![](media/image1.png){width="4.489583333333333in"
height="2.3020833333333335in"}

**NCLB Revised Highly Qualified Teacher**

**State Plan**

**November 17, 2006**

**[Evidence for Michigan's Plan for 100% Highly Qualified
Teachers]{.underline}**

**Introduction**

While the intent of this state plan is to focus on low performing/high
poverty schools and those with a high number of minority students, it is
the expectation that Michigan's state plan addresses the whole state,
all schools, regardless of their poverty or minority level and their
current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status. The population of schools
and the staff employed by a district is not a constant and is regularly
changing. The assumption is that if schools are low performing, they are
high poverty, high minority or both, and that is not necessarily true in
Michigan. Good teaching is good teaching, and ALL Michigan teachers need
to have the support and training necessary to meet the needs of the
students regardless of their racial or economic status. Section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA defines "high-poverty" schools as
schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State and \"low-poverty\"
schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State.
Similarly, Michigan defines "high minority" schools as schools in the
top quartile as represented by the percentage of minority students
enrolled.

***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 Highly Qualified teacher (HQT)
standards, and examine whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff
courses frequently taught by non-Highly Qualified teachers.***

**1.1 Pertinent Data**

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has worked in collaboration
with the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) to
create data tables to assist in the analysis of the state's current
status toward achieving the NCLB goal of 100% of the teachers
demonstrating competence as a Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) and the
equitable distribution of the teachers in the state's schools. The
complete set of data tables, compiled in part from the most recent June
2006 end-of-year Registry of Educational Personnel (REP), can be found
in Appendix 1.

The data tables examine the distribution of HQTs in buildings making AYP
as compared to buildings not making AYP. The data tables also display
the percentage of HQTs by assignment and then again as the percentage of
HQTs by local education agency (LEA). This also includes the
distribution of special education teachers. Additionally, a number of
the data tables display information on the distribution of HQ,
experienced teachers in schools with high rates of poverty, high rates
of minority students, or both. The data presents a composite picture of
the status of teacher quality in Michigan.

The MDE is pursuing, along with CEPI, methods to collect information and
create data sets which compare student achievement to the assignment of
teachers. MDE and CEPI have engaged outside consultants and universities
to develop a process for meeting this goal.

Additionally, MDE and CEPI have established an advisory group, the
L2K/REP Referent Group, to improve the data collection systems already
in place. This group will be charged with assisting in the improvement
of data quality and the efficiency of the collection process.

**1.2 Data Summary and Analysis**

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE), in collaboration with the
Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI), a state
agency separate from MDE, collects information from public school
districts and public school academies on student achievement and school
employees. Data on school employees are collected twice each year to
create the Registry of Educational Personnel (REP). The REP, among other
things, gathers information on assignment and whether the teacher has
been identified as Highly Qualified (HQ) for the position. In the past,
school employees have been reported as Full Time Equivalents (FTE). For
the Fall 2005 report, the MDE directed districts to convert the FTE to
classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs). Districts were also
required to report reasons for teachers being classified as not HQ for
their assignment. All districts completed this task by the end of
January 2006.

By using the REP, CEPI also collects information regarding those
teachers within their first three years of teaching experience. Michigan
defines an inexperienced or new teacher as any teacher within their
first three years of experience. This data is used for tracking the
Michigan Advocating Strong Standards-based Induction and Support for
Teachers program (ASSIST: a mentoring and induction program), among
other uses. Based upon 2006 REP data, in those schools not meeting
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the percentage of teachers within their
first three years of experience was 16%. In addition, for those schools
not meeting AYP, the percentage of teachers who have not yet met the HQT
requirements was 6%. For those schools that had met the AYP
requirements, the percentage of teachers within their first three years
of classroom experience was 14% and the percentage of those that had not
yet met the HQT requirements was 3%. The difference between, as shown in
the table below, these percentages was minimal. The data found in the
following table can be viewed in its entirety at:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls)

Table 1

+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+
|                | Experienced    | Inexperienced | HQT     | Not HQT |
|                |                |               |         |         |
|                | Teachers       | Teachers      |         |         |
+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+
| Schools Making | 86%            | 14%           | 97%     | 3%      |
| AYP            |                |               |         |         |
+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+
| Schools NOT    | 84%            | 16%           | 94%     | 6%      |
| Making AYP     |                |               |         |         |
+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+
| **Difference   | **2%**         | **2%**        | **3%**  | **3%**  |
| of:**          |                |               |         |         |
+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+

The following table displays the distribution of teachers in schools
making AYP versus schools not making AYP, by experience and highly
qualified status. This data was obtained by using the current mentoring
and induction information we have on teachers in their first three years
of teaching. Using this data set, Table 2 displays the proportion of
experienced, Highly Qualified Teachers to experienced, Non-Highly
Qualified Teachers as compared to new, Highly Qualified Teachers and new
teachers who are not Highly Qualified. The data shows that the number of
new, non-Highly Qualified Teachers is 526 or approximately 0.6% of the
total number of teachers. The number may be misrepresentative, since all
new teachers must pass a rigorous state test before a teaching
certificate can be issued. State law has required this testing since
1993. A teacher is considered Highly Qualified by passing the test. We
are working with districts to determine if this 0.6% is representing new
teachers who are out-of-field or a data collection error. The number of
experienced teachers who are not Highly Qualified for the assignment is
2,770 or approximately 3% of the total. These teachers, approximately
3.6%, are the target of any state corrective action plan. This data was
compiled from the data table available at:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls)

Table 2

  ---------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------
                   HQ                    Not HQ                Total    

                   Number   Percentage   Number   Percentage   Number   Percentage

  Experienced      75,322   82.68%       2,770    3.04%        78,092   85.73%
  Teachers                                                              

  Inexperienced    12,475   13.69%       526      0.57%        13,001   14.27%
  Teachers                                                              

  Total            87,797   96.38%       3,296    3.61%        91,093   100%
  ---------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------

The following table, taken from the June 2006 REP report, shows the
courses that are more often taught by non-Highly Qualified teachers. The
data can be viewed in its entirety at:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/HQ_teachers_by_assignment_code_6-06_169755_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/HQ_teachers_by_assignment_code_6-06_169755_7.xls)

Table 3

  -------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
  **Core Academic      **Total Classes  **Number of      **% of Classes
  Subjects**           Taught**         Classes Taught   Taught by
                                        by Non-HQTs**    Non-HQTs**

  **Elementary**       32,428           243              0.75%

  **Language Arts**    12,068           570              2.01%

  **Math**             7,902            326              4.10%

  **Science**          8,481            451              5.31%

  **Social Studies**   3,347            255              7.62%

  **History**          2,300            117              5.09%

  **Geography**        429              65               15.15%

  **Economics**        407              54               13.27%

  **Political          591              79               13.37%
  Science**                                              

  **Arts**             5,846            166              2.83%

  **Foreign            2,471            66               2.67%
  Languages**                                            

  **Special            9,118            670              7.30%
  Education**                                            
  -------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------

In our initial data collection (December 2005) and using data collected
by staff during telephone and email support with administrators and
teachers, it was determined that the several subjects (economics,
political science and social studies as examples) were more likely
taught by teachers who were not Highly Qualified because the teacher did
not hold the appropriate endorsement. More often than not, the teacher
held a history endorsement and had been placed in a class under the
social studies "umbrella." This is an out-of-field placement and results
in the district being out of compliance with Michigan School Code, and
the teacher is therefore not HQ. This is a matter that is being
addressed as a violation of Michigan School Code. Those districts that
are out of compliance with Michigan School Code will be subject to loss
of State Aid funding.

