Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org
Maryland's Revised State Plan

On August 16, 2006 the U.S. Department of Education released initial peer review feedback and related information on revised comprehensive state plans for ensuring that all public elementary and secondary school students are taught by highly qualified teachers. The 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico submitted plans as required under the No Child Left Behind Act. Scored against protocols containing six requirements provided to states in March, the plans outline the bold new steps that states will take to reach the 100 percent highly qualified teacher goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year.

Nine states developed plans that were recognized by a 31 member team of experts as satisfying all six criteria. These are New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kansas, Maryland and Nevada. Thirty-nine states submitted plans that partially satisfy the six components and will be required to improve these plans and address the peer concerns by Sept. 29, 2006. However, four states did not address any of the six requirements. For these four states—Hawaii, Missouri, Utah and Wisconsin—revised plans are due November 1, 2006.

ECS collected state plan information and reviewer comments directly from revised state plans and from the peer review response forms. The purpose of this tool is to organize and streamline this extensive content in order to allow states to search, review and reference successful examples of state plans. Although no information has been paraphrased, the order of some plans has been rearranged and some data and specific information has been abbreviated. All abbreviations or informational reorganizations have been given a note with an explanation and a link to the full state plan. This resource will be most useful if used in conjunction with original state plans.

Please feel free to contact Angela Baber, ababer@ecs.org, with questions, comments, or changes to this information.

To access the plans and peer review responses, visit the U.S. Department of Education site at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/08/08162006a.html and click on state plans.

Maryland
State Plans to Meet the HQT Goal Mandated by NCLB
State Plan Introduction and/or Background Introduction

In response to the highly qualified teacher provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Maryland has demonstrated both a commitment and a good-faith effort to not only define the highly qualified teacher (HQT) but to implement procedures and policies to assure that all Maryland teachers of core academic subjects (CAS) will be highly qualified.

Background

Maryland is a state with 24 local education agencies (LEAs), defined by 23 counties and Baltimore City. Five of the LEAs (Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County) are among the 50 largest school districts in the country. The LEAs range in size from Kent County (with 2,440 students) to Montgomery County (with 139,398 students). There are 57,683 teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools across Maryland. Two of the LEAs—Baltimore City and Prince George’s County—represent historically intensive poverty areas.

Applying the standards contained in the NCLB legislation, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) promulgated policies in 2003 that would establish the criteria for elementary, middle, and high school teachers—both new and experienced—to become highly qualified. Since establishing a baseline of 64.5% of classes taught by an HQT in 2002–03, Maryland has made steady and substantial progress, reaching 79.5% classes taught by an HQT in 2005–06. However, faced with the shared challenges of both attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers in hard-to-fill content areas in all districts—and more specifically in high-poverty areas—Maryland has not yet reached the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers.

Committed to reaching the 100% goal and motivated by steady and substantial progress, Maryland enthusiastically embraces the strategies that have been outlined in this plan. The plan includes a description of strategies that are in place and strategies to be implemented, and reflects a commitment to ongoing investigation of still further strategies not chronicled here.  

Revised Plan Status
  • Accepted
  •  
    Comments to Support Determination The state has data and a good analysis which has identified the significant challenges in meeting the highly qualified teacher goals. They have planned technical assistance, a monitoring strategy and programs and services to facilitate the state’s achieving the highly qualified teacher goals. The state’s equity plan has provided a list of specific strategies, some of which address inequities in teacher assignment.  
    Link to Full Revised State Plan for Meeting the HQT Goal in NCLB on the U.S. Department of Education Site The State Department of Education has made the NCLB revised plans, as well as reviewer comments, available online for each state.

    Maryland's Revised Plan

    Maryland's Plan—Reviewer Comments  

    Revised State Plans-Requirement 1
    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 HQT standards, and examine whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff courses frequently taught by non-highly qualified teachers. 
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 1 has been met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The SEA has clearly identified its areas of concern with regard to highly qualified teachers on pages 6-8. The SEA on pages 8-12 has identified the LEAs within the state that have the highest number and percentage of non-highly qualified teachers. further detailed information is found in the Appendices.

    The SEA has identified math, English and science as most likely to be taught by a non-HQT (page 13). On page 13 the SEA identifies special education with fully half of all special education classes taught by non-HQT, secondary schools with more than 8 in 10 non-HQT classes taught in the secondary schools and high poverty schools as being areas of greatest need. 

    Requirement 1-a 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? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 1-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 1-a Progress toward AMOs

    Maryland has made steady progress in reducing the number of classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher-in both high-poverty and low-poverty schools.

    • Maryland's 2002-03 baseline for classes taught by a Highly Qualified Teacher was 64.5%. Annual measurable objectives were established for the State and each district as indicated in the chart below.
    Baseline Data and Targets
    Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

    State Aggregate AMO

    Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

    High-Poverty School AMO

    2002-03 Baseline
    64.5
    46.6
    2003-04 Target
    65
    48
    2004-05 Target
    75
    65
    2005-06 Target
    100
    100
    • Maryland has made progress for three consecutive years, steadily increasing the number of classes taught by a highly qualified teacher. Maryland has moved from 64.5% of classes taught by an HQT in 2002-03 to 66.9% in 2003-04; 75.3% in 2004-05; and 79.5% in 2005-06.
    • From the 2004-05 to the 2005-06 school year, the number of classes taught by a non-HQT has dropped at both the elementary and secondary level and in both high-poverty and low-poverty schools. In fact, the largest drop (5.6%) took place in high-poverty secondary schools.
    All classes -4.1%
    Elementary (excluding preK) High Poverty -1.9%
    Low Poverty -3.7%
    Secondary High Poverty -5.6%
    Low Poverty -4.1%
    • Three-quarters of all non-HQT classes in high-poverty elementary schools are in Baltimore City, and a significant number of those classes contain only special education students.
    Reasons why teachers are not highly qualified

    More than two-thirds of non-HQT classes are taught by teachers with expired certificates, missing certification information, and conditional certificates.

    • There are 28,924 classes in Maryland that are taught by a non-HQT, which is 20.5% of the total number of classes. The following chart shows the reasons why classes are taught by teachers who are not highly qualified and the percentage of total non-HQT classes attributable to that reason.
    Reason teachers are not highly qualified Percentage of total non-HQT classes
    Expired certificate 16.7
    Invalid grade level for certification 1.8
    Testing requirements not met 7.3
    Invalid subject for certification 23.6
    Missing certification information 27.8
    Conditional certificate 22.8
    • Invalid Subject for Certification results from a school's decision to staff a class with a non HQT teacher (which occurs for a variety of reasons).
    • Expired Certificate, Missing Certification Information, and Conditional Certificate contribute an additional 67.3% of the NHQ classes.
    • An extension of this data is available for each district in Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by Reason. Maryland will commit to sharing the data and the analysis with each LEA; will provide technical assistance to high-need districts in analyzing the data; will require that each LEA analyze its data and respond with actions to reduce non-highly qualified teachers in each category; will assist in the identification of strategies to do so; and will support with technical assistance where necessary.
    Fundamental Analysis of Data collection
    • Each year, Maryland's LEAs are required to submit a data file to MSDE that identifies all core academic subject classes taught in each school and identifies the teacher-of-record for that class. The data are used to calculate the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers. The calculations are published in the State and local report cards. For the 2005-06 school year, the data was collected as of December 2, 2005, and was due to MSDE on February 3, 2006.
    • Class-Level Membership for Determining Highly Qualified Teachers Reporting Manual for school year 2005-06 is included as Attachment #13. It contains the specific data processes for identification of highly qualified teachers.

