Requirement #6

**CONNECTICUT'S EQUITY PLAN**

***[GOAL:]{.underline}***

> The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) will ensure that
> poor or minority students are not taught by inexperienced,
> unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at a higher rate than other
> students.

***[DEFINITION OF THE ISSUE:]{.underline}***

> ***[Inexperience]{.underline}***
>
> The United States Department of Education (USDOE) provided a
> definition of inexperienced teachers as those having two or less years
> of teaching experience. The CSDE assigned each school to a quartile
> based on the percentage of inexperienced teachers.
>
> ***[Poverty]{.underline}***
>
> The CSDE defines poverty for each school using the percentage of
> students eligible for free/reduced price meals. Each school was
> assigned to a quartile based on the percentage of students in poverty.
>
> Of the 262 schools in the high poverty quartile, 113 (43.1 percent -
> highlighted in yellow in the attached table) also fell into the
> quartile in which there was a high percentage of inexperienced
> teachers. This indicates that there are disproportionate numbers of
> inexperienced teachers being assigned to schools with high percentages
> of students in poverty. A student in a high poverty quartile school
> was approximately three times more likely to be taught by an
> inexperienced teacher than in a low poverty quartile school. In the
> low poverty quartile, only 42 schools (16.0 percent) had a high
> percentage of inexperienced teachers assigned to the schools.
>
> Of the 113 identified schools, 81 (71.7 percent) are in the four
> largest urban districts. All 113 schools will receive priority
> attention in order to: 1) determine if there are any institutional
> practices and procedures both at the LEA and SEA level that correlate
> with less experienced teachers being assigned to the high poverty
> schools; and 2) ensure that poor and minority students are taught by
> experienced, highly qualified teachers.
>
> ***(Please refer to the attached table named HR1 FTE Sums by
> Dist_Sch_Exp_Students/Worksheet HR1 FTE Sums %Poverty-%InExp for
> complete details.)***
>
> ***[Minority]{.underline}***
>
> Each school was assigned to a quartile based on the percentage of
> minority students.

Of the 262 schools in the high minority quartile, 121 (46.2 percent -
highlighted in yellow in the attached table) also fell into the quartile
in which there was a high percentage of inexperienced teachers. This
indicates that there are disproportionate numbers of inexperienced
teachers being assigned to schools with high percentages of minority
students. A student in a high minority quartile school was approximately
twice as likely to be taught by an inexperienced teacher than in a low
minority quartile school. In the low minority quartile, only 47 schools
(18.0 percent) had a high percentage of inexperienced teachers assigned
to the schools.

Of the 121 identified schools, 87 (71.9 percent) are in the four largest
urban districts. All 121 schools will receive priority attention in
order to: 1) determine if there are any institutional practices and
procedures both at the LEA and SEA level that correlate with less
experienced teachers being assigned to the high minority schools; and 2)
ensure that poor and minority students are taught by experienced, highly
qualified teachers.

> ***(Please refer to the attached table named HR1 FTE Sums by
> Dist_Sch_Exp_Students/Worksheet HR1 FTE Sums %Minority-%InExp for
> complete details.)***
>
> ***[Unqualified/Out-of-Field]{.underline}***

Of the 128,318 core academic classes taught in Connecticut, 4,110 (3.2
percent) were taught by not highly qualified teachers (NHQ).

Of the 26,787 core academic classes taught in high poverty schools,
1,769 (6.6 percent) are taught by NHQ.

Of the 35,168 core academic classes taught in low poverty schools, 653
(1.9 percent) are taught by NHQ.

The CSDE has identified 107 schools (40.8 percent - highlighted in
yellow in the attached table) in the high poverty quartile that fall
below the goal of 96 percent HQT. These schools will receive priority
attention in order to meet the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the
2006-2007 school year.

The CSDE has identified the LEAs and schools in which poor or minority
students are being taught by not highly qualified or inexperienced
teachers, and is implementing or will implement the following strategies
to ensure that all students receive a quality education.

***(Please refer to the attached table named HR1 N_Classes_NHQ by
Dist_Sch with Poverty_Minority for complete details.)***

***[OVERARCHING STRATEGIES:]{.underline}***

1.  Continuous monitoring, through annual data collections and analyses,
    that Connecticut's poor or minority students are being taught by
    highly qualified and experienced teachers so as to ensure the
    success of all students and reduce the achievement gap among groups
    of students in state.