From current data collections, Michigan has determined that we have a
very unique distribution of teachers. While there are inequities, such
as Detroit Public Schools being short special education teachers and
Grand Rapids Public Schools being under a court order to provide
bilingual educators, we have strategies already in place to address
these inequities and progress is being made. We are fortunate to be one
of the leading producers and exporters of teachers in the U.S. However,
it is difficult for urban settings to attract and retain teachers in a
variety of subject areas. The number of permits issued to these
districts outlines the areas where they are most in need. Of the permits
issued for the 2005-2006 school year, 49.28% were for special education
teachers. There continues to be a statewide shortage of special
education teachers as well as a need to improve science (specifically
chemistry and physics) and math instruction. Therefore, Michigan's
Equity Plan will not only focus on these difficulties, but will also
include the following key elements:

-   eliminating out-of-field placement in all schools (as described
    above)

-   reaching the 100% HQT goal in all schools

-   providing support to inexperienced teachers in schools not making
    AYP

The distribution of Highly Qualified teachers among high poverty/low
poverty school districts and districts with high minority/low minority
student populations by AYP status is presented in the table below. The
current data indicates that on a statewide basis there is no significant
statistical difference between the percentages of classes taught by
Highly Qualified and non-Highly Qualified teachers across school
districts. Statewide, just over 96% of all classes are taught by Highly
Qualified teachers. This information can be found in its entirety at:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Poverty_Status_Summary_171872_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Poverty_Status_Summary_171872_7.xls%0D)

Table 4

  ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------
  ** **            **AYP Met**                                 **AYP Not                           
                                                               Met**                               

  **POVERTY        **HQ        **NonHQ     **Classes   **%     **HQ        **NonHQ     **Classes   **%
  STATUS**         Classes**   Classes**   Taught**    HQ**    Classes**   Classes**   Taught**    HQ**

  **High Poverty** 15,049      420         15,469      97.28   13,858      545         14,403      96.22

  **Low Poverty**  61,291      1,514       62,805      97.59   6,564       154         6,718       97.71

  **Not High/Low   68,384      2,131       70,515      96.98   12,231      416         12,647      96.71
  Poverty**                                                                                        

  **Not            5,274       271         5,545       95.11   7,092       125         7,217       98.27
  Determined\***                                                                                   

  **All**          149,998     4,336       154,334     97.19   39,745      1,240       40,985      96.97

  **MINORITY       **HQ        **NonHQ     **Classes   **%     **HQ        **NonHQ     **Classes   **%
  STATUS**         Classes**   Classes**   Taught**    HQ**    Classes**   Classes**   Taught**    HQ**

  **High           21,016      523         21,539      97.57   24,442      700         25,142      97.22
  Minority**                                                                                       

  **Low Minority** 38,068      1,178       39,246      97.00   5,071       162         5,233       96.90

  **Not High/Low   90,914      2,635       93,549      97.18   10,232      378         10,610      96.44
  Minority**                                                                                       

  **All**          149,998     4,336       154,334     97.19   39,745      1,240       40,985      96.97
  ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------

It is important to note that Michigan schools may fail to make AYP for a
variety of reasons. Only some of those reasons are directly impacted by
administrators, teachers, and curriculum. Michigan has more schools
failing to meet AYP than many other states because the State Board of
Education had already implemented stringent criteria for meeting AYP in
advance of NCLB.

***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.***

**2.1 Analysis**

Acting on a recommendation by the USDOE, the Consolidated State
Performance Report was revised to collect the number of classes taught
by Highly Qualified teachers. It was reported that statewide, 8% of
Michigan's classes were reported as being taught by non-Highly Qualified
teachers. Where appropriate, the districts were asked to give reasons
why a teacher was not yet Highly Qualified for his or her assignment. Of
those teachers who were reported as not meeting the Highly Qualified
requirements, 58% were identified as certified teachers who have yet to
verify and report their Highly Qualified status to their district. The
next most frequent reason given identified 28% (of the 8% identified as
not Highly Qualified) who were teaching out-of-field. Thirteen percent
of the 8% were identified as certified special education teachers who
have yet to demonstrate their Highly Qualified status. A May 2006 survey
of districts reporting less than 90% of their teachers Highly Qualified
concluded that all districts were on target to have HQ teachers in core
academic assignments by the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.500694444444444in"
height="2.542361111111111in"}

Initially MDE did not monitor LEAs to ensure that they set annual
measurable objectives. In December of 2005, however, districts were
given targeted percentages so that by June 30, 2006 they would be at
100%. These targets were based upon calculations from 2003-2004 district
data collections. LEAs who did not report 100% HQ status submitted a
plan for reaching 100% by June 30, 2006. The following list gives the
most common examples that were included in the plans submitted by the
LEAs:

-   reassigning teachers to areas for which they are already HQ

-   dedicating time and funding to high quality professional development

-   developing individual teacher plans to meet requirements

-   providing tuition reimbursement

-   review of curriculum and classes being offered

-   dedicating funding and providing support to those taking the
    Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC)

-   conducting in-services about the HQ requirements

-   close review of teaching certificates held by staff members

A sample plan from one district, as submitted in the December 2005 REP
Report, follows:

"During the past three years, Hamilton Community Schools has worked to
understand and comply with the requirements for Highly Qualified
teachers as required by NCLB and described by the Michigan Department of
Education. Professional development supported by Title IIa funds has
been ongoing, supporting both individual teacher requirements and school
improvement goals. The following steps outline our plan to comply with
the requirements that all teachers are Highly Qualified for their
teaching assignments by the end of the 2005/06 school year.

> 2003/04
>
> 1\. Review HQT status with all teachers
>
> 2 Determine teachers without Highly Qualified status. Begin individual
> planning.
>
> 3\. Clarify questions regarding HOUSSE procedures.
>
> 4\. Review updates and clarifications as published by MDE.
>
> 2004/05
>
> 1\. Increase percentage of Highly Qualified teachers.
>
> 2\. Reassign staff based on Highly Qualified status at middle school.
>
> 3\. Begin HOUSSE review with appropriate staff.
>
> 4\. Initiate review of high school curriculum."

Districts throughout the state followed similar plans based upon the
individual district's needs.

