Idaho State Department of Education

and Idaho State Board of Education

Revised State Plan for Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Goal

![](media/image1.png)

Submitted to the U. S. Department of Education

September 29, 2006

Revised and Submitted November 20, 2006

Table of Contents

**Introduction
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....3**

**Requirement 1
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...5**

**Requirement 2
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....28**

**Requirement 3
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....33**

**Requirement 4
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....42**

**Requirement 5
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....48**

**Requirement 6
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....50**

**Appendices
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....55**

Introduction

**Idaho has a long history of commitment to ensuring that its preK-12
students are taught by highly qualified teachers. Idaho Code
(**§**33-1201), enacted in 1963, requires that all teachers be certified
and endorsed in the areas they teach (See Appendix A). For school
districts to receive state funding for salaries, teachers must meet this
requirement.**

**In 1999, the Idaho State Board of Education established the Idaho's
MOST (Maximizing Opportunities for Students and Teachers) initiative to
address teacher quality issues. MOST developed performance-based
standards for the preparation of teachers and other professional school
personnel. Groups of content areas experts, including preK-12 teachers
and representatives from higher education, developed standards in the
state's certification and endorsement areas. *The Idaho Standards for
the Initial Certification of School Personnel* modeled after the INTASC
Standards with specific knowledge, disposition, and performance
indicators, were approved by the State Board of Education in 2000 and
the state legislature in 2001. State Board Rule (08.02.02.100.01)
establishes the standards, which are aligned with the Idaho K-12 Content
Standards, as the "vehicle" for the state approval of teacher
preparation programs.** **All new teachers, whether from Idaho
institutions or Idaho alternative routes, must meet these
requirements.**

**Idaho's Professional Standards Commission (PSC) is responsible for
revising 20 percent of the standards per year. The original standards
for teachers of NCLB core subjects were reviewed and revised by teams of
experts and then approved by the State Board of Education by 2005 and
state legislature by 2006. The current standards are found at:
<http://www.sde.state.id.us/>.**

**State Board rule, effective September 1, 2004, also requires new
teachers, teachers seeking additional certifications or endorsements,
teachers needing to reinstate expired Idaho certificates, and
out-of-state teachers to meet or exceed the qualifying score(s) on the
appropriate Praxis II assessment(s) or American Board for the
Certification of Teacher Excellence assessments. The Praxis II
requirements are found at: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>. ABCTE
information is posted at: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>**

**Additionally, to ensure that Idaho's alternative routes to
certification meet the same rigorous standards, the routes were
re-written, approved by the State Board of Education and legislature,
and became effective July 1, 2006. At that time emergency pathways to
the classroom (letters of authorization, consultant specialist, and
misassignments) expired. Individuals who are not appropriately certified
or endorsed for the areas they teach must apply for an alternative route
and meet the same rigorous standards and requirements as teachers in
traditional routes. Information on Idaho's alternative routes is found
at: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>**

Idaho is a geographically large, rural state with many of its school
districts and schools located in remote, isolated areas. Idaho has 120
school districts, six of which are charter districts. Forty-four of
Idaho's school districts have fewer than 500 students. The range of
student population in districts is between four and 29,939 students.
Forty-two percent of the districts qualify for eligibility under the
Small, Rural School Achievement Program in Title VI-B of No Child Left
Behind.

The state has made progress toward its goal of ensuring a highly
qualified teacher in every classroom. The following state plan presents
data from 2005-2006; outlines technical assistance, programs, and
services; and identifies next steps toward reaching the goal of 100%
highly qualified teachers in every classroom. The State Plan will be
reviewed and revised as appropriate from the results of the analysis of
2006-2007 data.

Data for 2005-2006 displayed in the Idaho State Plan is available on the
State Department of Education website:
[http://www.sde.state.id.us/]{.underline}

REQUIREMENT 1: DATA ANALYSIS

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Requirement 1: The revised plan must provide a detailed analysis of the
  core academic subject classes in the State that are currently *not*
  being taught by highly qualified teachers. The analysis must, in
  particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly
  progress and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do
  other schools in attracting highly qualified teachers. The analysis
  must also identify the districts and schools around the State where
  significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards, and examine
  whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently
  taught by non-highly qualified teachers.

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

**Historical Summary**

Idaho has long-standing procedures that assure that teachers are
qualified for the positions for which they are hired. Because of these
safeguards, schools have historically been required to staff with highly
qualified teachers. Idaho requirements, which predate NCLB, demonstrate
the stringent and rigorous steps that have prevented Idaho schools from
hiring or retaining non-qualified teachers. They include:

1.  Every teacher is reported yearly through the Idaho Basic Educational
    Data System (IBEDS) to the state for each class period to validate
    his/her teaching assignment during each period of the teaching day
    (See question below on pp. 6-7 for IBEDS timeline).

2.  The district is denied salary-based apportionment state funding for
    any teacher, or portion thereof, who does not meet state
    certification standards.

3.  Prior to July 1, 2006, any teacher employed under the Letter of
    Authorization (LOA) alternate route was presented as an individual
    to the State Board of Education for formal approval/disapproval on a
    yearly basis. Teachers approved to work under LOA status were
    required to be fully qualified within three years or further
    approval was denied.

Because funding was withheld, from districts for teachers not meeting
Idaho certification requirements, Idaho schools were discouraged from
employing non-qualified teachers on an on-going basis.

***Note: As of July 1, 2006, all former alternate avenues to teacher
certification or the classroom were discontinued, and revised alternate
routes to certification were put into place in State Board rule (See
Requirement 1, p. 15 and Requirement 2, p. 29).***

**Does the revised plan include an analysis of classes taught by
teachers who are not highly qualified? Is the analysis based on accurate
classroom level data?**

Yes. The Idaho Basic Educational Data System (IBEDS) is the vehicle
through which Idaho can analyze whether core academic subject classes
are taught by highly qualified teachers. IBEDS requires each
District/Charter Administrator to list each teacher for whom the
district is claiming reimbursement according to Idaho's statutory salary
apportionment schedule. School districts **must** report **every**
teacher through IBEDS by the classes they teach during each teaching
period of the day to be able to receive state reimbursement for teacher
salaries. This requirement was established in Idaho Code (§33-1201) in
1963 (See Appendix A). All of the data for 2005-2006 displayed in the
Idaho State Plan is available on the State Department of Education
website: [http://www.sde.state.id.us/]{.underline}

For state funding purposes, all teachers, pupil services, and
administrative positions (certificated) must hold the proper credentials
or proportionate state funding will be withheld from the
district/charter. A teacher is "misassigned" if he or she teaches
outside of his or her subject area and a commensurate salary
apportionment is withheld from the district or charter. Given the
financial implications of misassignment, the IBEDS data reports are
thoroughly reviewed by districts and by the State Department of
Education to ensure the accuracy of the data.

IBEDS data is collected in October of each school year, which means that
the 2005-2006 data was collected in October 2005. For the 2005-2006 data
collection, school districts reported **all** teachers, both new and
veteran, for every class they taught. At that time, veteran teachers had
not completed the HOUSSE process. Therefore, HOUSSE HQT data will be
reported in the 2006-2007 data that was collected in October 2006 and is
currently being analyzed for accuracy. For federal purposes, those
teachers teaching in the core subject areas as defined by NCLB will be
reported as not highly qualified if they do not hold the proper
certificates and/or endorsements in these subject matter areas or have
not passed the HOUSSE process by the July 1, 2006 deadline. Parents of
children taught by non-HQTs per federal definition are notified of that
fact.

The State Department of Education upgraded IBEDS for 2006-07 data
collection, aligning it more closely to NCLB requirements by
incorporating HOUSSE highly qualified teacher data. IBEDS now uses the
codes of the NCES *Federal School Codes for the Exchange of Data*
(SCED), which will better align Idaho teaching credentials and
endorsements to classes and grade levels taught.

To ease the transition to the upgraded system, all teachers were
required to complete HOUSSE before the July 1, 2006, deadline. The
HOUSSE process was revised in April 2006 to incorporate the changes or
revisions requested by the U.S. Department of Education in its March
2006 response to Idaho's Highly Qualified Teacher Monitoring Report (See
Appendix B: Idaho's HOUSSE). Veteran teachers who did not pass the
HOUSSE requirements by the deadline must meet or exceed the qualifying
scores on the State Board-approved Praxis II assessments for the core
content areas they teach. Teachers who do so will be considered HQ; if
not, the employing district must report them as non-HQT on IBEDS for
federal reporting purposes.

The IBEDS process allows the State Department of Education to analyze
which classes in schools or districts are being taught by non-highly
qualified teachers. Following is the timeline for the annual submissions
of district teaching data for the 2006-2007 school year:

-   District data on the number of core academic classes taught by
    highly qualified and non-highly qualified teachers is compiled as of
    the last Friday in September (September 29, 2006). This determines
    what data the district will enter into IBEDS.

-   Districts/charters must submit IBEDS data to the State Department of
    Education by October 15, 2006. District superintendents/charter
    administrators must submit signed verification of the data.

-   Between October 15 and November 15, 2006, the State Department of
    Education loads the IBEDS files into a centralized system and
    scrutinizes the data for completeness and reasonableness.

-   By November 15, 2006, preliminary IBEDS reports are provided to the
    districts/charters.

-   Between November 15 and December 15, 2006, districts have an
    opportunity to review and, if necessary, amend their data to ensure
    accuracy. Any major changes to the data require a special
    circumstance letter from the superintendent or charter administrator
    for changes to be considered.

-   By mid-January, 2006, the State Department of Education will analyze
    district data to determine whether state funds will be withheld from
    a district based on its identification of teachers not holding the
    proper credentials. If so, state funds will be withheld from the
    February 15, 2007 State Foundation Support Payment.

***Note: Because 2006-07 information from districts is not due until
mid-October, the information in this report is based on the 2005-06
data.***

Table 1 summarizes statewide data from the 2005-06 school year based on
state requirements (i.e., certification for specific subjects taught).
**All** K-12 teachers of core classes, except special education
teachers, are included in the data. However, the table does not report
HOUSSE data, which is currently being collected and analyzed for the
first time for the 2006-2007 school year. These data will be analyzed
and reported to the U.S. Department of Education and stakeholders in
January 2007, which was Idaho's understanding from the May 17, 2006,
telephone conference with the U.S. Department of Education. Tables 5 and
6 below provide data on special education teachers for the 2005-2006
school year. The IBEDS data system has been adjusted so that beginning
with the data collection for 2006-2007 districts will report on special
education teachers according to NCLB requirements.

**Table 1: Statewide HQT Data (2005-2006)**\*

  --------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  **Category**    **Total \# of core **Total \# of core **% of core
                  classes**          classes taught by  classes taught by
                                     non-HQT**          non-HQT**

  **All Schools   36,204             244                **0.67%**
  (Elementary and                                       
  Secondary)**                                          

                                                        

  **All           12,292             73                 **0.59%**
  Elementary                                            
  Schools**                                             

  **All Secondary 23,912             171                **0.72%**
  Schools**                                             

  **All High      5,034              34                 **0.68%**
  Poverty                                               
  Schools**                                             
  --------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

\* Table 1 does not include special education teachers. Refer to Tables
5 and 6 for special education data.

**Summary:** The statewide aggregate data for 2005-2006 demonstrate that
Idaho has made significant progress toward reaching the goal of 100%
highly qualified teachers in all core academic classes. However,
in-depth analysis (See Table 2) indicates the need for specific targeted
technical assistance for districts and schools not meeting adequate
yearly progress that have a percentage of non-highly qualified teachers
higher than the state average of 0.67%. Using the state average of 0.67%
for the data analysis is a sound statistical approach to data analysis.

**Action:** Because Idaho does not have an overall state non-HQT
problem, Idaho's plan is to provide targeted technical assistance to
districts and schools that have not met HQT and AYP requirements. (See
Requirement 3: Technical Assistance, Programs, and Services for
explanations of technical assistance, programs, and services.)

**Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of school that are not
making AYP? Do these schools have high percentages of classes taught by
teachers who are not highly qualified?**

The following table presents data on all schools that have non-HQTs and
have not met AYP requirements.

**Table 2: School Data (2005-2006) - All Idaho K-12 Schools**

Non- HQT and Non-AYP

+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Schools not making AYP** | **Total \# | **Total \#  | **% of core |
|                            | of core    | core of     | classes     |
| **with non-HQTs**          | classes    | classes     | taught by   |
|                            | taught**   | taught by   | non-HQT**   |
| **(School District)**      |            | non-HQT**   |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Idaho Leadership Academy   | 23         | 4           | 17.39%      |
| Charter School             |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Snake River)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Lindy Ross Elementary      | 12         | 2           | 16.67%      |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Clark)                    |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Riverside Alternative High | 8          | 1           | 12.50%      |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Boundary)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Idaho Distance Education   | 53         | 6           | 11.32%      |
| Academy Charter School     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Whitepine)                |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Sugar-Salem Junior High    | 32         | 3           | 9.38%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Sugar-Salem)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Middleton High School      | 183        | 14          | 7.65%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Middleton)                |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Challis Junior-Senior High | 66         | 5           | 7.58%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Challis)                  |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Bruneau Elementary School  | 14         | 1           | 7.14%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Bruneau)                  |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Hillcrest Elementary       | 37         | 2           | 5.41%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (American Falls)           |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Wilder Middle/High School  | 56         | 3           | 5.36%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Wilder)                   |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Hansen Junior Senior High  | 56         | 3           | 5.00%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Hansen)                   |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Cambridge Elementary       | 42         | 2           | 4.76%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Cambridge)                |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Bonners Ferry High School  | 118        | 5           | 4.24%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Boundary)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Bryan Elementary School    | 25         | 1           | 4.00%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Coeur d'Alene)            |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Farmin Stidwell            | 55         | 2           | 3.77%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Lake Pend Oreille)        |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| West Elementary School     | 28         | 1           | 3.57%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Mountain Home)            |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Grangeville                | 57         | 1           | 3.45%       |
| Elementary-Junior High     |            |             |             |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Grangeville)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Midway Middle School       | 194        | 6           | 3.09%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Jefferson)                |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+

+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Schools not making AYP** | **Total \# | **Total \#  | **% of core |
|                            | of core    | core of     | classes     |
| **with non-HQTs**          | classes    | classes     | taught by   |
|                            | taught**   | taught by   | non-HQT**   |
| **(School District)**      |            | non-HQT**   |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mountain Home High School  | 190        | 6           | 3.06%       |
| (Mountain Home)            |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Jefferson Middle School    | 214        | 6           | 2.80%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Caldwell)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Clair E. Gale Junior High  | 144        | 4           | 2.78%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Idaho Falls)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Shoshone Middle School     | 37         | 1           | 2.70%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Shoshone)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Central Elementary School  | 138        | 1           | 2.63%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Fremont County)           |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Syringa Middle School      | 197        | 5           | 2.54%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Caldwell)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Skyline High School        | 154        | 3           | 1.91%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Idaho Falls)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Nampa Senior High School   | 291        | 5           | 1.72%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Nampa)                    |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Parma Middle School        | 61         | 1           | 1.64%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Parma)                    |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| North Fremont              | 75         | 1           | 1.33%       |
| Junior-Senior High School  |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Fremont)                  |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Middleton Middle School    | 154        | 2           | 1.30%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Middleton)                |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Skyline Senior High School | 157        | 3           | 1.19%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Idaho Falls)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Idaho Falls Senior High    | 181        | 2           | 1.10%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Idaho Falls)              |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| South Fremont High School  | 111        | 1           | 0.90%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Fremont)                  |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mountain View High School  | 362        | 3           | 0.83%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Meridian)                 |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Skyview High School        | 369        | 3           | 0.81%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Nampa)                    |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Preston High School        | 137        | 1           | 0.73%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Preston)                  |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Emmett Junior High School  | 153        | 1           | 0.65%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Emmett)                   |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minico Senior High School  | 159        | 1           | 0.63%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Minico)                   |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| East Valley Middle School  | 191        | 1           | 0.52%       |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Nampa)                    |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rocky Mountain Middle      | 204        | 1           | 0.49%       |
| School                     |            |             |             |
|                            |            |             |             |
| (Bonneville)               |            |             |             |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------+

**Summary**: Data from 2005-2006 reveals that 39 schools of the 617
Idaho schools (6.32%) have a percentage of non-highly qualified teachers
above the state average of 0.67%, some with significantly higher
percentages. The chart also shows that four schools not making AYP are
below the state HQT average of 0.67. The data above demonstrate that
most of Idaho's schools (93.67% are making significant progress toward
meeting their objective of 100% HQTs, as indicated by the fact that
their percentage of non-HQTs is below the state average of 0.67%.

The two charter schools and one alternative school listed above have a
significantly high percentage of non-HQTs (Idaho Leadership Academy
Charter School, 17.39%; Riverside High School Alternative, 12.50%; and
Idaho Distance Education Academy Charter School, 11.32%). As shown in
Table 8, a total of ten charter and alternative schools have non-HQTs
above the state average of 0.67%.

Twenty of the 39 schools in Table 2 are in rural or extremely remote,
rural areas of the state, as reflected in the low total number of core
classes taught. These districts report challenges in recruiting and
retaining highly qualified teachers. Also it is important to note that
rural districts usually need teachers for only one or two classes, for
instance, music. It is challenging for them to find teachers who are
highly qualified in music as well as in another content area so that
they assign and utilize them effectively. Data also indicate that
several school districts (Idaho Falls, Boundary County, Nampa, Caldwell,
Middleton, and Fremont County) have more than one school with the
percent of core classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers above
the state average.

**Action:** The State Department of Education will provide targeted
technical assistance to the charter and alternative schools listed in
Table 2 as exceeding the state average for non-HQTs. This assistance
will focus on HQT federal and state requirements and the options and
strategies for ensuring their teachers meet them, and on a process to
determine these schools' specific needs. (See Requirement 3: Targeted
Technical Assistance: Education and Needs Assessment)

One available option in Idaho currently being used to address the HQ
needs of rural, remote districts is the through the distance learning
system established by the Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA). IDLA
provides districts the ability to have HQ teachers teach their students
via the IDLA on-line system for NCLB core classes.

Technical assistance will also focus on strategies and services to
assist the rural schools in recruiting and retaining HQ teachers for all
schools with non-HQTs above the state average. For instance, Idaho is
currently assisting twenty districts with recruitment through
Teachers-Teachers.com. The state is considering expanding this service.
(See Requirement 3: Technical Assistance, Programs, and Services.)

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

The following table provides aggregate state data on core content areas
and special education that are close to or above the state non-HQT
average of 0.67%.

Table 3: State Data (2005-2006) -- Groups of Non-HQ Teachers

  -------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Groups non-HQT     **Total \# of     **Total \# of     **% of core
  teachers**           core classes**    core classes      classes taught by
                                         taught by         non-HQT**
                                         non-HQT**         

  **Foreign Language** 1306              25                1.91%

  **English/Language   3925              48                1.22%
  Arts**                                                   

  **Reading**          688               8                 1.16%

  **Arts (Drama,       2779              25                0.90%
  Music, Visual Art)**                                     

  **Mathematics**      4930              29                .59%

  **Science**          4244              25                .59%
  -------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

**Summary:** Table 3 shows that statewide the NCLB core content areas of
foreign language, English/language arts, reading, and the arts statewide
have the highest percentage of non-HQTs. This is not the case with
either math or science, with aggregate data below the state average of
0.67%.

