![](media/image1.png){width="3.7805555555555554in"
height="1.2805555555555554in"}

**Arkansas' Revised HQT Plan**

**To Ensure that 100% of Arkansas' Teachers are**

**Highly Qualified by the End of the 2006-2007 School Year and Beyond**

**Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner**

**September 29, 2006**

##### With November 30, 2006 Comments 

**Arkansas' Revised HQT Plan**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Introductory
Statements**..........................................................................................................**6**

**Requirement 1: The revised plan must provide a detailed analysis of
the core academic subject classes in the State that are currently not
being taught by highly qualified teachers. The analysis must, in
particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly progress
and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do other
schools in attracting highly qualified teachers. The analysis must also
identify the districts and schools around the State where significant
numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards and examine whether or not
there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by
non-highly qualified teachers.**

1.  Does the revised plan include an analysis of classes taught by
    teachers who are not highly qualified? Is the analysis based on
    accurate classroom level data?..................
    ..............................................................................................10

2.  Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of schools that are
    not making AYP? Do these schools have high percentages of classes
    taught by teachers who are not highly
    qualified?.................................\.........................................................................................................
    16

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Does the analysis identify particular groups of teachers to which
    the State's plan must pay particular attention, such as special
    education teachers, mathematics or science teachers, or
    multi-subject teachers in rural
    schools?...................................................................................................................................\.........
    19

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State
    where significant number of teachers do not meet HQT
    standards?..............................................................................................
    .....................................21

5.  Does the analysis identify particular courses that are often taught
    by non-highly qualified
    teachers?...........................................................................................................................\.................22

Requirement 2:The revised plan must provide information on HQT status in
each LEA and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has
plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain
HQT status as quickly as possible.

1.  Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable
    objectives for
    HQT?...............................................................................................................................................24

2.2 Does the plan include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs that
have not met annual measurable
objectives?.........................................................................................................................................26

2.3 Does the plan delineate specific steps the SEA will take to ensure
that all LEAs have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to
become HQ as quickly as
possible?.........................................................
.................................\... 27

Requirement 3: The revised plan must include information on the
technical assistance, programs and services that the SEA will offer to
assist LEAs in successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly
where large groups of teachers are not highly qualified, and the
resources the LEAs will use to meet their HQT goals.

1.  Does the plan include a description of the technical assistance the
    SEA will provide to assist LEAs in successfully carrying out their
    HQT
    plans?............................................................................\....................................................\...29

2.  Does the plan indicate the staffing and professional development
    needs of schools that are not making AYP will be given high
    priority?...
    ......................................................................................................................................\...31

3.  Does the plan include a description of programs and services the SEA
    will provide to assist teachers and LEAs in successfully meeting HQT
    goals?...........................
    .......................................................................................\...........33

4.  Does the plan specifically address the needs of any subgroups of
    teachers identified in Requirement 1?...................... .....35

5.  Does the plan include a description of how the State will use its
    available funds (e.g., Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A, including
    the portion that goes to the State agency for higher education;
    other Federal and State funds, as appropriate) to address the needs
    of teachers who are not highly qualified?...............
    ....................................................................
    .........36

3.6 Does the plan for the use of available funds indicate that priority
will be given to the staffing and professional development needs of
schools that are not making AYP?......
...............................................................
...........................38

Requirement 4: The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with
LEAs that fail to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the
2006-2007 school year.

1.  Does the plan indicate how the SEA will monitor LEA compliance with
    the LEAs HQT plans described in Requirement 2 and hold LEAs
    accountable for fulfilling their
    plans?.............................................
    ..............................................39

2.  Does the plan show how technical assistance from the SEA to help
    LEAs meet the 100 percent HQT goal will be targeted toward LEAs and
    schools that are not making AYP?......
    ............................................................
    ....................40

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Does the plan describe how the SEA will monitor whether LEAs attain
    100 percent HQT in each LEA and school.............42

4.  Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include technical
    assistance or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs
    fail to meet HQT and AYP
    goals?.............................................................................................................43

Requirement 5: The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will
complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who
were hired prior to the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and how the
SEA will discontinue the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired
after the end of the 2005-2006 school year (except for specific
situations).

5.1 Does the plan describe how and when the SEA will complete the HOUSSE
process for all teachers not new to the profession who were hired before
the end of the 2005-2006 school
year?..........................................
.................................44

2.  Does the plan describe how the State will discontinue the use of
    HOUSSE after the end of the 2005-2006 school year, except in the
    following situations:
    ......................................................................................................................45

Requirement 6: The revised plan must include a copy of the State's
written "equity plan" for ensuring that poor or minority children are
not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at
higher rates that other children.

6.1 Does the revised plan include a written equity
plan?................................................................................
.......46

6.2 Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment
exist?..................................................................\...47

6.3 Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing
inequities in teacher assignment?..............................
..........49

6.4 Does the plan provide evidence for the probable success of the
strategies it includes?...........................................
.....49

6.5 Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the issue of
equitable teacher assignment when it monitors LEAs and how this will be
done?...........................
.......................................................................................
.............49

**Appendices**

Appendix 1: HQT Data by State, Districts and
Schools..............................................................................................

Appendix 2: Data Sorted by Course
Numbers..........................................................................................................

Appendix 3: 2006-2007 Course Code
Listing..........................................................................................................

Appendix 4: HQT Classes
Only..........................................................................................................................

Appendix 5: Districts and Schools With Less Than 50%
HQT......................................................................................

Appendix 6: Commissioner's Memo --
Waivers........................................................................................................

Appendix 7: Individual Teacher
Plan....................................................................................................................

Appendix 8: LEA HQT
Plan...........................................................................................................................\...

Appendix 9: Teacher Data on High Priority Districts Bonus
Incentives............................................................................

Appendix 10: SEA Professional Development Funding to
LEAs....................................................................................

Appendix 11: Arkansas Programs and
Resources......................................................................................................

Appendix 12: Individual Schools and Their District in Years 1-4 of
School Improvement......................................................

Appendix 13: Arkansas Equity Plan (with Draft of State Recruitment
Plan)......................................................................

Appendix 14: Waivers by
District........................................................................................................................

**[Introductory Statements:]{.underline}**

# New Revised Plan

Due to the comments by the review team on Arkansas' revised plan and in
order to best respond to all of the criteria on the six (6)
requirements, it has been determined that it would be more appropriate
to redesign the New Revised Plan into the current format.

## Data Revision

In March 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education shared with the
USDOE, that the percent of core academic classes taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers (HQT) in Arkansas during the 2005-06 school year was
95%. This percent was calculated using the data reported to the SEA by
the LEAs in October 2005 on the number of classes taught by highly
qualified teachers divided by the number of classes requiring highly
qualified teachers.

As the state reviewed the data for this revised plan we delved further
into this data and reviewed not only the state and district data but
also data for each LEA and the individual teachers identified as not
highly qualified. Through this process we discovered that several LEAs
mistakenly reported several "non-core academic teachers" as HQT. This
error in reporting caused an escalation in the percent of HQT for the
state. Those subjects/classes, which some schools reported as being
taught by HQ teachers, were study hall, physical education, and others.
This obviously was a mistake by the LEAs and therefore, the state of
Arkansas is pleased to proclaim that that error has been corrected.
Therefore, we must edit the numbers and statistics that were originally
reported. This report will utilize the revised data, which shows the
state's percent of HQT as 84.8%.

We also believe that the Department has taken measures by modifying the
reporting and calculating process and by providing technical assistance
to the school districts to ensure that this type of error does not occur
in the future. Again this was the first year in which Arkansas collected
data and therefore, some edits of the process have proven to be
necessary. The major procedure that has been implemented is that the
Office of Teacher Quality took the approximate 800 course code numbers
offered by Arkansas public schools and has indicated on each course
whether the course requires HQT as defined by NCLB. The Department is
now pulling the data for the percent of HQT teachers at the LEA,
district and state levels from only those courses, which require HQT
status. In our opinion this modification and technical assistance by the
Department to local school districts should avoid the error that
previously occurred.

While the Arkansas Department of Education regrets that this error
occurred it has brought some important facts/issues to the surface.
First, since Arkansas is a testing state and has used the Praxis
examinations for over ten (10) years, the 95% which was originally
reported seems reasonable and still may be a more accurate number than
the 84.8%. Why would we make that statement? Again, through this further
investigation we discovered some ninety-three (93) schools reported that
they had less than ten percent (10%) of their core academic classes
being taught by HQT with 55 schools reporting that they had zero percent
(0%) of their teachers as HQT. Obviously there were errors in the
reporting of this data to the state. In some cases individual schools
did not implement the state process of designating via assessment of the
content knowledge, via subject area major or via the HOUSSE document the
HQT status of their teaching staff in core academic areas or in one
district the data for their elementary schools was not submitted to the
state. The Department has notified the Superintendents of these
individual schools and has outlined the expectation of the Department as
well as offered any additional technical assistance, which they may need
to ensure that all teachers receive the designation of HQT or not HQT as
required and that all future data is accurately reported. In addition
the Department has been offering technical assistance to all building
and district administrators via teleconferences and on-site in-services
around the state.

**C. [Definitions]{.underline}**

High-Poverty School Districts- Arkansas defined high and low poverty
school districts by ranking the local school districts by the percent of
Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) in descending order. Those school districts
in the top 25% are considered high poverty and those in the lowest 25%
are considered low poverty.

High-Minority School Districts-- Arkansas defined high and low minority
school districts by ranking the local school districts by the percent of
white student population in descending order. Those school districts in
the top 25% are considered low minority and those in the lowest 25% are
considered high minority.

Veteran Teachers -- Teachers hired prior to the 2002-2003 school year.