    (pages 6-8) 

     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-a The SEA has clearly identified its areas of concern with regard to highly qualified teachers on pages 6-8. The SEA on pages 8-12 has identified the LEAs within the state that have the highest number and percentage of non-highly qualified teachers. further detailed information is found in the Appendices.  
    Requirement 1-b Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of school that are not making AYP? Do these schools have high percentages of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 1-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 1-b School Improvement and the non-HQT

    Maryland has 241 schools in the School Improvement continuum; 163 (67.6%) of them are in the high-poverty quartile; none is in the low-poverty quartile.

    • Maryland has yet to publish schools' AYP data for 2005-06. Elementary and middle schools are in the process of filing AYP appeals, and preliminary high school AYP calculations will be completed in August. This fall, a complete analysis of AYP in the context of HQT classes will be completed.
    • However, the School Improvement status (School Improvement 1, School Improvement 2, Corrective Action, or Restructuring) of a school is a much better indicator of school performance than AYP, as School Improvement status represents performance over time rather than performance in a single year.
    • Maryland has several years of School Improvement data and can, therefore, analyze the relationship between non-HQT classes and School Improvement status. It is clear that high-poverty status and a high percentage of non-HQTs correlate with School Improvement status and correlate even more strongly with advanced levels of School Improvement (e.g., Corrective Action, Restructuring).
    • Maryland has 241 schools in School Improvement, 163 of which are found in the high-poverty quartile. (None is found in the low-poverty quartile.) These schools often have a disproportionate share of non-HQT classes. Furthermore, every one of Maryland's schools in Corrective Action or Restructuring is in the high-poverty quartile-and all have high percentages of non-HQTs.
    • Data by LEA, by school with percent poverty, by poverty level, by School Improvement status, by Title I, by total classes, and by percent non-HQT are included in this report and will be shared with LEAs for analysis and action at the district and school level.

    (page 12) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-b The reviewers' response does not directly address this sub-requirement. 
    Requirement 1-c Does the analysis identify particular groups of teachers to which the State's plan must pay particular attention, such as special education teachers, mathematics or science teachers, or multi-subject teachers in rural schools? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 1-c?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 1-c Summary of Findings

    While Maryland has made steady progress in decreasing the number of classes taught by non-HQTs-in both high- and low-poverty schools-MSDE has nevertheless identified several areas of concern.

    LEA
    With just four LEAs constituting 70% of all classes statewide taught by a non-HQT, MSDE must focus its efforts on these districts and help them identify strategies to increase HQT classes. Additionally, six school systems have 20% or more of their CAS classes taught by a non-HQT. These LEAs, too, require State attention and assistance.

    School Level
    High schools make up 47% of all non-HQT classes, and middle schools make up 35%, which means that more than 8 in 10 non-HQT classes are found in secondary schools. Clearly, helping secondary teachers achieve HQT status is a high priority.

    Subject
    MSDE must focus efforts on those core academic subjects most likely to be taught by a non-HQT, namely math, English, and science. The Department must also embark on a plan to get all special education teachers highly qualified. Unconscionably, fully half of all classes containing only students with disabilities are taught by a non-HQT.

    Poverty
    Of course, high-poverty schools require intense assistance. High-poverty status correlates with a high percentage of non-HQTs and, moreover, with School Improvement status. Of Maryland's 241 schools in School Improvement, 163 are in the high-poverty quartile and none are in the low-poverty quartile.

    (pages 12-13) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-c The SEA has identified math, English and science as most likely to be taught by a non-HQT (page 13). On page 13 the SEA identifies special education with fully half of all special education classes taught by non-HQT, secondary schools with more than 8 in 10 non-HQT classes taught in the secondary schools and high poverty schools as being areas of greatest need.  
    Requirement 1-d Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State where significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 1-d?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 1-d Districts with the highest proportion of non-HQTs

    Four of Maryland's 24 LEAs account for 7 of every 10 classes taught by a non-highly qualified teacher.

    • The highest proportion of classes taught by a non-HQT are in the following districts:
    LEA
    Number of Classes Not Taught be an HQT
    Percent of Statewide Total
    Baltimore County
    3,045
    10.5
    Baltimore City
    6,954
    24.0
    Montgomery County
    3,623
    12.5
    Prince George's County
    6,503
    22.5
    All four LEAs
    20,125
    69.6
    • In these four districts are 20,125 classes taught by a non-HQT. Those classes make up 69.6% of the 28,924 classes statewide that are taught by non-HQTs. The remaining 20 districts account for less than 6.5% of classes taught by a non-HQT; 12 of them account for less than 1%.

    • The four LEAs with the largest share of non-HQTs account for 54.5% of Maryland's total student population.
    LEA Student enrollment as a percentage of State total
    Baltimore County
    12.4%
    Baltimore City
    10.2%
    Montgomery
    16.1%
    Prince George's
    15.7%
    • Due to their size, Baltimore and Montgomery counties account for a sizeable portion of the classes taught by non-HQTs. Baltimore County enrolls 12.4% of Maryland's student population and contributes 10.5% of all classes taught by non-HQTs. Montgomery County-which enrolls 16.1% of the population-contributes 12.5% of all classes taught by non-HQTs.
    • On the other hand, Baltimore City enrolls only 10.2% of Maryland's student population, but is responsible for 24.0% of the classes taught by non-HQTs. Prince George's County enrolls 15.7% of the student population, but is responsible for 22.5% of all non-HQT classes. The Baltimore City School System is already in Corrective Action. Prince George's County is in School System Improvement II and is likely to enter Corrective Action this fall.
    • In order to meet the HQT goal, a substantial effort must come from these four districts. MSDE will share the data and the analysis with each LEA, initiate strategies statewide to help recruit teachers for high-need districts, and provide technical assistance. The Department will require that each LEA analyze its data and respond with actions to reduce non-HQTs by reason, and disaggregate data by school. MSDE will assist in the identification of the strategies, and will outline consequences for not meeting the HQT goal.
    • In order to meet the HQT goal, a substantial effort must come from these four districts. MSDE will share the data and the analysis with each LEA, initiate strategies statewide to help recruit teachers for high-need districts, and provide technical assistance. The Department will require that each LEA analyze its data and respond with actions to reduce non-HQTs by reason, and disaggregate data by school. MSDE will assist in the identification of the strategies, and will outline consequences for not meeting the HQT goal.

    Note: Maryland's plan also includes a table of Non-HQTs by LEA (see page 9)

    (pages 8-9)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-d The reviewers' response does not directly address this sub-requirement. 
    Requirement 1-e Does the analysis identify particular courses that are often taught by non-highly qualified teachers?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 1-e?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 1-e Non-HQTs by Subject and School Level

    English, math, science, and special education account for a significant share of non-HQT classes.

