![](media/image1.png){width="3.1083333333333334in"
height="1.0798611111111112in"}

> **Tennessee Teacher Equity Plan**
>
> to ensure that poor or minority children
>
> are taught by effective teachers
>
> at the same or higher rate as other children

**September 2006**

Tennessee's equity plan is designed to ensure that poor or minority
children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
teachers at higher rates than are other children. The plan analyses
where inequities in teacher assignment exist, finding statewide
disparities as well as disparities within larger, more urban districts.
In addition, it maps out two major strategies for addressing these
disparities and presents evidence that these strategies are promising
avenues for connecting effective teachers with the children who need
them the most. Finally, the plan outlines how the State will monitor
Local Education Agency (LEA) implementation of teacher equity plans.

NOTE: The State is aware that this data needs to be analyzed more in
depth. The Office of Teacher Quality and Development is submitting a
request to the Commissioner of Education to provide a contract for a
correlation study to determine if there are any factors, or combination
of factors, which contribute to the success or lack thereof of students,
schools and LEAs that have been identified as being "High Priority" due
to their lack of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The data analysis will
allow us to identify, prioritize, and focus our efforts in the most
appropriate manner.

It is very important that policymakers understand the problem with
equitable distribution and retention of "highly-effective" teachers in
high-poverty, high-minority schools. To establish an effective
recruitment of high quality teachers, we will need to increase salaries
and institute incentives for recruitment of new teachers and retention
of highly effective teachers in low performing schools. It is
increasingly difficult for our state to compete in recruitment with
surrounding states that have higher salaries, greater resources, and
incentive packages. This problem exists statewide and is multiplied in
the high-poverty areas as well as urban and rural LEAs. We must keep
these issues in the 'public eye' and continue to seek support for
providing a 'highly effective' teacher for every classroom in Tennessee.

**A. Inequities in Teacher Assignment**

Statewide Data

Across both elementary and secondary levels, a lower percentage of core
academic courses are taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty
schools compared with low poverty schools (Table 1). At the elementary
level, the gap is 6.6% while at the secondary level it is 10.3%.

> **TABLE 1: Statewide Percentage of Core Academic Course Taught by
> Highly Qualified Teachers for School Year 2004-2005 Disaggregated by
> High Poverty vs. Low Poverty Schools in Tennessee**

+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| **School Type**                             | **Percentage of Core   |
|                                             | Academic Courses**     |
|                                             |                        |
|                                             | **Taught by Highly     |
|                                             | Qualified Teachers**   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| All Schools in the State                    | 80.9                   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| Elementary Level (Grades K -- 6)            |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > High Poverty Schools                      | 81.3                   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools                       | 87.9                   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty and Low        | **6.6**                |
| > Poverty Elementary Schools**              |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| Secondary Level (Grades 7-12)               |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > High Poverty Schools                      | 71.0                   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools                       | 81.3                   |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty and Low        | **10.3**               |
| > Poverty Secondary Schools**               |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+

This gap between the characteristics of teachers assigned to high
poverty schools compared with low poverty schools exists in other areas
as well. For example, "novice" teachers, defined as those with 3 years
or less teaching experience, are assigned disproportionately to high
poverty schools compared with low poverty schools at both the elementary
and secondary levels (Table 2). This pattern becomes more pronounced
when comparing "inexperienced" teachers, defined as those with 5 years
or less experience. In high poverty elementary and secondary schools,
there is great disproportionately of placement of the least experienced
teachers compared with low poverty elementary and secondary schools. At
both the elementary and secondary levels, there is more than a 5% gap
between the percent of teachers with 3 years or less teaching experience
in high poverty schools compared with low poverty schools. This gap
increases to at least 7% when comparing "inexperienced" teachers, those
with 5 years or less of experience, in high poverty schools compared
with low poverty schools.

