Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1331110/description-tags-az
Timestamp: 2018-09-21 10:05:17
Document Index: 324137920

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

description: tags: az | Adequate Yearly Progress | Elementary And Secondary Education Act
Uploaded by anon-410069
Protocol for Department of Education (ED) Review to Determine Which States Must Submit Revised HQT Plans State: ARIZONA Date of Review: 5/6/06 Overall Recommendation: _____ Revised Plan Not Required: The State is making substantial progress and is not required to submit a revised HQT plan __X___ 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 Comments to support recommendation: • • • Arizona has made significant progress on implementing its HQT definitions and procedures. Arizona publishes annual report cards that contain the required NCLB data elements. The State reported 2004-05 CSPR data, but reported decreases in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs at all school levels from 2003-04 to 2004-05. However, special education teachers were not included in the 2003-04 CSPR data, making it difficult to accurately monitor the State’s progress in meeting the HQT goal. Arizona 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.
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 Y 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 _X__ Requirement 1 has been partially met ___ 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 Arizona and is satisfied that the State has implemented the correct HQT definitions and procedures. Arizona was issued findings with regard to determining the HQT status of veteran teachers. The State considered elementary teachers with a Master’s degree in elementary education or National Board certification to be highly qualified, and special education teachers did not have to demonstrate subject-matter competency. Arizona has provided an acceptable corrective action plan to ED to address the monitoring compliance issues. Arizona is in the process of conducting its final HOUSSE review of its veteran teachers.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the April 19-20, 2005 visit (7/26/05), Arizona State Response (9/7/05), ED Resolution Letter (10/31/05).
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 Y 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? Y 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://www.ade.state.az.us/srcs/statereportcards/ The most recent report card data are for the 2004-2005 year for State 2005-06 year for LEAs. Were HQT data included in the report cards? Yes Other information (if available):
The State publishes an annual report card with the HQT information and makes it available to the public. As part of its Title II, Part A monitoring review of Arizona, 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 Y Finding: ___ Requirement 3 has been met _X__ Requirement 3 has been partially met ___ Requirement 3 has not been met ___ Additional information needed to make determination _______ Date Requested ______ Submission Deadline Supporting Narrative: • • Arizona submitted 2004-05 CSPR data; however, the State did not provide specific information describing the reasons why teachers are not highly qualified. It is unclear if the State included charter schools in its HQT counts.
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, Arizona 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.
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 103,430 43,578 59,852 22,409 26,074 99,432 42,906 56,526 21,454 25,111 96.1 98.5 94.4 95.7 96.3
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 123,727 117,369 94.9
14,056 10,965 47,244
13,485 10,816 46,055
95.9 98.6 97.5
7,562 9,124 76,483
6,849 8,519 71,314
90.6 93.4 93.2
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: • Arizona reported decreases in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs at all school levels from 2003-04 to 2004-05. However, special education teachers were not included in the 2003-04 CSPR data, making it difficult to accurately monitor the State’s progress in meeting the HQT goal.
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, March 2006 ; Follow-up to the 2004-05 data verification (5/04/06).
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 Y 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 Y teachers? Are at least 90 percent of elementary school classes taught by Y 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: • Arizona reported decreases in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs at all levels from 2003-04 to 2004-05. However, special education teachers were not included in the 2003-04 CSPR data, making it difficult to accurately monitor the State’s progress in meeting the HQT goal. Arizona did not report HQT data for 2002-03.
Source: SEA Monitoring Protocol, Monitoring Report for the April 19-20, 2005 visit (7/26/05); Arizona State Response (9/7/05); ED Resolution Letter (10/31/05); Consolidated State Performance Reports; Followup of 2004-05 CSPR data verification (5/4/06). 9
Documents Similar To description: tags: az
anon-544272
anon-299701
anon-13574