    • Most classes taught by non-HQTs are found in high schools (47%). Middle schools make up 35% of non-HQT classes, and elementary schools make up 19%.
    • At the secondary level, 53% of non-HQT classes are in Baltimore City; 24% are in Prince George's County, and 10% are in Baltimore County. Together, these three LEAs contribute nearly 87% of secondary non-HQT classes.
    • When high-poverty schools are disaggregated by core academic subject, 62% of non-HQT classes are in elementary schools, and most are classes consisting only of students with disabilities. In high-poverty high schools, math (1,767), science (1,336), and English (1,296) account for 66% of non-HQT classes.
    • More than half of all classes (50.6%) containing only students with disabilities are taught by a non-HQT [5,482/10,839].
      • Of all classes taught by a non-HQT, 19.0% [5,482/28,924] contain only students with disabilities.
      • Of the total number of CAS classes, 7.7% [10,839/141,295] contain only students with disabilities.
    • MSDE will require that LEAs (1) identify how they will help special education teachers become highly qualified; (2) further review the number of classes consisting only of students with disabilities; and (3) take measures to reduce the number of those classes taught by non-HQTs. The Department will provide technical assistance to high-need districts.
    Subject Percentage of all classes in that subject taught by a non-HQT
    Reading/English Language Arts 21.29
    Mathematics 26.37
    Science 24.31
    Social Studies 15.76
    Foreign Language 27.35
    The Arts 14.69
    Elementary Education 16.28

    Subject Number of classes taught by a non-HQT Percentage of total CAS classes statewide
    English 5,927 20.5
    Mathematics 6,314 21.8
    Science 4,618 16.0
    Social Studies 2,977 10.3
    Foreign Language 2,471 8.5
    The Arts 2,943 10.2
    Elementary Education 3,674 12.7

    • Foreign language, math, science, and English are Maryland's highest need subjects. However, in the context of all non-HQT classes, math (21.8%) and English (20.5%)-and, to a lesser degree, science (16.0%) and elementary education (12.7%)-constitute areas of the highest concern. Strategies to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in these areas are a priority for the State plan.

    Subject
    MSDE must focus efforts on those core academic subjects most likely to be taught by a non-HQT, namely math, English, and science. The Department must also embark on a plan to get all special education teachers highly qualified. Unconscionably, fully half of all classes containing only students with disabilities are taught by a non-HQT.

    (page 10-12) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-e The SEA has identified math, English and science as most likely to be taught by a non-HQT (page 13).  
    Revised State Plans-Requirement 2
    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.  
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 2 has been met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The SEA has identified the annual measurable objectives for HQT on page 6 and has listed every LEA’s percentage of non-HQT on pages 9-10.

    Maryland, by law, has a master planning process known as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools. Described on page 14, the master planning process has incorporated the highly qualified teacher provisions and is designed to ensure that the LEAs have plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain HQT status as quickly as possible.  

    Requirement 2-a Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives for HQT?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 2-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 2-a Non-HQTs by LEA

    Six* of Maryland's 24 LEAs have more than 20% of their CAS classes taught by a non-highly qualified teacher.

    LEA Core Academic Subject (CAS) Classes CAS Classes Taught by a Non-HQT Percentage
    Allegany
    1,741
    49
    2.81
    Anne Arundel
    11,989
    1,860
    15.51
    Baltimore County
    18,449
    3,045
    16.50
    Baltimore City*
    13,024
    6,954
    53.39
    Calvert
    3,407
    446
    13.09
    Caroline
    582
    62
    10.65
    Carroll
    3,427
    370
    10.80
    Cecil
    2,266
    238
    10.50
    Charles*
    2,385
    647
    27.13
    Dorchester*
    595
    199
    33.45
    This is an abbreviated table. For complete information, see the full report, pages 9-10.

    • An analysis of those LEAs making a disproportionate contribution to the State's non-HQTs is not sufficient. Every LEA must analyze its HQT data to determine areas of need and strategies to address the problem. While Baltimore City and Prince George's County are among those four districts contributing most prolifically to the number of non-HQT classes statewide (see page 6), another four LEAs appear on this list. These LEAs, too, must analyze their data and identify significant strategies to address the non-HQT problem.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-a The SEA has identified the annual measurable objectives for HQT on page 6 and has listed every LEA’s percentage of non-HQT on pages 9-10. 
    Requirement 2-b Does the plan include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 2-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 2-b Master Planning Process

    Chapter 288 of the Laws of Maryland 2002 (known as Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act or "Bridge to Excellence") requires each LEA to develop a comprehensive Master Plan, subject to the approval of the State Superintendent. State law also requires Annual Updates to the original Master Plans during the period covered by them-a five-year period beginning with the 2003-04 school year. Annual updates to the Master Plans contain information on the HQT status in each LEA and the steps the LEA is taking to ensure that teachers who are not highly qualified attain HQT status as quickly as possible. Under the law, plan updates are also subject to the approval of the State Superintendent.

    The Bridge to Excellence Master Plans are Maryland's primary accountability tool. Not only are the plans subject to State approval, State funding is tied to that approval.

    In 2002, Maryland made a commitment to reform education and ensure equity and adequacy in its public schools. That commitment was enacted as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act, which has resulted in a significant increase in State funding over five years and has given school systems the flexibility to determine the best allocation of those resources. In exchange, school systems are held accountable for the performance of their schools and their students and must demonstrate that they are making progress each year in accelerating student achievement and eliminating achievement gaps.

    To report its progress, each school system was required to develop, adopt, and implement a five-year comprehensive Master Plan linking funding from federal, State, and local sources designed to improve student and school performance. The Master Plan Annual Update is intended to demonstrate to the LEAs, to the State Board of Education, to the General Assembly, and to other members of the public the impact of the Bridge to Excellence legislation-the effect the Act is having on school system, school, and student performance, and how those results are being achieved.

    Master Plans include a section in which LEAs are required to report on their progress toward the requirement that 100% of teachers be highly qualified. In addition, The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) assesses the discrepancies that exist between high-poverty and low-poverty schools. Not only does the Master Plan Annual Update provide MSDE with data on the progress of each LEA, but it requires LEAs to describe how they plan to address and overcome challenges. LEAs outline concrete steps and timelines they will follow to ensure that the HQT requirement is met as quickly as possible.

    MSDE has instituted a formal Annual Update review process by including review panels, technical reviews, specific written guidance, consensus reports, and approval recommendations for the State Superintendent and Board of Education. Levels of recommendation are: 1) Approvable, 2) Not Yet Approvable, and 3) Not Approved. Plans that are designated Not Yet Approvable require further development in the areas identified as incomplete by the review panels; however, they do not warrant a complete rewrite or resubmission. Plans designated Not Approved do not meet the criteria and expectations outlined in the guidance document. For the criteria and expectations to be met, significant enhancements are required that may warrant a rewrite and resubmission.

    In 2005, MSDE's Division of Certification and Accreditation conducted a technical review of HQT status in each LEA. The review concluded that seven of twenty-four LEAs (Allegany, Caroline, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, St. Mary's, and Talbot counties) appeared likely to achieve the requirement that all teachers in core academic subjects be highly qualified by 2005-06. It further concluded that, while most LEAs have many strategies in place to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, or to support teachers in becoming highly qualified, it is unlikely that they will achieve this target on time (http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/ NR/rdonlyres/FCB60C1D-6CC2-4270-BDAA-153D67247324/9125/Master_Plan_Final_2005.pdf).

    The guidance developed by MSDE and provided to LEAs for use in preparing and submitting Annual Updates include the requirement that each LEA report the status of the NCLB performance indicators as follows:

    • Indicator 3.1: The percentage of CAS classes being taught by highly qualified teachers;
    • Indicator 3.2: The percentage of teachers receiving high-quality professional development; and
    • Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parent-involvement assistants) who are qualified.
    The Master Plan also requires that each LEA with Title I schools provide reservations mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. One of those requires LEAs to reserve not less than 5% of the total Title I allocation for professional development that helps teachers become highly qualified. Each LEA must provide that reservation along with a detailed description of how those funds will be used.

    MSDE established the Bridge to Excellence Workgroup to help meet its responsibilities under the law. Every year, MSDE, in collaboration with the workgroup, revisits HQT requirements and develops new guidance for LEAs to use in preparing their Annual Updates. The current guidance requires additional information be included in LEAs' responses to the HQT requirement. LEAs are required to analyze HQT trend data by school and poverty level; identify the progress being made and the challenges that exist; report data collected on retaining highly qualified teachers; and analyze the steps being taken to support that retention.

