June 20, 2005

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND

IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS (ESEA TITLE II, PART A)

MONITORING REPORT

**Georgia Department of Education**

**April 20-22, 2005**

**U.S. Department of Education Monitoring Team:**

Elizabeth Witt

Julie Coplin

Allison Henderson (Westat)

**Georgia Department of Education (GDOE)**

Jeanie Weathersby, Deputy Superintendent

Wendy Hughes, Director, Teacher Quality and Title II, Part A Coordinator

Scott Austenson, Deputy Superintendent

Jeff Gagne, Federal Policy Analyst

Lissa Pijanowski, Director, School Improvement

Theodore Pikes, Assistant Director, Teacher Quality

Steve Preston, Coordinator, Professional Learning

Kim Sites, Grants Accounting Manager

**Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GPSC)**

F.D. Toth, Executive Secretary

Angelia Davis, Title II A Consultant

Tom Hall, Director of Special Projects

Gerri Heard, Title II A Program Coordinator

Linda Holloman, Title II A Consultant

Chuck McCampbell, Director of Technology

Leslie Morrison, Title II A Consultant

Jeanie Rakestraw, Title II A Consultant

Frank Stewart, Title II A Consultant

Paulette Martin, Administrative Assistant

**State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE)**

Sheila Jones, Executive Director, Georgia P-16, Board of Regents

Ed Davis, Director, Operations, University of Georgia

Tom Koballa, Director, Education Partnerships, University of Georgia.

**Overview of Georgia:**

Number of Districts: 183

Number of Schools: 2,247

Number of Teachers: 106,226

Total State Allocation (FY 2004): \$77,740,058

Allocation for local educational agencies (LEAs): \$73,114,526

State Educational Agency (SEA) State Activities Allocation: \$1,924,006

State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Allocation: \$1,924,006

**Scope of Review:**

Like all State educational agencies (SEAs), the Georgia Department of
Education (GDOE), as a condition of receiving funds under Title I, Part
A and Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), provided an
assurance to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) that it
would administer these programs in accordance with all applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements, including those in Title I, Part
A that concern "Highly Qualified Teachers" and those that govern the use
of Title II, Part A funds. See **§**9304(a)(1) of the ESEA. One of the
specific requirements the Department established for an SEA's receipt of
program funds under its consolidated state application (§9302(b)) was
submission to the Department of annual data on how well the State has
been meeting its performance target for Performance Indicator 3.1: "The
percentage of classes being taught by 'highly qualified' teachers (as
the term is defined in §9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in
'high-poverty' schools (as the term is defined in
**§**1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA)."

The Department's monitoring visit to Georgia had two purposes. One was
to review the progress of the State in meeting the ESEA's highly
qualified teacher (HQT) requirements. The second was to review the use
of ESEA Title II, Part A funds by the SEA, selected districts, and the
State agency for higher education (SAHE), to ensure that the funds are
being used to prepare, retain, and recruit high-quality teachers and
principals so that all children will achieve to high academic
achievement standards and to their full potential.

The monitoring review was conducted April 20-22, at the offices of the
GDOE. As part of the review, the Department monitoring team met with
Jeanie Weathersby, Deputy Superintendent, GDOE; F.D. Toth, Executive
Secretary, GPSC, and; Wendy Hughes, Director, Teacher Quality and Gerri
Heard, Title II, Part A Coordinator. Fran Watkins, Title II A Program
Administrator, Professional Standards Commission did not attend because
of illness. The review team also met with Ed Davis and Tom Koballa,
University of Georgia and Sheila Jones, Georgia Board of Regents, to
discuss the SAHE grants. The review team visited the Clayton County
School District and conducted telephone interviews with the Glascock and
Clay County Schools.