## Class Coding including Special Education and Alternative Learning Environments

Each class (Pre K-12) offered in any Arkansas Public School is assigned
a six (6) digit course code, which is established by the Arkansas
Department of Education (ADE) and uniform for districts in the state.
The Department also develops a course code list which identifies by the
course number the subject area, course title, appropriate grade level,
the appropriate licensure area required by the teacher and if the course
is required to be taught by a highly qualified teacher. The first five
digits of the course code are utilized by the ADE to disaggregate data
of all like courses in the over 200 school districts in the state. The
sixth digit may be utilized by the local school districts to delineate
the individual sections of the course or to designate the environment of
the course. The 2006-07 course code listing for all courses in Arkansas
is in the Appendix of this report.

Example: 530020 is the course number for Algebra I. A district may wish
to use:

5300**21** as Algebra I for Gifted and Talented students, 5300**22** as
Algebra I in an alternative learning environment, 5300**23** as Algebra
I in a special education environment, or 5300**24** as Algebra I for ESL
students. In other words in Arkansas both alternative learning
environments and special education environments use the same course code
numbers for all core academic courses. The sixth digit would
differentiate the environment or the section, as mentioned above.

Arkansas is reviewing the reporting of special educators who provide
direct instruction in a non-inclusionary model. During our reporting
cycle October 2006 we strived to address a better way to "flag" these
special education classes. We are confident that this new procedure will
enhance the data collected in October 2007.

Many districts in Arkansas are using the inclusion model to ensure that
highly qualified teachers teach special education students. Currently
there is no data indicating the number of special education students
taught by non-highly qualified teachers. The ADE will be monitoring both
the Alternative and Special Education classes to ensure that the coding
of core academic classes in these environments is utilized properly. ADE
has met with the technology center staff to address the collection of
special education and alternative learning environment data beginning
with the 2007-2008 school year.

At the present time the Department has not established any uniform
pattern for use of the sixth digit. If the state is to evaluate the
number of students in Algebra I in an Alternative Learning Environment
or in a Special Education Environment a uniform sixth digit would need
to be established statewide. There are a few limited course code numbers
for alternative learning and special education environments in which the
courses are not "for credit" and are not considered for high school
graduation requirements. These courses are most commonly included in the
students' IEP such as conflict resolution, anger management, social
skills, sign language and other non-academic-credit special education
instruction.

## Office of Data Quality

# As a result of recently receiving a three-year grant from the National Governor's Association and the USDOE (greater than \$4,000,000) Arkansas is developing a data collection and management system, which will assist with longitudinal data tracking of students and teachers. This system will allow the state to identify teachers' HQT status (and years of experience) to determine if high-need areas are being satisfied by an inordinate number of inexperienced or otherwise less highly qualified teachers. Presently the architectural structure for teacher data is being designed and in mid October 2006, teacher data will be pulled and stored in the warehouse. Beginning in January of 2007, with a new data management system in place, annual data requirements will be met and data-driven decisions will be made to address shortages if any exist in high-need schools. 

During the 2005-06 school year, the Arkansas Department of Education
created the Office of Data Quality to develop and implement this
Longitudinal Data System. The partners in the Arkansas Comprehensive
Data Quality Campaign are the Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas
Department of Higher Education, Metis Associates (overseeing the data
grant from the USDOE), Cognos (developing the data warehouse), Triand
(architects for the data system), NORMES (research partner from the
University of Arkansas) and Community/Business Partners. The Arkansas
Department of Education believes that while we are very data rich in the
state, this new longitudinal data warehouse will be instrumental in our
ability to provide real time data, measure data quality at all stages of
the process and provide easy retrieval and reports of data. The
monitoring of data required for any reports on HQT will be greatly
enhanced as teacher data is loaded into the warehouse.

[Requirement 1:]{.underline} The revised plan must provide a detailed
analysis of the core academic subject classes in the State that are
currently *not* being taught by highly qualified teachers. The analysis
must, in particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly
progress and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do
other schools in attracting highly qualified teachers. The analysis must
also identify the districts and schools around the State where
significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards, and examine
whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently
taught by non-highly qualified teachers.

1.1 Does the revised plan include an analysis of classes taught by
teachers who are not highly qualified? Is the analysis based on accurate
classroom level data?

Arkansas' plan to ensure that all core academic classes are taught by
highly qualified teachers is based on an analysis of all courses, all
classes and all sections of those classes taught in the state. The
Arkansas Department of Education has the capability of disaggregating
the data down to the district, school, class and teacher level. However
most of these data are reported at the state level.

Primary information regarding these data is presented in Table 1.

+--------+---+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Cate | * | **St    | **\#   | **\#   | **\#   | **%    | **%    |
| gory** | * | udent** | Cla    | C      | C      | C      | C      |
|        | n |         | sses** | lasses | lasses | lasses | lasses |
|        | * | **Enrol |        | taught | taught | taught | taught |
|        | * | lment** | **req  | by     | by     | by     | by     |
|        |   |         | uiring | HQT**  | non    | HQT**  | non    |
|        |   |         | HQT**  |        | -HQT** |        | -HQT** |
+--------+---+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE  | 1 | 468,189 | 91,734 | 77,751 | 13,983 | 84.8   | 15.2   |
+--------+---+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> Table 1. Percentage of core academic classes taught by highly
> qualified teachers (statewide). Supporting data are found in Appendix
> 1.

Of the 91,734 classes that require a highly qualified teacher, 77,751
classes are taught by highly qualified teachers reflecting a statewide
percentage of 84.8% HQT with 15.2% of classes taught by non-HQT
teachers.

Classroom level data were analyzed and are presented in Table 2, where
the data are disaggregated by core academic classes.

+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Core Academic  | **\#    | **\#    | **\#    | **%     | **%     |
| Classes**        | Cl      | Classes | Classes | Classes | Classes |
|                  | asses** | taught  | taught  | taught  | taught  |
|                  |         | by      | by      | by      | by      |
|                  | **re    | HQT**   | no      | HQT**   | no      |
|                  | quiring |         | n-HQT** |         | n-HQT** |
|                  | HQT**   |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| #### Elementary  |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| K-6 Classrooms   | 10540   | 10305   | 235     | 97.8    | 2.2     |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ### Secondary    |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ENGLISH          | 9533    | 8303    | 1230    | 87.1    | 12.9    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| LANGUAGE ARTS    | 6702    | 5587    | 1115    | 83.4    | 16.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SOCIAL STUDIES   | 11829   | 9389    | 2440    | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MATHEMATICS      | 16363   | 13970   | 2393    | 85.4    | 14.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SCIENCE          | 14070   | 11980   | 2090    | 85.1    | 14.9    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| FOREIGN LANGUAGE | 3244    | 2680    | 564     | 82.6    | 17.4    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **K-12**         |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| READING          | 2828    | 2245    | 583     | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ART              | 8108    | 6558    | 1550    | 80.9    | 19.1    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MUSIC            | 7110    | 5494    | 1616    | 77.3    | 22.7    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

> Table 2. Core Academic Class data, by subject, and percent of classes
> taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (statewide). Supporting
> documents/data files are in Appendix 2.

The highest percentage of classes taught by highly qualified staff is in
K-6 classrooms with 97.8% of the teachers being designated as highly
qualified. The low percentage areas are reading, social studies and
music.

The K-6 classroom data are further disaggregated by grade levels. Table
3 presents the data for the percent of elementary classes that were
taught by Highly Qualified Teachers.

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ### K-6 Classrooms   | **\#   | **\#   | **\#   | **%    | **%    |
|                      | Cla    | C      | C      | C      | C      |
|                      | sses** | lasses | lasses | lasses | lasses |
|                      |        | taught | taught | taught | taught |
|                      | **req  | by     | by     | by     | by     |
|                      | uiring | HQT**  | non    | HQT**  | non    |
|                      | HQT**  |        | -HQT** |        | -HQT** |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kindergarten Regular | 1957   | 1886   | 71     | 96.4   | 3.6    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 1              | 1796   | 1772   | 24     | 98.7   | 1.3    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 2              | 1640   | 1615   | 25     | 98.5   | 1.5    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grades 2-3           | 14     | 12     | 2      | 85.7   | 14.3   |
| (combination)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 3              | 1606   | 1580   | 26     | 98.4   | 1.6    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 4              | 1505   | 1481   | 24     | 98.4   | 1.6    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 5              | 1191   | 1164   | 27     | 97.7   | 2.3    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grades 5-6           | 19     | 17     | 2      | 89.5   | 10.5   |
| (combination)        |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grade 6              | 807    | 776    | 31     | 96.2   | 3.8    |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> Table 3. Elementary classes, by grade level and percent of classes
> taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (statewide). Supporting
> documents/data files are in Appendix 2.

Among elementary classrooms in Arkansas the highest percentage of highly
qualified teachers are assigned to first grade with an average of 98.7%
HQT. Combination classes reflect those that have the lowest percentage
of classes taught by highly qualified teachers.

The state will work to analyze the data in Table 3 on page 12 to assist
second/third and fifth/sixth grade combination classes where the percent
of HQT teachers were the lowest in our elementary schools.

Within the subject area of Foreign Languages the data were further
disaggregated for the various languages. These data are presented in
Table 4.

+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Secondary:**  | **\#    | **\#    | **\#    | **%     | **%     |
|                 | Cl      | Classes | Classes | Classes | Classes |
| **Foreign       | asses** | taught  | taught  | taught  | taught  |
| Languages**     |         | by      | by      | by      | by      |
|                 | **re    | HQT**   | no      | HQT**   | no      |
|                 | quiring |         | n-HQT** |         | n-HQT** |
|                 | HQT**   |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Spanish         | 2606    | 2148    | 458     | 82.4    | 17.6    |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| French          | 490     | 413     | 77      | 84.3    | 15.7    |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| German          | 108     | 95      | 13      | 88.0    | 12.0    |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Japanese        | 8       | 1       | 7       | 12.5    | 87.5    |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Italian         | 2       | 0       | 2       | 0.0     | 100     |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Turkish         | 1       | 0       | 1       | 0.0     | 100     |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Latin           | 29      | 23      | 6       | 79.3    | 20.7    |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

> Table 4. Classes in Foreign Language, by language and percent of
> classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (statewide). Supporting
> documents/data files are in Appendix 2.