    The Maryland master planning process is a powerful tool for leveraging the changes needed in each LEA to ensure that teachers who are not highly qualified attain HQT status as quickly as possible. Under the Bridge to Excellence legislation (Section 5-401 of the Education Article of the Annotated Code), MSDE is required to review the progress of each LEA toward meeting State performance standards. If results of the review indicate that the LEA fails to demonstrate progress toward meeting those standards, the State Superintendent may provide advice concerning the distribution of State funds (§ 5-401(j)), or the State Board may withhold funds from the local board (§ 5-401(k)).

    Note: This is the same information contained in 2c. See the full plan, pages 22-29, for a table of major activities, anticipated timeframes and divisions and offices responsible.

    (page 14-15)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-b Maryland, by law, has a master planning process known as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools. Described on page 14, the master planning process has incorporated the highly qualified teacher provisions and is designed to ensure that the LEAs have plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain HQT status as quickly as possible.  
    Requirement 2-c 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?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 2-c?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 2-c Master Planning Process

    Chapter 288 of the Laws of Maryland 2002 (known as Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act or "Bridge to Excellence") requires each LEA to develop a comprehensive Master Plan, subject to the approval of the State Superintendent. State law also requires Annual Updates to the original Master Plans during the period covered by them-a five-year period beginning with the 2003-04 school year. Annual updates to the Master Plans contain information on the HQT status in each LEA and the steps the LEA is taking to ensure that teachers who are not highly qualified attain HQT status as quickly as possible. Under the law, plan updates are also subject to the approval of the State Superintendent.

    The Bridge to Excellence Master Plans are Maryland's primary accountability tool. Not only are the plans subject to State approval, State funding is tied to that approval.

    In 2002, Maryland made a commitment to reform education and ensure equity and adequacy in its public schools. That commitment was enacted as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act, which has resulted in a significant increase in State funding over five years and has given school systems the flexibility to determine the best allocation of those resources. In exchange, school systems are held accountable for the performance of their schools and their students and must demonstrate that they are making progress each year in accelerating student achievement and eliminating achievement gaps.

    To report its progress, each school system was required to develop, adopt, and implement a five-year comprehensive Master Plan linking funding from federal, State, and local sources designed to improve student and school performance. The Master Plan Annual Update is intended to demonstrate to the LEAs, to the State Board of Education, to the General Assembly, and to other members of the public the impact of the Bridge to Excellence legislation-the effect the Act is having on school system, school, and student performance, and how those results are being achieved.

    Master Plans include a section in which LEAs are required to report on their progress toward the requirement that 100% of teachers be highly qualified. In addition, The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) assesses the discrepancies that exist between high-poverty and low-poverty schools. Not only does the Master Plan Annual Update provide MSDE with data on the progress of each LEA, but it requires LEAs to describe how they plan to address and overcome challenges. LEAs outline concrete steps and timelines they will follow to ensure that the HQT requirement is met as quickly as possible.

    MSDE has instituted a formal Annual Update review process by including review panels, technical reviews, specific written guidance, consensus reports, and approval recommendations for the State Superintendent and Board of Education. Levels of recommendation are: 1) Approvable, 2) Not Yet Approvable, and 3) Not Approved. Plans that are designated Not Yet Approvable require further development in the areas identified as incomplete by the review panels; however, they do not warrant a complete rewrite or resubmission. Plans designated Not Approved do not meet the criteria and expectations outlined in the guidance document. For the criteria and expectations to be met, significant enhancements are required that may warrant a rewrite and resubmission.

    In 2005, MSDE's Division of Certification and Accreditation conducted a technical review of HQT status in each LEA. The review concluded that seven of twenty-four LEAs (Allegany, Caroline, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, St. Mary's, and Talbot counties) appeared likely to achieve the requirement that all teachers in core academic subjects be highly qualified by 2005-06. It further concluded that, while most LEAs have many strategies in place to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, or to support teachers in becoming highly qualified, it is unlikely that they will achieve this target on time (http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/ NR/rdonlyres/FCB60C1D-6CC2-4270-BDAA-153D67247324/9125/Master_Plan_Final_2005.pdf).

    The guidance developed by MSDE and provided to LEAs for use in preparing and submitting Annual Updates include the requirement that each LEA report the status of the NCLB performance indicators as follows:

    • Indicator 3.1: The percentage of CAS classes being taught by highly qualified teachers;
    • Indicator 3.2: The percentage of teachers receiving high-quality professional development; and
    • Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parent-involvement assistants) who are qualified.
    The Master Plan also requires that each LEA with Title I schools provide reservations mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. One of those requires LEAs to reserve not less than 5% of the total Title I allocation for professional development that helps teachers become highly qualified. Each LEA must provide that reservation along with a detailed description of how those funds will be used.

    MSDE established the Bridge to Excellence Workgroup to help meet its responsibilities under the law. Every year, MSDE, in collaboration with the workgroup, revisits HQT requirements and develops new guidance for LEAs to use in preparing their Annual Updates. The current guidance requires additional information be included in LEAs' responses to the HQT requirement. LEAs are required to analyze HQT trend data by school and poverty level; identify the progress being made and the challenges that exist; report data collected on retaining highly qualified teachers; and analyze the steps being taken to support that retention.

    The Maryland master planning process is a powerful tool for leveraging the changes needed in each LEA to ensure that teachers who are not highly qualified attain HQT status as quickly as possible. Under the Bridge to Excellence legislation (Section 5-401 of the Education Article of the Annotated Code), MSDE is required to review the progress of each LEA toward meeting State performance standards. If results of the review indicate that the LEA fails to demonstrate progress toward meeting those standards, the State Superintendent may provide advice concerning the distribution of State funds (§ 5-401(j)), or the State Board may withhold funds from the local board (§ 5-401(k)).

    Note: This is the same information contained in 2b. See the full plan, pages 22-29, for a table of major activities, anticipated timeframes and divisions and offices responsible.

    (page 14-15)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-c Maryland, by law, has a master planning process known as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools. Described on page 14, the master planning process has incorporated the highly qualified teacher provisions and is designed to ensure that the LEAs have plans in place to assist teachers who are not highly qualified to attain HQT status as quickly as possible.  
    Revised State Plans-Requirement 3
    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.  
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 3 has been met.
  •  
    Peer Review Comments to Support Determination Based on an the SEA analysis of the Master Plan Annual Updates, Maryland has included a description of the technical assistance, programs and services that the SEA will offer to LEAs. Listed on pages 28-37, these include assigning MSDE staff to schools in “School Improvement 2” to support job-embedded professional development and providing a statewide recruitment initiative for the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.  
    Requirement 3-a Does the plan include a description of the technical assistance the SEA will provide to assist LEAs in successfully carrying out their HQT plans?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-a
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible
    Provide technical assistance to LEAs based on an analysis of the Master Plan Annual Updates (LEA HQT Plans) and specifically to the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.

    This assistance will be designed and implemented with LEA leadership staff in the Division of Certification and Accreditation and the Division of Instruction and will focus on LEA data collection and management systems, best recruiting practices, best uses of federal funds (Title I, IIA, III, and V), induction programs to aid retention, and test preparation for PRAXIS. Leadership development with principals and assistant principals and professional development (face-to-face, hybrid, and on-line) will be targeted to non-HQTs in LEAs and to high-poverty schools not making AYP.

    September 2006-September 2009
  • Division of Instruction

  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Monitor and provide technical assistance to LEAs based on an analysis of 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers for the use of Title IIA federal funds. September 2006-September 2007/ yearly
  • Division of Instruction
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 34-35) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-a Based on an the SEA analysis of the Master Plan Annual Updates, Maryland has included a description of the technical assistance, programs and services that the SEA will offer to LEAs. 
    Requirement 3-b Does the plan indicate that the staffing and professional development needs of schools that are not making AYP will be given high priority?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-b
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible
    Provide technical assistance to LEAs based on an analysis of the Master Plan Annual Updates (LEA HQT Plans) and specifically to the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.