The following table displays in rank order, from highest percent to
lowest percent, of the districts and schools by the percent of teachers
not yet Highly Qualified. This table displays, in five percent
increments, the number of districts/schools in each of the cells. There
are 22 districts/schools in the cell with less than 80% of the teachers
reported as Highly Qualified for their assignments. These
districts/schools are the highest priority for the MDE in assuring that
the 100% goal is reached. While the MDE will work extensively with the
22 districts, it will continue to monitor the progress of the remaining
districts/schools.

Table 5

  ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------
  Distribution of Highly                              
  Qualified Teachers by                               
  Number of Districts                                 

  Percentage of HQ Teachers Number of School          Percentage of
                            Districts                 Schools

  Below 80%                 22                        2.78%

  80-84%                    28                        3.5%

  85-89%                    48                        6.1%

  90-94%                    129                       16.3%

  95-99%                    278                       35.2%

  100%                      284                       35.9%

  Total                     789                       100%
  ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------

The complete listing of districts is available at:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls)

Michigan determined early on that the teachers having the most
difficulty meeting HQ requirements could be broken into 3 categories:

> 1\) middle school veteran teachers with certificate designations
> allowing them to teach any subject grades 7-8 or any subject grades
> K-8 (note: this designation was no longer issued after 1988, but is
> still valid for those who hold it),
>
> 2\) secondary teachers who were certified in their minor area prior to
> 1993 when testing requirements were implemented, and

3)  special education and alternative education teachers at the
    secondary level.

These teachers must use either the testing or the HOUSSE options to
become HQ.

Section 380.1531 of Michigan School Code requires districts to employ
teachers in an instructional capacity only if they have the appropriate
certifications or authorizations. This requirement is further refined by
Rule 5 (R 390.1105) of the Administrative Rules Governing Teacher
Certification. The 28% of those teachers reported as not HQ because they
were teaching out-of-field, must complete a state approved teacher
preparation program and complete the state testing requirements to
become certified (and HQ). By assigning a teacher to teach out-of-field,
the district is out of compliance with Michigan School Code and
Administrative Rules.

Using the June 2006 REP report, MDE determined the districts that had
not met the 100% HQT requirements by June 30, 2006. On September 8,
2006, each LEA with less than 100% HQT was mailed a list of those
teachers that were identified as non-HQ. These LEAs were required to
submit a response in writing to MDE within ten business days. The
complete letter can be found in Appendix 2. The response must answer the
following questions for each teacher listed as non-Highly Qualified for
their 2005-06 placement:

1)  Was the information entered correctly into the REP report?

2)  If the same teaching assignment has been made for 2006-2007, is the
    teacher now Highly Qualified?

3)  If he/she is not Highly Qualified, what steps will be taken to
    ensure the teacher will become Highly Qualified?

**2.2 Specific Steps to Reach 100%**

The first steps to be taken by the LEA to assure all teachers are Highly
Qualified is to review the list, provided to the LEA by MDE, of all
teachers reported as not Highly Qualified and to then establish current
status of these teachers. If all teachers have now demonstrated
competence as HQTs, no further action is required other than to notify
MDE by the end of September 2006. MDE then reviewed the responses from
districts and made corrections to the statewide data. If some teachers
have yet to demonstrate competence, the LEA must develop an approved
corrective action plan by the end of December 2006. This plan must
utilize the process developed by the MDE and described later in this
section and again in section 3.1. The corrective action plan must
include the steps taken by the LEA to provide high quality professional
development to assist teachers in reaching the HQ teacher status. The
LEA must identify what part of the allocated Title II, Part A funds are
dedicated to supporting these professional development activities. The
corrective action plan must identify, in writing, the process each
teacher will use to meet the requirements. As a part of this process,
LEAs will also be required to complete an LEA Highly Qualified Teachers
Report, using the forms provided. The forms are available for review at
the following website:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan_LEA_HQ_Report_Form_173173_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan_LEA_HQ_Report_Form_173173_7.xls)

The LEAs will be required to work closely with MDE staff to insure that
progress is being made toward meeting the requirement. The MDE will
provide technical assistance by initially conducting regional meetings
to explain the expectations of the LEAs and follow up with scheduled
meetings with the LEA. The LEA must report the status of teachers in the
December 2006 and the June 2007 REP report. MDE will monitor the
progress.

**2.3 Specific Steps Taken by the SEA**

*Michigan's Highly Qualified Teacher Corrective Action Plan*

The Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) is the
state agency authorized to collect school-related data and other
information from local educational agencies. Twice each school year,
December 1 and June 30, the agency collects information on school
personnel from districts, intermediate school districts, and public
school academies through submission to the Registry of Educational
Personnel (REP). Included in the information collected is the Highly
Qualified status of each teacher of core academic subjects. This
information is the source of the Michigan Department of Education (MDE)
data on statewide performance in achieving the goal of all core academic
teachers demonstrating competence as a Highly Qualified teacher. The REP
is also used for identifying district HQT percentage, teacher
assignment, data on teachers in their first three years of experience,
and professional development.

The MDE is proposing specific steps to be implemented to ensure all
districts are in compliance with the NCLB Highly Qualified teacher
requirement.

-   Review of the June 2006 REP collection to identify all districts
    reporting less than 100% of the teachers as Highly Qualified for the
    assignment. The data can be viewed at:

-   [www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls%0D)

-   The data shows 586 school districts that reported having one or more
    teachers in an assignment for which the teacher was not Highly
    Qualified during the second semester of the 2005-2006 school year.

-   The MDE has contacted each of the identified LEAs and requested a
    status report on meeting this requirement. The LEA will be required
    to verify the accuracy of the information, state whether the teacher
    will be in the same assignment during the 2006-2007 school year, and
    state whether the teacher is now Highly Qualified or give the
    specific steps to be taken to ensure the teacher becomes Highly
    Qualified. The MDE will then review each of the responses and make
    any necessary corrections to the statewide data.

During the second phase of implementation of the state corrective action
plan, the identified LEAs must develop and submit to the MDE a local
corrective action plan for state approval before implementation. In
order to help LEAs, the MDE will provide technical assistance to the
identified LEAs to develop a coherent plan of action. The MDE will take
the following steps in providing technical assistance:

1.  The MDE will conduct regional informational meetings with the
    identified LEAs to inform the agencies of the process and purposes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The MDE will place limitations on the local use of Title I and Title
    II funds to ensure all teachers become Highly Qualified for the
    assignment.

2.  The MDE will provide a sample plan using the School Improvement
    Framework as a guide.

3.  The MDE will establish a clear reporting timeline.

4.  The MDE will identify a schedule for follow-up meetings with the
    LEAs.

The MDE will then monitor the progress of the LEAs in implementing the
local corrective action plan through visits by the field services
consultants to evaluate the efforts. Other MDE staff will work with CEPI
to ensure accuracy of LEA reporting to the REP in December 2006.