The highest percentage of foreign language classes taught by highly
qualified teachers is in the area of German. Those languages with the
lowest percent classes taught by HQT are Turkish, Italian and Japanese.
The very few classes reported in these languages and the lack of
programs of study at the local colleges and universities lend themselves
to these results.

The Arkansas Department of Education actively collected data for the
first time on the status of core academic classes being taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers in the fall of 2005. These data are the result of a
school district reporting cycle, which occurs on the first of October
each year. In advance of the October 2005 reporting cycle school
districts were instructed as to the core academic classes and the
definitions of Highly Qualified Teachers that are associated with them.
As with any first-time data collection there may have been some
misunderstanding on definitions and procedures. The accuracy of the
SEA's data is dependant on the accuracy of the data submitted by the
LEAs to the Statewide Information System (SIS).

As addressed in the introduction, it became apparent that errors were
entered at the local level. Therefore, it was necessary to edit the
previously submitted data. Originally (data submitted in March, 2006)
indications were that the percentage of core academic classes, which
were taught by highly qualified teachers, was 95%. This has recently
been adjusted to 84.8%. The LEA responses were inaccurate. The data
would have been accurate if the LEA had submitted the responses
correctly. Pulling the data in a more accurate way will provide a better
picture. ADE will provide evidence that course codes will be identified
by which courses require a Highly Qualified Teacher and which do not. In
the SIS course code listing, the courses which require a Highly
Qualified Teacher will be designated with a "Y". LEA data input
technicians will not have the capability to alter that configuration or
input anything other than the designated fields of "YES - HQT", "NO -
NOT HQT" or "Not Applicable to this course". Supporting documents and
data files are in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.

[]{.mark}

As a result of recently receiving a three-year grant from the National
Governor's Association and the USDOE (greater than \$4,000,000) Arkansas
is developing a data collection and management system, which will assist
with longitudinal data tracking of students and teachers. This system
will allow the state to identify teachers' HQT status (and years of
experience) to determine if high-need areas are being satisfied by an
inordinate number of inexperienced or otherwise less highly qualified
teachers. Beginning in January of 2007, with a new data management
system in place, annual data requirements will be met and data-driven
decisions will be made to address shortages if any exist in high-need
schools. During the 2005-06 school year, the Arkansas Department of
Education created the Office of Data Quality to develop and implement
this Longitudinal Data System. The partners in the Arkansas
Comprehensive Data Quality Campaign are the Arkansas Department of
Education, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Metis Associates
(overseeing the data grant from the USDOE), Cognos (developing the data
warehouse), Triand (architects for the data system), NORMES (research
partner from the University of Arkansas) and Community/Business
Partners. The Arkansas Department of Education believes that while we
are data rich in the state, this new longitudinal warehouse will be
instrumental in our ability to provide real time data, measure data
quality at all stages and points of the process and provide easy
retrieval and reports of data. The monitoring of data required for any
reports on HQT will be greatly enhanced as teacher data is loaded into
the warehouse.

Arkansas' plan to ensure all core academic classes are taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers includes a process, to be implemented in the next two
years, to have the SEA validate the HQT status of teachers and place the
HQT designation in the appropriate area(s) on the individual teacher's
license to ensure accuracy in school district reporting with regard to
HQT status. The plan also includes provisions to continue requiring
content knowledge tests for acquiring a teaching license. In this regard
Arkansas expects that the percentage of core academic classes taught by
Highly Qualified Teacher will continue to increase. As teachers leave
the classrooms, teachers who have demonstrated content knowledge by
passing these tests will replace them.

Obviously the state will continue to work to ensure that the subgroup of
Arkansas teachers who are reaching retirement age and become highly
qualified in their core academic areas. While the statement is correct
that all newly licensed teachers will be demonstrating HQT status via
testing, it was not meant to imply that the state would be ignoring
those currently employed in the classrooms.

The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) has recently contacted and
will continue to contact school districts (in the short term) with
regard to proper reporting and any inconsistencies in reported data. The
ADE will also monitor HQT status in schools and school districts
annually to ensure that data reporting is timely and accurate. As the
school districts report HQT data in the Cycle 2 of their Annual
Accreditation Report, the SEA will review the data and give districts an
opportunity to correct any errors. With this data submission, school
district superintendents are required to sign a letter of accuracy when
the data is submitted.

Arkansas collected on October 1, 2006, data from the 2006-07 school year
by teacher/class/school/district, which includes data on the number of
years of teaching experience and the number and percent of core academic
classes taught by highly qualified teachers. This data will be analyzed
and submitted to the USDOE in May 2007.

1.2 Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of schools that are
not making AYP? Do these schools have high percentages of classes taught
by teachers who are not highly qualified?

The Division of Curriculum and Assessment at ADE identifies schools that
are not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) on the Arkansas
Benchmark/ACTAAP examinations annually. Technical assistance is readily
available from the Arkansas Department of Education and is provided
through the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (ASCIP) of
the Standards Assurance Unit. These staff members assist local school
districts in developing and monitoring the progress of the ACSIP plans.
Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress are designated as
being in School Improvement. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth
years of School Improvement are respectively identified as Year 1 to
Year 5. Currently there are 288 schools in Arkansas that are so
designated. Table 5 presents the compiled HQT data for those categories
of schools in School Improvement. Tables containing the individual
school data are presented in Appendix 1. These are offered to
demonstrate that Arkansas has the capability to analyze data at the
school (and class) level.

+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Ca | * | *     | **\#  | **\#  | **\#  | **%   | **%   | **    |
| tego | * | *Stud | Clas  | Cl    | Cl    | Cl    | Cl    | Avg.\ |
| ry** | n | ent** | ses** | asses | asses | asses | asses | yrs   |
|      | * |       |       | t     | t     | t     | t     | exp** |
|      | * | **En  | *     | aught | aught | aught | aught |       |
|      |   | rollm | *requ | by    | by    | by    | by    |       |
|      |   | ent** | iring | HQT** | non-  | HQT** | non-  |       |
|      |   |       | HQT** |       | HQT** |       | HQT** |       |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Yr 1 | 7 | 3     | 7,480 | 6,742 | 738   | 90.1  | 9.9   | 13.3  |
|      | 2 | 7,071 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Yr 2 | 1 | 7     | 1     | 1     | 2,978 | 82.8  | 17.2  | 13.5  |
|      | 4 | 4,014 | 7,351 | 4,373 |       |       |       |       |
|      | 4 |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Yr 3 | 3 | 1     | 4,025 | 3,040 | 985   | 75.5  | 24.5  | 12.6  |
|      | 8 | 6,854 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Yr 4 | 4 | 1,523 | 243   | 230   | 13    | 94.7  | 5.3   | 13.5  |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Yr 5 | 0 | na    | na    | na    | na    | na    | na    | na    |
+------+---+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

> Table 5. Percent of Core Academic Classes and Average Years of
> Experience for teachers in schools in School Improvement (statewide).
> Supporting data are found in Appendix 1.

Table 5 suggests schools that continue in School Improvement for two to
three years have fewer classes (percentage-wise) being taught by Highly
Qualified teachers. These data will be monitored closely in the future
to establish whether there is a cause-effect relationship. It is
important to note, however, that with a state average of 84.8% the
schools in Year 1 and Year 4 have a percentage of HQTs, which exceeds
the state average. Similarly, the average years experience of teachers
in all years of School Improvement is in line with the state average. A
correlation analysis was conducted on the relationship between percent
of classes being taught by HQTs and Average Years of Experience of the
teachers in the district. There was no significant statistical
relationship evident between the two (r=0.0).

Arkansas has demonstrated a significantly high percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers in poverty schools. There does
appear to be, however, a deficit of highly qualified teachers in schools
in need of academic improvement. In general, the percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers is lower in school districts
which have been requiring "school improvement" assistance for a longer
period of time. The State continues to monitor this situation, and has
taken several steps to ensure that schools that are in need of
improvement do not have a higher percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified than do other schools. These steps include the Arkansas
Department of Education being heavily engaged in technical assistance
with these schools through the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (ACSIP). Embedded in these individual ACSIP plans are strategies
for focused professional development. Also, the ADE will be requiring a
scholastic audit of every school in year 3, 4, or 5 of School
Improvement. Along with the scholastic audit, the ADE has selected a
"turn-around" strategy, America's Choice, for implementation in all year
3, 4 and 5 School Improvement schools.

The SEA will be working with the thirty-eight (38) schools in year three
of School Improvement since their percent of HQT is ten percentage
points below the state average.

Arkansas was one of only three states (the others being Massachusetts
and Texas) recognized by NAEP as showing evidence of improvement in
student achievement in three of the four areas for Reading and
Mathematics for grades 4 and 8. In the fourth area the student
achievement rating was unchanged; no lower than it was previously. This
high status is assuredly reflective of the high percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers statewide.

Arkansas has also made steady progress on all statewide standards-based
examinations required for No Child Left Behind. Evidence shows
significant improvement in literacy and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in
End-of-Course Algebra and Geometry from 2005 to 2006. Grade 11 Literacy
has also held steady between the two school years.

The state has observed that there are numerous middle schools, which are
in some stage of school improvement. With that concern the Department
reviewed achievement growth of middle school students as assessed by
state AACTAP. When comparing literacy scores with mathematics, the
literacy scores increased over time. To ensure that equitable emphasis
is placed on mathematics and science, the ADE conducted a forum
including all deans of college of education programs and middle level
coordinators of middle level programs. The topics discussed included
improvement in middle level endorsements, especially in the areas of
mathematics and science, and to enhance the mathematics and science
content area courses in their preparation programs. Sixteen of the
eighteen Arkansas teacher education programs attended the meeting. The
efforts will lead to improved teacher quality and effectiveness in
middle level mathematics and science.