#### Summary of Monitoring Indicators

+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| #        |                               |                |        |
| Monitori |                               |                |        |
| ng Area  |                               |                |        |
| 1: Highl |                               |                |        |
| y Qualif |                               |                |        |
| ied Teac |                               |                |        |
| her Syst |                               |                |        |
| ems & Pr |                               |                |        |
| ocedures |                               |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| *        | **Description**               | # Status       | # Page |
| *Element |                               |                |        |
| Number** |                               |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Has the State developed and   | Finding        | 7      |
| Element  | implemented procedures,       |                |        |
| 1.1.     | consistent with the statutory | Commendation   |        |
|          | definition of highly          |                |        |
|          | qualified, to determine       |                |        |
|          | whether *all* teachers of     |                |        |
|          | core academic subjects are    |                |        |
|          | highly qualified (§9101(23))? |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Are all new elementary school | Findings       | 7      |
| Element  | teachers (including special   |                |        |
| 1.2.     | education teachers, as        |                |        |
|          | appropriate) required to pass |                |        |
|          | a rigorous State test in      |                |        |
|          | reading, writing,             |                |        |
|          | mathematics, and the other    |                |        |
|          | areas of the elementary       |                |        |
|          | school curriculum to          |                |        |
|          | demonstrate subject-matter    |                |        |
|          | competency                    |                |        |
|          | (§9101(23)(B)(II))?           |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Are all new middle and        | Findings       | 9      |
| Element  | secondary school teachers     |                |        |
| 1.3.     | (including special education  |                |        |
|          | teachers, as appropriate)     |                |        |
|          | required to demonstrate       |                |        |
|          | subject-matter competency, in |                |        |
|          | each core academic subject    |                |        |
|          | they teach, consistent with   |                |        |
|          | §9101(23)(B)(II)(ii)?         |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Are all veteran (i.e., those  | > Findings     | 10     |
| Element  | who are not new to the        |                |        |
| 1.4.     | profession) elementary school |                |        |
|          | teachers (including special   |                |        |
|          | education teachers, as        |                |        |
|          | appropriate) required to      |                |        |
|          | demonstrate subject-matter    |                |        |
|          | competency by passing a       |                |        |
|          | rigorous State test or by     |                |        |
|          | completing the State's "High  |                |        |
|          | Objective Uniform State       |                |        |
|          | Standard of Evaluation"       |                |        |
|          | (HOUSSE) procedures           |                |        |
|          | (§9101(23)(C))?               |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Are all veteran middle and    | Findings       | 11     |
| Element  | secondary teachers (including |                |        |
| 1.5.     | special education teachers,   |                |        |
|          | as appropriate) required to   |                |        |
|          | demonstrate subject-matter    |                |        |
|          | competency in each core       |                |        |
|          | academic subject they teach,  |                |        |
|          | consistent with               |                |        |
|          | §9101(23)(B)(II)(ii)?         |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | For each set of HOUSSE        | Met            | NA     |
| Element  | procedures the State has      | requirement    |        |
| 1.6.     | developed, can the State      |                |        |
|          | describe how it meets each of |                |        |
|          | the statutory requirements in |                |        |
|          | §9101(23)(C)(ii)?             |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA ensure that,     | Finding        | 12     |
| Element  | since the beginning of the    |                |        |
| 1.7.     | 2002-03 school year,          |                |        |
|          | districts only hire highly    |                |        |
|          | qualified teachers (including |                |        |
|          | special education teachers,   |                |        |
|          | as appropriate) to teach in   |                |        |
|          | Title I programs?             |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Has the SEA ensured, since    | Met            | NA     |
| Element  | the beginning of the 2002-03  | requirement    |        |
| 1.8.     | school year, that districts   |                |        |
|          | that use ESEA Title II funds  |                |        |
|          | to reduce class size hire     |                |        |
|          | only highly qualified         |                |        |
|          | teachers for such positions?  |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA's plan establish | Met            | NA     |
| Element  | annual measurable objectives  | requirement    |        |
| 1.9.     | for each LEA and school to    |                |        |
|          | ensure that annual increases  |                |        |
|          | occur:                        |                |        |
|          |                               |                |        |
|          | -   in the percentage of      |                |        |
|          |     highly qualified teachers |                |        |
|          |     at each LEA and school;   |                |        |
|          |     and                       |                |        |
|          |                               |                |        |
|          | -   in the percentage of      |                |        |
|          |     teachers who are          |                |        |
|          |     receiving high-quality    |                |        |
|          |     professional development  |                |        |
|          |     to enable such teachers   |                |        |
|          |     to become highly          |                |        |
|          |     qualified and successful  |                |        |
|          |     classroom teachers        |                |        |
|          |     (§1119(a)(2)(A))?         |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA also have a plan | Met            | NA     |
| Element  | with specific steps to ensure | requirement    |        |
| 1.10.    | that poor and minority        |                |        |
|          | children are not taught at    |                |        |
|          | higher rates than other       |                |        |
|          | children by inexperienced,    |                |        |
|          | unqualified and out-of-field  |                |        |
|          | teachers? Does the plan       |                |        |
|          | include measures to evaluate  |                |        |
|          | and publicly report the       |                |        |
|          | progress of such steps        |                |        |
|          | (§1111(b)(8)(C))?             |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Has the State reported to the | Finding        | 12     |
| Element  | Secretary in its Consolidated |                |        |
| 1.11.    | State Performance Report      |                |        |
|          | (CSPR) the number and         |                |        |
|          | percentage of core academic   |                |        |
|          | classes taught by highly      |                |        |
|          | qualified teachers, in the    |                |        |
|          | aggregate and in high-poverty |                |        |
|          | schools, consistent with the  |                |        |
|          | statutory definition of       |                |        |
|          | highly qualified              |                |        |
|          | (§1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23))?  |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the State prepare and    | Finding        | 13     |
| Element  | disseminate to the public an  |                |        |
| 1.12.    | Annual State Report Card      |                |        |
|          | (§1111(h)(1)(C)(viii))? If    |                |        |
|          | so, how is it disseminated?   |                |        |
+----------+-------------------------------+----------------+--------+