> **TABLE 2: Statewide Percentage of "Novice" and "Inexperienced"
> Teachers for School Year 2004-2005 Disaggregated by High Poverty vs.
> Low Poverty Schools in Tennessee**

+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **School Type**                 | **Percentage of  | **Percentage of |
|                                 | Teachers**       | Teachers**      |
|                                 |                  |                 |
|                                 | **with 3 years   | **with 5 years  |
|                                 | or less          | or less         |
|                                 | experience**     | experience**    |
|                                 |                  |                 |
|                                 | **(Novice)**     | **(I            |
|                                 |                  | nexperienced)** |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| All Schools in the State        | 20.0             | 30.0            |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Elementary Level (Grades K --   |                  |                 |
| 6)                              |                  |                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > High Poverty Schools          | 22.3             | 32.2            |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools           | 16.9             | 25.2            |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty    | **5.4**          | **7.0**         |
| > and Low Poverty Elementary    |                  |                 |
| > Schools**                     |                  |                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Secondary Level (Grades 7-12)   |                  |                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > High Poverty Schools          | 23.4             | 34.7            |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools           | 17.8             | 27.1            |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty    | **5.6**          | **7.6**         |
| > and Low Poverty Secondary     |                  |                 |
| > Schools**                     |                  |                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------+-----------------+

Another teacher characteristic that affects the amount of salary
teachers earn is their educational degree. Negotiated salary agreements
between school districts and teacher unions reflect higher salaries for
those teachers with more education. In Tennessee, a higher percentage of
teachers in low poverty schools have a master's degree or above compared
with their counterparts in high poverty schools (Table 3). This is true
at both the elementary and secondary levels; however, the discrepancy is
larger at the secondary level compared with the elementary level.

> **Table 3: Statewide Percentage of Teachers With a Master's Degree or
> Above for School Year 2004-2005 Disaggregated by High Poverty vs. Low
> Poverty Schools in Tennessee**

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **School Type**                              | **Percentage of       |
|                                              | Teachers with a       |
|                                              | Master's Degree**     |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | **or Above**          |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| All Schools in the State                     | 52.0                  |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Elementary Level (Grades K -- 6)             |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > High Poverty Schools                       | 48.5                  |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools                        | 52.1                  |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty and Low Poverty | **3.6**               |
| > Elementary Schools**                       |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Secondary Level (Grades 7-12)                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > High Poverty Schools                       | 50.2                  |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > Low Poverty Schools                        | 57.0                  |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Poverty and Low Poverty | **6.8**               |
| > Secondary Schools**                        |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

As most teachers obtain their master's after teaching for some time, the
correlation between years of experience and educational level is
obvious. Both of these variables, years of experience and educational
level, are built into the teacher salary schedules in school districts.
As districts staff their schools based on the teaching positions needed,
this means that the biggest expenditure at the school level, teachers'
salaries, will be higher in low poverty schools compared with high
poverty schools. The actual budget for low poverty schools, based on a
per pupil expenditure, will inevitably be greater than the actual budget
for high poverty schools. Hence, schools with large percentages of
students from poverty actually receive fewer state and local resources
to address the needs of their students compared with schools with low
percentages of students from poverty. The strongest variable that
correlates with lower student achievement in a school is the percent of
students from poverty. In Tennessee, the schools that generally struggle
the most with student achievement have high numbers of economically
disadvantaged students, yet these are the same schools that have a
higher percentage of inexperienced teachers with less education.

In Tennessee, higher poverty schools are also correlated with schools
with a higher minority student body. Hence, the data for high minority
schools, defined as those in the top 25% of schools based on their
percent of minority students, compared with low minority schools,
defined as those in the bottom 25% of schools based on their percent of
minority students, mirrors the results found in high poverty and low
poverty schools.

