1 

# State Plan s to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators F requently Ask ed Questions

November 10 , 201 4 **OMB Number: XXXXX**  **Expiration Date: XXXXXX**  **Paperwork Burden Statement**  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXXX . The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 116 hour per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this collection , please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202

- 4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this collection , write directly to: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., S. W., Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202

- 3118.2



### TABLE OF CONTENTS: STATE PLANS **- FAQS**  **INTRODUCTION ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **5 A.**  **GENERAL GUIDANCE ON STATE PLANS ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............. 7**  A

- 1. What are the requirements that each State Plan must meet? ................................ ................................ .... 7 A

-2. What does the Department mean when it uses the terms “educators,” “excellent educators,” “equitable access,” and “equity gaps”? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 8 **B. CONSULTATION AND INPUT**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ..............................**  **9** B

- 1. Why is consultation and input on a State Plan needed?................................ ................................ ........... 9 B

-2. With whom should an SEA consult regarding the development of its State Plan? ................................ .. 10 B

-3. How might an SEA ensure that all stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to provide input on the SEA’s State Plan?

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 B

-4. When should an SEA consult with stakeholders regarding its State Plan? ................................ ............ 11 **C. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING**  **EQUITY GAPS ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **... 11**  C

- 1. What is an equity gap? ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 C

-2. What data should an SEA analyze to identify equity gaps? ................................ ................................ .. 11 C

-3. What sources might an SEA rely on for the data that inform its State Plan? ................................ ........ 12 C

-4. How might an SEA use the Educator Equity Profile that the Department prepared for each State? ...... 12 C

-5. How might an SEA incorporate data from educator evaluation and support systems into its State Plan? 13 C

- 6. How might an SEA define “inexperienced” educators for purposes of its State Plan? ............................ 13 **D. EXPLANATION OF**  **EXISTING EQUITY GAPS ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...... 13**  D

- 1. Why is it important to determine and explain the underlying causes of equity gaps? ................................ 13 D

-2. What are examples of root causes of equity gaps ? ................................ ................................ .................. 14 D

-3. What should an SEA examine to determine the root causes of existing gaps? ................................ ........ 14 D

-4. Should an SEA consider context (such as whether a school is in an urban, rural, or suburban area or whether it is an elementary, middle, or high sc hool) in conducting its root

- cause analysis and identifying strategies to address equity gaps? ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 D

-5. How can an SEA improve the quality of its root

- cause analysis over time? ................................ ............ 15 **E. STRATEGIES**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **..................... 15**  E

- 1. What types of strategies might an SEA employ to address inequitable access to excellent educators?........ 15 E

-2. May an SEA target its strategies to a subset of its LEAs or schools? ................................ ................... 163

E

-3. What should be included in an SEA’s timeline for implementing its strategies? ................................ ..... 17 E

-4. How should an SEA work with its LEAs to address inequitable access to excellent educators? ............ 17 E

-5. What Federal funds are available to s upport implementation of strategies that are designed to eliminate gaps in access to excellent educators? ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 **F. MEASURING AND**  **REPORTING PROGRESS AND CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING STATE PLANS ...........................**  **22** F

- 1. How should an SEA measure its progress toward equitable access to excellent educators? ...................... 22 F

-2. How might an SEA meet the requirement to publicly report on its progress?................................ .......... 22 F

-3. How frequently should an SEA update its State Plan? ................................ ................................ ........ 22 F

-4. How might an SEA continuously improve its State Plan? ................................ ................................ .... 23 **G. PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF STATE PLANS**  **................................ ................................**  **................ 23**  G

- 1. How will the Department review State Plans? ................................ ................................ ...................... 23 G

-2. If the Department determines that an SEA’s initial submission of its State Plan does not meet all requirements of E SEA section 1111(b)(8)(C), will the SEA have an opportunity to amend its plan? . 23 G

-3. What resources are available to help an SEA in creating and implementing its State Plan? ................... 23 G

-4. How might an SEA develop its State Plan in conjunction with its request for renewal of ESEA flexibility? May it submit both documents to the Department for review and approval simultaneously? ... 25 G

-5. What is the relationship between an SEA’s State Plan and the obligation of the SEA and its LEAs to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ensuring resource comparability?.................... 264 - DRAFT GUIDANCE This guidance is currently being released in draft form because it is open for comment on the estimated burden to respond to the information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The substance of the guidance, however, should provide a solid basis for developing a State Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators and serve as a springboard for soliciting input from stakeholders. The Department will issue this guidance in its final form in spring 2015.5



### INTRODUCTION Equality of opportunity i s a core American value. Equal educational opportunity means ensuring that schools have the resources they need to provide meaningful opportunities for all students to succeed, regardless of family income or race. To accomplish this goal, all students must have equitable access to a safe and healthy place to learn, high - quality instructional materials and supports, rigorous expectations and course work, and, most critically , excellent educators to guide learning. Yet , too often , students from low - income families and students of color are less likely than their peers to attend a school staffed b y excellent educators, and are more likely than their peers to attend a school staffed b y inexperienced educators or educators rated as ineffective. 1 These inequities are unacceptable, and it is essential that a priority be placed on working collaborativel y to ensure that all children have access to the high - quality education they deserve, and that all educators have the resources and support they need to provide that education for all children . In order to move America toward the goal of ensuring that every student in every

public school has equitable access to excellent educators , Secretary Duncan announced in July 2014 that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) would ask each S tate educational agency (SEA) to submit a plan describing the steps it will take to ensure that “poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children b y inexperienced, unqualified , or out - of - field teachers , ” a s required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary

E ducation Act of 1965 (ESEA) . This is not the first time that S EAs , local educational agencies (LEAs) , and the F ederal government have grapple d with this complex challenge. In response to the Department’s request, SEAs last submitted their plans under ESEA section 1111(b)(8)(C) in 2006, and some S EAs have updated their plans since that time. M oreover, many SEAs and LEAs have significant work underway that goes beyond the scope of those previously submitted plans to address the problem of inequitable acces s. However, o ur continued collective failure to ensure that all students have access to excellent educators is squarel y at odds with the commitment we all share to provide an equal educational opportunity . The time is right for a renewed commitment to address this challenge . The Department has determined that this document is a “significant guidance document” under the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007), available at

1 See, e.g. , Looking at the Best Teachers and Who They Teach: Poor Students and Students of Color are Less Likely to Get Highly Effective Teaching , Jenny DeMonte and Robert Hanna, April 11, 2014, Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/w p - content/uploads/20 14/04/TeacherDistributionBrief1.pdf ); Civil Rights Data Collection Data Snapshot: Teacher Equity , Issue Brief No. 4, March 2014, U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/crdc - teacher - equity - snapshot.pdf ); High -Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals , Charles Clotfelter, et al., March 2007, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research; and data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education from State Reported Annual Performance Reports for School Year 2012 - 2013, available at https://www.rtt - apr.us/ . To see this information, click on an individual State, then follow the link to the section of the State’s report on Great Teachers and Leaders.6