In addition to the data regarding schools not making AYP, included here
are Tables 6 and 7 which present data on high- and low-minority school
districts and high- and low-poverty school districts.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Category</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>%</strong></p>
<p><strong>non-White</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>n</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Student</strong></p>
<p><strong>Enrollment</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># Classes requiring HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>Avg.<br />
yrs exp</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Low minority</strong></p>
<p>(Lowest 25%)</p></td>
<td><p>0.0% to</p>
<p>3.8%</p></td>
<td>66</td>
<td>64,692</td>
<td>13,581</td>
<td>11,563</td>
<td>2,018</td>
<td>85.1</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>12.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>High minority</strong></p>
<p>(Highest 25%)</p></td>
<td>37.1% to 99.8%</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>195,783</td>
<td>37,786</td>
<td>32,622</td>
<td>5,164</td>
<td>86.3</td>
<td>13.7</td>
<td>12.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> Table 6. District HQT and average years of teacher experience data
> disaggregated by minority population (263 total districts). Supporting
> data are found in Appendix 1.

There is no apparent difference between the percent of HQT or the number
of years of experience in the high- and low-minority school districts.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Category</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>%</strong></p>
<p><strong>FRL*</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>n</strong></td>
<td><strong>Student Enrollment</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes<br />
requiring HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>Avg.<br />
yrs exp</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Low poverty</strong></p>
<p>(Lowest 25%)</p></td>
<td>0.0% to 47.4%</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>135,250</td>
<td>26,134</td>
<td>22,082</td>
<td>4,052</td>
<td>84.5</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>11.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>High poverty</strong></p>
<p>(Highest 25%)</p></td>
<td>67.9% to 100%</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>77,318</td>
<td>16,292</td>
<td>14,000</td>
<td>2,292</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>11.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> Table 7. District HQT and average years of teacher experience data
> disaggregated by poverty level (out of 263 total districts). \[FRL --
> free and reduced-priced lunch\] Supporting data are found in Appendix
> 1.

There is no apparent difference between the percent of HQT or the number
of years of experience in the high- and low-poverty school districts.

1.3 Does the analysis identify particular groups of teachers to which
the State's plan must pay particular attention, such as special
education teachers, mathematics or science teachers, or multi-subject
teachers in rural schools?

Table 8 represents the six core academic areas that exhibit the percent
of classes taught by HQT that are less than the state average. These are
particular groups of teachers to which the state's plan will pay
particular attention. Art and Music are particularly noteworthy since
the state has recently adopted legislation requiring licensed art and
music teachers for K-6 when previously a K-6 classroom teacher may have
been assigned these responsibilities.

+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Core Academic    | **\#    | **\#    | **\#    | **%     | **%     |
| Class**            | Cl      | Classes | Classes | Classes | Classes |
|                    | asses** | taught  | taught  | taught  | taught  |
|                    |         | by      | by      | by      | by      |
|                    | **re    | HQT**   | no      | HQT**   | no      |
|                    | quiring |         | n-HQT** |         | n-HQT** |
|                    | HQT**   |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MUSIC              | 7110    | 5494    | 1616    | 77.3    | 22.7    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| READING            | 2828    | 2245    | 583     | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SOCIAL STUDIES     | 11829   | 9389    | 2440    | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ART                | 8108    | 6558    | 1550    | 80.9    | 19.1    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| FOREIGN LANGUAGE   | 3244    | 2680    | 564     | 82.6    | 17.4    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| LANGUAGE ARTS      | 6702    | 5587    | 1115    | 83.4    | 16.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

> Table 8. Core academic classes exhibiting \< 85% HQT. Supporting data
> are found in Appendix 2.

Annually, the Arkansas Board of Education distinguishes critical teacher
shortage areas. For the 2006-07 school year, those core academic areas
identified as critical shortage areas were middle level content areas,
secondary mathematics, secondary science, foreign language, and art. Due
to the shortage in art and foreign language teachers, it was not a
surprise to find the percent of HQT among those that fell below the
state average. Although the state has identified secondary mathematics
and secondary science as critical shortage areas, these classes taught
by highly qualified teachers did not fall below the state average.

Arkansas Annotated Code §24-7-708 and Rules from the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System now allow HQT in critical shortage areas to return to
active employment while drawing full salary and full retirement, without
an earnings penalty, as an incentive. The state has been taking
advantage of this highly qualified teacher pool that has retired and
elected to come back into the profession. Districts are actively
recruiting numerous highly qualified retired teachers to fill these
critical shortage areas. The table below reflects the number or teachers
who have returned to the field to take advantage of this incentive over
the last few years.

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Year         | Number of Retired Teachers employed                   |
|              |                                                       |
|              | on Arkansas Teacher Retirement System waivers         |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 1999-2000    | 16                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2000-2001    | 30                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2001-2002    | 58                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2002-2003    | 71                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2003-2004    | 67                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2004-2005    | 8                                                     |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2005-2006    | 71                                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2006-2007    | 33(as of this date)                                   |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

> Table 9. Number of Retired Teachers employed on Arkansas Teacher
> Retirement System waivers

The aforementioned law and Rule have assisted school districts in
recruiting and hiring highly qualified teachers in the areas of
mathematics, special education and science by bringing retired teachers
back into the work force.

1.4 Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State
where significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards?

Arkansas has defined districts and schools in which "significant numbers
of teachers do not meet HQT standards" as those schools which have less
than 50% of their core academic classes taught by highly qualified
teachers.

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Number of school districts with less than 50% of core     34
  academic classes taught by HQT                            

  Number of schools with less than 50% of core academic     117
  classes taught by HQT                                     
  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

> Table 10. Number of districts with significant numbers of teachers do
> not meet HQT standards. Supporting data is found in Appendix 5.

While the state recognizes that the fifty percent (50%) designation is
considerably low, the fact that there were schools and districts below
this benchmark, demands our immediate attention. In subsequent years
Arkansas will revisit the data and may define "significant" as any
school or district whose percent of classes taught by highly qualified
teachers as 10 percentage points less than the state average.

Arkansas agrees with the USDOE that the 50% designation is low, but we
were realistic in our statement that this was where we needed to begin
in targeting schools/ districts to increase their percent of classes
taught by HQT. As stated in our closing statement, for future years we
will be targeting all schools/districts where the "percent of classes
taught by highly qualified teachers is ten (10) percentage points less
than the state average." Since we believe our new state average of HQT
teachers will be in excess of 95%, our new percentage would be for
schools/ districts whose percentage falls below 85%.

1.5 Does the analysis identify particular courses that are often taught
by non-highly qualified teachers?

Table 11 (previously displayed as Table 2) represents the core academic
content areas and classes that are taught by non-highly qualified
teachers. Table 12 (previously displayed as Table 8) below represents
those core academic classes whose percent of HQT is below the state
average. Appendix 2 further disaggregates these content areas into
individual courses and grade levels. In that appendix those courses are
identified by class numbers and course titles, as well as percent of
classes taught by highly qualified teachers.

+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Core Academic  | **\#    | **\#    | **\#    | **%     | **%     |
| Classes**        | Cl      | Classes | Classes | Classes | Classes |
|                  | asses** | taught  | taught  | taught  | taught  |
|                  |         | by      | by      | by      | by      |
|                  | **re    | HQT**   | no      | HQT**   | no      |
|                  | quiring |         | n-HQT** |         | n-HQT** |
|                  | HQT**   |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| #### Elementary  |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| K-6 Classrooms   | 10540   | 10305   | 235     | 97.8    | 2.2     |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ### Secondary    |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ENGLISH          | 9533    | 8303    | 1230    | 87.1    | 12.9    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| LANGUAGE ARTS    | 6702    | 5587    | 1115    | 83.4    | 16.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SOCIAL STUDIES   | 11829   | 9389    | 2440    | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MATHEMATICS      | 16363   | 13970   | 2393    | 85.4    | 14.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SCIENCE          | 14070   | 11980   | 2090    | 85.1    | 14.9    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| FOREIGN LANGUAGE | 3244    | 2680    | 564     | 82.6    | 17.4    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **K-12**         |         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| READING          | 2828    | 2245    | 583     | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ART              | 8108    | 6558    | 1550    | 80.9    | 19.1    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MUSIC            | 7110    | 5494    | 1616    | 77.3    | 22.7    |
+------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

> Table 11. Core Academic Class data, by subject, and percent of classes
> taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (statewide). Supporting
> documents/data files are in Appendix 2.

+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Core Academic    | **\#    | **\#    | **\#    | **%     | **%     |
| Class**            | Cl      | Classes | Classes | Classes | Classes |
|                    | asses** | taught  | taught  | taught  | taught  |
|                    |         | by      | by      | by      | by      |
|                    | **re    | HQT**   | no      | HQT**   | no      |
|                    | quiring |         | n-HQT** |         | n-HQT** |
|                    | HQT**   |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| MUSIC              | 7110    | 5494    | 1616    | 77.3    | 22.7    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| READING            | 2828    | 2245    | 583     | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| SOCIAL STUDIES     | 11829   | 9389    | 2440    | 79.4    | 20.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ART                | 8108    | 6558    | 1550    | 80.9    | 19.1    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| FOREIGN LANGUAGE   | 3244    | 2680    | 564     | 82.6    | 17.4    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| LANGUAGE ARTS      | 6702    | 5587    | 1115    | 83.4    | 16.6    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Table 12. Core academic classes exhibiting \< 85% HQT. Supporting data
are found in Appendix 2.

