Reviewing Revised State Plans

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal

State: WASHINGTON

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:

-   Within each requirement, the review team labeled each of
    subrequirements a, b, c, d, etc. to facilitate easy analysis and
    provide feedback.

-   Requirements 1, 3, 4 were partially met; Requirement 2 was met;
    Requirements 5 and 6 were not met.

-   Regarding requirement 6, the plan says that there "is little
    disparity in placement of well-prepared teachers between high and
    low-poverty schools." (page 16). It is unclear how OSPI is defining
    what "well prepared" is (whether it is by HQT status, inexperience
    or out of field status). Nor is data presented to substantiate the
    claim of little disparity. Without this information, the document
    submitted does not constitute a written equity plan according to the
    definition above in Requirement 6.

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?

  Y                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?

  Y                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

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative:]{.underline}

a.  Washington does not have data on HQT by class and will not until
    September 2006. "With the collection of 2005-06 data completed by
    September 30 2006, Title IIA staff will be able to specifically
    identify classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified."
    (p.2)

b.  As above, Washington does not have course-level data at this point
    for the current year. They do have trend data for schools not making
    AYP for 2004-05.

c.  Trends for high risk teaching assignments for 2005-06 are provided
    on page 2, although data is incomplete.

d.  Districts and schools are identified for 2004-05.

e.  The analysis identifies types of assignments but not courses.
    Courses will be identified with the new 2005-06 data.

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

  Y                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}:

\_\_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}

a.  LEAs are identified in Appendix D for 2004-05.

b.  Steps the LEAs will take are identified on page 4, item 3.

c.  Steps the SEA will take are identified on page 4, item 3 (part a).

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?

  N                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?

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

  N                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?

  N                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}:

\_\_\_ 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}

a.  Several types of technical assistance that the SEA will provide to
    the LEAs are described on pages 5-8.

b.  Professional development needs are addressed on page 5, second
    bullet. We do not, however, see evidence that the staffing needs of
    schools specifically not making AYP are given high priority
    (although "hard to staff" schools are addressed with the brochure).

c.  The plan describes such programs and services on page 7. While the
    OSPI provides professional learning opportunities for all educators
    thru a number of venues, addressing this requirement mostly focuses
    on assisting LEAs in constructing a plan to assure teachers meet HQT
    requirements. Upon completion of reporting/analysis of 05-06 data in
    Sept 2006, meetings will be held among OSPI staff to plan for
    focused professional development to meet HQT requirements.

d.  We do not see evidence that any subgroups of addressed are
    specifically addressed in the plan.

e.  We do not evidence of how the SEA will use available funds to
    address the needs of non HQT teachers.

f.  We do not see the plan for use of available funds and schools not
    meeting AYP are not addressed.

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?                              |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y             | 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?                                          |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| U             | 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?                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Y             | 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

\_\_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}

a.  Evidence is provided on page 4, item 2 point c and item 5, and on
    page 10 items 4 and 5.

b.  Technical assistance is outlined on page 9 items 1 and 2, page 7
    item 5, and targeting to schools not making AYP is mentioned p 9
    item 2 and districts not making AYP is mentioned on page 10, item 6.

c.  There is evidence that the SEA will monitor on the first bullet
    point -- percentage of HQT at each LEA (p. 10, number 5), but no
    evidence could be found that they will monitor on the second bullet
    point - the PD performance indicator.

d.  Description of the technical assistance that will be provided is
    found on page 9 item 2.

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}

a\. The plan must describe how and when the SEA will complete the HOUSSE
process for all teachers not new to the profession hired before the end
of 05-06 school year (eg. not new refers to any teacher hired before
2002). However, OSPI proposes continued use of points based HOUSSE to at
least the end of the 06-07 school year for [all]{.underline} teachers
hired before the end of 2005-06 (p11).

b\. The state does not limit the use of HOUSSE to the groups of teachers
described above (see page 12 item 2).

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}

a.  The plan says that there "is little disparity in placement of
    well-prepared teachers between high and low-poverty schools." (page
    16). It is unclear how OSPI is defining what "well prepared" is
    (whether it is by HQT status, inexperience or out of field status).
    Nor is data presented to substantiate the claim of little disparity.
    Without this information, the document submitted does not constitute
    a written equity plan according to the definition above in
    Requirement 6.

b.  See a.

c.  See a. In addition, many of the strategies listed, while aimed at
    improving teacher quality overall, are not targeted specifically
    toward reducing inequities in teacher assignment.

d.  No evidence was found to support the probable success of strategies
    was found.

e.  No evidence was found to indicate that the SEA will examine the
    issue of equitable teacher assignment.