However, Table 4 presents district data on science and math that
indicate certain districts have non-HQTs above the state average. Table
4 presents disaggregated data by district in the core content areas of
foreign languages, English/language arts, reading, arts, science, and
math areas that have non-HQ teachers above the state average (0.67%).

**Table 4: District Data (2005-2006) -- Classes Taught by non-HQ
Teachers Greater Than State Average (0.67%)**

+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Dist  | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **AYP |
| ricts** | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    | Met-- |
|         | fo    | En    | re    | arts  | sc    | math  | Y/N** |
|         | reign | glish | ading | cl    | ience | cl    |       |
|         | lan   | lan   | cl    | asses | cl    | asses |       |
|         | guage | guage | asses | t     | asses | t     |       |
|         | cl    | arts  | t     | aught | t     | aught |       |
|         | asses | cl    | aught | by    | aught | by    |       |
|         | t     | asses | by    | non-  | by    | non-  |       |
|         | aught | t     | non-  | HQT** | non-  | HQT** |       |
|         | by    | aught | HQT** |       | HQT** |       |       |
|         | non-  | by    |       |       |       |       |       |
|         | HQT** | non-  |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | HQT** |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Bon     |       |       |       | 4.5%  |       |       | N     |
| neville |       |       |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       | 4/88) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| B       |       | 2.70% | 28.5% |       | 16.7% |       | Y     |
| oundary |       | (     | (     |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 1/37) | 4/14) |       | (     |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 7/42) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| C       |       | 10.6% |       |       |       | 1.98% | N     |
| aldwell |       | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 9/85) |       |       |       | (2    |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | /101) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Ca      | 50%   |       |       | 40%   |       |       | N     |
| mbridge | (1/2) |       |       | (2/5) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Challis |       |       |       |       |       | 25%   | N     |
|         |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | 5/20) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Coeur   | 8.53% |       |       |       | 3.39% |       | Y     |
| d'Alene | (     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         | 7/82) |       |       |       | (6    |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | /177) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Compass |       |       | 50%   |       |       |       | N     |
| Charter |       |       | (1/2) |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Emmett  |       |       |       |       |       | 1.51% | Y     |
|         |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | (     |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | 1/66) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Fremont |       |       |       | 2.70% | 2.5%  |       | N     |
|         |       |       |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       | 1/37) | (     |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 1/40) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Gooding |       | 6.66% |       |       |       |       | Y     |
|         |       | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 2/30) |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Gran    |       |       |       | 23.8% |       |       | N     |
| geville |       |       |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       | 5/21) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Dist  | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **%   | **AYP |
| ricts** | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    | Met-- |
|         | fo    | En    | re    | arts  | sc    | math  | Y/N** |
|         | reign | glish | ading | cl    | ience | cl    |       |
|         | lan   | lan   | cl    | asses | cl    | asses |       |
|         | guage | guage | asses | t     | asses | t     |       |
|         | cl    | arts  | t     | aught | t     | aught |       |
|         | asses | cl    | aught | by    | aught | by    |       |
|         | t     | asses | by    | non-  | by    | non-  |       |
|         | aught | t     | non-  | HQT** | non-  | HQT** |       |
|         | by    | aught | HQT** |       | HQT** |       |       |
|         | non-  | by    |       |       |       |       |       |
|         | HQT** | non-  |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | HQT** |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Hansen  | 50%   | 10.0% |       |       |       |       | N     |
|         | (2/4) | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 1/10) |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Idaho   | 2.3%  | 6.81% |       |       | 1.3%  |       | N     |
| Falls   | (3    | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         | /129) | 3/44) |       |       | (2    |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | /154) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Idaho   | 50%   |       |       |       |       |       | Y     |
| Virtual | (1/2) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Charter |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Je      |       | 16.3% |       |       | 4.25% | 7.5%  | N     |
| fferson |       | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 8/49) |       |       | (     | (     |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 2/47) | 6/80) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Lake    |       |       |       |       |       | 5.67% | Y     |
| Pend    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Oreille |       |       |       |       |       | (6    |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | /106) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Liberty |       | 25.0% |       |       |       |       | N     |
| Charter |       | (2/8) |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| M       |       | 10%   |       |       |       |       | Y     |
| cCall-D |       | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
| onnelly |       | 2/20) |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| M       | 1.03% |       |       |       |       |       | Y     |
| eridian | (2    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         | /193) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mi      |       | 22%   |       | 6.0%  | 1.96% |       | N     |
| ddleton |       | (1    |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       | 1/50) |       | 2/33) | (     |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 1/51) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| M       |       |       |       | 3.12% |       |       | N     |
| inidoka |       |       |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       | 1/32) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| M       |       |       |       |       | 7.89% |       | N     |
| ountain |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Home    |       |       |       |       | (     |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 7/76) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mullan  |       |       |       | 50%   |       |       | Y     |
|         |       |       |       | (1/2) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nampa   | 1.07% | 5.56% | 30.4% | 3.84% |       |       | N     |
|         | (2    | (     | (     | (5    |       |       |       |
|         | /187) | 1/18) | 7/23) | /130) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Parma   |       |       |       | 5.26% |       |       | N     |
|         |       |       |       | (     |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       | 1/19) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Preston |       |       |       |       |       | 2.4%  | N     |
|         |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | (     |       |
|         |       |       |       |       |       | 1/41) |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| S       |       |       |       | 14.3% |       |       | N     |
| hoshone |       |       |       | (1/7) |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Snake   |       | 3.70% | 8.33% |       |       |       | N     |
| River   |       | (     | (     |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 1/27) | 2/24) |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Suga    |       |       |       |       | 13%   |       | N     |
| r-Salem |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       |       |       |       | 3/23) |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Victory | 33.3% |       |       |       |       |       | Y     |
| Charter | (1/3) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| West    |       |       | 22.2% |       |       |       | N     |
| Je      |       |       | (2/9) |       |       |       |       |
| fferson |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Wh      |       | 22.2% |       |       |       |       | Y     |
| itepine |       | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
|         |       | 4/18) |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Wilder  | 50%   |       |       |       |       |       | N     |
|         | (3/6) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Table 5 provides aggregate data on the number of non-HQ special
education teachers in the state.

Table 5: Data (2005-2006) -- Non-HQ Special Education Teachers

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Special         **Total \# of     **Total \#        **% of non-HQT
  education**       special education non-HQT special   special education
                    teachers**        education         teachers**
                                      teachers**        

  **Special         1467              116               7.90%
  education                                             
  teachers**                                            
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Table 6 presents district data from 2005-2006 on the number of non-HQ
special education teachers who were on Letters of Authorization or who
were designated as Consultant Specialists. These two state pathways to
teacher certification expired as of July 1, 2006. Further explanation is
found below in the summary.

Table 6: District Data (2005-2006) -- Non-HQT Special Education Teacher
Totals

  ------------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------
  **District**             **Total \# of special     **% of non-HQT
                           education teachers**      special education
                                                     teachers**

  Basin                    2                         50.0%

  Gooding                  7                         42.8%

  West Jefferson           3                         33.3%

  Hansen                   3                         33.3%

  Weiser                   7                         28.6%

  Firth                    4                         25.0%

  Challis                  4                         25.0%

  Glenns Ferry             4                         25.0%

  Oneida                   4                         25.0%

  Wendell                  6                         16.7%

  Emmett                   17                        11.8%

  Vallivue                 30                        10.0%

  Twin Falls               37                        5.41%

  Minidoka                 22                        4.55%

  Meridian                 164                       4.26%

  Nampa                    75                        4.00%

  Blackfoot                27                        3.70%

  Mountain Home            27                        3.70%

  Idaho Falls              55                        3.34%

  Cassia                   30                        3.33%

  Caldwell                 32                        2.86%

  Bonneville               37                        2.70%

  Coeur d'Alene            53                        1.89%

  Boise                    168                       1.79%
  ------------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------

**Summary:** Tables 3 and 5 present aggregate data from 2005-2006 on
seven groups of teachers of specific areas (foreign language,
English/language arts, reading, the arts, science, mathematics, and
special education) that are above the state average of 0.67% for
non-HQTs. Of these, the most significant number of non-HQTs is in
special education, with 66 individuals on Letters of Authorization,
which required them to develop and adhere to specific plans for seeking
certification, and 50 as Consultant Specialists, an emergency pathway to
the classroom that did not require a plan for certification. Both of
these pathways were eliminated from State Board rule as of July 1, 2006.
School districts have challenges retaining teachers in special education
classrooms because these teachers, who often have dual special
education-elementary certification, choose to teach at the elementary
level.

Since elimination of the Letters of Authorization and Consultant
Specialists categories, all non-HQTs must apply for and be accepted into
one of the alternative routes to certification and be working toward
meeting HQT and state requirements. Otherwise, their districts will lose
state funding. The individuals in alternative routes will not be
reported as HQT for NCLB until they have met/exceeded the scores on the
appropriate State Board of Education-approved assessments (Praxis II or
ABCTE). Please refer to the description of Idaho's alternative routes
under Requirement 2 below or in Appendix A. Information is also posted
at:<http://www.sde.state.id.us/>

Table 4 presents data on the areas in which there are non-HQTs. In
addition to the other core content areas, mathematics and the sciences
are areas in which there are percentages of non-HQ teachers above the
state average, most often in rural, remote districts that are challenged
by recruitment and retention. The rural nature of the state challenges
districts with recruitment and retention for all content areas and
levels. For example, a rural district finds it difficult to find a
teacher who is qualified to teach more than one of the sciences, such as
biology, chemistry, and physics. Rural districts usually have only one
class in each of these science content areas.

Table 4 also reveals that specific charter school districts (Compass,
Idaho Virtual, Liberty, and Victory) have significantly higher
percentages of non-HQ teachers compared to other districts. Although the
number of core classes taught is lower than in other "traditional"
districts, the data indicate the need for focused technical assistance
to assist these charter districts in understanding NCLB and state highly
qualified teacher requirements and the options to ensuring HQT, and to
address their particular non-HQT issues.

Of the 27 districts listed in Table 4, 17 are small and rural with
several being remotely located.

The aggregate data in Table 3 reveals that the percentage of non-HQ
special education teachers is significantly higher than the other areas
listed. Table 5 reveals that specific districts are having difficulty
hiring/retaining HQ special education teachers. For example, Nampa
School District has non-HQTs special education as well as in four NCLB
core content areas listed.

Table 6 presents data the percentage of non-HQ special education
teachers at the district level. It is important to keep in mind that
some of the districts with significantly high percentages are in rural
areas and, therefore, may only have two or three special education
teachers. For instance, Basin School District has only two schools, an
elementary school and a high school.

**Action:** As the state's capacity to annually analyze student
achievement, AYP information, and HQ data increases, the State
Department of Education is piloting a new approach to monitoring (See to
Table 9: Coordinated Monitoring Schedule under Requirement 4). The
Department will conduct joint focused reviews of twelve school districts
struggling to meet the needs of diverse learners. Three of the districts
have also been identified for non-HQ status: Nampa, Caldwell, and
Fremont. In addition to reviewing their Title II information, the
Department will review all of their federal program efforts
(Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, Migrant,
Special Education, etc.). At least one day of the review will be spent
observing classrooms serving at-risk populations. Review documents are
currently being developed by the State Department of Education Title and
Special Education staff. The first joint focused review is scheduled for
late October 2006. The outcome of the focused reviews will be the
development and state approval of a district/Continuous Improvement Plan
with identified areas for improvement, actions, timelines and expected
outcomes.

The State Department of Education is currently providing technical
assistance to districts with non-HQTs to assist them with recruitment
and retention of HQTs as well as to inform them of the alternative
certification options. Focused technical assistance will continue to
address the challenges districts face in ensuring HQ special education
teachers for Idaho's classrooms through retention strategies, such as
Teachers-Teacher.com. (See Requirement 3: Technical Assistance,
Programs, and Services for further details for a description of options
that might apply to district and schools needs.)

The State Department of Education is currently working with districts to
assist them with the recruitment and retention of special education
teachers. This is discussed in detail under Requirement 3.

Although IBEDS collects data on every teacher in every school in every
district, it does not currently allow for extracting and reporting data
on multi-subjects teachers in rural schools. The state will revise its
data reporting system (IBEDS) to collect this data beginning with the
2007-2008 school year data collection.

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

Districts and schools that have non-HQTs above the state average of
0.67%, and, therefore, have not met their annual measurable objective of
100% highly qualified teachers, are reflected in the following tables,
first by district and then by school. The tables also list whether the
districts/schools have met AYP requirements, whether they are high
poverty, and their minority percentages. Poverty is identified as free
and reduced lunch. Highlighted districts are a subset of the districts
(42.1%) that are eligible for the Small, Rural School Achievement
Program, based on free and reduced lunch (see Appendix C).

**Table 7: District Non-HQT Data (2005-2006) Greater Than State Average
(0.67%) \***

  ------------------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------- --------------
  **School            **AYP**   **Total \#  **Total \#  **% of core **% of      **Minority    **Total
  Districts**                   of core     of core     classes     Poverty**   (non-white)   Student
                                classes**   classes     taught by               %**           Population**
                                            taught by   non-HQT**                             
                                            non-HQT**                                         

  Hansen              No        90          7           7.78%       52%         29.8%         406

  Castleford          Yes       62          4           6.48%       49%         22.95%        305

  Cambridge           Yes       81          5           6.17%       42%         0.60%         167

  Whitepine           Yes       106         6           5.66%       44%         4.33%         288

  Challis Joint       No        95          5           5.26%       37%         9.15%         448

  Mullan              Yes       37          2           4.88%       39%         1.59%         126

  Middleton           No        417         19          4.56%       37%         9.14%         2810

  Bruneau-Grandview   No        92          4           4.35%       47%         30.85%        448

  Boundary            Yes       281         12          4.27%       49%         8.32%         1598

  Clark               No        47          2           4.26%       62%         41.42%        234

  Wilder              No        80          3           3.75%       61%         77.75%        472

  Victory Charter     Yes       28          1           3.57%       35%         10.61%        264

  Jefferson           No        518         18          3.47%       40%         13.96%        4124

  Liberty Charter     Yes       62          2           3.29%       24%         13.02%        407

  Rolling Hills       Yes       31          1           3.23%       33%         6.58%         228
  Public Charter                                                                              

  Compass Charter     Yes       35          1           2.86%       17%         5.13%         234

  Grangeville         No        261         6           2.30%       46%         6.94%         1343

  Shoshone            No        108         2           1.85%       46%         37.79%        569

  Nampa               No        1686        27          1.60%       40%         29.37%        13,573

  West Jefferson      No        126         2           1.59%       39%         24.77%        666
  ------------------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------- --------------

  ------------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------- --------------
  **School      **AYP**   **Total \#  **Total \#  **% of core **% of      **Minority    **Total
  Districts**             of core     of core     classes     Poverty**   (non-white)   Student
                          classes**   classes     taught by               %**           Population**
                                      taught by   non-HQT**                             
                                      non-HQT**                                         

  Coeur d'Alene Yes       1513        12          1.51%       33%         5.31%         9958

  Caldwell      No        862         11          1.28%       55%         52.4%         6053

  Idaho Virtual Yes       89          1           1.12%                   4.64%         1766
  Academy                                                                               

  Moscow        Yes       388         4           1.03%       21%         10.01%        2434

  Gooding       No        222         2           0.90%       46%         26.77%        1345

  Fremont       No        362         3           0.83%       42%         18.54%        2361

  Idaho Falls   No        1146        9           .79%        26%         16.46%        10,198

  Bonneville    No        1197        9           0.75%       28%         11.39%        8384

  American      No        281         2           0.71%       49%         41.35%        1574
  Falls                                                                                 
  ------------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------- --------------

**\*** Table 7 does not include special education teachers. See Tables 5
and 6 for data.

**Summary:** Many of the 28 districts listed in Table 6 (highlighted)
that have percentages of non-HQTs above the state average, and,
therefore, have not met 100% HQT, are in rural, possibly remote, areas
of the state. For instance, in a rural, small district, it is a
challenge to find a HQ teacher if the core content area classes are not
a full teaching load. Rural districts may find it very difficult to find
someone qualified to teach in all the areas for which the district needs
the teacher.

**Action:** An explanation of the technical assistance provided by the
SDE for all districts is detailed under Requirement 3: Technical
Assistance, Programs and Services. For example, in both Wilder and
Caldwell, steps are in place to address both their AYP and HQT status.
Specifically, Wilder has been invited to apply for a Reading First
Grant. The Idaho Reading First program is hosting a grant writer's
workshop on October 3, 2006. It is the State Department of Education's
goal to have the additional funds received from Reading First used by
Wilder to recruit more teachers that meet HQT criteria. It will also
give the State Department of Education the opportunity to provide
research based professional development to Wilder's kindergarten-third
grade staff.

A different process is being implemented for Caldwell. The Department's
special education and title programs will conduct a joint review of all
Caldwell's federal programs. HQT and Title II will be part of the
review. The goal of the joint review is to provide specific guidance
regarding systemic issues.

Other technical assistance will focus on specific district needs.
Identified needs will be determined district by district so that
technical assistance can be planned to meet those needs.

Table 8 presents data on schools statewide with percentages of
non-highly qualified teachers greater than the state average.
Highlighted schools meet the eligibility for the Small, Rural school
Achievement Program.

[Note]{.underline}: Idaho has a Charter School Commission that approves
charter schools that are not associated with specific school districts.
That is why several districts have similar or identical listings as
their schools.

