Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330979/description-tags-tx
Timestamp: 2018-06-18 23:37:50
Document Index: 359431975

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

description: tags: tx | Teachers | Schools
Uploaded by anon-563189
March 9, 2006 HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS (ESEA TITLE II, PART A) MONITORING
REPORT Texas Education Agency February 14-16, 2006 U.S. Department of Education Monitoring Team: Robert Stonehill Miriam Lund Allison Henderson (Westat) Texas Education Agency (TEA) Nora Hancock, Associate Commissioner Cory Green, Senior Director, Division of NCLB Program Coordination Scott Lewis, Program Assistant to the Director, Division of NCLB Program Coordination Karyn Gukeisen, Grant Manager, Division of Formula Funding Ellsworth Schave, Director, Division of Formula Funding Gina Day, Office of Education Initiatives Robin Gelinas, Program Manager, Office of Education Initiatives Karen Harmon, Discretionary Grants, Grant Manager Kristen Reynolds, P-16 Program Specialist Office of P-16 Initiatives Erin Martin, Senior Director, Discretionary Grants Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Elizabeth Powers, Director, Teacher Quality Grants (SAHE) Richard Blount, Assistant Director for Business Affairs, University of Texas-Dana Center Josephine Hamilton, Assistant Director, Teacher Quality Grants Gloria White, Managing Director, University of Texas-Dana Center Overview of Texas: Number of districts: l1,229 Number of teachers: 294,258 Allocations: State Allocation (FY 20041)
$242,257,252
$227,842,946 $5,995,867 $5,995,867 $2,122,779 $299,793
State Allocation (FY 2005) $241,230,634
LEA Allocation (FY 2005) $226,877,412 “State Activities” (FY 2005) $5,970,458 SAHE Allocation (FY 2005) $5,970,458 SEA Administration (FY 2005) $2,113,783 SAHE Administration (FY 2005) $298,523
Page 2—Texas Monitoring Report Scope of Review: Like all other State educational agencies (SEAs), the Texas Education Agency (TEA), 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 Texas 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 with TEA and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board staff on February 14-16, 2006, at the offices of the TEA. The monitoring team visited the Northside Independent School District (ISD) and conducted conference calls with representatives of the Seminole and Cypress-Fairbanks ISDs.
Page 3—Texas Monitoring Report
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? 3 Monitoring Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems and Procedures Description Status Commendation Page 7
Page 4—Texas Monitoring Report Monitoring Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems and Procedures Description Status Met Requirements
Element Number 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?
Page 5—Texas Monitoring Report Monitoring Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A Element Number Critical Element 2.1 Description 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))? 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? Status Met Requirements Page NA
Page 6—Texas Monitoring Report Monitoring Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A Element Number Critical Element 2.11 Description 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? Status Met Requirements Page NA
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 Requirements Finding
Page NA 9
Page 7—Texas Monitoring Report
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 a comprehensive data system that includes an end-of-year staffing report as part of its HQT procedures. The staffing report has been useful for LEAs and the SEA to target resources to help teachers become highly qualified. Critical Element 1.3: Are all new middle and secondary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach (§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii))? Finding: The State does not require new middle and secondary school teachers of history, geography, civics/government or economics to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of those subjects they teach. The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) issues a general social studies certificate. In order to become certified in social studies, new teachers are required to obtain a passing composite score on a broad-field social studies assessment. The State does not have the ability to generate subscale scores for each of the subject area components. Once certified in social studies, teachers are considered highly qualified to teach history, government/civics, geography or economics. The general social studies degree and the broadfield assessment used for the demonstration of social studies content knowledge may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute. Citation: Section 9101(11) of the ESEA identifies history, geography, civics/government and economics as individual core academic subjects. Section 9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA requires new teachers of core academic subjects to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach. Further Action Required: The TEA must ensure that all history, geography, civics/government and economics teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of these subjects that they teach, no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. (In doing so, if the TEA has determined that the broad-field assessment adequately represents all four content areas or that the coursework requirement for an academic major in social studies provides coursework “equivalent to a major” in each or in a subset of these specific core academic subjects, it also will need to specifically explain the basis for its determination.) Critical Element 1.5: Are all veteran middle and secondary teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach. Finding: The State does not require middle and secondary school teachers of history, geography, civics/government or economics who are not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of those subjects they teach. The SBEC issues a general
Page 8—Texas Monitoring Report social studies certificate. In order to become certified in social studies, veteran teachers may be required to obtain a passing composite score on a broad-field social studies assessment. The State does not have the ability to generate subscale scores for each of the subject area components. Once certified in social studies, teachers are considered highly qualified to teach history, government/civics, geography or economics. The general social studies degree and the broad-field assessment used for the demonstration of social studies content knowledge may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute. Citation: Section 9101(11) of the ESEA identifies history, geography, civics/government and economics as individual core academic subjects. Section 9101(23)(C) of the ESEA requires teachers of core academic subjects not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach. Further Action Required: The TEA must ensure that all history, geography, civics/government and economics teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of these subjects that they teach, no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. 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: Although the TEA presents a wealth of highly qualified teacher (HQT) data in its annual report card, it does not report the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers 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 TEA must report to the public and to the Department, as required by §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers at all grade levels (and disaggregated by high- and low-poverty schools), as required for the Annual State Report Card in accordance with the statutory HQT definitions.
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 1: Texas is commended for using Title II, Part A State Activities funds to support the Governor’s Educator Excellence Award. Grants ranging from $60,000 to $180,000 (depending on campus size) will be awarded to eligible campuses to implement performancebased compensation and incentive programs designed to reward classroom teachers for positively affecting student achievement.
Page 9—Texas Monitoring Report Commendation 2: Texas is commended for significantly reducing its number of waivers to teacher certification (from approximately 4,500 waivers in 2003 to 1,000 in 2005).
Critical Element 4.2: 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 highneed LEA? Finding: In its request for proposals, the SAHE gives funding priority to “high need-campuses and/or high need LEAs.” The SAHE must only award grants that include at least one high-need LEA; individual campuses do not satisfy the high-need LEA partnership requirement of the statute. Citation: Section 2131(1)(A)(iii) of ESEA requires the SAHE to include a high-need LEA in each eligible partnership. Section 2102(3) defines the poverty requirements for a high-need LEA as an LEA that: • • • • Serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or Not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and For which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; or For which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional or temporary certification or licensing [Section 2102(3)].
Further Action Required: The SAHE must use the most recent available Census data (as determined by the Secretary) to identify high-need LEAs. The most recent data can be found at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/district.html.