The MDE will continue to monitor the identified LEA submissions to the
REP throughout the year to determine if progress is being made toward
meeting the goal of 100 percent of core academic teachers Highly
Qualified for the assignment. The field services consultants will
continue to evaluate the progress of identified LEAs as is necessary to
make sure local actions are consistent with the plan.

The third phase of the state corrective action plan will begin with the
MDE review of the LEA submissions to the June 2007 REP collection. The
MDE will monitor submissions from the identified LEAs for compliance
with the Highly Qualified teacher requirement. Any identified LEA found
failing to be in compliance with the requirement will have the allocated
Title I and Title II funds withheld until such time as the LEA comes
into compliance. Once the LEA is found to be in compliance, the money
will be released to the LEA.

At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the MDE will request the
State Board of Education to rescind the use of High-Objective Uniform
State Standards of Evaluation (HOUSSE) as a mechanism for a teacher to
demonstrate competence as a Highly Qualified teacher. Beginning July 1,
2007, a teacher may only demonstrate competence in a new assignment to
teach a core academic subject by completing a major or the equivalent of
a major, successful testing on a subject area exam, or completion of a
graduate degree in the subject area. A teacher previously determined to
be Highly Qualified for a core academic subject remains Highly
Qualified.

***MICHIGAN'S HQT CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN TIME LINE***

[Date]{.underline} [Action Steps]{.underline}

August --September 2006 1. The MDE will use the June 2006 Registry of

> Educational Personnel to identify districts reporting less than 100
> percent of teachers as HQT.

2.  The MDE will contact each identified district and request current
    status:

> \*is the information correct
>
> \*is this the same assignment for 06-07, and if so, is teacher now HQT
>
> \*if not, what steps will be taken to ensure HQ status

2.  The MDE will review the responses from the districts and make
    corrections to the statewide data.

October-December 2006 4. Districts identified as not yet achieving the
goal of 100 percent of staff Highly Qualified for assignment must
develop and implement a corrective action plan and submit it to the MDE.

> MDE will provide technical assistance to the identified districts
>
> \*conduct regional meetings
>
> \*place limitation on the use of Title I and Title II
>
> funds
>
> \*provide a sample plan using the School
>
> Improvement Framework
>
> \*identify a schedule for follow-up meetings
>
> 5\. The MDE will monitor progress on achieving the 100 percent HQT
> goal by reviewing submissions to the Registry of Educational Personnel
> (REP) December 2006 collection and during scheduled meetings.

January-February 2007 6. The MDE will use the REP collection to review
the identified district's progress toward meeting the goal.

February-June 2007 7. The MDE will continue to monitor the district's

progress toward achieving the goal.

8.  Districts will submit end-of-year data to the REP (June 2007).

August 2007 9. The MDE will withhold the Title I and Title II

> Funds from districts who fail to meet the required 100 percent HQT
> until such time as the district comes into compliance.
>
> 10\. The MDE will eliminate the use of HOUSSE options to demonstrate
> competence as an HQT.

**School Improvement Plan**: Since the passage of Public Act 25 in 1990,
Michigan schools and districts have been required to develop 3-5 year
school improvement plans. Schools and districts use these plans as a
blueprint to establish goals and objectives and to measure their ability
to meet the goals and objectives established in the plan.

The School Improvement Framework (the full document) may be viewed at:

> <http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-28753_38959-114670--,00.html>)

This framework is organized in a typical curriculum development layout
with strands, standards, benchmarks and a rubric. Within the framework,
there are five strands or areas of general focus. Drilling down into the
12 standards are 26 benchmarks that further define the standards within
each strand. The strands include:

-   Strand I- Teaching for Learning

-   Strand II- Leadership

-   Strand III- Personnel & Professional Learning

-   Strand IV- School & Community Relations

-   Strand V- Data & Information Management

Those districts not meeting the HQT goal of 100% and not meeting AYP
will be required to revise their school improvement plans accordingly.
The focus of the revisions will be on Teaching for Learning, Leadership
and Personnel & Professional Learning.

-   Strand I requires the building principal to assess the alignment of
    the curriculum to provide a continuous opportunity for students to
    learn both across grade levels as well as within the grade level.

-   Strand II, standard 3 of the School Improvement Framework requires
    that school leaders organize, assess and allocate resources to
    support teaching and learning in alignment with the vision, mission,
    and educational goals of the school, state and Federal government.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strand III, standard 1 encompasses the main principles of the No
    Child Left Behind legislation in regard to Highly Qualified
    teachers. The revision of district school improvement plans must
    include a description of how the school leaders will assure that all
    staff hold necessary certification(s) and/or meet applicable
    requirements and that staff has substantial content knowledge in
    their subject areas (HQ). Strand III, standard 2, educators will
    also be required to enhance their knowledge, skills, attitudes and
    beliefs in order to create high levels of learning for all students.

-   The revision of the school improvement plan must include the use of
    best practices and the ASSIST program
    (<http://assist.educ.msu.edu/ASSIST/>) for induction and mentoring
    of new teachers. There will be an obvious focus on the ASSIST
    program for the districts with a disproportionate number of teachers
    within their first three years of teaching.

**2.4 Opportunities Currently in Place**

Along with the district revisions of their School Improvement Plans,
districts will be encouraged to work with existing programs that are
targeted to support high need schools and critical shortage areas. The
Michigan Department of Education has worked jointly with state teacher
preparation institutions and various organizations to focus on these
areas:

-   MDE has established the Michigan Educator Talent Bank (METB) in
    order to provide LEAs access to a pool of Highly Qualified
    applicants to fill their vacancies. The program is funded in part by
    Title II funds (\$175,000).
    [www.michigan.gov/metb](http://www.michigan.gov/metb)

-   MDE encourages teachers to pursue National Board Certification,
    using federal grant funding to support the process. Achieving
    National Board Certification is a way by which teachers can
    demonstrate competence as a Highly Qualified Teacher. Michigan was
    allocated \$101,300 in federal funds and used \$34,150 in state
    funds for the 2005-2006 NBPTS candidates. The Michigan budget now
    also includes \$100,000 to support teachers in the process,
    beginning on October 1, 2006 and the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

-   Michigan currently has proposed legislation that focuses on math and
    science teachers, in addition to federal loan forgiveness program
    that are available. This legislation will forgive 10 percent of
    teachers' state loans, for every year that they teach in
    high-poverty, low-performing schools. These teachers are Highly
    Qualified by way of required state testing for initial
    certification.

-   The Eli Broad Foundation currently has two simultaneous programs
    operating in Michigan. Part of this program includes the recruitment
    of high school students from Detroit Public Schools (DPS) to attend
    Michigan State University (MSU) with full tuition coverage. This
    program requires a five-year commitment to return to teach, as a
    Highly Qualified teacher, in DPS. The companion to this program
    brings "Broad Fellows" (MSU students) into the DPS system over the
    summer months to assist in providing supplemental instruction to
    underachieving students. The Broad Foundation has given \$6,000,000
    to underwrite the cost of these programs in Michigan.

