Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II, Part A

Reaching and Maintaining the Goal of 100% Highly Qualified Teachers

Submitted by: Georgia Professional Standards Commission Georgia Department of Education November 21, 2006

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table of Contents PART I: GEORGIA’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II A........................................................................................3 TITLE II PART A: STATE ORGANIZATION........................................................................................3 PSC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TITLE II, PART A FUNDING...................................................................3 LEA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TITLE II, PART A................................................................................5 PSC GOALS...................................................................................................................................5 TITLE II PART A - ADMINISTRATION................................................................................................6 GEORGIA’S HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER DEFINITION......................................................................7 PART II: REVISIONS TO THE TITLE II, PART A PLAN......................................................8 REQUIREMENT 1.............................................................................................................................8
Table01: Statewide HiQ Data 2003-2004............................................................................................................9 Table02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005.........................................................................................................11 Table03: State-wide HiQ Data 2005-2006.........................................................................................................12 Table04: 2004-2005 Core Academic Classes Taught by Non Highly Qualified Teachers..............................14 Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers..........................................18 Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers..........................................18 Table 07: 2005-06 School System HiQ Summary Data....................................................................................19

REQUIREMENT 2...........................................................................................................................25
Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006.............................................................................29

REQUIREMENT 3...........................................................................................................................33 REQUIREMENT4............................................................................................................................38 REQUIREMENT 5...........................................................................................................................42 REQUIREMENT 6...........................................................................................................................44
Table 09: Preliminary Data Compaing High Poverty School Enrollment and Percentage of Non Highly Qualified Teachers.............................................................................................................................................47 Table 10: 2005-06 HiQ School System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools................................................47 Table 11: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures..................................................................57

PART III: APPENDICES............................................................................................................67 APPENDIX #1: 2004-2005 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP..........................................................................................67 APPENDIX #2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS ...................................................................................................................................................77 APPENDIX #3: RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISITS......................................................................................................................................81 APPENDIX # 4: PSC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION.....................................................88 APPENDIX #5: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04........92 APPENDIX #6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO CERTIFICATION IN GEORGIA.......................................................................................100
101

2

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

PART I: Georgia’s Organizational Structure for the Implementation of Title II A Title II, Part A: State Organization Four state agencies in Georgia have responsibilities for the preparation, certification, teaching assignments, discipline, professional development, and resulting publicly reported student achievement that define highly qualified teachers. These are: 1. The Professional Standards Commission (PSC) – Responsible for setting and enforcing the teacher and paraprofessional preparation standards, state teacher assessments and certification; sanctioning teachers and paraprofessionals for professional misbehavior; teacher recruiting, and reporting teacher work force data for Georgia. 2. The Board of Regents (BOR) - Governs the 15 state institutions that prepare teachers for initial and advanced degrees in content majors and education pedagogy; the Board of Regents sets principles and course requirements for teacher preparation at public institutions of higher education, and manages grant initiatives for innovative programs such as a teacher induction program or the higher education grants that are part of Title II, Part A. 3. Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) - Responsible for professional development of teachers, setting the state teacher pay scale, establishing the state curriculum that teachers teach, student assessments, school improvement efforts and NCLB programs. 4. The Office of Student Achievement (OSA)-Responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting state student achievement data. Georgia operates a single statewide accountability system for public education that provides a focus for schools, creates a reward structure for success and gives parents information about how their children are performing. The system provides an accountability profile for each public school and public school district. The profiles include (1) adequate yearly progress for schools and school districts (2) a performance index for schools (3) performance highlights for schools and school districts. PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Funding As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A: • • • • • • • • • • Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state application for NCLB funds Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE) and local funds Report annually on the state’s progress toward meeting the state’s annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting teacher quality requirements Assess the impact of the funding on student learning Assess the impact of the funding on improving teacher quality Provide an educational role in interpreting the purpose and use of the federal funds allotment in collaboration with DOE Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA Develop mechanisms to support certification requirements with educational opportunities Develop and implement state activities that complement LEA activities and needs 3

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Work with the IHE to develop competitive grants for the state and LEA activities

4

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A • • • • • Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year’s progress toward a highly qualified teaching staff Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001 through 2006

PSC Goals 1. To provide technical assistance and guidance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) as they develop an ongoing process to ensure quality teachers in every classroom 2. To identify and implement state-wide activities that complement and support the local activities to ensure quality teachers in every classroom. These activities are related to the Department of Education (DOE) responsibilities for professional learning and the Committee on Quality Teaching (CQT) efforts to support educator quality 3. To report on compliance of local school systems in meeting the goal of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006

5

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Title II, Part A - Administration The Professional Standards Commission uses a portion of the Title II, Part A administrative funds to employ seven state consultants who work in assigned regions of the state to assist school district personnel in understanding and applying the requirements of Title II, Part A in each of Georgia’s 183 school districts and the state schools.

6

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Additional PSC staff hired with Title II, Part A funds include a data specialist, a part-time program coordinator, an administrative assistant and a clerk. The PSC provides in-kind support with the services of the Director of Educator Preparation, who is the Title II, Part A program administrator, the Director of Certification, the Director of Special Projects, the Director of Technology and two education staff specialists. The Board of Regents appointed the University of Georgia as the higher education institution to handle the state IHE grant funds of Title II, Part A. The University has a Director of Teacher Quality who collaborates with the PSC and the GDOE. The GDOE uses a portion of the Title II, Part A funds to pay the salary of the Associate Director of Teacher Quality, and provides in kind service of the Director of Teacher Quality. A staff member in the Title I program and a staff specialist in the DOE Department of Special Education also provide input. OSA coordinates the data collection for the state report card including the list of highly qualified teachers by school and district. Federal funds for NCLB are granted to the Georgia Department of Education. The Department in turn contracts with the Professional Standards Commission to carry out the work of Title II, Part A. Georgia’s Highly Qualified Teacher Definition In 2002-03, Georgia adopted a basic definition of a highly qualified teacher as one who holds a bachelor’s degree or higher, has a major in the subject area or has passed the state teacher content assessment, and is assigned to teach his/her major subject(s). A veteran teacher is one who has had three or more years of successful teaching experience. A set of state guidelines located at www.gapsc.com/nclb/admin/files/ImpPolicy.pdf defines the highly qualified status of every type of teacher in Georgia who serves as teacher of record for core academic content, including the special education teacher.

7

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

PART II: Revisions to the Title II, Part A Plan Requirement 1: The revised plan must provide a detailed analysis of the core academic subject classes in the State that are currently not being taught by highly qualified teachers. The analysis, must in particular, address schools that are not making adequate yearly progress and whether or not these schools have more acute needs than do other schools in attracting highly qualified teachers. The analysis must also identify the districts and schools around the State where significant numbers of teachers do not meet the HQT standards, and examine whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by non-highly qualified teachers. Does the revised plan include an analysis of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified? Is the analysis based on accurate classroom level data? In the 2002-03 during the early phase of NCLB Title II, Part A, the PSC developed a software program referred to as HiQ (see www.gapsc.org) that compares the PSC teacher and paraprofessional state certification data with the Department of Education’s teacher employment data to determine the highly qualified status of every teacher, in every school, in every school district in the state. Local school district personnel can review the highly qualified status of their teachers, act on this information to inform parents and the community, as well as work with the PSC to upgrade and make changes and corrections to the status of the teachers. Highly qualified paraprofessional data are also reported through HiQ as is the number of long-term substitute teachers. These data reports are used as a basis for informing parents that their children’s teachers may not be highly qualified, and provides the reasons for those decisions. Table 01 and Table 02 show the statewide summary data reported for 2003-04 and 2004-05. For these data, a teacher is defined as an individual who provides instruction in the core academic content areas who teaches in kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or un-graded classes, or individuals who teach in an environment other than a classroom setting (and who maintain daily student attendance records). These 2003-04 data were used as a baseline and reported by school and school district for them to use to set their yearly objectives to achieve 100% highly qualified teacher work force by 2005-06. The tables included here are aggregated statewide.

8

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 01: State-wide HiQ Data 2003-2004 State-wide School Year 2003-2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. Total FTE NCLB Subject % Highly Group Considered % Highly Area Qualified FTE Qualified FTE All subjects All schools 71444.7 69448.7 97.2 All subjects Charter schools 671.7 585.8 87.2 All subjects Title I schools 35511.9 34497.8 97.1 Arts All schools 4274.6 4103.1 96.0 Arts Charter schools 46.2 36.8 79.5 Arts Title I schools 1832.9 1721.8 93.9 Civics and All schools 27.2 23.0 84.6 Government Civics and Title I schools 7.2 7.2 100.0 Government Economics All schools 17.3 11.4 65.8 Economics Title I schools 0.7 0.5 67.6 Elementary All schools 39252.4 38538.3 98.2 Instruction Elementary Charter schools 360.3 305.1 84.7 Instruction Elementary Title I schools 24986.3 24482.8 98.0 Instruction English All schools 6668.8 6510.5 97.6 Language Arts English Charter schools 55.2 50.9 92.2 Language Arts English Title I schools 2136.7 2076.8 97.2 Language Arts Foreign All schools 1859.5 1785.0 96.0 Languages Foreign Charter schools 33.6 31.0 92.3 Languages Foreign Title I schools 376.7 348.9 92.6 Languages Geography All schools 28.1 16.9 60.0 Geography Title I schools 15.1 9.1 60.1 History All schools 5752.4 5507.3 95.7 History Charter schools 49.3 45.1 91.5

9

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

State-wide School Year 2003-2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. Total FTE NCLB Subject % Highly Group Considered % Highly Area Qualified FTE Qualified FTE History Title I schools 1653.8 1568.7 94.9 Mathematics All schools 6949.1 6701.1 96.4 Mathematics Charter schools 59.6 57.3 96.2 Mathematics Title I schools 2277.0 2196.9 96.5 Reading All schools 1011.9 897.8 88.7 Reading Charter schools 14.4 11.1 76.9 Reading Title I schools 571.4 515.2 90.2 Science All schools 5603.4 5354.3 95.5 Science Charter schools 53.0 48.5 91.5 Science Title I schools 1654.1 1570.0 94.9 The data are disaggregated by school system level, by school, by type of school and by subject area, by classes taught and by each AYP status. The analysis includes the schools that are not making adequate yearly progress. The analysis also identifies the districts and schools in which teachers do not meet HQ requirements and examines the subject areas taught by teachers.

10

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005 State-wide School Year 2004-2005 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. % Highly NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified Group Qualified Area Considered FTE FTE All subjects All schools 75306.1 72924.0 96.8 All subjects Charter schools 698.8 629.7 90.1 All subjects Title I schools 36219.3 35104.3 96.9 Arts All schools 4405.3 4255.3 96.6 Arts Charter schools 43.2 39.2 90.7 Arts Title I schools 1839.4 1742.0 94.7 Civics and All schools 177.7 166.9 94.0 Government Civics and Charter schools 0.1 0.1 100.0 Government Civics and Title I schools 35.8 32.5 90.7 Government Economics All schools 150.9 147.3 97.7 Economics Charter schools 0.1 0.1 100.0 Economics Title I schools 22.1 21.1 95.5 Elementary All schools 39111.5 38494.3 98.4 Instruction Elementary Charter schools 351.1 315.6 89.9 Instruction Elementary Title I schools 24411.8 24001.5 98.3 Instruction English All schools 7873.1 7622.3 96.8 Language Arts English Charter schools 64.4 60.0 93.1 Language Arts English Title I schools 2536.7 2430.9 95.8 Language Arts Foreign All schools 1977.2 1898.9 96.0 Languages Foreign Charter schools 37.7 33.7 89.4 Languages Foreign Title I schools 401.1 372.6 92.9 Languages Geography All schools 247.9 229.0 92.4

11

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

State-wide School Year 2004-2005 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. % Highly NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified Group Qualified Area Considered FTE FTE Geography Title I schools 83.7 78.0 93.2 History All schools 5837.8 5659.5 97.0 History Charter schools 54.7 52.6 96.2 History Title I schools 1712.7 1637.7 95.6 Mathematics All schools 7697.8 7391.9 96.0 Mathematics Charter schools 68.5 64.0 93.3 Mathematics Title I schools 2527.7 2422.5 95.8 Reading All schools 1434.6 1205.3 84.0 Reading Charter schools 19.2 13.7 71.1 Reading Title I schools 799.5 678.9 84.9 Science All schools 6159.8 5853.1 95.0 Science Charter schools 56.3 50.8 90.2 Science Title I schools 1801.3 1686.6 93.6 Unknown All schools 231.5 0.0 0.0 Unknown Charter schools 3.5 0.0 0.0 Unknown Title I schools 46.4 0.0 0.0

Table 03: State-wide HiQ Data 2005-2006 State-wide School Year 2005-2006 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. % Highly NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified Group Qualified Area Considered FTE FTE All subjects All schools 93081.1 87447.4 94.0 All subjects Charter schools 1069.0 962.6 90.0 All subjects Title I schools 43185.2 40943.2 94.8 Arts All schools 4620.3 4503.6 97.5 Arts Charter schools 60.1 57.0 94.8 Arts Title I schools 1939.6 1879.0 96.9 12

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

State-wide School Year 2005-2006 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. % Highly NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified Group Qualified Area Considered FTE FTE Civics and All schools 290.3 259.6 89.4 Government Civics and Charter schools 1.5 0.1 6.7 Government Civics and Title I schools 50.9 45.7 89.9 Government Economics All schools 203.6 194.5 95.5 Economics Charter schools 1.5 1.3 87.0 Economics Title I schools 28.8 27.2 94.2 Elementary All schools 43810.4 42333.6 96.6 Instruction Elementary Charter schools 564.0 521.1 92.4 Instruction Elementary Title I schools 26808.7 25883.8 96.5 Instruction English All schools 12012.6 10912.2 90.8 Language Arts English Charter schools 107.9 94.4 87.5 Language Arts English Title I schools 3956.2 3590.3 90.8 Language Arts Foreign All schools 2110.3 2026.1 96.0 Languages Foreign Charter schools 43.0 37.6 87.3 Languages Foreign Title I schools 429.4 399.7 93.1 Languages Geography All schools 317.6 289.5 91.2 Geography Title I schools 1.0 1.0 100.0 History All schools 96.3 87.5 90.8 History Charter schools 8147.0 7705.0 94.6 History Title I schools 2474.1 2344.3 94.8 Mathematics All schools 10878.8 9787.0 90.0 Mathematics Charter schools 109.8 98.5 89.7 Mathematics Title I schools 3694.2 3380.7 91.5

13

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

State-wide School Year 2005-2006 Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program. % Highly NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified Group Qualified Area Considered FTE FTE Reading All schools 2512.2 2056.8 81.9 Reading Charter schools 23.0 11.1 48.3 Reading Title I schools 1268.4 1091.9 86.1 Science All schools 8157.2 7376.5 90.4 Science Charter schools 71.7 64.5 89.8 Science Title I schools 2428.8 2210.2 91.0 Unknown All schools 17.9 0.0 0.0 Unknown Charter schools Unknown Title I schools 6.8 0.0 0.0 Table 04: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Being Taught by Non Highly Qualified Teachers TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY Data from the 2004-05 school year for classes in the core academic subjects being taught by “highly qualified” teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate for all schools and in “high-poverty” and “low-poverty” elementary schools (as the terms are defined in Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA). Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State and “low-poverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. School Type Total Number of Core Academic Classes 220240 14342 Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 210797 Elementary Level 13674 Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Not Highly Qualified Teachers 4.3 4.7

All Schools in State High-Poverty Schools

14

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY Data from the 2004-05 school year for classes in the core academic subjects being taught by “highly qualified” teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate for all schools and in “high-poverty” and “low-poverty” elementary schools (as the terms are defined in Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA). Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State and “low-poverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. School Type Total Number of Core Academic Classes 26900 61032 100645 44600 159218 Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 26408 59291 Secondary Level 97906 44046 151506 Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Not Highly Qualified Teachers 1.8 2.9 2.7 1.2 4.8

Low-Poverty Schools All Elementary Schools High-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools All Secondary Schools

For those classes in core academic subjects being taught by teachers who are not highly qualified as reported in the above table, estimate the percentages of those classes in the following categories (note: percentages should add to 100 percent of the classes taught by not highly qualified teachers). Reason For Being Classified as Not Highly Qualified Percentage a) Elementary school classes taught by certified general education teachers who did not pass a subject-knowledge test or (if eligible) have not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE b) Elementary school classes taught by teachers Percentage 6%

2%

15

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

who are not fully certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) c) Secondary school classes taught by certified general education teachers who have not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those subjects (e.g., out-of-field teachers) d) Secondary school classes taught by teachers who are not fully certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) e) Other (please explain) (Insufficient information provided by LEA’s) 59%

20% 12%

Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of schools that are not making AYP? Do these schools have high percentages of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified? Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03 indicates that the not highly qualified teachers were assigned to teach in all of the core academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in these core academic content areas (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce). The data indicate that non HQT teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state. The percentage of not highly qualified teachers varies widely in schools not making AYP across the state. There is no apparent pattern in the percentages of teachers who are not highly qualified in schools not making AYP. However, monitoring and assistance to all districts and schools will be prioritized based on those not making AYP with the highest percentage of teachers not highly qualified. See Appendix 01 for the percentages of non-highly qualified teachers teaching in schools that did not make AYP in 2004-05. Does the analysis identify particular groups of teachers to which the State’s plan must pay particular attention, such as special education teachers, mathematics and science teachers, or multi-subject teachers in rural schools? Special Education Teachers For years, Georgia prepared its special education teachers using a categorical approach. Teachers were prepared as learning disabilities, mental retardation, or behavior disorders teachers. Core academic content preparation was not required as part of the preparation to become certified as a special education teacher. Special education data are included in 2005-2006 tables. Georgia has taken actions to assure that special education teachers are highly qualified as noted in the Fact Sheet for Georgia Special Education Teachers (see Appendix 2).

16

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

The results showing the numbers of highly qualified special education teachers and their assignments will not be available until October 2006. Table 07 illustrates progress special education teachers have made to date toward obtaining highly qualified teacher status. In addition to special education, three additional core academic content areas including reading, civics and government, are listed with higher percentages of non HQT teachers for AYP schools. For civics and government, Georgia has moved to change the certification requirements to individual core academic content areas that have replaced broad field social sciences. For reading, in addition to an extensive Reading First program, the state has used the Voyage project for selected school districts. Analysis of state data provided in Table 05 shows that there is a gap in the percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified in both elementary and secondary schools that are identified as high-poverty. The greatest gap appears to be for elementary schools with a differential of almost 3 percent between low and high-poverty schools. See Requirement 6 for Georgia’s plan to use this and additional data to inform the state’s Equity Plan. Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State where significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards? An analysis of school system data indicates that seven LEAs have significant numbers of teachers not meeting Highly Qualified standards (15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical assistance will be provided to these districts by Title IIA Consultants (See Table 07). Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers will be targeted for monitoring. These districts include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs County (12%). Does the analysis identify particular courses that are often taught by non-highly qualified teachers? Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all schools as they monitor the LEA plans and their progress toward meeting the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans developed for each teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA consultants will monitor the use of funds within the local district to ensure that the resources for high quality professional development are targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills to become more effective classroom teachers, and that these funds are focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools, especially those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. In the fall of 2003, the PSC used the HIQ software to collect the first set of highly qualified teacher data, by school district and by state for the 2002-03 school year. The data were published as percentages for the number of teachers highly qualified and were based on the October 2002 Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) report. Since 2002-03, the PSC has refined the HiQ software each year so that individual each school districts could update teachers’ HiQ status as they completed requirements to become highly 17

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

qualified during the school year. These data were again reported to the USDOE in 2003-04, but the format for the report was based on classes taught, not individual teachers. See Table 08 and Table 09 for the 2004-05 data.

Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers School Type Total Number of Core Academic Classes 430,521 324, 956 105,565 91,895 127,264 Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 418,585 317,958 100,627 88,798 125,180 Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 97.2 97.8 95.3 96.6 98.3

All Schools in State All Elementary Schools All Secondary Schools High-poverty Schools Low-poverty Schools

Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified and non Highly Qualified Teachers School Type Total Number of Core Academic Classes 220,240 61,032 159,218 114,986 71,500 Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 210,797 59,291 151,506 111,580 70,454 Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 95.7 97.1 95.2 97.0 98.5 Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by non-HQT 4.3 % 2.9 % 4.8 % 03 % 1.5%

All Schools in State All Elementary Schools All Secondary Schools High-poverty Schools Low-poverty Schools

18

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 07: 2005-06 HiQ School System Summary Data 2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Appling County 40 646 6% Atkinson County 9 264 3% Atlanta Public Schools 1,699 9,773 17% Bacon County 5 322 2% Baker County 78 0% Baldwin County 11 731 2% Banks County 7 391 2% Barrow County 15 1,684 1% Bartow County 236 2,541 9% Ben Hill County 19 523 4% Berrien County 12 487 2% Bibb County 690 3,952 17% Bleckley County 13 387 3% Brantley County 54 653 8% Bremen City 2 295 1% Brooks County 30 407 7% Bryan County 15 1,044 1% Buford City 14 472 3% Bulloch County 58 1,568 4% Burke County 18 820 2% Butts County 65 601 11% Calhoun City 20 536 4% Calhoun County 19 142 14% Camden County 57 1,696 3% Candler County 7 348 2% Carroll County 39 3,602 1% Carrollton City 598 0% Cartersville City 10 670 1% Catoosa County 155 1,676 9% Charlton County 19 309 6% Chatham County 357 5,669 6%

19

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Chattahoochee County 14 133 10% Chattooga County 12 496 2% Cherokee County 106 5,993 2% Chickamauga City 194 0% Clarke County 98 3,446 3% Clay County 1 64 2% Clayton County 1,334 11,473 12% Clinch County 36 290 12% Cobb County 1,409 18,186 8% Coffee County 96 1,204 8% Colquitt County 20 1,416 1% Columbia County 40 3,573 1% Commerce City 9 264 3% Cook County 504 0% Coweta County 135 3,180 4% Crawford County 20 306 6% Crisp County 661 0% Dade County 1 358 0% Dalton City 34 1,472 2% Dawson County 6 538 1% Decatur City 10 628 2% Decatur County 9 994 1% DeKalb County 780 16,201 5% Dodge County 12 576 2% Dooly County 44 358 12% Dougherty County 174 2,611 7% Douglas County 170 3,111 5% Dublin City 55 580 9% Early County 3 546 0% Echols County 9 118 8% Effingham County 7 1,658 0% Elbert County 35 673 5% Emanuel County 11 830 1% Evans County 14 380 4%

20

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Fannin County 17 618 3% Fayette County 100 4,755 2% Floyd County 65 1,820 4% Forsyth County 50 3,955 1% Franklin County 13 635 2% Fulton County 706 13,617 5% Gainesville City 17 815 2% Gilmer County 8 755 1% Glascock County 8 118 6% Glynn County 48 1,964 2% Gordon County 9 1,035 1% Grady County 20 764 3% Greene County 14 357 4% Gwinnett County 1,254 24,852 5% Habersham County 1,005 0% Hall County 103 3,649 3% Hancock County 49 237 21% Haralson County 5 572 1% Harris County 7 747 1% Hart County 3 604 1% Heard County 15 319 5% Henry County 356 5,504 6% Houston County 124 4,546 3% Irwin County 2 308 1% Jackson County 12 1,057 1% Jasper County 14 410 3% Jeff Davis County 472 0% Jefferson City 6 337 2% Jefferson County 9 572 2% Jenkins County 24 327 7% Johnson County 24 236 10% Jones County 38 776 5% Lamar County 39 406 10% Lanier County 13 289 5%

21

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Laurens County 143 935 15% Lee County 26 878 3% Liberty County 144 2,025 7% Lincoln County 4 250 2% Long County 14 314 4% Lowndes County 82 1,576 5% Lumpkin County 19 609 3% Macon County 51 389 13% Madison County 11 799 1% Marietta City 38 1,498 3% Marion County 7 326 2% McDuffie County 810 0% McIntosh County 17 341 5% Meriwether County 38 601 6% Miller County 16 223 7% Mitchell County 60 739 8% Monroe County 9 600 1% Montgomery County 33 246 13% Morgan County 19 640 3% Murray County 29 1,179 2% Muscogee County 570 6,113 9% Newton County 92 2,766 3% Oconee County 4 1,096 0% Oglethorpe County 10 419 2% Paulding County 173 3,761 5% Peach County 68 726 9% Pelham City 12 244 5% Pickens County 16 770 2% Pierce County 19 512 4% Pike County 430 0% Polk County 67 1,160 6% Pulaski County 46 332 14% Putnam County 107 571 19% Quitman County 6 64 9%

22

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Rabun County 459 0% Randolph County 34 274 12% Richmond County 278 5,118 5% Rockdale County 40 2,544 2% Rome City 17 1,045 2% Schley County 200 0% Screven County 24 652 4% Seminole County 45 314 14% Social Circle City 20 433 5% Spalding County 136 1,715 8% Stephens County 9 733 1% Stewart County 12 142 9% Sumter County 120 886 14% Talbot County 7 146 5% Taliaferro County 24 89 27% Tattnall County 36 710 5% Taylor County 6 267 2% Telfair County 35 361 10% Terrell County 9 211 4% Thomas County 32 896 4% Thomaston-Upson County 17 877 2% Thomasville City 15 518 3% Tift County 4 1,209 0% Toombs County 18 746 2% Towns County 8 444 2% Treutlen County 61 189 32% Trion City 210 0% Troup County 84 2,040 4% Turner County 11 339 3% Twiggs County 28 243 12% Union County 49 477 10% Valdosta City 82 1,220 7% Vidalia City 26 584 4% Walker County 46 1,379 3%

23

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly Taught Not Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Teachers Walton County 29 1,737 2% Ware County 20 1,097 2% Warren County 8 137 6% Washington County 64 702 9% Wayne County 20 816 2% Webster County 4 66 6% Wheeler County 238 0% White County 16 1,020 2% Whitfield County 69 1,901 4% Wilcox County 22 295 8% Wilkes County 6 352 2% Wilkinson County 11 279 4% Worth County 8 617 1%

24

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Requirement 2: The revised plan must provide information on HQT status in each LEA and the steps the SEA will take to ensure that each LEA has plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain HQT status as quickly as possible. Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives for HQT? Since fall of 2003, the PSC has used the HiQ software program to identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives for highly qualified teachers. HiQ compares the PSC teacher and paraprofessional state certification data with the Department of Education’s teacher employment data to determine the highly qualified status of every teacher in each school for every school district in the state. Using this web-based program, LEA personnel have the ability to review the highly qualified status of their teachers, to identify remedial strategies to pursue with individual teachers, and to work with the PSC staff to upgrade and make changes and corrections to teacher status records. With this information, LEAs identified annual benchmarks that were established to measure progress at the school and LEA levels (all schools combined and disaggregated by Title I and non-Title I schools). LEAs were able to make comparisons with State HQT data. LEAs then develop annual action plans to achieve the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers and monitor their progress toward meeting annual benchmarks. Using HiQ and the data reports generated from HiQ, the State can continually monitor LEA HQT status by system and school, as well as disaggregation by subject areas and high/low poverty levels. Since the first year of HiQ use, the PSC has systematically refined the software to provide more accurate data, allowing for needed corrections, and enhanced uses of the HiQ resource. An analysis of school system data in Table 07 (page 20) indicates that seven LEAs have significant numbers of teachers not meeting Highly Qualified standards (15% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical assistance will be provided to these districts by Title IIA Consultants. Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers will be targeted for monitoring. These districts include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs County (12%). Wendy LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans: • • Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified 25

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

• • •

Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year’s progress toward a highly qualified teaching staff Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year

Does the plan include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives? LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans: • • • • • Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year’s progress toward a highly qualified teaching staff Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001 through 2006

LEAs are responsible for reviewing their HQT data and conducting an annual needs assessment using the HiQ information. The LEAs are required to develop an annual Title II-A Plan based on the needs assessment to determine the specific issues that have prevented the district and/or schools from meeting the HQT goal (see Title II-A Handbook, Section VI http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_handbook.pdf). The LEAs analyze major differences among schools overall, within specific subject areas, and for high and low poverty schools in terms of equitable distribution of HQT. The LEAs include an analysis as to how the district will reassign and/or recruit highly qualified teachers to fill gaps in current staffing in core academic subjects. The LEAs provide timelines of how teachers who are not highly qualified will be provided support via technical assistance, professional development, and financial and/or other incentives. The LEAs’ annual Title II-A Plans provide information on how the district will meet the annual measurable objective to have 100% of their teachers highly qualified. LEAs are required to report specific remediation steps for each non-highly qualified teacher using the Remediation Method function/tool in HiQ. In addition, the LEAs’ Title II-A Plans includes specific steps to meet AMO, as delineated below. Remediation steps for individual teachers who do not meet HQT requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: • • Testing. The LEA identifies testing options, provide test preparation material or tutorial support, and/or reimburse testing fees. Course work. LEA helps identify course providers and may reimburse tuition fees or provide stipends. 26

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

• • •

Conduct HOUSSE evaluations, as appropriate. Employment agreements. LEAs negotiate with teachers the necessary steps and timeline to meet HQT requirements for contract renewal. Reassignment of the teacher. LEAs can use the CAPS tool provided by the PSC to determine appropriate teaching assignments for specific courses based on the teacher’s certification.

Other steps that LEAs may take to meet HQT goals include the following: • • • • Recruitment of highly qualified teachers. LEAs fill hard to staff positions by recruiting recent graduates from traditional programs, teachers in alternative preparation programs, teachers from out of state, teachers returning to the profession, including retired teachers. Retention of highly qualified teachers. LEAs implement strategies to increase retention rates of currently employed highly qualified teachers. Hiring practices. LEAs implement policies that require only hiring teachers who are highly qualified to teach assigned core academic subjects. Master schedule adjustments. The LEAs offer courses aligned with the qualifications of its teaching staff.

Does the plan delineate specific steps the SEA will take to ensure that all LEAs have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ as quickly as possible? • The Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will take the following actions to ensure that LEAs have plans to assist teachers to become highly qualified.

PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans: • • • • • • Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state application for NCLB funds Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE) and local funds Collect data on LEAs’ and schools’ progress toward meeting HQT goals, and provide formative data throughout the academic year to inform LEA and school progress. Report annually on the state’s progress toward meeting the state’s annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting teacher quality requirements Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA.

Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs’ consolidated applications annually. Review criteria related to meeting highly qualified teacher requirements include: 27

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

• • • •

• • • •

LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and paraprofessionals are highly qualified by August 31, 2006 LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of all teachers and paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that they remain highly qualified if applicable. LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals disaggregated by subject taught and grade level that lack certification and are not designated as highly qualified as well as data on those that are certified and highly qualified. LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right to request the professional qualifications of their children’s teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA notifies parents if their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered highly qualified for 20 consecutive days or more LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and paraprofessionals in their efforts to become highly qualified. The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught more frequently by teachers who are not high qualified. The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in English and any other language of instructions. LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and approved until the LEA’s Consolidated Application is approved by the DOE.

State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement The Title II-A consultants assigned to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) monitor the LEAs’ efforts to meet the state’s highly qualified teacher requirements. The consultants monitor all 183 school districts as well as state schools. The purpose of the monitoring is to ensure that annual needs assessments and multi-year planning are the basis for the budgeting and expenditures of Title II-A funding to LEAs and that the process is carried out within the state and federal requirements for NCLB. LEAs complete a self-monitoring checklist (see www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf) that indicates their compliance with Title II-A requirements. The checklist is also used to help LEAs prepare for monitoring visits by the Title II-A consultants. The consultants use a monitoring form to gather information about the districts’ planning process, highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional data, expenditure of funds appropriated to LEAs, private school participation, and other documentation. The monitoring form is located at gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_monitoring.pdf. Monitoring results are aggregated (see Appendix 03) by the Title II-A staff and reviewed to help the consultants know what technical assistance is needed and where focus should be placed in the next monitoring cycle. LEAs developed their individual plans to have all teachers highly qualified during the 2006-07 school year and they reported the remediation methods to the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist LEAs with this effort, the Remediation Method feature was added to the HiQ program. All LEAs with any non-highly qualified teachers were required to use the Remediation Method feature to report to the SEA to report how each teacher will meet HQT requirements.

28

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006 Remediation Method A highly qualified teacher will be placed in this class Class will be removed from master schedule Coursework - this teacher will become highly qualified for this class by coursework HOUSSE - this teacher will become highly qualified for this class by HOUSSE Testing - this teacher will become highly qualified for this class by testing Unknown Regular Education Classes 1,978 188 210 125 3,693 420 Special Education Classes 2,077 375 252 540 3,658 579 Long-Term Substitutes 344 5 9 288 Parapros Total Classes 132 32 20 97 327 4,532 595 487 666 7,457 1,614

For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form, the Title II, Part A consultants will monitor LEAs’ progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode on HiQ. Using the HiQ correction feature, LEAs will indicate the change in highly qualified status of each teacher as remediation types are implemented, and the consultants will monitor these changes. In March 2007, a summary report of highly qualified teacher status will be disseminated to each LEA and reviewed by the SEA for compliance monitoring. Technical Assistance Provided When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because of extenuating circumstances, each school district has the responsibility to assure that teachers become highly qualified in a timely manner. Title II, Part A consultants provide a constant source of technical assistance to LEAs to help all teachers become highly qualified. Each consultant provides whatever assistance is needed, from answering questions to conducting workshops and/or working with system-level personnel. At times, consultants will also address concerns of individual teachers. Staff at the PSC and the DOE are also available to answer questions and provide data to the LEAs as needed. For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title II, Part A. She attends the monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE have offered numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the state ranging from a statewide Title II, Part A conference, presentations to the Georgia Association of School Personnel Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and to a University forum for special education faculty. A question and answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is immensely helpful to LEAs and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special education certification changes are all part of the effort to provide the best information about changes. Copies of slide 29

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

presentations and other information http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/admin_links.htm.

are

located

at

Georgia has also used Title II-A state funds for a number of projects that help LEAs and their teachers meet the HQT requirements. (See Appendix 3 for a summary of the projects undertaken by the PSC to support the major goals of Title II-A). A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the development of 4 online mathematics courses and 3 online science courses by Darton College. These courses are made available throughout Georgia by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using these courses to add to their content expertise in mathematics and science. Part-time faculty are hired and trained by the RESAs to teach the online courses. Training sessions for instructors have been conducted in three regions throughout the state. In addition, an advisor was appointed to assist the participants with inquiries, admission, and getting their grades and transcripts. The first two courses were offered in January of 2006, the second in March; all of the courses are being offered during summer 2006. By the end of July 2006, 616 special education teachers will have completed 902 of these content courses offered by Darton College. In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II, Part A compliance, and consultants selected school systems by zip code at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist is located at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf. These results are being tabulated. For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for 2004-05, the Title II Part A consultants will monitor for progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode on HiQ for each district. The LEA will indicate the change in the highly qualified status of each teacher, and the consultant will monitor these changes. In March 2007, a report of highly qualified teacher status will be run for the entire state. For those systems with teachers who are not highly qualified, the state will monitor each system and follow the local guidance provided by the USDOE. Each school district must determine how it plans to get all teachers highly qualified during 2006-07, and report the remediation methods to the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist LEAs with this effort, a new feature, called the Remediation Method, has been added to the HiQ program. The Remediation Method is a drop-down box that has been added to the HiQ editor. When a record displays “not HiQ status”, the Remediation Method dropdown will be visible. The initial (default) remediation method of “unknown” will be displayed. HiQ operators will replace “unknown” from among several choices and click the “apply corrections” button to save the remediation method chosen. Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals The Title II, Part A consultants will work with the DOE School Improvement teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that need improvement. They will identify why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility 30

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who does the hiring. (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 4) Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals It should be noted that not only does Georgia processes met the requirements 2141 but procedures are being implemented that goes beyond 2141 to address schools that do not meet AYP goals. The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that need improvement. They will identify why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who does the hiring (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 4)

31

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Annual Time Table of Ongoing Activities Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants who have the responsibility of working with school systems in assigned regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in their assigned regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school system Title II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide technical assistance whenever they are needed by school systems. (See page five of this report). July 1st (each year) 1. PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide # of HIQ teachers by school system, by school and by class assignments on an ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI data and the state certification database. School systems have immediate access to the data and make updates as teachers become highly qualified. 2. Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and disseminate information about methods school systems can use to get teachers highly qualified. August 31st (each year) 3. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and class assignments and indicate using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system intends to provide correction(s). Each school system files a remediation report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission August 1st-September 30th (each year) 4. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the school systems budgets for Title II Part A. Approval is determined by the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either through recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions. September 15th (each year) 5. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for the previous school year and prepares individual reports for each school system as well as an aggregated report for the state. Each school system’s superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance that the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These assurance forms are filed with the Professional Standards Commission. The data are used to compile the highly qualified data report that is issued to the U. S. Department of Education. December 1st-January 31st. (each year) 6. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½ and make an onsite visit. Paper review is used with the other systems. A monitoring form is provided to each school system so they can be aware of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority students.

32

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

March 1st (each year) 7. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made available by the Professional Standards Commission. March 1st-June 30th (each year 8. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made available on an annual basis by the Professional Standards Commission and the State Board of Education.

Requirement 3: The revised plan must include information on the technical assistance, programs, and services that the SEA will offer to assist LEAs in successfully completing their HQT plans, particularly where large groups of teachers are not highly qualified, and the resources the LEAs will use to meet their HQT goals. Does the plan include a description of the technical assistance the SEA will provide to assist LEAs in successfully carrying out their HQT plans? When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because of extenuating circumstances, each school system has the responsibility to assure that teachers become highly qualified in a timely manner. Titles II, Part A consultants provide on-going technical assistance to LEAs to help all teachers become highly qualified. Each consultant provides whatever assistance is needed, from answering questions to conducting workshops and/or working with system-level personnel. At times, consultants will also address concerns of individual teachers. Staffs at the PSC and the DOE are also available to answer questions and provide data to the LEAs as needed. For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title II, Part A. She attends the monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE have offered numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the state ranging from a statewide Title II, Part A conference, and presentations to the Georgia Association of School Personnel Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and to a University forum for special education faculty. A question and answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is immensely helpful to LEAs and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special education certification changes are all part of the effort to provide the best information about changes. Copies of slide presentations, and other information are located at http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/admin_links.htm. Does the plan indicate that the staffing and professional development needs of schools that are not making AYP will be given high priority? The Title II, Part A consultants will target their work in schools with the DOE School Improvement teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that do not make AYP. They will identify why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school 33

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who does the hiring. Title IIA consultants recommend strategies and allowable expenditures of Title II, Part A funds for improvement activities within the local district.

34

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Does the plan include a description of programs and services the SEA will provide to assist teachers and LEAs in successfully meeting HQT goals? Programs and services are provided to assist LEAs with: Recruitment and Retention of Highly Qualified Teachers • National Board Candidate Recruitment/training - Assistance with teachers’ preparation for national board teacher certification • Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities - Preparation of marketing materials, development of the TeachGeorgia recruitment site; and recruitment of minority students • Professional Development in Core Content Areas • Content Course Development for Special Education Teachers - Development of web-based modules for certified education teachers to add content in reading and mathematics • Voyager Reading Project - Professional development program for teaching reading strategies with a web-based module format, developed by Voyager A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the development of four online mathematics courses and three online science courses by Darton College. These courses are made available throughout Georgia by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using these courses to add to their content expertise in mathematics and science. Alternative Preparation Programs for Teachers • Development of Alternative Preparation - Development of web-based modules for the Georgia TAPP program • Development of Special Education Modules - Editing and completion of 11 web-based modules for interrelated special education preparation offered statewide through Armstrong Atlantic State University • Transcript Analyses for Verification of Subject Matter for Certified Special Education Teachers Analyses of certified special education teachers’ transcripts to assess the number of content courses and amount of preparation in the core academic content areas • Alternative North Georgia Consortium – Formation of a regional consortium between college/universities, regional education state agency, and schools districts to provide alternative preparation for teachers Recruiting a Workforce of Highly Qualified Teachers Georgia has signed the 2005-2010 NASDTEC Interstate Contract and currently has reciprocity with more than 50 states, territories, and countries to provide a smooth transition to Georgia certification. Significant changes in Georgia certification rules has helped with reciprocity (see Appendix 5 for Georgia Certification Changes). TeachGeorgia.org TeachGeorgia is an educational recruitment available through the Professional Standards Commission and is free to all teachers and LEAs for their use. The site lists LEA jobs that are 35

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

available and leads applicants through the process of creating an electronic resumes for appropriate placement. Available jobs are posted on the PSC website and candidates are matched to them. International Teachers International certificates are issued to applicants who are from a country other than the United States who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree with a major in the teaching field and have met all cultural/educational visa requirements. The certificate can be renewed up to two additional years at the request of the school district provided that the teacher has met all state requirements during the first year. These teachers often meet critical needs in hard-to-staff geographical and subject areas, especially special education, secondary math and sciences, and foreign languages. Troops to Teachers Troops to Teachers is a cooperative program between the Professional Standards Commission and the US DOE designed to assist retired and separated members of the Armed Forces, as well as Guard and Reserve personnel with obtaining certification and employment as teachers. Troops to Teachers provides support to personnel who are making a transition to teaching and to the districts that hire them. Eligible veterans receive either a stipend of not more than $5,000 to assist in attaining teacher certification or $10,000 incentive grant bonus for participants who teach for three years in a high needs high school. http://www.tttga.net/. NBPTS Certification Support Georgia has a large population of teachers who have achieved certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), due largely to a substantial investment the State has made to assist teachers with the costs of the certification and pay increases once the certification is achieved. Teachers who receive NBPTS certification in 2006 or later must agree to teach in high needs schools. Retired Teacher Incentives Members of the Georgia Retirement System who are eligible for service retirement may elect to participate in the Retired Teachers Program. Teachers may work up to five years as a retiree, while accumulating a retirement annuity and drawing a salary as a full-time employee. Legislation was amended to lift the earning limitation on teachers who choose to reenter their profession subsequent to retirement. Does the plan specifically address the needs of any subgroups of teachers identified in Requirement 1? Review of the statewide data for non-highly qualified teachers indicates that the assignments to teach in all of the core academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in these core academic content areas. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce.asp) The data indicate that not highly qualified teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state. Appendix 4 summarizes the projects undertaken by Georgia to support the identified needs of teachers in the areas of reading, mathematics, science, and foreign language.

