> ![](media/image1.png){width="4.388888888888889in"
> height="1.3472222222222223in"}
>
> A Report to the

U.S. Department of Education

On Educational Challenges and Technical Assistance Needs

For the Southeast Region

> Prepared by the
>
> Southeast Regional Advisory Committee
>
> Ms. Cathy Gassenheimer, Chair
>
> March 31, 2005

Table of Contents

[Preface iii](#__RefHeading___Toc100550706)

[Executive summary 1](#__RefHeading___Toc100550707)

[Introduction 5](#__RefHeading___Toc100550708)

[Legislative background 5](#legislative-background)

[Outreach efforts and data collection procedures
6](#outreach-efforts-and-data-collection-procedures)

[Public interest and input 8](#public-interest-and-input)

[Regional background 10](#regional-background)

[School and student demographics 10](#school-and-student-demographics)

[Diversity and special populations
12](#diversity-and-special-populations)

[Poverty 13](#poverty)

[Student achievement 14](#student-achievement)

[Teacher demographics and qualifications
18](#teacher-demographics-and-qualifications)

[Alignment with standards 20](#alignment-with-standards)

[Educational challenges in the Southeast Region
21](#__RefHeading___Toc100550719)

[Challenge #1: Teaching quality 21](#challenge-1-teaching-quality)

[Technical assistance for Challenge #1
24](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-1)

[Challenge #2: Leadership quality 25](#challenge-2-leadership-quality)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 2
26](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-2)

[Challenge \# 3: Understanding and use of data and assessments
27](#challenge-3-understanding-and-use-of-data-and-assessments)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 3
28](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-3)

[Challenge #4: Distribution and support of research-based strategies to
turn around low-performing schools
29](#challenge-4-distribution-and-support-of-research-based-strategies-to-turn-around-low-performing-schools)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 4
30](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-4)

[Challenge #5: Strategies to meet the needs of special populations
(Special Education, English Language Learners (ELL), poverty,
race/ethnicity, migrant, homeless and highly-mobile)
31](#challenge-5-strategies-to-meet-the-needs-of-special-populations-special-education-english-language-learners-ell-poverty-raceethnicity-migrant-homeless-and-highly-mobile)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 5
33](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-5)

[Challenge #6: Community and stakeholder involvement
35](#challenge-6-community-and-stakeholder-involvement)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 6
36](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-6)

[Challenge \# 7: Communicating information on NCLB
36](#challenge-7-communicating-information-on-nclb)

[Technical assistance for Challenge \# 7
37](#technical-assistance-for-challenge-7)

[Suggestions for national centers 39](#__RefHeading___Toc100550734)

[Appendix A: Outreach activities in the Southeast Region
41](#__RefHeading___Toc100550735)

[References 43](#__RefHeading___Toc100550736)

[Glossary 45](#__RefHeading___Toc100550737)

[List of tables 49](#__RefHeading___Toc100550738)

[List of figures 51](#__RefHeading___Toc100550739)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550706 .anchor}Preface

This report of the Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (SE RAC) for
Educational Needs Assessment was commissioned by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) under a contract number ED04CO0043/0001 awarded to The
CNA Corporation (CNAC). The law governing the RACs requires committee
members from the following stakeholder groups: state education agencies,
local education agencies, practitioners, both education and
non-education researchers, parents, and the business community. RAC
members were not regarded as spokespersons for their stakeholder group,
but rather as leads in soliciting the views of members of those
stakeholder groups. Members of the committee, their professional
affiliations and states, are listed below.

![](media/image2.wmf)

The SE RAC received support in preparing this report from its Designated
Federal Officials, Margaret McNeely and Jenelle Leonard of the U.S.
Department of Education and from CNAC and its partners the Institute for
Educational Leadership, The McKenzie Group, IceWEB, InterCall, and Kidz
Online. The facilitation team for this committee included Linda
Cavalluzzo and Miguel Martinez of CNAC. Additional support and
assistance on this contract came from Arthur Sheekey, Corbin Fauntleroy,
Laura Wyshynski, and Tara Harrison also of CNAC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550707 .anchor}Executive summary

In response to a directive from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Education (ED), the Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (SE RAC)
provides an assessment of the technical assistance needs of educators in
the Southeast Region. This RAC is one of 10 such committees appointed by
the Secretary to conduct an education needs assessment over the period
of December 2004 through March 2005. The committee, which includes
members from the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina first identified the major challenges
facing the region in improving student achievement and in implementing
the provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. It then assessed
the types of technical assistance that might enable educators in the
region to overcome these challenges.

The law governing the RACs requires committee members from the following
stakeholder groups: state education agencies, local education agencies,
practitioners, both education and non-education researchers, parents,
and the business community. RAC members were not regarded as
spokespersons for their stakeholder group, but rather as leads in
soliciting the views of members of those stakeholder groups. Central to
this task has been a series of public outreach efforts that included: an
initial meeting in December 2004 in Washington, DC, virtual meetings in
January and February 2005, and a final work session and public meeting
in March 2005 in Houston, TX. Additional public feedback was received
through the RAC Web site (RAC-ed.org), e-mail comments from Southeast
constituents, and focus groups arranged and facilitated by members of
the SE RAC.

As a result of these discussions, the SE RAC concluded that the region
faces particular challenges associated with rural schools and urban
schools, poverty, ethnic, linguistic, and racial diversity, and student
mobility. In addition, like other regions, the Southeast faces
significant challenges as it attempts to meet the legal requirements for
highly qualified teachers in core academic subject areas by school year
2006, and to improve the level of achievement and close achievement gaps
among student subpopulations by 2013-2014 school year4, particularly in
the key academic areas of reading, mathematics, and science.

To raise the performance of all students while narrowing achievement
gaps among groups, the SE RAC developed a list of technical assistance
needs that students and educators throughout the region could benefit
from, and categorized them into the following seven priority topic
areas. Although they are delineated separately, each must be attended to
as part of a systemic approach to improve education and reach the goals
set by NCLB.

1.  Teaching quality

2.  Leadership quality

3.  Understanding and use of data and assessments

4.  Distribution and support for research-based strategies to turn
    around low-performing schools

5.  Strategies to meet the needs of special populations (Special
    Education, English Language Learners (ELL), poverty, race/ethnicity,
    migrant, homeless, and highly mobile students)

6.  Community and stakeholder involvement

7.  Communicating information on NCLB.

In addition, the SE RAC noted a need for at least three national
technical assistance centers to meet the needs of educators across the
nation, including:

-   A center for science and mathematics that would provide resources on
    best practices, assessments, and professional development

-   A directory of available funding resources for improving schools,
    including foundations, businesses, and multi-state consortia

-   A communications center that would provide information on NCLB
    policies and implementation guidance, including timelines,
    requirements, national and state policies, and state and district
    implementation strategies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550708 .anchor}Introduction

The SE RAC provides an assessment of the technical assistance needs of
educators in our region in response to a directive from the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Education. This RAC is one of 10 such committees
appointed by the Secretary to conduct an education needs assessment over
the period of December 2004 through March 2005. This committee, which
includes members from the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, first identified the
major challenges facing the region in improving student achievement and
in implementing the provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
It then assessed the types of technical assistance that might enable
educators in the region to overcome these challenges.

# Legislative background

Section 203 of Title II of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-279) directs the Secretary of Education to establish 20
comprehensive centers to provide technical assistance to state
educational agencies, local educational agencies, regional educational
agencies and schools in implementing the goals and programs of NCLB Act,
and in the use of scientifically valid teaching methods and assessment
tools for use by teachers and administrators in:

-   Core academic subjects of mathematics, science, and reading or
    language arts

-   English language acquisition

-   Education technology

-   Facilitating communication between education experts, school
    officials, teachers, parents, and librarians

-   Disseminating information that is usable for improving academic
    achievement, closing achievement gaps, and encouraging and
    sustaining school improvement to schools, educators, parents, and
    policymakers within the region in which the center is located

-   Developing teacher and school leader in-service and pre-service
    training models that illustrate best practices in the use of
    technology in different content areas.

