Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1329714/description-tags-ks
Timestamp: 2018-06-18 18:46:03
Document Index: 761930421

Matched Legal Cases: ['§9304', '§9302', '§9101', '§1111', '§9101', '§9101', '§9101', '§9101', '§9101', '§1119', '§1111', '§1111', '§9101', '§1111', '§2121', '§2122', '§2122', '§2141', '§9101', '§9101', '§1119', '§2123', '§1111', '§1111', '§9101', '§1111', '§1111', '§1111', '§2121', '§2121']

description: tags: ks | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | Teachers
Uploaded by anon-935296
January 31, 2006 HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS (ESEA TITLE II, PART A) MONITORING
REPORT Kansas State Department of Education December 12-14, 2005 U.S. Department of Education (ED) Monitoring Team Miriam Lund Michael Kestner Allison Henderson (Westat) Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) Bob Corkins, Commissioner Dale Dennis, Deputy Commissioner Alexa Posny, Deputy Commissioner Judi Miller, Assistant Director Martha Gage, Director Beth Fultz, Education Program Consultant Susan Helbert, Assistant Director Ron Nitcher, Director Norma Cregan, Education Program Consultant Nicole Clark, Program Consultant II Diane DeBacker, Director Bill Hagerman, Director Mark McBeth, Education Program Consultant Jeanne Duncan, Education Program Consultant Kansas Board of Regents Kathryne Muller, SAHE Coordinator Mallone Davies, Grantee Overview of Kansas Number of districts: 300 Number of teachers: 39,859 Allocations State Allocation (FY 20041) $22,581,939 LEA Allocation (FY 2004) $21,238,314 “State Activities” (FY 2004) $558,903 SAHE Allocation (FY 2004) $558,903 SEA Administration (FY 2004) $197,090 SAHE Administration (FY 2004) $28,279
State Allocation (FY 2005) $22,378,280 LEA Allocation (FY 2005) $21,046,774 “State Activities” (FY 2005) $553,862 SAHE Allocation (FY 2005) $553,862 SEA Administration (FY 2005) $195,053 SAHE Administration (FY 2005) $28,729
Scope of Review: Like all other State educational agencies (SEAs), the Kansas Department of Education (KSDE), as a condition of receiving funds under Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), provided an assurance to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) that it would administer these programs in accordance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including those in Title I, Part A that concern “Highly Qualified Teachers” and those that govern the use of Title II, Part A funds. See §9304(a)(1) of the ESEA. One of the specific requirements the Department established for an SEA’s receipt of program funds under its consolidated state application (§9302(b)) was submission to the Department of annual data on how well the State has been meeting its performance target for Performance Indicator 3.1: “The percentage of classes being taught by ‘highly qualified’ teachers (as the term is defined in §9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in ‘high-poverty’ schools (as the term is defined in §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA).” The Department’s monitoring visit to Kansas had two purposes. One was to review the progress of the State in meeting the ESEA’s highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements. The second was to review the use of ESEA Title II, Part A funds by the SEA, selected LEAs and the State agency for higher education (SAHE), to ensure that the funds are being used to prepare, retain and recruit high-quality teachers and principals so that all children will achieve to a high academic achievement standard and to their full potential. The monitoring review was conducted December 12-14, at the offices of the KSDE. The monitoring team visited the Unified School District (USD) 251 Wichita and conducted conference calls with representatives of USD Arkansas City and USD North Lyon County.
