Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: ARIZONA

Date: July 27, 2006

Peer Review Panel's Consensus Determination:

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

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

Comments to support determination:

There is a lack of necessary disaggregated data (at the school and
district levels) to show areas of need.

In a variety of instances, there are programmatic tactics in the absence
of a state strategy. A state strategy should include more than a listing
of programs; it should have a distinct focus, carefully coordinated
efforts, timelines, benchmarks, intended outcomes, and methods for
evaluation---all of which should translate into targeted teacher quality
and student achievement outcomes.

Overall, Arizona needs to more clearly identify needs (through data),
create a plan of determination for improvement, and describe the state's
role in evaluating impact and building capacity.

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

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U/NA         Evidence

  N                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?

  N                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?

  N                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?

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided; NA=Not applicable

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

There is an absence of provision and analysis of data provided by the
state. Arizona reports that analyses will be provided in the future
(Phase II and III). Additionally, the state reports issues around
inaccuracies of self-reported data from public schools and problems with
accurate data from charter schools. The focus on HQT is a data-dependent
process. The most basic elements of a data system are missing in this
section.

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

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

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

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

  Y                Does the plan delineate specific steps the SEA will
                   take to ensure that all LEAs have plans in place to
                   assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ as quickly as
                   possible?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 2 has been partially met

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

An immediate priority for the state should be to establish an accurate
and reliable data system period. In addition, the SEA must then develop
the analytical capabilities to use that system. This is a precursor to
being able to identify the progress of LEAs in meeting HQT requirements.

Currently, there are many layers of bureaucracy to the state plans
around this requirement. This undercuts the coherence, manageability,
and effectiveness of the state strategy.

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

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

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

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

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

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

  Y                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?

  Y                Does the plan for the use of available funds indicate
                   that priority will be given to the staffing and
                   professional development needs of schools that are not
                   making AYP?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ Requirement 3 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been partially met

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The requirement has been met in terms of compliance, but not in terms of
what is needed for quality and cohesion in a state plan.

There are programmatic tactics in the absence of a state strategy. A
state strategy should include more than a listing of programs; it should
have a distinct focus, carefully coordinated efforts, timelines,
benchmarks, intended outcomes, and methods for evaluation---all of which
should translate into targeted teacher quality and student achievement
outcomes.

There needs to be a stronger link between the areas of need (example:
American Indian students) and the technical assistance plans offered by
the state to the LEAs.

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

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y             | 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?                              |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | 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?                                          |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Does the plan describe how the SEA will monitor      |
|               | whether LEAs attain 100 percent HQT in each LEA and  |
|               | school:                                              |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   in the percentage of highly qualified teachers   |
|               |     at each LEA and school; and                      |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   in the percentage of teachers who are receiving  |
|               |     high-quality professional development to enable  |
|               |     such teachers to become highly qualified and     |
|               |     successful classroom teachers?                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include    |
|               | technical assistance or corrective actions that the  |
|               | SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP      |
|               | goals?                                               |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been partially met

\_X\_\_ Requirement 4 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

The state provides evidence of a monitoring protocol in place but not
how the data gathered from that protocol will drive support,
interventions, and how thoughtful actions will build the capacity of
districts.

How is the process of collecting and analyzing the monitoring protocols
*actually* conducted? Who collects? Who analyzes? How is quality
ensured? What criteria does the state use to drive the intervention
strategy?

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

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y/N/U         | Evidence                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | 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?                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| N             | Does the plan describe how the State will            |
|               | discontinue the use of HOUSSE after the end of the   |
|               | 2005-06 school year, except in the following         |
|               | situations:                                          |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural        |
|               |     schools who, if HQ in one subject at the time of |
|               |     hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence   |
|               |     in additional subjects within three years of the |
|               |     date of hire; or                                 |
|               |                                                      |
|               | -   Multi-subject special education teachers who are |
|               |     new to the profession, if HQ in language arts,   |
|               |     mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may |
|               |     use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in          |
|               |     additional subjects within two years of the date |
|               |     of hire.                                         |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 5 has been met

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

Arizona clearly identifies when HOUSSE will be discontinued, but *how*
the state plans to complete the HOUSSE process is not there. State plans
to limit the use of HOUSSE are not addressed.

Requirement 6: The revised plan must include a copy of the State's
written "equity plan" for ensuring that poor or minority children are
not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at
higher rates than are other children.

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Y/N/U            Evidence

  N                Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 6 has been met

\_\_\_ Requirement 6 has been partially met

\_X\_ Requirement 6 has not been met

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

Arizona does not have the supporting data around inequities because
Phase II and Phase III data are not available.

Arizona lists challenges and goals. The goals are related to developing
a comprehensive state-wide data system and are paired with goals around
recruitment and retention efforts. Description of goal 1, however, needs
to be much more detailed and fleshed out in order to show specific steps
toward implementation and feasibility. Furthermore, examples for goal 2
are not targeted toward inequities and do not represent a cohesive plan.
Evidence for the probability of success of a strategy should be rooted
in Arizona's needs.

Addressing this requirement and building the infrastructure within the
SEA to build an effective state equity plan should be an extremely high
priority for the state.