+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| # Mo     |                              |                 |        |
| nitoring |                              |                 |        |
|  Area 2: |                              |                 |        |
|  Adminis |                              |                 |        |
| tration  |                              |                 |        |
| of ESEA  |                              |                 |        |
| Title II |                              |                 |        |
| , Part A |                              |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| *        | # Description                | ### Status      | #      |
| *Element |                              |                 | # Page |
| Number** |                              |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA allocate funds  | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | according to the statute,    |                 |        |
| 2.1.     | using the most recent Census |                 |        |
|          | Bureau data as described in  |                 |        |
|          | the Non-Regulatory Guidance  |                 |        |
|          | (§2121(a))?                  |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA require an      | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | application from each LEA    |                 |        |
| 2.2.     | before providing Title II,   |                 |        |
|          | Part A funding? If yes, what |                 |        |
|          | information does the SEA     |                 |        |
|          | require in the LEA           |                 |        |
|          | application (§2122(b))?      |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA require each    | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | LEA to describe how the      |                 |        |
| 2.3.     | activities to be carried out |                 |        |
|          | are based on the required    |                 |        |
|          | local needs assessment       |                 |        |
|          | (§2122(b))?                  |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA have a          | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | procedure to determine the   |                 |        |
| 2.4.     | amount of funds each LEA     |                 |        |
|          | expended during the period   |                 |        |
|          | of availability?             |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA have a          | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | procedure to regularly       |                 |        |
| 2.5.     | review the drawdowns of the  |                 |        |
|          | LEAs?                        |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA have a written  | No written      | 13     |
| Element  | policy on allowable          | procedure       |        |
| 2.6.     | carryover funds?             |                 |        |
|          |                              | Recommendation  |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | If an LEA cannot obligate    | No written      | 14     |
| Element  | funds within the 27 months   | procedure       |        |
| 2.7.     | of availability (which       |                 |        |
|          | includes the extra year of   | >               |        |
|          | availability permitted under |  Recommendation |        |
|          | the Tydings amendment), does |                 |        |
|          | the SEA have a procedure for |                 |        |
|          | reallocating these funds to  |                 |        |
|          | other LEAs?                  |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA have records to | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | show that each LEA meets the |                 |        |
| 2.8.     | maintenance of effort        |                 |        |
|          | requirements?                |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Does the SEA ensure that it  | Commendation    | 14     |
| Element  | and its component LEAs are   |                 |        |
| 2.9.     | audited annually, if         |                 |        |
|          | required, and that all       |                 |        |
|          | corrective actions required  |                 |        |
|          | through this process are     |                 |        |
|          | fully implemented?           |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+
| Critical | Has the SEA identified and   | Met requirement | NA     |
| Element  | provided technical           |                 |        |
| 2.10.    | assistance to LEAs that are  |                 |        |
|          | not making progress toward   |                 |        |
|          | meeting their annual         |                 |        |
|          | measurable objectives in     |                 |        |
|          | meeting the highly qualified |                 |        |
|          | teacher challenge (§2141)?   |                 |        |
+----------+------------------------------+-----------------+--------+