36

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Does the plan include a description of how the State will use its available funds (e.g., Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A, including the portion that goes to the State agency for higher education; other Federal and State funds, as appropriate) to address the needs of teachers who are not highly qualified? All federal funds and targeted state funds are directed toward high need schools in local districts with an emphasis on teachers who are not highly qualified. Georgia has and will continue to use these funds for a number of projects that help LEAs and their teachers meet the requirements for being highly qualified teachers. Title IIA Consultants – Team of field specialists available to provide technical support to districts, schools, and teachers on options for teachers to become highly qualified and supporting available resources. Does the plan for the use of available funds indicate that priority will be given to the staffing and professional development needs of schools that are not making AYP? Title II-A consultants will work with LEAs who have schools that did not make AYP to ensure the system has a written plan to address the requirement of 100% Highly Qualified teachers in all classrooms including assistance for each teacher who is not highly qualified to become so in a timely manner. Systems will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for these schools. The Georgia Department of Education School Improvement Division will work collaboratively with Georgia’s Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) to provide technical support for school improvement to LEAs with schools not making AYP through five Regional Support Teams across the state. The Regional Support Teams are made up of educators from School Improvement, Title I and Curriculum and Instruction Georgia Department of Education personnel, RESA School Improvement Specialists, Professional Standards Commission Title IIA Regional Staff, GLRS Regional Representatives, Education Technology Training Center Regional Representatives, and College and University Representatives. Schools in Needs Improvement Years 1-7 receive the support of a Georgia Department of Education Leadership Facilitator (on-site coach). See Appendix 6: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04 Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND CONSEQUENCES. Schools that are not making AYP are given priority for state grants for an academic coach. The Georgia Department of Education is developing state rules to implement a state law passed in 2006 that will provide financial incentives for principals of middle and high schools who have had high student achievement within the past five years to relocate to a Needs Improvement school.

37

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Requirement 4 : The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with LEAs that fail to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Does the plan indicate how the SEA will monitor LEA compliance with the LEAs HQT plans described in Requirement 2 and hold LEAs accountable for fulfilling their plans? LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans: • • • • • Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year’s progress toward a highly qualified teaching staff Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001 through 2006

PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and certification, PSC has responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans: • • • • • • Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state application for NCLB funds Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE) and local funds Collect data on LEAs’ and schools’ progress toward meeting HQT goals, and provide formative data throughout the academic year to inform LEA and school progress. Report annually on the state’s progress toward meeting the state’s annual teacher quality goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting teacher quality requirements Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher in every classroom for each LEA.

Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs’ consolidated applications annually. Review criteria related to meeting highly qualified teacher requirements include: • • LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and paraprofessionals are highly qualified by August 31, 2006 LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of all teachers and paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that they remain highly qualified if applicable.

38

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

• •

• • • •

LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals disaggregated by subject taught and grade level that lack certification and are not designated as highly qualified as well as data on those that are certified and highly qualified. LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right to request the professional qualifications of their children’s teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA notifies parents if their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered highly qualified for 20 consecutive days or more. LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and paraprofessionals in their efforts to become highly qualified. The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught more frequently by teachers who are not high qualified. The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in English and any other language of instructions. LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and approved until the LEA’s Consolidated Application is approved by the DOE.

State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement The Title II, Part A consultants assigned to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) monitor the LEAs’ efforts to meet the state’s highly qualified teacher requirements. In 2003-04, the consultants monitored all 183 school districts as well as the state schools. The purpose of the monitoring was to ensure that an annual needs assessment and multi-year planning are the basis for the budgeting and expenditures of the Title II, Part A funding to local systems, and that the process is carried out within the state and federal requirements for NCLB. The consultants used a monitoring form to gather information about the districts’ planning process, highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional data, expenditure of funds appropriated to LEAs, private school participation, and other documentation. The monitoring form is located at http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_monitor.pdf . The data were aggregated by the Title II, Part A staff. Ninety-six percent of LEAs provided evidence for monitoring criterion I-E of planning for improved teacher and principal quality. These data were not disaggregated based on whether or not school districts met AYP goals. In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II, Part A compliance, and consultants selected school systems by zip code at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist is located at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf. These results are being tabulated, and will be disaggregated based on whether or not school districts meet AYP goals and on whether school districts include a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. For 2006-2007, a prioritized monitoring list will be used that is based on districts that did not meet AYP that have the highest percentages of non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools or schools with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. On-site monitoring will be conducted first in those districts with high numbers of non-HiQ teachers teaching in needs improvement schools with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for 2004-05, the Title II Part A consultants will monitor for progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode on HiQ for each district using the HiQ data base. Title II A consultants will 39

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

carefully review the data and schedule monitoring visits to districts, giving priority to those that do not make AYP. Districts will provide appropriate documentation of plans and progress toward meeting the 100% goal. A plan for corrective action will be mandated for districts that do not fulfill their plans or make sufficient progress. In March 2007, a report of highly qualified teacher status will be run for the entire state. This report will be the basis for the annual Title IIA report to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in 2007. Does the plan show how technical assistance from the SEA to help LEAs meet the 100 percent HQT goal will be targeted toward LEAs and schools that are not making AYP? Georgia DOE Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Technical Assistance As the state agency responsible for student achievement and LEA goals in K-12 schools, the Georgia Department of Education has established a method for determining whether schools and districts meet AYP goals annually. Leadership facilitators from the school improvement division of the department of education will use HiQ data as part of their data analysis in developing school improvement plans for needs improvement schools. The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement teams to prioritize the delivery of technical assistance to schools not meeting AYP with the highest percentage of non-HQT. LEAs will provide evidence as to why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified for a school not meeting AYP, and determine what the school system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met first for these teachers and schools. The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who does the hiring; progress will be monitored using the HiQ data base as it is updated regularly. The Georgia Board of Education has adopted an Accountability System with Awards and Consequences (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 6) for public schools based on annual yearly progress determinations. The Accountability Profile and GDOE guidance informs the nature and degree of the required improvement plans (i.e. school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring). The GDOE provides, in accordance with the NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117(a), a system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools identified as needs improvement. Included in this support is the monitoring of the highly qualified status of teachers in needs improvement schools, with plans for remediation to meet the 100% HiQT requirement. http://www.gaosa.org/ Does the plan describe how the SEA will monitor whether LEAs attain 100 percent HQT in each LEA and school: 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 such teachers to become highly qualified and successful classroom teachers? Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all schools as they monitor the LEA plans and their progress toward meeting the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans developed for each teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA consultants 40

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

will monitor the use of funds within the local district to ensure that the resources for high quality professional development are targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills to become more effective classroom teachers, and that these funds are focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools, especially those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. The monitoring form will be used to gather this data. The Georgia School Standards (GSS) are the foundation for Georgia’s comprehensive, data-driven system of school improvement and support. Correlated to several well-known and respected research frameworks, including the National Staff Development Councils Professional Learning standards, the Standards describe the effective, high impact practices for schools. The GSS will serve as the summary document to identify a school’s level of implementation in each of the eight strands, including high quality Professional Learning, to inform the development of improvement plans to address specific areas of need. http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GSS_06.pdf?p=39EF345AE192D900F620BFDE 9C014CE65F48E7E4CC653240B75F2273979D62CC72C6AE49F194013B&Type=D The GSS is combined with data collected using the Georgia Assessment of Performance on School Standards instruments. The GAPSS Analysis provides instruments and tools that can be applied to the GSS strands, including professional learning, to determine the level of implementation of the standards at each school. Schools not making AYP have used this instrument since the 2004-05 school year to inform their school improvement plans with assistance from leadership facilitators from the DOE. http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GAPSSManual0607.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F612E2DBF71E5D5022E1DFA879E823D051FB4805D8DB4937D1& Type=D Consistent with ESEA Section 2141, does the plan include technical assistance or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP goals? The school system must attempt to meet annual measurable objectives, or targets, as identified by HiQ (a web-based teacher quality inventory program developed by the GAPSC) and established for the LEA Title II-A Plan. The identified targets allow for assessment of the school system’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal of having all teachers “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. If, after the 2005–2006 school year a school system failed to make adequate progress, the SEA will enter into an agreement with the school system on its use of Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program funds, which will be evidenced through their consolidated application for NCLB. The consultants will review LEA plans (AYP schools and those who did not meet the100% goal) and provide targeted technical assistance.

41

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Requirement 5: The revised plan must explain how and when the SEA will complete the HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession who were hired prior to the end of the 2005-06 school year, and how the SEA will limit the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after the end of the 2005-06 school year to multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools eligible for additional flexibility, and multi-subject special education teachers who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire. Does the plan describe how and when the SEA will complete the HOUSSE process for all teachers not new to the profession who were hired before the end of the 2005-06 school year? The use of HOUSSE has been limited since its inception. The HOUSSE has been used to date to establish the highly qualified status of approximately 669 teachers, or less than 1% of Georgia’s teachers. The HOUSSE instrument has been used for Georgia’s life certificate holders, international teachers who are in Georgia for a three year period only and veteran teachers moving from out of state without a state teacher assessment requirement, e.g., teachers from Alabama. The HOUSSE instrument has not been used to assess the highly qualified status for regular teachers teaching multiple subjects because state assignment rules require that teachers be assigned according to the content in which they are certified. See Certification Rule 505-2-.26. Georgia certifies early childhood, Preschool – Grade 5; Middle Grades 4-8; and Secondary Grades 6-12. To accommodate these groups, Georgia developed a HOUSSE instrument to determine the highly qualified status of teachers in regular education with three or more years of teaching experience who did not meet the basic certification credentialing. Georgia has required a passing score on a state content assessment for certification since the 1980’s. A major for secondary content areas and subject matter concentrations for middle grades has been required since 1995. Georgia’s highly qualified teacher definition is aligned closely with its state certification requirements. During 2003-04, 2004-5 school years, the Title II, Part A consultants conducted regional training on the use and potential of the HOUSSE instrument. A copy of The HOUSSE instrument can be found at www.gapsc.com/nclb/admin/files/HOUSSE.pdf. Does the plan describe how and when the SEA will complete the HOUSSE process for all teachers not new to the profession who were hired before the end of the 2005-06 year? The HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession in the state of Georgia, except for a small number of multi-subject special education teachers, has been completed. Georgia, consistent with USED Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Non-regulatory Guidance (August 3, 2005), will offer HOUSSE only in the following circumstance: • Multi-subject special education teachers . This group is the only group of veteran teachers still eligible for HOUSSE in the state of Georgia, and it will be available to them only through the 2006 – 07 academic year.

42

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools Georgia’s certification requirements prohibit use of HOUSSE for this purpose because state assignment rules require that teachers be assigned according to the content in which they are certified. (See Certification Rule 505-2-.26) Use of HOUSSE prior to the end of 2005 – 2006 To date, approximately 669 teachers have established highly qualified credentials through the use of HOUSSE. Georgia’s HOUSSE has been used in the following situations to allow teachers to establish highly qualified status: • • • Georgia’s Life Certificate holders International teachers who in Georgia for a three year period only Veteran teachers moving from out of state without a teacher assessment requirement, e.g., teachers from Alabama.

43

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Requirement 6: The revised plan must include a copy of the State’s written “equity plan” for ensuring that poor or minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than other children.

Does the revised plan include a written equity plan? Georgia’s Equity Plan Statement of the Problem Georgia’s school systems have 48 % white students, 38.3 % black students, 8.4% Hispanic students and 2.8% other students. An overall 97% of the teachers assigned to teach this student population is highly qualified, or 3% are not highly qualified according to the state’s accepted definition of highly qualified teacher. (See page 4 of this report for state definition). Examination of the highly qualified teacher data by school system, by individual school, and by class indicates a disparity in the availability and in the assignments of the highly qualified teachers: (a) within specific geographic regions of the state; (b) for schools statewide that have not made AYP; (c) within specific core content areas designated as critical teaching fields statewide; (d) with access to highly qualified teachers being far less likely in the middle grades than in elementary schools; (e) with a disproportionate number of teachers statewide who have little or no teaching experience assigned to teach poor and minority children; (f) in the % of teachers who fail Praxis content tests multiple times before passing the tests assigned to teach poor and minority children. (a) Distribution of highly qualified teachers within Geographic Regions of the State The 97% estimate of highly qualified teachers on a statewide basis includes a majority of the 183 school systems that have either reached the 100% goal, or have attained a percentage in the 95-100% range with effective local needs assessment plans in place to recruit highly qualified teachers. However, seven of the 183 school systems have significant numbers of teachers not meeting highly qualified standards (15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Eleven additional districts have between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs County (12%). (See map on Page 5 of this report for the locations of these counties in the state). These school systems have high percentages of minority students and high poverty. Among these systems also are a number of schools on the needs improvement list. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce) and the Georgia Department of Education website.

44

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Although the Title I schools have a slightly higher percentage of highly qualified teachers statewide, inspection of the data reveal that many of them represent percentages of teachers with the least experience and are highly qualified based on their content expertise, not their knowledge and experience with teaching. (b) AYP Status Data comparing high minority school enrollment and the percent of not highly qualified teachers and AYP status shows an inequitable distribution of teachers for some students as illustrated in Table 09

of this report.

45

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 09: Preliminary Data Comparing High Minority School Enrollment, Percentage of Not Highly Qualified Teachers and AYP status (NI+2=needs improvement 2+ years); NI1 =needs improvement 1 year; AP1=made AYP the most recent reporting year, not the year before; AP2 had made AYP for 2 consecutive years; AP3=distinguished, has made AYP for 3 or more consecutive years.) High Schools % Minority 63.51 61.72 50.40 42.71 30.60 r= % Minority 66.80 45.26 56.46 39.12 32.49 r= % Not HiQ 2.79 3.48 2.87 2.06 1.15 0.918293 Middle Schools % Not HiQ 2.80 1.28 2.32 1.33 1.23 0.950314 Elementary Schools % Not HiQ 3.00 2.20 1.80 1.79 1.15 0.843143 AYP NI2+ NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+

AYP NI2+ NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+

% Minority 84.94 70.34 75.00 51.02 48.49 r=

AYP NI2+ NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+

46

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

(c). Content Areas As reported in the 2003 through 2005-06 HQ data listed on pages 13-17, Requirement One of this report, availability and assignment of highly qualified teachers vary by core academic content. Specific core academic content areas designated as critical fields in Georgia reflect the shortage of these teachers statewide. Title I schools reflect an overall higher % of highly qualified teachers than do Non-Title I schools. These data represent school systems’ efforts to comply with the NCLB requirements since its implementation in 2002. Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03 of this report indicates that the not highly qualified teachers were assigned to teach in all of the core academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in these core academic content areas. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce). The data indicate that not HQT teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state. Preliminary system level data comparing Title I and Non-Title I Schools and the percent of not Highly Qualified teachers does not indicate a larger percent overall of not Highly Qualified teachers assigned to teach in Title I schools. In fact, in most school districts, the reverse is true. (See table 10) Table 10: 2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools 2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Appling County 19 408 5% 22 237 9% Atkinson County 1 176 1% 8 88 9% Atlanta Public Schools 1,360 8,018 17% 339 1,755 19% Bacon County 5 209 2% 114 0% Baker County _ 78 0% Baldwin County 10 442 2% 1 289 0% Banks County 3 266 1% 5 125 4% Barrow County 394 0% 15 1,290 1% Bartow County 16 598 3% 221 1,944 11% Ben Hill County 4 352 1% 15 171 9% Berrien County 320 0% 12 167 7% Bibb County 399 2,421 16% 290 1,531 19% 47

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Bleckley County 3 136 2% 10 251 4% Brantley County 25 483 5% 29 171 17% Bremen City 98 0% 2 197 1% Brooks County 30 407 7% _ Bryan County 11 383 3% 4 661 1% Buford City 2 303 1% 12 169 7% Bulloch County 38 1,101 3% 20 467 4% Burke County 13 544 2% 5 276 2% Butts County 21 398 5% 44 204 21% Calhoun City 7 162 4% 13 375 3% Calhoun County 19 142 14% _ Camden County 14 1,005 1% 43 691 6% Candler County 7 348 2% _ Carroll County 1,355 0% 39 2,247 2% Carrollton City 123 0% 475 0% Cartersville City 5 461 1% 5 208 2% Catoosa County 12 423 3% 143 1,253 11% Charlton County 129 0% 19 180 10% Chatham County 203 2,954 7% 154 2,715 6% Chattahoochee County 3 51 5% 11 82 13% Chattooga County 1 301 0% 11 195 6% Cherokee County 476 0% 106 5,517 2% Chickamauga City 36 0% 158 0% Clarke County 9 971 1% 89 2,475 4% Clay County 30 0% 1 34 3% Clayton County 310 4,832 6% 1,023 6,641 15% Clinch County 12 173 7% 23 117 20% Cobb County 181 2,903 6% 1,228 15,283 8% Coffee County 10 359 3% 86 845 10% Colquitt County 12 957 1% 9 459 2% Columbia County 1 824 0% 39 2,749 1% Commerce City 1 85 1% 8 179 4% Cook County 227 0% 276 0% 48

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Coweta County 5 396 1% 130 2,784 5% Crawford County 20 293 7% 13 0% Crisp County 466 0% 195 0% Dade County 1 95 1% 263 0% Dalton City 12 834 1% 23 638 4% Dawson County 132 0% 6 407 1% Decatur City 10 449 2% 179 0% Decatur County 8 935 1% 1 58 2% DeKalb County 537 9,983 5% 243 6,218 4% Dodge County 12 576 2% _ Dooly County 23 274 8% 21 84 24% Dougherty County 129 2,064 6% 45 547 8% Douglas County 16 207 8% 154 2,904 5% Dublin City 54 441 12% 1 139 1% Early County 378 0% 3 169 2% Echols County 9 118 8% _ Effingham County 2 578 0% 5 1,080 0% Elbert County 6 252 2% 30 421 7% Emanuel County 9 630 1% 2 200 1% Evans County 4 297 1% 10 84 12% Fannin County 7 433 2% 10 184 6% Fayette County 10 734 1% 90 4,021 2% Floyd County 35 456 8% 31 1,364 2% Forsyth County 1 308 0% 49 3,647 1% Franklin County 3 446 1% 10 189 5% Fulton County 85 2,015 4% 622 11,602 5% Gainesville City 17 771 2% 44 0% Gilmer County 8 755 1% _ Glascock County 8 118 6% _ Glynn County 14 1,043 1% 34 922 4% Gordon County 1 663 0% 8 372 2% Grady County 413 0% 20 352 6% Greene County 247 0% 14 111 13% 49

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Gwinnett County 197 3,325 6% 1,057 21,527 5% Habersham County 343 0% 662 0% Hall County 21 917 2% 82 2,732 3% Hancock County 44 148 30% 5 90 6% Haralson County 5 400 1% 172 0% Harris County 1 395 0% 6 352 2% Hart County 2 425 0% 1 179 1% Heard County 1 124 1% 14 195 7% Henry County 32 497 6% 324 5,006 6% Houston County 68 2,278 3% 56 2,268 2% Irwin County 2 184 1% 124 0% Jackson County 7 703 1% 5 354 1% Jasper County 8 180 5% 6 229 3% Jeff Davis County 472 0% _ Jefferson City 117 0% 6 220 3% Jefferson County 9 572 2% _ Jenkins County 9 209 4% 15 118 13% Johnson County 24 236 10% _ Jones County 136 0% 38 640 6% Lamar County 39 356 11% 51 0% Lanier County 13 113 12% 176 0% Laurens County 2 247 1% 141 688 20% Lee County 24 638 4% 2 241 1% Liberty County 89 1,493 6% 56 532 10% Lincoln County 4 165 2% 85 0% Long County 14 314 4% _ Lowndes County 26 653 4% 56 923 6% Lumpkin County 14 412 3% 5 197 3% Macon County 5 120 4% 45 269 17% Madison County 1 551 0% 10 248 4% Marietta City 32 1,003 3% 6 495 1% Marion County 7 326 2% _ McDuffie County 272 0% 538 0% 50

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers McIntosh County 12 223 5% 5 118 4% Meriwether County 23 398 6% 15 204 7% Miller County 7 142 5% 9 81 11% Mitchell County 25 503 5% 35 236 15% Monroe County 9 399 2% 202 0% Montgomery County 33 246 13% _ Morgan County 193 0% 19 447 4% Murray County 27 961 3% 2 218 1% Muscogee County 188 2,110 9% 382 4,003 10% Newton County 48 1,638 3% 44 1,129 4% Oconee County 2 456 0% 2 640 0% Oglethorpe County 3 301 1% 8 119 6% Paulding County 22 436 5% 151 3,325 5% Peach County 12 247 5% 56 480 12% Pelham City 8 171 5% 4 73 5% Pickens County 11 405 3% 5 365 1% Pierce County 19 512 4% _ Pike County 180 0% 250 0% Polk County 7 334 2% 60 826 7% Pulaski County 23 184 13% 23 148 16% Putnam County 50 384 13% 57 187 30% Quitman County 6 64 9% _ Rabun County 247 0% 212 0% Randolph County 34 269 13% 5 0% Richmond County 149 2,221 7% 129 2,897 4% Rockdale County 10 794 1% 30 1,751 2% Rome City 5 624 1% 12 422 3% Schley County 117 0% 83 0% Screven County 24 640 4% 13 0% Seminole County 45 314 14% _ Social Circle City 1 248 0% 19 186 10% Spalding County 21 480 4% 115 1,235 9% Stephens County 3 181 2% 6 552 1% 51

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Stewart County 12 142 9% _ Sumter County 74 641 11% 46 245 19% Talbot County 7 146 5% _ Taliaferro County 24 89 27% _ Tattnall County 8 523 1% 29 187 15% Taylor County 1 186 1% 5 81 6% Telfair County 35 356 10% 5 0% Terrell County 2 63 2% 8 148 5% Thomas County 172 0% 32 723 4% Thomaston-Upson 9 605 2% 8 272 3% County Thomasville City 287 0% 15 231 6% Tift County 246 0% 4 963 0% Toombs County 9 403 2% 10 343 3% Towns County 3 144 2% 5 300 2% Treutlen County 5 54 9% 56 135 42% Trion City 72 0% 138 0% Troup County 10 520 2% 74 1,520 5% Turner County 5 246 2% 6 93 7% Twiggs County 28 243 12% _ Union County 1 64 2% 48 414 12% Valdosta City 36 573 6% 46 648 7% Vidalia City 7 415 2% 19 169 11% Walker County 30 912 3% 16 467 3% Walton County 12 596 2% 17 1,141 1% Ware County 20 1,006 2% 91 0% Warren County 8 137 6% _ Washington County 33 506 7% 31 196 16% Wayne County 3 224 1% 17 592 3% Webster County _ 4 66 6% Wheeler County 218 0% 20 0% White County 552 0% 16 468 3% Whitfield County 4 710 1% 65 1,191 5% 52

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools "Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five classes. Title I Non-Title I School system Classes All % Classes All classes % Taught classes Classes Taught Classes Not Taught Not Taught Highly Not Highly Not Qualified Highly Qualified Highly Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers Teachers Wilcox County 4 210 2% 18 85 21% Wilkes County 5 259 2% 1 93 1% Wilkinson County 71 0% 11 209 5% Worth County 3 412 1% 5 205 2% (d) Differences between middle grades and elementary school teacher attributes Preliminary reports using equity parameters including years of experience teaching in Georgia, age, Praxis I and Praxis II performance, advanced degrees, highly qualified status and route to certification indicate that middle grades students in Georgia are far less likely to receive instruction from teachers who are highly qualified than are elementary grades. The following table 12, illustrates these findings.

