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.  

Maryland's Revised Plan

Maryland's Plan—Reviewer Comments  

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. 

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

• 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) 

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) 

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) 

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:

• 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.

• 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)  

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	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) 

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.  

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.

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.

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)  

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.

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)  

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 34-35) 

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 34-36) 

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 36-43)  

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 36-43)  

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 36-43)  

Note: This information has been extracted from a larger table from Maryland's full state plan, pages 34-43.

(pages 36-43)  

Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

(pages 44-45)  

Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

(pages 44-45)  

Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

(pages 44-45)  

Note: This information is repeated through all sub-requirements of this requirement.

(pages 44-45)  

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)  

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)  

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. 

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?

(pages 49-51) 

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) 

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)  

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) 

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.