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/2007/012507_good_guidance.pdf . The purpose of this guidance is to help each SEA prepare a comprehensive State plan that meets the requirements of Title I, Part A of the ESEA and help s ensure that all students have equitable access to excellent educators . However, this guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations , nor does it create or confer any rights for or on any person. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance , or if you have further questions that are not answered here, please e - mail OESE.EquitableAccess@ed.gov us ing the subject “ State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators ” or write to us at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs, 400 Maryland Avenue, S . W . , Washington, DC 20202. Please note that this guidance is available in electronic form on the Department’s W eb site at www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html .7



### A . GENERAL GUIDANCE ON STATE PLAN S Title I , Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amend ed , requires a State e ducation al agency (SEA) that receives a Title I , Part A grant to submit to the Secretary a plan, develop ed by the SEA, in consultation with local e ducation al agenc ies (LEAs), teachers, principals, pupil services personnel, administrators, other staff, and parents (ESEA section 1111(a)(1))

. In meeting that req uirement, the SEA must describe the steps that it will take “to ensure that poor and minority children are n ot taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienc ed , unqualifi ed , or out - of - field teachers, and the measures that the [SEA] will use to evaluate and publicl y report the progress of the [SEA] with respect to such steps ” (ESEA section 1111(b)(8)(C )) ( In this document we use the term State Plan to mean only State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators. ) **A -**  **1. What are the requirements that**  **each State Plan must meet?**  Consistent with ESEA sections 1111(a)(1), 1111(b)(8)(C), and 93 04(a)(3)(B), a State Plan must: 1. **D escri**  **be and**  **provide documentation of the steps the SEA took to consult**  with LEAs, teachers, principals, pupil services personnel, administrators, other staff, and parents regarding the State Plan . 2. **Identify e**  **quity g**  **aps** . o **Define** key

terms:  In experienced teacher;  Unqualified teacher;  Out - of

- field teacher;  Poor student;  Minority

student; and  Any other key

terms used by

the SEA such as “effective” or “highl y effective.” o Using the most recent available data for all public elem entary and secondary schools in the State ( i.e. , both Title Iand non - Title Ischools), **calculate equity gaps**  between the rates at which:  poor children 2 are taught by “inexperienced,” “unqualified,” or “out of - field” teachers compared to the rates at which other children are taught b y these teachers; and  minority

children 3 are taught b y “inexperienced,” “unqualified,” or “out - of - field” teachers compared to the rates at which other children are taught b y these teachers.

2 The Department recognizes that not all SEAs will have access to student - level data and thus an SEA may choose to use school - level data to identify the relevant equi ty gaps. 3 Id.8 o Describe **how the SEA identified the**  **equity gaps,** including the source(s) of the data used for the comparison. 3. Explain the likely

cause(s) of the identified equity gaps. (For example, an SEA might conduct a **root -**  **cause analysis** , as discussed in Section D.) 4. Set forth the SEA’s **Steps to El iminate Identified Equity Gaps**  . o **Describe the strategies** the SEA will implement to eliminate the identified equity gaps with respect to both (1) poor students and (2) minority students, including how the SEA determined that these strategies will be effective. An SEA may use the same strategy

to address multiple gaps. o In clude **timelines for implementing** the strategies. o **Describe how the SEA will monitor its**  **LEAs’ actions** , in accordance with ESEA section s 9304(a)(3)(B) and 1112(c)(1)(L) , to “ensure, through incentives for voluntary

transfers, the provision of professional development, recruitment programs, or other effective strategies, that low - income students and minority

students are not taught at higher rates than other students by un qualified, out - of

- field, or inexperienced teachers.” 5. Describe the **measures** that the SEA will use **to evaluate progress toward eliminating the identified equity gaps**  for both (1) poor students and (2) minority students, including the **method and timeline for the evaluation**  ( f or example, by establishing an equity

goal and annual target s for meeting that goal, or by reducing identified gaps b y a minimum percentage every year) . 6. Describe how the SEA will **publicly report on its progress** in eliminating the id entified gaps, including timelines for this reporting. An SEA has considerable discretion in determining how it will include each of the six elements set forth above in its State Plan. The remainder of this document provides specific guidance on how an SEA might develop a comprehensive State Plan that is likely to lead to significant progress in eliminating equity gaps. Throughout this document, the Department uses the term “students from low - income families” instead of the term “poor ... children” an d uses the term “students of color” instead of the term “minority children.” By

using these terms, the Department does not intend to change the meaning of the relevant statutory provision or the population of students that is the required focus of a State Plan. **A -**  **2. What does the Department mean when it uses the terms “educators,”**  **“ excellent**  **educators,” “equitable access,” and**  **“equity gaps”?** The Department uses the following key terms throughout this document and has defined them for the ease of the reader in understanding this guidance . An SEA has discretion to determine whether it will use these terms in its State Plan and, if so, how it will define them . In developing its definitions, the SEA should consider the State’s context and data .9

The ter m **“e ducators**  **”** is used by the Department to describe the group of professionals wh o are the focus of the State P lan. The Department considers the term educators to include teachers, principals, and other school - based instructional staff. The Department en courages an SEA to consider all educators when developing its State Plan because, although ESEA section 1111(b)(8)(C) focuses on student access to teachers, all educators are vital to students’ success and their preparation for college or careers. The t erm **“ excellent**  **educators”** is used as an umbrella term throughout this document to describe the group of educators to whom students from low - income families and students of color should have equitable access. The Department considers excellent educators to be those who are fully

able to support students in getting and remaining on track to graduate from high school ready for college or careers. An SEA has discretion in whether and how to define this term for the purpose of its State Plan. However, the Department encourages SEAs to define an excellent educator as an educator who has been rated effective or higher b y high quality educator evaluation and support sy stems. The term **“e quity gap**  **”** is used by the Department to refer to the difference between the rate at which students from low - income families or students of color are educated by excellent educators and the rate at which other students are educated by excellent educators. By statute, a State Plan must, at a minimum, address the difference between the rate at which students from low income families or students of color are taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers and the rate at which other students are taught b y these teachers. An SEA has the discre tion to use school - or student - level data to identify equity gaps. The term **“equitable access”** is used by the Department to describe the situation in which students from low - income families and students of color are educated b y excellent educators at rates that are at least equal to the rates at which other students are educated by excellent educators . An SEA has discretion in whether and how to define this term for the purpose of its State P lan. By

statute, a State Plan must, at a minimum, address ho w the SEA will ensure that students from low - income families and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by

inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers. However, the Department encourages an SEA to adopt a more ambiti ous definition of “equitable access” that reflect s the fact that certain subgroups of students

— including students with disabilities and English L earners as well as students from low - income families and students of color

— have been historically

underserv ed. As a result, they may need greater access to excellent educators than their peers in order to get and remain on track to graduate from high school ready for college or careers. 

