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

Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine

Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans

State: ARKANSAS

Date of Review: 5/1/06

Overall Recommendation:

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

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

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

Comments to support recommendation:

-   While Arkansas did not put its formal HQT definitions and procedures
    into place until August 2005, it has made progress over the past
    year in reviewing the HQT status of its teaching workforce.

-   Arkansas does not publish the required HQT data in its annual State
    report card. The State reported CSPR data for the first time in
    March 2006. Because of the State's late start in implementing the
    HQT review, it provided 2005-06 data instead of 2004-05.

-   Arkansas has strategies in place to address inequities in
    hard-to-staff schools, but lacks a comprehensive written plan to
    ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by
    inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates
    than are other children.

Decision

Approve \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Signature [Miriam Lund
/s/]{.underline} Date [5/10/2006]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 1 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 1 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   The U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducted an NCLB Title II,
    Part A, monitoring review of Arkansas and is satisfied that the
    State has implemented the correct HQT definitions and procedures.
    Arkansas was issued a finding with regard to its HQT definitions and
    procedures, but has provided an acceptable corrective action plan to
    ED to address the issue.

-   Arkansas did not have approved HQT regulations in place until August
    2005 and did not begin to review the HQT status of its teaching
    workforce until fall 2005. Arkansas has not completed the review at
    this time.

Source: Arkansas SEA Monitoring Protocol; Arkansas Monitoring Report for
the February 1-3, 2005 visit; Arkansas State Response (6/13/2005), ED
Resolution Letter 10/31/05.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 2 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 2 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

Website link to report cards: http://www.as-is.org/

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

Were HQT data included in the report cards? No

Other information (if available):

-   While Arkansas publishes an annual State report card, it does not
    contain the required HQT data.

-   Arkansas received a finding on Title I hiring, but submitted a
    corrective action plan that satisfies the compliance issue.

-   Because Arkansas did not have its data collection procedures in
    place until fall 2005, it cannot be determined if the State had
    adequate time to identify non-HQT teachers employed in Title I
    schools and send the required notification to parents.

Source: Arkansas SEA Monitoring Protocol; Arkansas Monitoring Report for
the February 1-3, 2005 visit; Arkansas State Response (6/13/2005); ED
Resolution Letter 10/31/05.

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

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

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

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

  Y                Were data disaggregated for elementary and secondary
                   schools?

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 3 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 3 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Due to Arkansas' late implementation of the NCLB HQT provisions, it
    did not begin data collection until October 2005. Therefore, data
    were not available prior to the 2005-06 school year. Arkansas
    submitted its most recent complete data which were for the 2005-06
    school year in the March 2006 CSPR.

-   The State did not provide specific information describing the
    reasons why teachers are not highly qualified in its CSPR.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, March 2006; Followup of
2004-05 CSPR data verification (5/8/06).

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

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

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

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

Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided

[Finding]{.underline}:

\_\_\_ Requirement 4 has been met

\_X\_ Requirement 4 has been partially met

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   During the State's monitoring review, ED did not ask Arkansas about
    its plan 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 A review of the State's website and use of
    State Activities Funds found that Arkansas has various strategies
    for recruiting and retaining experienced and high-quality teachers
    in hard to staff schools. However, it appears that the State lacks a
    cohesive written plan to ensure that poor and minority children are
    not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers
    at higher rates than are other children.

Source: Arkansas SEA Monitoring Protocol; Arkansas Monitoring Report for
the February 1-3, 2005 visit; Arkansas State Response (6/13/2005); ED
Resolution Letter 10/31/05.

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

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

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

+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total   | **Number of    | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number of | Core Academic  | Core Academic    |
|                     | Core      | Classes Taught | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic  | by Highly      | by Highly        |
|                     | Classes** | Qualified      | Qualified        |
|                     |           | Teachers**     | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **NA**    | **NA**         | **97**           |
| ll Schools in State |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| > Schools**         |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **NA**    | **NA**         | **97**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **NA**    | **NA**         | **NA**           |
| Schools**           |           |                |                  |
+---------------------+-----------+----------------+------------------+

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

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

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

+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **School Type**     | **Total  | **Number of     | **Percentage of  |
|                     | Number   | Core Academic   | Core Academic    |
|                     | of Core  | Classes Taught  | Classes Taught   |
|                     | Academic | by Highly       | by Highly        |
|                     | C        | Qualified       | Qualified        |
|                     | lasses** | Teachers**      | Teachers**       |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| ####### A           | **1      | **116,109**     | **95.0**         |
| ll Schools in State | 22,127** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| #####               |          |                 |                  |
| ## Elementary Level |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | *        | **6,275**       | **97.0**         |
| Schools**           | *6,469** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | *        | **4,818**       | **92.0**         |
| Schools**           | *5,236** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| > **All Elementary  | **       | **21,340**      | **96.1**         |
| > Schools**         | 22,198** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| # Secondary Level   |          |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **High-Poverty      | **       | **30,228**      | **96.8**         |
| Schools**           | 31,240** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Low-Poverty       | **       | **18,629**      | **89.9**         |
| Schools**           | 20,732** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+
| **All Secondary     | **       | **93,484**      | **94.8**         |
| Schools**           | 98,623** |                 |                  |
+---------------------+----------+-----------------+------------------+

[Finding]{.underline}:

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Arkansas did not report HQT data prior to the 2005-06 school year.
    Therefore, it is not possible to track the State's progress.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports; Followup of 2004-05 CSPR
data verification (5/8/06).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Finding]{.underline}:

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

-   Because Arkansas did not report HQT data prior to the 2005-06 school
    year, it is not possible to measure the State's annual progress in
    numeric terms. However, the State has made substantial progress in
    establishing its definitions and procedures which is reflected in
    the 95 percent of classes statewide that were taught by HQTs in
    2005-06.

-   The State still is experiencing challenges in meeting the HQT goal
    at the secondary level within low-poverty schools.

-   The State did not provide information on reasons classes are not
    being taught by HQTs in its CSPR; therefore, there is no information
    on specific areas where it may be difficult to meet the 100 percent
    goal by 2005-06.

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports; Followup of 2004-05 CSPR
data verification (5/8/06).

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

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

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

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

[Finding]{.underline}:

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

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

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

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

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

[Supporting Narrative]{.underline}:

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