In high minority schools, there are more inexperienced teachers compared
with low minority schools (Table 4). However, the percentage of teachers
with a master's degree or above does not show this discrepancy (Table
5). Many of Tennessee's alternative licensure programs are located in
high poverty, high minority schools in urban areas. These urban
districts also have a higher percentage of minority students compared
with rural and suburban districts. Many of the individuals holding an
alternative license may be second career professionals who have an
advanced degree but not teaching preparation and experience. This may
explain why the percentage of teacher's with a master's degree or above
is approximately the same in both high minority and low minority
schools, but the percentage of teachers with more than 5 years of
experience is more in low minority schools.

> **Table 4: Statewide Percentage of "Novice" and "Inexperienced"
> Teachers for School Year 2004-2005 Disaggregated by High Minority vs.
> Low Minority Schools in Tennessee**

+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **School Type**               | **Percentage of  | **Percentage of  |
|                               | Teachers with 3  | Teachers with 5  |
|                               | years or less    | years or less    |
|                               | experience**     | experience       |
|                               |                  | (                |
|                               | **(Novice)**     | Inexperienced)** |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| All Schools in the State      | 20.0             | 30.0             |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Elementary Level (Grades K -- |                  |                  |
| 6)                            |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > High Minority Schools       | 20.1             | 31.9             |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > Low Minority Schools        | 16.5             | 25.9             |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Minority | **3.6**          | **6.0**          |
| > and Low Minority Elementary |                  |                  |
| > Schools**                   |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Secondary Level (Grades 7-12) |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > High Minority Schools       | 25.0             | 36.3             |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > Low Minority Schools        | 18.8             | 27.6             |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Gap Between High Minority | **6.2**          | **8.7**          |
| > and Low Minority Secondary  |                  |                  |
| > Schools**                   |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+

> **Table 5: Statewide Percentage of Teachers With a Master's Degree or
> Above for School Year 2004-2005 Disaggregated by High Minority vs. Low
> Minority Schools in Tennessee**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  **School Type**                              **Percentage of Teachers
                                               with a Master's Degree or
                                               Above**

  All Schools in the State                     52.0

  Elementary Level (Grades K -- 6)             

  High Minority Schools                        52.1

  Low Minority Schools                         48.8

  **Gap Between High Minority and Low Minority **-3.3**
  Elementary Schools**                         

  Secondary Level (Grades 7-12)                

  High Minority Schools                        52.6

  Low Minority Schools                         53.3

  **Gap Between High Minority and Low Minority **0.7**
  Secondary Schools**                          
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

Inter-District Data

The State examined the discrepancy between teacher experience and
education across districts and by high-poverty vs. low-poverty
districts, and did not find an equity issue based on these variables.
This mirrors findings from The Education Trust Funding Gap 2005 Report
that Tennessee high-poverty and high-minority districts have higher
per-pupil state and local funding than low-poverty and low-minority
districts.

Intra-District Data

To better understand which districts in the state demonstrate a
discrepancy in the distribution of their teachers between their high
poverty and low poverty schools, an intra-district analysis repeating
the same teacher variables was conducted. Districts with at least 4
schools at their elementary and 4 schools at their secondary levels were
included in the analysis. Tennessee's larger, more urban districts
showed gaps between teacher experience and education in high poverty and
low poverty schools (Tables 6 and 7). Districts with the largest gaps,
such as Shelby County and Hamilton County, have a diverse mixture of
high-poverty and low-poverty, high-minority, and low-minority schools.
Memphis City, in contrast, has primarily high-poverty schools so its
"gap" is of lower magnitude.