### B . CONSULTATION AND INPUT **B -**  **1. Why is consultation and input on a State Plan**  **needed ?**  As indicated in question A - 1, the ESEA requires an SEA to consult with stakeholders. Moreover, consultation and input are i mportant because stakeholders are likely to have useful insights on the root causes of existing gaps , meaningful strategies for eliminating those gaps , and10

resources to support those strategies, all of which can help an SEA create a comprehensive State Plan that is likely

to lead to significant progress in ensuring equitable access to excellent educators . It is important to provide stakeholders with the SEA’s data analysis (in compliance with all applicable privacy laws, which may

include the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and State law) that identifies gaps in s ufficient time , and with a clear explanation , to allow meaningful input on these issues . **B -**  **2 .**  **With whom should an SEA consult regarding the development of its State Plan**  **?** To help ensure that a State P lan is comprehensive and likely to lead to significant progress in eliminating equity

gaps , and to lay

the foundation for successful implement ation , an SEA should provide opportunities for meaningful input on the propos ed plan to teachers’ representatives, non - profit teacher organizations, community- bas ed organizations, civil rights organizations, organizations representing students with disabilities, organizations representing English L earners, business organizations, Indian tribes , State and local boards of e ducation , institutions of higher e ducation (IHEs) , and other teacher preparation entities , as well as to all of the stakeholders the SEA is required to consult, as described in question A - 1 (LEAs, teachers, principals, pupil services personnel, administrators, other staff , and parents) . Consultation with these stakeholders should include representation from across the State, including with individuals and groups in rural, suburban, urban , and tribal areas . **B -**  **3 .**  **How might**  **an SEA ensure that all stakeholders have a meani ngful**  **opportunity to provide input on the SEA’s State Plan**  **?** An SEA might ensure that stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to provide this input by using multiple methods to disseminate : ( 1 ) information on the gaps identif ied in the data including how the SEA defined key terms ; ( 2 ) the particular questions on which the SEA would like input , including questions regarding root causes, possible strategies to address identified gaps, and plans for measuring and publicly reporting progress ; and ( 3 ) after taking into account the earlier input , drafts of the SEA’s State Plan as it is being developed . M ethods of dissemination might include meetings, the SEA’s W eb site, social m edia, traditional m edia, and dissemination through public agencies or community- bas ed organizations that serve students and their families . In disseminating information , the SEA must ensure that information is made available in an understandable format including, to the extent practicable, in l anguage (s) that families and other stakeholders can understand . (For further information , see question A - 9 in the Department’s Non - Regulatory

Guidance, Parental I

nvolv ement: Title I

, Part A (2004)). The SEA must also ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including providing auxiliary aids and services, such as accessible technology or sign language interpreters, for individuals with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities ( Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq . ; see also http://www.ada.gov/effective - comm.htm).11

**B -**  **4 .**  **When should an SEA consult**  **with stakeholders regarding its State**  **Plan ?**  The Department encourages an SEA to engage with stakeholders earl y in the development of its State Plan and to provide multiple opportunities for stakeholders ’ input through formal and informal means throughout the plan development process . Further, the Department encourages an SEA to continue to consult with stakeholders throughout the implementation of the State Plan and the reporting. An SEA may

combine inp ut and consultation efforts for its State Plan with other such efforts , such as those connected with its reques t for ESEA flexibility renewal. 

### C . IDENTIFICATION OF EX ISTING EQUITY GAPS **C -**  **1. What is an equity gap?**  As described in question A - 2, an equity gap is the difference between the rate at which low income students or students of color are taught by excellent educators and the rate at which their peers are taught b y excellent educators. At a minimum, a State Plan must address the dif ference between the rate at which students from low - income families or students of color are taught b y inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers compared to the rates at which other students are taught b y these teachers. For example, if eight percent of teachers employed b y a State’s highest - poverty schools are inexperienced , but only four percent of teachers employed b y a State’s lowest - poverty schools are inexperienced , the State would have an equity gap of four percentage points with respect t o inexperienced teachers . An SEA has the discretion to use school - or student - level data to identify equity gaps. As another example, in a State using student - level data, if 4.2% of minority students’ classes are taught by teachers rated as highly effective and 6.7% of white students’ classes are taught by such teachers, the State would have an equity gap of two and a half percentage points with respect to highly effective teaching. **C -**  **2 .**  **What data should an SEA analyze to identify equity gaps**  **?** At a minimum, an SEA must identify equity gaps based on data from all public elementary and secondary schools in the State on the rates at which students from low - income families and students of color are taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers (see question A - 1) . An SEA may also use effectiveness data from educator evaluation and support sy stems (see question C - 5 for additional information) . An SEA also may include other relevant data , such as teacher or principal absentee rate s , teac her or principal turnover rates , or frequency of employing long - term substitutes . An SEA may

decide, in addition to analy zing equity

gaps within the State , to anal yz e within district or within - school gaps in access to excellent educators. Understanding these within district and within - school gap s may be instructive in addressing S tatewide gaps.12

**C -**  **3 .**  **What sources might an SEA rely on for the data that inform its State**  **Plan ?**  An SEA should use the wealth of data that is available to it when developing its State Plan . For example, the Department encourages each SEA to carefully review the data submitt ed by its LEAs for the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) , district level per- pupil expenditures the SEA has submitted to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) via the F - 33 survey , as well as data that the SEA has submitt ed to EDFacts regarding classes that are taught by highl y qualifi ed teachers (HQT) 4 in developing the State Plan , and any other high - quality , recent data that the SEA has that are relevant to the SEA’s State Plan . To assist in this review , the Department sent each SEA its own complete CRDC data file that has been augment ed with select ed information from other data sources ( such as school - level enrollment by race and eligibility for free and reduced - price lunch) . Moreover, b ased on the significant work in most States over the past few years to create and update their longitudinal data sy stems, an SEA is likely to have additional data that are relevant to the State Plan , including data on teacher and principal turnover rates or effectiveness ratings . **C -**  **4 .**  **How might**  **an SEA use the**  **Educator Equity Profile that**  **the Department**  **prepar ed**  **for each State?** The Department prepared an Educator Equity Profile for each State , which we sent directly to each State’s chief S tate school officer and EDFacts coordinator in November 2014. This profile is based on data that the SEA and its LEAs submitted to the Department. Using data from the 2 011

–2012 school year, e ach Educator Equity Profile compares a State’s high - poverty and high minority schools to its low - poverty and low - minority schools, respectivel y, on the : (1) percent age of teachers in their first year of teaching; (2) percent age of teachers without certification or licensure; (3) percentage of classes taught by teachers who are not HQT; ( 4) percent age of teachers absent more than 10 day s ; and (5) average teacher salary (adjusted for regional cost of living differences) . The Educator Equity

Profile i s an example of how an SEA might present its data for purposes of developing its State Plan . An SEA is not required , however, to use the data in the Educator Equity Profile in developing its State Plan . Rather, an SEA should use the best , most recent data available to it. Indeed, the Department encourages an SEA to augment or update the data anal ys is presented in the Educator Equity Profile if it has more up - to - date o r relevant information . The Department used the data that were available through the 2011

–2012 CRDC and 2011

–2012 EDFacts . If an SEA ha s access to additional , more current data ; the use of that data will likely

improve the quality

and usefulness of its State Plan .