Even the core academic classes in Arkansas with the lowest percent of
HQT all have greater than 77% of the classes taught by a highly
qualified teachers. Therefore with 22.7% of the music classes being
taught by non-highly qualified teachers, music is the course that is
most "often" taught by non-highly qualified teachers in Arkansas.
Reading and Social Studies are the second most "often" courses taught by
non-highly qualified teachers in Arkansas with 79.4%

**Requirement 2: The revised plan must provide information on HQT status
in each LEA and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has
plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain
HQT status as quickly as possible.**

1.  **Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met measurable
    objectives for HQT?**

The Arkansas Department of Education requires all school districts to
annually report all teachers and the individual content/grade level
assignments. This information is submitted by school districts through
the Arkansas Public School Computer Network's SIS Cycle #2 report, which
is due on October 15^th^ of each year. The information obtained is
cross-matched with the ADE's teacher licensure database and identifies
any teacher who is teaching outside his/her field of licensure.

The Standards Assurance Unit of the Arkansas Department of Education
monitors school districts every year. Districts not in compliance with
all standards, including those related to HQT and licensure, are issued
a citation or are placed on probation. A list of schools not meeting
standards is published by news media, state report cards and on the ADE
website.

The ADE collected initial baseline data beginning with the 2005-2006
school year. Of the 263 districts (including charter schools) in the
State of Arkansas during 2005-2006, it was determined that 223 had at
least one teacher who was not highly qualified. Therefore, these
districts did not meet the measurable objective of 100%. The HQT status
on each LEA is provided in Appendix 1.

  -------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------
  HQT Status                 Total \# school districts     \% HQT
                             (263)                         

  \# Reporting 100% HQT      40                            15.2%

  \# Reporting \<100% HQT    223                           84.8%
  -------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------

> Table 13. Number and percent of school districts reporting 100% HQT
> status. Supporting data are found in Appendix 1.

Only 40 of the state's 263 school districts (including charter schools)
met the measurable objective of 100% HQT. It has been determined that
some of the data submitted by a number of districts was inaccurate due
to the method of data collection and entry. The ADE has put a mechanism
in place in the state data collection system, which will prohibit
districts from submitting their required reports without accurate
information. In addition, ADE is providing technical assistance to
districts in order to improve the accuracy of data input.

Yes, the data provided reflected that 15% of the LEAs in Arkansas had
100% of these classes taught by HQT. This does provide a challenge with
another 85% of the LEAs who have not yet obtained the goal of 100%.
However, with the emphasis and technical assistance offered this year to
help teachers become highly qualified and the revisions in reporting and
the collecting data which have been made, we are confident that the
Arkansas's percentage of classes taught by HQT will "jump" this next
year very close to the goal of 100% thus increase the number of LEAs who
obtain 100%. As stated in the Introductory Statements on the top of page
7: 1) Arkansas is a testing state, 2) ninety-three (93) schools reported
less than ten percent of their classes taught by HQT and 3) the
fifty-five (55) school reporting zero percent of their classes taught by
HQT, these facts and the corrections to items 2) and 3) will drastically
enhance Arkansas in achieve the goal.

Arkansas has demonstrated a significantly high percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers in poverty schools. There does
appear to be, however, a lower percentage of highly qualified teachers
in schools in need of academic improvement. In general, the percentage
of classes being taught by highly qualified teachers is lower in school
districts which have been in need of "school improvement" assistance for
a longer period of time. The State continues to monitor this situation,
and has taken several steps to ensure that schools that are in need of
improvement do not have a higher percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified than do other schools. These steps include the Arkansas
Department of Education being heavily engaged in technical assistance
with these schools through the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (ACSIP). Embedded in these individual ACSIP plans are strategies
for focused professional development. Also, the ADE will be requiring a
scholastic audit of every school in year 3, 4, or 5 of School
Improvement. Along with the scholastic audit, the ADE has selected a
"turn-around" strategy, America's Choice, for implementation in all year
3, 4, and 5 School Improvement schools.

2.  **Does the plan include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs
    that have not met annual measurable objectives?**

The specific steps, which must be taken by an LEA, which has not
obtained 100% HQT status for all teachers in core academic areas are:

a\. LEAs designate all teachers as HQT or non-HQT.

b\. LEAs report the HQT status of all teachers to the SEA.

> c\. LEAs require all non-HQT in core academic areas to complete an
> Individual Plan to become HQT by the end of 2006-07 school year.

d\. LEAs assist teachers in becoming HQT by encouraging them to enroll
in the courses or register for the Praxis exam.

e\. LEAs must request a waiver from the state for any non-HQT and out of
area teacher to teach for the school year.

f\. The SEA will monitor all waiver requests.

g\. LEAs will complete the LEA plan for 100% HQT.

h\. The annual measurable objectives will be reviewed annually by SEA.

Each school district is required to submit a waiver request for any
teacher assigned to teach outside of his/her licensure/subject area or
grade level for a period of thirty days or longer. In addition,
districts are required to notify the parents of children placed in
classrooms of such teachers (Appendix 6). Arkansas Annotated Code §
6-17-309 (Act 1623 of 2001) requires parent notification, if a child is
taught by a teacher who is not fully licensed in the area of the class
being taught for more than 30 days. These procedures will be expanded
beginning in the fall of 2006 to include parents being informed of any
core academic class that is being taught by a teacher who is not highly
qualified. ADE's Compliance Monitoring team schedules annual site visits
to all Title I schools in Arkansas. During this visit the monitoring
team reviews the documentation/evidence that parents were notified in a
timely fashion of their teacher's HQT status.

The ADE has developed an Individual Teacher Plan, which is required for
any teacher of a core academic class who is not highly qualified in that
area. Each teacher not designated as highly qualified is required to
submit and file this Individual Teacher Plan with the school district
(Appendix 7).

In addition, each district is responsible for reviewing its data with
regard to staff teaching outside of his/her licensure area. The Arkansas
Department of Education will disseminate via Commissioner\'s Memo the
template for the LEA plan (Appendix 8) to meet the measurable objective
of 100% HQT, and will require these districts to complete and submit to
the Standards Assurance Unit of the ADE their HQT plan. The district
plan must be submitted to ADE by December 30, 2006. The plan will
include action steps to be taken in order to ensure that all teachers
meet highly qualified status by the end of the 2006-2007 school year.
HQT plans will be approved and monitored by the Standards Assurance
Unit.

3.  **Does the plan delineate specific steps the SEA will take to ensure
    that all LEA's have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to
    become HQ as quickly as possible?**

The District HQT plan will provide information on how it will meet the
measurable objective of having 100% by the end of the 2006-2007 school
year (Appendix 8 -- LEA Plan for HQT template). The LEA plan will
includes the following requirements:

a.  Districts will review all personnel and determine the number of
    teachers who were granted waivers by the ADE to teach for a period
    of thirty days or longer.

b.  Districts will determine the issues or conditions that prevented the
    hiring of HQT personnel in these areas.

c.  The plan will include a list of individuals not meeting HQT status,
    the grade or subject taught.

d.  A plan of action for each of the individuals not meeting HQT status
    will be submitted outlining district support, strategies and
    timelines for completion of HQT status.

e.  Districts will also be required to provide specific actions ensuring
    that only those individuals who meet highly qualified status are
    hired in the future.

In May of 2005, ADE promulgated Rules Governing Highly Qualified
Teachers. Any teacher who did not establish HQT status for core academic
classes taught in the fall of 2005 would have, as a matter of procedure
and in conjunction with his/her school administrator, developed a plan
for establishing highly qualified status. As part of Arkansas' Title I
and Title IIA pass-through-audits in the fall, the credentials and/or
HQT documentation of those identified as non-HQT, will be reviewed. ADE
will establish why they are non-HQT and determine what would be required
for them to become HQT. The state will work with LEA/districts to assure
that such teachers will follow the plan for becoming highly qualified in
order to meet all requirements in a timely manner. Districts may seek
permission to use Title IIA funds to assist staff in attaining HQT
status.

The Arkansas Department of Education will monitor the LEAs' compliance
with HQT plans through the Standards Assurance Accreditation /
Compliance report. Arkansas' Quality Education Act, commonly referred to
as the "Omnibus Act, "(Act 1467 of 2003) empowers the state to monitor,
audit and sanction districts that fail to adhere to the Rules Governing
Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools and School
Districts. The State Board of Education most recently revised the rules
in January 2005. (The 2007 version of these rules will include the
standards for highly qualified teachers.)

Arkansas' Quality Education (Omnibus) Act of 2003 gives ADE the
responsibility for and the authority to:

-   Develop state accreditation regulations and standards,

-   Notify schools failing to meet accreditation standards,

-   Place schools failing to meet accreditation standards on
    probationary status,

-   Enforce state accreditation standards, and

-   Publish and disseminate public notice concerning the status and
    schools and school districts with respect to meeting accreditation
    standards.

The Omnibus Act of 2003 also empowers the ADE to assume leadership of
school districts (e.g., removal of the school board and superintendent)
that fail to meet required educational standards.

Requirement 3: The revised plan must include information on the
technical assistance programs, and services that the SEA will off to
assist LEAs in successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly
where large groups of teachers are not highly qualified and the
resources the LEAs will use to meet their HQT goals.

1.  **Does the plan include a description of the technical assistance
    the SEA will provide to assist LEAs in successfully carrying out
    their HQT plans?**

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Date**    **Technical Assistance**           **Recipients**
  ----------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------
  July 2006   Presentation at AAEA Conference on School/ District
              HQT reporting and LEA plans        Administrators

  July 2006   Presentation Displayed on the NCLB All Viewers
              website for ADE                    

  August 2006 Revision of the Course Code        All ADE and School
              Listing on the ADE website         District Staff members

  August 2006 Summary of Courses which require   All ADE and School
              HQT status                         District Staff members

  September   Teleconference on Reporting HQT    Everyone, Filled to
  '06                                            capacity

  September   Presentation to the Service        Co-Op Directors and
  '06         Cooperative Directors on how to    Coordinators
              assist Districts become 100% HQT   

  September   Presentation to Superintendents    Superintendents,
  -- October  and Building Level Principals on   Principals, District and
  2006        the Designation and Reporting of   School Administrators,
              HQT to obtain 100% HQT             Coop Leaders

  September   Letters to Selective               Superintendents of
  '06         Superintendents Districts, who     Selective School Districts
              reported last years that they had  
              \< 10% HQT in any school.          