In addition, these comprehensive centers are expected to coordinate and
collaborate with the regional education laboratories, the National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, the Office of
the Secretary of Education, state service agencies, and other technical
assistance (TA) providers in the region.

# Outreach efforts and data collection procedures

A main goal of the RAC was to disseminate information regarding their
task and to solicit the views of their respective stakeholder groups on
the roles of the new comprehensive centers. To ensure that a wide range
of voices would be heard, the committees were purposefully organized to
include a full range of stakeholder groups, and across-state
representation. Members of the committee met for an initial orientation
meeting on December 2 and 3, 2004, in Washington, DC. During the initial
meeting, the members worked together to draw up a preliminary list of
greatest challenges and barriers to improving the quality of education
in the Southeast Region. As the committee deliberated, it considered the
types of TA activities that could be offered through federally funded
comprehensive technical assistance centers to address these barriers in
effective, cost-efficient ways. The results of the committee's initial
deliberations are summarized in the minutes of the orientation meeting
and in a PowerPoint presentation generated by its members. Both
documents can be accessed at rac-ed.org.

Following the orientation meeting, members of the committee turned their
attention to gathering input from stakeholders throughout the region on
the initial list of challenges and TA needs. In particular, members
sought additions, modifications, and refinement to their initial list.
RAC members used a variety of methods to obtain public comments,
including:

-   Use of a Web site to make available background information,
    including data and reports, information on RAC objectives and
    deliberations, and a public forum that permitted asynchronous
    (threaded) discussion and comment

-   Arrangement and facilitation of online and face-to-face focus groups

-   Distribution of leaflets at conferences and other places where
    stakeholders were likely to gather

-   Collection of e-mails and letters to members of the committee.

For details on these outreach activities, please see Appendix A.

Two additional public meetings were conducted via the Web. These
meetings were used to review comments from the public and to refine the
list of challenges and technical assistance needs in the region. During
each meeting, information was given on how to view comments received
from the public, how to participate in online discussions and how to
provide information directly to the committee through e-mail and through
traditional mail. Accepting public comments ended on March 1.

Following the second public meeting, report preparation began in
earnest. The SE RAC broke up into subgroups, each of which focused on a
key challenge that had been identified by the committee. A draft report
was completed in early March and revised in time for a final
face-to-face public meeting on March 10 and11, in Houston, TX, where the
draft report was reviewed and refined, and final substantive changes
were approved.

## Public interest and input

The RAC Web site provided the central point for giving the public access
to the RAC. The Web site served as the information center for the RAC.
The public was encouraged to provide comments both of a general nature
and on specific RAC ideas in a variety of ways. The first line in the
table shows the number of enrollees on the RAC Web site from the
Southeast. The next section of the table shows the amount of input the
SE RAC received through online comments and through the RAC Support
Office either through e-mail or regular surface mail. The third section
of the table tries to discern public interest in a more indirect way by
capturing the number of times the public view comments on the Web site.
Another indicator of public interest is attendance at RAC meetings. Each
RAC convened four public meetings. In the meetings held in Washington,
DC, and Houston, TX, the public was invited to observe the proceedings
in person. The other two meetings were online teleconferences. For both
the face-to-face meetings and the online teleconferences, the public was
invited to observe with a link through the RAC Web site. The next
section of the table shows the number of public attendees at RAC
meetings either in person or through the Web site.

Focus groups, arranged and facilitated by members of the SE RAC,
provided another important source of information for the committee.
Members used teleconferencing to arrange four focus groups with
representation from across the region for executive directors of state
school board associations, executive directors of state superintendent
associations, teachers, and school administrators. Notes from the
teleconferences are available on the SE RAC Web site. Finally, RAC
members facilitated three face-to-face focus groups for professional
developers, novice teachers, and other stakeholder groups.

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484636 .anchor}Table 1:  |                  |
| Public input for the Southeast RAC                |                  |
+===================================================+==================+
| **Type of Input**                                 | **Numbers**      |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Enrollment on RAC Web site                        | *415*            |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Business                                          | 6                |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Institutions of Higher Education                  | 38               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Local Education Agency                            | 66               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Parent                                            | 31               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Principal                                         | 15               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Researcher                                        | 20               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| School Board Member                               | 11               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| State Education Agency                            | 59               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Teacher                                           | 108              |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Other                                             | 61               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| *Comments*                                        | *71*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| On Web site Forums                                | 45               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Through e-mail to the RAC Support Office          | 26               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Through surface mail to the RAC Support Office    | 0                |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Views on the RAC Web site                         | *1,908*          |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Educational Challenges for the Southeast from the | 1023             |
| First Public Meeting                              |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 1 Summary                             | 85               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Regional Forums                                   | *94*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Georgia Governor \"Community Conversation\"       | 50               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Migrant and ELL Students                          | 20               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Technical Assistance Needs of Charter Schools in  | 12               |
| NC                                                |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| PLATO Learning Inc.\'s Statement on Technology    | 12               |
| Needs In the Southeast                            |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| General Discussions                               | *709*            |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| What are the top challenges of educators in your  | 144              |
| region and the types of                           |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| technical assistance would help them to meet      |                  |
| those challenges?                                 |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| What are the top challenges that are impediments  | 130              |
| to implementing the                               |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| requirements of the NCLB Act in your region?      |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| What are the top challenges that educators in     | 310              |
| your region face in their                         |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| attempts to improve student achievement?          |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| What types of technical assistance could help     | 125              |
| educators                                         |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| within your region meet the challenges they face? |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Attendance at RAC Public Meetings                 | *38*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Orientation Meeting                               | *1*              |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Public Meeting #1                                 | *25*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Public Meeting #2                                 | *12*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Groups                                      | *23*             |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 1 Executive Directors, State School   | *7*              |
| Board                                             |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| Associations, SE Region                           |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 2 Executive Directors, State          | 8                |
| Superintendent                                    |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| Associations, SE Region                           |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 3 Members of the Teacher Leaders      | 8                |
|                                                   |                  |
| Network                                           |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 4 School Administrators, FL           | 6                |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 5 Parents, business leaders,          | NA               |
| lawmakers, GA                                     |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 6 Novice teachers, Atlanta, GA        | 3                |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Focus Group 7 Professional Developers, SE Region  | 15               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| \*As of February 28, 2005                         |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

Information obtained through public input was critical to helping the SE
RAC accurately represent the needs of the education community in
implementing NCLB. Public input gathered through the above means from
stakeholder groups confirmed issues initially brought up by the RAC,
such as the need for disseminating information on effective practices
across the south. However, the public input also raised issues that were
overlooked, such as the need to include certain special needs groups.
These new issues raised through public comment and reaction to posted
RAC efforts were incorporated into the developed list of challenges. The
RAC took these into consideration when developing technical assistance
solutions to address the needs of the region.

# Regional background

This section provides an overview for the Southeast Region that will
provide a context for the remainder of the report. [^1]

## School and student demographics 

In school year 2003, the Southeast Region was home to nearly 7.3 million
students who were served by a total of 12,046 traditional public
schools, 369 of which are charter schools, and 1,308 private schools in
the following six states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. The size and demographic characteristics
of the public school systems varies greatly across these states. Florida
has the largest school system in the region, serving more than 2.5
million students. Mississippi has the smallest school system in the
region, with fewer than half a million students (table 2).

  ------------------------------------------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484637 .anchor}Table 2:                                                 
  Number of schools and students                                                                   

  **State**                                        **Public        **Public school **Private       **Charter
                                                   schools         students        schools         schools
                                                   SY2002-2003**   SY2002-2003**   SY2001-2002**   collected
                                                                                                   2003**

  Alabama                                          1,534           739,678         126             \*

  Florida                                          3,462           2,539,929       496             227

  Georgia                                          2,236           1,496,012       224             35

  Mississippi                                      1,039           493,507         75              1

  North Carolina                                   2,255           1,335,954       284             93

  South Carolina                                   1,151           691,078         103             13

  **Total**                                        **11,677**      **7,296,158**   **1,308**       **369**

  \* Indicates the state does not allow charter                                                    
  schools                                                                                          

  Sources: Common Core of Data 2002-2003; NCES:                                                    
  Private School Universe Study 2002-2003, Center                                                  
  for Education Reform                                                                             
  ([www.edreform.com](http://www.edreform.com/))                                                   
  Nov 2003                                                                                         
  ------------------------------------------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- -------------

Almost two-thirds of Mississippi school districts are located in rural
areas. Almost one- third of school districts in Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina are also located in rural areas. In
addition to the large number of rural districts in the region, urban
centers such as Miami-Dade County, FL, Birmingham, AL, and Atlanta, GA,
are home to large urban school districts within the region. Florida
differs from the other states in the region, in that 85 percent of
districts are in suburban areas. This diversity suggests that the
Southeast Region struggles with a wide spectrum of educational
challenges (table 3).