Element Number Critical Element Has the State developed and implemented 1.1 procedures, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified, to determine whether all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified (§9101(23))? Critical Element Are all new elementary school teachers 1.2 (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to pass a rigorous State test in reading, writing, mathematics, and the other areas of the elementary school curriculum to demonstrate subject-matter competency (§9101(23)(B)(II))? Critical Element Are all new middle and secondary school 1.3 teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subjectmatter competency, in each core academic subject they teach (§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii))? Critical Element Are all veteran (i.e., those who are not new to 1.4 the profession) elementary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subjectmatter competency by passing a rigorous State test or by completing the State’s “High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation” (HOUSSE) procedures (§9101(23)(C))? Critical Element Are all veteran middle and secondary teachers 1.5 (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subjectmatter competency in each core academic subject they teach? Critical Element For each set of HOUSSE procedures the State 1.6 has developed, please describe how it meets each of the statutory requirements of §9101(23)(C)(ii). Critical Element How does the SEA ensure that, since the 1.7 beginning of the 2002-03 school year, districts hire only highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) to teach in Title I programs? Monitoring Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems and Procedures Description Status Commendations Page
Critical Element How has the SEA ensured, since the beginning 1.8 of the 2002-03 school year, that districts that use ESEA Title II funds to reduce class size hire only highly qualified teachers for such positions? Critical Element Does the SEA’s plan establish annual 1.9 measurable objectives for each LEA and school to ensure that annual increases occur: • in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and school; and • in the percentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality professional development to enable them to become highly qualified and successful classroom teachers (§1119(a)(2)(A))? Critical Element Does the SEA also have a plan with specific 1.10 steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, and/or out-offield teachers? Does the plan include measures to evaluate and publicly report the progress of such steps (§1111(b)(8)(C))? Critical Element Has the State reported to the Secretary in its 1.11 Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) the number and percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified (§1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23))? Critical Element Does the State prepare and disseminate to the 1.12 public an Annual State Report Card (§1111(h)(1)(C)(viii))? If so, how is it disseminated?
Monitoring Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A Description Status Does the SEA allocate funds according to the statute, using the most recent Census Bureau data as described in the Non-Regulatory Guidance (§2121(a))? Does the SEA require an application from each LEA before providing Title II, Part A funding? If yes, what information does the SEA require in the LEA application (§2122(b))? Finding
In particular, does the SEA require each LEA to describe how the activities to be carried out are based on the required local needs assessment (§2122(b))? Does the SEA have a procedure to determine the amount of funds each LEA expended during the period of availability? Does the SEA have a procedure to regularly review the drawdowns of the LEAs? Does the SEA have a written policy on allowable carryover funds? If an LEA cannot obligate funds within the 27 months of availability (which includes the extra year of availability permitted under the Tydings amendment), does the SEA have a procedure for reallocating these funds to other LEAs? Does the SEA have records to show that each LEA meets the maintenance of effort requirements? Does the SEA conduct regular, systematic reviews of LEAs to monitor for compliance with Federal statutes and regulations, applicable State rules and policies, and the approved subgrant application? Does the SEA ensure that it and its component LEAs are audited annually, if required, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented? Has the SEA identified and provided technical assistance to LEAs that are not making progress toward meeting their annual measurable objectives in meeting the highly qualified teacher challenge (§2141)? Has the SEA provided guidance to the LEAs on initiating consultation with nonpublic school officials for equitable services?
Monitoring Area 3: State Activities Description Does the State use its State Activities funds to promote the recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of highly qualified teachers and principals? 5
Does the State support activities that focus on increasing the subject-matter knowledge of teachers and that assist teachers to become highly qualified?