+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| #       |                                 |                  |      |
| Monitor |                                 |                  |      |
| ing Are |                                 |                  |      |
| a 3: St |                                 |                  |      |
| ate Act |                                 |                  |      |
| ivities |                                 |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| **      | # Description                   | ### Status       | ##   |
| Element |                                 |                  | Page |
| N       |                                 |                  |      |
| umber** |                                 |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| C       | Does the State use its State    | Met requirement  | NA   |
| ritical | Activities funds to promote the |                  |      |
| Element | recruitment, hiring, training,  |                  |      |
| 3.1.    | and retention of highly         |                  |      |
|         | qualified teachers and          |                  |      |
|         | principals?                     |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| C       | Does the State support          | Commendation     | 14   |
| ritical | activities that focus on        |                  |      |
| Element | increasing the subject-matter   |                  |      |
| 3.2.    | knowledge of teachers and that  |                  |      |
|         | assist teachers to become       |                  |      |
|         | highly qualified?               |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+

+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| #       |                                 |                  |      |
| Monitor |                                 |                  |      |
| ing Are |                                 |                  |      |
| a 4: St |                                 |                  |      |
| ate Age |                                 |                  |      |
| ncy For |                                 |                  |      |
|  Higher |                                 |                  |      |
|  Educat |                                 |                  |      |
| ion (SA |                                 |                  |      |
| HE) Act |                                 |                  |      |
| ivities |                                 |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| **      | # Description                   | ### Status       | ##   |
| Element |                                 |                  | Page |
| N       |                                 |                  |      |
| umber** |                                 |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| C       | Did the SAHE manage a           | Met requirement  | NA   |
| ritical | competition for eligible        |                  |      |
| Element | partnerships?                   |                  |      |
| 4.1.    |                                 |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+
| C       | Does the SAHE have procedures   | Finding          | 14   |
| ritical | to ensure that eligible         |                  |      |
| Element | partnerships include the        | Commendation     |      |
| 4.2.    | required members, i.e., an      |                  |      |
|         | institution of higher education |                  |      |
|         | and the division of the         |                  |      |
|         | institution that prepares       |                  |      |
|         | teachers and principals, a      |                  |      |
|         | school of arts and sciences,    |                  |      |
|         | and a high-need LEA?            |                  |      |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+------+

**[Area 1: State Procedures to Identify Highly Qualified
Teachers]{.underline}**

**[Critical Element 1.1:]{.underline}** **Has the State developed and
implemented procedures, consistent with the statutory definition of
highly qualified, to determine whether *all* teachers of core academic
subjects are highly qualified (§9101(23))?**

[]{.mark}

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The GDOE's procedure for determining the
highly qualified teacher (HQT) status of special education teachers of
core academic subjects is not consistent with the definition of a
"highly qualified" teacher in §9101(23) of the ESEA. The GDOE and the
GPSC has not determined the highly qualified status of special education
teachers instructing in the core content areas.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** The ESEA provisions governing teacher
quality include basic requirements (§1119(a) and (b)) that all teachers
of core academic subjects who teach in Title I programs and who were
hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year first demonstrate
that they are highly qualified, and that all other teachers of core
academic subjects in all public schools be highly qualified by the end
of the 2005-06 school year. §9101(23) of the ESEA expressly defines a
"highly qualified" teacher as one who has at least a bachelor's degree,
has full State certification, and has demonstrated competency in each
subject he or she teaches in certain statutorily prescribed ways.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must submit a
written plan with specific procedures to ensure that all special
education teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified in
conformity with the definition in §9101(23) and the timeline in
§1119(a)(1) and (2). (Note: multi-subject teachers in certain rural
districts and new special education multi-subject teachers do have
additional flexibility).

**[Commendation]{.underline}**: Georgia is commended for its development
of the "HiQ" system that allows teachers and administrators to determine
a teacher's HQT status online. The system is very user-friendly and lets
teachers immediately know their HQT status.

**[Commendation]{.underline}:** Georgia is commended for its excellent
collaboration and communication between the GDOE and GPSC. Both have
worked to together to meet the highly qualified teacher challenge.

