Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330321/description-tags-mt
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 07:33:37
Document Index: 358207956

Matched Legal Cases: ['§9101', '§602', '§1111', '§1119', '§1111', '§9101', '§1111']

description: tags: mt | Adequate Yearly Progress | No Child Left Behind Act
Uploaded by anon-166313
Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans State: MONTANA Date of Review: 5/9/06 Overall Recommendation: _____ Revised Plan Not Required: The State is making substantial progress and is not required to submit a revised HQT plan _____ Revised Plan Required: The State has shown good-faith effort in meeting the HQT goal but a revised HQT plan is required __X__ Revised Plan Required, Possible Sanctions: The State has not shown good-faith effort in meeting the HQT goal. A revised HQT plan is required and the Department will consider appropriate administrative actions or sanctions Comments to support recommendation: • While Montana collects and reports HQT data, the State did not report data in adherence with correct HQT definitions. The data reported in the State’s annual report card and in its 2004-05 CSPR reflect an HQT population that was out of compliance with the NCLB HQT requirements. Given the approaching 2005-06 HQT deadline, the lack of accurate data is a serious concern. Because Montana has incorrectly identified its new elementary teachers as HQ, Montana cannot ensure that principals in all Title I schools send the required notification to parents when children are taught by teachers who are not HQ. Though Montana has various strategies for recruiting and retaining experienced and high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools, the State lacks a cohesive written plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other children.
Requirement 1: Appropriate HQT Definitions—A State must have a definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that is consistent with the law, and it must use this definition to determine the status of all teachers, including special education teachers, who teach core academic subjects [ESEA §9101(23); IDEA §602(10)]. Y/N/U Evidence Does the State have an appropriate HQT definition in place? Do the definitions apply to all teachers of core academic subjects, including special education teachers? Y Has the State used these definitions to determine the HQ status of all teachers? N If the State has established HOUSSE procedures, has it completed its review of teachers who are not new to the profession? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided N Y Finding: ___ Requirement 1 has been met ___ Requirement 1 has been partially met _x_ Requirement 1 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline* Supporting Narrative: • The U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducted an NCLB Title II, Part A, monitoring review of Montana and found the State to be out of compliance in determining the HQ status of new elementary teachers. Montana has submitted a proposal to ED indicating that the State has instituted a multi-dimensional test embedded in its teacher preparation program. ED has not accepted this proposal. All other findings have been reconciled. Montana is in the process of conducting its final HOUSSE review of its veteran teachers.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the December 14-16, 2004 visit (4/7/05); Montana State Response (7/2/05, 11/23/05, 4/28/06).
Requirement 2: Public Reporting of HQT Data—A State must provide parents and the public with accurate, complete reports on the number and percentage of classes in core academic subjects taught by highly qualified teachers. States and districts must provide these data to parents through school, district, and State report cards. Parents of students in schools receiving Title I funds must be notified that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their children’s teachers, and they must be notified if their children have been assigned to or taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified [ESEA §1111(h)(6) and §1119(i)]. Y/N/U Evidence N Does the State have an Annual State Report Card that contains required information on the qualifications of teachers, including the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers? N Does the State have annual report cards for all of its LEAs and schools that contain required information on the qualifications of teachers, including the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers? Y Does the State assure that all report cards are available to the public? N Does the SEA assure that principals in all Title I schools send the required notification to parents when children are taught by teachers who are not HQ? Does the SEA have evidence that notification occurs in a timely way? Y Does the SEA ensure that parents of students in Title I districts are notified that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their children’s teachers? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided Finding: ___ Requirement 2 has been met ___ Requirement 2 has been partially met _X_ Requirement 2 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: Website link to report cards: http://www.opi.mt.gov/ The most recent report card data are for the 2003-2004 year. Were HQT data included in the report cards? yes Other information (if available): http://data.opi.mt.gov/WebReportcard/HqTeacher.php
While Montana publishes State and LEA report cards with the required HQT data, the most recent version on the State’s website was prepared using the incorrect HQT definitions (see Requirement 1). Because Montana has incorrectly identified its new elementary teachers as HQ, Montana cannot ensure that principals in all Title I schools send the required notification to parents when children are taught by teachers who are not HQ.