-   Detroit Public Schools and Grand Rapids Public Schools currently
    have "Vocational Teacher Cadet" endorsement programs. Lansing Public
    Schools has participated with this type of program in the past.

-   For the past 5 years, MDE has provided approximately 1.5 million
    dollars of federal funds allocated to Michigan in order to support
    Detroit Public Schools in the Limited License to Instruct program
    (LLI). Working in conjunction with Wayne State University, this
    program assists individuals in completing the requirements for
    certification while filling the immediate need for Highly Qualified
    teachers in Detroit.

-   MDE and Wayne State University have for the past 6 years worked to
    address the staffing concerns with Detroit Public Schools. In
    particular, special education, bilingual education, secondary
    mathematics and secondary science have been the target of these
    programs. Some of these programs have been funded with
    Dewitt-Wallace Grants.

-   Wayne State University and MDE have focused on certified teachers
    becoming endorsed and Highly Qualified in critical shortage areas,
    such as special education. Certified teacher have been recruited in
    particular to participate in the Autism and other special education
    categories and in bilingual education programs. These programs have
    been funded in part by NCLB Title II funds (\$350,000).

-   The Urban Teacher Program has certified more than 220 teachers over
    the last four years. This program was developed to respond to
    Detroit Public School's need for Highly Qualified teachers in
    critical shortage areas, as well as the difficulties they face in
    hiring and retaining Highly Qualified teachers as addressed in
    Requirement 1.2. A pilot program was developed to assist mid-career
    changers in becoming teachers. Coursework was presented on-line, in
    the evenings and at the worksite. Participants were organized into
    cohorts of approximately 20 candidates. During the initial months
    they met weekly to reinforce lessons learned through coursework and
    actual experience in the classroom. This support was essential to
    the success of the program. This program works in collaboration with
    Wayne State University. In addition to federal funds, \$200,000 in
    state funds was directed to the program. This pilot program is being
    expanded throughout the state.

-   Central Michigan University and Ferris State University have Rural
    Initiative Programs that provide assistance to very small Michigan
    school districts in meeting the Highly Qualified teacher
    requirements to fill critical shortage areas, mainly in science and
    math. The programs have received over \$200,000 state and federal
    funds.

-   The Troops to Teachers Program, working with the Western States
    Consortium and Ferris State University, provides retired military
    personnel with an alternative route to certification and entrance
    into the teaching profession as a Highly Qualified teacher. The
    program specifically focuses on the teaching of mathematics, any of
    the sciences, special education and career and technical education
    by utilizing the unique background that military personnel bring.
    Several local school districts have agreements of understanding with
    Ferris State University to place these candidates. We have a
    full-time MDE staff member who works exclusively with the
    recruitment and support of this program. The state has allocated
    over \$130,000 each year to support this program administratively.
    Current information regarding this program can be found at:

> <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FSU_LLI_program_compiled_170151_7.doc>

-   Approximately 2 million dollars in federal funds has been
    distributed to Wayne State University, Ferris State University and
    Central Michigan University, over the past five years, in order to
    support the development of high-quality alternative routes to
    certification and Highly Qualified status in critical shortage
    areas.

-   The Michigan Virtual University and Michigan Virtual High School
    support and expand the use of distance learning to allow student
    access to Highly Qualified teachers. This is particularly important
    in the rural areas of Michigan where students do not have access to
    advanced placement courses because a Highly Qualified teacher is not
    available. The Michigan Virtual University has received over
    \$4,500,000 of Title II funds during the last three years to
    implement programs. <http://www.mivu.org/>

-   Section 1233b of 1976 Public Act 451, MCL 380.1233b, describes an
    alternative route to certification that enables districts to employ
    non-certificated, non-endorsed teachers for grades 9-12 in the
    subject areas of computer science, foreign languages, mathematics,
    biology, chemistry, engineering, physics and robotics or other
    subject areas defined as critical shortage areas, if they meet the
    following requirements:

    a.  bachelor's degree from an accredited postsecondary institution,

    b.  major or a graduate degree in the field of specialization in
        which the candidate will teach (therefore demonstrating
        competence as a Highly Qualified Teacher),

    c.  in the 5-year period preceding the date of hire, have not less
        than 2 years of occupational experience in the field of
        specialization (with the exception of foreign language), and

    d.  verification that the position was posted and an appropriately
        certificated teacher could not be found.

-   In March 2006, MDE signed a Memorandum of Understanding that
    established the beginnings of a teacher exchange program with the
    Republic of China (Taiwan). Michigan will send 5-15 teachers to
    Taiwan to teach the English language during the 2006-07 school year.
    Future years will present the opportunity for Taiwan to send
    teachers to Michigan schools to teach Chinese, an area for we have a
    critical shortage. This program is, at this point, fully funded by
    the Taiwanese government. <http://www.michigan.gov/teacherexchange>

MDE has encouraged teacher preparation institutions to work with
certified teachers to gain appropriate certification for their
out-of-field assignments. We continue to provide daily support to the
LEAs, as well as, regional update meetings to inform districts about the
HQT requirements. The MDE also works collaboratively with educational
organizations to disseminate information regarding staffing
requirements. The Office of Professional Preparation Services (OPPS)
provides daily technical assistance through phone calls with LEA
administration, banning the hire of out-of-field teachers in
high-poverty, low-performing schools and ALL Michigan schools. Those
districts that are out of compliance with Michigan School Code will be
subject to loss of State Aid funding after January 1, 2007.

The CCSSO has published a list of existing federally-funded partnerships
to ensure an equitable distribution of teachers for high need schools,
which can be viewed at:
[www.michigan.gov**/**documents/State_partnership_table_163924_7.2.doc](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/State_partnership_table_163924_7.2.doc).
MDE will take the following steps to ensure that institutions of higher
education (IHE) know about these programs:

-   Post information about federal teacher loan forgiveness and housing
    incentive programs on the website to alert prospective teachers to
    these incentives.

-   Share information with Indian tribes and tribal colleges about the
    Indian Education Professional Development Grants and information
    with math/science/engineering departments at IHEs about the Robert
    Noyce Scholarships.

-   Support National Board Certification in the critical shortage areas
    and high need schools. MDE will examine ways of to encourage
    districts to incorporate NBPTS into their school improvement plans.