    This assistance will be designed and implemented with LEA leadership staff in the Division of Certification and Accreditation and the Division of Instruction and will focus on LEA data collection and management systems, best recruiting practices, best uses of federal funds (Title I, IIA, III, and V), induction programs to aid retention, and test preparation for PRAXIS. Leadership development with principals and assistant principals and professional development (face-to-face, hybrid, and on-line) will be targeted to non-HQTs in LEAs and to high-poverty schools not making AYP.

    September 2006-September 2009
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Provide a statewide recruitment initiative with participation prioritized for the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers, and mandate candidate placement for high-poverty schools not making AYP. August 2006-August 2007
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division of Leadership Development
  • Division of Special Education
  • LEAs
  • Maryland Association of School Personnel Administrators
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 34-36) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-b Listed on pages 28-37, these include assigning MSDE staff to schools in “School Improvement 2” to support job-embedded professional development and providing a statewide recruitment initiative for the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.  
    Requirement 3-c Does the plan include a description of programs and services the SEA will provide to assist teachers and LEAs in successfully meeting HQT goals?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-c?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-c
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible
    Provide training to central office staff and to school-based leadership teams in high-poverty schools not making AYP through a series of professional development modules (face-to-face and online) that address reading, math, and science instruction.*

     

    August 2006-August 2007
  • Division of Instruction
  • Assign MSDE staff to schools in School Improvement 2 and Corrective Action to support school-based leadership teams in providing job-embedded professional development.* August 2006-August 2007
  • Division of Instruction

  • Conduct the Maryland Principals Academy for principals with 1-5 years' experience who have been nominated by their local superintendents (see Attachment 15).* July 25-27, 2007;
    site visits and follow-up sessions to be scheduled
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Conduct the Leadership Learning Series for principals, assistant principals, and other school leaders in LEAs that have schools in School Improvement and/or Corrective Action (see Attachment 16).* July 2006-June 2007
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Examine strategies to advise LEAs on highly qualified teacher status. June 2006-June 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Engage LEA leadership constituent groups (e.g., superintendents, assistant superintendents for instruction, curriculum coordinators) to review data and identify HQT best practices. June 2006-June 2007
  • Office of the State Superintendent
  • Office of Academic Policy
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Provide expanded professional development to help more teachers become highly qualified.
  • Test Preparation
  • IHE/LEA partnership
  • June 2006-June 2007
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Provide mentor training.

    MSIG is developing a mentor academy for the 2006-07 school year. Consultants will be hired to provide the special education mentor training.

    August 2006-June 2007 " Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
    Continue providing the Maryland Governor's Academy.

    The Division of Instruction developed and funded the Governor's Academy for general and special educators to earn either graduate or continuing professional development credit in core academic content areas.

    The academies are designed to improve the academic content knowledge of both regular and special education teachers and to share pedagogy for meeting the needs of diverse students. Intended participants are teams of general educators, special educators, and/or teachers of English language learners.

    2006/yearly
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 36-43)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-c Listed on pages 28-37, these include assigning MSDE staff to schools in “School Improvement 2” to support job-embedded professional development and providing a statewide recruitment initiative for the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.  
    Requirement 3-d Does the plan specifically address the needs of any subgroups of teachers identified in Requirement 1?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-d?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-d
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible
    Provide training to central office staff and to school-based leadership teams in high-poverty schools not making AYP through a series of professional development modules (face-to-face and online) that address reading, math, and science instruction.*

     

    August 2006-August 2007
  • Division of Instruction
  • Assign MSDE staff to schools in School Improvement 2 and Corrective Action to support school-based leadership teams in providing job-embedded professional development.* August 2006-August 2007
  • Division of Instruction

  • Implement the new PRAXIS training/preparation programs and communicate to LEAs the PRAXIS programs being offered in other LEAs.

    Eight of the 13 IHEs that have special education teacher preparation programs developed new PRAXIS training/preparation programs (funded through Part B):

  • Bowie State University
  • College of Notre Dame
  • Goucher College
  • Hood College
  • Towson University
  • Towson University-Shady Grove
  • University of MD-Eastern Shore
  • University of Maryland-College Park
  • On-going; MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Implement a Resident Teacher Certificate program in special education and elementary or secondary education.

    Using MSIG funds, competitive grants have been awarded to IHEs and their partner school systems for the purpose of recruiting, training, dually certifying, and retaining highly qualified teachers in special education through a Resident Teacher Certificate program. Four grants were awarded under the MSIG II:

  • the College of Notre Dame partnered with Baltimore City;
  • the College of Notre Dame partnered with Anne Arundel County;
  • Goucher College partnered with Baltimore and Harford counties; and
  • Chesapeake Community College partnered with the Upper Eastern Shore counties.

    As of June 2006, 36 RTC teacher candidates have completed the program and another 63 candidates have completed the first year of the two-year program. An additional 77 teacher candidates are beginning the RTC program in summer 2006.

  • MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
    " Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Continue the work of the K-16 Workgroup Special Education Subcommittee.

    This multi-agency group consists of LEA personnel, IHE faculty, MSDE staff, and other interested parties. Its purpose is to investigate special education teacher preparation challenges and recommend solutions. These recommendations will be forwarded to the K-16 Leadership Council in September 2006.

    September 2006
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Implement the Associate of Arts in Teaching Degrees (AAT).

    The K-16 workgroup has developed an AAT program that enables IHE students to study special education in the community college system and transfer all credits to a State four-year undergraduate dual-certification program (special education/general education). This AAT program should be available by September 2006.

    September 2006
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Pilot the Stages of Professional Development for All Teachers Teaching Students with Disabilities (see Attachments 17-19).

    This document was developed to monitor the professional development provided to all teachers teaching students with disabilities. Based on the 10 Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) and Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards, it is organized by sections with indicators for each stage.

    The document will be used to help mentors and mentees develop plans of assistance and to help experienced teachers develop professional development plans. It can also be used to monitor the overall success of a program.

    MSIG funded through
    September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue providing the Maryland Governor's Academy.

    The Division of Instruction developed and funded the Governor's Academy for general and special educators to earn either graduate or continuing professional development credit in core academic content areas.

    The academies are designed to improve the academic content knowledge of both regular and special education teachers and to share pedagogy for meeting the needs of diverse students. Intended participants are teams of general educators, special educators, and/or teachers of English language learners.

    2006/yearly
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 36-43)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-d Listed on pages 28-37, these include assigning MSDE staff to schools in “School Improvement 2” to support job-embedded professional development and providing a statewide recruitment initiative for the four LEAs with the largest number of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers.  
    Requirement 3-e 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?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-e?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-e
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible
    Develop dual-certification IHE programs.

    Using Maryland State Improvement Grant (MSIG) funds, these IHEs have developed or are developing dual-certification programs that will produce highly qualified teachers.

  • Towson University developed a dual certification program (elementary education/special education) that, by spring 2007, is expected to produce more than 100 graduates a year. This program is the fastest growing undergraduate education program at Towson, despite the high academic requirements for admission. Towson University is now developing a dual early childhood/special education program.
  • Mount St. Mary's University redeveloped its undergraduate special education program to become a dual-certification program beginning in fall 2006.
  • Loyola College redeveloped its graduate special education program to be consistent with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards; it is also consistent with dual certification.
  • Hood College redeveloped its undergraduate special education program for dual certification.
  • McDaniel College is proposing redevelopment of its undergraduate special education program to become a dual-certification program.
  • MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Provide PRAXIS training opportunities.

