

Danser, T. (2002). \"Building the Capacity of School Districts To
Design, Implement and Evaluate New Teacher Mentor Programs: Action
Points for Colleges and Universities.\" *Mentoring and
Tutoring*[,]{.underline} 10(1), 47-55.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). *What Matters Most: Teaching for America\'s
Future*. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America\'s
Future .

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). \"Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence.\" *Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8* (1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.

Darling-Hammond, L., Kirby, S.N. and Hudson, L. (1989). *Redesigning
Teacher Education: Opening the Door for New Recruits to Science and
Mathematics Teaching* (R-3661-FF/CSTP). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Davis, B.H., Higdon, K.A., Resta, V.K., and Latiolais, L.L. (2001).
\"Teacher Fellows: A Graduate Program for Beginning Teachers.\" *Action
in Teacher Education, 23* (2), 43-49.

DeBolt, G. (1991). *Mentoring: Studies of Effective Programs in
Education*.

DeBolt, G.P. (1989). *Helpful Elements in the Mentoring of First Year
Teachers. A Report to the State Education Department on the New York
State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1988-1989*.

DeLong, T.J. (1987). \"Teachers and Their Careers: Why Do They Choose
Teaching?\" *Journal of Career Development, 14* (2), 118-125.

deVoss, G. and R. DiBella (1981). *Follow-up of 1979-80 Graduates at the
Ohio State University\'s College of Education Teacher Certification
Program*. Technical Report #6. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

*districts and schools* (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Dometrius, N.C., and Sigelman, L. (1988). \"The Cost of Quality: Teacher
Testing and Racial-Ethnic Representativeness in Public Education.\"
*Social Science Quarterly* , *69* (1), 70-82.

Durbin, D. (1991). *Review of Pre-1980 and Post-1980 Induction
Programs*. Induction Program Review.

Dworkin, A.G. (1980). \"The Changing Demography of Public School
Teachers: Some Implications for Faculty Turnover in Urban Areas.\"
*Sociology of Education, 53* (2), 65-73.

Eberhard, J., P. Reinhardt-Mondragon et al. (2000). *Strategies for New
Teacher Retention: Creating a Climate of Authentic Professional
Development for Teachers with Three or Less Years of Experience*. Corpus
Christi, TX: South Texas Research and Development Center, Texas A&M
University.

Education Leaders Council. (2001). *Weekly policy update,October 5,
2001*. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from

*Educational Researcher*, *23*(2), 13-23.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1994). \"Do School and Teacher
Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High School and Beyond.\"
*Economics of Education Review, 13* (1), 1-17.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). \"Did Teachers\' Verbal
Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s? Coleman Revisited.\" *Economics of
Education Review, 14* (1), 1-21.

Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). \"Do
Teachers\' Race, Gender and Ethnicity Matter?

Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.\"
*Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48* (3), 547-561.

Evans, R.H. (1987). \"Factors Which Deter Potential Science/Math
Teachers from Teaching: Changes Necessary To Ameliorate Their
Concerns.\" *Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24* (1), 77-85.

Evertson, C.M. and M.W. Smithey (2000). \"Mentoring Effects on
Proteges\' Classroom Practice: An Experimental Field Study.\" *Journal
of Educational Research*, 93(5): 294-304.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Foleno, T. (2000). *A Sense of Calling: Who
Teaches and Why* . New York: Public Agenda.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). \"Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review.\"
*ERIC Digest*. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and
Teacher Education.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001[)]{.underline}. \"From Preparation to Practice:
Designing a Continuum To Strengthen and Sustain Teaching.\" *Teachers
College Record*, 103(6), 1013-55.

Feiman-Nemser, S. and M.B. Parker (1992). *Mentoring in Context: A
Comparison of Two U.S. Programs for Beginning Teachers*. National Center
for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL) Special Report. East Lansing,
MI: NCRTL.

Feiman-Nemser, S. et al. (1992). *Are Mentor Teachers Teacher
Educators*? East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning.

Feiman-Nemser, S., S. Schwille et al. (1999). *A Conceptual Review of
Literature on New Teacher Induction*. Washington, DC: National
Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, 47.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations
of quality in teaching. *Teachers*

Ferguson, R.F. (1991). \"Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on
How and Why Money Matters.\" *Harvard Journal on Legislation 28*,
465-498.

Ferguson, R.F. (1998). \"Can schools narrow the black-white test score
gap?\" In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), *The Black-White Test Score
Gap* . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 318-374.

Fetler, M. (1999). High School Characteristics and Mathematics Test
Results. *Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7* (9).

Fideler E. and D. Haselkorn (1999). *Learning the Ropes: Urban Teacher
Induction Rrograms and Practices in the United States*. Belmont, MA:
Recruiting New Teachers.

Figlio, D.N. (2002). \"Can Public Schools Buy Better-Qualified
Teachers?\" *Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55* (4), 686-697.