  --------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484638                               
  .anchor}Table 3: Percentage of                                
  school districts by metro status                              

  **State**                         **Urban**   **Suburban**    **Rural**

  Alabama                           27          42              31

  Florida                           9           85              6

  Georgia                           14          54              31

  Mississippi                       11          24              64

  North Carolina                    30          38              33

  South Carolina                    15          54              31

  Source: Common Core of Data 2001                              
  --------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ------------------------

## Diversity and special populations

Table 4 shows the racial distribution of students attending public
schools across the Southeast Region. The student population ranges from
47 percent to 59 percent White. The major minority population in the
region is African-American, which ranges from 25 percent of the student
population in Florida, to 51 percent in Mississippi. In addition to the
large African-American population, the southeast has a rapidly growing
Hispanic population. In Florida, Hispanic students account for more than
one-fifth of the student population. Although the population of Hispanic
students is smaller in other southeastern states: six percent in Georgia
and North Carolina, three percent in South Carolina, and one and two
percent in Mississippi and Alabama, respectively, the rate of growth in
this segment of the population is dramatic. Based on data from the U.S.
Census, over the 1990-2000 period the Hispanic population grew 394
percent in North Carolina, 300 percent in Georgia, over 200 percent in
South Carolina and Alabama, 148 percent in Mississippi and 70 percent in
Florida. These changes bring with them new challenges for educators many
of whom may be unfamiliar with the language and culture that these
students bring to southeastern classrooms.

  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- -------------- ---------------- -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484639                                                                              
  .anchor}Table 4: Student racial                                                                              
  characteristics in public schools                                                                            
  (percent)                                                                                                    

  **State**                         **American   **Asian /    **Black,         **Hispanic**   **White,         **Other**
                                    Indian/      Pacific      non-Hispanic**                  non-Hispanic**   
                                    Alaskan**    Islander**                                                    

  Alabama                           0.8          0.8          35.7             1.8            59.2             1.8

  Florida                           0.3          2.0          24.7             21.4           51.6             0.0

  Georgia                           0.2          2.5          38.2             6.2            53.0             0.0

  Mississippi                       0.2          0.7          50.9             1.0            47.3             0.0

  North Carolina                    1.5          2.0          31.4             5.9            59.2             0.0

  South Carolina                    0.3          1.1          41.3             2.7            54.2             0.5

  Source: Common Core of Data                                                                                  
  2002-2003                                                                                                    
  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- -------------- ---------------- -----------

## Poverty

Table 5 outlines the percentage of public school students enrolled in a
number of federally supported programs designed to aid children with
special needs, including the free and reduced- lunch (FRL) programs, and
programs to serve the special needs of students who are English Language
Learners (ELL) or Limited English Proficient (LEP), migrant students,
and/or special education students with Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs).

The percentage of students enrolled in FRL programs (an indicator of
poverty) ranges from about 34 percent in North Carolina to over 65
percent in Mississippi. Mississippi also has the highest percentage of
students in the region (nearly 69 percent) who are in Title I programs.
That rate is followed by Alabama with 56 percent of students in Title I
schools, Georgia and South Carolina, both of which have over 40 percent
of students in Title I schools, and North Carolina and Florida, each
with nearly 40 percent of students in Title I schools. In the southeast,
Florida has the highest percentage of migrant students (1.9 percent), as
well as the highest percentage of students identified as ELL/LEP (8
percent). The share of students across the region who have individual
education plans ranges from a low of 11.9 percent of students in Georgia
to a high of 15.8 percent in South Carolina.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484640                                                   
  .anchor}Table 5: Student                                                          
  demographic characteristics                                                       
  (percent)                                                                         
  --------------------------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------- -------------
  **State**                         **FRL**   **ELL/LEP**   **IEP**   **Migrant**   **Students in
                                                                                    Title I
                                                                                    schools**

  Alabama                           49.2      1.4           12.8      1.1           56.3

  Florida                           45.2      8.0           15.3      1.9           38.8

  Georgia                           45.1      4.7           11.9      0.6           40.7

  Mississippi                       65.3      0.5           12.9      0.5           68.8

  North Carolina                    33.9      4.5           14.2      1.1           38.7

  South Carolina                    49.5      1.1           15.8      0.1           40.4

  Source: Common Core of Data                                                       
  SY2002-2003                                                                       
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Student achievement

Figures 1 through 3 show, by race/ethnicity, the relative performance of
fourth grade students on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in reading, and mathematics, and, in 2000, for science.
These data indicate that White students uniformly score higher than
minority students on all tests. Although the proficiency rate for
Hispanics is slightly higher than the rate for African-Americans, the
proficiency rate for Hispanic students across all the tests is *at least
20 percentage points below that of White
students*.[]{#__RefHeading___Toc99423071 .anchor}

Figure 1: NAEP 4^th^ grade reading: percent proficient or above (2003)

![](media/image3.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc99423072 .anchor}

Figure 2: NAEP 4^th^ grade mathematics: percent proficient or above
(2003)

![](media/image4.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc99423073 .anchor}Figure 3: NAEP 4^th^ grade
science: proficient and above (2000)

![](media/image5.wmf)

Turning to eighth grade scores on the NAEP, the percentage of students
who were considered proficient or above readers ranged from a high of 29
percent in North Carolina to a low of 21 percent in Mississippi. But the
overall proficiency rates mask dramatic differences across racial and
ethnic groups (figure 4). In Alabama and Mississippi, 30 to 32 percent
of White students were considered proficient in reading compared to only
9 percent of African-American students. In Florida, 37 percent of White
students were considered proficient compared to 11 percent of
African-Americans and 19 percent of Hispanics. The numbers are similar
in Georgia and North Carolina, where 36 and 38 percent of White students
tested proficient in reading on the eighth grade NAEP, respectively,
compared to 12 to 13 percent of African-Americans and 15 to 16 percent
of Hispanics. The gaps among racial and ethnic groups are also large in
mathematics and science (figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4: NAEP 8^th^ grade reading: percent proficient and above

[]{#_1173166908 .anchor}![](media/image6.wmf)

Figure 5: NAEP 8^th^ grade mathematics: percent proficient and above
(2003)

![](media/image7.wmf)[]{#__RefHeading___Toc99423075 .anchor}

Figure 6: NAEP 8^th^ grade science: percent proficient or above (2000)

![](media/image8.wmf)

Table 6 presents high school graduation rates and the relative
enrollment of students in higher-level mathematics and science courses
as other indicators of student achievement. The graduation rates for
states in the region range between 66 percent in Alabama to 56 percent
in Florida and Georgia based on the percent of students enrolled in
ninth grade who graduated with a full diploma four years later and
taking into account population changes that affect enrollment. Using the
same yardstick for high school graduation rates, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina reported graduation rates of 64 percent, 63
percent, and 57 percent, respectively. By comparison, the graduation
rate for the U.S. overall is 70 percent (Greene and Forster, 2003).

  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484641                                        
  .anchor}Table 6: Other measures                                        
  of education                                                           

  **State**                         **High       **Percentage of high    **Percentage of high
                                    school       school students taking  school students taking
                                    graduation   upper-level mathematics upper-level science
                                    rate 2001**  courses 2002**          courses 2002**

  Alabama                           66           NA                      NA

  Florida                           56           38                      26

  Georgia                           56           NA                      NA

  Mississippi                       64           50                      43

  North Carolina                    63           59                      26

  South Carolina                    57           NA                      NA

  NA indicates data were not                                             
  available for this state. Source:                                      
  *Education Week's* Quality Counts                                      
  2004                                                                   
  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------------

## Teacher demographics and qualifications

Table 7 reports profiles for several indicators of teacher quality.
Column 1 presents the percentage of teachers whom states reported have
met their own state-defined standards of quality. Georgia reports the
highest percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers with
94 percent, followed by Florida and Mississippi, at 91 and 85 percent,
whereas in South Carolina only one-half of the teachers meet their own
highly qualified teacher standard and 75 percent do so in Alabama.