    -   *[Measure:]{.underline}* percentage of core academic subjects
        taught by teachers who meet the NCLB HQT requirement in
        Connecticut's districts and schools in the high poverty and high
        minority quartile;

    -   *[Measure:]{.underline}* percentage of core academic subjects
        taught by teachers who meet the NCLB HQT requirement in
        Connecticut's districts and schools who have failed to make
        Annual Yearly Progress (AYP); and

    -   *[Measure:]{.underline}* percentage of teachers with less than
        two full years of teaching experience assigned to the schools in
        the highest quartiles for poverty or minority.

    -   *[Measure:]{.underline}* change in percentages of students who
        have low attendance, high suspension, high expulsion, low
        graduation and high drop-out rates in the schools identified
        with large numbers of poor or minority students who are being
        taught by inexperienced teachers.

    -   *[Publicly Report Progress:]{.underline}* NCLB State Report
        Card, District Test Results, School Test Results and
        Connecticut's Strategic School Profile for districts and
        schools.

2.  Increase to 100 percent the core academic subjects taught by
    teachers in Connecticut who meet the HQT requirements.

-   *[Measure:]{.underline}* percentage of core academic subjects taught
    by teachers who satisfy the NCLB HQT requirements in Connecticut's
    districts and schools.

-   *[Publicly Report Progress:]{.underline}* NCLB State Report Card,
    District Reports, School Reports and Connecticut's Strategic School
    Profile for districts and schools.

*[Sub-Strategy 1: Data and Reporting Systems]{.underline}*

NEED: to continue to correct inequities with the distribution of
inexperienced teachers in districts identified in the highest quartile
for poverty and minority representation. CSDE will utilize the state's
long-standing, multi-layered data collection and reporting systems. The
ongoing analysis of the data will provide CSDE with evidence of the
probable success of Sub-Strategies 1.