Fletcher, S., M. Strong and A.Villar (2004). *An Investigation of the
Effects of Teacher Experience and Teacher Preparedness on the
Performance of Latino Students in California*. Santa Cruz, CA: New
Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Flyer, F., and Rosen, S. (1997). \"The New Economics of Teachers and
Education.\" *Journal of Labor Economics, 15* (1), S104-S139.

Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Education
Technology, Division of

Freiberg, M. et al. (1994). *Perceptions of Beginning Teachers in an
Urban Setting: Does Mentoring Make a Difference*?

from http://www.c-b-e-org/martp/pubdatarpt.htm.

Fuller, E. (2003). *Begining Teacher Retention Rates for TxBESS and
Non-TxBESS Teachers*. Unpublished paper. State Board for Educator
Certification, Texas.

Furtwengler, C. (1995). \"Beginning Teachers Programs: Analysis of State
Actions during the Reform Era.\" *Education Policy Analysis Archives*.

Galchus, K.E. (1994). \"An Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Supply
and Demand for Teacher Quality.\" *Journal of Economics and Finance, 18*
(2), 165-178.

Ganser, T. (1994). \"The Perceptions of School Principals about a
Mentoring Program for Newly Hired Urban School Teachers.\" *Educator*,
30(2): 13-23.

Ganser, T. (1996). \"What Do Mentors Say about Mentoring?\" *Journal of
Staff Development*, 17(3): 36-39.

Ganser, T. (1997). *The Contribution of Service as a Cooperating Teacher
and Mentor Teacher to the Professional Development of Teachers*.

Ganser, T. (1999). *Areas of Advice Seeking among Beginning Teachers in
a Mentoring Program*.

Ganser, T. (2000). *Evaluating a University Mentoring Program for K-12
Teachers: The University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Beginning Teacher
Assistance Program*.

Ganser, T. (2002). \"The New Teacher Mentors: Four Trends That Are
Changing the Look of Mentoring Programs for New Teachers.\" *American
School Board Journal,* 189(12), 25-27.

Giebelhaus, C. (1999). \"Leading the Way . . . State Initiatives and
Mentoring.\" *Mid-Western Educational Researcher*, 12(4): 10-13.

Giebelhaus, C. and M. Bendixon-Noe (1997). \"Mentoring: Help or
Hindrance? Research Alive.\" *Mid-Western Educational Researcher*,
10(4): 20-23.

Giebelhaus, C.R. and C. Bowman (2000). *Teaching Mentors: Is It Worth
the Effort?*

Gitomer, D.H., Latham, A.S., and Ziomek, R. (1999). *The Academic
Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and Licensure
Testing* . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Glennie, E., Coble, C.R. and Allen, M. (2004, November). *Teacher
Perceptions of the Work Environment in Hard-to-Staff Schools*. Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States.
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/55/87/5587.doc.

Gold, M. (1987). *Retired Teachers as Consultants to New Teachers: A New
Inservice Teacher Training Model*. Final Report. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 54.

Gold, Y. (1999). "Beginning Teacher Support." In J. Sikula, T. Buttery
and E. Guyton (Eds.), *Handbook of Research in Teacher Education (*2nd
ed.): 548-594. New York: Macmillan.

Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (2000). \"Does Teacher Certification
Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status and Student
Achievement.\" *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22* (2),
129-145.

Goldhaber, D.D., Brewer, D.J. and Anderson, D.J. (1999). \"A Three-Way
Error Components Analysis of Educational Productivity.\" *Education
Economics, 7* (3), 199-208.

Gordon, J.A. (1994). \"Why Students of Color Are Not Entering Teaching:
Reflections from Minority Teachers.\" *Journal of Teacher Education,
45*, 346-353.

Gregson, J.A. and J.W. Piper (1993). \"The Ohio Induction Process:
Perceptions of Beginning Secondary School Trade and Industrial
Teachers.\" *Journal of Industrial Teacher Education*, 30(2): 30-43.

Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1987). *Teacher Attrition: The Uphill Climb
To Staff the Nation\'s Schools*. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1992). *Patterns of Attrition among Indiana
Teachers, 1965‑1987*. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1997). \"Teacher Turnover and Teacher
Quality.\" *Teachers College Record*, 99: 45-56.

Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1992). *Patterns of Attrition Among
Indiana Teachers: 1965-87* (R-4076-LE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1997). \"Teacher Turnover and Teacher
Quality.\" *Teachers College Record, 99* (1), 45-56.

Gritz, R.M., and Theobald, N.D. (1996). \"The Effects of School District
Spending Priorities on Length of Stay in Teaching.\" *Journal of Human
Resources, 31* (3), 477-512.

Hafner, A. and J. Owings (1991). *Careers in Teaching: Following Members
of the High School Class of 1972 In and Out of Teaching* (NCES Report
No. 91-470). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.

Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. W. (1988).
*Assessing teacher supply and*

Hall, B.W., Pearson, L.C., and Carroll, D. (1992). \"Teachers\'
Long-Range Teaching Plans: A Discriminant Analysis.\" *Journal of
Educational Research, 85* (4), 221-225.

Haney,W., Madaus, G.,&Kreitzer,A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing
teachers for the improvement of

Hanushek, E.A. (1992). \"[The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and
Quality](http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v100y1992i1p84-117.html).\"
[Journal of Political
Economy](http://ideas.repec.org/s/ucp/jpolec.html)*, 100* (1), 84-117.

Hanushek, E.A. and Pace, R.R. (1995). \"Who Chooses To Teach (and
Why)?\" *Economics of Education Review, 14* (2), 101-117.

Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., and Rivkin, S.G. (2004, Spring). \"Why
Public Schools Lose Teachers.\" *Journal of Human Resources, 39* (2),
326-354.

Harding, B., McLain et al. (1999). *Teacher Preparation and
Development*. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Hare, D. and J.L. Heap (2001). *Effective Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Strategies in the Midwest: Who Is Making Use of Them?*
Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory.

Hare, D., Nathan, J., & Darland, J. (2000). *Teacher shortages in the
Midwest: Current trends and future*

Harper-Jones, G. (1994). \"The Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers in
Wales.\" *European Early Childhood Education Research Journal*, 2(2):
33-47.

Harris, D.N., and Adams, S. (2004, Forthcoming). *Putting Teacher Labor
Markets in Context: A Comparison of Turnover Across Professions and
Industries.* Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Harris, M.M. and M.P. Collay (1990). \"Teacher Induction in Rural
Schools.\" *Journal of Staff Development*, 11(4): 44-48.

Hawk, P., Coble, C., and Swanson, M. (1985). \"Certification: It Does
Matter.\" *Journal of Teacher Education, 36* (3), 13-15.

Hawkey, K. (1997). \"Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships in
Mentoring: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research.\" *Journal of
Teacher Education*, 48(5): 325-35.

Haynes, D. (2005, April 5). \"25% of City Teachers Short on Credentials,
Janey Says.\" *Washington Post* .

Hegstad, C.D. (1999). \"Formal Mentoring as a Strategy for Human
Resource Development: A Review of Research.\" *Human Resource
Development Quarterly*, 10(4): 383-90.

Hendrick, L. and L. Childress (2002). *The RIMS Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment Partnership: A Study of Eight Years of
Collaboration*. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.

Hendrick, L., L. Sanada, Z. Franco and D. Huston (2001). *A Study of the
Elements of Induction Support and Assessment That Facilitate Skill and
Self-Confidence in New Teachers*. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association.

Henke, R.R., Chen, X., and Geis, S. (2000). *Progress Through the
Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary
Teaching as of 1997*. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.

Henke, R.R., X. Chen et al. (2000). *Progress through the Teacher
Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School
Teaching as of 1997*. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.

Henke, R.R., Zahn, L., and Carroll, C.D. (2001). *Attrition of New
Teachers Among Recent College Graduates: Comparing Occupational
Stability Among 1992-93 College Graduates Who Taught and Those Who
Worked in Other Occupations*. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Hibpshman, T. (1998, February). *Issues related to upgrade of the
professional staff data system*.

*high schools* (WP2002-28). Chicago: Federal Research Bank of Chicago.

Holloway, J. (2001) "The Benefits of Mentoring." *Educational
Leadership*, 58(8): 85-86.

Hounshell, P.B., and Griffin, S.S. (1989). \"Science Teachers Who Left:
A Survey Report.\" *Science Education, 73* (4), 433-443.

Huling-Austin, L. (1990). \"Teacher Induction Programs and
Internships.\" In W.R. Houston (Ed.) *Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education*. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.

Ingersoll, R. (2000)." The Status of Teaching as a Profession." In
*Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education*. Edited by
Jeanne Ballantine and Joan Spade. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An
Organizational Analysis." *American Educational Research Journal*,
38(3): 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith (2003). "The Wrong Solution to the Teacher
Shortage." *Educational Leadership*, 60(8): 30-33.

Ingersoll, R., and Kralik, J.M. (2004). *The Impact of Mentoring on
Teacher Retention: What the Research Says* . Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.

Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). \"The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in
American Secondary Schools.\" *Educational Researcher, 28* (2), 26-37.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001a). \"Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An
Organizational Analysis.\" *American Educational Research Journal, 38*
(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001b). *Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages and the
Organization of Schools*. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.

Ingersoll, R.M. and Alsalam, N. (1997). *Teacher Professionalization and
Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis* (NCES 97-069). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Ingersoll, R.M. et al. (1997). *Teacher Professionalization and Teacher
Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis*. Statistical Analysis Report.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Jacobson, S.L. (1988). \"The Distribution of Salary Increments and Its
Effect on Teacher Retention.\" *Educational Administration Quarterly,
24* (2), 178-199.