***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.***

**3.1 Technical Assistance**

The Michigan Department of Education has developed a process for the
LEAs to identify needs related to ensuring that all core academic
subject area classes are taught by Highly Qualified teachers. The
process examines current LEA practices for assigning only HQTs. The LEAs
are expected to review and identify the action strategies to be
implemented to ensure the hiring, retaining, and equitable distribution
of HQTs. These strategies should include the use of professional
development activities which are provided online from the Michigan
Virtual University, or other programs, such as the U.S. Department of
Education's Teacher to Teacher, as a means for teachers to demonstrate
competence in their subject matter. Using the MDE tools provided, the
LEAs are expected to analyze the current use of both Title I and Title
II funds in the support of teachers becoming HQ, and to establish plans
to assure funding is used for that purpose. The MDE will advise the LEAs
on which professional development activities will increase the
likelihood of a teacher becoming HQ. For instance, teachers may
participate in Title II, Part A(3) funded professional development
activities designed to allow the teacher to demonstrate competence in a
specific subject. The LEAs may also elect to provide financial
assistance to teachers who wish to take college course work or to take
one of the Michigan Tests for Teacher Certification (MTTC) as a
demonstration of competence. The MDE currently provides web-based
information on test availability
([www.mttc.nes.inc.com](http://www.mttc.nes.inc.com/)).

Each LEA reporting less than 100% HQT will be required to complete the
LEA Highly Qualified Teachers Report forms. These forms must be
submitted to the MDE. The forms are available at for review at the
following website:

> [www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan_LEA_HQ_Report_Form_173173_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan_LEA_HQ_Report_Form_173173_7.xls)

The MDE will provide technical assistance directed toward assisting
three broader categories of teachers to demonstrate competence as HQTs.
The first category is veteran middle school teachers with a certificate
designation of either 7-8 all subjects or K-8 all subjects, who have
been assigned to teach subject matter for which they have neither a
major nor a minor. The MDE will provide these veteran teachers with
access to professional development designed to allow them to demonstrate
competence as HQTs. The professional development will be in the form of
online experiences, college course work, and Title II funded
professional development sanctioned by MDE. The veteran teachers will
also be advised as to which subject-area MTTC may be used to meet the HQ
requirements.

The second category of teachers needing to demonstrate competence are
those veteran teachers who were certified prior to 1993, before
mandatory testing was instituted, and who earned an endorsement based
upon completion of a minor preparation program. The MDE will advise
these veteran teachers as to which MTTC test they should take to
demonstrate competence, and advise the LEA to underwrite the cost using
Title II, Part A funds. The MDE will also advise the individuals as to
the use of other HOUSSE options to satisfy the requirement.

The final category of teachers who have encountered special challenges
in demonstrating competence as a HQT are the special education teachers
and alternative education teachers. For those special education teachers
not endorsed for the position, the expectation is that the teacher will
enroll in a preparation program and make satisfactory progress in the
program. Satisfactory progress is defined by MDE as a minimum of six
semester hours every year. An experimental program in the Detroit area
has proven to be very successful in addressing this need. For the
special education teacher who is appropriately certificated but has yet
to demonstrate competence, the MDE will advise LEAs as to which MTTC
test will satisfy the requirements. The MDE will also advise the LEA on
which HOUSSE options would be appropriate in meeting this requirement.

In the case of alternative education teachers, the MDE will advise the
LEA based on the nature of the operation of the alternative education
program and which options will best assist the teachers in demonstrating
competence. This may include testing or the use of appropriate HOUSSE
options.

The MDE has been and will continue working closely with LEAs to advise
on the implementation of action strategies as well as provide any
feasible support to the LEAs.

In addition to assisting teachers and LEAs, the MDE has established a
Teacher Preparation Policy Study Group to assist Michigan's entire
teacher education community. The study group is charged to review the
set of MDE policies associated with teacher preparation and
instructional approval, including the Periodic Review Process, the Entry
Level Standards for Michigan Teachers, the Michigan Test for Teacher
Certification, the process of assigning Teacher Preparation institution
Performance Scores and any other related policies and practices that are
deemed relevant to the preparation of Highly Qualified and effective
teachers. This initiative is intended to position the state of Michigan
as a national model for development and implementation of coherent,
research-based policy for quality teacher preparation that complements
and advances rigorous and high expectations and standards at the K-12
level.

The study group will develop recommendations to Michigan's
Superintendent of Public Instruction by April 2007 for revisions and
improvements in these policies and processes. All policy changes
recommended will be viewed by the Michigan teacher education community
as forward-looking and facilitative in ensuring that the system of
teacher preparation in Michigan is of the highest quality for preparing
teachers who will be effective in their work to support student
learning.

**3.2 Funding**

All of Michigan's grant funding is focused on high priority school
districts and providing technical assistance. The Michigan Department of
Education used approximately 2.5 million dollars of Title II, Part A(3)
funds to assist schools not meeting AYP and address the needs of those
teachers who were not Highly Qualified. In addition, MDE has directed
the use of other federal funds, the Title II, Part A(3) and Math &
Science Partnerships (MSP), to target low performing, high poverty
schools for professional development. The 2005-2006 Title II, Part A(3)
Awards document may be viewed at:
<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Awards_list_2005-06_Title_II_152404_7.doc>

The State Board approved guidelines for the distribution of Title II,
Part A(3) funds to support professional development. The guidelines
included the following statement, "A teacher preparation institution may
apply for funding on behalf of a proposed partnership, which involves
high-need local education agencies, and a college/department of arts and
sciences. The purpose of the program is to support the development and
implementation of sustained and intensive high-quality professional
development activities to better enable new and experienced teachers, as
well as building administrators and paraprofessionals, to help all
students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects."

A majority of the Michigan Title II, part A statewide activities fund
has been used to support on-line professional development for teachers
and students delivered through Michigan Virtual University and Michigan
Virtual High School. A portion of the funds, almost \$18,000, was used
to support the recruitment of Highly Qualified teachers to work in
Michigan Public School Academies (charter schools). As previously cited
in this report, tuition assistance for bilingual and special education
teachers was provided using these funds. A significant portion of
funding also went to providing professional development focused on core
academic subject areas. Depending on the availability of funding for the
2006-07 fiscal year, similar initiatives will be targeted. For detailed
information regarding Title II, part A statewide activity distribution,
see:
[www.michigan.gov/documents/Title_II_Teacher_Quality_05-06_164517_7.xls](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Title_II_Teacher_Quality_05-06_164517_7.xls).

Title II, Part B of NCLB authorizes a Mathematics and Science
Partnerships (MSP) program. MSP is intended to increase the academic
achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the
content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers.
Partnerships between high-need school districts and the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in institutions
of higher education are at the core of these improvement efforts. In
Michigan, applications that include any of the 33 Mathematics and
Science Centers will receive priority points over other applications as
stated in the State School Aid Act Section 99. Other partners may
include public charter schools or other public schools, colleges of
teacher education, community colleges, businesses, and nonprofit or
for-profit organizations concerned with mathematics and science
education. Michigan expects to be allotted approximately \$4,000,000 for
the MSP competitive grant program for 2006-07.