**Table 6: Districts that Show Significant Gaps at the Elementary Level
Between High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools**

+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **District**    | **Percent Gap  | **Percent Gap   | **Percent Gap  |
|                 | of**           | of              | of Teachers    |
|                 |                | "Inexperienced" | with Master's  |
|                 | **"Novice"     | Teachers in     | Degree or      |
|                 | Teachers**     | High Poverty    | Above in High  |
|                 |                | compared with   | Poverty        |
|                 | **in High      | Low Poverty     | compared with  |
|                 | Poverty        | Schools**       | Low Poverty    |
|                 | compared with  |                 | Schools**      |
|                 | Low Poverty    |                 |                |
|                 | Schools**      |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Metropolitan  | 5.1            | 10.2            | 10.5           |
| Nashville**     |                |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Memphis       | -1.7           | 3.9             | 4.7            |
| City**          |                |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Shelby        | 21.5           | 33.8            | 18.9           |
| County**        |                |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Hamilton      | 21.6           | 26.6            | 9.9            |
| County**        |                |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Knox County** | 12.6           | 13.9            | -6.5           |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Madison       | 8.3            | 9.4             | 20.7           |
| County**        |                |                 |                |
+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+----------------+

**Table 7: Districts that Show Significant Gaps at the Secondary Level
Between High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Name of         **Percent Gap of  **Percent Gap of  **Percent Gap of
  District**        "Novice" Teachers "Inexperienced"   Teachers with
                    in High Poverty   Teachers in High  Master's Degree
                    compared with Low Poverty compared  of Above in High
                    Poverty Schools** with Low Poverty  Poverty compared
                                      Schools**         with Low Poverty
                                                        Schools**

  **Metropolitan    6.4               9.2               2.0
  Nashville**                                           

  **Memphis City**  5.8               3.9               4.7

  **Shelby County** 12.3              17.0              6.5

  **Hamilton        21.1              24.3              12.7
  County**                                              

  **Knox County**   9.9               10.1              -0.1

  **Madison         4.0               3.7               5.2
  County**                                              
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

**B. Specific Strategies for Addressing Inequities in Teacher
Assignment**

Tennessee will pursue two statewide strategies for addressing inequities
in teacher assignment.

**Strategy 1:** Continuous analysis and dissemination of data on the
distribution of teachers in high-poverty and low-poverty schools and in
high-minority and low-minority schools by experience, education, and
other characteristics. These analyses will be disseminated through:

-   **The state's website**

-   **WebEx meetings with LEAs**

-   **Reports to the State Board of Education**

As previously stated in the introduction to the Tennessee Teacher Equity
Plan, it is very important that policymakers understand the problem with
equitable distribution and retention of "highly-effective" teachers in
high-poverty, high-minority schools. To establish an effective
recruitment of high quality teachers, we will need to increase salaries
and institute incentives for recruitment of new teachers and retention
of highly effective teachers in low performing schools. It is
increasingly difficult for our state to compete in recruitment with
surrounding states that have higher salaries, greater resources, and
incentive packages. This problem exists statewide and is multiplied in
the high-poverty areas as well as urban and rural LEAs. We must keep
these issues in the 'public eye' and continue to seek support for
providing a 'highly effective' teacher for every classroom in Tennessee.

**Strategy 2:** Technical assistance to districts in choosing and
implementing specific policies and practices to address inequities in
teacher assignment. The technical assistance will be provided through
WebEx meetings with LEAs, webpages with links to promising strategies,
and individual meetings with districts. These policies and practices may
include:

-   **Pay incentives** for experienced, effective teachers to teach in
    high-poverty, high-minority schools

-   **Tuition incentives** for teachers in high-poverty, high-minority
    schools to complete content-area coursework

-   **Preparation programs** to train pre-service teachers to succeed in
    high-poverty, high-minority schools

-   **Retention programs** to support current teachers working in
    high-poverty, high-minority schools

-   **Pathways** to recruit qualified professionals to teach in
    high-poverty, high-minority schools

**C. Evidence for the Probable Success of the Strategies**

Through the research of Dr. William Sanders and others, Tennessee has
long recognized that teachers have the strongest impact on students'
academic progress while an individual student's income or race/ethnicity
has no effect on his or her academic growth. With access to
highly-effective teachers, poor and minority students, who often begin
school at a disadvantage, will learn at accelerated rates and
achievement gaps will close.

The Tennessee Teacher Equity Plan is built around two strategies -- give
districts access to data to identify areas of need and the discretion to
implement the policies best suited to address these needs.