1.  Beginning with the 2005-06 data collection, CSDE will analyze the
    district and school data by certificate types that are NHQ, by
    out-of-field teaching placements, by non-certified staff placements,
    and by the number of impoverished students to determine if districts
    and/or schools within that district have a higher percentage of NHQ
    assignments. The state summary data is as follows:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   ----------------                                                    |
| -------- ------------------------------ ----------- -------- -------- |
|   **[High                                                             |
|                                                                       |
|   Poverty]                                                            |
| {.underline}**                                                        |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                             2005        2005     2005 |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                               Total       NHQ      \% |
|                                                                       |
|   Code                                                                |
|               Certificate Type               FTE         FTE      NHQ |
|                                                                       |
|   00                                                                  |
|             Not Certified                  92.0        92.0     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   10                                                                  |
|             \*Interim Initial Educator     31.5        31.5     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   11                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Initial Educator         1,411.8     13.6     1.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   12                                                                  |
|             \*Interim Provisional Educator 17.0        17.0     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   13                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Provisional Educator     2,701.1     16.1     0.6 |
|                                                                       |
|   14                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Professional Educator    3,888.0     7.9      0.2 |
|                                                                       |
|   15                                                                  |
|              \*\*\*90-Day Educator          9.0         1.0      11.1 |
|                                                                       |
|                  (Alternate Route)                                    |
|                                                                       |
|   17                                                                  |
|             \*\*Temp. Authorization for    0.5         0.5      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Minor Assignment                                     |
|                                                                       |
|   18                                                                  |
|             \*\*Durational Shortage Area   202.0       202.0    100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Permit (DSAP)                                        |
|                                                                       |
|   33                                                                  |
|             \*Substitute Teacher           1.0         1.0      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Authorization: Short-term                            |
|                                                                       |
|   34                                                                  |
|             \*Substitute Teacher - Beyond  44.0        44.0     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  40 Days                                              |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|               ***High Poverty Quartile       8,397.9     426.6    5.1 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Totals and Percent***                                |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **[Low                                                              |
|                                                                       |
|   Poverty]                                                            |
| {.underline}**                                                        |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                             2005        2005     2005 |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                               Total       NHQ      \% |
|                                                                       |
|   Code                                                                |
|               Certificate Type               FTE         FTE      NHQ |
|                                                                       |
|   00                                                                  |
|             Not Certified                  31.5        31.5     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   03                                                                  |
|             \*Standard Teaching            2.0         2.0      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   10                                                                  |
|             \*Interim Initial Educator     25.1        25.1     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   11                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Initial Educator         1,306.0     3.5      0.3 |
|                                                                       |
|   12                                                                  |
|             \*Interim Provisional Educator 17.9        17.9     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|   13                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Provisional Educator     3,577.9     6.2      0.2 |
|                                                                       |
|   14                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*Professional Educator    5,123.9     5.1      0.1 |
|                                                                       |
|   15                                                                  |
|               \*\*\*90-Day Educator          2.0         0.0      0.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  (Alternate Route)                                    |
|                                                                       |
|   16                                                                  |
|             \*Nonrenewable Interim Initial 2.3         2.3      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Educator                                             |
|                                                                       |
|   17                                                                  |
|             \*\*Temp. Authorization for    4.3         4.3      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Minor Assignment                                     |
|                                                                       |
|   18                                                                  |
|             \*\*Durational Shortage Area   42.9        42.9     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Permit (DSAP)                                        |
|                                                                       |
|   32                                                                  |
|             \*Substitute Teacher           0.5         0.5      100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  Authorization                                        |
|                                                                       |
|   34                                                                  |
|             \*Substitute Teacher - Beyond  10.6        10.6     100.0 |
|                                                                       |
|                  40 Days                                              |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|               ***Low Poverty Quartile Totals 10,113.4    118.4    1.2 |
|                                                                       |
|                  and Percent***                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   ----------------                                                    |
| -------- ------------------------------ ----------- -------- -------- |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> A new policy in 2005-2006 designated teachers holding Durational
> Shortage Area Permits (DSAPs) and Temporary Authorizations for Minor
> Assignments NHQ. Beginning on July 1, 2006, any teacher applying for a
> DSAP must first pass the PRAXIS II exam in the content area thus
> making the teacher highly qualified. The CSDE, therefore, expects to
> see a decrease in the number of teachers holding certificates
> designated as NHQ, especially in the high poverty quartile schools.

1.2 CSDE will provide this HQT equity analysis annually to all districts
that fall below the 2005-06 benchmark of 96 percent HQT in the state and
biennial reports; the percentage of NHQ teachers in each school will be
reported to the district.

1.3 CSDE has continually analyzed whether a higher percentage of
inexperienced and NHQ are teaching in schools where there is a
concentration of poor or minority students. This review will be
performed as part of the 2005-06 HQT analysis. First, the percentage of
classes in each school taught by inexperienced and NHQ will be
determined, and the percentage of poor and minority students in each
school will be identified. Then, an analysis will be performed to
determine if a significantly higher percentage of classes in high
poverty schools are being taught by inexperienced and NHQ teachers.
***(All summary data are presented on pages one and two of this plan,
and tables containing complete information are attached.)***

4.  In 2006-07, CSDE is planning to collect class schedule rosters from
    districts. This information will allow the CSDE to verify that the
    teaching assignment data reported in the certified staff file are
    accurate.

5.  CSDE will annually monitor districts for the number of teachers who
    are HQT and for those who are not certified or teaching
    out-of-field. CSDE has significantly reduced the number of
    non-certified and out-of-field teaching assignments between 2002-03
    and 2005-06. The data below are reported on the NCLB annual report
    card.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   -                                                                   |
| ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- |
|                                                                       |
|                               State %    State %    State %   State % |
|                                                                       |
|          State %    State %    High       High       Low       Low    |
|                                                                       |
|                               Poverty    Poverty    Poverty   Poverty |
|                                                                       |
|          HQ         NHQ        HQ         NHQ        HQ        NHQ    |
|                                                                       |
|   Year   FTE        FTE        FTE        FTE        FTE       FTE    |
|                                                                       |
|   2002   97.5       2.5        96.4       3.6        98.1      1.9    |
|                                                                       |
|   2003   98.8       1.2        98.0       2.0        99.2      0.8    |
|                                                                       |
|   2004   98.9       1.1        97.6       2.4        99.3      0.7    |
|                                                                       |
|   2005   97.4       2.6        94.9       5.1        98.5      1.5    |
|   -                                                                   |
| ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Between 2002 and 2004, there was a reduction in the percentage of NHQT
teachers. However, a new policy in 2005-2006 designated teachers holding
Durational Shortage Area Permits (DSAPs) and Temporary Authorizations
for Minor Assignments automatically NHQ. Beginning on July 1, 2006, any
teacher applying for a DSAP must first pass the PRAXIS II exam in the
content area thus making the teacher highly qualified. The CSDE
therefore expects to see a decrease in the number of teachers holding
certificates designated as NHQ. *See also attached table HR1 Percent NHQ
by Cert_Type 2005-2004-2003 for more details.*