National Board Certification (NBC) is a voluntary certification process
documenting what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.
Recent large-scale empirical studies of student achievement in the
elementary grades (Goldhaber et al, 2004) and in high school mathematics
(Cavalluzzo, 2004) have shown that students who were instructed by
teachers with NBC made greater learning gains than their counterparts
with similar teachers who lack NBC. Several states offer incentives to
teachers to encourage them to earn NBC. Where states have implemented
incentive programs, the number of NBC teachers has expanded. North
Carolina has the highest rate of NBCs with 8 percent of such teachers
compared to Alabama's and Georgia's 1 percent each. Finally, the
Carolinas have the highest percentage of teachers who are teaching in
their major field of study (74 to 76 percent), followed by Florida (67
percent) Alabama (65 percent), Georgia (61 percent), and Mississippi (58
percent).

+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| []{#__R      |           |        |           |                     |
| efHeading___ |           |        |           |                     |
| Toc100484642 |           |        |           |                     |
| .            |           |        |           |                     |
| anchor}Table |           |        |           |                     |
| 7: Teacher   |           |        |           |                     |
| quality      |           |        |           |                     |
| indicators   |           |        |           |                     |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| **State**    | **Percent | **     | **NBC     | **Percent of        |
|              | of        | Number | teachers  | teachers with       |
|              | classes   | of NBC | as a      | college major in    |
|              | taught by | te     | p         | the core academic   |
|              | highly    | achers | ercentage | subjects for high   |
|              | qualified | (SY    | of all    | school teachers**   |
|              | t         | 2002-2 | t         |                     |
|              | eachers** | 003)** | eachers** |                     |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| Alabama      | 75\*      | 636    | 1         | 65                  |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| Florida      | 91        | 4,931  | 4         | 67                  |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| Georgia      | 94        | 1,330  | 1         | 61                  |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| Mississippi  | 85        | 1,763  | 6         | 58                  |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| North        | NA        | 6,633  | 8         | 76                  |
| Carolina     |           |        |           |                     |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| South        | 50        | 3,227  | 7         | 74                  |
| Carolina     |           |        |           |                     |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+
| NA indicates |           |        |           |                     |
| data were    |           |        |           |                     |
| not          |           |        |           |                     |
| available    |           |        |           |                     |
| for this     |           |        |           |                     |
| state.       |           |        |           |                     |
| Sources:     |           |        |           |                     |
| Center on    |           |        |           |                     |
| Education    |           |        |           |                     |
| Policy Year  |           |        |           |                     |
| 2 of NCLB    |           |        |           |                     |
| Report       |           |        |           |                     |
| (2002-2003), |           |        |           |                     |
| NBPTS        |           |        |           |                     |
| (2002-2003), |           |        |           |                     |
| Measuring    |           |        |           |                     |
| Up: 2004     |           |        |           |                     |
|              |           |        |           |                     |
| \*Alabama    |           |        |           |                     |
| Department   |           |        |           |                     |
| of           |           |        |           |                     |
| Education,   |           |        |           |                     |
| school year  |           |        |           |                     |
| 2003-2004.   |           |        |           |                     |
+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------------------+

Data compiled by Ed Trust/Ed Watch and reported in State of the South,
2004 show significant disparities in teacher quality by student poverty
(figure 7). The percentage of classes taught in low poverty schools in
SY1999-2000 by teachers who lacked a major or minor in their field was
19 percent across the United States compared to 34 percent in high
poverty schools. That situation was similar throughout much of the
southeast where the percentage of classes in low poverty schools taught
by teachers who lacked a major or minor in their field ranged from 10 to
14 percent in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, and from 23
to 47 percent in their high poverty counterparts. Only South Carolina,
with 16 percent of classes in low poverty schools and 13 percent in high
poverty schools taught by teachers without a major or minor in their
field, did not follow this pattern. (Data were not reported for
Mississippi.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc99423076 .anchor}Figure 7: High school classes
taught by teachers lacking a major or minor in their filed: low-poverty
vs. high-poverty (1999-2000)

![](media/image9.wmf)

## Alignment with standards

Table 10 reports information on the extent to which the states in the
region are meeting the requirements of the NCLB Act to establish state
curriculum standards. Information reported by the Education Commission
of the States indicates that all of the states in the southeast have
adopted state content and performance standards in the core subjects.

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------------ --------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc100484643                                    
  .anchor}Table 8: Meeting                                           
  requirement to establish state                                     
  standards                                                          

  **State**                         **Reading**   **Mathematics**    **Science**

  Alabama                           Yes           Yes                Yes

  Florida                           Yes           Yes                Yes

  Georgia                           Yes           Yes                Yes

  Mississippi                       Yes           Yes                Yes

  North Carolina                    Yes           Yes                Yes

  South Carolina                    Yes           Yes                Yes

  Source: Education Commission of                                    
  the States NCLB database                                           
  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------------ --------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550719 .anchor}Educational challenges in the
Southeast Region

The Southeast Region faces challenges of low student performance and
significant gaps in educational attainment and achievement among racial,
ethnic, and socio-economic groups. To raise performance of all students
while narrowing the gaps among groups, the SE RAC developed a list of
technical assistance needs that students and educators throughout the
region would benefit from, and categorized them into the following seven
priority topic areas. Although they are delineated separately, each must
be attended to as part of a systemic approach to improve education and
reach the goals set out by NCLB.

1.  Teaching quality

2.  Leadership quality

3.  Understanding and use of data and assessments

4.  Distribution and support for research-based strategies to turn
    around low-performing schools

5.  Strategies to meet the needs of special populations (Special
    Education, English Language Learners (ELL), poverty, race/ethnicity,
    migrant, homeless, and highly mobile students

6.  Community and stakeholder involvement

7.  Communicating information on NCLB.

# Challenge #1: Teaching quality

Meeting NCLB requirements for highly qualified teachers by 2006 is a
particular challenge in the Southeast Region where poverty rates are
among the highest in the nation and significant numbers of school
districts are located in rural areas. Such areas find that it is
extremely difficult to attract and retain teachers who are not
homegrown. Faced with expected increases in teacher retirement rates,
more urban high growth areas in the southeast also have difficulty
recruiting and retaining teachers. Yet several states in the southeast,
and highest-need districts in the region, are net importers of teachers.

Under NCLB, meeting requirements for highly qualified teachers is
especially challenging in the middle school grades where many teachers
have K-8 certification but lack certification in core subject areas.
Special education classes face similar staffing challenges where
teachers often instruct students in multiple subject areas for which
they lack specific subject-area credentials. The result has been an
exodus of such teachers from middle school and special education
classrooms. Unfortunately, states in the southeast historically
under-produce teachers in special education as well as mathematics,
science, and foreign languages, (SREB).

Stakeholders in the Southeast envision an educational system that
supports teachers in recognizing the differences in student learning
needs and providing the training and tools needed to accommodate a
diversity of learners within classrooms. In order to raise student
achievement in the region and close achievement gaps while maintaining
challenging learning experiences for high-achieving students, teachers
must learn powerful pedagogies that ensure differentiated instruction in
the classroom and growth for all students.