Johnson, S. (1990). *Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in Our
Schools*. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, S. and S. Birkeland (2003, Forthcoming). \"Pursuing \'a Sense
of Success\': New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions.\" *American
Educational Research Journal*, 38.

Johnson, S.M., and Birkeland, S.E. (2003). \"Pursuing a \'Sense of
Success\': New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions.\" *American
Educational Research Association, 40* (3), 581-617.

Jones, L., D. Reid et al. (1997). \"Teachers\' Perceptions of Mentoring
in a Collaborative Model of Initial Teacher Training.\" *Journal of
Education for Teaching*, 23(3): 253-61.

Kamii, M. and S. Harris-Sharples (1988, August 1-5). *Mentors and New
Teachers: Reshaping the Teaching Profession in Massachusetts*. Report of
the Wheelock College Conference on Mentor Teacher Training. Boston,
Massachusetts.

Karge, B.D. and M.R. Freiberg (1992). *Beginning Special Education
Teachers: At Risk for Attrition*.

King, S.H. (1993). \"Why Did We Choose Teaching Careers and What Will
Enable Us To Stay? Insights from One Cohort of the African American
Teaching Pool.\" *Journal of Negro Education, 62* (4), 475-492.

Kirby, S. N., Grissmer, D. W., & Hudson, L. (1991). *New and returning
teachers in Indiana: Sources of*

Kirby, S.N., Berends, M., and Naftel, S. (1999). \"Supply and Demand of
Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and Prospects.\" *Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21* (1), 47-66.

Kirby, S.N., Darling-Hammond, L., and Hudson, L. (1989).
\"Nontraditional Recruits to Mathematics and Science Teaching.\"
*Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11* (3), 301-323.

Kirby, S.N., Grissmer, D., and Hudson, L. (1991). \"Sources of Teacher
Supply: Some New Evidence from Indiana.\" *Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 13* (3), 256-268.

Klug, B.J. and S A. Salzman (1991). \"Formal Induction vs. Informal
Mentoring: Comparative Effects and Outcomes.\" *Teaching and Teacher
Education*, 7(3): 241-51.

Kowalski, J.P.S. (1977). \"Orientation Programs for New Teachers.\" *ERS
Report*. Arlington, VA, Educational Research Service.

Kyle, D.W., G.H. Moore et al. (1999). \"The Role of the Mentor Teacher:
Insights, Challenges and Implications.\" *Peabody Journal of Education*,
74(3 and 4): 109-22.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the
plight of urban schools: A

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). \"Teacher Sorting and
the Plight of Urban Schools. A Descriptive Analysis.\" *Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis* , *24* (1), 37-62.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). \"Teacher Sorting and
the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis.\" *Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24* (1), 37-62.

Latham, A.S., Gitomer, D.H., and Ziomek, R. (1999). \"What the Tests
Tell Us about new Teachers.\" *Educational Leadership, 56* (8), 23-26.

Levin, H.M. (1985). \"Solving the Shortage of Mathematics and Science
Teachers.\" *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7*, 371-382.

Levin, J., and Quinn, M. (2003). *Missed Opportunities: How We Keep
High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Schools.* The New Teacher Project.

Loeb, S., and Page, M.E. (2000). \"Examining the Link Between Teacher
Wages and Student Outcomes: The Importance of Alternative Labor Market
Opportunities and Non-Pecuniary Variation.\" *The Review of Economics
and Statistics, 82* (3), 393-408.

Loeb, S., and Reininger, M. (2004). *Public Policy and Teacher Labor
Markets: What We Know and Why It Matters.* East Lansing, MI: The
Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.

Lortie, D. (1975). *Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study*. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

MA: Author. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from
aepa.nesinc.com/PDFs/AZ_vol1_frontmatter.pdf

Madaus, G., & Mehrens, W. A. (1990). Conventional tests for licensure.
In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond

Mager, G.M. et al. (1987). *A Report to the State Education Department
on the New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1986-1987*.

Mager, G.M. et al. (1990). *A Follow-up on the Experiences of Intern
Teachers: A Report to the State Education Department on the New York
State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1986-1987 and 1987-1988*.
New York: School of Education, Syracuse University.

Manski, C.F. (1987). \"Academic Ability, Earnings, and the Decision To
Become a Teacher: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of the
High School Class of 1972.\" In D.A. Wise (Ed.), *Public Sector
Payrolls.* Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marso, R.N. and F.L. Pigge (1990). *Teacher Mentor Induction Programs:
An Assessment by First-Year Teachers*.

Marso, R.N., and Pigge, F.L. (1997). \"A Longitudinal Study of
Persisting and Nonpersisting Teachers\' Academic and Personal
Characteristics.\" *The Journal of Experimental Education, 65*, 243-254.

Marzano, R., (2000). *School-level, teacher-level, and student level
variables related to academic*

Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore, M.T. (2000). *Monitoring School
Quality: An Indicators Report* (NCES 2001-303). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.

