Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

September 26, 2005

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS ANDIMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS (ESEA TITLE II, PART A)MONITORING REPORT

Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public InstructionMay 17-19, 2005

U.S. Department of Education Monitoring Team:

Margaret MilesMiriam LundDarcy Pietryka (Westat)

Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)

Mary Alice Heuschel, Deputy Superintendent of Teaching and Learning - OSPIBob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent, Special Programs - OSPIHolly Zanville, Higher Education Coordinator BoardKaren Davis, Washington Education AssociationBarbara Lawson, Washington Education AssociationPat Eirish, State Board of EducationLin Douglas, Professional Educator Standards BoardGayle Pauley, Director Title I and Title V – OSPIPriscilla Richardson, Director, Consolidated Federal Programs – OSPIStaci Brooks, Director, Grants Management – OSPITed Gifford, Grants Management Analyst – OSPIRon Stead, Director, School Financial Service – OSPICal Brodie, Director, School Apportionment and Financial Services – OSPIJoLynn Berge, Federal Finance Policy Coordinator – OSPILou Colwell, Special Education Interagency Program Supervisor – OSPILarry Lashway, Program Specialist, Professional Education - OSPIRick Maloney, Associate Director, Certification – OSPIJennifer Carrougher, Director, Audit Management and Resolution/Internal Audit – OSPIDawn Billings, Assistant Superintendent, Professional Development – OSPIMardale Dunsworth, Director, Learning and Teaching Technology – OSPIJulie Wright, Title II Part A Program Supervisor – OSPIMary Jo Johnson, Title II Director - OSPI

Overview of Washington:

Number of Districts: 296 Number of Teachers:57,464Total State Allocation (FY 2003): $47,373,203Allocation for local educational agencies (LEAs): $44,554,497State Educational Agency (SEA) State Activities Allocation: $1,172,487State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Allocation: $1,172,487

Page 2 – Washington Monitoring Report

Scope of Review:

Like all State educational agencies (SEAs), the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), as a condition of receiving funds under Title I, Part A and TitleII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the NoChild 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 allapplicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including those in Title I, Part A thatconcern “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 establishedfor 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 meetingits performance target for Performance Indicator 3.1: “The percentage of classes beingtaught by ‘highly qualified’ teachers (as the term is defined in §9101(23) of the ESEA), inthe 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 Washington had two purposes. One was to reviewthe 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 theSEA, selected LEAs, and the State agency for higher education (SAHE), to ensure that thefunds are being used to prepare, retain, and recruit high-quality teachers and principals sothat all children will achieve to a high academic achievement standards and to their full potential.The monitoring review was conducted on May 17-19, 2005, at the offices of the OSPI. Inaddition to meeting with the OSPI staff noted above, as part of the review, the Departmentmonitoring team met with Holly Zanville, the SAHE Coordinator. The monitoring teamconducted conference calls with representatives of the Burlington-Edison, Colville, andPasco school districts, and conducted a site visit to the Tacoma school district.

Page 3 – Washington Monitoring Report

Summary of Monitoring Indicators

Monitoring Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems & ProceduresElementNumberDescriptionStatusPage

Critical Element1.1.Has the State developed and implemented procedures, consistent with the statutorydefinition of highly qualified, to determinewhether all teachers of core academic subjectsare highly qualified (§9101(23))?Findings 7Critical Element1.2.Are all new elementary school teachers(including special education teachers, asappropriate) required to pass a rigorous Statetest in reading, writing, mathematics, and theother areas of the elementary school curriculumto demonstrate subject-matter competency(§9101(23)(B)(II))?Finding 8Critical Element1.3.Are all new middle and secondary schoolteachers (including special education teachers,as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency, in each core academicsubject they teach, in one or more of thefollowing ways (§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii))?FindingsRecommendationCommendation9Critical Element1.4.Are all veteran (i.e., those who are not new tothe profession) elementary school teachers(including special education teachers, asappropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a rigorous Statetest or by completing the State’s “HighObjective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation” (HOUSSE) procedures(§9101(23)(C))?Finding 11Critical Element1.5.Are all veteran middle and secondary teachers(including special education teachers, asappropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academicsubject they teach?Findings 12Critical Element1.6.For each set of HOUSSE procedures the Statehas developed, can the State describe how itmeets each of the statutory requirements in§9101(23)(C)(ii)?Finding 13