  2004-       Communication via telephone calls, Everyone
  ongoing     emails and any other inquiries     
              regarding HQT                      
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Table 14. Technical assistance to LEAs.

To ensure that there is an equitable distribution and to ensure that,
continually, more classes are taught by highly qualified teachers,
representatives of the ADE have conducted summer meetings with school
district administrators to share information regarding HQT. These
meetings included a video conference to ensure that all procedures are
followed with regard to establishing teachers' highly qualified teacher
(HQT) status and reporting of such. Follow-up meetings were held at
Educational Cooperatives around the state in the fall of 2006 to ensure
that all teachers have established HQT status properly and that all core
academic classes are being taught by highly qualified teachers.
Technical assistance will also include site visits at the request of
individual districts.

The state is developing a student-teacher data management system that
will make additional HQT data available. The state is currently able to
identify teachers who are not HQT and has discovered that all core
academic areas have some teachers who have not been designated as highly
qualified. Henceforth, with a new data management system in place,
annual data requirements will be met and data-driven decisions can be
made to address any shortage areas for HQT that might exist.

Only through proper identification of teachers can the LEAs work with
non-highly qualified teachers to become highly qualified. Therefore the
state is providing data files to the LEAs to assist them in identifying
whether or not teachers are highly qualified. These files will assist in
rectifying any data errors and verifying those teachers who need
assistance in becoming highly qualified. By the state providing the
submitted data back to the local districts, LEAs will be able to better
assess what plan of action they need to take.

2.  Does the plan indicate that the staffing and professional
    development needs of schools that are not making AYP will be given
    high priority?

Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, it was legislated that all
licensed teachers obtain at least 60 hours of professional development,
annually. All districts set aside ten (10) days in the school calendars
for this purpose. The Professional Development Rules, promulgated in
July 2005, require disaggregation of student data to determine learning
priorities and monitor progress leading to and sustaining continuous
school improvement. Arkansas allocated \$18,504,792 to LEAs (See
supporting data in Appendix 10.) through categorical funds for the
specific purpose of funding required professional development
activities. Beginning with the 2006-07 school year, all professional
development activities must be approved by the state in order to ensure
that the activities are designed to guide educator improvement by
deepening content knowledge through research-based instructional
strategies.

Arkansas places a high priority on providing professional development to
schools that are in School Improvement. The Arkansas Department of
Education has contracted with America's Choice to provide direct
redesign services to those schools that are in year 3, 4 or 5 of School
Improvement. America's Choice strategies are specific for elementary,
middle and high schools.

America's Choice provides both on-site and off-site intensive training
to teachers and administrators in standards-based research instruction,
leadership and assessment. In addition, each school is assigned a
cluster leader who meets each week with the school's identified
leadership team to assess progress in redesign implementation.

In addition, the Arkansas Department of Education is in the process of
training Scholastic Audit Teams. These teams, composed of teachers,
university professors and school administrators will visit schools that
are in year 3, 4 or 5 of School Improvement. A scholastic audit is a
comprehensive review of the learning environment, organizational
efficiency and academic performance of schools and districts. Audit
findings will be used to determine the type and level of support
necessary to continuously improve student academic performance in each
school and district audited.

Act 106 of the Extraordinary Session of 2003, established the Education
Renewal Zones (ERZ). The purpose of ERZs is to provide collaboration
among the state's smaller schools and districts in order to achieve some
of the advantages of economies of scale in providing educational related
activities. ERZs will also maximize benefits and outcomes of public
education by concentrating and coordinating the resources of Arkansas'
higher education institutions, the expertise of the regional education
service cooperatives and the technical assistance of other service
providers to improve public school performance and student achievement.
The ERZs will also help to enable small, rural, low-wealth schools to
make the best use of the latest cost-effective distance learning
technology to enhance curricula and professional development through
two-way interactive learning environments. In selecting schools for
participation, priority will be given to those schools that are in
School Improvement or Alert Status for School Improvement under the
Arkansas compliance plan under NCLB, schools that are in academic
distress and those that demonstrate an inability to hire and retain
highly qualified teachers.

3.  Does the plan include a description of programs and services the SEA
    will provide to assist teachers and LEA's in successfully meeting
    HQT goals?

The statewide system of support established by the ADE is multifaceted
in providing services to assist LEAs in successfully reaching the HQT
measurable objective of 100%. It includes a network of specialists in
the areas of literacy, mathematics, science and special education whose
purpose is to provide professional development to schools within the
state to assist teachers in becoming highly effective. In addition, ADE
has implemented STAR and TOP, programs to assist teachers in becoming
highly qualified. [ArkansasIDEAS]{.underline} is an on-line professional
development system. Arkansas has 15 educational cooperatives and has
initiated a research-based, low-performing school turn-around model
provided by America's Choice. These are described below.

a)  Network of specialists: This network includes 51 literacy
    specialists, 26 mathematics specialists, 10 science specialists and
    50 special education specialists whose purpose is to provide
    professional development. These specialists deliver research-based
    professional development courses that have been developed by the
    ADE. In addition, the specialists provide customized professional
    development sessions based on school requests.

b)  [ArkansasIDEAS]{.underline}, a partnership among ADE, PBS and
    Arkansas Educational Television Network allows AR educators to earn
    free professional development through an on-line system beginning in
    October of 2006. Teachers have access to a variety of activities
    including courses in the core curriculum areas. Each year the ADE
    will examine HQT data to ensure that teachers in need of earning
    credit toward becoming HQT will have access to courses in their
    academic area.

c)  Fifteen educational cooperatives provide technical assistance and
    professional development to those schools within the service area.
    In addition to the specialists listed above, the cooperatives employ
    personnel with expertise in a variety of other core academic areas.

d)  America's Choice has been selected by the ADE to work with schools
    in School Improvement years 3 and beyond. America's Choice was
    selected based on the program's research-based improvement process
    that is closely aligned with the professional development provided
    by the ADE through its Smart Start, Smart Step and Next Step
    Initiatives. A key feature of America's Choice design is focused
    professional development.

e)  State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) is a program providing
    funding whereby students may receive up to \$6,000 per year or a
    total of up to \$18,000 in scholarship money for a five-year
    education degree program. This program is available to students
    willing to teach mathematics, science, special education or foreign
    language, and/or willing to teach in a geographic area of Arkansas
    that has a critical shortage of teachers.

f)  Teacher Opportunity Program (TOP) is a dual licensure incentive
    program designed to provide loans to teachers who are returning to
    college to receive additional licensure in an area declared to be a
    critical shortage area by the Department of Education. The teacher
    must be currently employed as a classroom teacher in a public school
    in Arkansas and have been employed by the same school district for
    at least three (3) years immediately preceding application. The
    Arkansas Department of Higher Education will forgive the loan if the
    recipient receives the additional licensure within three (3) years
    of first receiving funds under the program AND teaches or serves as
    a classroom teacher in an Arkansas public school district for
    three (3) continuous years immediately following receipt of the
    additional certification.

Network specialists and the low performing school model are partially
funded with Title I and Title II funds.

The ADE has always utilized the expertise of our educational
cooperatives and the network specialists to facilitate training /
professional development, dissemination of information, adherence to
local, state and federal law and rules promulgated as well as to assist
in the collection of data for all Arkansas school districts. The
recommendation from USDOE to engage these entities in these endeavors
has already begun.

3.4 Does the plan specifically address the needs of any subgroups of
teachers identified in Requirement 1?

At the present, with only one year of data, the plan is to support
school districts and schools in achieving 100% HQT (Annual Measurable
Objective). As additional data is collected in subsequent years ADE will
target subgroups which demonstrate the need for particular attention.
With the data entry safeguards to be implemented, more accurate data
will assist with these decisions.

Yes, the State did not identify any subgroups of teachers due to the
fact that there was only one year of data. Therefore, our plan has been
to work on *all* subgroups until an identifiable subgroup becomes
evident with multiple years of data and this we have done and will
continue to do.

3.5 Does the plan include a description of how the State will use its
available funds (e.g., Title I, Part A, Title II, Part A, including the
portion that goes to the State agency for higher education; other
Federal and State funds, as appropriate) to address the needs of
teachers who are not highly qualified?

ADE utilizes its \$125,000,000 in Title I, Part A funds in the following
format: 1% for administrative costs and 4% to support schools in School
Improvement through a contract with America's Choice at a cost of \$6
million dollars. The remaining 95% of Title I funds went to the LEAs to
enhance their mathematics and literacy programs. LEAs may elect to
support their teachers by paying the examination fees for Praxis exams
and/or for tuition fees for coursework to become HQT.

The Title II-A funds, approximately \$27 million, are used primarily for
professional development including funding the state's initiatives:
Smart Start, Smart Step and Next Step. Title II-A funds are also used
for the recruitment of HQT and to pay for class size reduction teachers
in order to reduce the student-teacher ratio below the required
standards thereby enhancing the achievement of

at-risk children.

At the present time, Arkansas does not provide any additional title
money to the Arkansas Department of Higher Education.

The state has appropriated a significant amount of state funds to help
teachers become HQT through the National Board Professional Teaching
Standards by providing financial assistance in subsidizing application
fees, providing professional time to work on portfolios and providing
training and assistance in completing the application and submission
process. The state has also appropriated a stipend of \$5,000 per
teacher, for each year of National Board Certification, for up to ten
years. At the present time the state of Arkansas has 388 National Board
Certified teachers. The state has determined that any teacher who
qualifies for National Board Certification will be designated as HQT for
that core academic area.