**[Critical Element 1.2:]{.underline} Are all new elementary school
teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required
to pass a rigorous State test in reading, writing, mathematics, and the
other areas of the elementary school curriculum to demonstrate
subject-matter competency (§9101(23)(B)(II))?**

**[Finding 1:]{.underline}** The Georgia definition and procedures for
determining the HQT status of new special education teachers at the
elementary level are not in compliance with statute. See Critical
Element 1.1 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §9101(23)(B)(II) of the ESEA requires that
all new elementary teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency in
each of the core academic subjects they teach by passing a rigorous
State assessment in reading, writing, mathematics, and the other areas
of the elementary school curriculum.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** GDOE must ensure that all new
elementary teachers, including special education teachers who provide
direct instruction in core academic subjects, demonstrate subject-matter
competency no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year.

**[Finding 2]{.underline}:** Georgia allows certified elementary
teachers who are new to the profession to move into the State and teach
on a 1-year, non-renewable temporary certificate if they have not met
all of the GPSC requirements, including passing the Praxis II
assessments. This particularly is a problem for teachers transferring
from Alabama where there are no State testing requirements. Such a test
is the only way that new elementary teachers can demonstrate
subject-area competency; if teachers have not passed the test, they
cannot be considered highly qualified.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §9101(23)(B)(II) of the ESEA requires that
all new elementary school teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency
in each of the core academic subjects they teach by passing a rigorous
State assessment in reading, writing, mathematics, and the other areas
of the elementary school curriculum.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must ensure that all
new elementary school teachers, including special education teachers who
provide direct instruction in core academic subjects, demonstrate
subject-matter competency no later than the end of the 2005-06 school
year.

**[Finding 3]{.underline}:** Georgia's major alternative route to
certification --- the Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (TAPP) ---
allows participants to enter the program and begin teaching before
passing the Praxis II content assessments. Teachers in TAPP are required
to pass Praxis II before the end of the two-year program. The only way
that elementary teachers who are new to the profession can demonstrate
subject-matter competency is by passing a rigorous test of content
before beginning to teach.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** The requirements in 34 CFR §200.56(a)(2)(ii)
provide, among other things, that teachers in an alternative route
program are considered to be highly qualified only if they have
demonstrated subject-matter competency before beginning to teach, and
then for a maximum of 3 years while they seek full State certification
or licensure.

**[Further Action Required]{.underline}:** The State must revise its
alternative route to certification to ensure that elementary teachers
participating in alternative certification programs demonstrate
subject-matter competence by passing the State test prior to being
deemed highly qualified. Secondary teachers must also demonstrate
subject-matter competence, using one of the means allowed by statute.

**[Critical Element 1.3]{.underline}: Are all new middle and secondary
school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate)
required to demonstrate subject-matter competency, in each core academic
subject they teach, consistent with §9101(23)(B)(II)(ii)?**

**[Finding 1:]{.underline}** The Georgia definition and procedures for
determining the highly qualified status of new special education
teachers at the secondary level are not in compliance with statute. See
Critical Element 1.1 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §9101(23)(B)(II)(ii) of the ESEA requires
middle and secondary school teachers new to the profession to
demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of the core academic
subjects they teach by passing a rigorous State academic subject test or
by successfully completing an academic major, coursework equivalent to
an academic major, a graduate degree, or advanced certification or
credentialing.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** GDOE must ensure that all new
middle school and secondary teachers who teach multiple subjects,
including special education teachers who provide direct instruction in
core academic subjects, demonstrate subject-matter competency in each
core academic subject they teach, in accordance with the options
available in §9101(23)(B)(ii) and §9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, no later
than the end of the 2005-06 school year. Special education teachers who
are new to the profession and who teach multiple subjects may have two
years from the date of hire to become highly qualified in other subjects
if they are highly qualified in mathematics, science, or language arts
at the time of hire.