Michigan will continue to work with state educational organizations to
provide on-line professional development activities for instructional
staff. In 2002, LearnPort was developed as a web-based platform to
provide professional development activities to Michigan teachers.
Michigan requires that ALL newly certified teachers complete the 3-year
mentoring and induction program. ASSIST was developed for this purpose,
using federal funds (HEA Title II), supported in part by Michigan State
University, and is a tool used to support teachers through their mentor
and induction period. The ASSIST program is made available through
LearnPort and MSU at:

http://assist.educ.msu.edu/ASSIST/

OPPS staff works continuously to educate districts, administrators and
teachers, in what specific classes can be taught by the holders of
various endorsements. As described in Requirement 1, the classes that
are more likely to be taught by non-HQ teachers are those for which the
teacher holds a similar endorsement but is actually teaching
out-of-field.

A document created for the purpose of communicating information to
assist with appropriate placement of teachers, has been posted on the
MDE website and widely distributed throughout the state. The document is
found at the following website:

<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/What_can_be_taught_composite_TQ_C107355_A112320_7_123436_7.doc>

***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.***

**4.1 Monitoring Plan**

Michigan will intervene to assist LEAs who fail to meet 100% by the 2006
deadline. While recognizing that there may continue to be specific
assignments, such as special education that will require further
intervention, the MDE remains confident that the majority of districts
will meet the goal by the end of the 2005-2006 school year or the
beginning of the 2006-07 school year. As a part of the implementation of
NCLB, Michigan is focused on districts not yet making AYP; we are
working to ensure that all core academic classes are taught by Highly
Qualified teachers. In April 2006 new statewide graduation requirements
were passed into law. These overlapping interests will allow us to
target professional development, to focus on improving student
achievement and enhancing teacher knowledge and ability in core academic
subjects.

Michigan intends to direct the use of our resources to those districts
failing to meet the 100% target by the end of the 2005-2006 school year
and failing to make progress toward 100% HQT between June 2006 and June
2007. Districts will be given the opportunity to revise their LEA Plan
for Highly Qualified Teachers with new strategies. Districts must also
send home parental notification and may offer students the opportunity
to transfer schools if the school has not made AYP and is subject to
NCLB consequences. MDE will redirect Title I/II funds to be used for HQ
teacher recruitment, recommend state aid penalties for those out of
compliance with Michigan School Code, and will restrict the number of
permits issued to a district for the employment of non-certificated
staff. We will assist these districts with Highly Qualified teacher
recruitment by providing access to the online Michigan Educator Talent
Bank.

Current data collection from the REP shows that a majority of the
professional development opportunities that were provided to teachers in
districts during the 2005-2006 school year were designed to support the
districts' School Improvement Plan. Professional development on course
work and deeper content knowledge was the focus of one-third of the
experiences. The remainder was divided between mentoring, content
specific services, administration and workshops/conferences. MDE will
continue to monitor, using the REP, the professional development
opportunities provided to teachers.

Michigan will implement the following monitoring timeline using Field
Service Regional Consultants. The regional consultant provides services
to an assigned region for school improvement initiatives, with a focus
on student achievement. Responsibilities of the position include
technical assistance to school districts, with an emphasis on
coordination of federal programs, resources and initiatives, application
review and approval, and assistance in obtaining specialized services to
meet program development needs. The regional consultant works with
intermediate school districts and other educational agencies and
community organizations to promote collaboration and networking to meet
local needs. Consultants are grouped in larger collaborative regions to
expand networking opportunities and facilitate teamwork.

**MONITORING TIMELINE**

September-October 2006 1. Field Services Regional Consultants will
contact LEAs with less than 100 percent of core academic teachers
reported as Highly Qualified.

October 2006 2. Regional consultants will audit whether teachers are now
Highly Qualified for assignment or working to become Highly Qualified.

> 3\. Regional consultants will review the LEAs consolidated application
> to ensure Title II, Part A funds are used to assist teachers to
> demonstrate competence.

November 2006 4. Regional consultants will verify that a corrective
action plan is in place and implemented.

December 2006-June 2007 5. Regional consultants and Office of
Professional Preparation Services will collaborate to monitor LEA
progress to

> ensure all teachers are Highly Qualified by end of school year.

**4.2 Technical Assistance and Corrective Action**

The Office of School Improvement will work in collaboration with the
Office of Professional Preparation Services to ensure that local
education agencies come into compliance with the NCLB Highly Qualified
teacher requirements by directing the Field Services Unit to assist in
providing technical assistance to the LEAs. In addition to the action
plan described in Requirement 2, the Field Services Unit will implement
a statewide technical assistance effort by having regional consultants
work with the current list of LEAs that did not meet the highly
qualified requirements as of June 2006. Each regional consultant is to
review the consolidated applications for federal funds. Before approving
the LEA request for Title II, Part A funds, a school or district not
meeting the HQT requirements will need to ensure that the funds will be
used for that purpose. If the LEA has stated that no funds will be
needed to assist teachers in demonstrating competence as a Highly
Qualified teacher, then the regional consultant will request a
confirmation statement from the local that one of the two following
conditions has been met:

1.  The teacher is now Highly Qualified for the assignment.

2.  The teacher has been reassigned to teach a class where the teacher
    is Highly Qualified or not required to be Highly Qualified.

The regional consultants will begin this process during September 2006.
The regional consultants will continue to assist staff from the Office
of Professional Preparation Services to provide technical assistance to
the LEAs throughout the school year.

In conjunction with the efforts of the Field Services Unit, the Office
of Professional Preparation Services will contact each identified LEA to
monitor progress and provide technical assistance toward all teachers
demonstrating competence. The Office will work closely with the schools
and districts to ensure all teachers have every available opportunity
and resources to meet the goal. The Office will review school and
district data submitted to the December 2006 REP collection to evaluate
progress. Schools and districts not making sufficient progress will
receive further intervention in the form of MDE directives on steps to
be taken to meet the goal, as well as having financial sanctions applied
to the LEA.

Regional consultants will be monitoring the LEA plans for use of the
Title I and Title II federal funds and reinforce the use of the funds to
assist teachers in achieving Highly Qualified status. MDE will continue
to track the LEA HQT count and AYP status in order to look at the
overlap of the two lists. The tracking of this information will continue
over time in order to monitor LEA progress and act accordingly.

[]{.mark}

Michigan continues to monitor LEA progress toward meeting AYP in
accordance with ESEA Section 2141. For LEAs that have, for three
consecutive years, failed to meet AYP and are below 100% HQT, the MDE
will provide direct technical assistance to develop a plan and direct
the use of Title I and Title II funds to provide the necessary
professional development to assist teacher to reach HQ status and to
meet the needs identified by the AYP data. The regional consultants are
responsible for working closely with schools to help achieve AYP.
Michigan stresses the use of rigorous state assessment standards when
determining AYP status.