4 See ESEA section 9101(23).13

**C -**  **5. How might an SEA incorporate data from**  **educator evaluation and support systems into its State Plan?**  An SEA may supplement its analy sis of equity gaps related to inexperienced, unqualified, and out - of - field teachers with an anal ys is of equity gaps related to effectiveness. Alternativel y, an SEA may define “unqualified” educators as educators who have been rated ineffective by educator evaluation and support sy stems. **C -**  **6. How might an SEA define “inexperienced” educators for purposes of**  **its State Plan?** An SEA has the discretion to define the term “inexperienced” for purposes of its State Plan based on its State’s context and data . However, the Department encourages an SEA to define “ inexperienced ” educators as those educators who are in their first year of practice because research demonstrates that the greatest increase in educator effectiveness occurs after one year on the job. 5 

### D . EXPLANATION OF EXISTING EQUITY GAPS **D -**  **1. Why is it important to determine**  **and explain the underlying causes of**  **equity gaps?** Once equity gaps have been identified, an SEA should work to determine why those gaps exist (their root causes). It is critical for an SEA to be able to explain why inequities are occurring so that it can identify the strategies that will be most likely to address th ose causes and , ultimately , eliminate the gaps. An SEA can close equity gaps and prevent them from recurring for a sustained period only

by implementing strategies that are designed to address the root cause s of the gaps. The Department refers to this process of determining and explaining the underlying causes of equity

gaps as a “root - cause anal ys is. ” For example, if an SEA identifies gaps in teacher attendance rates, it might determine, as a result of its root - cause anal ys is , that the underl ying caus e of the teacher attendance problem in high poverty or high - minority

schools is a lack of strong leadership in the schools. In this case, the SEA might work with LEAs to ensure that their high - poverty and high - minority schools implement strategies aimed at this root cause, such as strategies to attract and retain high - quality leadership, in addition to strategies focused more directly on teacher attendance. If the SEA determines, instead, that the root cause of the teacher attendance problem is substandard working conditions in high - poverty or high - minority schools, the SEA might work with LEAs to 5 See, e.g. , Boyd, Donald, et al. The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high - poverty schools . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27.4 (2008): 793 - 818 ; Henry, Gary T., Bastian, Kevin C., and Fortner, C. Kevin. Stayers and Leavers Early - Career Teacher Effectiveness and Attrition. Educational Researcher 40.6 (2011): 271 - 280 . For related research, see Clotfelter , Charles T., Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor. Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects . Economics of Education Review 26.6 (2007): 673 - 682; Harris, Douglas N., and Tim R. Sass. Teacher training, teac her quality and student achievement . Journal of public economics 95.7 (2011): 798 - 812 .14

undertake a different set of strategies , designed to improve a school ’s phy sical environment and educational climate. For a second example, if an SEA identifies gaps in access to educators rated as effective or highl y effective, it might determine , through data analy sis and stakeholder input , that the root cause is a lack of teacher competencies and skills necessary to teach students who have intensive academic and behavioral needs, because many t eachers have not been give n adequate pre - service and in - service support and training on effective instructional strategies ( such as differentiating instruction, providing behavioral supports, conducting progress monitoring, and us ing assistive technology). The SEA might then work with IHEs and LEAs to implement strategies to address the underl yi ng skills gap, such as providing intensive professional development, offering job embedded coaching, or using master teachers as mentors. If the SEA determines , instead, that the root cause of the effectiveness gap is an inadequate supply of candidates from which to hire in high - poverty

or high - minority

schools, the SEA might work with LEAs to strengthen recruiting process es at those schools. **D -**  **2. What are examples of root causes of equity gaps?**  There are a number of possible root causes of equity gaps, including a lack of effective leadership, poor working conditions, an insufficient supply of well - prepared educators, in sufficient development and support for educators, lack of a comprehensive human capital strategy (such as an over- reliance on teachers hire d after the school year has started), or insufficient or inequitable policies on teacher or principal salaries and co mpensation . These are offered as examples of root causes; an SEA should examine its own data carefully to determine the root causes of the equity gaps identified in its State. An SEA should bear in mind that multiple equity gaps (such as gaps on multiple discrete metrics) may

have the same root cause or that multiple root causes may contribute to one equity gap. **D -**  **3 .**  **What should an SEA examine to determine the root**  **cause s**  **of existing**  **gaps?** To identify

root causes, an SEA should examine all availabl e information, including quantitative data or statistics, input from stakeholders (for example, survey results or information provided through focus groups), research or lessons learned in other States or LEAs, and other relevant evidence. Note that identifying root causes may require substantial consultation with stakeholders (see Section B above). An SEA should examine this information in varying contexts, bearing in mind that root causes may differ because of

, and be affected by , context, including geographic region and school level (see question D - 4 ) .15

**D -**  **4. Should an SEA consider context (such as whether a school is in an**  **urban, rural, or suburban area or whether it is an elementary, middle, or high school) in conducting its root**  **- cause analysis**  **and identifying strategies to address equity gaps?**  Yes . It is important for an SEA to consider context because gaps that appear similar may have different root causes in different schools or LEAs depending on such factors as geographic region, including differences among urban, rural, and suburban areas, and school levels. As noted above, consultation with stakeholder groups across the State will lead to a more comprehensive anal ys is of equity gaps and root causes, which may vary from region to region. Similarly, an SEA should consider context when crafting strategies to address equity gaps. Resources that are available in an urban setting may not be available in a rural setting; thus, different solutions may

be appropriate in different contexts. **D -**  **5 .**  **H ow can**  **an SEA improve**  **the quality of its root**  **- cause analysis**  **over time**  **?** An SEA should examine the best information available to it at the time it conducts its root - cause anal ys is . Moreover, the SEA should seek new information to help improve its root - ca use anal ys is in future years . Such new information may reveal different or more nuanc ed root cause s of equity gaps, thereb y enabling the SEA to refine its original root - cause theory and the strategies design ed to address the root cause s . Further, if an SEA does not see progress in reducing equity gaps over time, it should consider if it has accuratel y identified the correct root causes for th ose gap s . 