Monitoring Area 4: State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Activities Description Status Did the SAHE manage a competition for eligible partnerships? Does the SAHE have procedures to ensure that eligible partnerships include the required members, i.e., an institution of higher education and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals, a school of arts and sciences, and a high-need LEA? Met Requirement Met Requirement
Critical Element 1.1: Has the State developed and implemented procedures, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified, to determine whether all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified (§9101(23))? Commendation: The State is commended for developing the first HOUSSE matrix, increasing its rigor through various revisions, and sharing it widely with other states through national and regional meetings. Many states used the Kansas matrix as a model in developing their own HOUSSE procedures. Commendation: The KSDE has developed a comprehensive yet user-friendly on-line teacher licensure database. In addition to collecting licensure information, the system produces a wealth of information and reports on highly qualified teachers at the State, district and school levels. Critical Element 1.4: Are all veteran (i.e., those who are not new to the profession) elementary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a rigorous State test or by completing the State’s “High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation” (HOUSSE) procedures (§9101(23)(C))? Finding: The State considers elementary school teachers who have National Board Certification to be highly qualified. Citation: Section 9101(23)(C) of the ESEA requires elementary school teachers not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a content test or by satisfying the State’s HOUSSE requirements. Further Action Required: On January 26, 2006, subsequent to the monitoring visit, the KSDE sent additional materials to ED indicating that it has already incorporated National Board Certification for elementary school teachers into its HOUSSE procedures and that National Board Certification was no longer a stand-alone means by which elementary school teachers could demonstrate subject area competence. No further action is required. Critical Element 1.7: How does the SEA ensure that, since the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, districts only hire highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) to teach in Title I programs? Finding: Kansas began testing new teachers in the core academic content areas in 2002, but did not establish passing scores until January 2005. The KSDE considers teachers who took the content assessment during this period—referred to as the “no fault testing group”—as highly qualified. Furthermore, the State did not include special education teachers in its HQT procedures until the current school year. Because of these issues, the State cannot provide assurances that districts hire only highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) to teach in Title I programs. Citation: §1119(a)(1) of the ESEA requires that all teachers hired after the first day of the 200203 school year to teach in Title I programs must be highly qualified.
Further Action Required: The KSDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for requiring LEAs in the State to ensure that all teachers hired to teach in Title I programs after the first day of the 2002-03 school year, including special education teachers providing direct instruction in core academic subjects, demonstrate that they are highly qualified in each core academic subject they teach. The State may retroactively apply the cut scores to the test results for these teachers or may allow teachers with at least 1 year of teaching experience to use the HOUSSE so the State can ensure that teachers hired in Title I schools were highly qualified. Critical Element 1.8: Has the SEA ensured, since the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, that districts that use ESEA Title II funds to reduce class size hire only highly qualified teachers for such positions? Finding: Kansas began testing new teachers in the core academic content areas in 2002, but did not establish passing scores until January 2005. The KSDE considers teachers who took the content assessment during this period—referred to as the “no fault testing group”—as highly qualified. Furthermore, the State did not include special education teachers in its HQT procedures until the current school year. Because of these issues, the State cannot provide assurances that districts hire only highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) when using funds to reduce class size. Citation: §2123(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA allows LEAs to use ESEA Title II, Part A funds to recruit and hire highly qualified teachers to reduce class size. Further Action Required: The KSDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for requiring LEAs in the State to ensure that all teachers hired,since the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, with ESEA Title II funds for class size reduction, including special education teachers providing direct instruction in core academic subjects, demonstrate that they are highly qualified in each core academic subject they teach. The State may retroactively apply the passing scores to the test results for these teachers or may allow teachers with at least 1 year of teaching experience to use the HOUSSE so the State can ensure that teachers hired using funds to reduce class size were highly qualified. Critical Element 1.10: Does the SEA also have a plan with specific steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, and/or out-of-field teachers? Does the plan include measures to evaluate and publicly report the progress of such steps (§1111(b)(8)(C))? Recommendation: It is recommended that the KSDE modify its State plan to include the efforts on teacher mentoring and induction to ensure that poor and minority students are not taught at a higher rate than other children by inexperienced, unqualified or out-of-field teachers.
