Assessing State Progress in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT)
Goals

Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine

Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans

State: ILLINOIS

Date of Review: 5/3/06

Overall Recommendation:

\_\_\_\_\_ Revised Plan Not Required: The State is making substantial
progress and is not required to submit a revised HQT plan

\_\_X\_\_ Revised Plan Required: The State has shown good-faith effort
in meeting the HQT goal but a revised HQT plan is required

\_\_\_\_\_ Revised Plan Required, Possible Sanctions: The State has not
shown good-faith effort in meeting the HQT goal. A revised HQT plan is
required and the Department will consider appropriate administrative
actions or sanctions

Comments to support recommendation:

-   The State has made significant progress in establishing HQT
    definitions that are consistent with the NCLB HQT requirements.

-   Illinois has documented improvements in data collection and
    reporting procedures. The State produces annual report cards with
    the required HQT information and submitted complete 2004-05 CSPR
    data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Illinois reported that 98 percent of classes statewide were taught
    by HQTs in 2004-05. While the rate was over 90 percent in all
    categories, the State reported gaps between high- and low-poverty
    schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   While the State has many successful strategies that address teaching
    inequities in schools with large high-poverty and minority student
    populations, it lacks a cohesive written plan to ensure that all
    students have access to a high quality teacher.

Decision

Approve \_\_\_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Signature [Elizabeth
A. Witt /s/]{.underline} Date [5/10/2006]{.underline}

Disapprove \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Signature
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Requirement 1: [Appropriate HQT Definitions]{.underline}---A State must
have a definition of a "highly qualified teacher" that is consistent
with the law, and it must use this definition to determine the status of
all teachers, including special education teachers, who teach core
academic subjects \[ESEA §9101(23); IDEA §602(10)\].

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

  Y                Does the State have an appropriate HQT definition in
                   place?

  Y                Do the definitions apply to all teachers of core
                   academic subjects, including special education
                   teachers?

  N                Has the State used these definitions to determine the
                   HQ status of all teachers?

  N                If the State has established HOUSSE procedures, has it
                   completed its review of teachers who are not new to
                   the profession?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 1 has been partially met

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

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

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date Requested \_\_\_\_\_\_ Submission Deadline[^1]

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   The U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducted an NCLB Title II,
    Part A, monitoring review of Illinois and is satisfied that the
    State has implemented the correct HQT definitions and procedures.
    Illinois was issued findings with regard to determining the HQT
    status of new and veteran special education teachers, but has
    provided an acceptable corrective action plan to ensure that special
    education teachers are included in all HQT definitions and
    procedures.

-   Illinois is in the process of conducting its final HQT and HOUSSE
    review of its teaching workforce.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the March 2-4,
2005 visit (6/1/05), Illinois State Response (7/27/05), ED Resolution
Letter (8/10/05).

Requirement 2: [Public Reporting of HQT Data]{.underline}---A State must
provide parents and the public with accurate, complete reports on the
number and percentage of classes in core academic subjects taught by
highly qualified teachers. States and districts must provide these data
to parents through school, district, and State report cards. Parents of
students in schools receiving Title I funds must be notified that they
may request information regarding the professional qualifications of
their children's teachers, and they must be notified if their children
have been assigned to or taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a
teacher who is not highly qualified \[ESEA §1111(h)(6) and §1119(i)\].

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

  Y                Does the State have an Annual State Report Card that
                   contains required information on the qualifications of
                   teachers, including the percentage of classes not
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  Y                Does the State have annual report cards for all of its
                   LEAs and schools that contain required information on
                   the qualifications of teachers, including the
                   percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified
                   teachers?

  Y                Does the State assure that all report cards are
                   available to the public?

  Y                Does the SEA assure that principals in all Title I
                   schools send the required notification to parents when
                   children are taught by teachers who are not HQ? Does
                   the SEA have evidence that notification occurs in a
                   timely way?

  Y                Does the SEA ensure that parents of students in Title
                   I districts are notified that they may request
                   information regarding the professional qualifications
                   of their children's teachers?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_\_\_ 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}:

Website link to report cards:
webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx

The most recent report card data are for the 2005 year.