New approaches to pre-service education are needed. Stakeholder groups
from the Southeast see a need for an improved system for the development
of new teachers and for expansion of the capacities of current teachers.
Such a system would bring pre-service programs to rural and impoverished
areas by placing teacher education programs in community colleges, so
that localities would be better equipped to grow new teachers and to
transition teachers' aides who otherwise would lack the opportunity to
obtain the additional education that is necessary to qualify for state
licensure. Further, pre-service and graduate programs would be cognizant
of and responsive to the changing needs of K-12 education systems.
Updated programs would prepare today's teachers in the cultures and
research-based pedagogies that enable them to work effectively with
students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Teachers would have better access to site-based professional development
experiences. Tools to help teachers communicate with parents who don't
speak English would be available so that teachers are empowered to speak
with parents, and parents are empowered to help their children succeed.
State-of--the-art data systems would give teachers classroom access to
student assessment data and information about the educational background
of highly mobile students. Site-based training experiences would teach
teachers how to make effective use of assessment data and provide
training in the purposes and designs of a full range of assessment
methods. Technology would be effectively integrated in instruction.
Finally, communications would flow easily among teachers in the
southeast who may have identified successful approaches to working with
students with different needs or overcome other barriers to student
success.

It is the vision of education stakeholders in the southeast that states,
school districts, and universities would develop an ongoing process that
begins with pre-service education, initial credentialing and hiring, and
moves through the continuum of induction, mentoring, professional
teacher status, professional development, and recertification to improve
student learning. In such a continuum, teachers would use research-based
professional development to deepen their content knowledge, pedagogy,
application of technology, and equitable practices. Universities would
emphasize inquiry, applications of knowledge, problem solving, in-depth
understanding of concepts, and equity with pre-service teachers.
Teachers would practice and model the content pedagogy that they will
use with their students during professional development experiences.
Schools would build professional learning communities (face-to-face and
online). Administrators would support teachers in developing the
knowledge and skills to become teacher leaders and action researchers.
States, districts, and schools would evaluate and refine models and
practices to ensure that those practices have a positive effect on
teacher and student learning, and on leadership.

The following technical assistance activities are proposed by the SE RAC
to help achieve this vision for the region.

### Technical assistance for Challenge #1

-   Provide teachers with research-based studies and training materials
    through a variety of media, including the Internet, on how to engage
    special student populations in key academic subjects of mathematics,
    science, and reading. Identify, disseminate, and provide strategies
    on how to use scientifically based research to differentiate
    instruction for all students. Develop an online network for teachers
    that allows them to ask questions of one another and to share
    successful practices across the region.

-   Develop and provide a variety of flexible and contextually
    appropriate expert professional development models and designs that
    are aligned to state and national standards in key areas of science,
    mathematics, and reading, and conduct trainings (including online
    training), workshops, meetings, and conferences for teachers,
    administrators, and higher education faculty to jointly engage all
    students in learning toward high standards. Provide evaluation
    models that link student learning needs with teacher professional
    development/learning needs for districts and school districts.
    Provide resources for teachers on how to use formative and summary
    assessments for student learning, how to use assessment tools and
    disaggregate data to draw conclusions and revise curriculum and
    instruction. Provide guidance and resources in developing content
    coaches and other coaching models.

-   Provide opportunities for SEAs, LEAs, universities, community
    colleges, and other agencies to collaborate in developing new ways
    to recruit, prepare, certify, develop, and retain highly-qualified
    teachers to meet the evolving needs of students in the region in all
    areas but especially in hard-to-staff schools and subject areas as
    evidenced by data.

-   Provide opportunities for SEAs, LEAs, universities, community
    colleges, and other agencies to collaborate in order to ensure
    alignment between teacher preparation, ongoing teacher education and
    teacher performance expectations that support high levels of
    learning required of all students by NCLB.

-   Provide professional development in the implementation of rigorous
    instruction and assessment with appropriate differentiation for all
    students.

-   Provide professional development for teachers to develop and improve
    technology integration skills and to utilize these skills in daily
    classroom practices.

-   Provide a resource bank for a variety of online
    resources/software/hardware in support of individualized student
    instruction (independent student use when possible)

-   Provide online resources to train teachers in \"best practices\" for
    differentiating instruction in the classroom.

# Challenge #2: Leadership quality

In the southeast, school leaders are facing increasing demands to bring
students to high standards of performance at accelerated rates. At the
same time, there is an exodus of veteran principals from school systems
due to retirement, and a paucity of skilled, well-prepared candidates
available to fill the positions left by retirees. There is a need for
improvement in the school leadership pipeline and in the quality of
university programs that are designed to produce instructional leaders.
Yet research conducted by SREB on the progress that universities and
state leadership academies are making in redesigning their educational
leadership preparation and development programs clearly indicates that
few programs concentrate on helping aspiring school leaders master the
explicit knowledge and skills they need for leading change in school
curriculum and instructional practices.[^2] The SE RAC envisions a
revitalized leadership system in which (1) states create a seamless
system of leadership [recruitment and selection]{.underline},
[preparation]{.underline}, [certification]{.underline},
[induction]{.underline}, [professional development,]{.underline} and
[supportive working conditions]{.underline} that focuses on a vision of
school leaders as instructional leaders, (2) universities and school
districts collaborate to select and prepare school leaders who can lead
schools where students achieve at high levels, (3) universities create
and deliver redesigned educational leadership programs that include
meaningful internships to prepare highly capable instructional leaders,
(4) leadership academies are established that work with leadership teams
within schools to support comprehensive school improvement, (5) a system
that monitors progress and permits improved management of leadership
resources is established and, ultimately, (6) the pool of qualified
school leaders increases.

Members of the SE RAC believe that school leaders, university faculty,
teachers, students, states, and communities would benefit from such a
vision and suggest the following types of TA activities to achieve these
goals.

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 2

-   Work with states to create a seamless system of leadership
    [recruitment and selection]{.underline}, [preparation]{.underline},
    [certification]{.underline}, [induction]{.underline}, [professional
    development,]{.underline} and [supportive working
    conditions]{.underline} that focuses on a vision of school leaders
    as instructional leaders.

-   Create collaboration mechanisms between universities and local
    school systems to select and prepare school leaders and facilitate
    their implementation.

-   Provide direction and examples of exemplary leadership curriculum
    and professional development to universities, leadership academies,
    state agencies, and local school systems (SEAs and LEAs) that will
    support the preparation and development of instructional school
    leaders who can create effective schools.

-   Provide examples and direction to all relevant agencies in planning
    meaningful internships for aspiring leaders with on the job
    opportunities to practice instructional leadership skills.

-   Lead the development of meaningful evaluation procedures to measure
    progress made in leadership [recruitment, selection and
    retention]{.underline}, [preparation]{.underline},
    [certification]{.underline}, [induction]{.underline}, [professional
    development,]{.underline} and [supportive working
    conditions]{.underline} and provide data to direct changes and
    improvements throughout the processes.

-   Support the establishment of leadership academies designed to work
    with leadership teams within schools to build capacity and
    sustainability to support comprehensive school improvement.

-   Work with states and local school systems to research needed changes
    in working conditions for school leaders, develop plans to implement
    changes, provide training for school system and state leaders, and
    track progress made.

-   Educate school leaders in the use of technology, such as online
    education, for improving the quality of instruction, particularly in
    rural schools, and those with limited resources and a deficit of
    high-qualified teachers.

# Challenge \# 3: Understanding and use of data and assessments

The alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment is one of the
critical attributes of effective teaching and learning. Although state
and federal accountability measures have led to more assessments
[of]{.underline} learning, actually meeting the accountability
requirements necessitates assessment [for]{.underline} learning. More
than ever the expectation for each child to meet state proficiency
standards makes it essential that educators effectively use available
data from state and local assessments to guide instruction and diagnose
student learning needs. Equally important, educators must be skilled in
the development of classroom assessments that support learning. Despite
these needs, many educators have little or no formal training in the
area of data analysis or educational measurement. Moreover, whereas
assessment is a centerpiece of NCLB, the fine-tuning of score reports to
meet educational needs and the development of educator-friendly links
among assessments, planning, and action are often insufficient.

Technical assistance that targets improvements in educator understanding
and use of data and assessments is expected to lead to improvements in
student achievement, higher educator satisfaction and retention,
improved curriculum and instruction, improved accountability, and better
informed parents (Love, 2004). By improving the quality of their
classroom assessments educators will be able to increase their students'
learning. Wise use of data from assessments will improve student
placement, refine curriculum, and help educators meet individual
students' needs. At the same time, educators are concerned with their
ability to use data and with having enough time to devote to assessment
and analysis. By providing tools, professional development and
resources, educators will become more skilled and will have resources
that will make this component of their work more efficient and
effective. Better reporting tools will make it possible for parents to
be more informed and effectively involved in their child's learning.