Critical Element 1.11: Has the State reported to the Secretary in its Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) the number and percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified (§1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23))? Finding: Though the State submitted CSPR data for 2003-04, the data were not prepared in accordance with the HQT definitions (see Critical Elements 1.7 and 1.8). Citation: Section 1111(h)(4)(G) of the ESEA requires each SEA annually to report to the U.S. Secretary of Education on the percentage of classes (in core academic subjects) taught by highly qualified teachers in the State, local educational agency and school2 (a summary of which §1111(h)(5) requires the Secretary annually to report to Congress). Further Action Required: The KSDE considered the “no fault testing group” of teachers tested prior to the establishment of passing scores, in January 2005, as highly qualified and did not include special education teachers in its HQT procedures prior to this school year. Therefore, the required HQT data released in the Annual State Report Card in previous years were not reported in accordance with the HQT definitions. While Kansas now has the correct procedures in place for both groups of teachers, the KSDE must provide assurances that the 2004-05 data will be reported in accordance with the HQT definitions. Critical Element 1.12: Does the State prepare and disseminate to the public an Annual State Report Card (§1111(h)(1)(C)(viii))? If so, how is it disseminated? Finding: Though the State prepares and disseminates an Annual State Report Card, data were not prepared in accordance with the HQT definitions (see Critical Elements 1.7 and 1.8). Citation: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA requires each SEA to include in its Annual State Report Card data on the percentage of classes in the State not taught (in core academic subjects) by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregate by high-poverty (as the term is defined in §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA) compared to low-poverty schools. Further Action Required: The KSDE considered the “no fault testing group” of teachers tested prior to the establishment of passing scores, in January 2005, as highly qualified and did not include special education teachers in its HQT procedures prior to this school year. Therefore, the required HQT data released in the Annual State Report Card in previous years were not reported in accordance with the HQT definitions. While Kansas now has the correct procedures in place for both groups of teachers, the KSDE must provide assurances that the 2004-05 data will be reported in accordance with the HQT definitions.
Critical Element 2.1: Does the SEA allocate funds according to the statute, using the most recent Census Bureau data as described in the Non-Regulatory Guidance (§2121(a))? Finding: The State is using enrollment data, not the required Census residence data, for the part of the allocation of funds based on numbers of children ages 5-17 who reside within the LEA. Citation: As required in §2121(a)(3), in any year in which the amount available in the State for LEA grants exceeds the sum of the “hold harmless” amounts for LEAs, the SEA distributes excess funds based on the following formula: • 20 percent of the excess funds must be distributed to LEAs based on the relative number of individuals ages 5 through 17 who reside in areas the LEA serves (using data that are determined by the Secretary to be the most current); and • 80 percent of the excess funds must be distributed to LEAs based on the relative numbers of individuals ages 5 through 17 who reside in the area the LEA serves and who are from families with incomes below the poverty line (also using data that are determined by the Secretary to be the most current). Further Action Required: On January 26, 2006, subsequent to the monitoring visit, KSDE sent additional information to ED indicating that it has corrected the ESEA Title II, Part A LEA allocations using the most recent available Census data on the number of children aged 5-17 who reside in the area served by the LEA. No further action is required.
Critical Element 3.1: Does the State use its State Activities funds to promote the recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of highly qualified teachers and principals? Commendation: The KSDE is commended for organizing its agency to provide a systemic and collaborative approach to supporting districts in meeting all requirements of NCLB, including the HQT provisions. The KSDE has excellent on-going two-way communications with districts on meeting the HQT goals. KSDE staff were highly regarded by district staff on the technical assistance they received on implementing the HQT and HOUSSE provisions as well as general support of the Title II, Part A program. Commendation: Kansas has set high expectations for all students and teachers, which has been articulated clearly in a systemic manner. Commendation: The State is commended for aligning its teacher licensure standards to student content standards. Critical Element 3.2. Does the State support activities that focus on increasing the subjectmatter knowledge of teachers and that assist teachers to become highly qualified? Commendation: Kansas has used a data-driven statewide needs assessment to target priority areas for professional development. Based on the results of the statewide assessments, the KSDE identified increased student achievement in mathematics as a priority. To help reach this 10
goal, the KSDE, in collaboration with nine higher education institutions, developed the Middle Level Mathematics On-Line Program for teachers holding a K-9 license. The on-line program consists of six graduate-level courses and upon successful completion a teacher may add a middle-level mathematics endorsement to his/her license.