**Strategy 1:** The State will analyze and disseminate data on the
distribution of teachers by education, experience, and other
characteristics, such as teacher effect scores from the Tennessee
Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). This data will be reported on the
state's website and in annual reports to the State Board of Education.
This is the first time that the State has analyzed this data and its
dissemination will impact districts with significant disparities. The
data will give great support to policy changes designed to improve
teacher quality in schools that serve high numbers of low-income or
minority students. It will also be available to district teams in
preparing plans under the Tennessee Comprehensive Systemwide Planning
Process (TCSPP), which includes a data analysis and equity component.

**Strategy 2:** The State will provide districts technical assistance in
choosing and implementing policies to eliminate inequities in teacher
quality. The policy options are different approaches to giving poor and
minority children greater access to effective teachers, either by moving
teachers to their schools, improving their current teachers' content
knowledge, preparing their future teachers to be successful, retaining
good teachers in their schools, or recruiting new teachers from other
fields into their schools. These policies have been implemented in
numerous states and school districts throughout the nation. By providing
a menu of options, the State will give districts the flexibility to make
the policy decisions that have the greatest likelihood of success given
the district's needs, resources, and political environment.

One indication that these policy options will be successful in Tennessee
districts is that the state and several districts have already
implemented targeted policies to address these issues, such as:

**Pay Incentives**

-   The Hamilton County (Chattanooga) school district, under the Benwood
    Initiative, offers pay incentives to effective teachers to teach in
    nine elementary schools that serve predominately low-income,
    minority children. This pilot program targets teachers with high
    teacher effect (TVAAS) scores. The pay incentives include a one-time
    bonus for moving to the school, and annual bonuses if the teacher
    effect scores remain high.

-   The Memphis City school district offers pay incentives to teachers
    in its Fresh Start schools \-- the schools that have been
    restructured due to NCLB. The pay incentive is in the form of a
    financial reward to the school if it meets its performance targets.
    A school committee then decides how the reward will be distributed
    to teachers.

-   The Metro Nashville school district, in partnership with the
    National Center on Performance Incentives at the Peabody College at
    Vanderbilt University, is the site of a major study on the impact of
    performance pay on student achievement.

**Tuition Incentives**

-   The Memphis City school district, under the Middle School Highly
    Qualified Initiative, offers free tuition and a \$1,000 honorarium
    to middle school teachers to complete 15 hours of content
    coursework.

**Preparation Programs**

-   The Hamilton County school district and the University of
    Tennessee-Chattanooga have collaborated, through the Urban IMPACT
    program, to redesign the curriculum for pre-service teachers to
    better prepare them to succeed in urban schools.

**Retention Programs**

-   The Hamilton County school district and the University of
    Tennessee-Chattanooga offer an Urban Specialist Certificate program
    to prepare and retain teachers of low-income children in a diverse,
    urban environment.

**Pathways**

-   The State offers several programs to attract qualified professionals
    into the classroom, including the Teach Tennessee program which has
    successfully trained 89 new math and science teachers in the last
    two years, and activities under the state's Transition to Teaching
    grant.

Beginning September 2007, the State will conduct an annual evaluation to
correlate district policy adoptions with trends in statewide and
district teacher equity data. The results of this evaluation will be
used to inform the state's technical assistance plan and will be
published in the annual report to the State Board of Education.

**D. SEA Plan to Examine the Issue of Equitable Teacher Assignment In
Monitoring LEAs**

According to the State's analysis of data related to the percent of core
academic courses taught by highly qualified teachers and related to
teacher equity, the Department will prioritize specific technical
assistance to LEAs which have either failed to meet their benchmarks for
percent of core academic courses taught by highly qualified teachers or
have demonstrated large disparities in teacher characteristics between
their high poverty and low poverty schools. The Department will convene
special professional development activities for the LEAs which have been
identified. These activities will then be followed by regional and
on-site technical assistance for the identified LEAs by their assigned
field service center. The Department's 9 field service centers across
the state provide direct technical assistance to the State's 136 LEAs.
These field service centers work as teams to address the needs of
schools and districts in their regions.