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 3

A multi-faceted approach to addressing this need will develop educators'
skills and provide resources in the area of assessment.

-   Provide professional development programs that focus on data
    analysis and how to use data to inform instructional decisions.

-   Undertake a research effort to identify types of score reports that
    are most useful to stakeholders (including educators, parents, and
    students) and disseminate score reporting prototypes that will
    provide support for improved achievement. Provide assistance to
    states and local education agencies in the implementation of the
    effective reporting models. These models should include interactive
    electronic reports that allow teachers to easily access track and
    interpret information for particular groups of students and allow
    parents and students to "drill down" through levels of information
    from the score report.

-   Provide professional development on how to construct formative
    assessments that support student proficiency in the key areas of
    reading, mathematics, and science.

-   Assist states and foster collaboration among states to create item
    pools that will provide resources for standards-based classroom
    assessments that may include the development of computerized
    delivery systems that will facilitate testing, scoring, and
    reporting.

-   Provide evaluation models that link student learning needs with
    educator development and learning needs for districts and schools.
    Provide resources for educators on how to use formative and summary
    assessments for student learning, how to use assessment tools, and
    how to disaggregate data to draw conclusions and revise curriculum
    and instruction.

-   Provide assistance with acquisition and use of tools to analyze
    individual student achievement data benchmarked against curriculum
    standards to enable classroom teachers to identify specific learning
    needs of each student, including rapid and periodic assessment of
    individual student learning in the classroom.

# Challenge #4: Distribution and support of research-based strategies to turn around low-performing schools 

The southeast is home to some of the highest poverty rates for
school-aged children in the United States (Annual Demographic Survey,
2004). Although poverty does not doom a child to failure, it can be a
powerful barrier to high achievement. Schools with large numbers of
children in poverty face greater challenges than other schools. Data
show that schools with large numbers of children in poverty often
perform less well than schools with more affluent students (Ed Trust).
The good news is that there are numerous examples of schools in the
southeast and across the country that are both high-poverty and
high-achieving. For similar schools to get the same results, it is
important that educators understand the key factors to overcoming the
barriers of poverty and that they be given information, strategies, and
assistance to help them improve the performance of all their students.

To reduce the number of low-performing schools, stakeholders in the
region envision better access to easy-to-review information and research
on proven strategies to turn around low-performing schools for
pre-service and existing educators. They envision teacher and
administrator preparation programs that are regularly updated to reflect
this body of research. And they envision that schools that have beat the
odds will share their successful strategies with similar schools in the
region that are struggling to become high performing. To reach these
objectives, the SE RAC proposes the following technical assistance
activities:

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 4

-   The proposed Technical Assistance Center for the Southeast should
    serve as a Bank of Best Practices of strategies to turn around
    low-performing schools. Information should include but not limited
    to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Synthesized research about proven strategies that, when implemented
    with integrity, can result in higher student achievement

-   Case studies of schools in the region that are high-poverty and
    high-achieving (both written and video/DVD)

-   A contact list of school-based experts in the region with experience
    in turning around a high-poverty school.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convene state teams to examine strategies to turn around
    low-performing schools. Feature educators from the region with
    successful track records in turning around low-performing school.
    Consider inviting as a keynote speaker a noted researcher or author
    with expertise in this area.

-   Identify demographically diverse high performing schools in the
    region that could:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Serve as professional development centers for pre-service and
    existing teachers

-   Provide mentoring to current and aspiring principals working in high
    poverty schools

-   Be open for site visits by schools in the region

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Collaborate with higher education to develop and/or strengthen
    curricula for pre-service and graduate programs to better prepare
    teachers and administrators for work in high-poverty schools.

-   Support the establishment of leadership academies designed to work
    with leadership teams within low performing schools to build
    capacity and sustainability to support comprehensive school
    improvement.

# Challenge #5: Strategies to meet the needs of special populations (Special Education, English Language Learners (ELL), poverty, race/ethnicity, migrant, homeless and highly-mobile)

Within the Southeast Region, there is a rapidly growing population of
English Language Learners (ELL) who do not currently possess the minimum
levels of literacy skills necessary for them to succeed academically.
Educators in the region are faced with this ethnic diversity and need
assistance especially with literacy development and assessment to help
these children succeed. Yet even as educators struggle with new
diversity in their schools race continues to play a far too important
role in the quality of education provided in the region. High rates of
child poverty across the southeast present a further challenge to
educators. The complexities of the many cultures subsumed under broad
racial categories often mask the general racial designation. These
individuals and unique cultural and ethnic factors influence the way
students are taught and how they learn. Many children from poor and
ethnically diverse backgrounds face further barriers to success in
school as a result of high rates of mobility and, sometimes,
homelessness. The poor quality of education that cuts across racial and
economic groups contributes to large performance gaps across groups and
large gaps in educational attainment. For example, in Georgia and
Florida, graduation rates in 2001 were 63 percent and 61 percent,
respectively, for White students, but only 46 and 47 percent,
respectively, for African-American students. For Alabama and
Mississippi, the gap in high school graduation rates was 11 and 7
percentage points, respectively (Greene and Forster, 2003).[^3]

For migrant students, obstacles to achievement exist at the earliest
point of entry to the school system. The parents of migrant students
find it difficult to assess quality school readiness programs because of
language barriers and cultural differences. Often, the parents'
experience with the educational system of their native countries differs
greatly from that of the U.S. Parental involvement is often a new
concept for them. Assuming that this obstacle is overcome by school
districts' outreach activities targeting migrant parents, teachers, and
administrators are unable to communicate with these parents. Thus, the
educational concerns of both parents and teachers often go unexpressed
and the partnership between parents and educators necessary for student
achievement is not forged. On their part, migrant students who received
the first years of schooling in other countries are confused because of
differences in teaching methodology between U.S. schools and schools in
their countries of origin. Due to their mobility, migrant students also
experience interruption in their education.

Students identified for Special Education present yet another challenge
in this region. The Special Education population is required to meet the
federal government proficiency measurements. Many schools and districts
failed to meet AYP standards based on this measurement. There are not
enough documented strategies available that address the special needs of
the Special Education population.

Education stakeholders in the southeast envision an education system
that can close gaps in achievement and educational attainment by
ensuring that teachers have the proper training to recognize and address
the special needs of individual students and the tools to help them
address those needs. The following technical assistance activities are
suggested to help educators meet this challenge:

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 5

#### In general:

-   Provide professional development for educators on how the unique
    needs and the racial and cultural differences of special populations
    impact classroom interaction and academic performance.

-   Engage social service agencies and other community organizations in
    efforts to meet the needs of special populations and promote family
    literacy.

-   Serve as a clearinghouse and disseminate information about research,
    resources, and grant opportunities for special populations, using
    technology as appropriate.

-   Provide consultants who have expertise in the legal issues
    associated with special populations.

-   Provide resources and strategies for effective involvement of
    parents of students from special populations.

#### For special education:

-   Study state and local school district identification and
    classification criteria and identify best practices or technical
    assistance to support appropriate placement and instruction.

-   Develop strategies for alternative formative and summative
    assessments.

-   Develop and implement strategies for efficient and effective IEP
    development and monitoring.

#### For ELLs:

-   Provide consultants with expertise in literacy development as it
    relates to ELL and an understanding of ELL program development.

-   Assist in the identification or development of assessments that are
    reliable and valid for ELL students.

-   Develop one or more cost-effective systems for communicating with
    parents who do not speak English.

#### For poverty:

-   Conduct regional forums on poverty and its effect on achievement.

-   Assist schools and school districts in accessing resources and
    strategies to meet the needs of poverty students in non-Title I
    schools.

#### For migrant students:

-   Facilitate efforts to exchange educational information
    (state-to-state, bi-national, school- to-school) including credit
    accrual, transfer, and appropriate grade placement.

-   Facilitate interstate coordination and collaboration among migrant
    programs, especially between home-based states and receiving states.

-   Provide best practices training in the identification and
    recruitment of migrant families for funding and providing services.