6.  The CSDE tracks hiring and retention patterns for urban and priority
    districts by collecting and analyzing data through the Fall Hiring
    Report and certified staff file. Connecticut's teacher attrition
    rates and turnover are lower than national trends.

7.  Beginning with the 2005-06 data collection, Connecticut will expand
    the annual HQT analysis for every LEA and school and distribute it
    to each district. This analysis will enable the LEAs to track their
    progress toward achieving the 2006-07 HQT goal of 100 percent. It
    will also enable LEAs to focus attention on the schools with the
    highest percentage of inexperienced and NHQ teachers.

8.  CSDE's HQT plan requires that each LEA incorporate specific steps in
    their district plans to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of
    2006-07.

9.  CSDE will collect and review the HQT plans from all districts. CSDE
    will provide feedback to each district that falls **below the
    current HQT benchmark (2005-06: 96 percent, 2006-07: 100 percent).**

10. Each LEA must annually report the progress made on their HQT plan.
    LEAs not demonstrating progress toward achieving the 100 percent HQT
    goal will be subject to the following consequences:

    -   LEAs that do not demonstrate progress on their annual HQT
        progress report and plan will be considered when selecting LEAs
        to be monitored;

-   LEAs who fail to meet their annual measurable objectives will be
    required to target a percentage of their Title II, Part A funds to
    support their HQT initiatives;

-   LEAs that do not meet the goals in their plans must submit a plan
    for corrective action and make sufficient progress toward achieving
    the 100 percent HQT goal; and

-   withhold Federal monies from districts that do not demonstrate
    sufficient progress toward achieving the 100 percent HQT goal.

1.11 To ensure that districts reach the 100 percent HQT goal, LEA plans
and HQT progress reports ***(The NCLB HQT Progress Report was provided
in Requirement 2, and is attached.)*** must include methods that will
make each teacher become highly qualified status that include, but are
not limited to, the following:

-   require that NHQ teachers either successfully complete the state
    adopted assessment (PRAXIS II or ACTFL for world languages); or

-   complete courses to achieve a content major or master's degree; or

-   transfer the NHQ teacher into a position for which they are HQT; or

-   use the HOUSSE process only in the identified areas of exception to
    highly qualify veteran teachers.

1.12 In 2006-07, Connecticut is developing a new web-based certification
system. As part of this new system, CSDE will record the applicant's
content area major and master's degree and provide LEA access to this
information.

*[Sub-Strategy 2: Teacher Preparation]{.underline}*

NEED: to further the preparation of high-quality teachers and ensure
their success and effectiveness in high-poverty, high-minority and
low-performing schools. CSDE will develop and support stronger
collaborations between teacher preparation institutions and school
districts.

1.  In order to build long-term capacity to support new teachers in high
    poverty districts, the beginning teacher induction program (BEST)
    has expanded its training of mentors and assessors to develop
    additional competencies to serve as master mentors and teacher
    leaders through BEST Teacher Leadership Academies in the areas of
    mathematics, science, special education and elementary education.
    Districts are encouraged to restructure teaching assignments and to
    provide release time for teachers to serve as master mentors and
    teacher coaches.