**Table 8: School Non-HQT Data (2005-2006)\***

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Gooding   | Yes    | 10     | 2      | 20.0%  | 75%    | 30.65% |
| Ac        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| celerated |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Learning  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Center    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Charter   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Gooding) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Lindy     | No     | 12     | 2      | 16.67% | 80%    | 42.11% |
| Ross      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Clark)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grand     | Yes    | 20     | 3      | 15.00% | 65%    | 25.68% |
| View      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Bruneau-G |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| randview) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hansen    | Yes    | 30     | 4      | 13.33% | 76%    | 31.17% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Hansen)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Riverside | No     | 8      | 1      | 12.50% | 83%    | 15.15% |
| Al        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ternative |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Boundary) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Su        | No     | 32     | 3      | 9.38%  | 36%    | 11.27% |
| gar-Salem |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Junior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Sug      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ar-Salem) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| South     | Yes    | 185    | 5      | 2.70%  | 50%    | 29.86% |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Nampa)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Moscow    | Yes    | 37     | 3      | 8.11%  | 35%    | 4.51%  |
| Charter   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Moscow)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Skyline   | No     | 154    | 3      | 1.91%  |        | 17.64% |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Idaho    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| John      | Yes    | 13     | 1      | 7.69%  | 28%    | 1.69%  |
| Mullan    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Mullan)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Cambridge | Yes    | 39     | 3      | 7.69%  | 53%    | 1.23%  |
| Juni      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| or-Senior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (C        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ambridge) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Challis   | No     | 66     | 5      | 7.58%  | 35%    | 8.48%  |
| Juni      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| or-Senior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Challis) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Bruneau   | No     | 14     | 1      | 7.14%  | 75%    | 42.62% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Bruneau-G |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| randview) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Driggs    | Yes    | 14     | 1      | 7.14%  | 50%    | 24.5%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Teton)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Borah     | Yes    | 31     | 2      | 6.45%  | 63%    | 10.87% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hillcrest | No     | 37     | 2      | 5.41%  | 68%    | 40.56% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (American |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Wilder    | No     | 56     | 3      | 5.36%  | 95%    | 81.59% |
| Mi        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ddle/High |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Wilder)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Gr        | Yes    | 75     | 4      | 5.33%  | 21%    | 8.13%  |
| angeville |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Gra      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ngeville) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Sunrise   | Yes    | 39     | 2      | 5.13%  | 52%    | 15.16% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Shelley) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hansen    | No     | 60     | 3      | 5.00%  | 48%    | 28.0%  |
| Junior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Senior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Hansen)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Cambridge | No     | 42     | 2      | 4.76%  | 59%    | 0.00%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (C        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ambridge) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Purple    | Yes    | 22     | 1      | 4.55%  | 43%    | 11.19% |
| Sage      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (M        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| iddleton) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Dalton    | Yes    | 22     | 1      | 4.55%  | 21%    | 9.41%  |
| Gardens   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| North     | Yes    | 49     | 2      | 4.08%  | 0%     | 8.59%  |
| Star      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Public    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Charter   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Meridian) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Bryan     | No     | 25     | 1      | 4.00%  | 54%    | 6.4%   |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Ramsey    | Yes    | 26     | 1      | 3.85%  | 50%    | 7.32%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Clair E.  | No     | 53     | 2      | 3.77%  | 47%    | 16.64% |
| Gale      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Junior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Idaho    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| West      | No     | 28     | 1      | 3.57%  | 65%    | 38.88% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Mountain |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Home)     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Lena      | Yes    | 28     | 1      | 3.57%  | 29%    | 11.15% |
| Whitmore  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Moscow)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mullan    | Yes    | 28     | 1      | 3.57%  | 22%    | 1.49%  |
| Juni      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| or-Senior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Mullan)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Gr        | No     | 57     | 1      | 1.75%  | 39%    | 4.87%  |
| angeville |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Elementa  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ry-Junior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Gra      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ngeville) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Midway    | Yes    | 29     | 1      | 3.45%  | 50%    | 8.78%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (J        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| efferson) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Atlas     | Yes    | 29     | 1      | 3.45%  | 53%    | 4.31%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mountain  | Yes    | 30     | 1      | 3.33%  | 71%    | 36.24% |
| View      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Cassia)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Orofino   | Yes    | 31     | 1      | 3.23%  | 58%    | 9.69%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Orofino) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Liberty   | Yes    | 62     | 2      | 3.20%  | 8%     | 13.02% |
| Charter   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Liberty) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Terreton  | Yes    | 64     | 2      | 3.13%  | 62%    | 29.06% |
| Elementa  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ry-Junior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (West     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| J         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| efferson) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Midway    | No     | 194    | 6      | 3.09%  | 50%    | 14.05% |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (J        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| efferson) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Skyway    | Yes    | 33     | 1      | 3.03%  | 40%    | 6.69%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Fernan    | Yes    | 34     | 1      | 2.94%  | 51%    | 5.65%  |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Compass   | Yes    | 35     | 1      | 2.86%  | 5%     | 5.13%  |
| Public    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Charter   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Compass) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Skyline   | No     | 144    | 4      | 2.78%  | 23%    | 17.64% |
| Senior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Idaho    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Central   | No     | 138    | 1      | 2.63%  | 66%    | 26.36% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Fremont) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Canfield  | Yes    | 192    | 5      | 2.60%  | 28%    | 5.22%  |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Coeur    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| d'Alene)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Lincoln   | Yes    | 39     | 1      | 2.56%  | 74%    | 24.84% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Twin     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Syringa   | No     | 197    | 5      | 2.54%  | 77%    | 57.96% |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Caldwell) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Shoshone  | Yes    | 40     | 1      | 2.50%  | 61%    | 30.82% |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Shoshone) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Pioneer   | Yes    | 47     | 1      | 2.13%  | 8%     | 27.44% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Meridian) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Highland  | Yes    | 48     | 1      | 2.08%  | 47%    | 8.25%  |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Highland) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kimberly  | Yes    | 48     | 1      | 2.08%  | 48%    | 11.32% |
| E         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lementary |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Kimberly) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Sandpoint | Yes    | 293    | 6      | 2.05%  | 25%    | 3.26%  |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Lake     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Pend      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Oreille)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Nampa     | No     | 291    | 5      | 1.72%  | 52%    | 31.86% |
| Senior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Nampa)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Parma     | No     | 61     | 1      | 1.64%  | 71%    | 33.09% |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Parma)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| North     | No     | 75     | 1      | 1.33%  | 48%    | 13.4%  |
| Fremont   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Juni      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| or-Senior |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Fremont) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Middleton | No     | 154    | 2      | 1.30%  | 47%    | 9.04%  |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (M        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| iddleton) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Idaho     | No     | 157    | 3      | 1.19%  | 14%    | 8.94%  |
| Falls     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Senior    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Idaho    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Falls)    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Bonners   | No     | 181    | 2      | 1.10%  | 39%    | 8.02%  |
| Ferry     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Boundary) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mc        | Yes    | 48     | 1      | 2.08%  | 15%    | 6.49%  |
| Call      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| -Donnelly |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (McCall-  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Donnelly) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| South     | No     | 111    | 1      | 0.90%  | 39%    | 15.88% |
| Fremont   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Fremont) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mountain  | No     | 362    | 3      | 0.83%  | 18%    | 7.41%  |
| View High |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Meridian) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Skyview   | No     | 369    | 3      | 0.81%  | 41%    | 24.82% |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Nampa)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **        | *      | *      | *      | **% of | **%    | **Mi   |
| Schools** | *AYP** | *Total | *Total | core   | High   | nority |
|           |        | \# of  | \# of  | c      | Pov    | (      |
| **(Dis    |        | core   | core   | lasses | erty** | non-wh |
| tricts)** |        | cla    | c      | taught |        | ite)** |
|           |        | sses** | lasses | by     |        |        |
|           |        |        | taught | non    |        | **%**  |
|           |        |        | by     | -HQT** |        |        |
|           |        |        | non    |        |        |        |
|           |        |        | -HQT** |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Preston   | No     | 137    | 1      | 0.73%  | 52%    | 6.63%  |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Preston) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Eagle     | Yes    | 291    | 2      | 0.69%  | 13%    | 6.82%  |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Meridian) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Emmett    | No     | 153    | 1      | 0.65%  | 34%    | 17.64% |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Emmett)  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Minico    | No     | 159    | 1      | 0.63%  | 47%    |        |
| High      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Minidoka) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| East      | No     | 191    | 1      | 0.52%  | 52%    | 30.85% |
| Valley    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Nampa)   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Rocky     | No     | 204    | 1      | 0.49%  | 50%    | 18.39% |
| Mountain  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Middle    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| School    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (Bo       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| nneville) |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> \*Table 7 does not include special education teachers, See Tables 5
> and 6 for data.

**Summary:** Sixteen of the schools (highlighted) in Table 7 are
considered rural. These and other schools are located in rural, possibly
remote, areas in the state, a factor that influences a school's ability
to recruit and retain HQ teachers. Veteran teachers often are lured away
to larger districts. The state does not have a statewide salary
schedule, only a state mandated beginning teacher salary that can be
higher if a district chooses. Each district negotiates salary with its
local teacher education association on a yearly basis. These factors
greatly influence a school's ability to recruit and retain HQ teachers,
especially if the core content area classes may not be a full load for a
teacher, such as when a school has only one or two music classes. Rural
schools find it very difficult to find someone qualified in music who is
willing to teach only one or two classes per day. And schools find it
challenging to find teachers who are highly qualified in more than one
core content area.

Thirty-five of the schools in Table 7 have met AYP requirements but have
teachers of core classes who are not highly qualified. Of these
thirty-five, five (14.3%) are either charter or alternative schools.

**Action:** Technical assistance will focus on the specific needs and
challenges these schools face. Schools will be involved with the State
Department of Education in determining their needs. Technical assistance
will be provided to charter and alternative schools to assist them in
understanding the requirements of NCLB and the state, implementing the
appropriate options to ensure teachers are highly qualified, and
addressing their specific non-HQT needs. (See Requirement 3: Technical
Assistance, Programs, and Services.)

One technical assistance service option for schools, especially those
that are rural, is for them to work with the Idaho Digital Learning
Academy (IDLA), which provides classes taught on-line by HQTs.

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

Table 3 identifies core content areas that are frequently taught by
non-HQ teachers. The state data system (IBEDS) is being upgraded again
to allow extraction of data. Districts' reporting of the course-specific
data will begin in September of 2007 for data collection for the
2007-2008 school year. For the 2006-2007 school year, IBEDS, using the
SCED structure referred to earlier, will begin collecting aggregate data
on the course description and course level components of that structure.
Idaho has built into its IBEDS file formats space to collect the
remaining "available credit" and "sequence" components of the SCED
schema. By adopting the SCED coding, the IBEDS system will be enhanced
to crosswalk classes taught to the qualifications of certificated staff.

**REQUIREMENT 2: HQT STATUS**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Requirement 2: The revised plan must provide information on HQT status
  in each LEA and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has
  plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to
  attain HQT status as quickly as possible.

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

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

Yes. Table 6 above provides detailed information about districts and
Table 7 about schools that have not met their annual objective of 100%
HQT, according to the 2005-2006 IBEDS data. Based on IBEDS data, Idaho
will target districts and schools not meeting HQT and will provide
individualized technical assistance and professional development to
address their specific needs.

-   Each fall, data on the percentage of classes not taught by highly
    qualified teachers at all grade levels, and disaggregated data by
    high- and low-poverty schools, are reported to the public, as part
    of the Annual State Report Card required by the NCLB act in
    accordance with its highly qualified teacher definition.

-   The 2005-2006 IBEDS data does not include HOUSSE data. Districts
    will incorporate HOUSSE data into their 2006 IBEDS reports that are
    due September 29, 2006. The data will be analyzed in December 2006
    and any changes/adjustments to the state plan will be reported to
    the U.S. Department of Education in January 2007.

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

Yes. The State Department of Education will withhold state funds from
districts that have employed non-HQTs, funds that would be used to pay
these teachers' salaries. The State Department of Education's decision
is based on the current year's IBEDS data; withholdings, which occur in
January, are based on the teachers' salaries. This withholding
requirement is in Idaho Code §33-513 (See Appendix A).

All schools must notify parents that their children are being taught by
any non-HQTs. This notification can occur at any time during the school
year. Verification of parental notification is sent to the State
Department of Education.

The state of Idaho has designated three options to assist districts and
schools in meeting their objective of 100% HQT.

**Continuous Improvement Planning (CIP) Process**

-   The State Department of Education fully implemented the rigorous
    Idaho CIP process for school district reporting in fall of 2006.
    School districts are required annually to report to the State
    Department of Education in their CIPs on their progress toward the
    goal of 100% highly qualified teachers. If the state finds districts
    that have a disproportionately high number or percentage of classes
    taught by teachers not meeting the state and/or NCLB highly
    qualified provisions, the state will require districts to develop
    specific, detailed plans, using a variety of suggested state
    strategies, to indicate how they will reach this goal. These plan
    are submitted and approved by the Department. (See to Appendix D and
    E).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In their plans, districts must explain how they:

    -   Provide for instruction by highly qualified professional staff;

    -   Offer intensive and sustained professional development that
        supports NCLB HQT requirements and the needs of the district and
        students; and

    -   Include teachers in decisions regarding the use of assessments
        in order to provide information on student performance and on
        how to improve both students' performance and the overall
        instructional program.

-   Refer to Appendices A and B for district and school quality
    indicators**,** which are the defining statements for each of
    Idaho's accreditation standards that districts and schools must
    meet. Standards 2 and 5 have specific requirements for highly
    qualified teachers and professional development.

-   Districts are able to update their data as they make progress toward
    their CIP goals.

-   Information on CIP is posted at:
    <http://www.sde.idaho.gov/accreditation/>

-   Also refer to Appendix F for the State Board Rule governing
    accreditation (IDAPA 08.02.01.140: Accreditation).

**Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification**

-   If districts have any classes (NCLB core or others) taught by
    non-highly qualified teachers, they must make sure that these
    teachers apply for and are accepted into one of Idaho's alternative
    routes or into American Board for the Certification of Teacher
    Excellence (ABCTE). They must also ensure that teachers complete the
    requirements within the specified timeline for the non-renewable
    alternative routes or ABCTE. If districts do not take this step,
    state funds will be withheld from districts. (See State Funding
    below for explanation of Idaho Code §33-513).

-   The state implemented two new alternative routes to certification on
    July 1, 2006 to ensure that unqualified teachers attain highly
    qualified status and full state certification as soon as
    possible: 1) Content Specialist to Teacher and 2) Teacher to New
    Certification. Teachers in these alternative routes will not be
    considered highly qualified for NCLB until they meet or exceed the
    State Board-approved qualifying score(s) on the appropriate Praxis
    II assessment required for full state certification. The timeline
    for completion of the routes is three years. Information on the
    alternative routes is posted at: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>

-   A third route, also implemented as of July 1, 2006, is designed for
    para-educators who want to become teachers. The Para-educator to
    Teacher route requires candidates to earn a bachelor's degree,
    complete a teacher preparation program, and meet or exceed the State
    Board-approved qualifying score(s) on the appropriate Praxis II
    assessments for full state certification. Some course work may be
    waived if candidates have the equivalent knowledge and skills and
    relevant work/life experiences, thus expediting the process.

-   These three alternative routes require: 1) ongoing preparation
    through coursework in needed content and pedagogy; 2) mentoring; 3)
    completion within a specific time period (three years for Content
    Specialist to Teacher and Teacher to New Certification and five
    years for Para-educator to Teacher); 4) successfully completing
    annual requirements; 5) meeting the Idaho Standards for Initial
    Certification and Professional School Personnel for their subject
    areas; and 6) meeting or exceeding the State Board-approved
    qualifying scores on the required Praxis II assessments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In November 2003, the State Board of Education approved a rule to
    allow for a computer-based alternative route to teacher
    certification, with the American Board for the Certification of
    Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) route as currently the only such route.
    The rule was amended on March 12, 2004, to include a required
    two-year mentoring program approved by the State Board. The state
    legislature approved the rule in April 2005. Once individuals have
    received ABCTE Certification, they apply for a three-year,
    non-renewable Idaho Interim Certificate that allows them time to
    meet Idaho requirements for full certification. These requirements
    include the Idaho Technology Competency Assessment and the Idaho
    Comprehensive Literacy Course/Assessment (the latter required for
    elementary teachers). The ABCTE assessments are the State
    Board-approved tests for this pathway to teaching.

**Out-of-State Teachers**

-   Idaho accepts valid out-of-state teaching certificates for
    individuals who have completed accredited teacher preparation
    programs in the subjects to which they are assigned. Individuals
    receive a three-year Interim Certificate that allows them time to
    complete Idaho requirements for full certification, including
    meeting or exceeding the State Board--approved qualifying scores on
    the required Praxis II assessments if they did not take the Praxis
    II for their out-of-state certification. They must meet Idaho State
    Board of Education-approved qualifying scores. Information on the
    certification of out-of-state teachers is found at:
    <http://www.sde.idaho.gov/TeacherCertification/default.asp>.

**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?**

Yes. The state has specific steps to ensure that districts develop and
implement plans to assist their non-HQ teachers to become HQ as soon as
possible. HOUSSE and required assessments options identified below are
the available options in Idaho for teachers to be identified as HQ:

-   All new teachers, teachers seeking new certifications, out-of-state
    teachers, and teachers wanting to reinstate certification are
    required by State Board Rule to meet or exceed the qualifying scores
    on the appropriate Board-approved assessments (Praxis II/ABCTE).
    This requirement went into effect as of September 1, 2004. Veteran
    teachers were required to complete the HOUSSE process by July
    1, 2006. If they did not, they will have to take one of the
    Board-approved assessments to be considered HQ.

-   In June 2006, the State Board of Education approved Praxis II #0014:
    Elementary Content Knowledge as a required assessment of content
    knowledge for Idaho's Exceptional Child Certificate (special
    education). This requirement applies to any special education
    teachers in the categories listed above. It also meets NCLB HQT
    requirements.

-   Another accepted assessment is through the ABCTE process.

-   The State Board-approved assessments meet NCLB HQT requirements.

-   Praxis II required assessments are found on the Department website:
    <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>

**State Funding Requirements**

-   Idaho Code §33-1201, established in 1963, requires all teachers to
    be certified and endorsed for the subjects and levels they teach
    (See Appendix A). If districts have teachers who are not in
    compliance, districts risk losing state funding. Local boards of
    trustees are not to use state allocated funds to pay teachers whom
    they report as not meeting this requirement. NCLB added more
    emphasis to the Idaho Code. As a result of NCLB, the state developed
    the HOUSSE rubric. The State Department of Education informed
    districts of the requirement to have veteran teachers complete the
    HOUSSE process for each of their teaching areas by July 1, 2006. The
    State Department of Education has informed districts through memos,
    monthly regional superintendents' meetings and materials, the
    Department's newsletter, and presentations at meetings and
    professional conferences of NCLB highly qualified teacher
    requirements, HOUSSE requirements and the deadline, and the
    importance of meeting the requirements of NCLB and the state.
    Districts are fully aware of the funding consequences if they do not
    comply with federal and state requirements.

-   In January 2007, once 2006-2007 data has been collected and
    analyzed, the state will determine which districts have not met
    state law and will withhold state funds for districts non-HQTS.

**Continuous Improvement Plan for Continuous School Improvement**

-   As stated above, the State Department of Education requires
    districts with teachers not meeting state and/or federal NCLB highly
    qualified teacher criteria to use the CIP tool to develop detailed
    plans on how they will meet the goal of 100% highly qualified
    teachers for their classrooms. Their plans will be monitored on an
    ongoing basis and evaluated annually by the State Department of
    Education. Information on CIP is posted at:
    <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>**.**

-   See the question above and Appendix A, B, and C for more information
    on the state accreditation process and CIP.

**Alternative Routes to Teaching**

-   The Professional Standards Commission (PSC) reviews and approves
    applications for Teacher to New Certification and the Content
    Specialist alternative routes and monitors individuals' annual
    progress toward meeting the goal of becoming fully certified and
    highly qualified. The three-year alternative routes are
    non-renewable. For more information, refer to information on the
    State Department's website: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>)

**Ongoing Monitoring**

-   The State Department of Education and the Professional Standards
    Commission monitor districts on an ongoing basis with regard to
    their plans to ensure that their non-highly qualified teachers
    become highly qualified. Evidence of compliance is found in
    districts' Continuous Improvement Plans and in their non-HQT
    teachers' applications for the alternative routes and their progress
    toward meeting highly qualified requirements. The Department closely
    monitors the HQT progress each district/school makes according to
    the improvement plan timelines. The Professional Standards
    Commission will also prioritize monitoring the progress of non-HQ
    teachers through the state's alternative routes. If teachers have
    not met the requirements within the three-year timeline, they will
    be unable to continue in the alternative route and will not be
    considered HQ.

**REQUIREMENT 3: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, PROGRAMS, AND SERVICES**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Requirement 3: The revised plan must include information on the
  technical assistance, programs, and services that the SEA will offer to
  assist LEAs in successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly
  where large groups of teachers are not highly qualified, and the
  resources the LEAs will use to meet their HQT goals.**

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

Because Idaho's percentage of non-HQ teachers is 0.67%, the State
Department of Education is able to work with districts collaboratively
to determine focused, one-on-one technical assistance, programs, and
services. Appendix G lists the technical assistance, services, and
programs provided to districts and schools by the State Department of
Education, State Board of Education, and higher education.

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

As described in Requirement 1, each LEA submits a detailed accounting of
each teacher's teaching assignments to the Idaho Basic Educational Data
System (IBEDS). That information is incorporated into the State
Department of Education's integrated program review process that
combines school accreditation, Title I reviews, and special education
monitoring for each school district. As part of that process,
locally-developed Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs) outline strategies
to address the findings of the reviews, including progress toward
meeting the goal of 100 percent highly qualified teachers (See
Appendices D and E).

The State Department of Education's role is to monitor the CIPs, educate
LEAs about NCLB requirements for HQTs, work with LEAs to assess their
HQT needs, and provide both targeted technical assistance and a wide
range of support services to help LEAs implement their strategies and
meet the goal of 100 percent HQTs.

**[Monitoring]{.underline}**

The HQT status of each district and school is monitored through two
different State Department of Education activities: IBEDS and CIPs.
"Misassignments" -- teachers assigned outside of their subject areas --
are subject to state-level financial penalties. In addition, non-HQT
teachers must participate in one of Idaho's alternative routes to
certification or in the American Board for the Certification of Teacher
Excellence (as described in Requirement 2). A separate body, the state's
Professional Standards Commission, reviews and approves applications for
the alternative routes and monitors participants' progress. These three
LEA submissions -- IBEDS data, CIP documents, and alternative route
progress reports -- give the State Department of Education a
comprehensive look at each LEA's HQT status and progress. Districts are
being monitored by the State Department of Education in a coordinated
process. See Requirement 4 for more details on the monitoring schedule.

**[Education]{.underline}**

For school districts, schools, charter schools, and alternative schools
that have teachers who do not meet the NCLB highly qualified criteria,
the State Department of Education will provide information on options
for ensuring that their teachers become highly qualified as soon as
possible. Information on alternative routes and HOUSSE will be provided
through webcasts and presentations at monthly regional superintendents'
meetings. The presentations will emphasize that districts will only be
able to use HOUSSE, as specified by law, for special education teachers
and rural teachers of multiple subjects. (The HOUSSE process for all
other veteran teachers terminated as of July 1, 2006.)

**[Needs Assessment]{.underline}**

Using the information described above, the State Department of Education
will work with each LEA to determine its HQT needs, barriers to success,
and strategies for achieving its goals. This will be done either at
regional or one-on-one assessment meetings. These meetings are scheduled
for the spring of 2007 and will be based on the HQT status of districts,
schools, charter schools, and alternative schools once that data is
extracted from the 2006-2007 IBEDS submissions. The Department is
currently assembling data by courses taught by non-HQTs, which will help
both the Department and the LEAs refine their strategies.

The State Department of Education is making *Keeping Quality Teachers*,
by Karen Mikkelson, available to districts that have not met the 100
percent HQT goal, and is asking LEAs to help develop appropriate
strategies for meeting the goal.

**[Technical Assistance/Supporting Services]{.underline}**

Technical assistance to each LEA will depend on the findings of its
needs assessment. The following list of technical assistance options
shows the range of services available to the LEA, depending on its
unique circumstances and needs:

Recruitment: The State Department of Education uses State Improvement
Grant funds to purchase services of Teachers-Teachers.com, a national
teacher recruitment resource, for 20 school districts with a high number
of non-HQT special education teachers. (Note: this service allows
districts to recruit [all]{.underline} teachers.) A meeting is scheduled
in November to determine the feasibility of expanding
Teachers-Teachers.com or a similar recruiting tool. More information is
available at
[http://www.teachers-teachers.com](http://www.teachers-teachers.com/)

The Idaho Education Employment Website, funded by Idaho's State
Improvement Grant, is a free service that allows districts to post
vacancies and teachers to submit applications electronically. More
information is available at
[www.idahoeducationjobs.com](http://www.idahoeducationjobs.com/)

The Idaho State Board of Education's "Grow Your Own Teacher" program
supports (1) school districts employees and volunteers who earn
associate or baccalaureate degrees in education with bilingual or ESL
endorsements and (2) Native Americans preparing to teach in school
districts with significant Native American populations. Participants
receive scholarships, instructional support, and mentoring as they work
through degree completion and teacher certification. More information is
available at <http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/scholarships/gyo.asp>

Career ladder: The Idaho State Board of Education has applied for grant
funding to develop a pilot career ladder program that focuses on levels
of compensation, incentives to recruit or retain effective teachers and
principals, and staffing needs of high-need urban and rural schools
and/or hard-to-staff subject areas.

Special education/ The Idaho State Board of Education is using
Transition to

On-line certification: Teaching funds to develop an on-line alternative
route to special education certification. The state's higher education
institutions are developing courses that will be recognized by each
institution for recommending certification upon completion. Initial
courses will go on-line in the spring of 2007, with the full curriculum
to be offered by the fall of 2007. Students who agree to work for at
least three years in high need districts that serve high poverty
students will be eligible for stipends to offset expenses.

Professional The State Department of Education offers a variety of
professional

Development: development workshops and activities for teaching staff. In
many instances, teachers are able to earn credit for participation,
which helps them achieve HQT status. Examples include regional academies
for K-3 teachers on the five components of reading instruction; summer
programs on Improving Middle School Math Performance; and research-based
instructional leadership practices and strategies for improving student
performance. In addition, grant funds are available to state higher
education institutions that partner with high-need school districts to
provide professional development, particularly for districts that need
assistance for limited English proficient students.

In most of the above options, priority is given to schools or districts
that have HQT concerns or that have not made AYP.

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

-   The Idaho State Department of Education has been consolidated its
    federal programs under the Bureau of Special Populations. The bureau
    encompasses Title I-A, Title I-B (Even Start and Reading First),
    Title I-C Migrant Education, Title II-A, Title IV, Title V and
    Special Education. This umbrella allows all of the SDE specialists
    working with at-risk populations to coordinate activities and
    provide comprehensive technical assistance to schools struggling to
    meet AYP and HQT. The Department has a list of schools and districts
    (facing year 2 of school improvement) that will receive first
    priority in terms of all professional development and technical
    assistance offered by the Department.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The State Department of Education recognizes that because Idaho is
    rural, it needs to build capacity among district and building
    administrators. Teachers are most effective when they are part of a
    school and district that models a "culture of success" for all
    students. Idaho's accountability system is unique. NCLB sanctions
    apply to all schools, not just schools receiving funds from Title
    I-A. Because most districts choose to focus federal funds for
    primary grades, principals in middle schools identified as "needs
    improvement" report that they struggle to meet the rigorous
    requirements. NCLB asked for systematic change; the reauthorization
    of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires
    it. Accountability means ensuring a rigorous and relevant curriculum
    is provided to all students with the necessary prerequisite skills
    for proficiency in every content area. The State Department of
    Education believes a critical component of all of these expectations
    and requirements is highly qualified leadership and focused
    professional development. To reach the next level of proficiency for
    all children requires skilled and responsible leadership in every
    classroom.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To provide the schools support, the State Department of Education is
    using one third of the state's Title II-A set aside funds to create
    the Principals' Academy of Leadership (PALs). Thirty principals from
    middle schools identified for school improvement are asked to commit
    to working with the State Department of Education for the next three
    years. The goal of the project is to improve instructional
    leadership. The project has three components

-   [Creation of Learning Communities for Building
    Leaders]{.underline} - Middle school principals convened twice
    during 2005-2006 to discuss obstacles and brainstorm solutions. In
    addition, two regional meetings were facilitated by the State
    Department of Education. The goal of both the statewide and regional
    meetings was to encourage the creation of formal and informal
    learning communities.

    -   [Use of Surveys of Enacted Curriculum]{.underline} - Surveys of
        Enacted Curriculum (SEC) is the method for collecting,
        reporting, and using consistent data on instructional practices
        and subject content taught in classrooms. The principals were
        provided with detailed information regarding the use of SECs,
        methods of administering the survey, and support in the form of
        SDE personnel to proctoring the first administration. Each
        principal will administer SEC for the next three years so that
        the state will be able to collect data on the effectiveness of
        the program and the principal will see whether or not the school
        is moving forward to meet state content standards. SEC data will
        also provide important data for future professional development
        planned by the State Department of Education.

    -   [Instructional Reviews]{.underline}. Each of the thirty schools
        has been visited by a team of distinguished educators who
        observed every class and every teacher. The team includes other
        PAL administrators, State Department of Education content area
        specialists, and Distinguished Educators (district level special
        education, federal program, and LEP directors recognized for
        their accomplishments within specific subgroups). The team is
        there to collect data on the specific instructional strategies
        used in the classrooms. No teacher names are used or attached to
        the data collected. The results of the surveys and the classroom
        observations are aggregated and given to the principal. The goal
        is to provide principal with a snapshot of instruction in their
        school. Each school also receives a summary report that will
        allow data-based professional development decisions.

-   **Achievements to date:** The first year of the PAL project
    (2005-2006) led to the identification of critical areas of
    professional development needed on a statewide basis. The principals
    in the project have reported that the project provides data that
    will inform their improvement efforts.

-   **Evaluation:** Success will be evaluated in terms of the specific
    use of the data collected. Data will be examined as to whether the
    school made significant changes in curricular materials, extended
    time for learning, personnel, or professional development. In the
    second year of implementation, success will be measured by 1) the
    alignment of SEC data and Idaho K-12 Content Standards, 2) the
    increased percentage of standards-based lessons, and 3) higher level
    questioning as measured by the Instructional Reviews. Ultimately,
    the success of the Leadership Academy will be based on the
    improvement of student outcomes. In each year of the project, data
    will be collected on the number of schools no longer identified as
    "needs improvement" as well as the number of schools that have made
    progress toward closer meeting their AYP target.

-   **District Level Support:** The State Department of Education will
    continue to support the PALs project using Title II state set aside
    funds in 2006-2007. Interviews with principals in the project reveal
    their need for greater district level support. During the 2006-2007
    school year, the State Department of Education will work to create a
    plan to replicate the program for district level administrators
    (superintendents, federal program managers, special education
    directors, etc.). The State Department of Education will be working
    with Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Comprehensive Center on
    the creation of the project.

    -   Each participant will develop an action plan based on data for
        his or her school to increase student achievement and evaluate
        the implementation of the plans.

    -   In March and April 2007, the goal is to have the project
        consultants, team participants, and State Department of
        Education analyze the data from PALS to determine its efficacy
        and to seek sources of funding to expand the project to
        elementary and high schools that have not met AYP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   As requested by the Idaho State Legislature, the State Board of
    Education formed a committee to examine teacher mentoring models
    currently in use and how to best to implement mentoring models. In
    fall 2006, several models will be piloted and evaluated for
    efficiency and effectiveness. Mentor trainers and administrators
    from fourteen Idaho school districts have already received mentor
    training conducted by the New Teacher Center of Santa Cruz,
    California. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed by
    the committee, and a report will be generated and presented to the
    Legislature in 2007. The goal is to procure state funding to support
    statewide mentoring for all new teachers.

    -   The State Department of Education has presented three Continuous
        Improvement Plan workshops throughout the state. Schools and
        districts identified as in need of improvement have been invited
        to attend these two-day sessions where they receive specific
        technical assistance and guidance from State Department of
        Education staff in creating their Continuous Improvement Plans.
        These workshops have proven successful and will continue in the
        future. (See Appendices D and E)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The 2006 Idaho Legislature appropriated funds for a statewide grant
    program to provide school improvement funds to districts and schools
    that have not met AYP in the Limited English Proficiency subgroup.
    The State Department of Education is managing a competitive grant
    process and requiring schools/districts that are recipients of the
    awards to provide mentoring and professional development for
    teachers serving LEP students. Grant applications are currently
    being reviewed and grants will be awarded in 2006.

-   The State Department of Education Bureau of Special Population funds
    annual instructional coaches' training in reading and math for
    schools not making AYP that are identified as high poverty areas.
    Coaches assist teachers with utilizing classroom data to design and
    deliver scientifically researched-based curriculum with fidelity.
    This professional development will continue to focus on schools not
    making AYP in reading and math, areas identified in Table 3 as
    having non-HQTs.

-   Because of the success of the Response to Intervention/Results Based
    Model program (see Appendix G), the State Department of Education is
    requesting schools and districts identified for needs improvement to
    adopt the model as part of their restructuring process. To be
    eligible to participate in the program, the school must send a team
    for five days of training in the first year. The training will
    include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Creating Problem Solving Teams

-   Parental Involvement

-   Functional Assessment

-   Outcome Oriented Intervention

-   Ongoing Progress Monitoring

-   Systematic Data-Based Decision Making

> In addition to the training, the RBM teams will be supported by State
> Department of Education regional special education consultants as well
> the Department special education and Title programs staff. In the
> second year of the process, RBM teams will return for an additional
> five days of advanced training where teams continue to focus on
> schoolwide systems of support such as:

-   Integration of resources

-   Prioritized learning activities

-   Emphasis on research-based instructional practices

> The State Board of Education has also created an online learning
> community that will be launched in the fall of 2006 to support both
> existing and new sites.

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

**Professional Development Model**

-   The Educator Quality and Leadership Team formed an action team
    composed of State Department and Office of State Board personnel,
    representatives from higher education, and K-12 teachers and
    administrators to develop a professional development model based on
    Idaho's educator standards and focused on the needs of students,
    schools, and teachers. Once completed, the draft will be reviewed by
    the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in October 2006 and
    the Professional Standards Commission in November 2006 and
    appropriate revisions will be made. The State Department of
    Education will present the model to the State Board of Education in
    January 2007. Based on Board approval to continue, the State
    Department will draft a State Board Rule governing the requirements
    for professional development for the 2008 legislative session. The
    State Department of Education will develop the process and
    procedures for the rule when it is approved. The rule will go into
    effect for all teachers as of 2013, which allows for the five-year
    certification renewal cycle. However, upon Board approval, teachers
    will have the option of utilizing the new process if they choose.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Idaho Transition to Teaching grant identifies college graduates
    interested in changing to a career in teaching and provides stipends
    to assist them in completing coursework and testing for teaching
    certification. These students agree to teach for at least three
    years in a high need district that serves high poverty students. The
    grant also will continue to serve paraprofessionals and new
    bachelor's degree candidates, who agree to serve in high need
    districts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The State Department of Education will provide targeted technical
    assistance to districts, including charter districts that have
    non-highly qualified teachers above the state average of 0.67%. The
    Department will begin in January 2007 with those districts with
    non-HQTs above 0.67% that have not met AYP requirements. Some
    targeted technical assistance will be delivered via a web cast to
    districts with common needs and individually to districts with
    specific needs. The Department will provide districts the
    information they need to ensure their non-HQ teachers become HQ.

-   The State Department of Education will conduct a web cast to provide
    districts information about the programs and services that may be of
    assistance to them in meeting their 100% HQT goal. These programs
    and services are listed above and include CIP, Teacher-Teachers.com,
    PALS, the Idaho Education Employment Website, targeted training, and
    School Improvement Workshops. As 2006-2007 data is analyzed, other
    programs and services will be developed.

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

**Technical Assistance - Non-HQ Subgroups of Teachers**

-   Data indicates that districts have more non-HQ teachers in special
    education than in any other area. The State Department of Education
    has initiated targeted technical to address the needs of special
    education teachers in meeting HQ.

    -   As stated above in Requirement 2, the Idaho State Board of
        Education approved Praxis II #0014: Elementary Content Knowledge
        as a requirement for Idaho's Exceptional Child Certificate for
        new teachers, out-of-state teachers, teachers seeking an
        additional certificate, and teachers who let their certificates
        lapse. This became effective September 1, 2006. Requiring this
        assessment of teacher content knowledge will assist these
        teachers in gaining HQ status. Another accepted assessment
        process is through the ABCTE.

    -   The State Department of Education is financially supporting
        twenty districts that have difficulty recruiting teachers allow
        them to use Teachers-Teachers.com for three years (2005-2008) to
        help with recruitment. The service will be used to recruit all
        teachers, not just special education teachers. The service will
        allow districts to search a national data base for teachers they
        need. Link:
        [http://www.teachers-teachers.com](http://www.teachers-teachers.com/)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Idaho Training Clearinghouse (ITC) is a website that lists
    current special education professional development training
    opportunities. ITC, created as part of the State Department of
    Education's State Improvement Grant in collaboration with the
    University of Idaho, acts as a link for special education teachers
    and parents of students with disabilities to identify opportunities
    from various agencies and parent groups. ITC provides expedited
    electronic registration for trainings, evaluative feedback on
    trainings, and online tools to foster communities of trainers and
    participants statewide. ITC will be utilized more specifically for
    posting professional development assistance to help teachers in
    meeting HQT and districts in meeting AYP. Link:
    [http://www.idahotc.com](http://www.idahotc.com/)

**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?**

**Federal Funds Use -- Non-HQT**

-   The State Agency Higher Education (SAHE) grant Title VI-B monies are
    being used to train teachers in schools that meet the high need
    school criteria in the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol.
    This method of teaching is noted for its effective ways of working
    with English language learners. Two years of training have been
    completed. Additional sub grants have been awarded to higher
    education institutions to provide professional development to
    teachers to improve their teaching of math and science content
    literacy.

-   Federal funds support the following:

    -   Title II -- Principal's Academy of Leadership (PALS) and Math
        Academies

    -   Title VI B IDEA -- Response Intervention and reading achievement
        projects

    -   Title I B and Title VI B IDEA -- Reading achievement project

**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?**

Schools that are not making AYP are given preferential status to enable
them to access both financial and technical assistance from the State
Department of Education.

**REQUIREMENT 4: ENSURING 100% HQT**

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

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

**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?**

**Accountability for HQT**

-   Each Idaho school district through its annual Continuous Improvement
    Plan has set annual measurable objectives for increasing the
    percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers. The State
    Department of Education conducts an annual evaluation of LEAs'
    responses to the CIP tool and to the accreditation standards and
    monitors progress on an ongoing basis (See Appendices D and E).

    -   Beginning with the 2006-2007 school year, each district's
        reporting of its annual measurable objectives for increasing the
        percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers will
        be integrated into the state's on-line Continuous Improvement
        Planning tool. The CIP tool allows districts to align their
        annual teacher quality objectives with specific action steps to
        be implemented by the district. The plan also provides a
        comparison to each previous year's actual percentage of classes
        taught by highly qualified teachers, allowing the state to
        determine the extent to which each district is meeting or
        failing to meet its annual objectives. The Consolidated Plan is
        integrated into the Continuous Improvement Planning tool (CIP)
        so that proposed related uses of Title II-A or other funds are
        described. Consolidated Plan funds are not released to a
        district until all data elements are entered. Districts will be
        accountable for meeting their objectives and the State
        Department of Education will monitor their progress toward
        meeting the 100% HQT goal.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   As an additional verification mechanism, the teaching
        assignments, funding sources, and high quality teacher status of
        all Title II-A teachers are reviewed during the state's on-site
        program review process. All districts participating in
        Consolidated Plan programs receive an on-site consolidated
        federal program review on a rotating cycle. The program review
        process for on-site monitoring of local NCLB programs has
        recently been revised and strengthened following recommendations
        from the U.S. Department of Education Title II-A program review.
        Program review documents are posted on the department's website
        at: <http://www.sde.state.id.us/>

    -   As districts and schools implement Continuous Improvement Plans,
        the State Department of Education monitors them according to
        designated timelines established by the districts and the State
        Department of Education.

    -   The Professional Standards Commission's
        review/approval/rejection process for alternative route
        candidates will continue to monitor on an ongoing basis
        districts' compliance with NCLB and state requirements for HQTs.

    -   The State Department of Education will withhold state special
        education funds for districts that are out of compliance.

**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?**

As explained in Requirement 3, all technical assistance, programs and
services provided by the State Department of Education are targeted and
will continue to be targeted to non-HQT districts and schools that have
not met AYP. The Department determines assistance based on IBEDS data
that identifies the AYP and HQT status of districts and schools.

**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**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Districts that have not met 100% HQT status will be monitored
    through their Continuous Improvement Plans according to designated
    timelines as to their progress toward the HQT goal. Districts will
    also be monitored through their non-HQTs' progress through the
    non-renewable alternative routes requirements.

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

        -   The State Department of Education has several mechanisms for
            insuring that funds from federal programs are only used to
            support high-quality professional development. The Title II
            Coordinator reviews and approves each district's plan
            annually. In addition, for those schools and districts in
            Year 1 of School Improvement, Department Grants/Contract
            Specialists verify that the proper amount of funds has been
            set aside for professional development and then one of
            Department Coordinators reviews the specifics of the plan.
            Specifically, the Department looks to see that the
            professional development plan is targeted towards the AYP
            issues. The Department also reviews the sufficiency of
            training (number of days and hours) and whether or not they
            have a mechanism for providing ongoing assistance to
            teachers.

        -   The CIP tool requires districts to provide information on
            the professional development they will provide teachers. See
            Requirement 6 below.

**Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include technical assistance
or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT
and AYP goals?**

-   If districts have non-HQTs employed, they will lose state funding
    for those teachers' salaries. Based on a review of state data,
    and/or AYP, the State Department of Education will withhold funding
    as appropriate. This withholding will occur in January of 2007 and
    continue until required corrections are completed.

-   The State Department of Education will conduct focused reviews and
    provide guidance and direct technical assistance to districts and
    schools that have not met 100% HQT and AYP. Since Idaho does not
    have a statewide HQT problem, all technical assistance will be
    targeted to districts' issues and needs. Those activities have been
    described in Requirements 2 and 3.

-   SEA Technical Assistance and LEA Accountability (ESEA §2141)

    -   After the second year of the plan, if the State Board of
        Education (SBOE) and the State Department of Education (SDE)
        determine the an LEA has failed to make progress toward meeting
        its annual measurable objectives for HQT and AYP for two
        consecutive years, the SBOE and SDE will develop an improvement
        plan to enable the LEA to meet its annual measurable objectives
        and specifically address issues that prevented it from meeting
        its annual measurable objectives.

    -   During the development of the improvement plan and its
        implementation, the SDE will: (1) provide technical assistance
        to the LEA, and (2) provide technical assistance, if applicable,
        to schools served by the LEA that need assistance to enable the
        LEA in meeting its annual measurable objectives for HQT and AYP.

    -   After the third year of the plan, if the SBOE and SDE determine
        that the LEA has failed to make progress toward meeting its
        annual measurable objectives for HQT and has failed to make AYP
        for three consecutive years, the SBOE and SDE will enter into an
        agreement with the LEA on the use of its funds. As part of this
        agreement, the SBOE and SDE will:

        -   develop, in conjunction with the LEA, teachers, and
            principals, professional development strategies and
            activities, based on scientifically-based research, that the
            LEA will use to meet its annual measurable objectives and
            require LEA to utilize appropriate strategies and
            activities; and

        -   prohibit the use of funds received under part A of Title I
            to fund any paraprofessional hired after the date such
            determination is made;

        -   allow the use of such funds to fund a paraprofessional hired
            after that date if the LEA can demonstrate that the hiring
            is to fill a vacancy created by the departure of another
            paraprofessional funded under Title I and the new
            paraprofessional satisfies the requirements of NCLB; and

        -   allow the use of such funds to fund a paraprofessional hired
            after that date if the LEA can demonstrate that a
            significant influx of population has substantially increased
            student enrollment; or that there is an increased need for
            translators or assistance with parental involvement
            activities.

-   Refer to the Table 9 for the coordinated monitoring schedule for
    2006-2007.

**Table 9: Coordinated Monitoring Schedule for 2006-2007**

+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| **D   | **Dis   | **Type of      | **Team  | **Regi | **Title 1,  |
| ate** | trict** | Review**       | L       | onal** | Field       |
|       |         |                | eader** |        | Colleagues, |
|       |         |                |         | **     | & Others**  |
|       |         |                |         | Consul |             |
|       |         |                |         | tant** |             |
+=======+=========+================+=========+========+=============+
| Oct.  | Bl      | **Integrated   | ## Jean | ##     | Marcia      |
| 23-25 | ackfoot | Focused        |  Taylor |        | Beckham --  |
|       |         | Review**       |         | ## Be  | Title 1     |
|       |         |                | M       | th Elo |             |
|       |         | System issues  | arybeth | e-Reep | Margo Healy |
|       |         | related to     | Fl      |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | student        | achbart |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes,      |         |        | Mike Murphy |
|       |         | dispr          |         |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | oportionality, |         |        |             |
|       |         | DO             |         |        | Deb Pfost   |
|       |         |                |         |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Val         |
|       |         |                |         |        | Schorzman   |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- G/T     |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Jacque      |
|       |         |                |         |        | Hyatt \--   |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | MaryBeth    |
|       |         |                |         |        | Wells \--   |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Mark Kuskie |
|       |         |                |         |        | -- SPED     |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Oct.  | L       | **Verification | Russ    | ## Bev | Liz Compton |
| 26-27 | akeland | Visit**        | Hammond |  Benge | \-- SPED    |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Nov.  | Fremont | **Integrated   | Jean    | ##     | Deb Pfost   |
| 15-17 |         | Focused        | Taylor  |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | Review**       |         | Beth   |             |
|       |         |                | Margo   | Elo    |             |
|       |         | System issues  | Healy   | e-Reep |             |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Nov.  | Nampa   | **Integrated   | Jacque  | ##     | Mike Murphy |
| 27    |         | Focused        | Hyatt   |        | -- Title 1  |
| -Dec. |         | Review**       |         | Debbie |             |
| 1     |         |                | Marcia  | Smith  | Rose Rettig |
|       |         | System issues  | Beckham |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        | Annie       |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Dalgetty -- |
|       |         |                |         |        | Title 1     |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Russ        |
|       |         |                |         |        | Hammond \-- |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Liz Compton |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- SPED    |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Dec.  | M       | **Integrated   | Jean    | ##     | Mike Murphy |
| 4-8   | ountain | Focused        | Taylor  |        | -- Title 1  |
|       | Home    | Review**       |         | Rene   |             |
|       |         |                | Deb     | Rohrer | Rose Rettig |
|       |         | System issues  | Pfost   |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        | Larry       |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Streeter    |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- SPED    |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Jean Taylor |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- SPED \* |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Dec.  | Basin   | **Integrated   | Russ    | ##     |             |
| 11-12 |         | Focused        | Hammond |        |             |
|       |         | Review**       |         | Rene   |             |
|       |         |                | Marcia  | Rohrer |             |
|       |         | System issues  | Beckham |        |             |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Jan.  | Emmett  | **Integrated   | Jean    | Debbie | Marcia      |
| 1     |         | Focused        | Taylor  | Smith  | Beckham --  |
| 6-19, |         | Review**       |         |        | Title 1     |
| 2007  |         |                | Rose    |        |             |
|       |         | System issues  | Rettig  |        | Margo Healy |
|       |         | related to     |         |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | student        |         |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Liz Compton |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- SPED    |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Jan.  | C       | **Integrated   | Mary    | ##     | Mike Murphy |
| 29    | aldwell | Focused        | Bostick |        | -- Title 1  |
| -Feb. |         | Review**       |         | Rene   |             |
| 2     |         |                | Margo   | Rohrer | Rose Rettig |
|       |         | System issues  | Healy   |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        | Annie       |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Dalgetty -- |
|       |         |                |         |        | Title 1     |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Marcia      |
|       |         |                |         |        | Beckham --  |
|       |         |                |         |        | Title 1     |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Wendy St.   |
|       |         |                |         |        | Michell \-- |
|       |         |                |         |        | ESL         |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Mary        |
|       |         |                |         |        | Bostick \-- |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Feb.  | Glenns  | **Verification | Mark    | ##     |             |
| 21-22 | Ferry   | Visit**        | Kuskie  |  Rene  |             |
|       |         |                |         | Rohrer |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Feb.  | Liberty | **Verification | Jean    | ##     |             |
| 21-22 | Charter | Visit**        | Taylor  | Debbie |             |
|       |         |                |         |  Smith |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Feb.  | Jerome  | **Integrated   | Jacque  | ##     | Annie       |
| 21-23 |         | Focused        | Hyatt   |        | Dalgetty -- |
|       |         | Review**       |         | Rich   | Title 1     |
|       |         |                | Deb     | Hen    |             |
|       |         | System issues  | Pfost   | derson | Mike Murphy |
|       |         | related to     | --      |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | student        | Title 1 |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Liz Compton |
|       |         |                |         |        | \-- SPED    |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Mar.  | Swan    | **Verification | Mark    | #      |             |
| 13-14 | Valley  | Visit**        | Kuskie  | # Fran |             |
|       |         |                |         | k Howe |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Mar.  | Blaine  | **Integrated   | M       | ##     | Wendy St.   |
| 13-14 | Co.     | Focused        | arybeth |        | Michell -   |
|       |         | Review**       | Wells   | Robin  | ESL         |
|       |         |                |         | Carter |             |
|       |         | System issues  | Margo   |        |             |
|       |         | related to     | Healy   |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Mar.  | Snake   | **Verification | ## Jean | #      |             |
| 19-20 | River   | Visit**        |  Taylor | # Fran |             |
|       | Lea     |                |         | k Howe |             |
|       | dership |                |         |        |             |
|       | Academy |                |         |        |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Mar   | Coeur   | **Integrated   | Mary    | ##     | Margo Healy |
| 20-22 | d'Alene | Focused        | Bostick |        |             |
|       |         | Review**       |         | Bev    | Marcia      |
| Conf  |         |                | Deb     | Benge  | Beckham --  |
| irmed |         | System issues  | Pfost   |        | Title 1     |
|       |         | related to     | --      |        |             |
|       |         | student        | Title 1 |        | Vickie      |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        | Green \--   |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Jacque      |
|       |         |                |         |        | Hyatt \--   |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
|       |         |                |         |        |             |
|       |         |                |         |        | Liz         |
|       |         |                |         |        | Compton\--  |
|       |         |                |         |        | SPED        |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Mar.  | IDJC    | **Integrated   | #       | ##     | Vickie      |
| ?     |         | Focused        | # Jacqu | Debbie | Green \--   |
|       |         | Review**       | e Hyatt |  Smith | SPED        |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Resch | Preston | **Verification | Mark    | ## Be  |             |
| edule | (Can    | Visit**        | Kuskie  | th Elo |             |
|       | celled) |                |         | e-Reep |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+
| Resch | Cassia  | **Integrated   | Jean    | ##     | Deb Pfost   |
| edule |         | Focused        | Taylor  |        | -- Title 1  |
|       |         | Review**       |         | ## Ri  |             |
| Mar.  |         |                | Margo   | ch Hen |             |
| 5-8   |         | System issues  | Healy   | derson |             |
|       |         | related to     |         |        |             |
|       |         | student        |         |        |             |
|       |         | outcomes       |         |        |             |
+-------+---------+----------------+---------+--------+-------------+

**REQUIREMENT 5: HOUSSE**

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

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

**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?**

**Completion of HOUSSE Process**

-   **The state required districts to complete the HOUSSE rubric process
    by July 1, 2006 to determine the highly qualified status of their
    current veteran teachers of the core academic subjects they are
    currently assigned to teach, will be teaching in the next school
    year, or are qualified to teach. At the end of the 2005-2006 school
    year and at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year, State
    Department of Education provided detailed information on the
    continued use of HOUSSE. Districts were notified of the July 1, 2006
    sunsetting of HOUSSE on April 21, 2006 and again on May 1, 2006.
    Notification was through memos, announcements at regional
    superintendents' monthly meetings, and one-on-one telephone
    conferences as necessary.**

-   **HOUSSE will continue to be used for special education teachers and
    rural teachers of multiple subjects.**

-   The State interprets the HOUSSE requirement to embody the broader
    point that, consistent with NCLB, HOUSSE may be used on a very
    limited basis in other situations where it is urgently needed, such
    as when a veteran highly qualified teacher in one core subject must
    be assigned at the last minute to teach another core subject, or
    when a district, despite its best efforts to hire only highly
    qualified teachers, must hire a teacher who is highly qualified but
    who has not had the opportunity to complete the HOUSSE process. All
    districts may use HOUSSE on a limited basis for such critical
    situations where it is needed until the re-authorization of
    ESEA-NCLB.

Does the plan describe how the State will discontinue the use of HOUSSE
after the end of the 2005-06 school year, except in the following
situations:

Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who, if HQ in one
subject at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in
additional subjects within three years of the date of hire.

-   **As specified in federal guidance, districts designated as rural by
    the U. S. Department of Education will continue to utilize HOUSSE
    rubric process for secondary teachers of multiple subjects.**

-   **The State Department of Education notified rural-designated
    districts of this change in HOUSSE policy on April 21, 2006 and
    again on** **May 1, 2006 as well as at monthly regional
    superintendents' meetings and the annual Department of Education
    Superintendents meeting in August 2006.**

Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession,
if HQ in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may
use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within two
years of the date of hire.

**HOUSSE and Special Education Teachers**

-   **In regard to special education teachers teaching multiple
    subjects, the state will follow guidance provided by the U.S.
    Department of Education. The following information is taken directly
    from a vetted OSEP document found at:
    (http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html).**

> "When used with respect to a special education teacher who teaches two
> or more core academic subjects exclusively to children with
> disabilities, "highly qualified" means that the teacher may either:
>
> Meet the applicable requirements of Section 9101 of ESEA for any
> elementary, middle or secondary school teacher who is new or not new
> to the profession;
>
> In the case of a teacher who is not new to the profession, demonstrate
> competence in all the core academic subjects in which the teacher
> teaches in the same manner as is required for an elementary, middle or
> secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession under
> Section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of ESEA, which may include a single, high
> objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) covering
> multiple subjects; or
>
> In the case of a new special education teacher who teaches multiple
> subjects and who is highly qualified in mathematics, language arts or
> science, demonstrate competence in the other core academic subjects in
> which the teacher teaches in the same manner as is required for an
> elementary, middle or secondary school teacher under Section
> 9101(23)(C)(ii) of ESEA, which may include a single, HOUSSE covering
> multiple subjects, not later than two years after the date of
> employment."
>
> \[602(10)(D) of IDEA\]
>
> **The State Department of Education has informed districts of these
> guidelines and requirements for the use of HOUSSE through a variety of
> methods, such as memos, monthly superintendent information and
> regional meetings, Department newsletter, and phone conferences with
> LEAs and schools needing assistance. LEAs are well aware of the
> limited uses of HOUSE and are applying HOUSSE appropriately. The State
> Department of Education is confident that the data will verify use of
> the HOUSSE requirements when it is analyzed in January 2007.**

REQUIREMENT 6: EQUITY PLAN

IDAHO EQUITY PLAN for HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

**GOAL:** Ensure that 100% of the poor and minority children in Idaho
are taught by experienced, qualified teachers.

**Description of the Data Collection Process**

-   By October 15 of each year, school districts are required to report
    to the State Department of Education through the Idaho Basic
    Educational Data System (IBEDS) on the number of classes taught by
    HQTs and non-HQTs, poverty levels, adequate yearly progress, and
    student ethnicity.

-   Data reveal that inequitable distribution is at a
    district-by-district and school-by-school level. Each situation is
    unique to its setting.

-   **The following timeline delineates the institutionalized IBEDS
    process established by the State Department of Education:**

    -   **Districts use the number of core academic classes taught by
        highly qualified and non-highly qualified teachers as of
        September 29, 2006, to determine what data to enter into
        IBEDS.**

    -   **By October 15, 2006, districts must summit IBEDS data to the
        State Department of Education.**

    -   **Districts have access to their data and are responsible for
        reconciling their data between October 15 and December 15, 2006
        and ensuring accuracy of the data. School principals/district
        superintendents must sign off to verify the accuracy of data
        they are submitting to the Department and submit this
        verification along with their IBEDS data.**

    -   **December 31, 2006 is the date when the State Department of
        Education will determine from which districts state funds will
        be withheld.**

        -   Each year the State Department of Education will review the
            data collection process and upgrade IBEDS to ensure
            appropriate data is being collected.

        -   Course specific data for 2006-2007 has been collected from
            districts. The data will be analyzed to determine inequities
            in teacher distribution by course. Technical assistance,
            programs, and services will be determined to address these
            inequities, the State Plan will be revised, and the revised
            Plan will be sent to the U.S. Department of Education in
            January 2007.

        -   IBEDS will be upgraded for the 2007-2008 data collection
            process so districts will be able to report the experience
            levels of their teachers. The system needs this upgrading to
            allow access to teacher experience data. Since data for the
            2006-2007 school year has been collected from districts and
            is currently being analyzed as to its accuracy, collecting
            teacher experience data cannot occur until the system is
            revised and data collection begins in October 2007 for the
            2007-2008 school year.

**Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment exist?**

Note: Many Idaho teachers return the areas of their youth for family and
business reasons. Others seek positions within rural communities for
quality of life issues, such as snow skiing, white water rafting, clean
air, etc.

-   Idaho has not identified a statewide inequity problem. The total
    percentage of non-HQTs by core academic classes is 0.67% (see
    Requirement 1: Table 1). However, analysis at the district and
    school level reveals inequities.

-   Inequitable distribution is at district-by-district and school-by
    school levels. Each situation is unique to the setting.
    Identification of the unique inequities will be at the district or
    school level so that technical assistance will be targeted to each
    setting.

-   Inequities in teacher assignment are more frequently found in rural
    districts, as evidenced in their percentages of non-HQTs above the
    state average of 0.67% (Requirement 1: Table 6 and 7).

-   Specific inequities in teacher assignments include special
    education, foreign language, English/language arts, reading, and the
    arts (drama, music, and visual art) with special education the
    highest at 7.90%. Three school districts have non-HQTs in more than
    one area. (see Requirement 1: Tables 4 and 6)

-   The State Department of Education has identified school districts in
    quadrants as high resources/low need, high resources/high need, low
    resources, low need, and low resources/high need (See Appendix C).
    These quadrants along with data reported by districts through IBEDS
    guide the State Department of Education in its technical assistance,
    services, and programs and the targeting of resources.

-   The State Department of Education will inform the administration of
    all districts and schools of their status of being a targeted site
    for technical assistance based on whether they are above the state
    average (0.67%) for the percentage of core academic classes taught
    by non-HQTs. Based on this status, districts/schools will be
    required to review and amend their Continuous Improvement Plans to
    address this concern. They will also be offered priority for State
    Department of Education resources, including training targeting at
    improving the skills of teachers in the critical areas of special
    education, foreign language, English/language arts, reading, and the
    arts.

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

**[Highly Qualified Teacher Committee]{.underline}**

-   By October 2006, the State Department of Education's Educator
    Quality and Leadership Team will establish a Highly Qualified
    Teacher Committee that will be responsible for studying the
    equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers in the state,
    other highly qualified issues, and the challenges districts and
    schools face in these areas. Committee membership will include a
    broad, statewide representation from the following
    stakeholder/policy maker groups:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   State superintendent/chief deputy superintendent

-   State Board of Education member

-   State legislator

-   Governor's education advisor

-   Professional Standards Commission member

-   Pre-K-12 teachers, including elementary, middle level, high school,
    and special education

-   Idaho Education Association

-   School Administrators

-   Idaho Association of School Administrators

-   Higher education teacher preparation program dean

-   Higher education provost

-   PTA

-   Idaho School Boards Association

-   State Department of Education HQT staff

-   Office of the State Board of Education staff

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The tentative timeline for the HQT Committee is as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   November 2006 -- Orientation on HQT and NCLB and review of baseline
    data (2005-2006) and current technical assistance, programs, and
    services; work with consultant to design a program to report data
    that will inform the Committee as to which variables (teacher
    experience, poverty, rural status, etc.) are most closely correlated
    to the lack of HQTs, and identify which districts/schools to target.

-   February 2007 -- Review of 2006-2007 data report, comparison of new
    data to 2005-2006 data, and development of preliminary draft of
    proposed policy changes.

-   March 2007 -- Continuation of data and inequities analyses and
    development of proposed policy changes to address teacher inequity.

-   April 2007 -- Finalization of equity plan and policies to address
    teacher inequity.

-   May 2007 - Present to the State Board of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Potential policies and strategies that the State Department of
    Education and the Highly Qualified Teacher Committee might consider:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Recruitment and retention workshops for districts

-   Implementation of professional development standards that focus on
    district, school, and student needs

-   Collaboration with higher education to provide professional
    development, online courses, etc.

-   Collaboration with higher education to recruit individuals into high
    need subject areas

-   Targeted assistance to districts and schools on how best to
    distributed teachers equitably

-   Workshops/web casts to assist district and schools on how to
    effectively use resources/funds, state data system, available
    recruitment sites, online professional development, alternative
    routes, etc.

-   Continued support for state's high quality alternative routes

-   Continued support for the Grow Your Own program

-   Support for state funding of teacher mentoring

    -   Utilization of distance learning to permit student access to
        qualified teachers

    -   Rehiring of retired teachers and principals specifically to work
        in high-need schools

    -   Support the continued development of teacher coaching programs
        to assist teachers in the lowest-performing schools.

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

-   Districts and/or schools identified in this plan will be required to
    submit a Continuous Improvement Plan that addresses the HQT issues
    for Department approval by January 15, 2007. Plans will be approved
    by the Department by February 15 and will be monitored in the
    September of 2007 when the submission for progress reporting and
    revisions is required. Each plan must include specified activities,
    timelines, and resources allocated to ensure progress.

-   The state's HQT data (99.33% HQT) is evidence that the state is
    making progress toward all teachers being HQ. The State Department
    of Education has experience in implementing large scale professional
    development. In 2005, Idaho was one of only three states to
    significantly increase reading achievement among fourth graders. The
    State Department of Education attributes much of that success to the
    Department's ever increasing certification requirements, as well as
    the consistent high quality professional development offered to
    primary educators.

-   With the recently enacted alternative routes to certification, the
    state is confident that the districts' percentages of non-HQTs will
    decrease as districts move toward their goal of 100% HQT. As of July
    1, 2006, non-HQ teachers must 1) apply for and be accepted into one
    of the alternative routes, 2) complete it within the three year
    timeframe, and 3) meet or exceed the State Board-approved qualifying
    score on the required Praxis II assessment(s). They are not
    considered HQ T until they have completed the three steps.

-   National research indicates the importance of having highly
    qualified teachers and administrators for advancing school
    improvement and closing the student achievement gap. The state's
    PALS program will continue to provide teachers and building
    administrators focused professional development on ways to improve
    student achievement. Success will be measured by improvement in
    student outcomes.

-   The State Department of Education has evidence that the Department's
    SAHE program is successful. The schools that participated in the
    Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) trainings improved
    outcomes for English Language Learners. Two participating schools in
    Caldwell (an LEA with HQT challenges) were able to meet AYP in all
    forty-one areas. This is especially significant because they have
    had challenges meeting AYP for LEP students in the past.

-   The State Department of Education knows its
    Response-to-Intervention/Results Based Model program works. Idaho
    has two sites (Dalton Gardens in Coeur d'Alene and Acequia
    Elementary in Minidoka) that were recognized as exemplary models by
    the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Dalton
    Gardens was named as one of the top five programs in the U.S.

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

-   The State Department of Education will monitor the equitable teacher
    assignment through: 1) the review and analysis of IBEDS data from
    districts; 2) the integrated program review process of school
    districts that combines school accreditation, Title I, and special
    education monitoring; and 3) the Continuous Improvement Plans
    submitted by districts and schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The State Department of Education will take the following steps to
    ensure equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The State Department of Education will review and analyze IBEDS
    data collaboratively with the Highly Qualified Teacher Committee and
    consultant to determine inequities.**

-   **Districts and the State Department of Education will collaborate
    with schools and districts in the development of individualized
    plans based on HQT, AYP, poverty level, and minority data.**

-   **Districts/schools will implement plans to address inequities.**

-   **If improvement is demonstrated, districts will continue with plans
    until goals are met.**

-   **If no improvement, the Department will provide oversight until
    corrective actions are made according to a developed corrective
    action plan and timeline.**

-   **Final action for non-compliance will be withholding federal funds
    until corrections are made.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Refer to Requirement 4: Ensuring 100% HQT (pp. 44-46) for:

    -   Details on technical assistance and corrective actions the State
        Board of Education and State Department of Education will apply
        if districts fail to meet HQT and AYP goals; and

    -   Coordinated Monitoring Schedule for 2006-2007.

## APPENDIX A:

## Idaho Code §33-1201

## Every person who is employed to serve in any elementary or secondary school in the capacity of teacher, supervisor, administrator, education specialist, school nurse, or school librarian shall be required to have and to hold a certificate issued under authority of the state board of education, valid for the service being rendered . . . 

##  

## APPENDIX B:

## Idaho's Highly Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE):

## Highly Qualified Teacher Rubric (Revised March 2006)

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

-   Idaho's HOUSSE rubric is a tool Idaho school districts **should**
    use in determining the highly qualified status of **all veteran
    teachers \***.

-   **All veteran K-12 teachers** should complete a rubric for **each**
    of their assigned core academic teaching areas (English, reading or
    language arts; mathematics; science; foreign languages; civics and
    government; economics; arts; history; and geography), sign the
    assurance form, and submit them to his/her school/district
    administrator for signature*.*

-   Special Education teachers need to fill out HOUSSE for **each** of
    their assigned core academic content teaching areas **if they are
    primary/initial deliverers of core subjects.**

-   The district maintains the rubrics and assurance forms in their
    records for reporting on IBEDS beginning in the fall of 2006.

-   Do **NOT** send the rubric to the State Department of Education.

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(1) Bachelor's    | 1\. I have documentation that I have a         |
| Degree *(Required   | bachelor's degree.                             |
| of                  |                                                |
| [ALL]{.underline}   | Yes                                            |
| teachers)* \*\***   |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(2)               | > 2\. I have documentation that I have         |
| State-Approved      | > completed: 1) an **Idaho**                   |
| Teacher Preparation | > **state-approved** teacher preparation       |
| Program or          | > program, **[or]{.underline}** 2) an **Idaho  |
| Alternative         | > state-approved** alternative certification   |
| Certification       | > program, **[or]{.underline}** 3) an          |
| Program**           | > **out-of-state-approved** teacher            |
|                     | > preparation program (out-of-state            |
|                     | > alternative programs are **not**             |
|                     | > acceptable).                                 |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Yes                                            |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(3) Current Valid | 3.  I have documentation that I hold a valid   |
| Idaho *and/or*      |     Idaho Interim/Elementary/Early Childhood   |
| Out-of-State        |     Blended/Exceptional Child/Secondary        |
| Certificate(s) for  |     Certificate(s) ***and/or*** a valid        |
| Assigned Teaching   |     out-of-state teaching certificate for my   |
| Area \*\***         |     current assigned content teaching area.    |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ Idaho Certificate(s)                |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ Out-of-State Certificate            |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | State: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_      |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | ***Special education teachers who are          |
|                     | [NOT]{.underline} primary/initial teachers of  |
|                     | academic core content areas (English, reading  |
|                     | or language arts; mathematics; science;        |
|                     | foreign languages; civics and government;      |
|                     | economics; arts; history; and geography**)*    |
|                     | ***are considered highly qualified if they     |
|                     | answer "yes" to 1, 2, and 3.***                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(4)               | 4\. I have documentation that I have an        |
| Endorsement(s) in   | endorsement (teaching field) in my assigned    |
| Assigned Teaching   | content teaching area *(traditional/Idaho      |
| Area \*\***         | alternate route).*                             |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

\* ***[Veteran teacher]{.underline} -- a teacher who has completed one
or more years of teaching.***

***\*\* If you answered "No" on question 1, you do [NOT]{.underline}
meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) highly qualified teacher
requirements. Do [NOT ]{.underline}***continue with the rubric.

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(5) Advanced      | 5\. I have documentation that I have earned an |
| Degree/National     | advanced degree (masters/doctorate) or a       |
| Board Certification | National Board Certification **in my assigned  |
| in Assigned         | content teaching area** (elementary, early     |
| Teaching Area**     | childhood, special education, secondary        |
|                     | content area, etc.).                           |
| ***100 points for   |                                                |
| advanced degree or  | Yes                                            |
| NBCT***             |                                                |
|                     | No                                             |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      |                                                |
| points**            |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| \(6\) Credits       | 6\. I have documentation that I have earned    |
| Earned in Assigned  | **at least twelve** **(12)** semester credits  |
| Teaching Area       | in my assigned content teaching area (i.e.,    |
|                     | math, reading, science, elementary content,    |
| ***40 points***     | etc.) **for which I do [not]{.underline}       |
|                     | currently hold a certificate/endorsement.**    |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      |                                                |
| points**            | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(7-8) Idaho       | 7\. I have documentation that I passed an      |
| Educator Technology | Idaho Educator Technology Assessment.          |
| Assessment and/or   |                                                |
| Idaho Comprehensive | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
| Literacy            |                                                |
| Course/Exam**       | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
|                     |                                                |
| ***20 points for    | 8\. I have documentation that I passed the     |
| answering "yes" to  | Idaho Comprehensive Literacy course **or**     |
| questions 7 and/or  | assessment **required for all new elementary   |
| 8 (#8 required for  | and all elementary and special education       |
| all new elementary  | teachers renewing certificates.**              |
| and all elementary  |                                                |
| and special         | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
| education teachers  |                                                |
| seeking             | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
| certification       |                                                |
| renewal)***         | \_\_\_\_\_ NA (I am a secondary teacher        |
|                     | **NOT** teaching reading)                      |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      |                                                |
| points**            |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(9) Ongoing       | 9\. I have documentation that I participated   |
| Professional        | in ongoing professional development in the     |
| Development**       | **last five years** **[related]{.underline}**  |
|                     | to my assigned content teaching area (i.e.,    |
| 15 clock hours/1    | standards/assessment development, data         |
| semester credit = 9 | analysis, curriculum development/alignment,    |
| points per year     | publications, mentoring, supervising           |
|                     | instruction, college/university credit, etc.). |
| Maximum *=* 45      | ***Credits earned for #6 do [not]{.underline}  |
| points              | count for #9*.**                               |
|                     |                                                |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
| points**            |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_No                                   |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(10) One Year of  | 10\. I have documentation that I have **at     |
| Contracted Teaching | least one year** **of** **full-time**          |
| Experience in       | **contracted** teaching experience in my       |
| Assigned Teaching   | assigned content teaching area in an Idaho     |
| Area**              | ***OR*** out-of-state K-12 school.             |
|                     |                                                |
| ***9 points per     | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
| year of             |                                                |
| experience***       | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
|                     |                                                |
| ***Maximum = 45     |                                                |
| points***           |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      |                                                |
| points**            |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(11) Related Work | 11\. I have documentation of **at least**      |
| Experience**        | **one year** of work experience                |
|                     | **[related]{.underline}** **to my assigned     |
| ***3 points per     | content teaching area** (i.e.,                 |
| year of             | paraprofessional, tutor, day care              |
| experience***       | provider/teacher, chemist, accountant).        |
|                     |                                                |
| ###                 | > \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                |
| Maximum = 30 points | >                                              |
|                     | > \_\_\_\_\_ No                                |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      | >                                              |
| points**            | > **If yes, describe relationship of work      |
|                     | > experience to assigned content teaching      |
|                     | > area:**                                      |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **(12) Advanced     | 12\. I have documentation that I have earned   |
| Degree              | an advanced degree **[related]{.underline}**   |
| [R                  | **to but [not in]{.underline} my assigned      |
| elated]{.underline} | content teaching area** (i.e., curriculum and  |
| to Assigned         | instruction, administration).                  |
| Teaching Area(s)**  |                                                |
|                     | \_\_\_\_\_Yes                                  |
| ***25 points per    |                                                |
| degree***           | \_\_\_\_\_ No                                  |
|                     |                                                |
| ***Maximum = 25     |                                                |
| points***           |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_      |                                                |
| points**            |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

# TOTAL POINTS ON RUBRICS = \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

**Minimum of 100 + points = Highly Qualified**

## 

## HOUSSE ASSURANCE FORM

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Full name as listed on Teaching Certificate(s)

Certificates:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Endorsements \*:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Teacher Signature Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Administrator Signature Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Employing School District Employing School

***\* Meeting Idaho's Highly Objective Uniform Standard of Evaluation
(HOUSSE) does NOT add an endorsement (teaching field) to a certificate.
Teachers must meet the state requirements for an endorsement to be
added. Refer to:***
<http://www.sde.idaho.gov/TeacherCertification/default.asp>

**Appendix C**

**Quadrants -- District Resources and Needs**

  -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- --------
  **Quadrant 1                             **Quadrant 2                             **Quadrant 3                             **Quadrant 4                 
  High R Low N**                           High R High                              Low R Low N**                            Low R High N**               
                                           N**                                                                                                            

  **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need
                 6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**

  001            High          Low Need    013            High          High        002            Low Resources Low Need    025            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  011            High          Low Need    044            High          High        003            Low Resources Low Need    055            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  041            High          Low Need    073            High          High        021            Low Resources Low Need    058            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  061            High          Low Need    148            High          High        033            Low Resources Low Need    059            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  071            High          Low Need    149            High          High        052            Low Resources Low Need    083            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  092            High          Low Need    150            High          Low Need    060            Low Resources Low Need    101            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources                                                                                       Need

  111            High          Low Need    161            High          High        072            Low Resources Low Need    131            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  121            High          Low Need    171            High          High        084            Low Resources Low Need    132            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  181            High          Low Need    234            High          High        091            Low Resources Low Need    136            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  182            High          Low Need    241            High          High        093            Low Resources Low Need    139            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  191            High          Low Need    242            High          High        134            Low Resources Low Need    192            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  274            High          Low Need    262            High          High        151            Low Resources Low Need    193            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  281            High          Low Need    288            High          High        202            Low Resources Low Need    201            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  282            High          Low Need    304            High          High        271            Low Resources Low Need    215            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  283            High          Low Need    312            High          High        272            Low Resources Low Need    221            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  285            High          Low Need    314            High          High        273            Low Resources Low Need    231            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  287            High          Low Need    316            High          High        291            Low Resources Low Need    232            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  292            High          Low Need    341            High          High        321            Low Resources Low Need    233            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need
  -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- --------

  -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- --------
  **Quadrant 1                             **Quadrant 2                             **Quadrant 3                             **Quadrant 4                 
  High R Low N**                           High R High                              Low R Low N**                            Low R High N**               
                                           N**                                                                                                            

  **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need      **District**   **Resources   **Need
                 6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**                     6217.12**     60.4**

  302            High          Low Need    342            High          High        322            Low Resources Low Need    251            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  305            High          Low Need    365            High          High        351            Low Resources Low Need    252            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  340            High          Low Need    382            High          High        372            Low Resources Low Need    253            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  364            High          Low Need    415            High          High        381            Low Resources High        261            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                     Need                                     Need

  383            High          Low Need    417            High          High        391            Low Resources Low Need    331            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  392            High          Low Need    418            High          High        411            Low Resources Low Need    371            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                Resources     Need                                                                              Need

  393            High          Low Need                                             414            Low Resources Low Need    373            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need

  394            High          Low Need                                                                                      401            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need

  416            High          Low Need                                                                                      412            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need

  421            High          Low Need                                                                                      413            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need

  422            High          Low Need                                                                                      431            Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need

  432            High          Low Need                                                                                      COSSA          Low Resources High
                 Resources                                                                                                                                Need
  -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- -------- -- -------------- ------------- --------

**Appendix D**

**QUALITY INDICATORS FOR**

**IDAHO DISTRICT ACCREDITATION STANDARDS**

# STANDARD I -- VISION, MISSION AND POLICIES

District and school vision and mission statements are to serve as
directional statements that form the foundation of all policies,
guidelines and practical decisions that support student achievement.
Education stakeholders in the district and school communities will
collaboratively develop these guiding principles and review them
periodically. Vision, mission and policies will be aligned with the
Thoroughness legislation defined by Idaho Code 33-1612 and referenced in
the Thoroughness Chapter of Idaho State Board of Education
Administrative Rules.

## VISION, MISSION AND EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT LEARNING \-- 24 points 

## (Unless otherwise noted in parentheses following the quality indicator, each indicator has a value of 3)

The district\'s vision and mission statements describe the essence of
what the district is seeking to achieve for its students. The
expectations for student learning are based on and drawn from the
mission statement. These expectations are the fundamental goals by which
the district continually assesses the effectiveness of the teaching and
learning process in its schools. Every component must focus on enabling
all students to achieve the district's expectations for student
learning.

1\. The district shall have clearly written vision and mission
statements that guide the development of school vision and mission
statements. (6)

2\. The mission statement and expectations for student learning shall be
developed by the community and be approved and supported by the
professional staff, the school board and/or other district-wide
governing organization.

3\. The district\'s mission statement shall represent the community\'s
fundamental values and beliefs about student learning.

4\. The mission statement and the expectations for student learning
shall guide the policies, procedures and decisions of the district. (6)

> 5\. The vision and mission shall be regularly reviewed and
> communicated to the community. (6)

## SCHOOL BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES \-- 30 points

The local board of trustees develops and/or adopts district-wide
policies. Schools within the district are subsequently responsible for
developing, implementing and monitoring a comprehensive set of
administrative procedures that are aligned with district policies.

1.  The district has written policies congruent with its vision and
    mission and reflective of broad public input. (6)

2.  The district has a parent/community involvement policy. (6)

3.  District policies and procedures are available to students, parents,
    staff and the community. (6)

4.  District policies are reviewed and updated regularly to reflect
    district needs. (6)

5.  District policies and administrative procedures reflect, at a
    minimum, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. (6)

## LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION \-- 18 points

The district administrators and school board members have the
responsibility to coordinate the allocation and utilization of resources
to maximize school capacity to meet the needs of all students. District
decision-making should be characterized by thoughtful, reflective and
constructive discourse about practices that support student learning and
well being.

1.  The superintendent shall provide leadership in the school community
    by creating and maintaining a shared vision, direction and focus for
    student learning. (6)

2.  The instructional schedule adopted by the school board shall be
    driven by the district's mission and expectations for student
    learning and shall support effective implementation of curriculum,
    instruction and assessment at the school building level. (6)

3.  Meaningful roles in the decision-making process shall be accorded to
    students, parents and school staff to promote an atmosphere of
    participation, responsibility and ownership. (6)

# STANDARD II -- HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL

## 

The most important factor for improving student achievement is the
quality of the classroom teacher. Placing and retaining a competent,
caring and qualified teacher in every classroom will maximize
opportunities for student learning. All educators of Idaho students will
be highly qualified as defined by the Idaho State Board of Education
Administrative Rules.

Individual professional development plans and a staff evaluation model
that effectively promotes the continuous improvement of school personnel
are required components of this standard.

## STAFFING -- 24 points 

1.  Certificated personnel meet all state and federal requirements. (18)

2.  Non-certificated personnel meet all state and federal requirements.
    (6)

## INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT -- 18 points 

1.  The district involves staff in the development and implementation of
    district professional development plans that align with the goals
    defined in the district strategic plan. (6)

2.  The district provides the organizational structure, support, time
    and resources to schools in order to meet the objectives of
    individual and school-wide professional development plans. (12)

## STAFF EVALUATION -- 18 points

1.  The district uses a staff evaluation model that effectively promotes
    the continuous improvement of school personnel. (18)

# STANDARD III -- EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Schools will provide a comprehensive educational program focused on
meeting the needs of all students. High expectations for student success
and frequent monitoring of student progress are critically important to
student learning. Deep alignment of curriculum, instruction and
assessment to standards considered essential for all students is
imperative.

## A school's educational program must be aligned with the Thoroughness legislation, Idaho Code 33-1612; the State Board of Education's Idaho Content Standards K-12; and the testing and high school graduation requirements defined in the Thoroughness Chapter of the Idaho State Board of Education Administrative Rules.

## ELEMENTS OF THOROUGHNESS \-- 6 points

1.  The following Elements of Thoroughness, as cited in Idaho Code
    33-1612, are integrated throughout the district's educational
    program: (6)

    a.  provision of a safe learning environment conducive to learning

    b.  educators empowered to maintain classroom discipline

    c.  emphasis on basic values of honesty, self-discipline,
        unselfishness, respect for authority and the central importance
        of work

    d.  provision of instruction in effective communication skills

    e.  provision of a basic curriculum that enables students to enter
        academic or professional-technical postsecondary educational
        programs

    f.  instruction in skills necessary to enter the workforce

    g.  introduction of students to current technology

    h.  skill acquisition for responsible citizenship at home, school
        and in the community

## CONTENT STANDARDS \--24 points

1.  The district staff has aligned curriculum, instruction and
    assessments with the Idaho Content Standards. (18)

2.  Non-traditional courses such as distance education, correspondence
    courses, web-based courses and the Portable Assistance Student
    Support (PASS) program are aligned with the Idaho Content Standards
    and district-approved for use in the schools. (6)

## CURRICULUM -- 36 points

The curriculum, which includes coursework, co-curricular activities and
other school-approved educational experiences, is the district\'s formal
plan to fulfill its mission statement and expectations for student
learning. The curriculum links the district\'s beliefs and its
expectations for student learning. The strength of that link is
dependent upon the commitment and involvement of the professional staff
to a comprehensive, ongoing review of the curriculum.

1.  A written curriculum is provided and utilized for each subject area.
    (6)

2.  The district effectively implements a well-defined plan for the
    review and adoption of curriculum and materials. (6)

3.  The district selects primary curricular materials for all subject
    areas from the [Idaho Adoption Guide]{.underline} as approved by the
    State Board of Education. (6)

4.  The district effectively implements a well-defined plan for the
    integration of technology into its curriculum, instruction and
    assessments. (6)

5.  Curricular coordination and articulation shall be evident between
    and among all academic areas and schools in the district. (6)

6.  The district shall commit time, financial resources and personnel to
    the development, evaluation and revision of curriculum. (6)

######## **INSTRUCTION--27 points**

The quality of instruction in a district's schools is the single most
important factor affecting the quality of student learning, the
achievement of expectations for student learning, the delivery of the
curriculum and the assessment of student progress. Instructional
practices must be grounded in the district\'s mission and expectations
for student learning, supported by research in best practice and refined
and improved based on identified student needs.

1.  The district policies and procedures address: (15)

    a.  a parent-approved student learning plan by the end of eighth
        grade or by age 14 for special education students regardless of
        grade level. (N/A for grades K-7)

    b.  an individual learning plan that is aligned with the Idaho
        Content Standards for limited English proficient students who
        require testing accommodations.

    c.  a current individual education plan that is aligned with the
        Idaho Content Standards for all special education students.

    d.  provision of the opportunity to develop academic skills,
        professional-technical skills and life skills to all students.

    e.  allocation of instructional time to support student learning.

2.  The district endeavors to meet the teacher/student ratios and
    teacher loads recommended by the state for each school: (12)

> Elementary (K-3) = 20
>
> Elementary (4-6) = 26
>
> Middle/junior high = 160 teacher load
>
> High school = 160 teacher load for traditional schedule (140 for
> trimester school schedules, 180 for block school schedules)
>
> Alternative school (7-12) = 18 average daily class load

######## **ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING--12 points**

Assessment informs the district regarding student progress and ways to
adjust the curriculum and instruction to respond effectively to the
learning needs of students. Further, it communicates to the community
the progress of students in achieving the district\'s expectations for
student learning and course-specific learning goals. Assessment results
must be continually utilized to improve curriculum and instruction.

1.  The district participates in the annual statewide student assessment
    program as required by Administrative Rules.

2.  The district regularly monitors student achievement.

3.  The district uses data to improve student performance, facilitate
    high quality instruction and provide appropriate intervention.

4.  The district communicates district and school progress in achieving
    all district-wide expectations for student learning to the
    community.

# 

# STANDARD IV -- LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Schools will provide a safe, nurturing, disciplined and orderly learning
environment conducive to learning. School site, facilities, equipment
and related services serve as a vehicle for the implementation of the
school mission and factor into the functioning of the educational
program. The school's learning environment should contribute to a
positive educational atmosphere and address the physical, emotional and
social health and safety of all persons in the school. Maintenance of
discipline and attention to reducing student behavior problems will
improve learning opportunities for students. The provision of a
productive climate and culture is an essential factor impacting student
achievement.

## SCHOOL PLANT AND FACILITIES -- 30 points

1.  The district has established regulations regarding matters of public
    health including sanitation, sewage disposal, a safe water supply
    and emergency procedures. (6)

2.  Facilities meet all building codes, safety standards and public
    health regulations required by state and local authorities. (6)

3.  School sites, buildings, equipment and furnishings are designed and
    maintained to facilitate the safety of all occupants and to maintain
    the quality of the school's instructional and co-curricular
    programs. (6)

4.  All district facilities are inspected annually per Idaho Uniform
    School Building Safety Act. (6)

5.  A planned and adequately funded program of building and site
    management shall ensure the appropriate maintenance, repair and
    cleanliness of all school facilities within the district. (6)

## SAFE, POSITIVE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT -- 30 points

1.  According to IDAPA 08.02.03.160, the district has developed, written
    and annually reviewed comprehensive districtwide policies and
    procedures that provide for a safe learning environment conducive to
    learning and encompass the following: (30)

    a.  school climate

    b.  discipline

    c.  violence prevention

    d.  gun-free schools

    e.  substance abuse

    f.  suicide prevention

    g.  student harassment

    h.  drug-free school zones

    i.  contagious or infectious diseases

    j.  building safety including emergency drills

## DISTRICT/COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR LEARNING -- 60 points

Student learning and well-being are dependent upon adequate and
appropriate support programs and services. The district is responsible
for providing an effective range of integrated resources to enhance and
improve student learning and well-being and to support the district\'s
mission and expectations.

1.  The district employs classified and support personnel to meet the
    needs of the staff and students.

2.  Students have access to the following school-based programs required
    in Idaho statutes: (21)

    a.  comprehensive developmental school counseling

    b.  programs for gifted/talented and disabled students

    c.  school psychological services

    d.  health and school nursing services

    e.  physical therapy and/or occupational therapy services

    f.  supplemental academic support programs

    g.  extended time

3.  Students have access to the following community-based services
    required in Idaho statutes: (18)

    a.  public health

    b.  community mental health

    c.  child protective services

    d.  vocational rehabilitation

    e.  job services

    f.  law enforcement and/or juvenile justice liaison

4.  The district works collaboratively with communities and families in
    a school readiness program to prepare children for success in
    school.

5.  The district shall foster business/community/higher education
    partnerships that support student learning.

6.  The district shall conduct ongoing planning to address future
    programs, enrollment changes, staffing, facility and technology
    needs as well as capital improvements.

7.  The district endeavors to meet state-recommended caseloads for pupil
    personnel services: counselors, social workers & psychologists =
    400:1 (\*student/district average)

8.  The district endeavors to meet the state-recommended ratios for
    building administrative personnel:

> not to exceed 500:1\*

9.  The district endeavors to meet the state-recommended ratios for
    elementary/secondary media generalists and assistants: elementary =
    500:1\* /secondary = 500:1\*

# STANDARD V - CONTINUOUS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Continual improvement of the educational program is essential in
providing quality results. Idaho schools must be actively involved in a
dynamic and data-driven Continuous Improvement Planning process.
Professional development programs and parent/community participation in
the planning process are required elements that distinguish good
schools. Successful improvement programs should focus on the systematic
analysis of student performance data and how the school's instructional
and organizational practices impact student achievement.

## DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN--36 points 

1.  The district develops and implements a comprehensive district
    strategic plan encompassing the priorities and needs of its schools.
    (12)

2.  The district conducts an annual review of strategic and Continuous
    Improvement Plan progress with the local board of trustees. (12)

3.  The district distributes strategic and Continuous Improvement Plan
    results to staff, parents and other stakeholders. (12)

## PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT--24 points

1.  The district has ensured that time and resources are made available
    to staff in order to meet professional development needs. (12)

2.  Professional development is an integral part of and aligned with the
    district strategic plan. (12)

# STANDARD VI -- STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

The primary focus for Idaho schools is student learning and growth.
Districts and schools, in partnership with parents and the community,
must be accountable for student achievement. Accountability refers to
the systematic collection, analysis and use of data and information to
provide for continuous improvement in student performance.

## The State Board of Education's accountability measures defined in Administrative Rules set forth the basic requirements contained in this standard.

## ACCOUNTABILITY--24 points

1.  The district has established high school graduation requirements
    that, at a minimum, align with those of the State Board of
    Education.

2.  The district reports attendance rates, student dropout rates, and
    graduation rates and incorporates goals for reducing the number of
    absences and dropouts in the district strategic plan.

3.  The district develops and communicates written administrative
    policies and procedures to staff, students and patrons regarding:
    (18)

a\. a comprehensive and effective plan for evaluating student
achievement

b\. grading and graduation requirements

c\. attendance

d\. promotion and retention

e\. expulsion and suspension

> f\. persistently dangerous schools

## STUDENT PROGRESS--59 points

1.  The district disaggregates all student data and reports progress
    annually, adhering to current state and federal guidelines. (6)

2.  The district publishes annual report cards, which include state
    assessment data; makes them broadly available in understandable
    language to the public; and submits them as required by state and
    federal requirements. (6)

3.  The district demonstrates student growth and/or progress on
    statewide assessments as measured by the Fall Idaho Standards
    Achievement Test (ISAT), and the Fall to Spring Idaho Reading
    Indicator (IRI). (47)

    a.  ISAT:

        i.  students do not meet typical (expected) growth

        ii. students meet typical (expected) growth

        iii. students exceed typical (expected) growth

        iv. students demonstrate extraordinary growth

    b.  IRI:

        i.  students do not meet state established proficiency targets

        ii. students are making progress toward the established
            proficiency targets

        iii. students meet state established proficiency targets (85%
             etc)

        iv. students exceed state established proficiency targets

**Appendix E**

**QUALITY INDICATORS FOR**

**IDAHO SCHOOL ACCREDITATION STANDARDS**

# STANDARD I -- VISION, MISSION AND POLICIES

District and school vision and mission statements are to serve as
directional statements that form the foundation of all policies,
guidelines and practical decisions that support student achievement.
Education stakeholders in the district and school communities will
collaboratively develop these guiding principles and review them
periodically. Vision, mission and policies will be aligned with the
Thoroughness legislation defined by Idaho Code 33-1612 and referenced in
the Thoroughness Chapter of Idaho State Board of Education
Administrative Rules.

## 1.01. VISION, MISSION AND EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT LEARNING--24 points

## (Unless otherwise noted in parentheses following the quality indicator, each indicator has a point value of 3)

The school\'s mission statement describes the essence of what the school
as a community of learners is seeking to achieve. The expectations for
student learning are based on and drawn from the school\'s mission
statement. These expectations are the fundamental goals by which the
school continually assesses the effectiveness of the teaching and
learning process. Every component of the school community must focus on
enabling all students to achieve the school\'s expectations for student
learning.

1.  The school shall have clearly written vision and mission statements
    that are aligned with the district vision and mission. (6)

2.  The mission statement and expectations for student learning shall be
    developed by the school community and be approved and supported by
    the professional staff, the school board and/or other school-wide
    governing organization.

3.  The school\'s mission statement shall represent the school
    community\'s fundamental values and beliefs about student learning.

4.  The mission statement and the school\'s expectations for student
    learning shall guide the procedures, policies and decisions of the
    school and shall be evident in the culture of the school. (6)

5.  The vision and mission shall be regularly reviewed and communicated
    to the school community. (6)

## 1.02. SCHOOL BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES -- 24 points

The local board of trustees develops and/or adopts district-wide
policies. The school is subsequently responsible for developing,
implementing and monitoring a comprehensive set of administrative
procedures that are aligned with district policies.

1.  The school shall have written procedures aligned with district
    policies that promote the effective operation of the school. (12)

2.  The school procedures shall promote parent/community involvement and
    shall be available to students, parents, staff and the community.
    (12)

## 1.03. LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION \-- 24 points

The way in which a school organizes learning for students, fosters
leadership and engages its members has a profound effect on teaching and
learning. The professional culture of the school must be characterized
by thoughtful, reflective and constructive discourse about
decision-making and practices that support student learning and well
being.

4.  The principal shall provide leadership in the school community by
    creating and maintaining a shared vision, direction and focus for
    student learning.

5.  Teachers as well as administrators other than the principal shall
    provide leadership essential to the improvement of the school.

6.  The organization of the school and its educational programs shall
    promote the school's mission and expectations for student learning.

7.  The instructional schedule shall be driven by the school's mission
    and expectations for student learning and shall support the
    effective implementation of the curriculum, instruction and
    assessment.

8.  Meaningful roles in the decision-making process shall be accorded to
    students, parents and all members of the school staff to promote an
    atmosphere of participation, responsibility and ownership.

9.  The professional staff shall collaborate in support of learning for
    all students.

10. Student grouping patterns shall reflect the diversity of the student
    body, foster heterogeneity, reflect current research and best
    practices and support the achievement of the school's mission and
    expectations for student learning.

11. Student success shall be regularly acknowledged, celebrated and
    displayed.

# 

# STANDARD II -- HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL

## 

The most important factor for improving student achievement is the
quality of the classroom teacher. Placing and retaining a competent,
caring and qualified teacher in every classroom will maximize
opportunities for student learning. All educators of Idaho students will
be highly qualified as defined by the Idaho State Board of Education
Administrative Rules.

Individual professional development plans and a staff evaluation model
that effectively promotes the continuous improvement of school personnel
are required components of this standard.

## 2.01. STAFFING -- 24 points

3.  Certificated personnel meet all state and federal requirements. (18)

4.  Non-certificated personnel meet all state and federal requirements.
    (6)

## 2.02. INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT -- 30 points

3.  The school has a process in place to create and monitor individual
    professional development plans. (9) The individual professional
    development plan:

    a.  engages the professional educator in examination of best
        practices for teaching and learning as defined by research. (3)

    b.  identifies the organizational structure and support needed to
        improve the educator's performance. (3)

    c.  is job-embedded, data-driven and supports increased student
        achievement. (3)

4.  The school involves staff in the development and implementation of
    individual and school professional development plans that align with
    the goals defined in the district strategic plan and the continuous
    Continuous Improvement Plan. (6)

5.  Organizational structure, support, time and resources are provided
    to staff in order to meet the objectives of individual and
    school-wide professional development plans. (6)

## 2.03. STAFF EVALUATION -- 18 points

2.  The school uses a staff evaluation model that effectively promotes
    the continuous improvement of school personnel. (6)

3.  Teacher supervision and evaluation processes shall be used to
    improve instruction for the purposes of enhancing student learning
    and meeting student needs. (6)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Teachers shall be expert in their content area, knowledgeable about
    current research on effective instructional approaches and
    reflective about their own practices. (6)

## 2.04 . STAFF TURNOVER/RETENTION -- 6 points

1.  The school evaluates staff turnover and addresses any concerns about
    staff retention. (6)

# 

# STANDARD III -- EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Schools will provide a comprehensive educational program focused on
meeting the needs of all students. High expectations for student success
and frequent monitoring of student progress are critically important to
student learning. Deep alignment of curriculum, instruction and
assessment to standards considered essential for all students is
imperative.

## A school's educational program must be aligned with the Thoroughness legislation, Idaho Code 33-1612; the State Board of Education's Idaho Student Achievement Standards K-12; and the testing and high school graduation requirements defined in the Thoroughness Chapter of the Idaho State Board of Education Administrative Rules.

## 3.01. ELEMENTS OF THOROUGHNESS \-- 6 points

2.  The following Elements of Thoroughness, as cited in Idaho Code
    33-1612, are integrated throughout the educational program: (6)

    a.  provision of a safe learning environment conducive to learning

    b.  educators empowered to maintain classroom discipline

    c.  emphasis on basic values of honesty, self-discipline,
        unselfishness, respect for authority and the central importance
        of work

    d.  provision of instruction in effective communication skills

    e.  provision of a basic curriculum that enables students to enter
        academic or professional-technical postsecondary educational
        programs

    f.  instruction in skills necessary to enter the workforce

    g.  introduction of students to current technology

    h.  skill acquisition for responsible citizenship at home, school
        and in the community

## 3.02. CONTENT STANDARDS \-- 15 points

3.  The curriculum, instruction and assessments shall be aligned with
    the Idaho Content Standards. (12)

4.  Non-traditional courses such as distance education, correspondence
    courses, web-based courses and the Portable Assistance Student
    Support (PASS) program shall be aligned with the Idaho Content
    Standards. (N/A for elementary schools)

## 3.03. CURRICULUM \-- 27 points 

The curriculum, which includes coursework, co-curricular activities and
other school-approved educational experiences, is the school\'s formal
plan to fulfill its mission statement and expectations for student
learning. The curriculum links the school\'s beliefs, its expectations
for student learning and its instructional practices. The strength of
that link is dependent upon the commitment and involvement of the
professional staff to a comprehensive, ongoing review of the curriculum.

7.  Each curriculum area shall identify those school-wide academic
    expectations for which it is responsible.

8.  A written curriculum for each subject area shall be utilized.

9.  The curriculum shall be aligned with the school-wide academic
    expectations and shall ensure that all students have opportunity to
    practice and achieve each of those expectations.

10. Curricular coordination and articulation between and among all
    academic areas shall be evident within the school as well as with
    feeder schools in the district.

11. Instructional materials, technology, equipment, supplies,
    facilities, staffing levels and the resources of the library/media
    center shall allow for the implementation of the curriculum.

12. The professional staff shall be involved in the ongoing development,
    evaluation and revision of the curriculum based on assessments of
    student performance in achieving the school\'s academic
    expectations.

13. The school or district shall commit time, financial resources and
    personnel to the development, evaluation and revision of curriculum.

14. The school selects primary curricular materials for all subject
    areas from the [Idaho Adoption Guide]{.underline} as approved by the
    State Board of Education. *(include provision for waivers)*

15. Technology shall be integrated into and supportive of teaching and
    learning.

16. 3.04. INSTRUCTION \-- 24 points

The quality of instruction in a school is the single most important
factor affecting the quality of student learning, the achievement of
expectations for student learning, the delivery of the curriculum and
the assessment of student progress. Instructional practices must be
grounded in the school\'s mission and expectations for student learning,
supported by research in best practice and refined and improved based on
identified student needs. Teachers are expected to be reflective about
their instructional strategies and to collaborate with their colleagues
about instruction and student learning.

3.  Instructional strategies shall be consistent with the school\'s
    mission statement and expectations for student learning.

4.  The teaching and learning program focuses on instructional best
    practices.

5.  Instructional time is allocated and protected to support student
    learning.

6.  All students have a parent-approved student learning plan by the end
    of eighth grade or by age for special education students regardless
    of grade level. (possible N/A for elementary schools)

7.  Limited English proficient students who require testing
    accommodations have an individual learning plan that is aligned with
    the Idaho Content Standards.

8.  All special education students have a current individual education
    plan that is aligned with the Idaho Content Standards.

9.  The school or district endeavors to meet the teacher/student ratios
    and teacher loads recommended by the state: (6)

> Elementary (K-3) = 20
>
> Elementary (4-6) = 26
>
> Middle/junior high = 160 teacher load
>
> High school = 160 teacher load for traditional schedule (140 for
> trimester school schedules, 180 for block school schedules)
>
> Alternative school (7-12) = 18 average daily class load

## 3.05. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING -- 15 points 

Assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Its
purpose is to inform students regarding their learning progress and
teachers regarding ways to adjust the curriculum and instruction to
respond effectively to the learning needs of students. Further, it
communicates to the school community the progress of students in
achieving the school\'s expectations for student learning and
course-specific learning goals. Assessment results must be continually
discussed to improve curriculum and instruction.

5.  The school staff uses data to improve student performance,
    facilitate quality instruction and provide intervention as needed.

6.  The school participates in the annual statewide student assessment
    program as required by Administrative Rules.

7.  The school regularly monitors student achievement using multiple
    assessment measures.

8.  Parents/guardians are informed of assessment results, invited to
    participate in the development of plans for improvement and are
    aware of methods to help their students.

9.  The school's professional staff shall communicate the school\'s
    progress achieving all school-wide expectations to the school
    community.

# 

# STANDARD IV -- LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Schools will provide a safe, nurturing, disciplined and orderly learning
environment conducive to learning. School site, facilities, equipment
and related services serve as a vehicle for the implementation of the
school mission and factor into the functioning of the educational
program. The school's learning environment should contribute to a
positive educational atmosphere and address the physical, emotional and
social health and safety of all persons in the school. Maintenance of
discipline and attention to reducing student behavior problems will
improve learning opportunities for students. The provision of a
productive climate and culture is an essential factor impacting student
achievement.

## 4.01. SCHOOL PLANT AND FACILITIES -- 21 points

6.  Facilities meet all building codes, safety standards and public
    health regulations required by state and local authorities.

7.  The site, buildings, equipment and furnishings are designed and
    maintained to facilitate the safety of all occupants and to maintain
    the quality of the school's instructional and co-curricular
    programs.

8.  The school building is inspected annually per Idaho Uniform School
    Building Safety Act. (6)

9.  A planned and adequately funded program of building and site
    management at the district and/or school level shall ensure the
    maintenance, repair and cleanliness of the school plant.

10. The school site and plant shall support and enhance all aspects of
    the educational program and the support services for student
    learning.

11. Equipment shall be adequate, properly maintained, catalogued and
    replaced when appropriate.

#### 4.02. SAFE, POSITIVE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT -- 21 points

2.  The school has a written code of student conduct that was
    cooperatively designed by members of the school community including
    students, staff, administration and patrons. (6)

3.  Policies and procedures regarding student behavior are clearly
    communicated and consistently enforced and applied.

4.  The climate of the school shall be safe, positive, respectful and
    supportive, resulting in a sense of pride and ownership.

5.  The school has established a school safety team with representation
    from the school and community for development, implementation and
    monitoring of the safe learning environment.

6.  The school has developed and implemented procedures for supervision
    and applicable training of employees to ensure a positive school
    environment.

7.  Data is collected on student behavior referrals, suspensions and
    expulsions and, if applicable, used for the development and
    implementation of improvement goals and strategies.

######## **4.03. SCHOOL RESOURCES FOR LEARNING \-- 21 points** 

Student learning and well-being are dependent upon adequate and
appropriate support programs and services. The school is responsible for
providing an effective range of integrated resources to enhance and
improve student learning and well-being and to support the school\'s
mission and expectations.

1.  The district or school employs classified and support personnel to
    meet the needs of the staff and students.

2.  Student records, including health and immunization records, shall be
    maintained in a confidential and secure manner consistent with
    federal and state law.

3.  The school has financial resources to provide services to students
    to meet the stated purposes of the school and to provide the
    educational program to the student.

4.  Proper budgetary procedures and generally accepted accounting
    principles are followed for all school funds.

5.  The school endeavors to meet state-recommended caseloads for pupil
    personnel services: counselors, social workers & psychologists =
    400:1 (\*student/district average)

6.  The school shall provide special education services related to the
    identification, monitoring and referral of students in accordance
    with local, state and federal laws.

7.  The school endeavors to meet the state-recommended ratios for
    elementary/secondary media generalists and assistants: elementary =
    500:1\*/secondary = 500:1\*

######## **4.04. COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR LEARNING -- 9 points**

Active community and parent participation, facilities that support
school programs and services and dependable and adequate funding are
necessary for the school to achieve its mission and expectations for
student learning.

1.  The school shall engage parents and families as partners in each
    student\'s education and shall encourage their participation in
    school programs and parent support groups.

2.  The school shall foster business/community/higher education
    partnerships that support student learning.

3.  There shall be ongoing planning to address future programs,
    enrollment changes, staffing, facility and technology needs as well
    as capital improvements.

# STANDARD V - CONTINUOUS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Continual improvement of the educational program is essential in
providing quality results. Idaho schools must be actively involved in a
dynamic and data-driven Continuous Improvement Planning process.
Professional development programs and parent/community participation in
the planning process are required elements that distinguish good
schools. Successful improvement programs should focus on the systematic
analysis of student performance data and how the school's instructional
and organizational practices impact student achievement.

## CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN -- 42 points 

1.  The school develops and implements a Continuous Improvement Plan
    focused on student achievement that is reviewed and revised on an
    ongoing basis.

2.  The continuous Continuous Improvement Plan utilizes school
    leadership teams and provides for a collaborative, organized process
    of planning and decision-making, which includes parental and
    community involvement.

3.  There is a commitment to the school improvement process by the
    school leadership team and the school staff.

4.  The school utilizes a continuous school improvement process that
    includes each of the following common core elements:

    a.  vision, mission and belief/commitment statements that guide
        school improvement and focus on student performance

    b.  ongoing collection, review and analysis of pertinent data that
        builds a profile of the school and assesses staff and student
        needs

    c.  utilization of data analysis/needs assessment results to select
        the most appropriate areas upon which to focus improvement
        efforts and to identify needed student support services

    d.  development of data-driven and measurable student achievement
        goals

    e.  assessment and analysis of staff strengths and challenges in
        relation to the student achievement goals

    f.  review of pertinent research and use of scientifically
        research-based models, programs and practices when selecting
        improvement strategies

    g.  strategies that focus on improving student performance

    h.  action plan and timeline for implementing strategies and
        achieving goals

    i.  professional development goals aligned with the Continuous
        Improvement Plan

    j.  monitoring and evaluation of the effect of the plan on student
        achievement and staff practices in order to make adjustments, as
        needed, to ensure success

5\. Evidence of school improvement is identified, documented, utilized
and communicated to all stakeholders.

## PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT -- 30 points

3.  The school has ensured that time and resources are made available to
    staff in order to meet professional development needs. (6)

4.  Professional development is an integral part of and aligned with the
    Continuous Improvement Plan (6)

5.  The school is utilizing a staff development plan that reflects
    identified instructional needs. (6)

6.  The school\'s professional development program shall provide
    opportunities for teachers to develop and improve their
    instructional strategies. (6)

7.  The school\'s professional development program shall provide
    opportunities for teachers to collaborate in developing a broad
    range of student assessment strategies. (6)

# STANDARD VI -- STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

The primary focus for Idaho schools is student learning and growth.
Districts and schools, in partnership with parents and the community,
must be accountable for student achievement. Accountability refers to
the systematic collection, analysis and use of data and information to
provide for continuous improvement in student performance.

## The State Board of Education's accountability measures defined in Administrative Rules set forth the basic requirements contained in this standard.

## ACCOUNTABILITY -- 27 points

4.  The school follows or has established high school graduation
    requirements that, at a minimum, align with those of the State Board
    of Education. (NA for elementary & middle schools or if district is
    responsible)

5.  The school reports attendance rates, student dropout rates and
    graduation rates and incorporates goals for reducing the number of
    absences and dropouts in the continuous Continuous Improvement Plan
    as needed.

6.  The school clearly documents student achievement on school records
    and ensures that all student records are physically secured against
    fire, misplacement, loss or other unauthorized access.

7.  The school develops and communicates written procedures to staff,
    students and patrons regarding:

a\. comprehensive and effective plan for evaluating student achievement

b\. grading and graduation requirements

c\. attendance

d\. promotion and retention

e\. expulsion and suspension

> f\. persistently dangerous schools

## STUDENT PROGRESS -- 92 points 

4.  The school disaggregates all student data, tracks subpopulations
    longitudinally and reports progress annually, adhering to current
    state and federal guidelines. (6)

5.  The school publishes annual report cards, which include state
    assessment data; makes them broadly available in understandable
    language to the public; and submits them as required by state and
    federal requirements. (6)

6.  The school demonstrates student growth and/or progress on statewide
    assessments as measured by the Fall Idaho Standards Achievement Test
    (ISAT), and the Fall to Spring Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI). (80)

    a.  ISAT:

        i.  students do not meet typical (expected) growth

        ii. students meet typical (expected) growth

        iii. students exceed typical (expected) growth

        iv. students demonstrate extraordinary growth

    b.  IRI:

        i.  students do not meet state established proficiency targets

        ii. students are making progress toward the established
            proficiency targets

        iii. students meet state established proficiency targets (85%
             etc)

        iv. students exceed state established proficiency targets

**Appendix F**

**STATE BOARD RULE: ACCREDITATION**

IDAPA 08\
TITLE 02\
CHAPTER 02

08.02.02 - Rules Governing Uniformity

**140.** **Accreditation.**

All public schools and districts in Idaho will be state accredited.
State accreditation is voluntary for private and parochial schools.
(Section 33- 119, Idaho Code) (4-6-05)

**01.** **District Strategic Plan**. School districts will develop and
implement a minimum three to five-year strategic plan focused on the
improvement of student performance. The district strategic plan (DSP)
will be monitored by a representative review team established by each
district's administration and board of trustees, which will recommend
revision of goals as necessary and provide regular reports on
implementation of the plan to the district's trustees. (4-6-05)

**02. Continuous Improvement Plan**. Schools will develop Continuous
Improvement Plans (CSIP) focused on the improvement of student
performance. (4-6-05)

**03.** **Plan Alignment and Focus**. District strategic plans (DSP) and
Continuous Improvement Plans (CSIP) will align and focus on improving
school and staff capacity (structure/resource allocation/teacher skill
sets) to increase student achievement. (4-6-05)

**04.** **Standards**. Districts and schools will meet state-approved
accreditation standards as adopted by the State Board of Education.
(4-6-05)

**05.** **Reporting**. Accreditation reports on DSP/CSIP and the
attainment of standards will be submitted, as requested, to the State
Accreditation Committees, whose members are approved by the State Board
of Education and representative of each region of the state. The
Committees will review the reports and make recommendations to the State
Board of Education for accreditation status. Accreditation status may be
appealed to the State Board of Education. (4-6-05)

**06.** **Elements of Thoroughness**. The requirements for thoroughness
referenced in Section 33-1612, Idaho Code will be met. (4-6-05)

**Appendix G**

**Historical Overview of Technical Assistance, Services, and Programs**

**[Reading]{.underline}**

-   Idaho has been very successful in reading achievement. According to
    the 2005 NAEP results, Idaho was one of three states that
    significantly increased reading achievement among fourth graders.
    The data supports that one of the reasons for this success has been
    the professional development provided by the State:

    -   Beginning in 2000, teachers of grades kindergarten through eight
        were required to take a three-credit graduate course based on
        the findings of the National Reading Panel (April, 2000).

    -   In 2001, the State Department of Education began grade level
        statewide Reading Academies.

    -   First Grade Academies were offered twelve times and in seven
        locations across the state in 2001 and 2002.

    -   In the 2002-2003, the State Department of Education offered
        eight regional Second Grade Reading Academies

    -   In 2003-2004, the State Department of Education offered eight
        regional Third Grade Reading Academies

    -   In 2004-2005, the State Department of Education offered eight
        regional Kindergarten Reading Academies.

    -   In 2005-2006, the State Department of Education offered eight
        Reading Academies for paraprofessionals.

    -   The State Department of Education has sponsored Reading Coach
        training annually beginning in 2003. The Coach training has been
        provided by the Consortium of Reading Excellence (CORE). There
        have been five elementary cohorts and two secondary cohorts.

    -   The State Department of Education has also sponsored Reading
        Leadership training for district and building level
        administrators (also facilitated by CORE). The program began in
        2003 and four cohorts completed the training. Both the coaching
        and reading leadership training will be offered again during the
        summer of 2007.

**[Math]{.underline}**

-   In 2002, a task force jointly appointed by the Office of the
    Governor and the State Department of Education identified a need to
    provide professional development to middle grade math teachers. The
    goal of the Idaho Math Academy is to create a comprehensive and
    sustainable professional development opportunity for teachers. It
    also provides opportunities for networking and follow-up activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 2003, 100 middle school math teachers attended the one week
    institute at the University of Idaho in Moscow.

-   In 2004, 100 middle school math teachers attended the one week
    institute at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

-   In 2005, 100 middle school math teachers attended the one week
    institute at Boise State University.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The 2006 Math Academy, priority was given to math teachers from
    middle schools struggling to meet AYP. One hundred teachers from
    those middle schools attended the institute at the University of
    Idaho.

    -   Three two-day workshops on "Effective Strategies for Struggling
        Middle School Math Students" were sponsored by our Special
        Education Department. Invitations went to all middle schools in
        needs improvement. Schools sent teams of general education,
        special education, ESL teachers, and administrators. The focus
        was on research based instructional strategies and curricular
        evaluation of math intervention programs.

    -   As a follow-up, middle schools were invited to send a team to
        "Improving Middle School Math Performance." This three-day
        conference focused on research based best practices, progress
        monitoring, leadership, coaching, and curricular materials. The
        2006 summer conference was facilitated by Dr. Marcy Stein and
        Dr. Diane Kinder from the University of Washington (authors of
        *Effective Math Instruction*, 2005) and attended by more than
        120 teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators.

**[Plato Learning]{.underline}**

-   In 2004, the Idaho State Board of Education contracted with Plato
    Learning, Inc., to provide for all Idaho public K-12 schools
    unlimited, perpetual licenses for reading, language arts, and math
    courseware. The computer courseware, aligned to Idaho's K-12 content
    standards, consists of thousands of hours of classes across all
    grades and beyond. An integral part of the contract is the provision
    of professional development for teachers to assure that they learn
    not only how to use the technology but also how to use the courses
    for maximum impact. At this point, all Idaho school districts are
    implementing I-PLN for many purposes that include Idaho Student
    Achievement Test (ISAT) intervention and remediation (its originally
    intended purpose); acceleration and college preparation; classroom
    support; special populations support: special education and limited
    English proficient students; alternate graduation mechanism; and
    credit recovery. I-PLN is a tool that allows teachers to
    individualize learning paths for each student to address student
    learning needs and goals. In addition to being available for the
    regular public school system, the courseware, technical support, and
    professional development are also available to public charter
    schools, Idaho Youth Ranch facilities, 21st Century Community
    Learning Centers (after school programs), Idaho School for the Deaf
    and the Blind, juvenile detention centers, and the Idaho
    Correctional Institutions where K-12 students continue to be
    educated. Idaho institutions of higher education with
    responsibilities for pre-service teacher preparation also have
    access to I-PLN.

**[Response to Intervention/Results Based Model]{.underline}**

-   Idaho began researching Iowa's Response-to-Intervention Model (RTI)
    in 1997. In 1998, the State Department of Education launched Idaho's
    version, the Results Based Model (RBM). RBM is a schoolwide problem
    solving approach focused on increasing outcomes for struggling
    learners. While the process originated in the Bureau of Special
    Education, it is not limited to students with disabilities. The
    program started with approximately 30 pilot sites but has now grown
    to 185 schools in 54 districts. Two of our sites (Dalton Gardens in
    Coeur d'Alene and Acequia Elementary in Minidoka) have been
    identified as exemplary by the National Research Center for Learning
    Disabilities. In 2005 the Bureau of Special Populations created a
    prioritized list of schools based on AYP status and students with
    disabilities to be served by the project and have made a consistent
    effort to encourage and include teams from those schools in the
    program. In 2006, the State Board of Education adopted RBM as a
    means of corrective action planning.

**[PACE]{.underline}**

-   Pathway for Accelerated Certification and Endorsement (PACE) offered
    by Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho, provides
    individuals presently working in the schools and individuals who
    would like to work in the schools an opportunity to earn full
    elementary or secondary teaching certificates through programs
    servicing a highly diverse clientele on and off campus at
    nontraditional times and by means of nontraditional delivery modes.
    This program is functioning and will continue. Link:
    <http://www.lcsc.edu/education/pace>

**[Troops to Teachers]{.underline}**

-   Troops to Teachers provides financial aid to qualified applicants in
    the form of a \$5,000 stipend to help individuals complete teacher
    training and teach in a high need district for three years, or a
    \$10,000 bonus to teach in a high need school for three years.
    Troops to Teachers also provides advising and referral assistance to
    those who transition to public school teaching.