Requirement 3: Data Reporting to ED—States must submit complete and accurate data to the U.S. Secretary of Education on their implementation of the HQT requirements as part of their Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). In addition to reporting the number and percentage of core academic classes being taught by highly qualified teachers in all schools, States must report on the number and percentage of core academic classes being taught in “high-” and “low-poverty” schools [ESEA §1111(h)(4)(G) and §9101(23)]. States must also provide additional information in the CSPR that describes, for classes taught by non-HQ teachers, the reasons why the teachers are not highly qualified. Y/N/U Evidence Did the State submit complete HQT data in the 2004-05 CSPR? Are the submitted HQT data reported at the classroom level? Were data disaggregated for elementary and secondary schools? Were data disaggregated by high- and low-poverty elementary schools and high- and low-poverty secondary schools? Y Did the State provide specific information describing the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided N Y Y Y Finding: ___ Requirement 3 has been met ___ Requirement 3 has been partially met _X_ Requirement 3 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: • While Montana submitted 2004-05 CSPR data by the required disaggregated categories, the data are not reported in adherence with the correct HQT definitions. Given that the data reflect an HQT population that was out of compliance with the NCLB HQT requirements, the State cannot meet Requirement 3.
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, 2006
Requirement 4: Equity Plans—States must have a plan in place to ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other children [ESEA §1111(b)(8)(C)]. Y/N/U Evidence U Does the State have a plan in place to ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-offield teachers at higher rates than are other children? U Does the plan include specific strategies for addressing inequities in teacher assignment? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided Finding: ___ Requirement 4 has been met _X_ Requirement 4 has been partially met ___ Requirement 4 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: • During the State’s monitoring review, ED did not ask Montana about its plan to ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-offield teachers at higher rates than are other children A review of the State’s website and use of State Activities Funds found that Nevada has various strategies for recruiting and retaining experienced and high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools. However, it appears that the State lacks a written plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other children.
School Type Total Number of Number of Core Percentage of Core Core Academic Academic Classes Taught Academic Classes Taught Classes by Highly Qualified by Highly Qualified Teachers Teachers 22,725 11,379 11,346 3,995 4,687 22,458 11,298 11,160 3,930 4,627 98.8 99.3 98.4 98.4 98.7
School Type Total Number of Number of Core Percentage of Core Core Academic Academic Classes Taught Academic Classes Taught Classes by Highly Qualified by Highly Qualified Teachers Teachers 22,917 22,777 99.4
2,071 2,430 11,780
2,052 2,411 11,721
99.0 99.2 99.5
1,958 2,297 11,137
1,937 2,276 11,056
98.9 99.1 99.3
Finding: ___ The State is making annual progress in increasing the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers _X_ The State is not making annual progress in increasing the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: • While Montana submitted 2004-05 CSPR data by the required disaggregated categories, the data are not reported in adherence with the correct HQT definitions. Given that the data reflect an HQT population that was out of compliance with the NCLB HQT requirements, it is not possible to measure the State’s overall progress in meeting the HQT goal.
The 2004-05 CSPR data must show that the State has made substantial progress in reaching the goal that, after the 2005-06 school year, 100 percent of all core academic classes will be taught by a highly qualified teacher. Y/N/U/NA Evidence Is the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty elementary schools reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 U points) the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in low-poverty elementary schools? Is the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty secondary schools reasonably close to (e.g., within 5 Y points) the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in low-poverty secondary schools? Has the State made substantial progress since 2002-03 in reaching U the goal of 100 percent of classes taught by highly qualified teachers? Are at least 90 percent of classes, in total, taught by highly qualified U teachers? Are at least 90 percent of elementary school classes taught by U highly qualified teachers? Are at least 90 percent of secondary school classes taught by highly Y qualified teachers? If more than 90 percent of classes are taught by highly qualified teachers, do the data on teachers who remain non-HQT suggest U special cases that may make it difficult for the State to meet the HQT goal? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided; NA=Not Applicable Finding: ___ The State has made substantial progress in meeting the HQT goal _X_ The State has not made substantial progress in meeting the HQT goal ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: • While Montana submitted 2004-05 CSPR data by the required disaggregated categories, the data are not reported in adherence with the correct HQT definitions. Given that the data reflect an HQT population that was out of compliance with the NCLB HQT requirements, it is not possible to measure the State’s overall progress in meeting the HQT goal at the elementary level. At the secondary level, 99 percent of classes were taught by HQTs in 2004-05, and there were no gaps between high- and low-poverty schools.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the December 14-16, 2004 visit (4/7/05); Montana State Response (7/2/05, 11/23/05, 4/28/06); Consolidated State Performance Report, 2006.