McKee, J.G. (1991). *Toward an Agenda for Induction: Perceptions of
Beginning Teachers and Student Teachers*.

Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation. The science
and ethics of assessment. *Educational*

Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the
validation of performance assessments.

Miech, R.A., and Elder, G.H., Jr. (1996). \"The Service Ethic and
Teaching.\" *Sociology of Education, 69* , 237-253.

Mills, H., D. Moore et al. (2001). \"Addressing the Teacher Shortage: A
Study of Successful Mentoring Programs in Oakland County, Michigan.\"
*Clearing House*, 74(3): 124-26.

Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1998). *The California Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment Program: 1998 Statewide Evaluation Study*.
Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate
School of Education, University of California, Riverside.

Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1999). *The California Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment Program. 1998 Statewide Evaluation Study*.
Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate
School of Education, University of California, Riverside.

Mitchell, N., and Hubbard, B. (2004, December 24). \"Districts Face
Revolving Door: One in Five Teachers Changes Schools Each Year in
State.\" *Rocky Mountain News* .

Monk, D.H. (1994). \"Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics
and Science Teachers and Student Achievement.\" *Economics of Education
Review, 13* (2), 125-145.

Mont, D., and Rees, D.I. (1996). \"The Influence of Classroom
Characteristics on High School Teacher Turnover.\" *Economic Inquiry,
34* (1), 152-167.

Moskowitz, J. and M. Stephens (1997). *From Students of Teaching to
Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around the Pacific Rim*.
Singapore: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, BBB32706.

Murnane, R., J. Singer, J. Willett, J. Kemple and R. Olsen (1991). *Who
Will Teach? Policies That Matter*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Murnane, R.J. (1984). \"Selection and Survival in the Teacher Labor
Market.\" *The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66* , 513-518.

Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989a). \"The Effects of Salaries and
Opportunity Costs on Duration in Teaching: Evidence from Michigan.\"
*Review of Economics and Statistics, 71* (2), 347-352.

Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989b). \"Will There Be Enough
Teachers?\" *The American Economic Review, 79*, 242-246.

Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1990). \"The Effect of Salaries and
Opportunity Costs on Length of Stay in Teaching: Evidence from North
Carolina.\" *The Journal of Human Resources, 25* (1), 106-124.

Murnane, R.J., and Phillips, B.R. (1981). \"What Do Effective Teachers
of Inner-City Children Have in Common?\" *Social Science Research, 10* ,
83-100.

Murnane, R.J., and Schwinden, M. (1989). \"Race, Gender and Opportunity:
Supply and Demand for New Teachers in North Carolina, 1975-1985.\"
*Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11* (2), 93-108.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., and Willett, J.B. (1989). \"The Influences
of Salaries and \'Opportunity Costs\' on Teachers\' Career Choices:
Evidence from North Carolina.\" *Harvard Educational Review, 59* (3),
325-346.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., and Olsen,
R.J. (1991). *Who Will Teach? Policies that Matter*. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (2003). *Digest of Education
Statistics, 2002.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (2003). *Public School Student,
Staff and Graduate Counts, By State: 2001-2002 School Year.* Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (2004). *Digest of Education
Statistics, 2003.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004).
*Assessment of Diversity in America\'s Teaching Force: A Call to Action*
. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century (2000). *Before It\'s Too Late*. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America\'s Future (2003). *No Dream
Denied: A Pledge to America\'s Children.* Washington, DC: Author.

National Evaluation Systems. (2003). *Arizona educator
proficiencyassessments: Study guide* (Vol. 1). Amherst,

National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (NPTARS) (2005).
*Qualified Teachers for At-Risk Schools: A National Imperative* .
Washington, DC: Author.

Natriello, G., and Zumwalt, K. (1993). \"New Teachers for Urban Schools?
The Contribution of the Provisional Teacher Program in New Jersey.\"
*Education and Urban Society, 26* (1), 49-62.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). *Teacher
shortages in the Midwest: Current*

Norton, C.S. (1988). *Mentoring: A Representative Bibliography*. New
York: Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Columbia
University.

Odell, S.J. (1990). *Mentor Teacher Programs: What Research Says to the
Teacher*. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Odell, S.J. and D.P. Ferraro (1992). \"Teacher Mentoring and Teacher
Retention.\" *Journal of Teacher Education*, 43(3): 200-04.

Odell, S.J. and L. Huling (Eds.) (2000). *Quality Mentoring for Novice
Teachers*. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

Odell, S.J., and Ferraro, D.P. (1992). \"Teacher Mentoring and Teacher
Retention.\" *Journal of Teacher Education, 43* (3), 200-204.

Ohio State Department of Education (1999). *Ohio Teacher, Principal and
Superintendent 1999 Supply and Demand Information*. Columbus, Ohio:
Author.