> [The CSDE predicts a high probability of success with the BEST Program
> because it plays a substantial role in enhancing the instructional
> effectiveness of new teachers and ensuring that all new teachers
> equally demonstrate Connecticut's rigorous teaching standards in all
> schools, including high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing
> schools. The "support" component of the BEST Program includes the
> requirement that all new teachers are assigned a state-trained mentor
> as well as provides content-specific seminars focusing on critical
> elements of effective instruction in the teacher's content area. In
> the past three years, these seminars have been delivered "on-site" in
> the state's five largest urban districts. In addition, the state has
> actively recruited and trained experienced teachers in the state's
> urban districts to serve as portfolio scorers, "Master Mentors" and
> teacher leaders in the areas of mathematics, science, special
> education and elementary education, thereby increasing the capacity of
> these districts to support new teachers in enhancing instructional
> effectiveness and retaining them in the classroom---as well as
> enhancing the effectiveness of these experienced teachers in their own
> classrooms.]{.mark}

[The "assessment" component of the BEST Program requires that all new
teachers complete a content-specific portfolio in their second year of
teaching, successful completion of which requires demonstration of
effective teaching standards leading to higher levels of student
learning. These efforts to enhance the success of teachers in the urban
districts in meeting BEST Program requirements appears to be successful
as demonstrated by a substantial reduction in the "gap" in performance
between teachers in districts with high-poverty, high-minority,
low-performing schools and those from more affluent, lower-minority and
higher-performing districts in this past year. For example, the numbers
of elementary teachers who failed to meet the portfolio performance
standard with their first portfolio submission in 2005 was approximately
24% on both the literacy and numeracy components in 2005. In 2006, those
figures dropped to 10% for the literacy component and 14% for the
numeracy component of the elementary portfolio. This compares to
statewide averages 7% for the literacy component and 10% for the
numeracy component of the elementary portfolio. The state expects to
continue its efforts in this regard.]{.mark}

2.2 The CSDE has promoted and approved [urban teaching
programs]{.underline} aimed at improving the knowledge and skills of
teachers working with students from high-poverty, low-performing
schools. Prospective teachers develop classroom management skills,
acquire rigorous subject area knowledge, diagnose learning problems,
build trusting relationships across racial, class and gender boundaries
and become careful observers of culture in the urban communities in
which they will teach. One program that received state approval is the
[Yale Urban Teaching Initiative]{.underline}, a one-year advanced
graduate program that will prepare Yale graduates with a passion for
education to bring their skills to New Haven's public schools, one of
Connecticut's neediest school systems. Graduates will receive a Master's
degree in Urban Education Studies and a State of Connecticut Initial
Educator License permitting them to teach grades seven through 12. After
receiving their degrees, participants are required to commit to teaching
in a New Haven public middle or high school for three years. The program
prepares teachers in eight secondary subject areas, but an emphasis has
been placed on the state's most critical shortage areas, mathematics and
the sciences. By producing candidates that are well suited to teach in
urban settings, the CSDE anticipates that these programs will encourage
teachers to remain teaching in those settings. [In 2006-2007, the Yale
Urban Teaching Initiative enrolled its first cohort of candidates into
the 14-month program in August 2006. During the first 3 years, the
program caps its enrollment at 10 candidates; each enrolled candidate
has his/her tuition funded through a grant to Yale University, but also
must commit to teaching in an urban school in New Haven Public Schools
for a minimum of three years. Retention of these individuals within the
urban district can not yet be determined. Program success will be
measured by the retention of these candidates as successful teachers in
an urban setting.]{.mark}

2.3 The CSDE in collaboration with the Department of Higher Education
has established an articulation agreement that provides seamless
pathways to a baccalaureate degree for Connecticut students. The
agreement improves the acceptance and transfer of credits earned at a
community college into a teacher preparation program offered at
Connecticut's four-year colleges and universities. This agreement
creates an accessible pathway leading to state teacher certification.
Community colleges help increase the diversity of the teaching force
because they educate a higher percentage of minority, low income
students than four-year institutions.

2.4 The CSDE, through the Connecticut Accountability for Learning
Initiative, provides executive coaching to principals in the state's
neediest schools by identifying and implementing leadership practices
that are proven to promote student success and a school culture that
retains and attracts effective teachers.

2.5 CSDE brings in successful, experienced teachers to serve as
teachers-in-residence providing assistance to teachers in high need
schools regarding effective teaching practices so that they can become
highly effective. CSDE is demonstrating success by seeing higher scores
from teachers teaching in urban schools on our induction portfolio for
beginning teachers.