Table 15 reflects the state's support of the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards Program for the past few years.

  -------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ------------- -------------
           \# State     State funding \# NBCTs    Amount of  State funding Total
           funded       for           receiving   annual     for NBCT      
           candidates   application   bonus       bonus      bonuses       
                        fees                                               

  1997     1            \$2,000       0           \$0        \$0           

  1998     15           \$30,000      2           \$2,000    \$4,000       \$34,000

  1999     45           \$78,000      12          \$2,000    \$24,000      \$102,000

  2000     64           \$96,750      27          \$2,000    \$54,000      \$150,750

  2001     106          \$227,700     63          \$2,000    \$126,000     \$353,700

  2002     68           \$125,469     125         \$2,000    \$250,000     \$375,469

  2003     107          \$246,100     180         \$3,000    \$540,000     \$786,100

  2004     158          \$363,400     239         \$4,000    \$956,000     \$1,319,400

  2005     198          \$455,400     368         \$5,000    \$1,840,000   \$2,295,400

  TOTALS   1046         \$2,332,319   1,016                  \$3,794,000   \$6,126,319
  -------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ------------- -------------

> Table 15. Arkansas National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
> Support Program

6.  Does the plan for the use of available funds indicate that priority
    will be given to the staffing and professional development needs of
    schools that are not making AYP?

In previous years, the state allowed LEAs to apply for competitive grant
funds for professional development to assist schools that did not make
AYP. Beginning with the 2006-07 school year, the state has contracted
with America's Choice to provide support and redesign training to all
schools in year 3, 4 or 5 of School Improvement. America's Choice
employs scientifically-based research strategies that are implemented
school-wide with ongoing support. Through quality professional
development, Arkansas teachers can become not only highly qualified but
also highly effective.

Act 106 of the Extraordinary Session of 2003, established the Education
Renewal Zones (ERZ). The purpose of ERZs is to provide collaboration
among the state's smaller schools and districts in order to achieve some
of the advantages of economies of scale in providing educational related
activities. ERZs will also maximize benefits and outcomes of public
education by concentrating and coordinating the resources of Arkansas'
higher education institutions, the expertise of the regional education
service cooperatives, and the technical assistance of other service
providers to improve public school performance and student achievement.
The ERZs will also help to enable small, rural, low-wealth schools to
make the best use of the latest cost-effective distance learning
technology to enhance curricula and professional development through
two-way interactive learning environments. In selecting schools for
participation, priority will be given to those schools that are in
School Improvement or Alert Status for School Improvement under the
Arkansas compliance plan under NCLB, schools that are in academic
distress, and those that demonstrate an inability to hire and retain
highly qualified teachers.

# Requirement 4: The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with LEAs that fail to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the 2006-2007 school year.

**4.1 Does the plan indicate how the SEA will monitor LEA compliance
with the LEAs HQT plans described in Requirement 2 and hold LEAs
accountable for fulfilling their plans?**

The Arkansas Department of Education will monitor the LEAs' compliance
with HQT plans through the Standards Assurance Accreditation /
Compliance report. Arkansas' Quality Education Act, commonly referred to
as the "Omnibus Act, "(Act 1467 of 2003) empowers the state to monitor,
audit and sanction districts that fail to adhere to the Rules Governing
Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools and School
Districts. The State Board of Education most recently revised the rules
in January 2005. (The 2007 version of these rules will include the
standards for highly qualified teachers.)

Arkansas' Quality Education (Omnibus) Act of 2003 gives ADE the
responsibility for and the authority to:

-   Develop state accreditation regulations and standards,

-   Notify schools failing to meet accreditation standards,

-   Place schools failing to meet accreditation standards on
    probationary status,

-   Enforce state accreditation standards, and

-   Publish and disseminate public notice concerning the status and
    schools and school districts with respect to meeting accreditation
    standards.

The Omnibus Act of 2003 also empowers the ADE to assume leadership of
school districts (e.g., removal of the school board and superintendent)
that fail to meet required educational standards.

The Standards Unit also works with districts on the ACSIP plan. ACSIP
Program Advisors will work with school districts to plan for assistance
in helping teachers become HQT and improve student achievement.

**4.2 Does the plan show how technical assistance from the SEA to help
LEAs meet the 100 percent HQT goal will be targeted toward LEAs and
schools that are not making AYP?**

In May of 2005 ADE promulgated Rules Governing Highly Qualified
Teachers. Any teacher who did not establish HQT status for the core
academic classes taught in the fall of 2005 would have, as a matter of
procedure and in conjunction with his or her school administrator,
developed a plan for establishing highly qualified status. As part of
Arkansas' Title I and Title II A pass-through-audits in the fall, the
credentials and/or the HQT documentation of those identified, as
non-highly qualified, will be reviewed. ADE will establish why they are
non-highly qualified and determine what would be needed for them to
become HQ. The state will work with LEAs/districts to assure that such
teachers will follow the plan for becoming highly qualified in order to
meet all requirements in a timely manner. Districts may seek permission
to use Title II A funds to assist staff in attaining HQT status.

Arkansas has demonstrated a significantly high percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers in poverty schools. There does
appear to be, however, a lower percentage of highly qualified teachers
in schools in need of academic improvement. In general, the percentage
of classes being taught by highly qualified teachers is lower in school
districts which have been in need of "school improvement" assistance for
a longer period of time. The State continues to monitor this situation,
and has taken several steps to ensure that schools that are in need of
improvement do not have a higher percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified than do other schools. These steps include the Arkansas
Department of Education being heavily engaged in technical assistance
with these schools through the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (ACSIP). Embedded in these individual ACSIP plans are strategies
for focused professional development. Also, the ADE will be requiring a
scholastic audit of every school in year 3, 4, or 5 of School
Improvement. Along with the scholastic audit, the ADE has selected a
"turn-around" strategy, America's Choice, for implementation in all
years 3, 4, and 5 School Improvement schools.

The Arkansas Department of Education is working diligently to ensure
that all school districts and individual schools are informed of the
process and procedure for designation and reporting the number of
classes taught by HQT. The training and assistance that has been offered
in the past six (6) months has been extensive and the ADE realizes that
much of this should have been available to districts in previous years.

The table below lists some significant projects offered to LEAs:

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Date**    **Technical Assistance**           **Recipients**
  ----------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------
  July 2006   Presentation at AAEA Conference on School/ District
              HQT reporting and LEA plans        Administrators

  July 2006   Presentation Displayed on the NCLB All Viewers
              website for ADE                    

  August 2006 Revision of the Course Code        All ADE and School
              Listing on the ADE website         District Staff members

  August 2006 Summary of Courses which require   All ADE and School
              HQT status                         District Staff members

  September   Teleconference on Reporting HQT    Everyone, Filled to
  '06                                            capacity

  September   Presentation to the Service        Co-Op Directors and
  '06         Cooperative Directors on how to    Coordinators
              assist Districts become 100% HQT   

  September   Presentation to Superintendents    Superintendents,
  -- October  and Building Level Principals on   Principals, District and
  2006        the Designation and Reporting of   School Administrators,
              HQT to obtain 100% HQT             Coop Leaders

  September   Letters to Selective               Superintendents of
  '06         Superintendents Districts, who     Selective School Districts
              reported last years that they had  
              \< 10% HQT in any school.          

  2004-       Communication via telephone calls, Everyone
  ongoing     emails and any other inquiries     
              regarding HQT                      
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Table 16. Technical assistance to LEAs.

3.  **Does the plan describe how the SEA will monitor whether LEAs
    attain 100 percent HQT in each LEA and school:**

**-in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and
school; and**

**-in the percentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality
professional development to enable such teachers to become highly
qualified and successful teachers?**

The SEA will monitor whether the LEAs attain 100% HQT via data
collection. The percent of HQT will be submitted annually through the
Cycle 2 report by individual schools and districts. In the introductory
statements there is an explanation of Arkansas' data collection and the
improvements for the future. Professional development data, a minimum
requirement of sixty (60) hours for each teacher per year in Arkansas,
is submitted in the Cycle 1 report.

Data on participants in professional development, which was described in
3.2 and 3.3 of the plan, will become a critical component of the data
warehouse in Arkansas. With this data Arkansas can track and evaluate
the effectiveness of these professional development opportunities. This
will be accomplished when the professional development is correlated to
the performance of students in classes of teachers who participated in
the evaluated professional development when compared to students whose
teachers did not participate in the professional development. Data
reports from the warehouse will help the state evaluate if the focused
professional development has a positive impact on student performance.
Professional development, which enhances students learning is evidence
that the teachers are highly qualified and highly effective.

Arkansas has demonstrated a significantly high percentage of classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers in poverty schools. There does
appear to be, however, a lower percentage of highly qualified teachers
in schools in need of academic improvement. In general, the percentage
of classes being taught by highly qualified teachers is lower in school
districts which have been in need of "school improvement" assistance for
a longer period of time. The State continues to monitor this situation,
and has taken several steps to ensure that schools that are in need of
improvement do not have a higher percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified than do other schools. These steps include the Arkansas
Department of Education being heavily engaged in technical assistance
with these schools through the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (ACSIP). Embedded in these individual ACSIP plans are strategies
for focused professional development. Also, the ADE will be requiring a
scholastic audit of every school in year 3, 4, or 5 of School
Improvement. Along with the scholastic audit, the ADE has selected a
"turn-around" strategy, America's Choice, for implementation in all year
3, 4, and 5 School Improvement schools.

**4.4 Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include technical
assistance or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to
meet HQT and AYP goals?**

The Arkansas Department of Education will assist and monitor the LEAs
compliance with HQT plan through the Standards Assurance Accreditation /
Compliance report. The Arkansas Quality Education Act, referred to as
the "Omnibus Act" (Act 1467 of 2003) empowers the state to monitor,
audit and sanction districts that fail to adhere to the Rules Governing
Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools and most recently
revised by the State Board of Education in January 2005. (The 2007
version of these Rules will include the Standards for HQT.)

Arkansas' Quality Education (Omnibus) Act of 2003 gives ADE the
responsibility for and the authority to:

-   Develop state accreditation regulations and standards,

-   Notify schools failing to meet accreditation standards,

-   Place schools failing to meet accreditation standards on
    probationary status,

-   Enforce state accreditation standards, and

-   Publish and disseminate public notice concerning the status and
    schools and school districts with respect to meeting accreditation
    standards.

The Omnibus Act of 2003 empowers the ADE to assume leadership of school
districts (e.g., removal of the school board and superintendent) that
fail to meet required educational standards.

In the 2007-08 school year, the Rules Governing the Standards
Accreditation Unit will recognize HQT and the percent of classes taught
by HQT as an objective that will carry sanctions in the school's and
district's accreditation reports. Schools are reported as accredited,
accredited-cited or placed on probation. This information is made public
on the state and district report cards. In addition, the ACSIP unit,
affiliated with Standards Accreditation, will continue their work with
schools in School Improvement to ensure that high poverty, high minority
children have equitable access to experienced, highly qualified and
highly effective teachers.

**Requirement 5: The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will
complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who
were hired prior to the end of the 2005-06 school year, and how the SEA
will discontinue the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after
the end of the 2005-06 school year (except for the situations described
below).**

**5.1 Does the plan describe how and when the SEA will complete the
HOUSSE process for all teachers not new to the profession who were hired
before the end of the 2005-2006 school year?**

During the 2006-07 school year all veteran teachers employed in Arkansas
Public Schools who are unable to be designated as highly qualified
status via examination of the content knowledge or by having a major in
the core academic subject area will be permitted to complete the
ARHOUSSE process for areas which they failed to designate during the
2005-06 school year.

> **5.2 Does the plan describe how the State will discontinue the use of
> HOUSSE after the end of the 2005-2006 school year, except in the
> following situations:**
>
> **a. multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who, if HQ in
> one subject at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate
> competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of
> hire; or**
>
> **b. multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the
> profession, if HQ in language arts, mathematics, or science at the
> same time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in
> additional subjects within two years of the date of hire**

Arkansas plans to continue using the ARHOUSSE document on a very limited
basis for the next three to five years. Listed below are examples of
situations in which the use of ARHOUSSE will be necessary in Arkansas:

a.  Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who, if HQ in one
    subject at the time of hire, may use ARHOUSSE to demonstrate
    competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of
    hire; or

b.  Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the
    profession, if HQ in language arts, mathematics, or science at the
    same time of hire, may use ARHOUSSE to demonstrate competence in
    additional subjects within two years of the date of hire; or

c.  Retired teachers returning to the work force who were not designated
    as HQT in previous years; or

d.  Teachers who are veteran teachers from the private school or
    collegiate level who are hired as public school teachers and were
    not designated as HQT in previous years.

e.  Teachers returning to the teaching profession from another
    profession, i.e. business, homemaker, etc.

As Arkansas phases out the use of ARHOUSSE document, the situations
outlined in c, d and e above, will be utilized to designated HQT status
for teachers who are not currently in the workforce.

Requirement 6: The revised plan must include a copy of the State's
written "equity plan" for ensuring that poor or minority children are
not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at
higher rates than are other children.

1.  **Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?**

Yes, Arkansas has a written equity plan. Arkansas' Equity Plan is
Appendix 13.

**6.2 Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment
exist?**

Table 17 presents four-year of longitudinal data regarding the numbers
of waivers approved and issued by the Arkansas Department of Education
for teachers teaching out-of-field in core academic classes only. These
data represent teachers who are licensed but are assigned to teach a
subject for which they are not licensed. The data shows there are an
increasing number of waivers requested around the state. An analysis of
the waiver data reflects that most waivers are being requested in the
more densely populated regions of the state (Northwest and Central
Arkansas regions). While the Delta region has requested waivers, it is
not at the same ratio as those in the more populated school districts.
Appendix 14 contains a state distribution of waivers by district.

  ---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------
  **Teaching Area**      **\# of   **\# of   **\# of   **\# of   **Totals**
                         Waivers   Waivers   Waivers   Waivers   
                         02-03**   03-04**   04-05**   05-06**   

  Art                    6         11        19        58        94

  English                24        26        36        22        108

  Foreign Language       26        28        21        19        94

  Life Earth Science     9         25        25        25        84

  Mathematics            30        39        47        38        154

  Middle School          1         10        34        49        94

  Music                  14        18        20        31        83

  P-4                    16        26        26        16        84

  Physical Earth Science 24        14        29        37        104

  Reading                5         5         4         6         20

  Social Studies         26        39        56        36        157

  Total                  181       241       317       337       1076
  ---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------

> Table 17 Numbers of waivers per year (02-03 to 05-06) in core academic
> areas. Supporting data is found in Appendix 14.

The data in the tables below reflect that the percent of HQT teachers in
Arkansas' high and low minority school districts has a difference of
only 1.2%. Similarly, Arkansas' high and low poverty school districts
only have a difference of 1.4%. In both tables the number of years of
experience of teachers in both high and low minority and poverty school
districts is at most only 1.4 years less than the state average.

The following two tables present information that has been presented
previously in this plan regarding poverty and minority in Arkansas
school districts.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Category</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>%</strong></p>
<p><strong>non-White</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>n</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Student</strong></p>
<p><strong>Enrollment</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># Classes requiring HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>Avg.<br />
yrs exp</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Low minority</strong></p>
<p>(Lowest 25%)</p></td>
<td><p>0.0% to</p>
<p>3.8%</p></td>
<td>66</td>
<td>64,692</td>
<td>13,581</td>
<td>11,563</td>
<td>2,018</td>
<td>85.1</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>12.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>High minority</strong></p>
<p>(Highest 25%)</p></td>
<td>37.1% to 99.8%</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>195,783</td>
<td>37,786</td>
<td>32,622</td>
<td>5,164</td>
<td>86.3</td>
<td>13.7</td>
<td>12.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> Table 18. District HQT and average years of teacher experience data
> disaggregated by minority population (263 total districts). Supporting
> data are found in Appendix 1.

There are no apparent inequities between the percent of HQT or the
number of years of experience in the high and low minority schools.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Category</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>%</strong></p>
<p><strong>FRL*</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>n</strong></td>
<td><strong>Student Enrollment</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes<br />
requiring HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong># Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% Classes taught by non-HQT</strong></td>
<td><strong>Avg.<br />
yrs exp</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Low poverty</strong></p>
<p>(Lowest 25%)</p></td>
<td>0.0% to 47.4%</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>135,250</td>
<td>26,134</td>
<td>22,082</td>
<td>4,052</td>
<td>84.5</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>11.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>High poverty</strong></p>
<p>(Highest 25%)</p></td>
<td>67.9% to 100%</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>77,318</td>
<td>16,292</td>
<td>14,000</td>
<td>2,292</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>11.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> Table 19. District HQT and average years of teacher experience data
> disaggregated by poverty level (out of 263 total districts). \[FRL --
> free and reduced-priced lunch\] Supporting data are found in Appendix
> 1.

There are no apparent inequities between the percent of HQT or the
number of years of experience in the high and low poverty schools.

3.  **Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing
    inequities in teacher assignment?**

[]{.mark}

While the ADE is not responsible for the individual hiring practices of
the local schools, assistance is provided to ensure that districts are
able to hire HQT and highly effective teachers. A number of the
strategies that Arkansas is using to attract and retain teachers in high
need schools include Troops to Teachers, Teach for America, and the
Non-Traditional Licensure Program. These and other major strategies,
programs and resources can be found in Appendix 11.

4.  **Does the plan provide evidence for the probable success of the
    strategies it includes?**

Arkansas' plan provides probable evidence of success for the strategies
included as evidenced by the fact that there are no inequities among
high minority school districts, high poverty school districts or schools
on any level of School Improvement. For a first-year data pull,
Arkansas' percentage of classes taught by HQT is at 84.8%. The state is
confident that with improved data collection and reporting and the fact
that Arkansas is a testing state for licensure in the content areas, the
goal of attaining a higher percentage of HQT will be greatly improved as
Arkansas continues to progress toward the 100% goal.

At the end of the 07-08 school year, having obtained and disaggregated
three (3) years of data by teachers, schools, districts and state-wide,
these strategies will be revisited, re-evaluated and re-prioritized to
ensure the success of Arkansas' measurable objective.

**6.5 Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the issue of
equitable teacher assignment when it monitors LEAs and how this will be
done?**

The Arkansas Department of Education annually monitors school districts
through the Standards Accreditation and Assurance monitoring visits. In
that visit, ADE ensures that all teachers are fully licensed in all core
academic areas for which instruction is offered.

Beginning with the 2006-07 school year, the HQT status of teachers
teaching in core academic subjects will be monitored and the percent of
classes taught by highly qualified teachers will be reviewed to
determine if schools and districts have met the measurable objectives.

In the 2007-08 school year, the Rules Governing the Standards
Accreditation Unit will recognize HQT and the percent of classes taught
by HQT as an objective that will carry sanctions in the schools' and
districts' accreditation reports. Schools are reported as accredited,
accredited-cited or placed on probation. This information is made public
on the state and district report cards. In addition, the ACSIP unit,
affiliated with Standards Accreditation, will continue working with
schools in School Improvement to ensure that high poverty, high minority
children have equitable access to experienced, highly qualified and
highly effective teachers.

A future plan of the state, with a target implementation date of the
2007-08 school year, is that the new data warehouse will enable the ADE
to conduct a mobility study of teachers. This information may isolate
and identify problems and issues that relate to teacher mobility as it
applies to reasons that teachers leave employment in hard-to-staff
schools.