53

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Table 11: Teacher attributes of equity parameters by school level
High Schools Attributes of Attributes of Teachers Who Replacements: Left NI2+ Schools New Hires in NI2+ after 2003-2004 Schools 2004(n=573 *) 2005 (n = 658 **) Attributes of Teachers Who Left AP3+ Schools after 2003-2004 (n=815 ***) 12.7 41.8 2.9% had failed some part Attributes of Replacements: New Hires in AP3+ Schools 2004-2005 (n = 969 ****) 8.2 38.6 6.4% had failed some part

Average GA Experience Age Praxis I Performance

13.2 Yrs 42.8 4.2 % had failed some part

8.7 39.4 7.9% had failed some part 18.1% had failed Praxis II 54.6% 12.3% 18.1%

Praxis II Performance 14.5% had failed Praxis II Advanced Degrees Not Highly Qualified Certified Through Alternative Routes
* Of the 573 leavers from NI2+ high schools, 254 left the workforce and 319 transferred out to other schools ** Of the 658 replacements in NI2+ high schools, 325 were not employed in 2004 and 333 transferred in from other schools. *** Of the 815 leavers from AP3+ high schools, 345 left the workforce and 470 transferred out to other schools. **** Of the 969 replacements in AP3+ high schools, 508 were not employed in 2004 and 461 transferred in from other schools.

11.5% had failed 13.2% had failed Praxis II Praxis II 62.8% 5.5% 2.8% 52.4% 9.1% 17.9%

63.9% 8.9% 6.8%

54

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Middle Schools Attributes of Attributes of Teachers Who Replacements: Left NI2+ Schools New Hires in NI2+ after 2003-2004 Schools 2004(n=1172 *) 2005 (n = 1359**) Average GA Experience Age Praxis I Performance 10.0 Yrs 40.4 4.4% had failed some part 7.0 Yrs 35.6 9.4% had failed some part 23.0% had failed Praxis II 49.3% 16.1% 20.5% Attributes of Teachers Who Left AP3+ Schools after 2003-2004 (n=691 ***) 11.2 Yrs 40.4 2.2% had failed some part 9.6% had failed Praxis II 59.5% 3.6% 1.4% Attributes of Replacements: New Hires in AP3+ Schools 2004-2005 (n = 684****) 8.3 Yrs 38.4 5.1% had failed some part 11.1% had failed Praxis II 53.9% 7.7% 7.3%

Praxis II Performance 21.8% had failed Praxis II Advanced Degrees Not Highly Qualified Certified Through Alternative Routes
* Of the 1172 leavers from NI2+ middle schools, 429 left the workforce and 743 transferred out to other schools. ** Of the 1359 replacements in NI2+ middle schools, 679 were not employed in 2004 and 680 transferred in from other schools. *** Of the 691 leavers from AP3+ middle schools, 228 left the workforce and 463 transferred out to other schools. **** Of the 684 replacements in AP3+ middle schools, 265 were not employed in 2004 and 419 transferred in from other schools.

56.7% 12.5% 8.7%

55

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Elementary Schools Attributes of Attributes of Teachers Who Replacements: Left NI2+ Schools New Hires in NI2+ after 2003-2004 Schools 2004(n=81) 2005 (n = 99) Average GA Experience Age Praxis I Performance 9.9 Yrs 38.8 2.5% had failed some part 8.3 Yrs 37.7 7.1% had failed some part 18.2% had failed Praxis II 59.6% 7.1% 7.1% Attributes of Teachers Who Left AP3+ Schools after 2003-2004 (n=7212) 11.3 Yrs 40.5 3.6% had failed some part Attributes of Replacements: New Hires in AP3+ Schools 2004-2005 (n = 7606) 7.9 Yrs 37.5 8.0% had failed some part

Praxis II Performance 14.8% had failed Praxis II Advanced Degrees Not Highly Qualified Certified Through Alternative Routes
* Of the 81 leavers from NI2+ elementary schools, 32 left the workforce and 49 transferred out to other schools. ** Of the 99 replacements in NI2+ elementary schools, 53 were not employed in 2004 and 46 transferred in from other schools. *** Of the 7212 leavers from AP3+ elementary, 2959 left the workforce and 4253 transferred out to other schools. **** Of the 7606 replacements in AP3+ elementary schools, 3577 were not employed in 2004 and 4029 transferred in from other schools.

11.4% had failed 13.3% had failed Praxis II Praxis II 57.4% 3.6% 1.9% 50.2% 5.2% 5.9%

59.3% 1.2% 8.6%

56

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

(e) Little or no initial teaching experience or experience teaching a core academic content area for the first time For teacher candidates who are participating in an alternative preparation program, the state grants an intern certificate or a nonrenewable certificate. These candidates are considered highly qualified on the basis of their content expertise, but they are beginning teachers who are learning to teach and earning their full, renewable certificate on the job; they have little or no teaching experience. Of the 3,383 teachers in this category, 1944 or 57% are assigned initially to teach children in poverty, and 1944 or 43 % are assigned to other types of settings. (f) Praxis II Data Results Preliminary data analysis comparing high minority school enrollment and % of Praxis II failures by AYP classification suggest that minority students in schools that need improvement are more likely to be assigned teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at least twice before receiving a passing score. Preliminary data comparing high minority school enrollment and % of Praxis II failures by AYP classification suggest that minority students in schools that need improvement are more likely to be assigned teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at least twice before receiving a passing score. See Table 11 listed here) Table 12: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures

2005 Middle School Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures by AYP Classification
80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 NI2 NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+ % Minority % Praxis 2 Fails

57

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

2005 High School Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures by AYP Classification

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 NI2 NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+ % Minority % Praxis 2 Fails

58

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Georgia’s Equity Plan Neither the Georgia Professional Standards Commission nor the Georgia Department of Education has authority to intervene directly in local level decisions about the hiring or assignments of educator personnel. However, the two state agencies can have a positive impact on the school systems’ use of Title II Part A funds used for the recruitment, preparation, assignment and retention of highly qualified teachers by the state approval of the NCLB budgeted funds; by monitoring the local systems’ actions taken to assure appropriate highly qualified teacher assignments; and publicly reporting the distribution of teachers by school and by class for poor and minority students, on an ongoing annual basis. The Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education have the following goals to accomplish equity in the selection and assignment of highly qualified teachers for all children in Georgia’s 183 school systems. Equity Goals 1. Ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or misassigned teachers at higher rates than are other children. 2. Ensure that children in low performing schools in all geographic regions of the state have access to experienced, qualified and appropriately assigned teachers on an equitable basis. Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing inequity in teacher assignment? Georgia’s Equity Plan focuses on five major areas: 1. availability of accurate and appropriate data to assist local school systems in making decisions about their needs for and assignments of highly qualified teachers to teach children of poverty and minority children; 2. using the data to increase the supply of teachers; 3. using the data to redistribute existing teachers within a local school system; 4. using the data to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers and (5) using the data to improve the working conditions for teachers. In each of these areas, the state will identify and disseminate information about appropriate strategies to all school systems, monitor the school systems’ decisions made, and report the results of their efforts. (See research base to support these recommendations included in Appendix **). All of these recommendations are supported by existing state level preparation, certification and work assignment polices and procedures for hiring and assigning teachers. (Seehttp://www.gapsc.com/)

59

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Strategy #1: Collection and Dissemination of Information First, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will continue to work together to provide data that are helpful to local school systems as they make decisions about the hiring and assigning of teachers to establish an equitable distribution for all children. This will be accomplished through the use of the HQ software currently used to monitor and report on the state’s highly qualified teacher status. Second, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will recommend the following to increase the supply of highly qualified teachers: • • • • Scholarships, loans, loan forgiveness programs to recruit and prepare a pool of teachers specifically for high-poverty, low performing schools Alternative routes to teaching International teachers Targeted teacher preparation programs, such as the Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (GA TAPP) to prepare teachers specifically to work in high-need schools

Third, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will recommend the following to accomplish redistribution of existing teachers: • • • • • Systems’ offering compensation as a way to attract experienced teachers to high-need schools, high poverty schools Financial incentives including the use of the Title II Part A funds Non-monetary incentives Assure that National Board certified teachers are placed in high-need schools Hire retired teachers

Fourth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will recommend the following to improve the knowledge, skills and training of teaching already working in high need schools: • • • • Provide targeted professional development Fund mentoring programs Use master teachers and coaches Transition to Teaching Program

Fifth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will recommend the following: • • • • Develop policies and procedures to attract effective principals and teachers Develop and implement programs to attract principals and teachers Reallocate resources to high-need schools Improve safety and discipline in high-needs schools 60

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Strategy # 2: Data Collection and Analysis of Highly Qualified Teacher Data The PSC and DOE will enhance HQ, the state data management and reporting system for the use of school districts, so that each local school system can continuously update its data on the qualification and experience of teachers who are teaching Georgia’s poor and minority students to assure that they are not being taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, and out-offield teachers. The data collection and analysis on an annual basis will include: a. Percentage of core academic subjects taught by teachers by school, school system and regions of the state who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts for sp and schools with the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority children. b. Percentage of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools not making AYP with the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority children. c. A report of the experience levels of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools with the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority children. d. Percentage of the teachers who have taken Praxis content exams multiple times prior experience level of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools with the highest concentration of minority children. e. Compilation of data on the actions taken by school systems to either increase the supply of highly qualified teachers, redistribute existing teachers; improve the knowledge and skills of teachers teaching in high-need areas, improve working conditions for teachers in high need schools. Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment exist? Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the issue of equitable teacher assignment when it monitors the LEAs, and how will this be done?

61

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Strategy # 3: Monitoring of local school systems actions to achieve equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers for all children Ongoing state level monitoring and public reporting of local system efforts to establish and maintain an equitable distribution of teachers will provide an accountability of the state’s efforts to provide highly qualified teachers for all children. The statewide monitoring will involve: 1. Conduct statewide monitoring of local systems efforts to achieve 100% highly qualified for all children. 2. Monitor specific uses of local systems’ budgeted Title II Part A funds to address the needs of not highly qualified teachers assigned to teach poor and minority children. Monitoring efforts are described in Requirement #2 of this report. Strategy 4: Development of a Framework for Instructional Capacity The Professional Standards Commission will conduct research on the development of a framework for school system use to measure school faculty instructional capacity by tabulating data appropriate to the highly qualified teacher expectations as a means of determining appropriate equitable teacher distribution. • Data subdivided into secondary middle and elementary will include: o Minority and high poverty counts, with data o School AYP status o Minority school enrollment o Teacher highly qualified status o Teacher Praxis I results o Teacher Praxis II results o Stability of Principalship

Variables will be compared using standard statistical methods to establish a baseline for planning, such as chi square techniques to test for association of AYP status with other variables; Spearman rank correlation to test AYP status with other variables; Pearson correlation test variables in high school middle schools and elementary schools. Preliminary findings in a study to examine relationships between AYP classification and educator attributes show that in a correlation of Middle schools teacher performance on basic skills testing with school AYP status; the schools most in need of improvement had a greater percentage of teachers who had failed part of the Praxis I multiple times. In a correlation of elementary teacher qualifications with school AYP status; schools most in need of improvement had a greater percentage of teachers who were/are not highly qualified.

62

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Further preliminary findings indicate that: Schools most in need of improvement had a greater principal turnover Minority students were most likely to have teachers with low experience Minority students were most likely to have teachers who were not highly qualified. Further work will be done with the data to develop an instructional capacity index for schools as a tool to examine inequities and make appropriate decisions to provide for an equitable distribution. Student achievement data, when it becomes available, will also be studied to identify which teacher attributes contribute to differences in student achievement.

63

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Does the plan provide evidence for the probable success of the strategies it includes? Strategy # 5: Annual State Report of school efforts to achieve 100% of highly qualified teachers for minority children and children in poverty The data to be collected in the State Equity Plan will provide information on the efforts of school systems to provide equitable distribution of teachers in classes and the results of their efforts will be reported by school. The gathering of these school level data will begin to provide insight into the actual inequities in teacher distribution throughout the state. The requirement for LEAs to develop plans to address inequities with specific strategies targeted to address local needs with annual measured targets and goals will increase the probable success of the strategies identified in local plans to address inequities. On-going monitoring of LEA plans and attention to identifying “best practices” will further increase the impact of local and state plans to address this area of need. The following measures will be included: o o o o o o Compilation of teacher experience and highly qualified status Compilation of out-of-field teacher assignments by school Compilation of state basic skills assessments by school. Compilation of subject area assessments by educator personnel by school Compilation of teacher preparation routes by teacher by school Compilation of educator turnover by school

Local education systems will be instructed to use their Title II, Part A funds to ensure that highly qualified teachers are placed in schools with larger numbers of poor and/or minority children. Georgia law requires that teachers are to be paid according to their certificates as appropriate for their teaching assignments.

64

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Annual Time Table for the Equity Plan Activities Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants who have the responsibility of working with school systems in assigned regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in their assigned regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school system Title II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide technical assistance whenever they are needed by school systems. July 1st (each year) 1. PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide # of HIQ teachers by school system, by school and by class assignments on an ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI data and the state certification database. School systems have immediate access to the data and make updates as teachers become highly qualified. 2. Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and disseminate information about methods school systems can use to get teachers highly qualified. August 31st (each year) 3. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and class assignments and indicate using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system intends to provide correction(s). Each school system files a remediation report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission August 1st-September 30th (each year) 4. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the school systems budgets for Title II Part A. Approval is determined by the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either through recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions. September 15th (each year) 5. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for the previous school year and prepares individual reports for each school system as well as an aggregated report for the state. Each school system’s superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance that the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These assurance forms are filed with the Professional Standards Commission. The data are used to compile the highly qualified data report that is issued to the U. S. Department of Education. December 1st-January 31st. (each year) 6. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½ and make an onsite visit. Paper review is used with the other systems. A monitoring form is provided to each school system so they can be aware of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority students.

65

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

March 1st (each year) 7. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made available by the Professional Standards Commission. March 1st-June 30th (each year 8. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made available on an annual basis by the Professional Standards Commission and the State Board of Education.

66

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

PART III: APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: 2004-05 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP System ID 761 761 614 619 622 622 766 627 629 629 629 629 629 629 631 631 631 631 631 632 633 633 633 633 633 636 636 638 638 638 639 640 641 773 647 647 648 System Name Atlanta Public Schools Atlanta Public Schools Brooks County Calhoun County Carroll County Carroll County Carrollton City Chattooga County Clarke County Clarke County Clarke County Clarke County Clarke County Clarke County Clayton County Clayton County Clayton County Clayton County Clayton County Clinch County Cobb County Cobb County Cobb County Cobb County Cobb County Columbia County Columbia County Coweta County Coweta County Coweta County Crawford County Crisp County Dade County Decatur City Dougherty County Dougherty County Douglas County Building Building Name ID 289 2664 2050 4050 198 101 1050 1050 296 102 196 3058 4060 391 173 295 2060 377 5060 201 2054 502 202 294 3056 183 283 1056 301 103 202 197 295 3050 3058 4060 2054 Crim Evening Program Crim High School Brooks County High School Calhoun County Middle/High School Bay Springs Middle School Jonesville Middle School Carrollton High School Chattooga High School Burney-Harris-Lyons Middle School Cedar Shoals High School Coile Middle School Fowler Drive Elementary School Oglethorpe Avenue Elementary School Whit Davis Road Elementary School Kilpatrick Elementary School Lake Ridge Elementary School Riverdale Elementary School Riverdale High School Swint Elementary School Clinch County Elementary Clarkdale Elementary School Cooper Middle School Lindley Middle School Smitha Middle School South Cobb High School Harlem High School Harlem Middle School Evans Middle School Smokey Road Middle School Willis Road Elementary Crawford County Middle School Crisp County Middle School Dade Middle School Decatur High School Northside Elementary School Sherwood Acres Elementary School Turner Middle School 67 Percent Not Highly Qualified -

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 774 651 651 651 654 660 660 661 664 664 665 667 667 667 667 667 669 669 669 671 676 676 682 684 685 685 692 697 702 702 704 705 706 706 706 707 707 707 711 784 714

System Name Dublin City Effingham County Effingham County Effingham County Evans County Fulton County Fulton County Gilmer County Gordon County Gordon County Grady County Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Hall County Hall County Hall County Haralson County Houston County Houston County Jenkins County Jones County Lamar County Lamar County Lowndes County McDuffie County Monroe County Monroe County Morgan County Murray County Muscogee County Muscogee County Muscogee County Newton County Newton County Newton County Peach County Pelham City Pike County

Building Building Name ID 102 390 290 297 2050 386 189 196 292 286 174 304 388 491 186 394 289 101 103 104 200 204 201 1050 105 199 5050 194 177 305 1050 190 300 178 180 195 398 198 197 201 188 Dublin Middle School Effingham County High School Effingham County Middle School South Effingham Middle School Claxton High School Independence Alternative School McNair Middle School Gilmer High School Ashworth Middle School Gordon Central High School Washington Middle School Berkmar Middle School Gwinnett InterVention Education (GIVE) Center Oakland Center Pinckneyville Middle School Simonton Elementary School East Hall Middle School Martin Elementary School Sugar Hill Elementary Tallapoosa Primary School Perry Middle School Thomson Middle School Jenkins County High School Califf Middle School Lamar County Elementary School Lamar County Middle School Lowndes High School Thomson Middle School Banks Stephens Middle School William M. Hubbard Middle School Morgan County High School Murray County High School Baker Middle School Fort Middle School Marshall Middle School Clements Middle School Indian Creek Middle School Middle Ridge Elementary School Byron Middle School Pelham City Middle School Pike County Primary School 68

Percent Not Highly Qualified -

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 715 716 721 721 722 785 724 726 745 741 741 742 747 748 748 756 759 781 623 651 706 667 705 678 710 710 741 634 717 635 675 633 755 743 667 633 667 669 710 629 663

System Name Polk County Pulaski County Richmond County Richmond County Rockdale County Rome City Screven County Spalding County Thomaston-Upson County Troup County Troup County Turner County Walton County Ware County Ware County Wilcox County Worth County Marietta City Catoosa County Effingham County Muscogee County Gwinnett County Murray County Jackson County Paulding County Paulding County Troup County Coffee County Putnam County Colquitt County Henry County Cobb County Whitfield County Twiggs County Gwinnett County Cobb County Gwinnett County Hall County Paulding County Clarke County Glynn County