**[Finding 2]{.underline}:** Georgia allows certified middle and
secondary teachers who are new to the profession to move into the State
to teach on a 1-year, non-renewable temporary certificate if they have
not met all of the GPSC requirements, including passing the Praxis II
assessments. This particularly is a problem for teachers transferring
from Alabama, where there are no State testing requirements.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §9101(23)(B)(II)(ii) of the ESEA requires
middle and secondary school teachers new to the profession to
demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of the core academic
subjects they teach by passing a rigorous State academic subject test or
by successfully completing an academic major, coursework equivalent to
an academic major, a graduate degree, or advanced certification or
credentialing.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must ensure that all
middle school and secondary teachers who teach multiple subjects,
including special education teachers who provide direct instruction in
core academic subjects, demonstrate subject-matter competency in each
core academic subject they teach, in accordance with the options
available in §9101(23)(B)(ii) and §9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, no later
than the end of the 2005-06 school year. Special education teachers who
are new to the profession and who teach multiple subjects may have two
years from the date of hire to become highly qualified in other subjects
if they are highly qualified in mathematics, science, or language arts
at the time of hire.

**[Finding 3]{.underline}:** The State does not require new middle and
secondary school teachers of history, geography, civics/government, or
economics to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of those
subjects they teach. The State allows middle and secondary social
studies teachers new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter
competency by requiring a major in one of the four social studies areas
(regardless of assignment), and passing the broad-field social studies
assessment. While the State has specific licenses with required majors
for Economics and History, it also offers a general Social Studies
license. The broad-field assessment used for the demonstration of social
studies content knowledge may not provide adequate subject-matter
preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in
the statute.

**[Citation]{.underline}:** §9101(11) of the ESEA identifies history,
geography, civics/government and economics as individual core academic
subjects. §9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA requires new teachers of core
academic subjects to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core
academic subject they teach.

**[Further Action Required]{.underline}:** The GDOE must ensure that all
history, geography, civics/government and economics teachers demonstrate
subject-matter competency in each of these subjects that they teach, no
later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. (In doing so, if the GDOE
has determined that the coursework requirement for an academic major in
social studies provides coursework "equivalent to a major" in each or in
a subset of these specific core academic subjects, it also will need to
specifically explain the basis for its determination.)

**[Finding 4]{.underline}:** Georgia's major alternative route to
certification --- the Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (TAPP) ---
allows participants to enter the program and begin teaching before
passing the Praxis II content assessments. Teachers in TAPP are required
to pass Praxis II before the end of the two-year program. While some
middle and secondary teachers in the TAPP program may be able to
satisfactorily demonstrate subject-area competence via a major or other
means, others cannot.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** The requirements in 34 CFR §200.56(a)(2)(ii)
provide, among other things, that teachers in an alternative route
program are considered to be highly qualified only if they have
demonstrated subject-matter competency before beginning to teach, and
then for a maximum of 3 years while they seek full State certification
or licensure.

**[Further Action Required]{.underline}:** The State must revise its
alternative route to certification to reflect these requirements.

**[Critical Element 1.4:]{.underline} Are all veteran (i.e., those who
are not new to the profession) elementary school teachers (including
special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate
subject-matter competency by passing a rigorous State test or by
completing the State's "High Objective Uniform State Standard of
Evaluation" (HOUSSE) procedures (§9101(23)(C))?**

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The Georgia definition and procedures for
determining the highly qualified status of veteran special education
teachers at the elementary level are not in compliance with the statute.
See Critical Element 1.1 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §1119(a)(2) of the ESEA requires all
teachers of core academic subjects to be highly qualified by the end of
the 2005-2006 school year. Recent amendments to the IDEA, which the
President signed into law on December 3, 2004, affirm that these
requirements apply to special education teachers (while providing some
flexibility for special education teachers of multiple subjects and who
teach to alternate achievement standards for students with significant
cognitive disabilities).

**[Further Action Required]{.underline}:** The GDOE must ensure that all
teachers who are not new to the profession, including special education
teachers who provide direct instruction in core academic subjects, are
highly qualified in each of the core academic subjects they teach by the
end of the 2005-2006 school year. (Please also refer to the discussion
in Critical Element 1.1-1.3 above.)

**[Critical Element 1.5:]{.underline} Are all veteran middle and
secondary teachers (including special education teachers, as
appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each
core academic subject they teach, consistent with
§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii)?**

**[Finding 1:]{.underline}** The Georgia definition and procedures for
determining the highly qualified status of veteran special education
teachers at the secondary level are not in compliance with statute. See
Critical Element 1.1 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA requires middle
or secondary school teachers not new to the profession, including
special education teachers who instruct in the core academic subjects,
to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of the core academic
subjects they teach.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must ensure that, no
later than the end of the 2005-06 school year, experienced teachers pass
the required State subject test or meet one of the other criteria for
demonstrating the required subject-matter knowledge that §9101(23)
(B)(ii) or §9101(23) (C)(ii) of the ESEA requires in order to be highly
qualified. See Critical Elements 1.1 through 1.4 for more discussion.