-   Assist LEAs with post-secondary transition for migrants.

#### For homeless and highly mobile:

-   Develop training materials for school districts and schools on the
    rights of homeless children and youth and their responsibility in
    ensuring those rights.

-   Research and disseminate best practices in the school enrollment and
    instructional support of homeless and highly mobile students.

# Challenge #6: Community and stakeholder involvement

Parent, community, and business involvement in local schools improve
school resources and student success. Clearly, schools and families must
form a partnership in the educational process of children. Research on
parent involvement specifically indicates that student achievement
improves, attendance increases, and discipline problems decline
(Henderson and Berla, 1994). These results have been replicated in
schools with a high percentage of low socioeconomic families and low
student achievement (Kellaghan et al, 1993).

A research study involving three southeastern metropolitan high schools
reveals parental involvement challenges specific to this region.
Teachers and parents disagreed on the appropriate level of involvement
for parents in the school setting. Parents reported teachers were
defensive, at times seeing the parents as invading their professional
turf. Teachers reported parents were putting too much stress on the
students by setting unattainable goals. Parents felt removed from the
schools, and many have lost faith in the local schools to be a vehicle
for "economic stability and upward mobility" (Philipsen, 1996).

The results of a statewide survey in South Carolina add weight to the
charge of widespread dissatisfaction with some areas or home-school
interaction. For example, data from the survey indicate a concern
regarding communication between teachers and parents, and parents cite
work schedules as the greatest obstacle to school involvement. South
Carolina also mirrors the national trend of home-school relations
declining as students move to middle school and high school. A
nationwide study of parents of eighth grade students revealed that
one-half of these parents had not attended a single school function
during the entire school year (Lynn, 1997).

Schools are obligated to bridge this chasm and schools in the southeast
need assistance in doing so. Teacher preparation programs do not meet
this professional need, thus making professional development the primary
source of improvement strategies. Schools must show evidence of
school/family partnerships to receive Title I funds and teachers would
benefit from technical assistance related to this area.

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 6

Facilitate the development and implementation of effective community
engagement strategies that target key stakeholders:

-   Identify and disseminate information about effective models that
    show successful alignment of parental and community involvement with
    student learning outcomes.

-   Develop professional learning models and training (onsite and
    online) for educators related to promoting parent and community
    involvement in schools.

-   Provide parent involvement surveys and data tabulation services for
    schools.

-   Establish a resource network for community stakeholders, including
    Web resources as well as printed material and facilitate online
    discussions.

# Challenge \# 7: Communicating information on NCLB

Communication in any arena is challenging. The communication of NCLB
information, technical guidance, and policy from ED to states, from
states to districts, districts to schools, and schools to parents is no
exception. Accurate, timely communication is critical to accomplish the
federal requirements of improving the performance of schools and levels
of student achievement. Major challenges encountered at the state level
include: getting timelines and having time to implement the new
information; knowing what answers the district are given directly from
the ED without flow through to the states. (In a few instances, lack of
such information has lead to miscommunication and confusion about
federal policies that are being implemented by the state); consistency
in information passed along to the states; getting clear answers when
there are questions resulting from a policy memo or "Dear colleague"
letter sent to the states; universal use of terms and consistent
definitions (for example, what alignment means in assessment);
communication of one thing to the state and different implementation in
other states (for example, cell size and proficiency requirements). In
addition, states are experiencing challenges in communicating to parents
regarding NCLB policy and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) information.

States in the southeast want well-functioning information systems to
eliminate these problems.

### Technical assistance for Challenge \# 7

-   An information and policy clearinghouse for NCLB.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A technical assistance center with such a mission as one of its
    components would provide clear policy guidance, technical
    assistance, and interpretation to the states and can also assist in
    communicating with other stakeholders such as parents at the state's
    request. Such assistance would help states become fully compliant
    with NCLB and provide common understanding across states of what
    compliance looks like and what is expected of them. Further,
    achieving these goals would speed achievement of the objectives of
    NCLB through a clear understanding of its requirements and the
    benefits those requirements will bring to public education.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550734 .anchor}Suggestions for national centers

The Southeast RAC suggests topic areas for three of the 10 anticipated
national technical assistance centers.

-   A center for science and mathematics that would provide resources on
    best practices, assessments, and professional development. [^4]

-   A directory of available funding resources for improving schools,
    including foundations, businesses, and multi-state consortia.

-   A communications center that would provide information on NCLB
    policies and implementation guidance including timelines,
    requirements, national and state policies, and state and district
    implementation strategies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550735 .anchor}Appendix A: Outreach activities
in the Southeast Region

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Outreach Activity     **Target Group**        **Estimated No. of
  Type**                                          Recipients**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Distribution of         Parents for Public      N/A: Distributed via
  Materials               Schools Membership      Listserv nationally

  Distribution of         AL PTA Executive        150+ local PTA chapters
  Materials               Director                

  Distribution of         School Superintendents  130 superintendents
  Materials               of AL Executive         
                          Director                

  Distribution of         Columbia Group          8 statewide education
  Materials                                       advocacy groups in the
                                                  southeast

  Telephone Call          AL Deputy State         NA
                          Superintendent of       
                          Education               

  Distribution of         College of Education    200
  Materials               and Arts and Science    
                          Faculty                 

  Distribution of         30 Partnership for      30
  Materials               Reform in Science and   
                          Mathematics (6          
                          universities and 20     
                          school districts)       

  Distribution of         GA members of Federal   15
  Materials               Relations Network       

  Distribution of         Executive               15
  Materials               Administration staff of 
                          Cobb County School      
                          District                

  Distribution of         School Board Members in 1,051
  Materials               GA                      

  Distribution of         School Superintendents  180
  Materials               in GA                   

  Distribution of         State PTA Executive     1
  Materials               Director                

  Distribution of         Members of Cobb County  NA
  Materials               Association of Gifted   
                          Students                

  Public Announcement     Cobb County Residents   up to 550,000
  (Televised School Board                         
  Meeting)                                        

  Distribution of         NCMSA membership        30,000
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         Southern Forum to       30
  Materials               Accelerate Middle       
                          Grades Reform           

  Distribution of         All Educators in        NA
  Materials               Mississippi             

  Distribution of         Leaders of All State    NA
  Materials               Education Agencies      

  Distribution of         All Educators in SC     NA
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         SCASCD Membership       275
  Materials                                       

  Presentation            All District            85
                          Superintendents and     
                          School Principals in SC 

  Distribution of         Mississippi CSR Meeting 60
  Materials               Participants            

  Distribution of         Members of the FL Assn  100
  Materials               of State and Federal    
                          Education Program       
                          Administrators          

  Presentation            East Coast Technical    35
                          Assistance Center       
                          Meeting Participants    

  Distribution of         Representative Ed       1
  Materials               Lindsey                 

  Distribution of         GA PTA                  NA
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         GA Governor's Office    NA
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         Coverdell Leadership    NA
  Materials               Institute               

  Distribution of         GA Department of        30
  Materials               Education               

  Distribution of         President of APS and    3
  Materials               Board Members           

  Distribution of         Donuts for Dad          NA
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         PTA Centennial Place    NA
  Materials               Executive Committee     

  Distribution of         S. Fulton Rep.          NA
  Materials               Breakfast               

  Distribution of         Representative of NAACP NA
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         Legislative Agenda      1
  Materials               Board Member            

  Distribution of         Co-Council of           1
  Materials               CINS/NAPPS              

  Distribution of         GDOE and BOR Teacher    200
  Materials               preparation Conference  
                          on the New GA           
                          Performance Standards   

  Distribution of         Technical Assistance    100
  Materials               Academy for Mathematics 
                          and Science Services    
                          (TAAMSS)                

  Distribution of         Georgia Staff           150
  Materials               Development Council     

  Distribution of         NASSP Annual Conference 50
  Materials                                       

  Distribution of         AASA Annual Conference  50
  Materials                                       
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\* NA = not available

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550736 .anchor}References

Annual Demographic Survey, March Supplement, 2004. Table POV46, Poverty
Status by State, 2003.
pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/pov/new46_100124_02

A. T. Henderson and N. Berla. A new generation of evidence: The family
is critical to student achievement, 1994. St. Louis, MO: Danforth
Foundation and Flint, MI: Mott (C. S.) Foundation.