Building Building Name ID 1056 195 4056 5566 378 293 4052 201 395 191 297 190 193 195 395 195 193 101 2552 203 401 2058 4050 197 2352 394 1052 295 276 1554 5052 1069 275 201 187 103 283 4556 2552 291 4752 Elm Street Middle School Pulaski County Middle School Lamar Elementary School Laney High School Edwards Middle School Rome Middle School Screven County High School Cowan Road Middle School Upson-Lee Middle School Gardner-Newman Middle School Long Cane Middle School Turner County Middle School Carver Middle School Ware County High School Ware County Middle School Wilcox County Elementary School Worth County Middle School Marietta High School Lakeview Middle School Ebenezer Middle School Double Churches Middle School Snellville Middle School Gladden Middle School East Jackson Middle School Herschel Jones Middle School East Paulding Middle School LaGrange High School West Coffee Middle School Putnam County High School Colquitt County High School Stockbridge Middle School Wheeler High School Southeast Whitfield County High School Twiggs County High School Meadowcreek High School Kell High School Shiloh Middle School South Hall Middle School Paulding County High School Fourth Street Elementary School Glynn Academy 69

Percent Not Highly Qualified 0.25 0.42 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.85 0.89 0.96 1.10 1.22 1.27 1.33 1.34 1.34 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.47 1.54 1.57

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 674 648 633 667 751 772 657 737 687 605 605 616 631 705 709 635 736 633 625 633 669 635 675 633 622 638 721 669 675 644 663 737 644 638 675 644 625 733 669 721 681 622

System Name Heard County Douglas County Cobb County Gwinnett County Wayne County Dalton City Floyd County Tift County Laurens County Baldwin County Baldwin County Bulloch County Clayton County Murray County Oglethorpe County Colquitt County Thomas County Cobb County Chatham County Cobb County Hall County Colquitt County Henry County Cobb County Carroll County Coweta County Richmond County Hall County Henry County DeKalb County Glynn County Tift County DeKalb County Coweta County Henry County DeKalb County Chatham County Taylor County Hall County Richmond County Jefferson County Carroll County

Building Building Name ID 3050 5050 4050 1505 101 201 203 299 297 189 104 2054 175 204 2050 3052 191 1066 2069 475 5052 5052 206 5058 2052 395 1156 176 603 1055 1554 199 101 289 4050 1051 399 105 3054 3756 196 177 Heard County Elementary School Stewart Middle School Awtrey Middle School Louise Radloff Middle School Wayne County High School Dalton Middle School Model Middle School Eighth Street Middle School East Laurens Middle School Baldwin High School Eagle Ridge Elementary School Statesboro High School Brown Elementary School New Bagley Middle School Oglethorpe County High School Gray Middle School Thomas County Central High School Norton Park Elementary School Thunderbolt Elementary School Tapp Middle School Lyman Hall Elementary School Willie J. Williams Middle School Dutchtown Middle School Floyd Middle School Central High School Arnall Middle School Hephzibah Middle School Myers Elementary School Luella Middle School Dresden Elementary School Jane Macon Middle School Tift County High School Avondale Middle School East Coweta Middle School Henry County Middle School Avondale High School Savannah High School Taylor County Upper Elementary Lanier Elementary School Josey High School Jefferson County High School Central Middle School 70

Percent Not Highly Qualified 1.57 1.66 1.76 1.77 1.87 1.94 1.95 1.96 1.99 2.00 2.04 2.08 2.08 2.11 2.11 2.13 2.14 2.20 2.30 2.39 2.41 2.44 2.44 2.45 2.47 2.50 2.50 2.54 2.58 2.63 2.63 2.66 2.71 2.74 2.75 2.78 2.81 2.85 2.86 2.86 2.87 2.93

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 730 631 646 792 644 774 609 669 644 634 676 699 750 754 649 644 647 671 677 607 789 671 622 631 741 721 636 650 648 737 615 611 721 751 644 710 660 633 737 644 709

System Name Talbot County Clayton County Dooly County Valdosta City DeKalb County Dublin City Ben Hill County Hall County DeKalb County Coffee County Houston County Meriwether County Washington County White County Early County DeKalb County Dougherty County Haralson County Irwin County Barrow County Thomasville City Haralson County Carroll County Clayton County Troup County Richmond County Columbia County Echols County Douglas County Tift County Bryan County Bibb County Richmond County Wayne County DeKalb County Paulding County Fulton County Cobb County Tift County DeKalb County Oglethorpe County

Building Building Name ID 190 305 104 2052 597 3050 291 294 1071 4550 1054 102 199 174 2050 301 1050 2050 2050 2052 3050 3050 102 197 101 197 176 1050 4050 4052 402 405 2056 194 189 192 176 2066 3052 775 3050 Central Elementary/High School Kemp Elem School Dooly County Elementary School Southeast Elementary School Miller Grove Middle School Dublin High School Fitzgerald High School West Hall Middle School Woodward Elementary School East Coffee Middle School Perry High School George E. Washington Elementary School T. J. Elder Middle School White County Middle School Early County High School Columbia Middle School Albany High School Buchanan Primary School Irwin County High School Winder-Barrow Middle School MacIntyre Park Middle School Haralson County High School Temple Middle School Kendrick Middle School Callaway Middle School Glenn Hills Middle School Evans Middle School Echols County High/Elementary School Douglas County High School Matt Wilson Elementary School Bryan County Middle School Rosa Taylor Elementary School Hephzibah High School Martha Puckett Middle School Peachtree Middle School South Paulding Middle School Banneker High School Osborne High School Northeast Campus, Tift County High School Open Campus High School Oglethorpe County Middle School 71

Percent Not Highly Qualified 3.00 3.03 3.06 3.13 3.23 3.23 3.25 3.26 3.31 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.34 3.40 3.42 3.45 3.47 3.56 3.57 3.62 3.64 3.64 3.70 3.85 3.88 3.93 3.99 4.00 4.05 4.08 4.17 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.25 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.41

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 633 615 644 699 721 633 644 676 701 644 677 644 611 644 721 644 699 663 611 667 726 647 633 702 792 758 711 721 669 751 625 629 644 631 625 721 644 663 706 673 761 629

System Name Cobb County Bryan County DeKalb County Meriwether County Richmond County Cobb County DeKalb County Houston County Mitchell County DeKalb County Irwin County DeKalb County Bibb County DeKalb County Richmond County DeKalb County Meriwether County Glynn County Bibb County Gwinnett County Spalding County Dougherty County Cobb County Monroe County Valdosta City Wilkinson County Peach County Richmond County Hall County Wayne County Chatham County Clarke County DeKalb County Clayton County Chatham County Richmond County DeKalb County Glynn County Muscogee County Hart County Atlanta Public Schools Clarke County

Building Building Name ID 4066 502 3070 4050 3054 2560 1068 4056 282 290 173 4054 386 193 3062 4053 400 4054 305 276 187 2052 1056 184 195 3050 2052 184 102 294 3056 5058 697 191 2068 1052 172 4052 5062 3050 3067 1058 Pebblebrook High School Bryan County High School McNair High School Manchester High School Glenn Hills High School Griffin Middle School Leslie J. Steele Elementary School Warner Robins High School Mitchell-Baker High School Sequoyah Middle School Irwin County Middle School Cross Keys High School Southwest High School Chapel Hill Middle School Sego Middle School Clarkston High School Greenville Middle School Risley Middle School Rutland Middle School Sweetwater Middle School Griffin High School Dougherty Comprehensive High School East Cobb Middle School Mary Persons High School Newbern Middle School Wilkinson County High School Peach County High School Morgan Road Middle School Chestatee High School Arthur Williams Middle School Groves High School Hilsman Middle School Stone Mountain Middle School Lovejoy Middle School Spencer Elementary School Butler High School Cedar Grove High School Burroughs-Molette Elementary School Jordan Vocational High School Hart County High School Sutton Middle School Clarke Middle School 72

Percent Not Highly Qualified 4.49 4.55 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.67 4.67 4.69 4.72 4.76 4.80 4.84 4.86 4.88 4.88 4.94 5.00 5.17 5.22 5.31 5.31 5.39 5.47 5.56 5.62 5.62 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.77 5.79 5.84 5.88 5.90 5.97 6.00 6.07 6.12 6.15 6.16 6.29 6.33

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 706 631 721 721 721 629 729 786 741 669 745 631 644 633 706 625 686 653 663 694 789 611 733 660 721 665 625 634 667 631 726 660 608 611 681 717 668 625 741 617 681

System Name Muscogee County Clayton County Richmond County Richmond County Richmond County Clarke County Sumter County Social Circle City Troup County Hall County Thomaston-Upson County Clayton County DeKalb County Cobb County Muscogee County Chatham County Lanier County Emanuel County Glynn County Macon County Thomasville City Bibb County Taylor County Fulton County Richmond County Grady County Chatham County Coffee County Gwinnett County Clayton County Spalding County Fulton County Bartow County Bibb County Jefferson County Putnam County Habersham County Chatham County Troup County Burke County Jefferson County

Building Building Name ID 2067 104 1058 5058 5062 5556 205 103 201 1552 195 100 291 290 5052 2052 101 189 4952 199 4052 505 205 691 390 1050 299 195 4058 1056 1054 383 190 2052 396 198 296 201 387 288 296 Rothschild Middle School Mundy’s Mill High School Langford Middle School Murphey Middle School Tubman Middle School Clarke Central High School Americus Sumter County High North Social Circle Middle School Callaway High School East Hall High School Upson-Lee High School M. D. Roberts Middle School Salem Middle School Campbell Middle School Carver High School Beach High School Lanier County Middle School Swainsboro High School Glynn Middle School Macon County Middle School Thomasville High School Weaver Middle School Taylor County Middle School Tri-Cities High School Spirit Creek Middle School Cairo High School Southwest Middle School Coffee County High School Summerour Middle School Jonesboro High School Flynt Middle School McClarin Alternative School South Central Middle School McEvoy Middle School Wrens Middle School Putnam County Elementary School South Habersham Middle School DeRenne Middle School Troup County High School Burke County High School Louisville Middle School 73

Percent Not Highly Qualified 6.37 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.49 6.54 6.58 6.63 6.68 6.73 6.76 6.78 6.80 6.86 6.98 7.09 7.12 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.22 7.25 7.26 7.32 7.37 7.48 7.52 7.55 7.62 7.69 7.77 7.78 8.00 8.06 8.11 8.21 8.26 8.30 8.33 8.33

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 721 660 706 701 644 706 625 625 679 689 726 687 712 625 644 622 644 644 726 644 761 631 761 746 631 698 614 611 725 611 611 631 631 611 706 644 611 706 618 735 625 631

System Name Richmond County Fulton County Muscogee County Mitchell County DeKalb County Muscogee County Chatham County Chatham County Jasper County Liberty County Spalding County Laurens County Pickens County Chatham County DeKalb County Carroll County DeKalb County DeKalb County Spalding County DeKalb County Atlanta Public Schools Clayton County Atlanta Public Schools Walker County Clayton County McIntosh County Brooks County Bibb County Seminole County Bibb County Bibb County Clayton County Clayton County Bibb County Muscogee County DeKalb County Bibb County Muscogee County Butts County Terrell County Chatham County Clayton County

Building Building Name ID 2562 505 100 197 401 2066 2060 2056 201 197 188 3054 198 100 2054 189 205 201 101 202 373 106 4568 390 3050 104 197 298 196 286 185 174 277 204 378 105 3054 5058 100 4050 198 2054

Percent Not Highly Qualified East Augusta Middle School 8.33 Sandtown Middle School 8.34 Midland Middle School 8.38 Mitchell County Middle School 8.39 Mary McLeod Bethune Middle School 8.47 Richards Middle School 8.66 Hubert Middle School 8.77 Gould Elementary School 8.82 Jasper County Middle School 8.89 Lewis Frasier Middle School 8.96 Taylor Street Middle School 9.09 West Laurens High School 9.82 Pickens County High School 9.98 Tompkins Middle School 10.00 Columbia High School 10.00 Temple High School 10.08 Redan Middle School 10.17 Freedom Middle School 10.19 Spalding High School 10.31 Lithonia High School 10.45 King Middle School 10.56 Jonesboro Middle School 10.71 Washington High School 10.75 Rossville Middle School 10.77 Babb Middle School 11.00 New McIntosh County Academy 11.04 Brooks County Middle School 11.11 Miller Magnet Middle School 11.33 Seminole County Middle/High School 11.51 Northeast High School 11.74 Martin Luther King Elementary School 11.76 Mundy’s Mill Middle School Pointe South Middle School Rutland High School Spencer High School Miller Grove High School Bruce Elementary School Eddy Middle School Henderson Middle School Terrell County Middle/High School Coastal Middle School Forest Park Middle School 74 11.94 12.20 12.48 12.50 12.54 12.78 12.86 13.11 13.44 13.52 14.17

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

System ID 639 644 689 625 729 646 729 608 625 644 644 644 644 647 608 625 631 631 699 761 694 761 720 666 625 611 611 602 630 761 728 761 731 761 629 761 761

System Name Crawford County DeKalb County Liberty County Chatham County Sumter County Dooly County Sumter County Bartow County Chatham County DeKalb County DeKalb County DeKalb County DeKalb County Dougherty County Bartow County Chatham County Clayton County Clayton County Meriwether County Atlanta Public Schools Macon County Atlanta Public Schools Randolph County Greene County Chatham County Bibb County Bibb County Atkinson County Clay County Atlanta Public Schools Stewart County Atlanta Public Schools Taliaferro County Atlanta Public Schools Clarke County Atlanta Public Schools Atlanta Public Schools

Building Building Name ID 193 1057 101 4054 105 182 188 577 199 3069 705 4069 276 1058 301 5060 177 3060 300 191 2060 173 201 401 301 303 5050 103 204 5056 201 504 102 5664 104 703 403 Crawford County High School McNair Middle School Midway Middle School Ellis Elementary School Americus Sumter County High South Dooly County High School Sumter County Elementary School Cass High School West Chatham Middle School Toney Elementary School DeKalb: PATH Academy Charter School Towers High School Stone Mountain High School Monroe High School Adairsville Middle School Jenkins High School Adamson Middle School Riverdale Middle School Greenville High School Turner Middle School Macon County High School Long Middle School Randolph Clay High School Greene County High School Myers Middle School William S. Hutchings Career Center Appling Middle School Atkinson County High School Clay County Elementary Coan Middle School Stewart-Quitman High School Harper-Archer Middle School Taliaferro County School Parks Middle School Classic City Performance Learning Center School for Integrated Academics and Technologies APS-CEP Partnership School

Percent Not Highly Qualified 14.29 14.29 14.67 15.19 15.31 15.38 15.38 15.84 15.90 16.27 16.67 17.47 17.48 18.07 18.13 18.37 18.52 18.97 19.60 20.00 21.03 21.14 21.29 21.50 21.69 21.98 22.08 22.13 22.22 23.53 27.54 27.69 28.69 29.32 33.33 50.00 94.51

75

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

76

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

APPENDIX 2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS Fact Sheet for Georgia Special Education Teachers Certification and Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements This Fact Sheet provides a summary of changes for Special Education (SpEd) teachers in Georgia as a result of the highly qualified (HiQ) teacher requirements of NCLB and IDEA. These changes are being implemented during the 2005-06 school year along with the state certification rule changes that became effective August 15, 2005. This is not an exhaustive explanation of all requirements and changes but hopefully provides a helpful summary. Special education teachers are encouraged to discuss requirements and concerns with their system level administrators. These administrators receive frequent updates and technical assistance, and should be considered the best sources of information. Some systems have requirements for their teachers in addition to state and federal requirements. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS Federal law requires that all special education teachers, including special education teachers in Title I and non-Title I schools, be “highly qualified” on or before August 31, 2006 just as all other teachers of core academic content subjects.  NCLB “highly qualified” teacher requirements refer specifically to the qualifications and certification of teachers who assigned to teach core academic content courses.  Certified Special Education teachers are highly qualified to offer expertise in teaching students with disabilities and to provide opportunities for those students to be successful academically in inclusive classroom settings or in pull-out, resource delivery models. Although highly qualified in the area of special education, IDEA and NCLB now require that all teachers, including special education teachers, provide evidence that they are highly qualified and certified in the content subjects that they teach.  Core academic concentrations in Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, and/or Social Studies must be listed on the Special Education teacher’s teaching certificate in order for the teacher to serve as the teacher of record for any of these subjects. Special Education teachers may meet the highly qualified requirements by meeting the certification requirements to teach the core academic subjects at the required cognitive level and by being assigned to teach the content area listed on their certificate.  Core concentration areas are acquired by (a) having a combination of college course work and/or PLUs totaling 15 semester hours (5 quarter hours or 5 PLUs = 3 semester hours) OR (b) a major in the content area, OR (c) passing the appropriate PRAXIS II ECE, Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge test or individual Middle Grades or Secondary subject tests, OR (d) obtaining, at a minimum, 100 points on the Special Education HOUSSE evaluation (veteran teachers only). Core concentrations at the secondary cognitive level are acquired by (a) having a major or 21 semester hours and/or PLUs (3 semester hours = 5 PLUs), OR (b) passing the appropriate Praxis II subject test(s), OR (c) obtaining, at a minimum, 100 points on the Special Education HOUSSE rubric (veteran teachers only.)  Special Education teachers are not required to meet highly qualified requirements if they are not providing core academic content instruction as the teacher of record. However,

77

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

all students enrolled in grades K – 12 must be provided core academic content instruction by either a Special Education teacher or one who is certified in the content area. CERTIFICATE CHANGES  The names of most SpEd certificates have changed. Many were changed by adding “Consultative Special Education” to the beginning of the certificate title. Some that were given completely new names include: (a) Interrelated is now Special Education General Curriculum (b) Mental Retardation is now Special Education Adapted Curriculum and Special Education General Curriculum (c) Hearing Impaired is now Special Education Deaf Education (d) Orthopedically Impaired is now Special Education Physical and Health Disabilities  These certificates allow teachers to provide Special Education support to students with disabilities within a “consultative” or co-teaching model. In other words, the Special Education teacher can work with another teacher who holds certification in the core content concentration area as a co-teacher or as a consultant, providing special education expertise for students in an inclusive classroom setting.  These certificates do not allow Special Education teachers to be the teacher of record for core content subjects (including English/Language Arts, Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), unless the teacher has a core academic concentration on his/her certificate for the subject. CORE ACADEMIC CONTENT CONCENTRATIONS  The PSC has evaluated transcripts for teachers who have renewable certificates in Special Education and who were employed by Georgia school systems during the last two years. Core academic content concentration areas were added to their Special Education certificates during the conversion to the new titles. The concentrations were identified based on 15 semester hours of core academic content credit on any available college transcripts. These content areas were added at the P-5 and 4-8 cognitive level only.  An appeals procedure to request consideration of additional core content concentration areas at the middle grade cognitive level is available until August 31, 2006. Send an email message to spedappeal@gapsc.com with the following information:  Your name and Social Security number or Certificate number  The specific Core Academic Content Concentration for which you think you qualify  The specific college transcript/s (15 sem hr) or PLU transcript(s)* (25 PLUs) or combination of the two that reflect the content courses (not methods courses) you think will qualify. The specific content course numbers and titles must be listed along with the institution/s from which they were earned.  If you believe that you qualify for a Cognitive Level that is not reflected on your certificate. Please reference in your e-mail the specific content area exam that

78

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

you think will qualify in addition to ALL the information above that is requested for the Concentration.  Although PLUs were not considered in the transcript analysis that was completed before August 15, 2005, PLUs will be considered with proper documentation that they are content and not pedagogy courses. A combined total of the equivalent of 15 sem. hours (5 PLUs = 3 sem. hrs.) is required to add a content concentration at the middle grades level. A combined total of the equivalent of 21 sem. hours (5 PLUs = 3 sem. hrs.) is required to add a content concentration at the secondary level.  In addition to the transcript analysis described above, there are other ways to add content concentration areas:  *Content Assessment(s), OR  Recommendation from Approved Provider (approved under the new rules), OR  Transcript showing a major in a content field, OR  HOUSSE Criteria (for veteran Special Education teachers teaching content) *The currently applicable content tests and cognitive levels are provided on the Testing Options Table, which is available at www.gapsc.com/nclb/home.html, Section 8. All options above except the transcript analysis option will continue to be available after August 31, 2006. DEFINITIONS Consultative is used to refer to the specific roles that special education teachers have when they are providing services in their area(s) of exceptionality(ies). The term incorporates references such as inclusion, mainstreaming, collaborative or co-teacher. The “teacher of record” is defined as the teacher who is responsible for direct instruction of core academic content subjects. Students being taught core academic subjects must be taught by a teacher who is highly qualified to teach that content area and grade level. For special education students this may be either a general education or special education teacher who is certified to teach the subject and grade level. Core academic content concentration areas for special education teachers include language arts, mathematics, science, reading, and social science. Eligibility for a concentration is based on five content courses (15 semester hours/25 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate content area exam (Praxis II, etc.). Eligibility for concentration at the secondary cognitive level is based on seven content courses (21 semester hours/35 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate content area exam (Praxis II,etc.) or completion of HOUSSE. Cognitive level refers to the grade level of instruction provided to Special Education students and is based on a description of how well the student is performing on the curriculum being provided, as described in the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Cognitive levels included grades P-5, 4-8, and 6 – 12 and parallel certification grade spans except for P-12 certificates. HOUSSE is an assessment that may be used to verify a veteran teacher’s competency if the teacher has not met either the content or testing requirement in a specific core academic content area. A score of 100 points or more on the Georgia Content Area Rubric is required to determine that a veteran regular education teacher or special education teacher is “highly qualified,” and/or to add