***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 limit the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after the
end of the 2005-06 school year to multi-subject secondary teachers in
rural schools eligible for additional flexibility, and multi-subject
special education who are Highly Qualified in language arts,
mathematics, or science at the time of hire.***

> **1. HOUSSE Phase Out Plan**

The Michigan Department of Education has begun to phase out the uses of
HOUSSE options. From the beginning, these options were available only to
the previously identified groups of veteran Michigan teachers who were
authorized by the state to teach a particular subject. As a point of
clarification, veteran teachers employed prior to January 8, 2002 were
the only teachers eligible to elect to use HOUSSE options. It is only
the sub-group of veteran teachers facing reassignment due to downsizing
of staff, who may select HOUSSE options in the future. All teachers
currently employed must complete their HOUSSE option by the June 30,
2006 deadline or prior to placement in the classroom for the 2006-2007
school year. Those teachers who are still eligible for the HOUSSE
options will have until June 30, 2007 to complete one of these options.
After June 30, 2007 these teachers must either complete the equivalent
of a major or take the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) in
the specific subject areas for which they are authorized to teach but do
not hold a major.

No teacher can be considered Highly Qualified in Michigan unless he or
she holds the appropriate certificate and endorsement for the subject.
While NCLB provides flexibility for rural teachers to teach multiple
subjects upon completion of a HOUSSE option and be considered Highly
Qualified, Michigan law prohibits the teacher from doing so unless she
or he holds the appropriate endorsement.

The Michigan State Board of Education approved several options for
instructional paraprofessionals to meet the requirements of NCLB. One of
these options was a local performance assessment, which consisted of a
portfolio. Much like the HOUSSE options available to teachers, MDE will
begin the phase out process of this portfolio. Those paraprofessionals
currently employed in a school district and wishing to have the ability
to be reassigned to a Title I instructional paraprofessional position,
will have until June 30, 2007 to complete the *Michigan Guidelines for
the Paraprofessional Portfolio*. After this date, paraprofessionals
must:

> • complete at least two years of study at an institution of higher
> education (equivalent to 60 semester credit hours); or
>
> • obtain an associate's degree (or higher); or
>
> • pass one of the following state approved formal state academic
> assessments:
>
> *WorkKeys® Proficiency Certificate for Teacher Assistants*
>
> *Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC Basic Skills)*
>
> *ETS Parapro Assessment*

**5.2 Communication Plan**

MDE will disseminate information regarding the phase out of the HOUSSE
options, utilizing a variety of publications, including the teacher
association newsletters and websites. The information will be posted on
the Michigan Department of Education website. The Fall 2006 Regional
update meetings and bi-annual newsletter from the OPPS Director will
provide information about this phase out. All Field Services consultants
will be given documentation to disseminate to their assigned geographic
regions and the information will be presented to the associations
representing principals, superintendents and school boards.

***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*.**

Michigan Department of Education recognizes the need to ensure that poor
and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, and
out-of-field teachers at a higher rate than other children. MDE is
committed to identifying and correcting any inequity in the distribution
of these teachers.

We have been collecting and reporting critical shortage areas for more
than five years. This data, along with our record of teaching permits
issued, enables us to create a Critical Shortage list which is posted
annually on our website. This list informs school districts of the areas
in which they may hire retired teachers, otherwise not allowed for areas
not on the Critical Shortage list. We have also begun collecting data
regarding teacher attrition in our Registry of Educational Personnel
(REP) during the last four years. We continue to make progress in our
data collection as we work with other state organizations to create a
statewide Decision Support System (DSS) that will link databases
allowing access to such key components as teacher retirement (age and
certification).

Michigan's Equity Plan is attached.

**[Appendix 1]{.underline}**

The following information presents the data on Michigan's status on
achieving the goal of 100% Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) in every
core academic classroom.

1.  The data table showing the number and percentage of HQTs by district
    and school not making AYP for the 2005-2006 school year and
    identifying teacher experience level is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/June_EOY_06_AYP_HQT_Exp_Level_by_District_173065_7.xls)
>
> 2\. The data table showing the percentage of HQTs by assignment for
> the 2005-2006 school year is available at:
>
> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/HQ_teachers_by_assignment_code_6-06_169755_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/HQ_teachers_by_assignment_code_6-06_169755_7.xls)

3.  The data table showing the percentage of HQTs by district for the
    2005-2006 school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls)
>
> [](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_170067_7.xls)

4.  The data table showing the percentage of HQTs by district with the
    Special Education break-out for the 2005-2006 school year is
    available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_w_SPED_breakout_170087_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQT_by_District_w_SPED_breakout_170087_7.xls)

5.  The data table showing the summary of the core academic subjects
    taught by HQ and taught by non-HQ teachers for elementary and
    secondary by poverty level AND minority level for the 2005-2006
    school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Poverty_Status_Summary_171872_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Poverty_Status_Summary_171872_7.xls%0D)

6.  The data report showing the percentage of core academic subjects
    taught by HQ and non-HQ teachers for elementary and secondary by
    poverty level for the 2005-2006 school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Poverty_Status_Report_171873_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Poverty_Status_Report_171873_7.xls)

7.  The data table showing the percentage of core academic subjects
    taught by HQ and non-HQ teachers for elementary and secondary by
    poverty level for the 2005-2006 school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Poverty_Status_Data_171875_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Poverty_Status_Data_171875_7.xls)

8.  The data report showing the percentage of core academic subjects
    taught by HQ and non-HQ teachers for elementary and secondary by
    minority level for the 2005-2006 school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Status_Report_171876_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Status_Report_171876_7.xls)

9.  The data table showing the percentage of core academic subjects
    taught by HQ and non-HQ teachers for elementary and secondary by
    minority level for the 2005-2006 school year is available at:

> [**www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Status_Data_171878_7.xls**](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/June_EOY_06_HQ_by_Minority_Status_Data_171878_7.xls)
>
> [Appendix 2]{.underline}

September 8, 2006

Dear Superintendent:

The Michigan Department of Education has conducted an audit of district
submissions to the June 30, 2006, Registry of Educational personnel. The
purpose of the audit was to identify districts that reported less than
100 percent of core academic teachers as having met the highly qualified
teacher requirement. Your district has reported less than 100 percent of
the teachers as being highly qualified.

Enclosed is a list of names of district teachers who were reported as
not highly qualified. Please review the list and respond to the
following questions for each name:

1.  Was the information entered correctly?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  If the same teaching assignment has been made for 2006-2007, is the
    teacher now highly qualified?

2.  If not highly qualified, what steps will be taken to ensure the
    teacher will become highly qualified?

Please return the information within ten business days of receipt of
this letter to the Michigan Department of Education

The No Child Left Behind Act provided districts and teachers an
opportunity to demonstrate competence as a highly qualified teacher by
the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Teachers are then expected to be
highly qualified for an assignment by the beginning of the 2006-2007
school year. The U.S. Department of Education has not provided an
extension to this deadline. Failure to comply may result in financial
sanctions being imposed on the district.

If you have questions concerning this correspondence, please contact Dr.
Frank Ciloski at 517-373-6791 or Ms. Krista Ried at 517-373-0699.

The district's prompt attention to this matter will be greatly
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Flora L. Jenkins, Ph.D.

Director

Office of Professional Preparation Services

FLJ:FC:dd