+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Objective** | **Action Steps**                  | **Time Frame**  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Require LEAs  | -   Identify LEAs with most       | -   September   |
| that show     |     significant gaps              |     2006 and    |
| inequities in |                                   |     annually    |
| teacher       | -   Provide training to LEAs on   |                 |
| assignment to |     analyzing their data and      | -   December    |
| analyze their |     developing specific steps to  |     2006 and    |
| data to       |     address the gaps              |     annually    |
| determine     |                                   |                 |
| causes and    | -   LEAs analyze data and develop | -   January     |
| develop       |     their teacher equity plan     |     2007 --     |
| specific      |                                   |     April 2007  |
| steps to      | -   LEAs submit their equity plan |     and         |
| address gaps  |     to the State for review and   |     annually    |
|               |     approval                      |                 |
|               |                                   | -   April 2007  |
|               | -   LEAs reanalyze their data and |     and         |
|               |     revise their equity plans     |     annually    |
|               |     annually                      |                 |
|               |                                   | -   December -- |
|               |                                   |     March       |
|               |                                   |     annually    |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Target        | -   Identify LEAs with most       | -   December    |
| specific      |     significant gaps and high     |     annually    |
| intervention  |     priority schools              |                 |
| strategies    |                                   | -   December    |
| for schools   | -   Provide specialized training  |     2006 and    |
| identified as |     to assist identified LEAs     |     annually    |
| "high         |     with analyzing the teacher    |                 |
| priority",    |     quality data in these high    | -   January     |
| i.e. not      |     priority schools and          |     2007 --     |
| making AYP    |     identifying strategies that   |     April 2007  |
|               |     will attract and retain high  |     and         |
|               |     quality teachers to their     |     annually    |
|               |     high priority schools         |                 |
|               |                                   | -   January     |
|               | -   Require the LEAs to develop   |     2007 --     |
|               |     an analysis of the teaching   |     April 2007  |
|               |     staff of high priority        |     and         |
|               |     schools compared with their   |     annually    |
|               |     other schools in the district |                 |
|               |                                   | -   June 2007   |
|               | -   Require the LEAs to develop   |     and         |
|               |     specific strategies to        |     annually    |
|               |     attract and retain their most |                 |
|               |     highly effective teachers to  | -   July 1,     |
|               |     these schools                 |     2007 and    |
|               |                                   |     annually    |
|               | -   Require the LEAs to submit    |                 |
|               |     these specialized plans for   |                 |
|               |     high priority schools with    |                 |
|               |     their equity plans to the     |                 |
|               |     State annually                |                 |
|               |                                   |                 |
|               | -   Require the LEAs to gain      |                 |
|               |     state approval of their       |                 |
|               |     plans, including the use of   |                 |
|               |     available resources to        |                 |
|               |     implement the plans, to       |                 |
|               |     receive approval for the use  |                 |
|               |     of their NCLB Consolidated    |                 |
|               |     Application                   |                 |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Redirect the  | -   Identify LEAs that are not    | -   December    |
| federal       |     reducing the gap in teacher   |     2007 and    |
| education     |     distribution and who also     |     annually    |
| resources in  |     have high priority schools    |                 |
| LEAs that     |                                   | -   December -- |
| have not      | -   Redirect their NCLB           |     May 2007    |
| reduced the   |     Consolidated Application      |     and         |
| gaps in       |     funds, school improvement     |     annually    |
| teacher       |     funds, and IDEA funds to      |                 |
| distribution  |     target improvement in teacher |                 |
| and have high |     quality in their high poverty |                 |
| priority      |     schools and/or high priority  |                 |
| schools to    |     schools                       |                 |
| target        |                                   |                 |
| improvements  |                                   |                 |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+