**[Finding 2]{.underline}:** The State does not require veteran middle
and secondary school teachers of history, geography, civics/government,
or economics to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of those
subjects they teach. See Critical Element 1.4 for additional
information.

**[Citation]{.underline}:** §9101(11) of the ESEA identifies history,
geography, civics/government and economics as individual core academic
subjects. §9101(23)(C) of the ESEA requires teachers of core academic
subjects not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter
competency in each core academic subject they teach.

**[Further Action Required]{.underline}:** The GDOE must ensure that all
history, geography, civics/government and economics teachers demonstrate
subject-matter competency in each of these subjects that they teach, no
later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. (In doing so, if the GDOE
has determined that the coursework requirement for an academic major in
social studies provides coursework "equivalent to a major" in each or in
a subset of these specific core academic subjects, it also will need to
specifically explain the basis for its determination.)

**[Critical Element 1.7:]{.underline} Does the SEA ensure that, since
the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, districts only hire highly
qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as
appropriate) to teach in Title I programs?**

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The State cannot ensure that LEAs are hiring
only highly qualified teachers providing instruction in core academic
subjects in Title I programs.

**[Citation]{.underline}:** §1119(a)(1) of the ESEA requires that all
teachers hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year to teach
in Title I programs must be highly qualified.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must submit a
written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for requiring LEAs
in the State to ensure that all teachers hired to teach in Title I
programs after the first day of the 2002-03 school year, including
special education teachers providing direct instruction in core academic
subjects, demonstrate that they are highly qualified in each core
academic subject they teach, either by passing the State's test for
demonstrating subject-matter knowledge or by satisfying HOUSSE
procedures established by the State, if the teacher is not new to the
profession.

**[Critical Element 1.11]{.underline}: Has the State reported to the
Secretary in its Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) the number
and percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified
teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, consistent with
the statutory definition of highly qualified (§1111(h)(4)(G);
§9101(23))?**

**[Finding]{.underline}:** GDOE/GPSC reported HQT data in its CSPR in
January 2005. However, the State did not include special education
teachers in the HQT numbers or percentages.

**[Citation]{.underline}:** §1111(h)(4)(G) of the ESEA requires each SEA
annually to report to the U.S. Secretary of Education on the percentage
of classes (in core academic subjects) taught by highly qualified
teachers in the State, local educational agency, and school"[^1] (a
summary of which §1111(h)(5) requires the Secretary annually to report
to Congress).

Consistent with the §1111(h) reporting requirements, SEAs were required
to submit to the Department, as part of their consolidated State
application due September 1, 2003, baseline information on the
percentage of teachers in the State who were highly qualified, in the
aggregate and in high-poverty schools. In their Consolidated State
Performance Reports for ESEA formula grant programs (implementing
requirements governing the receipt of ESEA program funding under
consolidated State applications (§9303 and §9302(a) of the ESEA,
respectively) that were submitted to the Department by January 31, 2005,
SEAs were required to provide data on the classes taught by highly
qualified teachers, disaggregated by high-poverty and low-poverty and by
elementary and secondary schools (§1111(h)(4)(G)). These requirements
for public reporting on whether teachers are highly qualified extend to
all public school teachers.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE/GPSC must report to
the Department, as required by §1111(h)(4)(G), complete data on the
percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers at all grade
levels (and disaggregated by high-and low-poverty schools), as required
for the Consolidated State Performance Report for the 2003-04 school
year that was due to the Department on January 31, 2005. These data must
include all teachers, including special education teachers.

**[Critical Element 1.12]{.underline}: Does the State prepare and
disseminate to the public an Annual State Report Card
(§1111(h)(1)(C)(viii))? If so, how is it disseminated?**

**[Finding]{.underline}:** The GDOE/GPSC has collected HQT data, but
excluded special educators from the counts. In addition, the Annual
State Report Card incorrectly reports data on classes taught, rather
than not taught, by HQ teachers, and it does not include data on the
percentage of teachers with waivers/emergency licenses

**[Citation:]{.underline}** §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA requires
each SEA to include in its Annual State Report Card data on the
professional qualifications of teacher in the State, the percentage of
such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and
percentage of classes in the State not taught (in core academic
subjects) by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and
disaggregate by high-poverty (as the term is defined in
§1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA) compared to low-poverty schools.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** The GDOE must report to the
public and to the Department, as required by §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), the
percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers at all
grade levels (and disaggregated by high-and low-poverty schools) and the
percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional
credentials, as required for the Annual State Report Card.

##### Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A 

**[Critical Element 2.6]{.underline}: Does the SEA have a written policy
on allowable carryover funds?**

**[Recommendation]{.underline}:** To ensure fiscally sound management
practice, the GDOE should establish written procedures governing the
amount of carryover a district may keep from year to year. The
procedures should cover the appropriate range of carryover amounts,
notification to the State regarding carryover and a justification for
why it is necessary, and a plan for obligating such funds in a timely
manner.

**[Critical Element 2.7]{.underline}: If an LEA cannot obligate funds
within the 27 months of availability (which includes the extra year of
availability permitted under the Tydings amendment), does the SEA have a
procedure for reallocating these funds to other LEAs?**

No, the State does not have a written procedure for reallocating excess
carryover funds, or unclaimed funds, to other LEAs. Though the State has
procedures in place, the monitoring team suggested to the GDOE that a
written plan would be beneficial for responsible fiscal management and
oversight.

**[Recommendation]{.underline}:** The State should create written
procedures for reallocating excess carryover or unclaimed funds to other
LEAs in a timely manner. The monitoring team suggested adopting
procedures similar to those used with Title I funds.

**[Critical Element 2.9]{.underline}: Does the SEA ensure that it and
its component LEAs are audited annually, if required, and that all
corrective actions required through this process are fully
implemented?**

**[Commendation]{.underline}:** The GPSC is commended for its intensive
Title II, Part A monitoring of local educational agencies. The GPSC
recently completed monitoring visits to all 183 school districts.
Districts spoke highly of the technical assistance provided by GPSC
staff on these visits and in general.

##### Area 3: State Activities

**[Critical Element 3.2:]{.underline} Does the State support activities
that focus on increasing the subject-matter knowledge of teachers and
that assist teachers to become highly qualified?**

**[Commendation]{.underline}**: The State is commended for its
commitment to systemic reform that aligns student content standards,
curriculum, and assessments. Georgia also has aligned all teacher
preparation and staff development to the content standards.

##### Area 4: State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Activities

**[Critical Element 4.2:]{.underline} Does the SAHE have procedures to
ensure that eligible partnerships include the required members, i.e., an
institution of higher education and the division of the institution that
prepares teachers and principals, a school of arts and sciences, and a
high-need LEA?**

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The SAHE did not exclusively use the required
Census data in its determination of a high-need LEA.

[**Citation**:]{.underline} §2131(1)(A)(iii) of ESEA requires the SAHE
to include a high-need LEA in each eligible partnership. §2102(3)
defines the poverty requirements for a high-need LEA as an LEA that:

-   Serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes
    below the poverty line; or

-   Not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are
    from families with incomes below the poverty line **and**

-   For which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the
    academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to
    teach; **or**

-   For which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency,
    provisional, or temporary certification or licensing \[Section
    2102(3)\].

Because the statute addresses family income, the Secretary has
determined that the Census Bureau data is the only stable and reliable
measure of family income and poverty.

**[Further Action Required:]{.underline}** In the next competition for
eligible partnerships, the SAHE must use the most recent available
Census data (as determined by the Secretary) to identify high-need LEAs.
Other sources of data, such as free and reduced priced lunch data, may
not be factored into the calculations, except for LEAs for which there
is no available Census data (e.g., charter school LEAs). The most recent
data can be found at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/>.

**[Commendation]{.underline}:** The SAHE is commended for offering a
\$400 "bounty" for administrators to participate in Title II, Part A,
SAHE-sponsored professional development activities. The \$400 is given
to the school. A commitment from instructional leadership is critical
for effective schoolwide professional development.

[^1]: The Department currently is requiring States to report data on
    classes taught by highly qualified teachers at the State level only.
    However we reserve the right to require this information in future
    annual State reports to the Secretary.