79

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

core academic content concentrations to special education teachers’ certificates. Since HOUSSE is not time limited, it will remain available for teachers in Georgia. A veteran teacher is one who is not new to the profession and is defined as a teacher in a public school who has been teaching a total of three or more complete school years. The document and instructions for its completion can be found at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/HOUSSE.pdf. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Specific information regarding these changes can be found at the following web sites: Georgia Professional Standards Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality Commission http://www.gapsc.com/ http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/home.html Certification Rules, Testing Information Highly Qualified Requirements GA Implementation Guidelines (Section 8), HOUSSE Rubric & Instructions, Special Education Testing Chart, Frequently Asked Questions for Special Educators

80

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

APPENDIX 3: RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISITS Section I: Planning
Figure 2: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion I-A: Annual Needs Assessment
0% 0% 1%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Figure 3: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion I-B: Alignment of Activities with Annual Needs Assessment
0%
Item I-B

Item I-A

0% 1% 0%

2%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance NoComplete N/A No Data

97%

99%

Figure 4: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion I-C: The Title II-A Plan coordinates with state, and other federal , and local programs

Figure 5: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion I-D: Evidence of collaboration with principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, other relevant school personnel, and parents

0%
Item I-C

0% 1% 0%
Item I-D 1%

0% 0% 1%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

99%

98%

81

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Figure 6: Systems In Compliance With Monitoring Criterion I-E: Evidence of Planning for Improved Teacher and Principal Quality

Item I-E

2% 1%

0% 1%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

96%

82

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Section II: Expenditure of Funds
Figure 7: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-A: Targeting of Expenditures
Item II-A

Figure 8: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-B: Budget

4% 0%

0% 1%

Item II-B

1% 2%

0% 0%

Systems Not In Compliance Systems In Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

95%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

97%

Figure 9: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-C: Records of Consolidation or Transfers
0%
Item II-C
Systems Not in Compliance Systems In Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Figure10: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-D: Completion Report from Previous Year

5% 0%

Item II-D

2% 3%

0% 2%

0%

95%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

93%

Figure 11: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-E: Documentation of Expenditures

Figure12: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-F: Documentation that Title II-A Funds Supplement and Do Not Supplant

Item II-E

1% 2%

0% 4%

Item II-F

10% 1%
Systems Not in Compliance

0% 1%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

93%

88%

83

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Figure 13: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-G: Documentation of required Maintenance of Fiscal Effort

Figure 14: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-H: Private School Participation

0%
Item II-G

1% 0%

0% 0%

Item II-H

1% 18%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

1%

99%

80%

Figure 15: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion II-I: Documentation of Appropriateness of Payments to Personnel

Item II-I

4% 1%

0% 4%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

91%

84

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Section III: Parent Notices
Figure 16: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion III-A: Parents Informed of Their “Right to Know”
Item III-A

Figure17: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion III-B: Parents Informed of Non-HiQ Status of Teachers

2% 1%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

0% 14%

Item III-B

0% 28%

16%

83%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

3% 53%

Section IV: Private School Participation
Figure 18: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion IV-A: Opportunity for Equal Participation Figure 19: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion IV-B: Participation in Design, Development, and Implementation of Professional Learning Plan
Item IV-B 0% 3% 13% 0%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Item IV-A

0% 31% 0%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

0% 69%

84%

Figure 20: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion IV-C: Activities for Private School Teachers Meet Title II-A Requirements
0%
Item IV-C

0% 14% 1%

Systems Not In Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

85%

85

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Section V: Other Documentation
Figure 21: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-A: Highly Qualified Teacher Benchmarks Figure 22: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-B: Professional Learning Activities Based on Scientific Research
Item V-B

Item V-A

3% 0%

0% 0%

1% 4%

0% 0%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

97%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

95%

Figure 23: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-C: Teachers in Alternative Routes Making Progress Toward Full HiQ Status
Item V-C

Figure 24: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-D: Complete Documentation for All Teachers Reported HiQ Due to HOUSSE
Item V-D

0% 17% 3% 1%

2% 34%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A

2%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

2%

60%

79%

No Data

Figure 25: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-E: HiQ2 Report

Figure 26: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-F: Evidence of Monthly Consultation for Alternative Schools Using Consultative Model

Item V-E

3% 0%

0% 0%

Item V-F

0% 9% 13%

Systems Not in Compliance
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A

4%

74%

97%

No Data

86

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Figure 27: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion V-G: LEA Charter Schools’ HiQ Teacher Data
1% 1%

Item V-G

5% 0%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance Not Complete N/A No Data

93%

87

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

APPENDIX 4: PSC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION List of PSC Activities Related to Reforming Teacher and Principal Preparation and Certification State Activity Praxis I Project Description Workshop Assistance to students preparing for Praxis I Basic Assessments by Kaplan organization Analyses conducted with the Board of Regents to determine the data elements that could be used for performance assessment of the candidates in preparation programs State provided paraprofessional assessment during the summer of 2002 prior to the development of the ETS paraprofessional assessment, which is used presently Beginning development of a state managing and reporting system for annual reporting of candidates’ and units’ performance on state standards Focus Group meetings and surveys with special education teachers on issues of certification for special education Analyses of certified special education teachers’ transcripts to assess the number of content courses and amount of preparation in the core academic content areas Series of training sessions and meetings statewide by the PSC on certification reforms Determination of data elements to be used for the statewide approval of preparation programs based on performance standards for candidates and education unit

Assessment of Preparation Programs

Paraprofessional Assessment

Performance Assessment and Program Activities

Program Development for Special Education Teacher Preparation and Certification Transcript Analyses for Verification of Subject Matter for Certified Special Education Teachers Orientation and Training for New State Certification Rules Performance Assessment of Educator Preparation Activities

88

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Content Course Development for Special Education Teachers Birth to Five Preparation Program

Development of web-based modules for certified education teachers to add content in reading and mathematics Development of innovative delivery for birth to five curriculum to prepare and certify teachers for early childhood 0-5

List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Mentoring State Activity Program Development and Training for Teacher Support Specialists (TSS) TSS statewide training Description Development of 7 web-based modules by ESchool for the preparation of teachers who mentor candidates and provide induction Orientation and statewide training on the use of the TSS Modules as preparation

List of PSC Activities Related to Creation or Expansion of Alternative Routes to Certification State Activity Development of Special Education Modules Development of Alternative Preparation Program Development and Training for Special Education Preparation Program Development and Training for Georgia Alternative North Georgia Consortium Description Editing and completion of 11 web-based modules for interrelated special education preparation offered statewide through Armstrong Atlantic State University Development of web-based modules for the Georgia TAPP program State provided paraprofessional assessment during the summer of 2002 prior to the development of the ETS paraprofessional assessment, which is used presently Continuation of the development of webbased modules for the Georgia TAPP program Formation of a regional consortium between colleges/universities, regional education state agency, and school systems

89

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

to provide alternative preparation for qualified candidates Georgia TAPP – Evaluation of Programs Evaluation study to determine the outcomes, attrition of the GA TAPP program after 4 years of operation

List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Recruitment and Retention State Activity National Board Recruitment National Board Candidate Recruitment National Board Recruitment National Board recruitment/training Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities Description

Funds used to recruit and provide assistance with teachers’ preparation for national board teacher certification

Preparation of marketing materials, development of the TeachGeorgia recruitment site; and recruitment of minority students

90

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

List of PSC Activities Related to High-quality Professional Development in Core Academic Areas State Activity Description Professional development program for teaching reading strategies with a web-based module format, developed by Voyage Analysis of a survey on professional development by DOE Development of a videotaped interview with the national staff development president, on the national standards for staff development This project will develop a mechanism to use the HiQ data by school system or by RESA as a needs assessment instrument to determine teacher preparation needs and professional learning on teacher qualifications

Voyager Reading project

Professional Development Survey

Professional Development

Teacher Professional Assessment using HiQ Data

91

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

APPENDIX 5: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04 Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND CONSEQUENCES. 1(1) Awards. 2(a) Each public school shall be eligible for Awards based on its Accountability Profile, including primarily its Performance Index determination. Awards may include public recognition, increased flexibility, with regard to state or federal requirements (to the extent permitted under state and federal law), and financial awards (subject to appropriation). Detailed information regarding Awards and criteria for Awards shall be included in the Accountability Plan presented annually to the State Board of Education, described in Rule 160-7-1-.03 Accountability Profiles. 3 4(2) School-Level Consequences. 5 6(a) In accordance with state and federal law, each public school identified as Needs Improvement shall be subject to consequences designed to help improve student achievement based on its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determination. The Accountability Profile and Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) guidance will inform the nature and degree of the required improvement plans (i.e., school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring). The GDOE shall provide, in accordance with the NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117 (a), a system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools identified as Needs Improvement. 1.A school shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the school has not made AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years. 2.A school shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the school has made AYP for two consecutive years. 3.Escalation in levels of Needs Improvement status shall be based on the school’s failure to make AYP in the same subject for two or more consecutive years. A school that fails to make AYP, but does not fail to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years, will remain in its existing Needs Improvement status for the following school year. A school that makes AYP for one year will also remain in its existing Needs Improvement status for the following year. 4.Pursuant to recommendations of the School Performance Review and needs assessment conducted by the GDOE, schools identified as Needs Improvement 7 or beyond may be, at any time, subject to escalating consequences to include, but are not limited to, an Improvement Contract, pursuant to paragraph (g) (2), or a Management Contract, pursuant to Section (i) (2). 5.The LEA must promptly notify parents of each student enrolled in such schools of the school’s classification. The notice must be in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents understand. Additionally, it must honor the privacy of all students and their families. The notice must include: (i) An explanation of a school’s status under this rule and the school’s performance relative to

92

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

other schools in the LEA and the state. (ii) Reasons the school is identified for improvement. (iii) An explanation of actions by the school to improve student achievement. (iv) An explanation of what the LEA and/or the GDOE are doing to improve student achievement. (v) An explanation regarding the means for parent involvement in issues which contributed to the school’s failure to make AYP. 6.The LEA shall provide technical assistance to the school identified as Needs Improvement. (b) Needs Improvement Year 1. A school that has not made AYP for a period of two consecutive years in the same subject shall be identified as Needs Improvement Year 1 and shall be subject to the following requirements: 1.The school shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified as Needs Improvement, a School Improvement Plan. The School Improvement Plan shall be for a minimum of a twoyear period. The plan shall be subject to a peer review process by the LEA within 45 days of receipt, shall be coordinated by the LEA, shall be approved by the local board of education, and shall be made available to the GDOE upon request. The School Improvement Plan shall meet the requirements of NCLB Act of 2001, section 1116, as applicable and as provided in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The school shall implement the School Improvement Plan upon approval by the LEA. 2.The LEA shall provide students enrolled in the school the option to transfer to another public school that has not been identified as Needs Improvement within the LEA. 0(i) LEAs shall provide or ensure transportation to students exercising the option to transfer to another public school in the LEA that has not been identified as Needs Improvement. For the 200405 school year and any subsequent year in which the legislature does not appropriate funds for the provision of transportation to non-Title I students exercising the option to transfer to another public school pursuant to this rule, the parent or guardian assumes responsibility for the transportation of that student. The LEA shall provide transportation for students transferring from Title I schools in accordance with federal law. 1 2(ii) For students transferring from non-Title I schools, the LEA is not required to exceed facility capacity when determining school choice options and shall give priority to the lowest achieving students. For students transferring from Title I schools, the LEA may not use lack of capacity to deny school choice to those students. 3 (c) Needs Improvement Year 2. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 2 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs

93

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Improvement Year 1 as well as to the following requirement: 1.The LEA shall offer students enrolled in the school access to instructional extension services in accordance with SBOE Rule 160-4-2-.14 Instructional Extension prioritizing the school’s lowest achieving students. For Title I schools, Supplemental Educational Services shall be provided in accordance with federal law and State Board of Education Rule 160-4-5-.03 Supplemental Educational Services. (d) Needs Improvement Year 3. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 3 pursuant to Section (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 2 as well as to the following requirements: 1.The LEA shall develop and implement, no later than 3 months after being identified for corrective action, a School Corrective Action Plan. The Corrective Action Plan shall be approved by the local board of education, and shall be made available to the GDOE. The School Corrective Action Plan shall be in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The school shall implement the School Corrective Action Plan upon approval by the LEA. The LEA shall select at least one corrective action from the following: 4(i) Replace the school staff that are relevant to the school not making AYP. 5 6(ii) Institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including providing appropriate professional learning opportunities that are grounded in scientifically-based or evidence-based research and offer substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students. 7 8(iii) Significantly decrease management authority at the school level. 9 10(iv) Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward meeting required achievement targets. 11 12(v) Extend the school year and/or school day for the school. 13 14(vi) Restructure the internal organizational arrangement of the school. 15 (e) Needs Improvement Year 4. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 4 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 3 as well as to the following requirements: 1.The LEA shall continue to implement the corrective action selected the previous year. 2.The LEA shall develop a plan to restructure the governance arrangement of the school and shall assure that the School Restructuring Plan is received by the GDOE no later than six months after the school is identified for improvement and restructuring. The School Restructuring Plan shall be implemented for a minimum of a two-year period, shall be subject to a peer review process coordinated by the GDOE, and shall be approved by the GDOE. The School

94

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Restructuring Plan shall meet the requirements of NCLB Act of 2001, section 1116, as applicable and as provided in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The LEA shall implement the plan no later than the beginning of the school year in which the LEA/school is identified as Needs Improvement Year 5. The LEA shall include in its plan at least one of the restructuring options from the following: (i) Reopening the school as a public charter school. (ii) Replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the school not making AYP. (iii) Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school. (iv) Any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP. (f) Needs Improvement Year 5. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 5 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 4 in addition to the requirement that the LEA begin implementing the restructuring plan developed and approved the previous year. (g) Needs Improvement Year 6. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 6 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall continue to implement the Restructuring Plan. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate updates and revisions to the Restructuring Plan during this second year of implementation. 1.The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 6 school shall be subject to a School Performance Review and needs assessment conducted by the GDOE. The GDOE School Performance Review team will make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding school-level and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the findings from the School Performance Review. 2.The Improvement Contract, outlining the LEA’s commitment to implement the identified interventions with assistance from the GDOE, will be developed and signed by the LEA superintendent, the local board of education chair, the State Superintendent, and the State Board of Education chair. Failure of the LEA to enter into the Improvement Contract pursuant to this rule will result in a referral to the Office of Student Achievement (OSA) for non-compliance. The Improvement Contract must be implemented no later than the beginning of the school year the school is identified in Needs Improvement Year 7. The Improvement Contract shall be in effect for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be subject to ongoing review and evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Improvement Contract shall be developed in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE.

95

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

3.School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the removal of personnel at the school level relevant to the school not making AYP; appointment of a Principal Master and/or Instructional Coach; management of the school budget; and utilization of Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) Learning Frameworks and nine-week Progress Monitoring. 4.LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the removal of personnel at the LEA level relevant to the school not making AYP; appointment of an LEA Support Specialist to manage and approve the financial, personnel, and program resources of the school; redirection of resources (state and federal) to support improvements; plan for a local conversion charter. (h) Needs Improvement Year 7. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 7 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified as a Contract-Monitored School and shall implement the interventions outlined in the Improvement Contract developed and agreed upon no later than the beginning of the school year. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the Improvement Contract during this first year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education. (i) Needs Improvement Year 8. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 8 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain classified as a Contract-Monitored School and shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 7. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate updates and revisions to the Improvement Contract during this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education. 1.The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 8 school shall be subject to a System Performance Review and needs assessment conducted by the GDOE. The GDOE System Performance Review team will make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding school-level and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the findings from the System Performance Review. 2.The Management Contract, outlining the commitment to implement the identified interventions with assistance from the GDOE, will be developed and signed by the LEA superintendent, the local board of education chair, the State Superintendent, and the State Board of Education chair. Failure of the LEA to enter into the Management Contract pursuant to this rule will result in referral to OSA for non-compliance. The Management Contract must be implemented no later than the beginning of the school year the school is identified in Needs Improvement Year 9. The Management Contract shall be in effect for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be subject to ongoing review and evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Management Contract shall be developed in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE. 3.School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to school closure; mandated charter school; complete reconstitution of the school; site-based expenditure controls; specified maximum class sizes.

96

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

4.LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to a decrease of management authority for the superintendent and local board of education; assignment of a management team to operate all or part of the LEA; restructuring of the LEA’s governance arrangement. (j) Needs Improvement Year 9. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 9 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 8. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the Management Contract during this first year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education. (k) Needs Improvement Year 10. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 10 pursuant to paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain classified as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 9. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the Management Contract during this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education. (3) LEA-Level Consequences. (a) Each LEA identified as Needs Improvement shall be subject to consequences designed to help improve student achievement based on its AYP determination. The Accountability Profile and GDOE guidance will inform the nature and degree of the required improvement plans. The GDOE shall provide assistance to LEAs identified as Needs Improvement. 1.An LEA shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the LEA has not made AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years at both elementary/middle school and the high school levels. 2.An LEA shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the LEA has made AYP for two consecutive years. (b) An LEA that has not made AYP in the same subject for a period of two consecutive years at both elementary/middle school and the high school levels shall be identified as Needs Improvement Year 1 and shall be subject to the following requirements: 1.The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified as Needs Improvement, an LEA Improvement Plan. The LEA Improvement Plan shall be for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be reviewed and approved by the GDOE. The LEA Improvement Plan shall be in accordance with content and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE. The LEA shall implement the plan expeditiously, but not later than the beginning of the next school year after the school year in which the LEA was identified for improvement. (c) An LEA identified as Needs Improvement Year 2 shall implement the LEA Improvement Plan developed pursuant to subsection (3)(b), if not previously implemented. (d) An LEA identified as Needs Improvement Year 3 pursuant to subsection (3)

97

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

(b) shall be subject to the following requirements: 1.The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified for corrective action, an LEA Corrective Action Plan. The LEA Corrective Action Plan, shall be integrated with the LEA Improvement Plan, shall be for a minimum of a two-year period, and shall be reviewed by the GDOE and approved by the State Board of Education upon recommendation of the GDOE. The LEA Corrective Action Plan shall be in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE. The LEA shall implement the Corrective Action Plan no later than the beginning of the school year following the school year in which the LEA was identified for corrective action. 2.The LEA Corrective Action Plan shall include at least one corrective action as defined in federal law, which may include major restructuring of the system’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, consistent with the corrective action options, and has substantial promise of enabling the LEA to meet AYP. 7(4) OSA Audit Function and Record Retention Requirements. 8 1.Record Retention Requirements. In addition to all other records required to be maintained by federal and state law, LEAs and schools shall maintain current records of contact information for all teachers, parents, and school council members. Teacher contact information shall include subjects and grade level/s taught, class schedules, years of experience, and certificate level. Parent contact information shall include current school or schools attended by children and current grade levels of children. School council member contact information shall include name, title, and community relationship to the school. 2.Right to Audit. OSA may, upon GDOE recommendation or upon its own initiative, investigate evidence of school or LEA noncompliance with the requirements of this rule at any time. Such investigation may include performing an on-site audit of any school or LEA at any time. The onsite OSA Audit may include, but is not limited to, a review of the school or LEA’s records or procedures, including a review of school or LEA performance and accounting information and records. Auditors may gather school performance information from school administrators, teachers, and parents of students enrolled in the LEA. 3.Upon conclusion of its investigation, OSA, where applicable, will prepare a draft audit report detailing the findings of its investigation. OSA will provide the affected LEA or school with a copy of the draft report and provide the school or LEA with thirty days to review and comment on the findings contained in the draft report. The affected school or LEA must submit its comments on the findings contained in the draft report to the attention of OSA’s Executive Director. OSA may include, but is not required to include, the comments provided by the affected school or LEA in its final report. OSA will transmit its final report to the GDOE for submission to the SBOE. 4.When applicable, OSA’s final report may make a recommendation to the SBOE as to how to address the school or LEA’s noncompliance with this rule. OSA may recommend sanctions

98

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

including, but not limited to, withholding of federal and/or state funds pursuant to the procedures provided in State Board of Education Rule 160-5-2- .02. Authority O.C.G.A. § 20-14-26; 20-14-37; 20-14-38; 20-14-41. Adopted: July 14, 2005 Effective: August 4, 2005

99

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

APPENDIX 6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO CERTIFICATION IN GEORGIA
CATEGORIES (2) Renewable Non-Renewable

TITLES (7) Clear Renewable Non-Renewable Professional (N) Performance-Based (PB) Intern (I) International Exchange (X) Life (D) Waiver (W) TYPES (6) Teaching (T), Service (S), Leadership (L), Parapro (PARA), Technical Specialist (TS), Permit (P)

Routes to Certification
Traditional Routes - Obtaining a Georgia certificate by completing a state-approved educator preparation program, usually at a college or university. This process could include earning a college degree along with the state certificate, or you might complete the requirements just for a certificate after you have already finished your degree. In addition, educators who move to Georgia with an outof-state certificate must meet Georgia's certification requirements through reciprocity procedures. For the most part, the traditional initial programs are completed prior to employment in a public school and lead directly to Georgia's Clear Renewable Certificate. Alternative Routes - Obtaining a Georgia certificate while you work as an educator. Designed for "career switchers" who already hold degrees and have various life experiences, as well as former educators with expired or invalid certificates who wish to return to the classroom. These routes are not limited to, but are of particular importance when completed in high need, shortage fields such as math, science, foreign language and special education. Initial eligibility requirements lead to a Non-Renewable Certificate and remaining requirements are completed while the individual is serving as an educator in a Georgia public school. Upon completion of this route, the Clear Renewable Certificate is issued. International Exchange Teacher Route - Obtaining a Georgia certificate based on your teacher certification in another country. International exchange certificates may be awarded to teachers certified in their native country who are not U.S. citizens but who wish to come to Georgia and teach for up to three years. Permit Route - Obtaining a Georgia permit to teach in special restricted circumstances. Permits allow performing artists, retired teachers and native foreign language speakers to teach in Georgia classrooms and selected business/professional leaders to serve in Superintendent positions based on their rich expertise. Each route is designed to combine high standards with flexibility to bring quality teachers into the classroom. While each route has a unique set of eligibility requirements and different ways to achieve certification, the standards and requirements for the Clear Renewable Certificate are the same regardless of the route chosen.

100

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Changes Resulting From Georgia’s Certification Changes with its Focus On Highly Qualified Teachers And Paraprofessionals Developing the concept of the highly qualified teacher has brought about a number of changes in Georgia’s teacher certification rules. The current definition for the HiQ software uses basic credentialing to establish highly qualified teacher status. To clarify and strengthen the HiQ requirements, a total revision of the certification rules has resulted As a specific example, the PSC enforced the concept of the middle grades teachers being appropriately prepared in the content which they are assigned to teach. State rules no longer permit teaching core academic content based on a generic middle grades certificate. The rule change requires the teacher to have specific preparation in the content taught and/or a passing score on the appropriate content assessment with the content areas listed on the certificate. This specific certification rule has been in effect for five years. The graph in figure 1 shows the changes resulting from that certification decision. It also illustrates that changes in certification rules take time to implement. Therefore, the impact of many changes resulting from Title II, Part A will not be realized immediately. Another certification change is in the out-of-field teaching rule. This change allows no out-of-field teaching during any part of the school day. Rule 505-2-.26 In-field Assignments states that all teachers must have assignments within their field and grade level as specified on their certificate for one hundred percent of the school day. Rule 505-2-.84 Middle Grades provides a phase-in period which will result in all teaching assignments being in-field by the beginning of 2006-2007 school year. For more information refer to http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherCertification.asp. Figure 1: Effect of PSC Middle Grades Certification Rule Changes on the Certification of Teachers
Georgia Public Middle School Teacher Subject Assignment
7,000

6,000

5,000

Number of Teachers

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Middle English Math Science SocSt

1999 6,179 2,186 1,694 1,336 1,458

2000 6,307 2,240 1,748 1,387 1,507

2001 5,377 2,694 2,037 1,658 1,649

2002 4,665 3,010 2,371 1,939 2,025 School Year

2003 3,849 3,422 2,722 2,255 2,318

2004 1,897 4,147 3,361 2,700 2,746

2005 1,855 4,234 3,512 2,822 2,815

101

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A APPENDIX SEVEN: REFERENCES FOR QUALITY TEACHING Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003). Teachers and student achievement in Chicago public Abernathy, T.V., Forsyth, A., and Mitchell, J. (2001). "The Bridge from Student to Teacher: What Principals, Teacher Education Faculty and Students Value in a Teaching Applicant." Teacher Education Quarterly, 28 (4), 109-119.

achievement: A quantitative synthesis of the research. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Adams, G.J. (1996). "Using a Cox Regression Model To Examine Voluntary Teacher Turnover." Journal of Experimental Education, 64 (3), 267-285. Adkins, K.R. and P.B. Oakes (1995). Inside the Kentucky Teacher Intern Program: Impressions of the

Participants.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford, UK: Allen, M. (2003). Eight Question on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/tpreport. Allred, W.E., and Smith, R.B. (1984). "Profile of Utah Teachers Leaving the Teaching Profession." Rural Educator, 5 (3), 2-5. Alvermann, D.E. and G.G. Hruby (2000). "Mentoring and Reporting Research: A Concern for Aesthetics." Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1): 46-63. American education. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 14, pp. 169-238). American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (2003). 2003 Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends . Washington, DC: AFT. http://www.aft.org/salary/. Andrew, M.D. (1983). "The Characteristics of Students in a Five Year Teacher Education Program." Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (1), 20-23. Andrew, M.D., and Schwab, R.L. (1995). "Has Reform in Teacher Education Influenced Teacher Performance? An Outcome Assessment of Graduates of an Eleven-University Consortium." Action in Teacher Education, 17 (3), 43-53. Applegate, J.H., and Shaklee, B. (1988). "Some Observations about Recruiting Bright Students for Teacher Preparation." Peabody Journal of Education, 65 (2), 52-65. Archer, J. (2004, January 21). Leaders group faces shortcomings. Education Week. Retrieved September Arends, R.I. and A.J. Rigazio-DiGilio (2000). Beginning Teacher Induction: Research and Examples of Contemporary Practice. Arnold, C.L., Choy, S.P., and Bobbitt, S.A. (1993). Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Bainer, D.L., G.A. Kramer et al. (1999). "Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 1999." Mid Western Educational Researcher, 12(1). Ballou, D. (1996). "Do Public Schools Hire the Best Applicants?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111 (1), 97-133.

102

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1995). "Recruiting Smarter Teachers." Journal of Human Resources, 30 (2), 326-338. Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality . Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute. Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1998). "Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Public and Private Schools." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17 (3), 393-417. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved August 5, 2003, from c-b-e.org/martp/pubsinfo.htm Basil Blackwell. Beaudin, B.Q. (1993). "Teachers Who Interrupt Their Careers: Characteristics of Those Who Return to the Classroom." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (1), 51-64. Beaudin, B.Q. (1995). "Former Teachers Who Return To Public Schools: District and Teacher Characteristics of Teachers Who Return To the Districts They Left." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 , 462-475. Bell, R.H. (1999). "On Becoming a Teacher of Teachers. Voices Inside Schools." Harvard Educational Review, 69(4): 447-55. Bennett, N. et al. (1995). The Impact of Training and Role Differentiation on the Nature and Quality of Mentoring Processes. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 93-110). New York: Random House. Berliner, D. C. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple theory of classroom instruction. In D. C. Berliner, D. C. (2004). If the underlying premise for No Child Left Behind is false, how can that act solve our Berry, B. (1986). "Why Bright College Students Won't Teach." Urban Review, 18 (4), 269-280. Berry, B., Noblit, G.W., and Hare, R.D. (1985). "A Qualitative Critique of Teacher Labor Market Studies." Urban Review, 17 (2), 98-110. Boe, E. E., & Gilford, D. M. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models, Boe, E.E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L., Whitener, S.D., and Weber, A.L. (1997). "Why Didst Thou Go? Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers from a National Perspective." The Journal of Special Education, 30, 390-411. Boe, E.E., S.A. Bobbitt et al. (1998). National Trends in Teacher Supply and Turnover for Special and General Education. Data Analysis Report No. 1998-DAR1. Philadelphia Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, Pennsylvania University. Bradley, L. and S.P. Gordon (1994). "Comparing the Ideal to the Real in State-mandated Teacher Induction Programs." Journal of Staff Development, 15(3): 44-48. Brewer, D. J. (1961). Threat of discovery. Harvard Education Review, 31, 21-32. Brewer, D.J. (1996). "Career Paths and Quit Decisions: Evidence from Teaching." Journal of Labor Economics, 14 (2), 313-339.

103

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A .Broughman, S.P. and M.R. Rollefson (2000). Teacher Supply in the United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1987-88 to 1993-94. Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Broughman, S.P. and Rollefson, M.R. (2000). "Teacher Supply in the United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools: 1987-88 to 1993-94." Education Statistics Quarterly, 2 (3), 28-32. Brown, J.G. and C. Wambach (1987). Using Mentors To Increase New Teacher Retention: The Mentor Teacher Induction Project. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Arlington, VA: Department of Elementary Education, San Francisco State University. Bullard, C. 1998. Qualified Teachers for All California Students: Current Issues in Recruitment, Retention, Preparation and Professional Development, CRB-98-012. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau. Burns, D. (1980). The Evaluation of Student Teaching Practice – An Occupational Analysis Approach. Burns, D. (1982). Trainers in Industry and Teachers in Schools: A Comparative Analysis of Two Teaching Professions. Buttery, T.J. et al. (1990). "First Annual ATE Survey of Critical Issues in Teacher Education." Action in Teacher Education, 12(2): 1-7. Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., & Guarino, C. (2000). The distribution of teachers among California’s school Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., and Guarino, C., assisted by Mejia, A. (2000). The Distribution of Teachers Among California's School Districts and Schools (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Carter, M., and Carter, C.M. (2000). "How Principals Can Attract Teachers to the Middle Grades." Schools in the Middle, 9 (8), 22-25. Carter, P. and R. DiBella (1982). Follow-up of 1980-81 Graduates at the Ohio State University's College of Education Teacher Certification Program. Technical Report No. 7. Case, C.W., Shive, R.J., Ingebretson, K., and Spiegel, V.M. (1988). "Minority Teacher Education: Recruitment and Retention Methods." Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (4), 54-57. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2002). California’s teaching force: Key issues and Chapman, D.W., and Hutcheson, S.M. (1982). "Attrition from Teaching Careers: A Discriminant Analysis." American Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 93-105. Charles A. Dana Center. (2002). Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for Year Three – 2001-02. Austin, TX. Cheng, M. and R.S. Brown (1992). A Two-year Evaluation of the Peer Support Pilot Project: 1990-1992. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto Board of Education, Research Department.

104

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Cheung, O. (2000). Privacy issues in education staff records: Guidelines for education agencies. Clewell, B.C., and Villegas, A.M. (2001). Evaluation of the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund's Pathways to Teaching Careers Program . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Colbert, J.A. and D.E. Wolff (1992). "Surviving in Urban Schools: A Collaborative Model for a Beginning Teacher Support System." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 193-199. College Record, 107(1), 186-215. Condliff, S. (2001). Teacher demand and supply projections for the Mid-Atlantic Region: A macro Council for Basic Education (2000). Steps towards data driven policy: A profile of teacher supply and Council, National Academy Press. Cyphert, F.R. and K.A. Ryan (1984). "Extending Initial Teacher Preparation: Some Issues and Answers." Action in Teacher Education, 6(1-2): 63-70. Danielson, C. (1999). "Mentoring Beginning Teachers: The Case for Mentoring." Teaching and Change, 6(3): 251-57. Danser, T. (2002). "Building the Capacity of School Districts To Design, Implement and Evaluate New Teacher Mentor Programs: Action Points for Colleges and Universities." Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(1), 47-55. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future . Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). "Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence." Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Darling-Hammond, L., Kirby, S.N. and Hudson, L. (1989). Redesigning Teacher Education: Opening the Door for New Recruits to Science and Mathematics Teaching (R-3661-FF/CSTP). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Davis, B.H., Higdon, K.A., Resta, V.K., and Latiolais, L.L. (2001). "Teacher Fellows: A Graduate Program for Beginning Teachers." Action in Teacher Education, 23 (2), 43-49. DeBolt, G. (1991). Mentoring: Studies of Effective Programs in Education. DeBolt, G.P. (1989). Helpful Elements in the Mentoring of First Year Teachers. A Report to the State Education Department on the New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1988-1989. DeLong, T.J. (1987). "Teachers and Their Careers: Why Do They Choose Teaching?" Journal of Career Development, 14 (2), 118-125. deVoss, G. and R. DiBella (1981). Follow-up of 1979-80 Graduates at the Ohio State University's College of Education Teacher Certification Program. Technical Report #6. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. districts and schools (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Dometrius, N.C., and Sigelman, L. (1988). "The Cost of Quality: Teacher Testing and Racial-Ethnic Representativeness in Public Education." Social Science Quarterly , 69 (1), 70-82. Durbin, D. (1991). Review of Pre-1980 and Post-1980 Induction Programs. Induction Program Review.

105

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Dworkin, A.G. (1980). "The Changing Demography of Public School Teachers: Some Implications for Faculty Turnover in Urban Areas." Sociology of Education, 53 (2), 65-73. Eberhard, J., P. Reinhardt-Mondragon et al. (2000). Strategies for New Teacher Retention: Creating a Climate of Authentic Professional Development for Teachers with Three or Less Years of Experience. Corpus Christi, TX: South Texas Research and Development Center, Texas A&M University. Education Leaders Council. (2001). Weekly policy update,October 5, 2001. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23. Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1994). "Do School and Teacher Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High School and Beyond." Economics of Education Review, 13 (1), 1-17. Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s? Coleman Revisited." Economics of Education Review, 14 (1), 1-21. Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). "Do Teachers' Race, Gender and Ethnicity Matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (3), 547-561. Evans, R.H. (1987). "Factors Which Deter Potential Science/Math Teachers from Teaching: Changes Necessary To Ameliorate Their Concerns." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (1), 77-85. Evertson, C.M. and M.W. Smithey (2000). "Mentoring Effects on Proteges' Classroom Practice: An Experimental Field Study." Journal of Educational Research, 93(5): 294-304. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Foleno, T. (2000). A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why . New York: Public Agenda. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). "Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review." ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). "From Preparation to Practice: Designing a Continuum To Strengthen and Sustain Teaching." Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-55. Feiman-Nemser, S. and M.B. Parker (1992). Mentoring in Context: A Comparison of Two U.S. Programs for Beginning Teachers. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL) Special Report. East Lansing, MI: NCRTL. Feiman-Nemser, S. et al. (1992). Are Mentor Teachers Teacher Educators? East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Feiman-Nemser, S., S. Schwille et al. (1999). A Conceptual Review of Literature on New Teacher Induction. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, 47. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers Ferguson, R.F. (1991). "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, 465-498. Ferguson, R.F. (1998). "Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap?" In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score Gap . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 318-374.

106

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Fetler, M. (1999). High School Characteristics and Mathematics Test Results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (9). Fideler E. and D. Haselkorn (1999). Learning the Ropes: Urban Teacher Induction Rrograms and Practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Figlio, D.N. (2002). "Can Public Schools Buy Better-Qualified Teachers?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55 (4), 686-697. Fletcher, S., M. Strong and A.Villar (2004). An Investigation of the Effects of Teacher Experience and Teacher Preparedness on the Performance of Latino Students in California. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Flyer, F., and Rosen, S. (1997). "The New Economics of Teachers and Education." Journal of Labor Economics, 15 (1), S104-S139. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Education Technology, Division of Freiberg, M. et al. (1994). Perceptions of Beginning Teachers in an Urban Setting: Does Mentoring Make a Difference? from http://www.c-b-e-org/martp/pubdatarpt.htm. Fuller, E. (2003). Begining Teacher Retention Rates for TxBESS and Non-TxBESS Teachers. Unpublished paper. State Board for Educator Certification, Texas. Furtwengler, C. (1995). "Beginning Teachers Programs: Analysis of State Actions during the Reform Era." Education Policy Analysis Archives. Galchus, K.E. (1994). "An Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Supply and Demand for Teacher Quality." Journal of Economics and Finance, 18 (2), 165-178. Ganser, T. (1994). "The Perceptions of School Principals about a Mentoring Program for Newly Hired Urban School Teachers." Educator, 30(2): 13-23. Ganser, T. (1996). "What Do Mentors Say about Mentoring?" Journal of Staff Development, 17(3): 36-39. Ganser, T. (1997). The Contribution of Service as a Cooperating Teacher and Mentor Teacher to the Professional Development of Teachers. Ganser, T. (1999). Areas of Advice Seeking among Beginning Teachers in a Mentoring Program. Ganser, T. (2000). Evaluating a University Mentoring Program for K-12 Teachers: The University of WisconsinWhitewater Beginning Teacher Assistance Program. Ganser, T. (2002). "The New Teacher Mentors: Four Trends That Are Changing the Look of Mentoring Programs for New Teachers." American School Board Journal, 189(12), 25-27. Giebelhaus, C. (1999). "Leading the Way . . . State Initiatives and Mentoring." Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 12(4): 10-13. Giebelhaus, C. and M. Bendixon-Noe (1997). "Mentoring: Help or Hindrance? Research Alive." Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 10(4): 20-23. Giebelhaus, C.R. and C. Bowman (2000). Teaching Mentors: Is It Worth the Effort?

107

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Gitomer, D.H., Latham, A.S., and Ziomek, R. (1999). The Academic Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and Licensure Testing . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Glennie, E., Coble, C.R. and Allen, M. (2004, November). Teacher Perceptions of the Work Environment in Hard-toStaff Schools. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/55/87/5587.doc. Gold, M. (1987). Retired Teachers as Consultants to New Teachers: A New Inservice Teacher Training Model. Final Report. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 54. Gold, Y. (1999). “Beginning Teacher Support.” In J. Sikula, T. Buttery and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Education (2nd ed.): 548-594. New York: Macmillan. Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (2000). "Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status and Student Achievement." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2), 129-145. Goldhaber, D.D., Brewer, D.J. and Anderson, D.J. (1999). "A Three-Way Error Components Analysis of Educational Productivity." Education Economics, 7 (3), 199-208. Gordon, J.A. (1994). "Why Students of Color Are Not Entering Teaching: Reflections from Minority Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 346-353. Gregson, J.A. and J.W. Piper (1993). "The Ohio Induction Process: Perceptions of Beginning Secondary School Trade and Industrial Teachers." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30(2): 30-43. Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1987). Teacher Attrition: The Uphill Climb To Staff the Nation's Schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1992). Patterns of Attrition among Indiana Teachers, 1965-1987. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1997). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Quality." Teachers College Record, 99: 45-56. Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1992). Patterns of Attrition Among Indiana Teachers: 1965-87 (R-4076-LE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1997). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Quality." Teachers College Record, 99 (1), 4556. Gritz, R.M., and Theobald, N.D. (1996). "The Effects of School District Spending Priorities on Length of Stay in Teaching." Journal of Human Resources, 31 (3), 477-512. Hafner, A. and J. Owings (1991). Careers in Teaching: Following Members of the High School Class of 1972 In and Out of Teaching (NCES Report No. 91-470). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. W. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and Hall, B.W., Pearson, L.C., and Carroll, D. (1992). "Teachers' Long-Range Teaching Plans: A Discriminant Analysis." Journal of Educational Research, 85 (4), 221-225. Haney,W., Madaus, G.,&Kreitzer,A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing teachers for the improvement of

108

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Hanushek, E.A. (1992). "The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and Quality." Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1), 84117. Hanushek, E.A. and Pace, R.R. (1995). "Who Chooses To Teach (and Why)?" Economics of Education Review, 14 (2), 101-117. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., and Rivkin, S.G. (2004, Spring). "Why Public Schools Lose Teachers." Journal of Human Resources, 39 (2), 326-354. Harding, B., McLain et al. (1999). Teacher Preparation and Development. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Hare, D. and J.L. Heap (2001). Effective Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategies in the Midwest: Who Is Making Use of Them? Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Hare, D., Nathan, J., & Darland, J. (2000). Teacher shortages in the Midwest: Current trends and future Harper-Jones, G. (1994). "The Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers in Wales." European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2(2): 33-47. Harris, D.N., and Adams, S. (2004, Forthcoming). Putting Teacher Labor Markets in Context: A Comparison of Turnover Across Professions and Industries. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Harris, M.M. and M.P. Collay (1990). "Teacher Induction in Rural Schools." Journal of Staff Development, 11(4): 44-48. Hawk, P., Coble, C., and Swanson, M. (1985). "Certification: It Does Matter." Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (3), 1315. Hawkey, K. (1997). "Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships in Mentoring: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research." Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5): 325-35. Haynes, D. (2005, April 5). "25% of City Teachers Short on Credentials, Janey Says." Washington Post . Hegstad, C.D. (1999). "Formal Mentoring as a Strategy for Human Resource Development: A Review of Research." Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4): 383-90. Hendrick, L. and L. Childress (2002). The RIMS Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Partnership: A Study of Eight Years of Collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Hendrick, L., L. Sanada, Z. Franco and D. Huston (2001). A Study of the Elements of Induction Support and Assessment That Facilitate Skill and Self-Confidence in New Teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Henke, R.R., Chen, X., and Geis, S. (2000). Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary Teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Henke, R.R., X. Chen et al. (2000). Progress through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

109

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Henke, R.R., Zahn, L., and Carroll, C.D. (2001). Attrition of New Teachers Among Recent College Graduates: Comparing Occupational Stability Among 1992-93 College Graduates Who Taught and Those Who Worked in Other Occupations. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Hibpshman, T. (1998, February). Issues related to upgrade of the professional staff data system. high schools (WP2002-28). Chicago: Federal Research Bank of Chicago. Holloway, J. (2001) “The Benefits of Mentoring.” Educational Leadership, 58(8): 85-86. Hounshell, P.B., and Griffin, S.S. (1989). "Science Teachers Who Left: A Survey Report." Science Education, 73 (4), 433-443. Huling-Austin, L. (1990). "Teacher Induction Programs and Internships." In W.R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Ingersoll, R. (2000).” The Status of Teaching as a Profession.” In Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education. Edited by Jeanne Ballantine and Joan Spade. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press. Ingersoll, R. (2001). “Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis.” American Educational Research Journal, 38(3): 499-534. Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith (2003). “The Wrong Solution to the Teacher Shortage.” Educational Leadership, 60(8): 30-33. Ingersoll, R., and Kralik, J.M. (2004). The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the Research Says . Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). "The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools." Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 26-37. Ingersoll, R.M. (2001a). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis." American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 499-534. Ingersoll, R.M. (2001b). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages and the Organization of Schools. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Ingersoll, R.M. and Alsalam, N. (1997). Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis (NCES 97-069). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Ingersoll, R.M. et al. (1997). Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis. Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Jacobson, S.L. (1988). "The Distribution of Salary Increments and Its Effect on Teacher Retention." Educational Administration Quarterly, 24 (2), 178-199. Johnson, S. (1990). Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in Our Schools. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, S. and S. Birkeland (2003, Forthcoming). "Pursuing 'a Sense of Success': New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions." American Educational Research Journal, 38. Johnson, S.M., and Birkeland, S.E. (2003). "Pursuing a 'Sense of Success': New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions." American Educational Research Association, 40 (3), 581-617.

110

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Jones, L., D. Reid et al. (1997). "Teachers' Perceptions of Mentoring in a Collaborative Model of Initial Teacher Training." Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3): 253-61. Kamii, M. and S. Harris-Sharples (1988, August 1-5). Mentors and New Teachers: Reshaping the Teaching Profession in Massachusetts. Report of the Wheelock College Conference on Mentor Teacher Training. Boston, Massachusetts. Karge, B.D. and M.R. Freiberg (1992). Beginning Special Education Teachers: At Risk for Attrition. King, S.H. (1993). "Why Did We Choose Teaching Careers and What Will Enable Us To Stay? Insights from One Cohort of the African American Teaching Pool." Journal of Negro Education, 62 (4), 475-492. Kirby, S. N., Grissmer, D. W., & Hudson, L. (1991). New and returning teachers in Indiana: Sources of Kirby, S.N., Berends, M., and Naftel, S. (1999). "Supply and Demand of Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and Prospects." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1), 47-66. Kirby, S.N., Darling-Hammond, L., and Hudson, L. (1989). "Nontraditional Recruits to Mathematics and Science Teaching." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 301-323. Kirby, S.N., Grissmer, D., and Hudson, L. (1991). "Sources of Teacher Supply: Some New Evidence from Indiana." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13 (3), 256-268. Klug, B.J. and S A. Salzman (1991). "Formal Induction vs. Informal Mentoring: Comparative Effects and Outcomes." Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3): 241-51. Kowalski, J.P.S. (1977). "Orientation Programs for New Teachers." ERS Report. Arlington, VA, Educational Research Service. Kyle, D.W., G.H. Moore et al. (1999). "The Role of the Mentor Teacher: Insights, Challenges and Implications." Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3 and 4): 109-22. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). "Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools. A Descriptive Analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24 (1), 37-62. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). "Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 37-62. Latham, A.S., Gitomer, D.H., and Ziomek, R. (1999). "What the Tests Tell Us about new Teachers." Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 23-26. Levin, H.M. (1985). "Solving the Shortage of Mathematics and Science Teachers." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 371-382. Levin, J., and Quinn, M. (2003). Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Schools. The New Teacher Project. Loeb, S., and Page, M.E. (2000). "Examining the Link Between Teacher Wages and Student Outcomes: The Importance of Alternative Labor Market Opportunities and Non-Pecuniary Variation." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82 (3), 393-408.

111

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Loeb, S., and Reininger, M. (2004). Public Policy and Teacher Labor Markets: What We Know and Why It Matters. East Lansing, MI: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. MA: Author. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from aepa.nesinc.com/PDFs/AZ_vol1_frontmatter.pdf Madaus, G., & Mehrens, W. A. (1990). Conventional tests for licensure. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond Mager, G.M. et al. (1987). A Report to the State Education Department on the New York State Mentor TeacherInternship Program for 1986-1987. Mager, G.M. et al. (1990). A Follow-up on the Experiences of Intern Teachers: A Report to the State Education Department on the New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. New York: School of Education, Syracuse University. Manski, C.F. (1987). "Academic Ability, Earnings, and the Decision To Become a Teacher: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972." In D.A. Wise (Ed.), Public Sector Payrolls. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Marso, R.N. and F.L. Pigge (1990). Teacher Mentor Induction Programs: An Assessment by First-Year Teachers. Marso, R.N., and Pigge, F.L. (1997). "A Longitudinal Study of Persisting and Nonpersisting Teachers' Academic and Personal Characteristics." The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 243-254. Marzano, R., (2000). School-level, teacher-level, and student level variables related to academic Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore, M.T. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001303). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. McKee, J.G. (1991). Toward an Agenda for Induction: Perceptions of Beginning Teachers and Student Teachers. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation. The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Miech, R.A., and Elder, G.H., Jr. (1996). "The Service Ethic and Teaching." Sociology of Education, 69 , 237-253. Mills, H., D. Moore et al. (2001). "Addressing the Teacher Shortage: A Study of Successful Mentoring Programs in Oakland County, Michigan." Clearing House, 74(3): 124-26. Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1998). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program: 1998 Statewide Evaluation Study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside. Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1999). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program. 1998 Statewide Evaluation Study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside. Mitchell, N., and Hubbard, B. (2004, December 24). "Districts Face Revolving Door: One in Five Teachers Changes Schools Each Year in State." Rocky Mountain News .

112

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Monk, D.H. (1994). "Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement." Economics of Education Review, 13 (2), 125-145. Mont, D., and Rees, D.I. (1996). "The Influence of Classroom Characteristics on High School Teacher Turnover." Economic Inquiry, 34 (1), 152-167. Moskowitz, J. and M. Stephens (1997). From Students of Teaching to Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around the Pacific Rim. Singapore: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, BBB32706. Murnane, R., J. Singer, J. Willett, J. Kemple and R. Olsen (1991). Who Will Teach? Policies That Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Murnane, R.J. (1984). "Selection and Survival in the Teacher Labor Market." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66 , 513-518. Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989a). "The Effects of Salaries and Opportunity Costs on Duration in Teaching: Evidence from Michigan." Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (2), 347-352. Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989b). "Will There Be Enough Teachers?" The American Economic Review, 79, 242246. Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1990). "The Effect of Salaries and Opportunity Costs on Length of Stay in Teaching: Evidence from North Carolina." The Journal of Human Resources, 25 (1), 106-124. Murnane, R.J., and Phillips, B.R. (1981). "What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children Have in Common?" Social Science Research, 10 , 83-100. Murnane, R.J., and Schwinden, M. (1989). "Race, Gender and Opportunity: Supply and Demand for New Teachers in North Carolina, 1975-1985." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (2), 93-108. Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., and Willett, J.B. (1989). "The Influences of Salaries and 'Opportunity Costs' on Teachers' Career Choices: Evidence from North Carolina." Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 325-346. Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who Will Teach? Policies that Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Public School Student, Staff and Graduate Counts, By State: 2001-2002 School Year. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004). Assessment of Diversity in America's Teaching Force: A Call to Action . Washington, DC: Author. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000). Before It's Too Late. Washington, DC: Author.

113

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2003). No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America's Children. Washington, DC: Author. National Evaluation Systems. (2003). Arizona educator proficiencyassessments: Study guide (Vol. 1). Amherst, National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (NPTARS) (2005). Qualified Teachers for At-Risk Schools: A National Imperative . Washington, DC: Author. Natriello, G., and Zumwalt, K. (1993). "New Teachers for Urban Schools? The Contribution of the Provisional Teacher Program in New Jersey." Education and Urban Society, 26 (1), 49-62. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). Teacher shortages in the Midwest: Current Norton, C.S. (1988). Mentoring: A Representative Bibliography. New York: Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Columbia University. Odell, S.J. (1990). Mentor Teacher Programs: What Research Says to the Teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Odell, S.J. and D.P. Ferraro (1992). "Teacher Mentoring and Teacher Retention." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3): 200-04. Odell, S.J. and L. Huling (Eds.) (2000). Quality Mentoring for Novice Teachers. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Odell, S.J., and Ferraro, D.P. (1992). "Teacher Mentoring and Teacher Retention." Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (3), 200-204. Ohio State Department of Education (1999). Ohio Teacher, Principal and Superintendent 1999 Supply and Demand Information. Columbus, Ohio: Author. Olebe, M. (1999). "California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST): Investing in Teachers' Professional Development." Teaching and Change, 6(3): 258-71. Olsen, D.G. and K.L. Heyse (1990). Development and Concerns of First-year and Reentry Teachers with and without Mentors. Pardini, P. (2000). "Data, Well Done." Journal of Staff Development, 21(1): 12-18. Parsad, B., L. Lewis and E. Farris (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Perez, K., C. Swain et al. (1997). "An Analysis of Practices Used to Support New Teachers." Teacher Education Quarterly, (Spring): 41-52. Peterson, K. and J. Bercik (1995). Frame Theory Analysis of the Cultures of Three Outstanding Teacher Induction Programs. Peterson, K.M. (1996). The Importance of Support through Induction Programming in the Teacher Socialization Process. Pigge, F.L. (1985). "Teacher Education Graduates: Comparisons of Those Who Teach and Do Not Teach." Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (4), 27-28.

114

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Pigge, F.L., and Marso, R.N. (1992). "A Longitudinal Comparison of the Academic, Affective, and Personal Characteristics of Persisters and Nonpersisters in Teacher Preparation." Journal of Experimental Education, 61 (1), 1926. Raymond, M., Fletcher, S.H., and Luque, J. (2001, August). Teach for America: An Evaluation of Teacher Differences and Student Outcomes in Houston, Texas. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA: CREDO, Hoover Institution.

115

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A

Reed, D.F., and Busby, D.W. (1985). "Teacher Incentives in Rural Schools." Research in Rural Education, 3 (2), 69-73. Rees, D.I. (1991). "Grievance Procedure Strength and Teacher Quits." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45 (1), 3143. Reid, D. and L. Jones (1997). "Partnership in Teacher Training: Mentors' Constructs of Their Role." Educational Studies, 23(2): 263-76. Reiman, A.J. and R.A. Edelfelt (1990). School-based Mentoring Programs: Untangling the Tensions between Theory and Practice. Raleigh, NC: Raleigh Department of Curriculum and Instruction, North Carolina State University. Reiman, A.J. et al. (1995). "Counselor- and Teacher-led Support Groups for Beginning Teachers: A CognitiveDevelopmental Perspective." Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30(2): 105-17. Researcher, 18, 5-11. Rickman, B.D., and Parker, C.D. (1990). "Alternative Wages and Teacher Mobility: A Human Capital Approach." Economics of Education Review, 9 (1), 73-79. Riggs, I.M. (2000). The Impact of Training and Induction Activities upon Mentors as Indicated through Measurement of Mentor Self-Efficacy. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (1998). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement (Working Paper 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (2000). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement (Unpublished Manuscript). Robinson, G.W. (1998). New Teacher Induction: A Study of Selected New Teacher Induction Models and Common Practices. Rong, X.L., and Preissle, J. (1997). "The Continuing Decline in Asian American Teachers." American Educational Research Journal, 34 (2), 267-293. Rumberger, R.W. (1985). "The Shortage of Mathematics and Science Teachers: A Review of the Evidence." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7 (4), 355-369. Rumberger, R.W. (1987). "The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher Shortages and Turnover: The Case of Mathematics and Science Teachers." Economics of Education Review, 6 (4), 389-399. Runyan, K., V. White et al. (1998). A Seamless System of Professional Development from Preservice to Tenured Teaching. Rutherford, J. (2002). How Do Teachers Learn To Teach Effectively? Quality Indicators from Quality Schools. A Report to the Rockefeller Foundation from Just for the Kids and the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Sanders, W., and Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Saurino, D.R. and P.L. Saurino (1999). Making Effective Use of Mentoring Teacher Programs: A Collaborative Group Action Research Approach.

116

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Schaffer, E. et al. (1992). "An Innovative Beginning Teacher Induction Program: A Two-year Analysis of Classroom Interactions." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3): 181-92. Scherer, M. (Ed.) (1999). A Better Beginning: Supporting and Mentoring New Teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schlechty, P.C., and Vance, V.S. (1981). "Do Academically Able Teachers Leave Education? The North Carolina Case." Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (2), 106-112. Schlecty, P. and V. Vance (1981). "Do Academically Able Teachers Leave Education? The North Carolina Case." Phi Delta Kappan, 63: 105-112. . Scott, N.H. (1997). Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, 1996-97. Report. Fredericton (Canada), New Brunswick Department of Education. Scott, N.H. (1997). PFD's for Beginning Teachers: A Report on the Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Scott, N.H. (1998). Careful Planning or Serendipity? Promoting Well-Being through Teacher Induction. Scott, N.H. (1998). Off to a Good Start: Report on the 1997-98 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Fredericton (Canada), New Brunswick Department of Education. Scott, N.H. (1999). Supporting New Teachers: A Report on the 1998-99 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Scott, N.H. (2000). Building a Strong Foundation for Teaching: The Fifth Annual Report of the Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Saint John, New Brunswick University. Scott, N.H. (2000). Four Years Later: Issues in Teacher Induction. Scott, N.H. (2001). Mentoring New Teachers: A Report on the 2001 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Saint John, New Brunswick University. Scott, N.H. and E. Compton (1996). Report on the 1995-96 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick. Serpell, Z. and L.A. Bozeman (1999). Beginning Teacher Induction: A Report on Beginning Teacher Effectiveness and Retention. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching. Seyfarth, J.T., and Bost, W.A. (1986). "Teacher Turnover and the Quality of Worklife in Schools: An Empirical Study." Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20 (1), 1-6. Shapley, K.S. and H.D. Luttrell (1992). "Effectiveness of Mentor Training of Elementary Colleague Teachers." Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(2): 1-12. Shen, J. (1997). "Teacher Retention and Attrition in Public Schools: Evidence from SASS91." Journal of Educational Research, 91 (2), 81-88. Shields, P. et al. (2001). The Status of the Teaching Profession, 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Shin, H.S. (1995). "Estimating Future Teacher Supply: Any Policy Implications for Educational Reform?" International Journal of Educational Reform, 4 (4), 422-433.

117

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Shipp, V.H. (1999). "Factors Influencing the Career Choices of African American Collegians: Implications for Minority Teacher Recruitment." Journal of Negro Education, 68 (3), 343-351. Singer, J.D. and Willett, J.B. (1988). "Detecting Involuntary Layoffs in Teacher Survival Data: The Year of Leaving Dangerously." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 , 212-224. Sizer. T. (1992). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Smerdon, B., L. Lewis, B. Parsad et al. (1999). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Smith, M. L. (2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: Routledge Farmer. Smith, T.M., and Ingersoll, R.M. (2004, Summer). "What Are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover?" American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2). Smithey, M.W. and C.M. Evertson (1995). "Tracking the Mentoring Process: A Multimethod Approach." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9(1): 33-53. Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1993). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education. Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1994). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education. Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1995). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education. Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1995). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Final Report. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education. Stinebrickner, T.R. (1998). "An Empirical Investigation of Teacher Attrition." Economics of Education Review, 17 (2), 127-136. Stinebrickner, T.R. (1999). "Estimation of a Duration Model in the Presence of Missing Data." Review of Economics and Statistics, 81 (3), 529-542. Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001a). "A Dynamic Model of Teacher Labor Supply." Journal of Labor Economics, 19 (1), 196230. Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001b). "Compensation Policies and Teacher Decisions." International Economic Review, 42 (3), 751-779. Stinebrickner, T.R. (2002). "An Analysis of Occupational Change and Departure from the Labor Force. Evidence of the Reasons that Teachers Leave." Journal of Human Resources, 37 (1), 192-216. Stoddart, T. (1990). "Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an Urban Context." Peabody Journal of Education, 67, 84-122. Storms, B., J. Wing, T. Jinks, K. Banks and P. Cavazos (2000). CFASST (Field Review) Implementation 1999-2000: A Formative Evaluation Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

118

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Strong, M. (1998). Study of Reading Performance among 1-3 Grade Students in Classes Taught by SCNTP Teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Strong, M. (2005). Induction, Mentoring and Teacher Retention: A Summary of the Research (unpublished) Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. Strong, M. and L. St. John (2001). A Study of Teacher Retention: The Effects of Mentoring for Beginning Teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz. Stroot, S.A., J. Fowlkes et al. (1999). "Impact of a Collaborative Peer Assistance and Review Model on Entry-year Teachers in a Large Urban School Setting." Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1): 27-41. supply (R-4049-LE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Sweeny, B. (1994). A New Teacher Mentoring Knowledge Base of Best Practices: A Summary of Lessons Learned from Practitioners. Mentor Center. Sweeny, B. (1998). What's Happening in Mentoring and Induction in Each of the United States? Mentor Center. Taylor, S. (1986). "Mentors: Who Are They and What Are They Doing?" Thrust for Educational Leadership, 15(6): 3941. Theobald, N.D. (1990). "An Examination of the Influence of Personal, Professional and School District Characteristics on Public School Teacher Retention." Economics of Education Review, 9 (3), 241-250. Thies-Sprinthall, L.M. (1990). "Support Groups for Novice Teachers." Journal of Staff Development, 11(4): 18-22. Thomsen, S.R. and R.L. Gustafson (1997). "Turning Practitioners into Professors: Exploring Effective Mentoring." Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52(2): 24-32. Tushnet, N. et al. (2000). Final Report of the Independent Evaluation of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). Van Thielen, B. (1992). Tutoring Beginning Teachers through a Mentor Teacher Program. Monograph No. 16. Saskatoon College of Education, Saskatchewan University. Veenman, S. (1985). "Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers." Review of Educational Research, 54(2): 143-178. Veenman, S., H. de Laat et al. (1998). Coaching Beginning Teachers. Villegas, A.M., and Clewell, B.C. (1998). "Increasing the Number of Teachers of Color for Urban Schools: Lessons from the Pathways National Evaluation." Education and Urban Society, 31 (1), 42-61. Villeme, M.G. et al. (1992). "Are Teachers Receiving Adequate Support from Their Beginning Teacher Programs? The Florida Experience." Teacher Educator, 28(2): 10-16. Vonk, J.H.C. (1996). Conceptualizing the Mentoring of Beginning Teachers. Wagner, U. (1992). Environments of Support. Washington, DC: Office of Minorities in Higher Education, American Council on Education. Waller, W. (1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley. Wang, J. and S.J. Odell (2002). "Mentored Learning To Teach According to Standard-based Reform: A Critical Review." Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.

119

Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A Weiss, E.M. (1999). "Perceived Workplace Conditions and First-Year Teachers' Morale, Career Choice Commitment and Planned Retention: A Secondary Analysis." Teaching and Teacher Education, 15 (8), 861-879. Wilkerson, T. (1997). The Preparation of Teachers for Kentucky Schools: A Survey of New Teachers. Summary Report. Louisville, KY: Wilkerson (Tom) and Associates, Ltd. Wilkinson, G.A. (1997). "Beginning Teachers Identify Gaps in Their Induction Programs." Journal of Staff Development, 18(2): 48-51. Williams, E. et al. (1994). Training Teachers To Plan Staff Development Programs for Rural Schools. Williams, E.U. et al. (1991). A Teacher Training Mentor Model in Rural Special Education. Wilson, S., L. Darling-Hammond and B. Berry (2001). A Case of Successful Teaching Policy: Connecticut's Long-term Efforts To Improve Teaching and Learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Wilson, S.M., and Floden, R.E. (2002.) Creating Effective Teachers - Concise Answers for Hard Questions (An Addendum to the Report Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps and Recommendations). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. (1987). Effective Teacher Selection: from Recruitment to Retention. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (1997). "Mentoring as a Two-Way Street." Journal of Staff Development, 18(3): 50-52. Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L. (1997). "Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 , 57-67. Yosha, P. (1991). The Benefits of an Induction Program: What Do Mentors and Novices Say?

Zarkin, G.A. (1985). "Occupational Choice: An Application to the Market for Public School Teachers." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100 , 409-446.
Zeichner, K.M. and J.M. Gore (1990). “Teacher Socialization.” In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 329-348. New York: Macmillan.

120