Were HQT data included in the report cards? Yes

Other information (if available):

-   The State issues annual report cards at all levels in accordance
    with the NCLB HQT requirements.

-   As part of its Title II, Part A, monitoring review of Illinois, ED
    determined that the State was in compliance with Title I hiring and
    parental notification issues.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the March 2-4,
2005 visit (6/1/05), Illinois State Response (7/27/05), ED Resolution
Letter (8/10/05).

Requirement 3: [Data Reporting to ED]{.underline}---States must submit
complete and accurate data to the U.S. Secretary of Education on their
implementation of the HQT requirements as part of their Consolidated
State Performance Report (CSPR). In addition to reporting the number and
percentage of core academic classes being taught by highly qualified
teachers in all schools, States must report on the number and percentage
of core academic classes being taught in "high-" and "low-poverty"
schools \[ESEA §1111(h)(4)(G) and §9101(23)\]. States must also provide
additional information in the CSPR that describes, for classes taught by
non-HQ teachers, the reasons why the teachers are not highly qualified.

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

  Y                Did the State submit complete HQT data in the 2004-05
                   CSPR?

  Y                Are the submitted HQT data reported at the classroom
                   level?

  Y                Were data disaggregated for elementary and secondary
                   schools?

  Y                Were data disaggregated by high- and low-poverty
                   elementary schools and high- and low-poverty secondary
                   schools?

  N                Did the State provide specific information describing
                   the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been met

\_X\_ 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}:

-   Illinois reported complete CSPR data for 2004-05. The State reported
    that 98 percent of classes statewide were taught by HQTs.

-   Illinois did not provide specific information describing the reasons
    why teachers are not highly qualified.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, March 2006.

Requirement 4: [Equity Plans]{.underline}---States must have a plan in
place to ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates
than are other children \[ESEA §1111(b)(8)(C)\].

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

  Y                Does the State have a plan in place to ensure that
                   poor or minority children are not taught by
                   inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers
                   at higher rates than are other children?

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 4 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Illinois received a finding on its lack of an equity plan during its
    NCLB Title II, Part A, monitoring review. ED received and accepted a
    corrective action plan that provided the State's approach to
    addressing staffing inequities between high- and low-poverty
    schools. The approach outlined in the State's response did not
    provide enough detail to determine whether the plan adequately
    addresses ED's equity plan requirements.

Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the March 2-4,
2005 visit (6/1/05), Illinois State Response (7/27/05), ED Resolution
Letter (8/10/05).

[Analysis of the State's Progress Toward Meeting the HQT
Goal:]{.underline}

Has the State made annual progress in increasing the percent of classes
taught by highly qualified teachers?

[2002-03 data (from 2004 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total   | **Number of    | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number of | Core Academic  | Core Academic    |
|                     | Core      | Classes Taught | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic  | by Highly      | by Highly        |
|                     | Classes** | Qualified      | Qualified        |
|                     |           | Teachers**     | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **NA**    | **NA**         | **\--**          |
| ll Schools in State |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| > Schools**         |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **NA**    | **NA**         | **\--**          |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+

[2003-04 data (from 2005 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total  | **Number of     | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number   | Core Academic   | Core Academic    |
|                     | of Core  | Classes Taught  | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic | by Highly       | by Highly        |
|                     | C        | Qualified       | Qualified        |
|                     | lasses** | Teachers**      | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **1      | **142,102**     | **98.2**         |
| ll Schools in State | 44,702** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **\--**  | **\--**         | **\--**          |
| > Schools**         |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **\--**  | **\--**         | **\--**          |
| Schools**           |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **       | **24,352**      | **93.4**         |
| Schools**           | 26,062** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **       | **37,321**      | **99.7**         |
| Schools**           | 37,434** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+