    Using Maryland State Improvement Grant (MSIG) funds, the MSIG team hired a consultant team to research and report on effective interventions for teacher candidates who have difficulty passing PRAXIS I. This work has been completed and compiled into a written report. The consultant will disseminate the project's findings to Maryland institutions of higher education (IHE), for use to support pre-service training opportunities. The PRAXIS consultant will share a written document and verbal report of the information to the 13 IHEs that have special education teacher preparation programs.

    On-going; MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services

  • Implement the new PRAXIS training/preparation programs and communicate to LEAs the PRAXIS programs being offered in other LEAs.

    Eight of the 13 IHEs that have special education teacher preparation programs developed new PRAXIS training/preparation programs (funded through Part B):

  • Bowie State University
  • College of Notre Dame
  • Goucher College
  • Hood College
  • Towson University
  • Towson University-Shady Grove
  • University of MD-Eastern Shore
  • University of Maryland-College Park
  • On-going; MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Implement a Resident Teacher Certificate program in special education and elementary or secondary education.

    Using MSIG funds, competitive grants have been awarded to IHEs and their partner school systems for the purpose of recruiting, training, dually certifying, and retaining highly qualified teachers in special education through a Resident Teacher Certificate program. Four grants were awarded under the MSIG II:

  • the College of Notre Dame partnered with Baltimore City;
  • the College of Notre Dame partnered with Anne Arundel County;
  • Goucher College partnered with Baltimore and Harford counties; and
  • Chesapeake Community College partnered with the Upper Eastern Shore counties.

    As of June 2006, 36 RTC teacher candidates have completed the program and another 63 candidates have completed the first year of the two-year program. An additional 77 teacher candidates are beginning the RTC program in summer 2006.

  • MSIG funded through September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
    " Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Develop mentoring programs in cooperation with IHEs and LEAs.

    MSIG funds were awarded to IHEs and their partner school systems to develop mentoring programs. These three-year mentoring grants support beginning and conditional teachers who have or are working toward certification in special education. The grants provide each IHE $56,500 for each year of the three-year grant. The IHEs, their partner school systems, and priority areas follow:

  • Towson University/Howard County Public Schools: Mentoring new special education teachers
  • University of Maryland Eastern Shore/Lower 9 Eastern Shore counties: Mentoring new special education teachers
  • Goucher College/Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Harford County: Coaching provisional teachers (those needing support in acquiring certification)
  • University of Maryland College Park/Prince George's County Public Schools: Mentoring and fellowships for teachers seeking a master's degree in special education certification
  • MSIG funded through
    September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 36-43)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-e This sub-requirement was not specifically addressed in the peer reviewers' responses. 
    Requirement 3-f 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?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-f?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-f
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible

    Develop mentoring programs in cooperation with IHEs and LEAs.

    MSIG funds were awarded to IHEs and their partner school systems to develop mentoring programs. These three-year mentoring grants support beginning and conditional teachers who have or are working toward certification in special education. The grants provide each IHE $56,500 for each year of the three-year grant. The IHEs, their partner school systems, and priority areas follow:

  • Towson University/Howard County Public Schools: Mentoring new special education teachers
  • University of Maryland Eastern Shore/Lower 9 Eastern Shore counties: Mentoring new special education teachers
  • Goucher College/Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Harford County: Coaching provisional teachers (those needing support in acquiring certification)
  • University of Maryland College Park/Prince George's County Public Schools: Mentoring and fellowships for teachers seeking a master's degree in special education certification
  • MSIG funded through
    September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue to make performance assessments available to IHEs.

    Through MSIG funds, Performance Assessments: A Resource for Special Education Teacher Educators in Maryland was developed in 2003 to assess IHE students' progress in obtaining the skills and competencies needed to teach elementary school students with disabilities. IHE partners eligible for NCATE certification have used the document to evaluate their participants against NCATE, INTASC, CEC, and State standards. The document can be accessed at http://perfstds.msde.state.md.us.

    To be approved by the State, an IHE program must demonstrate how the performance of its students is being evaluated as well as how they meet NCLB's HQT requirements. The performance assessments may be used as part of the IHE assessment system for State program approval and NCATE accreditation reviews.

    MSIG funded through
    September 30, 2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Leverage Part B discretionary funds to reduce the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education and promulgate inclusive service delivery models for greater access to the general education curriculum and highly qualified content-area teachers.

    2006/ongoing
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Provide grant funding to the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education and to the Johns Hopkins University's Center for Technology in Education so they may provide LEAs professional development and other supports that will help them better implement inclusive practices that improve outcomes for students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

    2006/ongoing
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

    (pages 36-43)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-f This sub-requirement was not specifically addressed in the peer reviewers' responses. 
    Revised State Plans-Requirement 4
    Requirement 4 The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with LEAs that fail to reach the 100% HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. 
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 4 has been met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The revised plan describes how the SEA will work with LEAs and monitor LEA compliance. The plan indicates on page 45, that the SEA will provide targeted technical assistance to LEAs not meeting the HQT goal and continue to leverage Title II Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. The SEA will also withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue.  
    Requirement 4-a 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? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 4-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 4-a
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible

    Revise the Master Plan Goal 3 Guidance Document and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers for the scheduled October 2007 submission. Include updated requirements, analysis, and targeted use of Title I and IIA funds for LEAs not meeting the HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Communicate this information to LEAs.

    May 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Require each LEA to complete a revised Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update.

    October 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • LEAs
  • Use all avenues of the Bridge to Excellence Act and the master planning process. Review each LEA's Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update, and examine trends, patterns, findings and use of federal funds. Withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue. Require rewrites and resubmissions for those updates in which criteria and expectations are not met.

    July-December 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • LEAs
  • Office of Academic Policy
  • Division of Instruction

  • Provide targeted technical assistance to those LEAs not meeting the HQT goal.

    June 2007-June 2009
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services

  • Reapply for the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) state improvement grant if it continues to be available.

    The grant would be used to continue and enhance activities previously included in the HQT requirement section (e.g., mentoring/induction programs, PRAXIS training, IHE partnerships).

    2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue to leverage Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 2007/ongoing
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 44-45)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-a The revised plan describes how the SEA will work with LEAs and monitor LEA compliance.  
    Requirement 4-b 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? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 4-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 4-b
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible

    Revise the Master Plan Goal 3 Guidance Document and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers for the scheduled October 2007 submission. Include updated requirements, analysis, and targeted use of Title I and IIA funds for LEAs not meeting the HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Communicate this information to LEAs.

    May 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Require each LEA to complete a revised Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update.

    October 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • LEAs
  • Use all avenues of the Bridge to Excellence Act and the master planning process. Review each LEA's Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update, and examine trends, patterns, findings and use of federal funds. Withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue. Require rewrites and resubmissions for those updates in which criteria and expectations are not met.

    July-December 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • LEAs
  • Office of Academic Policy
  • Division of Instruction

  • Provide targeted technical assistance to those LEAs not meeting the HQT goal.

    June 2007-June 2009
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services

  • Reapply for the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) state improvement grant if it continues to be available.

    The grant would be used to continue and enhance activities previously included in the HQT requirement section (e.g., mentoring/induction programs, PRAXIS training, IHE partnerships).

    2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue to leverage Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 2007/ongoing
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 44-45)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-b The plan indicates on page 45, that the SEA will provide targeted technical assistance to LEAs not meeting the HQT goal and continue to leverage Title II Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 
    Requirement 4-c 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?
     