Daniel Goldhaber and E. Anthony. Can Teacher Quality be Effectively
Assessed? 2004. University of Washington.

Dispelling the Myth Online, Ed Trust,
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/dtm/Default.aspx

Jay P. Greene and G. Forster. "Public High School Graduation and College
Readiness Rates in the U.S.," Education Working Paper No. 3, September,
2003, Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.

Linda Cavalluzzo. Is National Board Certification an Effective Signal of
Teacher Quality? 2004. The CNA Corporation.

Leon Lynn, Family Involvement in Schools: It Makes a Big Difference, but
Remains Rare, Harvard Education Letter, Research Online,
September/October 1997,
[http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1997-so/family.shtml]{.underline}

M. Philipsen. Parental Involvement in Schools: Case studies of three
high schools in a southeastern metropolitan area: Research report,
January 1996
[http://www.soe.vcu.edu/merc/briefs/BRIEF31.HTM]{.underline}

Nancy Love. Taking Data to New Depths, JSD, Fall 2004, Vol 25, No. 4.

Profile for the Southeast Region. Report prepared for the Southeast RAC.
2004. The CNA Corporation.

State of the South, 2004: Fifty Years After Brown v. Board of Education.
MDC, Inc.

T. Kellaghan, K. Sloane, B. Alvarez, and B.S. Bloom. Promoting parental
involvement in the education of children, 1993. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550737 .anchor}Glossary

**AYP---**Adequate Yearly Progress, defined in the NCLB Act as a way to
measure the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school
students in relation individual state student academic achievement
standards.

**CHARTER SCHOOLS---**Public schools that are largely free to innovate,
and often provide more effective programs and choice to underserved
groups of students. Charter schools subject to the "adequate yearly
progress" (AYP) and other accountability requirements of the NCLB Act.

**COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS---**Centers authorized by
Section 203 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-279).
Appropriations for the centers in Fiscal Year for 2005 would enable the
U.S. Department of Education to support 20 centers, 10 of which must be
in current regions.

**COMMON CORE OF DATA---**The National Center for Education Statistics'
comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of information
concerning all public elementary and secondary schools and local
education agencies.

**CONSOLIDATED STATE PLAN FOR NCLB---**Plan from each state that
demonstrates it has adopted challenging academic content standards and
challenging student academic achievement standards that will be used by
the state, its local educational agencies, and its schools.

**CORE SUBJECTS---**English, reading or language arts, mathematics,
science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts,
history, and geography (Section 9101(11)). Although the federal statute
includes the arts in the core academic subjects, it does not specify
which of the arts are core academic subjects; therefore, states must
make this determination.

**DFO---**Designated Federal Official acts as a liaison between a
federal advisory committee and federal agency and must be present at all
committee meetings.

**ELL---**English Language Learners

**FACA---**Federal Advisory Committee Act was created in 1972 (Public
Law 92-463) by the U.S. Congress to formally recognize the merits of
seeking the advice and assistance of our nation's citizens. Congress
sought to assure that advisory committees: provide advice that is
relevant, objective, and open to the public; act promptly to complete
their work; and comply with reasonable cost controls and recordkeeping
requirements.

**HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS---**States must define a "highly qualified"
teacher. The requirement that teachers be highly qualified applies to
all public elementary or secondary school teachers employed by a local
educational agency who teach a core academic subject. "Highly qualified"
means that the teacher: has obtained full state certification as a
teacher or passed the State teacher licensing examination and holds a
license to teach in the state, and does not have certification or
licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional
basis; holds a minimum of a bachelor's degree; and has demonstrated
subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects in which the
teacher teaches, in a manner determined by the state and in compliance
with Section 9101(23) of ESEA.

**IDEA---**Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

**IEP---**Individualized educational plan required by Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act

**IES---**Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the U.S.
Department of Education that was established by the Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002

**LEA---**Local Education Agency

**OESE---**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education in the U.S.
Department of Education

**RACs---**Regional Advisory Committees that are authorized by Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-279)

**RAC QUORUM---**A majority of appointed members. A RAC must have a
quorum to meet or hold an official meeting.

**REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORIES---**Federally-supported regional
institutions that have operated since 1966 and reauthorized by Section
174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

**SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH---**Section 9101(37) of ESEA, as amended
by NCLB, defines scientifically based research as "research that
involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective
procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education
activities and programs." (P.L. 107-279)

**SEA---**State Education Agency

**STATE---**References to "states" include the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the freely associated
states, and the outlying areas.

**SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES---**Additional academic instruction
designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools
that have not met state targets for increasing student achievement (AYP)
for three or more years. Services may include tutoring and after-school
services by public or private providers approved by the state.

**TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE---**Assistance in identifying, selecting, or
designing solutions based on research, including professional
development and high-quality training to implement solutions leading to
improved educational and other practices and classroom instruction based
on scientifically valid research; and improved planning, design, and
administration of programs; assistance in interpreting, analyzing, and
utilizing statistics and evaluations; and other assistance necessary to
encourage the improvement of teaching and learning through the
applications of techniques supported by scientifically valid research
(P.L. 107-279)

**WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE (WWC)---**Clearinghouse established in 2002
by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to
provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a
central and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in
education.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550738 .anchor}List of tables

[Table 1: Public input for the Southeast RAC
9](#__RefHeading___Toc100484636)

[Table 2: Number of schools and students
11](#__RefHeading___Toc100484637)

[Table 3: Percentage of school districts by metro status
11](#__RefHeading___Toc100484638)

[Table 4: Student racial characteristics in public schools (percent)
12](#__RefHeading___Toc100484639)

[Table 5: Student demographic characteristics (percent)
13](#__RefHeading___Toc100484640)

[Table 6: Other measures of education 17](#__RefHeading___Toc100484641)

[Table 7: Teacher quality indicators 19](#__RefHeading___Toc100484642)

[Table 8: Meeting requirement to establish state standards
20](#__RefHeading___Toc100484643)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100550739 .anchor}List of figures

[Figure 1: NAEP 4^th^ grade reading: percent proficient or above (2003)
14](#__RefHeading___Toc99423071)

[Figure 2: NAEP 4^th^ grade mathematics: percent proficient or above
(2003) 15](#__RefHeading___Toc99423072)

[Figure 3: NAEP 4^th^ grade science: proficient and above (2000)
15](#__RefHeading___Toc99423073)

Figure 4: NAEP 8^th^ grade reading: proficient and above
................................................12

[Figure 5: NAEP 8^th^ grade mathematics: percent proficient and above
(2003) 16](#_1173166908)

[Figure 6: NAEP 8^th^ grade science: percent proficient or above (2000)
17](#__RefHeading___Toc99423075)

[Figure 7: High school classes taught by teachers lacking a major or
minor in their filed: low-poverty vs. high-poverty (1999-2000)
20](#__RefHeading___Toc99423076)

[^1]: Data reported in this section come from two reports, the SE Region
    Profile, prepared by CNAC for the SE RAC, and the State of the
    South, 2004, MDC^.^ Both documents are available on the SE RAC Web
    site. Throughout this section, we indicate the primary sources from
    which the reports derived their information.

[^2]: These findings are based on a study that examined progress on four
    key conditions of redesign in 22 university-based leadership
    programs in the SREB region. A full report on the study, *Are
    Universities in SREB States Making Progress in Redesigning
    Principals' Preparation?*, is in progress.

[^3]: Alabama's graduation rate for Whites was 70 percent and 59 percent
    for African-Americans. Mississippi's rates were 61 and 68 percent
    for African-Americans and Whites, respectively. Data were not
    available for North and South Carolina.

[^4]: The need for focused support to improve science, mathematics, and
    technology education is widely documented. See for example,
    *Learning for the Future: Changing the Culture of Math and Science
    Education to Ensure a Competitive Workforce*: *A Statement on
    National Policy*, Committee for Economic Development, NY, N.Y.,
    2003.
    [http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_scientists.pdf]{.underline}