[2004-05 data (from 2006 CSPR):]{.underline}

+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total  | **Number of     | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number   | Core Academic   | Core Academic    |
|                     | of Core  | Classes Taught  | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic | by Highly       | by Highly        |
|                     | C        | Qualified       | Qualified        |
|                     | lasses** | Teachers**      | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **1      | **143,619**     | **98.2**         |
| ll Schools in State | 46,280** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| #####               |          |                 |                  |
| ## Elementary Level |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **       | **20,640**      | **93.9**         |
| Schools**           | 21,981** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **       | **35,751**      | **99.8**         |
| Schools**           | 35,827** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **1      | **106,468**     | **98.4**         |
| > Schools**         | 08,245** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| # Secondary Level   |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | *        | **8,573**       | **91.8**         |
| Schools**           | *9,338** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **       | **13,089**      | **99.8**         |
| Schools**           | 13,120** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **       | **37,151**      | **97.7**         |
| Schools**           | 38,035** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ The State is making annual progress in increasing the percentage
of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

\_X\_ The State is not making annual progress in increasing the
percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Illinois changed its data collection methods between 2003-04 and
    2004-05. Prior to 2004-05, the State provided estimates, not actual
    counts, of the number and percentage of classes taught by HQTs and
    excluded special education teachers from the data. In addition, the
    State revised its HOUSSE procedures because the former criteria did
    not meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, it is not possible
    to measure the State's annual progress.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.

The 2004-05 CSPR data must show that the State has made substantial
progress in reaching the goal that, after the 2005-06 school year, 100
percent of all core academic classes will be taught by a highly
qualified teacher.

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

  N                Is the percentage of classes taught by highly
                   qualified teachers in high-poverty elementary schools
                   reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 points) the
                   percentage of classes taught by highly qualified
                   teachers in low-poverty elementary schools?

  N                Is the percentage of classes taught by highly
                   qualified teachers in high-poverty secondary schools
                   reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 points) the
                   percentage of classes taught by highly qualified
                   teachers in low-poverty secondary schools?

  U                Has the State made substantial progress since 2002-03
                   in reaching the goal of 100 percent of classes taught
                   by highly qualified teachers?

  Y                Are at least 90 percent of classes, in total, taught
                   by highly qualified teachers?

  Y                Are at least 90 percent of elementary school classes
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  Y                Are at least 90 percent of secondary school classes
                   taught by highly qualified teachers?

  U                If more than 90 percent of classes are taught by
                   highly qualified teachers, do the data on teachers who
                   remain non-HQT suggest special cases that may make it
                   difficult for the State to meet the HQT goal?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

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

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_X\_ The State has made substantial progress in meeting the HQT goal

\_\_\_ The State has not made substantial progress in meeting the HQT
goal

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Though the State changed its HQT reporting procedures for the
    2004-05 CSPR data collection, making it impossible to measure annual
    progress, it is clear that the State is close to meeting the 100
    percent HQT goal by the end of the 2005-06 school year. In 2004-05,
    Illinois reported that 98 percent of classes statewide were taught
    by HQTs. While the percentage of classes taught by HQTs was above 90
    percent in all categories, the State reported gaps between high- and
    low-poverty schools---6 percentage points at the elementary level
    and 8 percentage points at the secondary level.

-   Illinois did not provide CSPR data for 2002-03.

-   Illinois did not indicate if there are any special cases that may
    make it difficult for the State to meet the HQT goal.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.

How does the State's progress in meeting the HQT goal align with its
progress in ensuring that all schools make adequate yearly progress
toward the goal of improvement in student achievement in reading and
mathematics?

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

  N                Does improved and exemplary statewide student
                   achievement on NAEP or on the State assessment
                   indicate that significant revision to the State's HQT
                   plan is not required, even if more than 10 percent of
                   classes are taught by teachers who are not HQ?

                   Do districts or schools that are in need of
                   improvement or in corrective action status have higher
                   percentages of teachers who are not highly qualified
                   than do other schools?
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ The State is making adequate yearly progress in student
achievement in nearly all of its districts and schools

\_\_\_ The State is not making adequate yearly progress in student
achievement in a substantial number of its schools or districts

\_\_\_ The State is not making substantial progress in meeting the HQT
goal in many of the schools and districts that are not making AYP

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

[^1]: ^\*^ In general, the submission deadline for additional
    information will be 30 business days after the date of the request.