### E . STRATEGIES **E -**  **1 .**  **What types of**  **strategies might an**  **SEA employ to address inequitabl e**  **access to excellent**  **educator s**  **?** An SEA is not required to employ any specific strategies to eliminate gaps in access to excellent educator s . An S EA should develop evidence - based strategies that are : 1. **T arget**  **ed to the**  **students with the least access to**  **excellent educator**  **s** . An SEA will develop its plan in light of the resources available to it and , given limited resources, it may

not be able to implement strategies to eliminate gaps in all LEAs and schools at once. Therefore, i t is important to prioriti ze the classrooms, schools, and LEAs that ne ed the most additional support in attracting, developing, and retaining excellent educator s . This may mean that , at first, an SEA focuses its strategies on a select number of LEAs or schools with the greatest ne ed . 2. **Responsive to root causes .**  The most effective strategies will focus on the underlying problems that led to inequitable access to excellent educator s, whether those problems include a lack of effective principals in high - poverty and high -16 minority sc hools, poor working conditions in those schools, an inadequate supply of well - prepared educator s in certain areas, lack of professional support, or other root causes . An SEA’s State Plan could also include strategies that directly address identified gaps ( i.e. , strategies that focus on the s ymptoms in addition to those that focus on the underlying problems) . In developing strategies to address the root causes , the SEA should consider all elements of the educator career continuum

— from preparation, recrui tment , and induction, through ongoing support and development, compensation, evaluation, and advancement , to exit or retirement

— to ensure that success in one area is not undermin ed by a lack of focus in another area . Promising strategies that SEAs and LEAs have used, or are using, to increase equitable access to excellent educators include , for example : (1) recruiting, developing, and retaining excellent principals with the capacity to provide collaborative leadership and effective instructional support and to create high - quality teaching and learning conditions ; (2) ensuring that workplaces are safe, supportive, and productive; (3) providing additional support for educators earl y in their careers; (4 ) providing targeted professional development informed by meaningful data; (5) providing classroom coaching for teachers in high - poverty or high - minority schools to promote the use of effective instructional strategies; ( 6 ) providing coaching and mentoring opportuniti es for principals in high - poverty or high - minority

schools on instructional leadership to support teachers in implementing effective classroom strategies; ( 7 ) implementing multi - tiered sy stems of support to deliver evidence - based academic and behavioral interventions of increasing intensity ; ( 8 ) f

ostering teams of excellent educators and providing them with time to collaborate; ( 9 ) creating leadership opportunities for educators; ( 10 ) designing comprehensive human capital sy stems to ensure strategic recruitment and hiring, including hiring educators in a timely manner, well before school starts; ( 11 ) ensuring that a school is not required to accept a teacher without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal; ( 12 ) developing innovative compensation sy st ems that reward excellent educators for working in high - poverty or high - minority

schools and for keeping all students on track to succeed; ( 1 3 ) encouraging reforms to educator preparation programs b y increasing partnerships with those programs, including IHEs, in order to ensure that the programs produce educators who are dedicated to, and prepared for, long - term service and success in high - poverty or high - minority schools; or ( 1 4 ) creating high - quality pipelines to improve the supply of promising new teach ers in high - need schools, coupled with strong retention strategies. Nothing in this document requires or encourages the “forced transfer” of teachers or principals. Such a policy

does not address root causes, and is therefore unlikel y to address inequi ties in access to excellent educators. It also may result in a less supportive working environment for educators, thereb y exacerbating existing equity gaps. **E -**  **2. May an SEA target its strategies to a subset of its LEAs or schools?**  Yes. As discussed in question E - 1, in developing its strategies, i t is important for an SEA to prioritize the classrooms, schools, and LEAs that need the most additional support in attracting, developing, and retaining excellent educators , which may mean that, at first, an SEA focuses its strategies on a select number of LEAs or schools with the greatest need . In its State Plan, an SEA should include a discussion of the LEAs or schools on which it will focus its initial energy17

and commitment, and provide its rationale for pri oritizing those LEAs and schools. Such a targeted strategy

at the State level, however, does not relieve each Title I LEA from meeting its obligation under ESEA section 1112(c)(1)(L) to ensure that students from low - income families and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out - of

field, or inexperienced teachers . See question E - 4. **E -**  **3 .**  **What should be included in an SEA’s timeline for implementing its**  **strategies ?**  An SEA’s timeline should be ambitious, but realistic , and it should prioritize those activities that are designed to have the most significant impact for students with the greatest need . The timeline should include:  E ssential activities to be accomplished;  D ates on which key

activities will begin and be completed;  SEA staff ( e.g. , position, title, or office) and, as appropriate, others who will be responsible for ensuring that each key activity is accomplished; and  Resources necessary

to complete the key

activities, including staff time and addition al funding. **E -**  **4 .**  **How should**  **an SEA work with**  **its LEAs to address**  **inequitable access to**  **excellent educator**  **s?** An LEA that receives Title I , Part A funds must ensure that students from low - income families and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out - of

field, or inexperienced teachers (ESEA section 1112(c)(1)(L)). Accordingly , an SEA must ensure that all such LEAs are taking steps to carry out that assurance, and must include a description of how it will monit or these activities in its State Plan. An SEA is in a unique position to highlight and share with its LEAs promising practices, relevant data, and data analy ses, and to encourage cross - district collaboration to address regional inequities in access to exc ellent educators. Additionally , it may consider convening groups of educators who are committed to resolving this issue and to building the knowledge base of educators across the State on this important work. Further, consistent with ESEA section 1903, an SEA might issue a State rule, regulation, or policy to require an LEA that has any of the State’s highest - poverty or highest - minority schools to monitor and publish data on access to excellent educators in those schools, and to develop plans that are aligned with the needs of the schools to ensure access to excellent educators in those schools. In accordance with section 1903, the SEA would have to submit any such proposed rule, regulation, or policy to its “committee of practitioners” (as described in ESEA section 1903(b)) for review and comment, and identify any such rule, regulation, or policy as a State - imposed requirement.18

**E -**  **5 .**  **What F eder**  **al funds are available to support implementation of strategies**  **that are design**  **ed to**  **eliminate gaps in access**  **to excellent**  **educator s?**  The Department encourages SEAs to provide additional State funds to LEAs with the highest poverty and highest - minority

schools to support their work in eliminating gaps in access to excellent educator s . The Department understands, however, that many SEAs and LEAs will also want to use F eder al funds to support this work . Depending on the particular strategy being implement ed and the school or LEA in which it is being implement ed , Federal funds could be key sources of support for th is work . For example: **Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs (ESEA Title I, Part A** **) :**  o LEAs : Consistent with the requirements of Title I, an LEA might use Title I, Part A funds to promote equitable access to excellent educators in Title I schools , particularl y if those schools operate schoolwide programs, including by funding : (1) incentives to attract and retain effective teachers and principals ; (2) structured induction programs to support and retain teachers ; (3) high - quality

professional development for teachers and principals ; and (4) activities designed to improve school climate. o SEAs : An SEA might use Title I , Part A State - level funds to develop its State Plan and to provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs on implementation of strategies designed to improve equitable access to excellent educators , including guidance on how LEAs can use their Title I funds to further this work. **Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (ESEA Title II, Part A** **) :**  o LEAs : Starting from a high - quality needs assessment that identifies local needs, including improvements in hiring, developing, and retaining effective teachers, an LEA might use Title II, Part A funds to support a variety of recruitment and retention strategies ( such as developing career advancement sy stems or offering financial incentives for certain teachers who are rated as effective ) and other strategies that are aimed at improving school leadership to improve working conditions for teachers. Additionally , an LEA might use Title II, Part A funds to provide meaningful professional development that is aligned to educator evaluation sy stems so that educators in high - need schools have targeted support to help them become more effective. o SEAs : An SEA m ight use Title II, Part A State - level funds to support equitable access to excellent educators in many way s . For instance, an SEA might use those funds to create a central clearinghouse to help high - need LEAs or schools locate and recruit effective teachers an d principals , support the development of performance - based compensation sy stems, or create and provide specialized professional development and other supports to make working in high - need schools more appealing . Similarly , an SEA might provide guidance an d technical assistance to LEAs to encourage them to use Title II, Part A fund s for activities that are designed help close equity gaps .19 **English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act (** **ESEA Title III, Part A** **) :**  o LEAs : An LEA might use Title III, Part A funds to promote educator equity in schools with English Learners, including through high - quality professional development for classroom teachers (including general education teachers who have English Learners in their class rooms) and principals that is : (1) designed to improve the instruction and assessment of English Learners; (2) designed to enhance the ability of those teachers to understand and use curricula, assessment measures, and instruction al strategies for English Learners; (3) based on scientifically based research demonstrating the effectiveness of professional development in increasing children’s English proficiency

or substantially

increasing the subject - matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skills of those teachers; and (4) of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on the teachers’ performance in the classroom. o SEAs : An SEA might use Title III, Part A State - level funds to provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs on implementation of educator equity strategies that are designed to improve the instruction of English Learners , including guidance on how LEAs may use their Title III funds to further this work. **S chool**  **I mprovement**  **G rants**  **(SIG) (ESEA, Title I)**  **:** o LEAs : An LEA may

use SI G funds to support any of the strategies described in question E - 1 as part of implementing a SIG intervention model , consistent with the SI G final requirements and an LEA’s approved SIG application . o SEAs : An SEA might promote equitable access to excellent educator s through the SI G program by

creating a priority

in its SIG competition for LEAs that incorporate activities designed to improve equitable access to excellent educators into their school intervention models. An SEA might also use its SI G State - level funds to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies that are incorporated into SIG intervention models and to provide technical assistance to LEAs that receive SIG funding on this work. **In dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (** **IDEA ,**  **Part B )**  **:** o LEAs : An LEA may

use IDEA , Part B funds in numerous way s that promote equitable access to excellent educators for children with disabilities. For example, an LE A may

use IDEA , Part B funds to provide high - quality professional development and classroom coaching for special education personnel and general education teachers who teach children with disabilities. An LE A may

also use up to 15% of its ID EA , Part B subgrant to develop and implement coordinated early intervening services (CEI S) for students who20 need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment, but who have not yet been identified as having a disability . CEIS funds may be used to carry

out activities that include professional development for teachers and other school staff to enable them to deliver scientifically

based academic and behavioral interventions, including scientifically

based literacy

instruction, and, where appropriate, instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional software. o SEAs : An SEA may

use IDEA Part B funds reserved for State - level activities to ensure equitable access to excellent educators . An SEA may use these State - level f

unds for personnel preparation and professional development and training and to assist LEAs in meeting personnel shortages. An SEA may also use these funds to provide technical assistance to schools identified for improvement under section 1116 of the ESEA or identified as a focus school under ESEA flexibility on the sole basis of the assessment results of the disaggregated subgroup of children with disabilities, including providing professional development to special and regular education teachers who teach children with disabilities in order to improve the ir academic achievement. **Competitive programs:** o Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF ) : TIF provides competitive grants to eligible entities (LEAs, States, or partnerships consisting of one or more non - profit organizations and a State, one or more LEAs, or both) to dev elop and implement performance - based compensation sy stems for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high - need schools . A grantee m ight use TIF funds to promo te equitable access to excellent educators in high - need schools , including by providing incentives to effective educators who choose to transfer to or stay

in these schools , establishing career - ladder positions for effective educators, providing additional compensation for effective teachers and principals who take on additional duties and leadership roles , and providing targeted professional development to all educators in high - need schools. TIF funds might also support extra compensation for effective educators who agree to continu e working in high - need schools . o Teacher Quality

Partnerships (TQP) : The TQP program provides competitive grant s to partnerships of IHEs, high - need LEAs , and their high - need schools to implement teacher preparation or teacher residency programs , or both , that will improve the quality

of prospective teachers by enhancing the ir preparation, improve the quality of current teachers through professional development , and help improve recruiting into the teaching profession . TQP funds might be used to help promote greater equity by supporting high - quality pathway s into the profession and by placing teachers with strong preparation in high - need LEAs. o Transition to Teaching (TTT) : The TTT program provides grants to SEAs and LEAs, or for- profit organizations, non - profit organizations, or institutions21 of higher education (IHEs) collaborating with SEAs or LEAs. The grants can be used to support equitable access to excellent educators by , in high - need schools, recruiting and retaining highly qualified midcareer professionals (including highl y qualified paraprofessionals) and recent graduates of IHEs as teachers in high - need schools, including recruiting teachers through alternative rout es to teacher certification, and encouraging the development and expansion of alternative routes to teacher certification. o School L eadership Program : The School Leadership Program assists high need LEAs in recruiting, training, and supporting principal s (including assistant principals) b y providing financial incentives to new principals ( including teachers or individuals from other fields who want to become principals); stipends to principals who mentor new principals; professional development programs that focus on instructional leadership and management; and other incentives that are appropriate and effective in retaining new principals. An LE A might use assistance provided under the School L eadership Program to develop new , effective principals and assistant principals for high - need schools or to train current principals in implementing college - and career- ready standards . o State Per sonnel Development Grants (IDEA, Part D) : In order to improve results for children with disabilities, grant funds are awarded to SEAs on a competitive basis to assist in reforming and improving their s ys tems for personnel preparation and professional development, and may be used to provide high - quality

professional development based on identified S tate needs, which may

include improving the knowledge and skills of teachers in high - poverty, high - minority schools. o Indian Education Professional Development Grants : This program makes grants to increase the number of Indian individuals qualified in teaching, school administration, and other education professions, and to improve the skills of those individuals. Awards focus on pre - service teacher and pre service administrator training. G enerally , recipients of competitive grants must implement project s as described in their approved grant application s . If a grantee wants to use funds under these programs to promote equitable access to excellent educators in a way that is not consistent with its currently approved application for program funds , it may need to request that the Department approve an amendment to its application . Prospective grantees may wish to include specific strategies designed to ensure equi table access to excellent educators in any upcoming grant competitions. A grantee must ensure that any use of Federal funds is consistent with the requirements for the program. Please note that the list above is not exhaustive and that an SEA or LEA may have other sources of Federal funds that it can use to support its work to ensure equitable access to excellent educators .22



### F . MEASURING AND REPORTING PROGRESS AND CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING STATE PLANS **F -**  **1. How**  **should an SEA**  **measure its progress towar**  **d equitable access to**  **excellent educators**  **?** An SEA must include in its State Plan a description of the method and timeline the SEA will use to measure progress in eliminating equity gaps for both : (1) students from low - income families ; and (2) students of c olor . The Department encourages each SEA to set a long - term goal to eliminate equity

gaps and annual targets for progress toward that goal . For example, an SEA might set a long - term goal of eliminating equity gaps by a specific date, and annual targets toward meeting that goal . Alternativel y, an SEA might set annual targets that reflect a reduction in equity gaps b y a minimum percentage each ye ar. These goals and targets , like all other elements of an SEA’s State P lan, should be inf orm ed by meaningful consultation with stakeholders (see questions A - 1 and B - 1 ). In order to effectivel y evaluate and track progress toward equitable access, an SEA should also evaluate and track the State’s progress on addressing root causes . For example , if a lack of effective leadership in high - poverty schools is identifi ed as a root cause of a particular equity gap, an SEA should evaluate if , in fact, leadership in high - poverty schools ha s improved in order to meaningfull y evaluate progress in eliminating th at equity gap . **F -**  **2 .**  **How might**  **an SEA meet the requirement to publicly report on its progress?**  An SEA should ensure that stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to review information on the State’s progress b y using multiple methods to disseminate the information. For example, an SEA might meet the requirement to publicly report on its progress by

including information on equity gaps and progress on eliminating those gaps on its State report card . To ensure that stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to review the information, the SEA might also make it available through the SEA’s W eb site, a public report at a State Board of Education meeting, reports at State education organizations’ meetings, social media, traditional m edia , and dissemination by public agencies or community- based organizations that serve students and their families . (See question B - 3 for additional information on the steps an SEA should take to ensure that stakeholders can understand information.) **F -**  **3. How**  **frequently should an SEA update its State Plan?** Under ESEA section 1111(f)(1)(B), an SEA must “periodicall y” review and revise its State Plan “as necessary

... to reflect changes in the State’s strategies and programs” under Title I . Consistent with this requirement, the D epartment intends to update each State E ducator Equity P rofile every

two years (see question C - 4 for a discussion of the State Educator Equity Profile) , and encourag es each SEA to review and revise its State Plan accordingl y . When an SEA revises its State P lan, it should do so based on its anal ys is of the information it collects on its progress toward eliminating equity gaps , and should continue to seek input from stakeholders on possible revisions .23

**F -**  **4. How**  **might an SEA continuously impr**  **ove its State Plan?** The development and s ubmission of a State Plan is only the beginning of the work to eliminate equity gaps; implementation is critical and will lead to new and better information that an SEA should use to continuously improve its State P lan. An SEA s hould analyze trends in its progress data (see question F - 1) in order to identify strength s and weaknesses in its State Plan and implementation of the State P lan , and should refine the State P lan to address any weaknesses . As described in question D - 5 , an SEA should also consider adding new ways of collecting information to help improve the root - cause anal ys is in future years. Finally , an SEA should continue to reach out to stakeholders (see Section B: Consultation and Input) for input on how well the strategies in the State P lan are being implemented, whether they are achieving the desired results, and whether change s are warranted. 

### G . PROCESS FOR REVIEW A ND APPROVAL OF STATE PLAN S **G -**  **1 .**  **How will the Department review**  **State Plan s**  **?** The Department w ill review each SEA’s State Plan to verify that it meets the statutory requirements ( see question A - 1) . The Department encourages each SEA to take advantage of technical assistance opportunities prior to submitting its plan for review . S ee question G - 3 for more information. **G -**  **2 .**  **If the Department**  **determines that an SEA’s initial submission of its State Plan**  **does not meet all requirements of ESEA section 1111(b)(8)(C), will the SEA have an opportunity to amend its plan?**  Yes . If, after a careful review, the Department determines that an SEA’s original ly submitted State P lan does not meet all statutory requirements, the Department will work with the SEA to help it revise its plan . The SEA will have an opportunity to work with the D epartment to make necessary changes. **G -**  **3 .**  **What resources are available to help an**  **SEA in creating and im**  **plementing its**  **State Plan ?**  In addition to the F ederal funding discussed in question E - 5 , numerous technical assistance and guidance resources regarding equitable access to excellent educators are available to an SEA . The Department has provided funding to two organizations to support S EAs in their efforts to improve the quality

and availability

of excellent educators : the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders and the Equitable Access Support Network . Over the coming ye ar, these organizations will engag e with S EAs to provide individualized technical assistance and to creat e communities of practice that bring together S EAs and experts in the field to foster shared understanding and learning about how to implement and continuously improve equitable access to excellent educators . For individualiz ed assistance in creating plans, fe ed back on draft plans, or24

implementation assistance, an SEA i s invit ed to contact either of these entities. In particular, the Department encourages an SEA to take advantage of the pre - submission review that will be provided by

the Equitable Access Support Network , through which the SEA will be able to receive State - specific feedback on a draft plan before the SEA submits it to the Department. To request information or assistance developing and implementing a State Plan, please contact :  Center on Great Teachers and Leaders: gtlcenter@air.org , or  Equitable Access Support Network: EASN@ed.gov . In addition , an SEA may

wish to consult the following materials: 6

 **Equitable Access Toolkit :**  resources including a stakeholder engagement guide, data anal ys is tool, root cause workbook, and model plan to ensure equitable access to excellent educators. (Center for Great Teachers & Leaders, available at: http://gtlcenter.org/learning - hub/equitable - access - toolkit )

 **Moving Toward Equity** (Center on Great Teachers & Leaders, available at: http://www.gtlcenter.org/learning - hub/m oving - toward - equity)

 **Attaining Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers in Public Schools** (Center for American Progress, available at: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp content/uploads/2014/04/TeacherDistro.pdf )

 **Transfer Incentives for High -**  **Performing Teachers: Final Results from a Multisite Randomized Experiment**  (Institute of Education Sciences, available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144003/index.asp )

 **Right -**  **Sizing the Classroom: Making the Most of Great Teachers** (National Center for Analy sis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), available at: http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/right - sizing - classroom - making - most - great teachers )

 **Portability of Teacher Effectiveness Across Schools** (CALDER, available at: http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/portability- teacher- effectiveness - across -

6 This information is provid ed for the reader’s convenience ; it is not an exhaustive list of materials to which an SEA may refer when developing and implementing its St ate Plan . The Department does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of outside information. Reliance on these materials does not guarantee that an SEA is meeting its statutory requirements. Further, the inclusion of information , such as addresses or Web sites for particular items , does not reflect their importance, nor is it intend ed to endorse any vie ws express ed , or products or services offer ed by these organizations . Note that, although some of these resources were designed specifically for Race to the Top grantees, the Department believes that the information they contain may be useful to all SEAs and LEAs .25

schools )

 **Value Added of Teachers in High -**  **Povert y Schools and Lower**  **- Poverty Schools**  (CALDER, available at: http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/value - added - teachers high - poverty- schools - and - lower- poverty- schools )

 **Teacher Mobility, School Segregation, and Pay -**  **Based Policies to Level the Playing Field**  (CALDER, available at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/1001429 - teachermobility .pdf

) **G -**  **4. How might an SEA develop its State Plan in conjunction with its**  **request for renewal of ESEA flexibility? May it submit both documents to the Department for review and approval simultaneo**  **usly?** Access to excellent educators is an integral part of helping to ensure that students are college and career ready, particularl y for students in the lowest - achieving schools (i.e., those identified as priority schools under ESEA flexibility ) and in schools with the largest achievement gaps (i.e., those identified as focus schools under ESEA flexibility ). Because equity

gaps could be contributing to achievement gaps, the identification and anal ys is of equity gaps can support an SEA and its LEAs in targeting appropriate interventions and supports that are designed both to close equity

gaps and improve achievement in priority , focus, and other Title Ischools. For example, if students in low - achieving, high - poverty or high - minority schools lack equitab le access to excellent educators, strategies to recruit and retain excellent educators into these schools might be effective in helping to close both equity and achievement gaps, thereby addressing the ultimate goals of both a State Plan and a State’s ESEA flexibility s ys tem of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support. Given the relationship between State Plans and ESEA flexibility requests, an SEA may

want to develop key

portions of its State Plan at the same time it develops related porti ons of its ESEA flexibility renewal request. For example, the SEA may want to obtain stakeholder input on the State Plan and the ESEA flexibility renewal request through a single process that simultaneously addresses both documents. Similarly, an SEA may want to develop strategies that will most effectivel y address both equity gaps and achievement gaps in high - minority or high - poverty priority , focus, or other Title Ischools and, therefore, can be incorporated into both the State Plan and the ESEA flexib ility renewal request . An SEA that chooses to develop these documents together is welcome to submit them to the Department simultaneously , as long as an SEA’s request for renewal of ESEA flexibility is submitted by

the deadline (see ESEA Flexibility Ren ewal Guidance) , which is prior to the deadline for submitting State Plans . Please note, however, that because this guidance is being released in draft form while it is open for comment on the estimated burden to respond to the information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Department will not review any State Plans until this guidance has been released in its final form in spring 2015. Inaddition, if the Department modifies this guidance based on comments received on the estimated burden to26

respond to the information collection, an SEA that submits its State Plan before the guidance is final may have to amend its State Plan to reflect the final guidance. **G -**  **5 .**  **What is the relationship between an SEA’s State Plan and the obligation of the S**  **EA and its LEAs to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ensuring resource comparability?**  On October 1, 2014 , the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) releas ed a Dear Colleague Letter (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague - resourcecomp - 201410.pdf ) that discuss es the obligation of recipients of Federal funds, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act), to ensure that they neither intentionally

discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin nor implement faciall y neutral policies that have the unjustifi ed effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin (OCR L etter). The OCR Letter further explains that discrimination in the allocation of educational resources

– including strong teachers and principals

– can consti tute unlawful discrimination under Title VI . The OCR L etter makes clear that data revealing racial disparities in access to strong teachers and leaders would rarely , if ever, suffice on its own as proof of a violation of the civil rights obligations under Title VI . In investigating an allegation of discrimination, OCR would necessaril y inquire into the justifications behind policies and practices that may

have led to those disparities. Certain goals of Title I of the ESEA and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act are similar: t o ensure that all students have equal access to educators who are best able to support students in getting and remaining on track to graduate from high school ready for college or careers. However, there are important differences between these laws. As one example, Title I of the ESEA requires SEAs to focus on ensuring equitable access for both students from low - income families and students of color . On the other hand, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination, includin g discrimination in access to strong teachers and leaders , based on race, color, or national origin , without regard to income levels. Because of differences between the two laws , the fact that the Department approves an SEA’s State Plan under ESEA , sectio n 1111(b)(8)( C ) does not mean that the SEA or an LEA within the State is complying with Title VIof the Civil Rights Act. Nor does a decision under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act not to investigate an SEA or one or more of its LEAs (or a closure or dism issal of such an investigation without finding a violation) mean that the SEA has met its obligations under Title I of the ESEA. Yet an SEA’s work in developing a high - quality State Plan under Title I of the ESEA may be helpful to the State and its LEAs in ensuring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. For example, the Department strongl y encourages an SEA, in developing its State Plan, to begin proactivel y using data on access to excellent educators, including developing robust effectiveness data to identify equity gaps. As discussed in the OCR L etter, that anal ys is , undertaken b y an SEA in connection with the development of a State Plan , may also inform an SEA’s or LEA’s self

- assessment o f resource comparability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In addition, that analy sis, when coupled with the implement ation of effective strategies to27

address the root causes of those equity gaps as reflected in the SEA’s State Plan under Title I of the ESEA , may

help both the SEA and its LEAs avoid a Title VI violation or give the SEA or LEA an opportunity

to remedy

a Title VI violation on its own . Further, such proactive, concrete, and effective efforts would inform any remedies that OCR requires , as a result of an investigation, so that the SEA or LEA can build on its efforts.