6.  CSDE is working with Department of Higher Education (DHE) to expand
    the alternate route to certification programs. CSDE and DHE are
    collaboratively seeking state support to expand the alternate route
    programs in all shortage areas. Additionally, an alternate route
    program has been designed to attract and prepare teachers, who
    currently hold an active teaching certificate, in special education
    for our urban districts. This is Connecticut's greatest shortage
    area.

7.  CSDE has recently provided a grant to Southern Connecticut State
    University to work with paraprofessionals in the four largest urban
    centers to obtain their bachelor's degree and become certified in
    special education. As part of this program, the professors will
    travel to the urban district to conduct courses after school hours;
    child care will be provided and courses will be tuition-free.
    Program success will be determined by the number retained within the
    cohorts each year and the number who complete their bachelor's
    degree in special education.

8.  CSDE is currently seeking state support for cohorts of qualified
    paraprofessionals to become certified teachers in our urban
    districts. Additional state resources are being requested to reduce
    the three-year phase-in period. The probability of success for this
    initiative will be increased by the appropriation of additional
    monies from the legislature, the development of the program, and the
    placement of program completers in the urban districts.

*[Sub-Strategy 3: Recruitment and Retention of Experienced
Teachers]{.underline}*

NEED: to build a critical mass of qualified, experienced teachers
willing to work in hard-to-staff schools. CSDE will implement policies,
programs and practices to build this pool of teachers willing to work in
hard-to-staff schools with high percentages of minority or impoverished
students.

3.1 Retired teachers may be reemployed without being subject to the
earnings limit if they teach in a subject shortage area. This employment
may be for one school year and may, with prior approval of the Teachers'
Retirement Board, be extended for an additional year. This will increase
the pool of experienced teachers statewide, including high-need
districts. [Several states (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and West Virginia) have developed policies which allow retired
teachers to return to the classroom without losing retirement benefits.
This has helped some states alleviate teacher shortages. North Carolina
had nearly 400 retired teachers return to classrooms in just one year.
Retirement experts say that retirees often take short breaks from work
and then decide to return to the work force. Policies, such as those
that have been implemented in the states named, permit retirees to
continue to provide expertise in the field that they have trained in.
Highly qualified retired teachers bring experience to their classroom
and have much to share with beginning teachers. Program success will be
monitored through the staff data showing the number of retirees filling
vacancies in shortage areas especially in high-need districts and those
that extend for an additional year.]{.mark}

3.2 The state Teachers' Mortgage Assistance Program is for certified
public school teachers who are employed by, and purchase a first-time
home as their primary residence in, a priority school district (urban
districts with high numbers of poverty and minority students). This is
an important incentive to encourage HQ public school teachers to live in
the community in which they teach, as well as to address shortage area
needs in priority school districts. [From the programs inception in
2000, the number of teachers using the mortgage assistance program has
grown from six in 2000 to 114 in 2005; during the first three quarters
of 2006, 93 teachers received a mortgage for purchasing a home in the
high-need urban or rural district where they teach. Of the 114 teachers
who received a mortgage in 2005, 35 (or 1/3 of the teachers using this
assistance program) purchased homes in one of Connecticut's four largest
high-need, urban districts. Therefore, the growth of this program
clearly demonstrates its effectiveness in attracting teachers to teach
in urban and rural high-need districts.]{.mark}

3.  CSDE is currently in the process of updating and enhancing its
    Educator Continuum which includes a review of educator preparation
    regulations, certification regulations, teachers'/administrators'
    induction programs, and professional development for all educators.
    As part of this undertaking, CSDE is reviewing recruitment and
    retention data and making recommendations to increase the retention
    of teachers within Connecticut's urban and rural districts and
    ensure that HQTs are distributed equitably across districts. This
    process will continue throughout the 2006-07 year.

4.  CSDE is currently developing partnerships with other countries to
    bring in teachers under the three-year J1 Visa Program in our top
    shortage areas. India is partnering to send teachers who are trained
    in math, science and special education. CSDE has also partnered with
    Spain for bilingual teachers to teach Spanish and in some cases, to
    serve as bilingual teachers. These teachers will be deployed to
    those LEAs having the most difficulty employing HQ teachers in these
    shortage areas.