Olebe, M. (1999). \"California Formative Assessment and Support System
for Teachers (CFASST): Investing in Teachers\' Professional
Development.\" *Teaching and Change*, 6(3): 258-71.

Olsen, D.G. and K.L. Heyse (1990). *Development and Concerns of
First-year and Reentry Teachers with and without Mentors*.

Pardini, P. (2000). \"Data, Well Done.\" *Journal of Staff Development*,
21(1): 12-18.

Parsad, B., L. Lewis and E. Farris (2001). *Teacher Preparation and
Professional Development*. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. 

Perez, K., C. Swain et al. (1997). \"An Analysis of Practices Used to
Support New Teachers.\" *Teacher Education Quarterly*, (Spring): 41-52.

Peterson, K. and J. Bercik (1995). *Frame Theory Analysis of the
Cultures of Three Outstanding Teacher Induction Programs*.

Peterson, K.M. (1996). *The Importance of Support through Induction
Programming in the Teacher Socialization Process*.

Pigge, F.L. (1985). \"Teacher Education Graduates: Comparisons of Those
Who Teach and Do Not Teach.\" *Journal of Teacher Education, 36* (4),
27-28.

Pigge, F.L., and Marso, R.N. (1992). \"A Longitudinal Comparison of the
Academic, Affective, and Personal Characteristics of Persisters and
Nonpersisters in Teacher Preparation.\" *Journal of Experimental
Education, 61* (1), 19-26.

Raymond, M., Fletcher, S.H., and Luque, J. (2001, August). *Teach for
America: An Evaluation of Teacher Differences and Student Outcomes in
Houston, Texas*. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA: CREDO, Hoover
Institution.

Reed, D.F., and Busby, D.W. (1985). \"Teacher Incentives in Rural
Schools.\" *Research in Rural Education, 3* (2), 69-73.

Rees, D.I. (1991). \"Grievance Procedure Strength and Teacher Quits.\"
*Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45* (1), 31-43.

Reid, D. and L. Jones (1997). \"Partnership in Teacher Training:
Mentors\' Constructs of Their Role.\" *Educational Studies*, 23(2):
263-76.

Reiman, A.J. and R.A. Edelfelt (1990). *School-based Mentoring Programs:
Untangling the Tensions between Theory and Practice*. Raleigh, NC:
Raleigh Department of Curriculum and Instruction, North Carolina State
University.

Reiman, A.J. et al. (1995). \"Counselor- and Teacher-led Support Groups
for Beginning Teachers: A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective.\"
*Elementary School Guidance and Counseling*, 30(2): 105-17.

*Researcher*, *18*, 5-11.

Rickman, B.D., and Parker, C.D. (1990). \"Alternative Wages and Teacher
Mobility: A Human Capital Approach.\" *Economics of Education Review, 9*
(1), 73-79.

Riggs, I.M. (2000). *The Impact of Training and Induction Activities
upon Mentors as Indicated through Measurement of Mentor Self-Efficacy*.

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (1998). *Teachers, Schools
and Academic Achievement* (Working Paper 6691). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (2000). *Teachers, Schools
and Academic Achievement* (Unpublished Manuscript).

Robinson, G.W. (1998). *New Teacher Induction: A Study of Selected New
Teacher Induction Models and Common Practices*.

Rong, X.L., and Preissle, J. (1997). \"The Continuing Decline in Asian
American Teachers.\" *American Educational Research Journal, 34* (2),
267-293.

Rumberger, R.W. (1985). \"The Shortage of Mathematics and Science
Teachers: A Review of the Evidence.\" *Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 7* (4), 355-369.

Rumberger, R.W. (1987). \"The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher
Shortages and Turnover: The Case of Mathematics and Science Teachers.\"
*Economics of Education Review, 6* (4), 389-399.

Runyan, K., V. White et al. (1998). *A Seamless System of Professional
Development from Preservice to Tenured Teaching*.

Rutherford, J. (2002). *How Do Teachers Learn To Teach Effectively?
Quality Indicators from Quality Schools*. A Report to the Rockefeller
Foundation from Just for the Kids and the Southeast Center for Teaching
Quality.

Sanders, W., and Rivers, J. (1996). *Cumulative and Residual Effects of
Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement* . Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Saurino, D.R. and P.L. Saurino (1999). *Making Effective Use of
Mentoring Teacher Programs: A Collaborative Group Action Research
Approach*.

Schaffer, E. et al. (1992). \"An Innovative Beginning Teacher Induction
Program: A Two-year Analysis of Classroom Interactions.\" *Journal of
Teacher Education*, 43(3): 181-92.

Scherer, M. (Ed.) (1999). *A Better Beginning: Supporting and Mentoring
New Teachers*. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Schlechty, P.C., and Vance, V.S. (1981). \"Do Academically Able Teachers
Leave Education? The North Carolina Case.\" *Phi Delta Kappan, 63* (2),
106-112.

Schlecty, P. and V. Vance (1981). \"Do Academically Able Teachers Leave
Education? The North Carolina Case.\" *Phi Delta Kappan*, 63: 105-112.

.

Scott, N.H. (1997). *Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New
Brunswick, 1996-97*. Report. Fredericton (Canada), New Brunswick
Department of Education.

Scott, N.H. (1997). *PFD\'s for Beginning Teachers: A Report on the
Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick*.

Scott, N.H. (1998). *Careful Planning or Serendipity? Promoting
Well-Being through Teacher Induction*.

Scott, N.H. (1998). *Off to a Good Start: Report on the 1997-98
Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick*. Fredericton
(Canada), New Brunswick Department of Education.

Scott, N.H. (1999). *Supporting New Teachers: A Report on the 1998-99
Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick*.

Scott, N.H. (2000). *Building a Strong Foundation for Teaching: The
Fifth Annual Report of the Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New
Brunswick*. Saint John, New Brunswick University.

Scott, N.H. (2000). *Four Years Later: Issues in Teacher Induction*.

Scott, N.H. (2001). *Mentoring New Teachers: A Report on the 2001
Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick*. Saint John, New
Brunswick University.

Scott, N.H. and E. Compton (1996). *Report on the 1995-96 Beginning
Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick*.

Serpell, Z. and L.A. Bozeman (1999). *Beginning Teacher Induction: A
Report on Beginning Teacher Effectiveness and Retention*. Washington,
DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.

Seyfarth, J.T., and Bost, W.A. (1986). \"Teacher Turnover and the
Quality of Worklife in Schools: An Empirical Study.\" *Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 20* (1), 1-6.

Shapley, K.S. and H.D. Luttrell (1992). \"Effectiveness of Mentor
Training of Elementary Colleague Teachers.\" *Journal of Elementary
Science Education*, 4(2): 1-12.

Shen, J. (1997). \"Teacher Retention and Attrition in Public Schools:
Evidence from SASS91.\" *Journal of Educational Research, 91* (2),
81-88.

Shields, P. et al. (2001). *The Status of the Teaching Profession,
2001*. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Shin, H.S. (1995). \"Estimating Future Teacher Supply: Any Policy
Implications for Educational Reform?\" *International Journal of
Educational Reform, 4* (4), 422-433.

Shipp, V.H. (1999). \"Factors Influencing the Career Choices of African
American Collegians: Implications for Minority Teacher Recruitment.\"
*Journal of Negro Education, 68* (3), 343-351.

Singer, J.D. and Willett, J.B. (1988). \"Detecting Involuntary Layoffs
in Teacher Survival Data: The Year of Leaving Dangerously.\"
*Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10* , 212-224.

Sizer. T. (1992). *Horace\'s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American
High School*. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smerdon, B., L. Lewis, B. Parsad et al. (1999). *Teacher Quality: A
Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers*.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Smith, M. L. (2004). *Political spectacle and the fate of American
schools*. New York: Routledge Farmer.

Smith, T.M., and Ingersoll, R.M. (2004, Summer). \"What Are the Effects
of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover?\" *American
Educational Research Journal, 41* (2).

 Smithey, M.W. and C.M. Evertson (1995). \"Tracking the Mentoring
Process: A Multimethod Approach.\" *Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education*, 9(1): 33-53.

Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1993). *Montana Beginning Teacher Support
Program*. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education.

Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1994). *Montana Beginning Teacher Support
Program*. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education.

Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1995). *Montana Beginning Teacher Support
Program*. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education.

Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1995). *Montana Beginning Teacher Support
Program. Final Report*. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (1998). \"An Empirical Investigation of Teacher
Attrition.\" *Economics of Education Review, 17* (2), 127-136.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (1999). \"Estimation of a Duration Model in the
Presence of Missing Data.\" *Review of Economics and Statistics, 81*
(3), 529-542.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001a). \"A Dynamic Model of Teacher Labor
Supply.\" *Journal of Labor Economics, 19* (1), 196-230.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001b). \"Compensation Policies and Teacher
Decisions.\" *International Economic Review, 42* (3), 751-779.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (2002). \"An Analysis of Occupational Change and
Departure from the Labor Force. Evidence of the Reasons that Teachers
Leave.\" *Journal of Human Resources, 37* (1), 192-216.

Stoddart, T. (1990). \"Los Angeles Unified School District Intern
Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an Urban Context.\"
*Peabody Journal of Education*, *67*, 84-122.

Storms, B., J. Wing, T. Jinks, K. Banks and P. Cavazos (2000). *CFASST
(Field Review) Implementation 1999-2000: A Formative Evaluation Report*.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Strong, M. (1998). *Study of Reading Performance among 1-3 Grade
Students in Classes Taught by SCNTP Teachers*. Santa Cruz, CA: New
Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Strong, M. (2005). *Induction, Mentoring and Teacher Retention: A
Summary of the Research* (unpublished) Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher
Center.

Strong, M. and L. St. John (2001). *A Study of Teacher Retention: The
Effects of Mentoring for Beginning Teachers*. Santa Cruz, CA: University
of California, Santa Cruz.

Stroot, S.A., J. Fowlkes et al. (1999). \"Impact of a Collaborative Peer
Assistance and Review Model on Entry-year Teachers in a Large Urban
School Setting.\" *Journal of Teacher Education*, 50(1): 27-41.

*supply* (R-4049-LE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Sweeny, B. (1994). *A New Teacher Mentoring Knowledge Base of Best
Practices: A Summary of Lessons Learned from Practitioners*. Mentor
Center.

Sweeny, B. (1998). *What\'s Happening in Mentoring and Induction in Each
of the United States?* Mentor Center.

Taylor, S. (1986). \"Mentors: Who Are They and What Are They Doing?\"
*Thrust for Educational Leadership*, 15(6): 39-41.

Theobald, N.D. (1990). \"An Examination of the Influence of Personal,
Professional and School District Characteristics on Public School
Teacher Retention.\" *Economics of Education Review, 9* (3), 241-250.

Thies-Sprinthall, L.M. (1990). \"Support Groups for Novice Teachers.\"
*Journal of Staff Development*, 11(4): 18-22.

Thomsen, S.R. and R.L. Gustafson (1997). \"Turning Practitioners into
Professors: Exploring Effective Mentoring.\" *Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator*, 52(2): 24-32.

Tushnet, N. et al. (2000). *Final Report of the Independent Evaluation
of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA)*.

Van Thielen, B. (1992). *Tutoring Beginning Teachers through a Mentor
Teacher Program*. Monograph No. 16. Saskatoon College of Education,
Saskatchewan University.

Veenman, S. (1985). \"Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers.\"
*Review of Educational Research*, 54(2): 143-178.

Veenman, S., H. de Laat et al. (1998). *Coaching Beginning Teachers*.

Villegas, A.M., and Clewell, B.C. (1998). \"Increasing the Number of
Teachers of Color for Urban Schools: Lessons from the Pathways National
Evaluation.\" *Education and Urban Society, 31* (1), 42-61.

Villeme, M.G. et al. (1992). \"Are Teachers Receiving Adequate Support
from Their Beginning Teacher Programs? The Florida Experience.\"
*Teacher Educator*, 28(2): 10-16.

Vonk, J.H.C. (1996). *Conceptualizing the Mentoring of Beginning
Teachers*.

Wagner, U. (1992). *Environments of Support*. Washington, DC: Office of
Minorities in Higher Education, American Council on Education.

Waller, W. (1932) *The Sociology of Teaching*. New York: Wiley.

Wang, J. and S.J. Odell (2002). \"Mentored Learning To Teach According
to Standard-based Reform: A Critical Review.\" *Review of Educational
Research*, 72(3), 481-546.

Weiss, E.M. (1999). \"Perceived Workplace Conditions and First-Year
Teachers\' Morale, Career Choice Commitment and Planned Retention: A
Secondary Analysis.\" *Teaching and Teacher Education, 15* (8), 861-879.

Wilkerson, T. (1997). *The Preparation of Teachers for Kentucky Schools:
A Survey of New Teachers*. Summary Report. Louisville, KY: Wilkerson
(Tom) and Associates, Ltd.

Wilkinson, G.A. (1997). \"Beginning Teachers Identify Gaps in Their
Induction Programs.\" *Journal of Staff Development*, 18(2): 48-51.

Williams, E. et al. (1994). *Training Teachers To Plan Staff Development
Programs for Rural Schools*.

Williams, E.U. et al. (1991). *A Teacher Training Mentor Model in Rural
Special Education*.

Wilson, S., L. Darling-Hammond and B. Berry (2001). *A Case of
Successful Teaching Policy: Connecticut\'s Long-term Efforts To Improve
Teaching and Learning*. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.

Wilson, S.M., and Floden, R.E. (2002.) *Creating Effective Teachers -
Concise Answers for Hard Questions (An Addendum to the Report Teacher
Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps and Recommendations).*
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. (1987). *Effective
Teacher Selection: from Recruitment to Retention*. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.

Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (1997). \"Mentoring as a Two-Way Street.\"
*Journal of Staff Development*, 18(3): 50-52.

Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L. (1997). \"Teacher and
Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for
Teacher Evaluation.\" *Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11*
, 57-67.

Yosha, P. (1991). *The Benefits of an Induction Program: What Do Mentors
and Novices Say?*

 Zarkin, G.A. (1985). \"Occupational Choice: An Application to the
Market for Public School Teachers.\" *The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 100* , 409-446.

Zeichner, K.M. and J.M. Gore (1990). "Teacher Socialization." In W.R.
Houston (Ed.), *Handbook of Research on Teacher Education*, 329-348. New
York: Macmillan.