Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1328584/description-tags-in
Timestamp: 2018-06-24 23:00:14
Document Index: 644075674

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

description: tags: in | Adequate Yearly Progress | Elementary And Secondary Education Act
Uploaded by anon-828569
Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans State: INDIANA Date of Review: 5/5/06 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 ___ 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 The monitoring visit in Indiana took place January 31-February 2, 2006. Consequently, the monitoring process is not yet complete. Comments to support recommendation: • • While Indiana has made progress implementing its HQT procedures, the State was found to be out of compliance on its definitions for veteran elementary teachers. Indiana publishes an annual report card displaying the percentage of classes not taught by HQTs. The report card, however, does not present information on the number of teachers on emergency permits. Of greater concern is the fact that Indiana’s data are based on HQT definitions that are not in compliance with statute. Indiana has a variety of strategies that address staffing inequities between high- and lowpoverty schools. The State, however, lacks a comprehensive equity plan that would provide a statewide blueprint to ensure that all children have access to a high-quality teacher. The State did not provide complete HQT data its most recent CSPR. Furthermore, the overall percentage of classes taught by HQTs that was reported was based on an incorrect definition. Indiana reported that the percentage of classes taught by HQTs declined 1 percentage point from 2002-03 to 2004-05.
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 N Does the State have an appropriate HQT definition in place? Y 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 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: • Indiana is out of compliance with veteran elementary teachers who predate the State testing program. These teachers were considered HQT if they held a Master’s degree and a license. In addition the State could not determine the HQT status of secondary history, civics/government, geography, and economics teachers. Indiana is in the process of conducting its final HOUSSE review of its veteran teachers.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the January 31, 2005- February 2, 2006 visit (4/10/06); Indiana State response (5/4/06).
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? Y 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 _X_ Requirement 2 has been partially met ___ Requirement 2 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: Website link to report cards: http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/AP/ayp2004state.cfm? The most recent report card data are for the 2004 year. Were HQT data included in the report cards? yes Other information (if available):
While the State produces an annual report card at the State and LEA levels, it does not provide information on the number of teachers on emergency permits. Indiana does report on the percentage of classes not taught by HQTs. Of greater concern is the fact that Indiana’s data are based on HQT definitions that are not in compliance with statute (see Requirement 1). As part of its Title II, Part A, monitoring review of Indiana, ED determined that the State was in compliance with Title I hiring and parental notification issues.
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? N Did the State provide specific information describing the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified? Y=Yes; N=No; U=Undecided N Y Y N 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: • • • Indiana submitted 2004-05 CSPR data. However, because the State is out of compliance with its HQT definition as relates to veteran elementary teachers, the data do not accurately reflect the status of classes taught by HQTs. In addition, Indiana reported disaggregated data only for elementary and secondary school, but not by poverty-level of schools. Indiana did not provide specific information describing the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified. Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, March 2006.
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: • As is evident from the State’s monitoring review, Indiana has various strategies for recruiting and retaining experienced and high-quality teachers in hard to staff schools. However, 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.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the January 31, 2005- February 2, 2006 visit (4/10/06).
School Type Total Number of Core Academic Classes NA NA NA NA NA Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 96 NA NA 95 NA
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 220,002 122,091 96,720 59,050 48,221 211,389 117,274 93,296 55,582 46,731 96.1 96.1 96.5 94.1 96.9
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 222,601 212,105 95.3
--123,515
--116,556
--94.4
--99,085
--95,103
--96.0
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: • Indiana reported modest (1 percent overall) decreases in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs. Because the State is out of compliance with its HQT definition as relates to veteran elementary teachers, the data do not accurately reflect the status of classes taught by HQTs.
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 U 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: • • Indiana did not provide HQT data for 2004-05 disaggregated by poverty level of school, so it is not possible to determine if gaps exist. While Indiana reported that that 95 percent of all classes are taught by HQTs, this percentage is based on data that are out of compliance with the NCLB HQT definitions.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the January 31, 2005- February 2, 2006 visit (4/10/06); Consolidated State Performance Reports.
Documents Similar To description: tags: in
anon-662483
verification i-ems rems and tested not tested-03142011
anon-323862
holcomb r-iii sch imp ppt