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 4-c?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 4-c
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible

    Revise the Master Plan Goal 3 Guidance Document and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers for the scheduled October 2007 submission. Include updated requirements, analysis, and targeted use of Title I and IIA funds for LEAs not meeting the HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Communicate this information to LEAs.

    May 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Require each LEA to complete a revised Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update.

    October 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • LEAs
  • Use all avenues of the Bridge to Excellence Act and the master planning process. Review each LEA's Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update, and examine trends, patterns, findings and use of federal funds. Withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue. Require rewrites and resubmissions for those updates in which criteria and expectations are not met.

    July-December 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • LEAs
  • Office of Academic Policy
  • Division of Instruction

  • Provide targeted technical assistance to those LEAs not meeting the HQT goal.

    June 2007-June 2009
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services

  • Reapply for the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) state improvement grant if it continues to be available.

    The grant would be used to continue and enhance activities previously included in the HQT requirement section (e.g., mentoring/induction programs, PRAXIS training, IHE partnerships).

    2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue to leverage Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 2007/ongoing
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 44-45)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-c The plan indicates on page 45, that the SEA will provide targeted technical assistance to LEAs not meeting the HQT goal and continue to leverage Title II Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 
    Requirement 4-d Consistent with ESEA §2141, does the plan include technical assistance or corrective actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP goals? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 4-d?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 4-d
    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible

    Revise the Master Plan Goal 3 Guidance Document and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers for the scheduled October 2007 submission. Include updated requirements, analysis, and targeted use of Title I and IIA funds for LEAs not meeting the HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Communicate this information to LEAs.

    May 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Require each LEA to complete a revised Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update.

    October 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • LEAs
  • Use all avenues of the Bridge to Excellence Act and the master planning process. Review each LEA's Goal 3 analysis and Attachment 8: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers in the Master Plan Annual Update, and examine trends, patterns, findings and use of federal funds. Withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue. Require rewrites and resubmissions for those updates in which criteria and expectations are not met.

    July-December 2007
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • LEAs
  • Office of Academic Policy
  • Division of Instruction

  • Provide targeted technical assistance to those LEAs not meeting the HQT goal.

    June 2007-June 2009
  • Division of Student, Family, and School Support
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Instruction
  • Division for Leadership Development
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services

  • Reapply for the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) state improvement grant if it continues to be available.

    The grant would be used to continue and enhance activities previously included in the HQT requirement section (e.g., mentoring/induction programs, PRAXIS training, IHE partnerships).

    2007
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Continue to leverage Part B funds for LEA/IHE partnerships and target funds to specific jurisdictions that may be unable to meet HQT standards. 2007/ongoing
  • Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
  • Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 44-45)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-d The SEA will also withhold approval for plans that insufficiently address the HQT issue.  
    Revised State Plans-Requirement 5
    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 who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire.  
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 5 has been partially met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The state has a long phase out period for the HOUSSE. The regular education HOUSSE will be completed by the 2013-14 school year as stated on page 16. Exceptions for teacher of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and elementary and secondary special education teachers teaching core academic subjects will be made only for teachers with experience prior to the 2010-2011 school year.  
    Requirement 5-a 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? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 5-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 5-a The Department recognizes that the HOUSSE process will necessarily be limited and ultimately phased out. Accordingly, MSDE will allow the HOUSSE to be used only by elementary and secondary teachers in regular education assignments not new to the profession who were hired prior to the end of the 2005–06 school year. Additionally, the HOUSSE process for these teachers will be completed as MSDE develops and implements enhanced data collection and maintenance. Use of the regular education HOUSSE will end at the conclusion of the 2013–14 school year, even for educators with experience prior to the 2005–06 school year.

    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible


    Develop and disseminate revised HOUSSE procedures and applicability using multiple tools and collaboration (e.g., Maryland Classroom, a statewide SEA publication distributed to every teacher; SEA Web site; technical assistance meetings with LEA leaders and human resources staff; and articulation with the Maryland State Teachers Association and Baltimore Teachers Union, the statewide bargaining agents for all Maryland public school teachers).

    July-December 2006
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Academic Policy

    (Dependent on adoption by the Maryland State Board of Education)

  • Obtain resources and tools for enhanced data collection and analysis with the Educator Information System (EIS).

    January 2007 -
    July 2007
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Division of Business Services
  • Develop EIS's capability for collecting and maintaining HOUSSE completion data at the teacher level.

    March 2007-
    June 2008

  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Collaborate with LEAs to compile, enter, validate, and maintain HOUSSE data for all Maryland teachers.

    July 2008-June 2010
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Note: This information is repeated in both sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 16-17 & 46-47)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-a The state has a long phase out period for the HOUSSE. The regular education HOUSSE will be completed by the 2013-14 school year as stated on page 16. Exceptions for teacher of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and elementary and secondary special education teachers teaching core academic subjects will be made only for teachers with experience prior to the 2010-2011 school year.  
    Requirement 5-b Does the plan describe how the State will limit the use of HOUSSE after the end of the 2005-06 school year to the following situations:
    • Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who, if HQ in one subject at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of hire; or
    • Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession, if HQ in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within two years of the date of hire.
     
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 5-b?
  • No
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 5-b The HOUSSE process for (1) elementary and secondary teachers certificated in special education and teaching core academic subjects in special education assignments and (2) K–12 teachers in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and teaching core academic subjects in ESOL assignments has been implemented only recently in Maryland. For these teachers, in consideration of the factors noted above, the HOUSSE will be available only to teachers with experience prior to the 2010–11 school year; thus, it will remain as an available option during teacher preparation program transition. The use of HOUSSE for these educators (excepting multi-subject special educators who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire) will end at the conclusion of the 2013–14 school year regardless of prior experience.

    Major Activities
    Anticipated Timeframe
    Division/Office Responsible


    Develop and disseminate revised HOUSSE procedures and applicability using multiple tools and collaboration (e.g., Maryland Classroom, a statewide SEA publication distributed to every teacher; SEA Web site; technical assistance meetings with LEA leaders and human resources staff; and articulation with the Maryland State Teachers Association and Baltimore Teachers Union, the statewide bargaining agents for all Maryland public school teachers).

    July-December 2006
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Academic Policy

    (Dependent on adoption by the Maryland State Board of Education)

  • Obtain resources and tools for enhanced data collection and analysis with the Educator Information System (EIS).

    January 2007 -
    July 2007
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Division of Business Services
  • Develop EIS's capability for collecting and maintaining HOUSSE completion data at the teacher level.

    March 2007-
    June 2008

  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Collaborate with LEAs to compile, enter, validate, and maintain HOUSSE data for all Maryland teachers.

    July 2008-June 2010
  • Division of Certification and Accreditation
  • Office of Information Technology
  • Division of Accountability and Assessment
  • Note: This information is repeated in both sub-requirements of this requirement.

    (pages 16-17 & 46-47)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-b The state has a long phase out period for the HOUSSE. The regular education HOUSSE will be completed by the 2013-14 school year as stated on page 16. Exceptions for teacher of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and elementary and secondary special education teachers teaching core academic subjects will be made only for teachers with experience prior to the 2010-2011 school year.  
    Revised State Plans-Requirement 6
    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 are other children. 
    Peer Review Finding
  • Requirement 6 has been partially met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The state has provided a list of specific strategies to address out-of-field teaching on page 62, the recruitment and retention of experienced teachers on page 69, inequities in teacher assignment.

    The state has a Quality Teacher Incentive Act enacted in 1999.

    As stated on page 69, the SEA plans a continuing collaboration with the Maryland State legislature on compensation models.

    Although the equity plan has some steps toward achieving the equitable distribution of teachers, it is not clear that they will address the specific issues in the four high needs districts. 