5.  In 2006, the Connecticut State Legislature passed statutory language
    that allows graduates of a national corps of teachers, such as Teach
    for America (TFA), to place teachers in the three largest urban
    districts; in 2006-07, 42 TFA graduates will be teaching in New
    Haven public schools. TFA provides mentoring and technical
    assistance to all of its graduates during the first two years of
    teaching.

6.  In 2005-06, CSDE commissioned a study of 11 districts that compared
    the hiring, support and retention of teachers. This study will be
    expanded in 2006-07 to look at working conditions that lead to
    teachers leaving districts and, in some cases, the teaching
    profession.

*[Sub-Strategy 4: Professional Development]{.underline}*

NEED: to build the skills, knowledge, and qualification of teachers
already working in high-poverty, low-performing schools and districts.
CSDE will implement policies, programs and practices that address this
need. CSDE will biennially review program success and evaluate the
effectiveness of these strategies through both short-term and long-term
methods. The short-term method will be to collect and analyze data
regarding the number of experienced and highly qualified teachers
teaching within the urban districts, those serving primarily minority
students living within high-poverty settings. The long-term evaluation
methods that CSDE will use to determine program effectiveness include
the following: (1) improved student outcomes in urban districts and
those schools who have a preponderance of inexperienced teachers; and
(2) a newly designed state accountability model that integrates federal
NCLB and state requirements including the collection of rates of
attendance, suspension, expulsion, graduation and drop-out. Once this
data is collected, we will correlate the data collected on schools
identified with large number of inexperienced teachers with these
identified variables within the new accountability model.

1.  CSDE will provide a statewide professional development session
    focusing on how LEAs can increase the number of HQT in their
    districts. CSDE will work with each district not meeting the 96
    percent HQT goal to assist in achieving the 100 percent HQT force by
    the end of the 2006-07 year.

2.  In 2005-06, CSDE provided targeted technical assistance in the four
    largest urban districts to beginning teachers to improve their
    instructional effectiveness in language arts and mathematics. This
    assistance resulted not only in larger numbers of beginning teachers
    passing the induction portfolio, but also larger numbers of teachers
    scoring at the excellent level. In 2006-07, this technical
    assistance will continue and be expanded to include differentiated
    instruction for culturally diverse populations, non-English speaking
    students and students with disabilities.

3.  During the past year, CSDE has also been researching and working
    with an outside consultant to determine how minority boys learn and
    achieve. A statewide taskforce will be convened to expand the
    research and recommend strategies for effectively teaching minority
    boys who typically do not perform well on the Connecticut Mastery
    Test (CMT) and Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT).

4.  CSDE is currently seeking state support to provide mentorships for
    new teachers in our urban and priority school districts by hiring
    highly qualified retired teachers and higher education staff to
    provide in-class support.

5.  CSDE is currently seeking state support for the Department's school
    improvement initiative to have a highly qualified, experienced
    teacher provide job-embedded mentoring for teachers in high-need
    schools.

6.  CSDE will recruit experienced, urban teachers to participate in
    teacher leadership academies for elementary, special education,
    mathematics and science to build their capacity to mentor new
    teachers and implement research-based practices in the classroom.

7.  The "ED-Life Initiative" proposed a 2005-2006 budget request to pay
    an additional \$3,000 per year for two years to any teacher who took
    a hard-to-staff position in an urban district. This request was not
    funded by the legislature. CSDE will submit a similar budgetary
    proposal in 2006-2007 seeking support to provide incentive bonuses
    and local multi-year contracts for teachers in the state's urban and
    priority districts.

*[Sub-Strategy 5: Working Conditions]{.underline}*

NEED: to improve the working conditions in high-need schools. CSDE will
address the needs identified in the research study.

1.  In 2005-06, CSDE commissioned a study of 11 districts that compared
    the hiring, support and retention of teachers. This study will be
    expanded in 2006-07 to look at working conditions that lead to
    teachers leaving districts and, in some cases, the teaching
    profession.

2.  As a follow-up to the study, CSDE will work with urban districts to
    develop strategies that will improve working conditions, and support
    and retain teachers.

3.  CSDE will seek additional funding to remedy those working conditions
    that require additional resources.