    Requirement 6-a Does the revised plan include a written equity plan? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 6-a?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-a Template for State Teacher Equity Plan

    The purpose of this template is to help state education agencies develop and refine NCLB-required state plans to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, and out-of-field teachers. The legislation states that the plan must identify the specific steps that the SEA will take, as well as the measures that the SEA will use to evaluate and publicly report progress toward such steps.

    CCSSO recommends that states consider the following eight elements as they develop and implement their state plans:

    1. Data and Reporting Systems
      How is the state planning to develop the teacher data and reporting systems needed to identify and correct inequities in the distribution of quality teachers in high-poverty/high-minority schools vs. low-poverty/low-minority schools?
    2. Teacher Preparation
      How is the state planning to build a pipeline of prospective teachers for high-poverty, low-performing schools?
    3. Out-of-Field Teaching
      How is the state planning to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education, and bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty, low-performing schools?
    4. Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
      How is the state planning to build a critical mass of qualified, experienced teachers willing to work in hard-to-staff schools?
    5. Professional Development
      How is the state planning to strengthen the skills, knowledge, and qualifications of teachers already working in high-poverty, low-performing schools?
    6. Specialized Knowledge and Skills
      How is the state planning to ensure that teachers have the specialized knowledge and skills they need to be effective with the populations of students typically served in high-poverty, low-performing schools (including Native American students, English language learners, and other students at risk)?
    7. Working Conditions
      How is the state planning to improve the conditions in hard-to-staff schools that contribute to excessively high rates of teacher turnover?
    8. Policy Coherence
      How is the state planning to improve internal processes or revise state policies that may inadvertently contribute to local staffing inequities?
    Note: Sections 1 through 7 are covered in state-specific detail on pages 52-91 of the full state equity plan.

    (pages 49-51) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-a N/A-This is a yes or no question. 
    Requirement 6-b Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment exist? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 6-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-b Note: Inequities in teacher assignment are addressed through elements three and four of Maryland's equity plan;
    3. Out-of-Field Teaching, and
    4. Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers.

    An abbreviated example of element 3 is shown here. Complete information for both elements is available on pages 62-72 of the full state plan.

    3. Out-of-Field Teaching
    How is the state planning to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education, and bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools?
    A. Inventory of current policies and programs
    Expanded Alternative Preparation Programs
  • Maryland Alternative Route Certification Option (MARCO)
  • Troops to Teachers
  • Teach For America
  • American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
  • New Teacher Project
  • Enhancing Mobility Grant
  • Alternative Preparation Network
  • Note: This is an abbreviated table. For complete table information, see pages 62-68 of the full state equity plan.
    B. Specific strategies Maryland will adopt
    1. Gather data on LEA programs designed to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools and disseminate best practices.
    Note: This is an abbreviated table. For complete table information, see pages 62-68 of the full state equity plan.
    C. Specific steps to implementation
    Steps
    Agency, area, and person(s) responsible for developing program or policy Resources required
    Will initiative require rules, legislative action, and/or State Board action?
    Timeline for completion
    Yes
    No
    1. Survey LEAs and provide a forum at Human Resources (HR) Directors' meetings to identify and share effective strategies SEA; LEA; Maryland Association of State Personnel Administrators Staff
    X
    September 2006-March 2007

    2. Submit FY08 Budget Enhancements to:
  • Establish an appropriate budget for MVLO (currently no budget)
  • Review and expand online courses
  • Develop strategies for reviewing and acquiring online professional development courses
  • Office of the Superintendent; Office of Academic Policy; MVLO Coordinator
    Staff and funding
    X
    (Requires budget decisions)

    FY 2008 budget; ongoing
    Note: This is an abbreviated table. For complete table information, see pages 62-68 of the full state equity plan.
    D. Measures Maryland will use to evaluate and publicly report progress
    Measure
    Agency, area, and person(s) responsible for evaluation and reporting
    Resources required
    Means of reporting (e.g., annual report, post on website)
    Timeline
    1. Establishment of MVLO budget Deputy Superintendent for Administration; Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Annual budget reporting Annually
    Note: This is an abbreviated table. For complete table information, see pages 62-68 of the full state equity plan.

    4. Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
    How is the state planning to build a critical mass of qualified, experienced teachers willing to work in hard-to-staff schools?
    Note: Element is available on line, pages 69-71, of the full state equity plan.

    (pages 62-72) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-b The state has provided a list of specific strategies to address out-of-field teaching on page 62, the recruitment and retention of experienced teachers on page 69, inequities in teacher assignment.  
    Requirement 6-c Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing inequities in teacher assignment? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 6-c?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-c
    3. Out-of-Field Teaching
    How is the state planning to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education, and bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools?
    B. Specific strategies Maryland will adopt
    1. Gather data on LEA programs designed to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools and disseminate best practices.
    2. Establish additional human and fiscal resources to expand MVLO, particularly in the area of teacher professional development.
    3. Continue to review and expand MVLO course offerings in middle and high schools (e.g., online courses in math, science, English, ELL, foreign languages, social studies, and technology).
    4. Work with LEAs to provide online courses for students where a highly qualified teacher is not available in the classroom.
    5. Develop a process for reviewing and acquiring online professional development courses to provide teachers opportunities to become highly qualified (October 2006-June 2007).
    6. Explore partnerships with other agencies and organizations (e.g., Maryland Public Television, IHEs, Southern Regional Education Board, Advanced Distributive Learning Academic Co-Lab) to provide teachers opportunities to become highly qualified.

    7. Establish two eCommunities for algebra/data analysis teachers and for teachers of online courses.
    8. Continue development of an online course in English/reading/language arts to provide specific professional development for teachers around the State.
    Note: This is an abbreviated table. For complete table information, see pages 62-68 of the full state equity plan.

    4. Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
    How is the state planning to build a critical mass of qualified, experienced teachers willing to work in hard-to-staff schools?
    B. Specific strategies Maryland will adopt
    1. Compensation models: Continue to collaborate with legislators to explore and develop alternative compensation models that will support high-poverty, low-performing schools. For example, Senate Bill 465-Commission to Study Pay-For-Performance Models of Teacher Compensation-sponsored by Senator Delores Kelley, attempted to establish an exploratory committee to examine pay-for-performance. Also, the Final Report of the Governor's Commission on Quality Education in Maryland, September 2005, contains several recommendations related to teacher compensation.
    See recommendations 1, 25, and 26.
    2. Structure National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) stipends to encourage or require NBCTs to work in hard-to-staff schools.
    Note: Element is available on line, pages 69-71, of the full state equity plan.

    (pages 62-72)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-c The state has a Quality Teacher Incentive Act enacted in 1999.  
    Requirement 6-d Does the plan provide evidence for the probable success of the strategies it includes? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 6-d?
  • No
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-d No evidence for the probable success of the strategies was included in the plan. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-d Not met. 
    Requirement 6-e Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the issue of equitable teacher assignment when it monitors LEAs, and how this will be done? 
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 6-e?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-e All seven elements of Maryland's equity plan have a section that reports on measures that Maryland will use to evaluate and publicly report progress.

    D. Measures Maryland will use to evaluate and publicly report progress
    Measure
    Agency, area, and person(s) responsible for evaluation and reporting
    Resources required
    Means of reporting (e.g., annual report, post on website)
    Timeline

    (pages 62-91) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-e As stated on page 69, the SEA plans a continuing collaboration with the Maryland State legislature on compensation models.

    Although the equity plan has some steps toward achieving the equitable distribution of teachers, it is not clear that they will address the specific issues in the four high needs districts. 



    © 2013 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide, nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education.
    To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.
    Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy