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

Ohio
State Plans to Meet the HQT Goal Mandated by NCLB
State Plan Introduction and/or Background No background information or introduction included in the plan.  
Revised Plan Status
  • Accepted
  •  
    Comments to Support Determination The presentation of the data was clear, thorough and easy to follow across all of the evidence groups. This is evidenced by the table on page 4, HQT by Core Subject Area, page 5, HQT by Core Subject Area, by AYP and Non-AYP Schools. The SEA identifies special education teachers and middle school teachers on page 6. On page 8 the SEA identifies the following subjects as having the highest rates of non-HQT: Geography, Economics and Civics and Government. 
    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.

    Ohio's Revised Plan

    Ohio'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 Refer to sub-requirement responses. 
    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 Since 2002, Ohio has made a concerted effort to accurately identify the number of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers and has invested significant time and resources to increase the percentage of highly qualified teachers. Ohio was among the first states to develop and implement the HOUSSE provision. Each year, the state has refined and fine-tuned its data gathering system to ensure an accurate count of the courses taught by highly qualified teachers. Each school and district in Ohio reports the status of the teacher for each core academic course offered in the schools through the state’s Education Management Information System (EMIS). This data is reported annually for each course. Teacher licensure records are cross-checked with course records to ensure that the appropriate teaching credential is held.

    In 2003, Ohio reported that 78% of core courses were taught by highly qualified teachers. For the 2005-06 school year, that percentage increased to 94.4%. The chart below presents an analysis of core subject courses taught by teachers who are not highly qualified.

     
    2005-06 School Year HQT by Core Subject Area
    Core Subject Area Core Course Count, HQT Core Course Count Percent of core courses taught by teachers who are NOT highly qualified
    Arts 113,474 116,160 2.3%
    Civics and Government 6,685 7,441 10.2%
    Economics 1,713 1,983 13.6%
    English 21,710 23,514 7.7%
    Science 90,254 96,491 6.5%
    Total 525,413 556,431 5.6%
    This is an abbreviated table. For complete information, see the full report, pages 3-4.

    (page 4) 

     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-a The presentation of the data was clear, thorough and easy to follow across all of the evidence groups. This is evidenced by the table on page 4, “HQT by Core Subject Area.” 
    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 The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) require Ohio’s school districts to evaluate their students according to 10 subgroups, which are defined by racial, language and disability characteristics. The district must show improvement in each of the subgroups annually and all subgroups must be 100-percent proficient by 2014. The following chart indicates the percentage of highly qualified teachers in core subject areas in Ohio schools that have not met Adequate Yearly Progress (2005-06).

    2005-06 School Year HQT by Core Subject Area
    Ohio's schools that did not meet AYP Ohio's schools that met AYP
    Core Subject Area Core Course Count, HQT Core Course Count Core Courses Taught by NON-Highly Qualified Teachers (Pct) Core Course Count, HQT Core Course Count Core Courses Taught by NON-Highly Qualified Teachers (Pct)
    Arts 15,402 16419 6.2% 98072 99741 1.7%
    Civics and Government 1789 20777 13.9% 4896 5364 8.7%
    Economics 461 551 16.3% 1252 1432 12.6%
    English 4716 5288 10.8% 16994 18226 6.8%
    Science 15956 18313 12.9% 74298 78178 5.0%
    Total 82737 93807 11.8% 442676 462624 4.3%
    This is an abbreviated table. For complete information, see the full report, pages 5-6.

    As evidenced by the data in the chart above, Ohio has a larger percentage of classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers in schools that have not met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); (11.8% as contrasted to schools that met AYP at 4.3%). In schools not meeting AYP, core courses are taught by more than 10% of non-highly qualified teachers, except arts and foreign language. Even in those two core courses, the percentage of non-highly qualified teachers is more than twice the percentage than in schools meeting AYP. Current Ohio Department of Education initiatives to increase highly qualified teachers in mathematics, science, and foreign language were implemented to remedy the percentage gap of non-highly qualified teachers in these subject areas. During the 2006-07 school year, initiatives will be launched to address the highly qualified teacher gaps in the core subject courses of history, geography, economics, and civics/government. These initiatives will be targeted to schools that have not met AYP. 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-b The presentation of the data was clear, thorough and easy to follow across all of the evidence groups. This is evidenced by the table on page 5, “HQT by Core Subject Area, by AYP and Non-AYP Schools.”  
    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 The Ohio Department of Education has analyzed the percentages of core courses taught by Highly Qualified (HQ) teachers and completes an annual Ohio Teacher Supply and Demand Report. Ohio has paid particular attention to two subgroups of teachers: special education teachers and middle school teachers.

    Special education teachers in Ohio are licensed to teach students with disabilities in all grades (K-12) and in all subjects. Without content-specific preparation, most special education teachers in grades 7-12 were not highly qualified. Further, these teachers generally teach multiple subjects, and thus had to demonstrate their qualifications in multiple subject areas. An added complicating factor is that special education is the area in which Ohio has historically issued the greatest number of temporary credentials. To address these issues, Ohio mounted a two-prong initiative. First, the state offered content-specific professional development for special education teachers free of charge in 16 regions across the state. Second, the state implemented intensive one-year programs at 13 universities to move special education teachers from temporary licensure to full licensure, again free of charge. Both of these programs will continue in the coming years, and are more fully described under Requirement 3.

    The second group of teachers in which Ohio evidenced a significant highly qualified teacher gap was seventh- and eighth-grade teachers teaching core courses with an elementary (K-8) license. While the K-8 licensure has not been available for new teachers since 2002, there are many veteran teachers holding this credential. Ohio developed content-specific course offerings and professional development through 15 universities statewide for these teachers. These programs will continue and are described further under Requirement 3.

    Additionally, professional development and additional resources have been targeted to teachers of mathematics, science, and foreign language.

    Based on the findings from the data analyses completed for this report, Ohio will provide targeted professional development, in partnership with colleges and universities, for the state’s geography, economics and civics/government teachers.

    (page 6)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-c The presentation of the data was clear, thorough and easy to follow across all of the evidence groups. The SEA identifies special education teachers and middle school teachers on page 6. 
    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 The percentage of courses taught by teachers who are not highly qualified was analyzed for each school and district in Ohio. Results of this analysis are summarized below (See Appendix A for Source File). The analysis identified schools and districts where more than 10% of the courses are taught by teachers who are not highly qualified.

    Traditional Public School Districts: There are 612 traditional public school districts in Ohio (2005-06). Of these districts, 15 have more than 10% of the core academic courses taught by teachers who are not highly qualified. Of these 15 districts:

    • Athens City School District has 88.5% of core academic courses that are taught by highly qualified teachers
    • Cleveland Municipal School District has the lowest percent of core academic courses that are taught by highly qualified teachers at 77.2%
    • Three of the 15 districts are large urban districts: Cincinnati City School District, Cleveland Municipal School District and Dayton City School District
    • Three of the 15 districts are Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) eligible districts: Bright Local School District, Kelleys Island Local School District and Meigs Local School District
    Other Categories: Ohio’s 60 Educational Service Centers (ESCs) are a consortia of school districts organized together to provide services to member school districts. Four ESCs operate alternative schools that provide educational services to students with disabilities or severe behavior problems and are required to report highly qualified teacher data. These four ESCs have more than 10% of the core academic subjects being taught by teachers who are not highly qualified. The Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) operates a school district within a state agency that serves youth who have been adjudicated delinquent as felony-type offenders. Approximately 73.3% of core academic courses are taught by highly qualified teachers in the ODYS school district. Community schools are independent public schools that are part of the state’s educational system. There are 239 community schools (2005-06). Of these 239 schools, 87 have more than 10% of the core academic courses being taught by teachers who are not highly qualified.

    (pp. 6-7) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-d
  • Not addressed. 
  • 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 As indicated in Section 1.1, three core courses are of concern in Ohio. More than 10% of teachers of geography, economics, and civics/government statewide are not highly qualified. Data for each core content area is listed in the table below.

     
    2005-06 School Year HQT by Core Subject Area
    Core Subject Area Core Course Count, HQT Core Course Count Percent of Core Courses taught by NON-Highly Qualified teachers
    Arts 113474 116160 2.3%
    Civics and Government 6685 7441 10.2%
    Economics 1713 1983 13.6%
    English 21710 23514 7.7%
    Science 90254 96491 6.5%
    Total 525413 556431 5.6%
    This is an abbreviated table. For complete information, see the full report, page 12.

    There are 556,431 core academic core courses taught in Ohio schools. Of these core academic courses, 31,160, or 5.6% are being taught by a non-highly qualified teacher. Ohio is committed to ensuring that every core course is taught by a highly qualified teacher. The state has identified the following core courses as being “often taught” by a non-highly qualified teacher:

    • Geography: 24.9%
    • Economics: 13.6%
    • Civics and Government: 10.2%
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-e The presentation of the data was clear, thorough and easy to follow across all of the evidence groups. On page 8 the SEA identifies the following subjects as having the highest rates of non-HQT: Geography, Economics and Civics and Government.  
    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 Under its Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Planning (CCIP), Ohio has developed a template for LEAs to use to track their highly qualified teacher status as well as ensuring that all LEAs have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ as quickly as possible. Specific steps included in the CCIP tool are listed on page 10 of the plan.  
    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 Ohio used the following procedure to identify LEAs that have not met the annual measurable objectives for HQT:
    1. If the district was not 100% in 2003-04, the Ohio Department of Education expected to see an increase of at least 50% of the difference between the actual and 100% by 2004-05 (i.e., District A was at 80%, the Ohio Department of Education would set the benchmark at 90% for 2004-05). If the district did not reach 100% in 2004-05, the benchmark was set to an expected growth of 50% of the difference in 2005-06.
    2. Once a district reached 100%, its benchmark was expected to stay at 100%. If it went down, the benchmark for the next year was set using the logic above (50% of the difference).
    3. All districts in Ohio are expected to be at 100% Highly Qualified Teachers status by 2006-07.
    In the school year 2004-05, Ohio had 613 traditional public school districts that were to meet the “annual measurable objective.” Of those 613 traditional public school districts, 382 did not meet their benchmark objectives in 2004-05. The median percentage for traditional public school districts not meeting their HQT benchmark was 3.1%.

    Ohio had 222 community schools that were to meet the “annual measurable objective” in 2004-05. Of those 222 community schools, 98 did not meet their benchmark objective. The median percentage for community schools not meeting their HQT benchmark is 50%. While community schools present a larger challenge in meeting benchmarks, the 50% may be skewed because several community schools did not report HQT data. While the percentage of teachers not designated as Highly Qualified is high in community schools, the actual number of teachers in this situation is very low since most community schools have a very small teaching staff.

    (See Appendix B for Source File.)*

    (page 9) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-a See overall peer review response for Requirement 2. 
    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 LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives are required to benchmark progress in meeting highly qualified teacher requirements and objectives. Each LEA must submit a District Plan for Meeting Section 1119 Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals. The planning tool is available online in Ohio’s Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP) web-based application. It includes a needs assessment, goals, performance measures, strategies and action steps (Refer to document entitled “District Plan for Meeting Section 1119 Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals” under Section 2.3).

    (page 9) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-b Under its Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Planning (CCIP), Ohio has developed a template for LEAs to use to track their highly qualified teacher status as well as ensuring that all LEAs have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ 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 Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Planning

    Ohio is focused on helping districts maximize the impact of their resources to improve student achievement. To maximize the impact of resources, districts must start with a focused plan for improvement, and then allocate resources in alignment with the plan. Progress has been made in developing strategies and tools and promoting quality planning among districts over the past year. One important resource that has contributed to this progress is the state’s Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Planning (CCIP) tool. Districts use this tool to apply for competitive grants and develop improvement plans. The Ohio department of Education scores district school improvement plans to ensure that:

    • Districts are engaging in coherent, data driven, ongoing planning based upon their needs assessment and disaggregated student achievement data
    • Goals, performance measures and strategies align to district needs and are focused on student results
    • Scientific, research-based, ongoing assessments are being implemented (screening, diagnostic and achievement) to measure student progress
    • Effective, scientific, research-based early intervention strategies are included in the plan to meet the needs of all students.
    • Scientific, research-based, ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators targeting student achievement are being provided
    • Parents and community are engaged in student achievement efforts
    • Resources align to the plan goals, and the plan shows evidence of reallocating and leveraging available resources (fiscal, personnel, time, facilities, technology, etc.) to impact student achievement
    Each CCIP is scored based upon a rubric to determine if it has met the required “standards of quality.” If not, the plan is returned to the district and technical assistance is provided to help districts improve their plan.

    The CCIP District Plan for Meeting Section 1119 Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals includes a requirement for designated LEAs to identify specific action step(s) to assist all non-HQ teachers to become qualified as quickly as possible.

    As part of the CCIP, the Ohio Department of Education has created a template for district HQT plans.

    Note: Requirements for district HQT plans are described on pages 11-13 of Ohio's Revised HQT plans.

    (pp. 10-11) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-c Under its Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Planning (CCIP), Ohio has developed a template for LEAs to use to track their highly qualified teacher status as well as ensuring that all LEAs have plans in place to assist all non-HQ teachers to become HQ as quickly as possible. Specific steps included in the CCIP tool are listed on page 10 of the plan. 
    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 Ohio’s Regional School Improvement Teams (RSIT) provide assistance to districts and schools not making AYP. As stated on page 14, priority is given to districts with less than 90 percent highly qualified and not meeting their highly qualified objectives for two consecutive years.

    The plan addresses the needs of the special education teachers by mounting a two-prong initiative as described on page 22 of the plan. Additionally, Ohio developed core content specific course offerings through 15 universities statewide for 7-8th grade teachers teaching core courses with an elementary (K-8) license.

    The SEA will monitor the use of Title funds in schools failing to meet the HQT and AYP goals.  

    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 Ohio’s Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP) application system includes an electronic web-based planning tool to assist the LEA to plan for meeting Section 1119 requirements. The CCIP aligns program budget allocations in the funding application with the district plan. The CCIP houses resource information in the “documents library” to assist districts in planning programmatic goals and setting performance measures. Three scoring rubrics rate the district overall plan, needs assessment and resources alignment. LEA application approval is based on a standard of quality measured by the rubric scores.

    Ohio’s Regional School Improvement Teams (RSITs) provide assistance to districts and schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress.  Priority for assistance in implementing district level HQT plans will go to districts with less than 90% HQT and not meeting their HQT objectives for two successive years.  Additional support is being requested for budget years 2008 and beyond to provide additional field staff to support districts and schools in School Improvement status and districts not meeting at least 95% HQT.

    State level data and reporting systems will monitor which districts meet the following criteria:

    • District is in District Improvement or has one or more buildings in School Improvement status, and
    • District has less than 90% HQT
    Regional School Improvement Teams (RSIT) will work with districts in “District Improvement” status and districts with one or more buildings in “School Improvement” status that also have less than 90% HQT to:
    • Review the district’s plan for getting teachers to highly qualified status
    • Develop customized strategies and action steps to support the district’s plan
    • Provide access to state-funded high quality professional development that can assist teachers in becoming highly qualified
    • Monitor and report to the Ohio Department of Education the district’s progress in implementing identified strategies and action steps

    (page 14) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-a See overall peer review response for Requirement 3. 
    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 Ohio’s Regional School Improvement Teams (RSITs) provide assistance to districts and schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress.  Priority for assistance in implementing district level HQT plans will go to districts with less than 90% HQT and not meeting their HQT objectives for two successive years.  Additional support is being requested for budget years 2008 and beyond to provide additional field staff to support districts and schools in School Improvement status and districts not meeting at least 95% HQT.

    Ohio’s priority districts—districts that are the lowest performing—are the primary target for all state initiatives of professional development.

    Regional School Improvement Teams identify strategic and focused support for districts by:

    • Analyzing the Report Card results to identify districts most in need of improvement (priority districts)
    • Creating profiles of priority districts, using information from discussions with the district leadership team and a review of district accountability data
    • Creating a plan for each service delivery area to provide professional development and technical assistance, targeted first to priority districts
    • Deploying services and evaluating their effectiveness

    Priority districts are those with:

    • Buildings in School Improvement status (SIS)
    • Buildings in At-Risk Status or School Improvement Delay status
    • Buildings that met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years and have exited School Improvement status
    • Districts in District Improvement status, Academic Watch or Academic Emergency (not already identified in the other priority areas)
    Prioritized Incentives for Professional Development

    The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) follows a three-tiered approach to providing incentives for professional development. Districts with buildings in School Improvement status and districts in District Improvement status are targeted first to receive incentives for state professional development initiatives, including the State Institutes for Reading Instruction (SIRI), Ohio Mathematics Academy Program (OMAP) and Ohio Science Institute (OSCI). Districts with buildings in At-Risk status are targeted next, then all remaining districts, as space is available.

    Prioritized Use of District Funds

    Under section 2122(b)(3) districts have assured that they will target Title II-A funds to schools that:

    • Have the lowest proportion of HQT
    • Have the largest average class size, or
    • Are identified for School Improvement under section 1116(b) of Title I, Part A

    Ohio requested an amendment to Part III, Subsection 1.b. of the Ohio Department of Education’s Consolidated State Plan (See Appendix D).

    Ohio requested the state response be amended to read:

    The pool of schools eligible for consideration will be from the list of Title I schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring. In accordance with section 1003 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 the following criteria will be used:

    • Serve the lowest-achieving schools;
    • Demonstrate the greatest need for school improvement funds; and
    • Demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring the funds will enable the lowest achieving schools to meet the progress goal included in their school improvement plans under section 1116(b)(3)(A)(v).

    For purposes of making determinations related to lowest achieving, proficiency percentages from the State Achievement Tests will be used. For purposes of demonstrating the greatest need for school improvement funds, a School Improvement status (school improvement, corrective action or restructuring) will be used. For purposes of demonstrating commitment, a district and any buildings desiring funding, must sign a letter of agreement to meet specific conditions related to focusing on standard business requirements (see examples, page 18).

    Priority for funding will be given to districts with high numbers of schools in a School Improvement status, high percentages of schools in a School Improvement status, high numbers of students not proficient, and high percentages of students not proficient.

    (pp. 14, 15-18) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-b Ohio’s Regional School Improvement Teams (RSIT) provide assistance to districts and schools not making AYP. As stated on page 14, priority is given to districts with less than 90 percent highly qualified and not meeting their highly qualified objectives for two consecutive years. 
    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 Ohio’s new standards for teachers, principals and professional development provide a solid framework for a coherent, aligned system to improve teacher quality. The state provides a number of opportunities for its teachers to meet the definition of highly qualified in the core subjects of mathematics, science, language arts/reading and social studies, including free online courses and college and university workshops. In addition, the state’s 16 Special Education Regional Resource Centers provide resources for special education teachers to become high qualified. The Ohio Department of Education also has formed partnerships with Ohio’s large urban school districts to produce in-house workshops, which are supported by Title I federal funds. These continuing efforts, as well as summer workshops now in session, will assist in ensuring all Ohio teachers meet federal requirements.

    Ohio’s HQT Training Opportunities

    Ohio’s Special Education Regional Resource Centers (SERRCs) were provided IDEA Part B discretionary funds to assist intervention specialists to meet HQT requirements. Specifically, use of these dollars was restricted to supporting special education intervention specialists who (1) were working at the middle or secondary school level (i.e., above the sixth-grade level); (2) were designated “teacher of record” in delivering instruction in one or more core academic subject areas to students with disabilities; and (3) did not meet HQT requirements in the core academic subject areas taught.

    eTech Online Courses

    eTech Ohio and the Ohio Department of Education provide online professional development courses targeted to Ohio’s kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators. New courses offered during the 2005-06 school year included the Ohio Mathematics Academy Project (OMAP), Ohio Science Institutes (OSCI), Social Studies Institutes (SSIO), Standards Based Education Module I and II, Implementing Technology Academic Content Standards, and 21st Century Skills.

    Teachers-on-Loan Program

    The Teachers-on-Loan Program (TOL) is designed to support teachers and administrators in building capacity in understanding and implementing standards-based education. The content of the experiences is fully aligned to Ohio’s academic content standards with the goal of improved student achievement. Teachers “on loan,” directly from the classroom, will provide support through intensive coaching.

    Ohio’s Programs in Mathematics to Ensure that Ohio Teachers Become Highly Qualified

    • P-6 Mathematics Specialists
    • K-3 Mathematics
    • Middle Grade Mathematics (MGM)
    • Topics Foundational to Calculus
    • Ohio Mathematics Academy Program (OMAP)
    • Mathematics and Science Partnerships

    TeachOhio

    The Ohio Department of Education is collaborating with the Ohio Board of Regents and the Centers for Excellence in Math and Science Education to increase the number of highly qualified math and science teachers in middle and secondary schools. This $1,000,000 initiative provides an opportunity for institutions of higher education to use non-traditional licensure routes to recruit mathematics and science teacher candidates from non-traditional populations.

    STARS-System to Achieve Results for Students

    The System to Achieve Results for Students (STARS) provides a consistent, streamlined method of collecting data across all Ohio Department of Education (ODE) offices and other entities providing professional development or technical assistance on behalf of ODE. The consistency of this data collection will allow the ODE to enhance decisions around service delivery and its effectiveness in increasing teacher quality.

    Note: For more detailed descriptions of these programs, refer to pages 18-22 of Ohio's Revised HQT Plan.

    (pp. 18-22) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-c See overall peer review response for Requirement 3. 
    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 The Ohio Department of Education has analyzed the percentages of core courses taught by Highly Qualified (HQ) teachers as well as data from the Ohio Teacher Supply and Demand Report. The State has paid particular attention to two subgroups of teachers: special education teachers and middle school teachers.

    Special education teachers in Ohio are licensed to teach students with disabilities in all grades (K-12) and in all subjects. Without content-specific preparation, most special education teachers in grades 7-12 were not highly qualified. Further, these teachers generally teach multiple subjects, and thus had to demonstrate their qualifications in multiple subject areas. An added complicating factor is that special education is the area in which Ohio has historically issued the greatest number of temporary credentials. To address these issues, Ohio mounted a two-prong initiative. First, the state offered content-specific professional development for special education teachers free of charge in 16 regions across the state. Second, the state implemented intensive one-year programs at 13 universities to move special education teachers from temporary licensure to full licensure, again free of charge. Both of these programs will continue in the coming years.

    The second group of teachers in which Ohio evidenced a significant highly qualified teacher gap was seventh- and eighth-grade teachers teaching core courses with an elementary (K-8) license. While the K-8 licensure has not been available for new teachers since 2002, there are many veteran teachers holding this credential. Ohio developed content-specific course offerings and professional development through 15 universities statewide for these teachers. These programs will continue in the coming years.

    Additionally, professional development and additional resources have been targeted to teachers of mathematics, science, and foreign language. 

    Based on the findings from the data analyses completed for this report, Ohio will provide targeted professional development, in partnership with colleges and universities, for the state’s geography, economics and civics/government teachers.

    (pp. 22-23) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-d The plan addresses the needs of the special education teachers by mounting a two-prong initiative as described on page 22 of the plan. Additionally, Ohio developed core content specific course offerings through 15 universities statewide for 7-8th grade teachers teaching core courses with an elementary (K-8) license. 
    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 The Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio Board of Regents use state and federal dollars to sponsor, initiate and conduct opportunities for improving teacher quality.

    In January 2006, the Ohio Board of Regents released 26 awards totaling $3.2 million to support mathematics and science education improvements in Ohio. The project links 15 Ohio colleges and universities with high-need school systems in an effort to improve mathematics and science student performance. These Math and Science Academies provide opportunities for over 2,500 math and science teachers to receive professional development in the Ohio Academic Content Standards, hands-on inquiry-based, problem-solving approach to teaching and learning science and mathematics. Participation in these activities will count toward becoming Highly Qualified.

    Additionally, the Ohio Department of Education supports the following teacher quality initiatives with Title II funds:

    Intensive Training for Special Education Teachers

    Since 2002, the greatest numbers of temporary licenses have been issued to special education teachers. In response to this situation, the Ohio Department of Education partnered with 13 universities to create intensive, accelerated programs for these teachers to become fully licensed. The program consists of focused summer courses, on-line courses and weekend meetings. Teachers participate in cohorts and complete their licensure requirements.

    Appalachian Teachers

    The state legislature directed that a large portion of Ohio’s Title II funds be diverted toward professional development for teachers in Ohio’s Appalachian area. Significant funds have been used for distance learning and technology-based professional development for these rural teachers in southeastern Ohio.

    Content-Focused Professional Development

    Federal dollars support professional development in the content areas for teachers who are not highly qualified. The state’s focus for professional development has been on seventh- and eighth-grade teachers with K-8 credentials and special education teachers. Both of these groups of teachers needed content-focused professional development to become highly qualified. ODE created partnerships between Education Service Centers (ESCs), Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and Local School Districts (LEAs) to provide job embedded, ongoing sustainable professional development delivered to teachers on-site and on time.

    Math/Science Partnerships

    The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recently announced the award of more than $4 million in competitive grants to provide mathematics and science professional development to teachers in high-need school districts. The grants are funded through the U.S. Department of Education’s Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program, authorized by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

    The grants will help 1,800 teachers in high-need school districts increase their knowledge of mathematics and science and will ensure that teachers in these high-need schools are highly qualified.

    ODE awarded 10 grants to partnerships between Ohio colleges, universities and high-need school districts. The grants address either mathematics or science or both. The following colleges and universities will partner with more than 100 neighboring school districts:

  • Cleveland State University, Case Western Reserve University and John Carroll University, mathematics and science, $549,999
  • Kent State University, mathematics, $275,558
  • Miami University and Xavier University, science, $547,303
  • Ohio University, Shawnee State University and University of Rio Grande, science, $188,089
  • Otterbein College and Capital University, mathematics, $451,931
  • University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University, mathematics and science, $550,000
  • Wright State University, mathematics, $309,969
  • Wright State University, science, $314,844
  • Youngstown State University, mathematics, $510,821
  • Youngstown State University, science, $464,697

    Mathematics and science faculty members will work with schoolteachers to study techniques for implementing Ohio’s mathematics and science academic content standards in their classrooms. Other initiatives designed to help Ohio educators update their mathematics teaching skills include:

    The Mathematics Coaches Project, a partnership with The Ohio State University, where mathematics faculty train kindergarten through grade six math teachers to serve as “coaches” for elementary teachers in schools that are at-risk because of low student performance in mathematics.

    K-3 Mathematics: The Early Foundation, which helps K-3 teachers develop a deeper understanding of early-grade mathematics, as well as skills in teaching mathematics through inquiry and the concrete experiences of children.

    Middle Grade Mathematics: The Critical Bridge, a program that prepares teachers through the mastering of mathematics knowledge and instructional approaches that help students in grades four through eight grasp increasingly complex principles of mathematics.

    Topics Foundational to Calculus, a program that highlights the essential building blocks for student success in calculus—algebra, geometry and trigonometry—for mathematics teachers in grades eight to 12.

    The new MSP projects emphasize sustained partnerships at the local level, a change from the statewide OMAP and OSCI programs. Other changes include increasing the professional development programs to at least 80 hours during the first year and 40 hours in the second year. In addition, projects must measure changes in teacher content knowledge, instructional practices and student achievement.

    (pp. 23-25) 

  • Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-e The SEA will monitor the use of Title funds in schools failing to meet the HQT and AYP goals.  
    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 Please refer to Section 3.2 for Ohio’s policies regarding prioritization of professional development.

    In addition, please refer to Ohio’s Teacher Equity Plan for a description of state strategies to address the staffing and professional development needs of low-performing schools (See Requirement 6).

    (page 25) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-f See overall peer review response for Requirement 3. 
    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 state has provided a detailed description of its monitoring of the LEAs and their progress toward the highly qualified teacher goals.

    The SEA will monitor the use of Title funds in schools failing to meet the HQT and AYP goals.

    Pages 27-30 list the CCIP district plan, needs assessment, and RSIT as being targeted toward LEAs and schools that are not making AYP. 

    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 Ohio’s Procedure to Monitor LEA Compliance

    All districts are randomly assigned by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) for compliance monitoring. Each year, a cohort, composed of one-third of the districts receiving Titles I, II-A, II-D, III, IV-A, V, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-B) and Early Childhood Special Education funds, is monitored. One-third of Ohio’s 21 urban districts are assigned to a cohort to allow for a more controlled workflow. The list of districts is posted in the Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP) Document Library. In each year, the following monitoring activities are completed:

  • 1/3 of districts (the cohort) conduct a self-evaluation
  • 10-20% of the cohort receive a telephone review
  • 10-20% of the cohort receive an on-site review
  • 100% of districts receive a desk audit

    Self-Evaluation

    • Districts in the cohort are required to complete an on-line self-evaluation prior to June 30th of each year. The cohort includes one-third of all districts, so all districts are included within three years.
    • Authorized district personnel access the self-evaluation through their ODE web portal account.
    Telephone Review

    • A minimum of 10% of the districts in the cohort are selected for a telephone survey. The telephone survey is conducted with all districts in the cohort that did not respond to the self-evaluation and selected districts with at least one or more of the following characteristics:
      • District identified for improvement or at least one building in School Improvement status
      • Size of a single or combined award for Titles I, II-A and IDEA-B equals at least $300,000
      • Change in the leadership of federally funded programs
      • Audit, CCIP application and/or monitoring issues
      • No on-site review during the cohort year
      • Random selection by an ODE consultant
    • The purpose of the telephone survey is to verify and clarify responses in the self-evaluation and to obtain documentation
    • The purpose of the telephone survey is to verify and clarify responses in the self-evaluation and to obtain documentation
    • The telephone survey is generally conducted in August, September or October following submission of the self-evaluation for the prior year
    On-site Review

    • A minimum of 10% of the cohort districts, including seven urban districts, receive an on-site review. The selected districts have one or more of the following characteristics:
      • District identified for improvement or at least one building in School Improvement status
      • Size of a single or combined award for Titles I, II-A and IDEA-B equals at least $300,000
      • Change in the leadership of federally funded programs
      • Audit, CCIP application and/or monitoring issues
      • Random selection by an ODE consultant
    • The ODE consultant uses a checklist of legal requirements and direct observation of program implementation to monitor compliance
    • Approximately 30 working days after the onsite review, a written report is sent to the district
    Note: The SEA (Office of Quality Assurance) is in the process of implementing the fourth tier of the Program Audit Compliance and Tracking System (PACTS), the Desk Audit. One of the items in the Desk Audit involves comparing every district’s HQT percentage (as reported in EMIS) to the checkbox on the Title I Set Asides page of the CCIP indicating that the LEA “certifies that it will meet the HQT requirements by 2005-2006.” Additional data items from the CCIP that may be used to verify that LEAs are working toward meeting their HQT requirements are (1) the amount set aside for HQT professional development on the Title I Set Asides page, (2) the Allowable Activities on the Title II-A Budget Details page, and (3) the Allowable Activities on the Title V Budget Details page.

    (pp. 26-27) 

  • Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-a The state has provided a detailed description of its monitoring of the LEAs and their progress toward the highly qualified teacher goals. 
    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 The CCIP District Plan Needs Assessment requires the LEA to analyze HQT data in order to meet staffing and professional development needs. The CCIP District Agency Plan requires the LEA to include strategies that support goals and performance measures targeting ongoing training and professional development. For schools not meeting AYP, the LEA is required to include specific action steps in the District Agency Plan.

    Ohio’s priority districts – districts that are the lowest performing – are the primary target for all state initiatives of professional development.  Regional School Improvement Facilitators create District Partnership Agreements in which ODE staff commit to providing job-embedded professional development at or near the buildings in districts identified as having the greatest needs.  Teachers teaching in these buildings are given first opportunity to register for the professional development and, only after a substantial amount of time, are other teachers permitted to register for the remaining available spots. 

    The Office of Field Relations serves as the liaison for school improvement services between the Ohio Department of Education and Ohio’s school districts. The office works through 12 Regional School Improvement Teams to deliver professional development and technical assistance with the sole intent of building the capacity of Ohio’s school districts to increase student achievement.

    The state system has 12 regional service areas that are guided by a Regional School Improvement Team (RSIT). Members of the RSIT work collaboratively to provide a variety of services to school districts, especially districts with buildings in School Improvement status. To help Ohio reach its goals, the Office of Field Relations collaborates with other internal ODE offices to coordinate an integrated statewide system of school improvement services. This system makes available aligned resources, information, tools, professional development and technical assistance to improve student achievement. During the 2005-06 school year, activities were developed in response to data analyses findings and deployed strategically to districts most in need. This will continue in the 2006-07 school year.

    Regional School Improvement Teams identify strategic and focused support for districts by:

    • Analyzing the Report Card results to identify districts most in need of improvement (priority districts)
    • Creating profiles of priority districts, using information from discussions with the district leadership team and a review of district accountability data
    • Creating a plan for each service delivery area to provide professional development and technical assistance, targeted first to priority districts
    • Deploying services and evaluating their effectiveness
    Regional School Improvement Teams provide expertise in:
    • High-quality professional development
    • Coaching district leadership to improve effectiveness and efficiency of systems to design and implement standards-based instructional practice
    • Technical assistance in analyzing and using data
    • Special services such as educator licensure, data analysis and support for students with disabilities
    Each Regional School Improvement Team plans regional activities that address common areas of need in the service area. These activities are targeted to priority districts, but made available to other districts on a space-available basis.

    Priority districts are those with:

    • Buildings in School Improvement Status (SIS)
    • Buildings in At-Risk Status or School Improvement Delay status
    • Buildings that met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years and have exited School Improvement status
    • Districts in District Improvement status, Academic Watch or Academic Emergency (not already identified in the other priority areas)
    Prioritized Incentives for Professional Development

    The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) follows a three-tiered approach to providing incentives for professional development. Districts with buildings in School Improvement status and districts in District Improvement status are targeted first to receive incentives for state professional development initiatives, including the State Institutes for Reading Instruction (SIRI), Ohio Mathematics Academy Program (OMAP) and Ohio Science Institute (OSCI). Districts with buildings in At-Risk status are targeted next, then all remaining districts, as space is available.

    Incentives for participating in state-sponsored professional development are offered under the following conditions:

  • The district must provide evidence that critical mass (50 percent of teachers plus one) is reached at the building level in the specific content area of professional development. This includes all sessions, including follow-up sessions. Once ODE has verified that critical mass has been reached at the building, it will provide incentives to the district of $400 for each teacher in that building who has completed the professional development. The funds will be paid quarterly.
  • This incentive applies to SIRI, OMAP and OSCI.
  • This incentive may be used by the district to pay for substitutes if the state initiative is held during the regular school day. If the district prefers, it may pay for substitutes and use the incentive dollars for materials and resources. Districts also may use the dollars to provide stipends to participants.

    Prioritized Use of District Funds

    Under section 2122(b)(3) districts have assured that they will target Title II-A funds to schools that:

    • Have the lowest proportion of HQT
    • Have the largest average class size, or
    • Are identified for School Improvement under section 1116(b) of Title I, Part A Section 2141 requires that after the 2nd year of the SEA plan described in 1119(a)(2), if the SEA determines that the LEA failed to make progress toward meeting the annual measurable objectives described in section 1119 (a) (2) for two consecutive years, the LEA shall develop an improvement plan to meet those objectives. During the development of the plan, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) will provide technical assistance to the LEA and, if applicable to schools in the LEA. After the third year of the plan, if the ODE determines that the LEA has failed to make adequate progress for three consecutive years, the ODE will enter into an agreement with the LEA on the use of that LEAs Title II-A funds.
     
  • Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-b See overall peer review response for Requirement 4. 
    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 Ohio's data and reporting systems collect and report information on a comprehensive set of data elements related to the characteristics of its teaching force, including the percentage of highly qualified teachers in every school. As a testament to the quality of this system, the U. S. Department of Education showcased Ohio's process for determining HQT status, and for gathering and reporting HQT data, at four national meetings over this past year. Ohio tracks educator data over time for the purpose of analyzing supply and demand trends, demographics, distribution, mobility and compensation; and informing the development of appropriate policies to address any inequities in the distribution of teacher quality.

    Ohio collects and publicly reports data on the distribution of teacher talent including the percentage of highly qualified teachers in each core subject area and the percentage of highly qualified teachers in schools not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Using the November 2004 data (from the 2003-04 school year) on percent of courses taught by highly qualified teachers, ODE determined and notified districts of their district annual objectives for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 that would reasonably ensure the district meets the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers by the beginning of the 2006-07 school year. ODE will then use data submitted in November 2005, 2006, and 2007 to determine if the measurable objects were met. The timeline is as follows:

    Data Source School Year from Which Data is Taken Action to Be Taken Deadline for Action
    November, 2004 2003-2004 Determine district HQT objectives and report to them October, 2005
    November, 2005 2004-2005 Determine HQT "met" or "not met" status for meeting objectives and report status to districts. January, 2006
    November, 2006 2005-2006 Determine HQT "met" or "not met" status for meeting objectives and report status to districts. January, 2007
    November, 2007 2006-2007 Determine HQT "met" or "not met" status for meeting objectives and report status to districts. January, 2008
    November, 2008 2007-2008 Determine HQT "met" or "not met" status for meeting goal of 100% and report status to districts. January, 2009
    Subsequent year Subsequent fiscal year Continue annual process Subsequent year

    The Ohio Department of Education informs and monitors each district of its progress toward reaching the goal of 100 percent of teachers being highly qualified (See Appendix E). Following is an excerpt from the letter used by the Ohio Department of Education to notify districts that failed to meet their benchmarks.

    "An analysis of data regarding highly qualified teachers that your LEA has submitted to ODE over the past two years indicates that during the 2003-2004 school year, [XX] percent of core courses were taught by highly qualified teachers. During the 2004-2005 school year, this percentage was [XX]. In order to reach the goal of 100 percent of core courses being taught by highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, your LEA should have reached a benchmark of [XX] percent during the 2004-2005 school year. Therefore, according to these data, your LEA did not meet the benchmark and is not on track to meet the 100 percent requirement by the end of this school year."

    High-Quality Professional Development

    All teachers need ongoing training and support, but especially those working in low-performing schools. Ohio is committed to providing high quality professional development to educators over the entire continuum of their careers. The foundation for Ohio's system of professional development is the state's new professional development standards. These new standards, adopted by the State Board of Education in 2005, are aligned with findings from national research and consistent with the definition of high-quality professional development contained in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB requires the Ohio Department of Education to annually report the percentage of teachers who have participated in High Quality Professional Development (HQPD) as defined in Title IX, Section 9101 (34). Ohio has developed the appropriate reporting mechanisms to meet those requirements.

    Ohio's professional development standards are not minimal expectations. Schools that successfully implement these standards should expect to see higher quality teaching and increased student achievement. These standards will be used to inform the types of professional development that Ohio teachers should include as part of their career growth. To accomplish this, the state will promote research-based professional development that demonstrates improved student achievement and is tied to school improvement efforts.

    The SEA (Office of Quality Assurance) is in the process of implementing the fourth tier of the Program Audit Compliance and Tracking System (PACTS), the Desk Audit component of the procedure to monitor LEA compliance with the LEAs" HQT plans. One of the items in the Desk Audit involves comparing every district's HQT percentage (as reported in EMIS) to the checkbox on the Title I Set Asides page of the CCIP indicating that the LEA "certifies that it will meet the HQT requirements by 2005-2006." Additional data items from the CCIP that may be used to verify that LEAs are working toward meeting their HQT requirements are (1) the amount set aside for HQT professional development on the Title I Set Asides page, (2) the Allowable Activities on the Title II-A Budget Details page, and (3) the Allowable Activities on the Title V Budget Details page.

    (page 32)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-c The SEA will monitor the use of Title funds in schools failing to meet the HQT and AYP goals. 
    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
    1. Public reporting of each district’s percentage of core academic courses not taught by highly qualified teachers on the State and Local Report Cards.
    2. If LEAs fail to meet HQT goals, 5-10% of a district’s Title I funds are required to be used for professional development and/or testing to get teachers Highly Qualified and paraprofessionals Qualified.
    3. Parent Notification Letter: As required by the No Child Left Behind Act, parents/guardians in Ohio are notified that their child has been assigned, or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks, by a teacher/substitute who is not “Highly Qualified.”
    Districts not making progress toward the annual measurable objects for three consecutive years must enter into an agreement with the Ohio Department of Education that describes mutually agreed to strategies and activities that the district and affected buildings will use to ensure the annual measurable objectives are met. The district and ODE will monitor the implementation of the strategies and activities. Districts entering into this agreement will not be permitted to use Title I, Part A funds to hire paraprofessionals after the date a determination is made regarding the district. Exceptions to this may be made if the district is replacing currently Title I funded paraprofessional positions, requires additional qualified paraprofessionals due to a significant influx of students or in the case there is a demonstrated need for additional translators or assistance with parent involvement activities.

    School/District Improvement Plan Requirements

    A School or District Improvement Plan must:

  • Incorporate research-based strategies
  • Address all groups of students
  • Spend 10% or more of Title I funds on professional development
  • Specify how funds will be used to get out of School Improvement or District Improvement
  • Set measurable objectives
  • Ensure notification to parents of School Improvement or District Improvement status and options
  • Specify applicable responsibilities of school, district, and the Ohio Department of Education
  • Include strategies for effective parental involvement
  • Incorporate extended learning opportunities to be offered
  • Provide for a teacher mentoring program

    Note: See NCLB Accountability Chart on page 36 of Ohio’s Revised HQT Plan.

    Note: For the full state plan to address requirement 4-d, including district responsibilities for buildings in school improvement, responsibilities for districts in district improvement, and a timeline for LEA improvement expectations with sanctions for failure at each stage, refer to pages 32-36 of Ohio’s Revised HQT Plan.

    (pp. 32-36) 

  • Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-d See overall peer review response for Requirement 4. 
    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 met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative The state timeline for the completion of the HOUSSE process by veteran teachers is found on page 37. Ohio has not implemented the rural school option but will allow Special Education/Intervention Specialist teachers to continue to use the HOUSSE. 
    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 state has established a timeline whereby all veteran teachers, except special education/intervention specialists, will have completed or will be completing the HOUSSE by September 1, 2006. Teachers already engaged in the HOUSSE process will have until January 1, 2007 to complete all HOUSSE requirements and report that information in the final EMIS submission on February 1, 2007.

    For those veteran teachers who are returning to the profession after an extended absence (i.e. maternity, military duty, lengthy illness, etc.), a process is being established where they may apply to the state to utilize the former HOUSSE process to demonstrate content competency. This extension will be granted on a case-by-case basis and the returning teacher will have 12 months to complete the process. The state anticipates that these numbers will be very small. 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-a See overall peer review response for Requirement 5. 
    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?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 5-b See overall peer review response for Requirement 5. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-b As stated in Section 5.1, Ohio will phase out the use of the HOUSSE option in 2006. The state has redesigned the HQT reporting system to reflect this phase-out. Multi-subject special education teachers will continue to have the HOUSSE option to achieve HQT status in the core content areas.

    Ohio has not implemented the rural school option. With the exception of new Intervention Specialist, teachers may not initiate the use of any HOUSSE options after September 1, 2006. Teachers enrolled in professional development to meet a HOUSSSE option prior to September 1, 2006, may complete the requirement. 

    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 met.
  •  
    Peer Review Supporting Narrative Ohio’s equity plan has gone beyond the highly qualified teacher goals to address the challenge of the issue of teacher effectiveness and the placement of effective teachers in the most challenging environments. Ohio should be commended for its equity plan’s focus on the distribution of effective teachers. This is found on page 14 of the equity plan. Also, on page 14 of Ohio’s equity plan, the data analysis findings identify several areas of inequity at both the district and school level. On page 21 Ohio lists its strategies for dealing with out-of-field teaching in high poverty low performing schools.

    (Peer Review, p.1, 8)  

    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
    Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    PART I:
    The Message is Clear: High Quality Teachers Make a Difference in Student Learning

    • What Does the Research Tell Us?
    • Ohio's Dual Focus: Accountability and Teacher Quality
    • Closing in on the Goal: 100% Highly Qualified Teachers
    • The Key to Equitable Teacher Distribution: Policy Coherence and Targeted Strategies

    PART II:
    Examining the Data: Where, and to What Extent, do Inequities in Teacher Assignments Exist in Ohio?

    • Quantitative Data Analyses and Findings: District Level
    • Quantitative Data Analyses and Findings: School Level
    • Case Study Data Analyses and Findings: Ohio's Schools of Promise

    PART III:
    Ohio's Strategies to Ensure that Poor and Minority Students are Not Being Taught at Higher Rates than Other Children by Inexperienced, Unqualified and Out-of-Field Teachers

    Key Strategies Key Strategy 1: Increase the percentage of highly qualified teachers in Ohio to 100%
    Key Strategy 2: Continuously monitor the distribution patterns of Ohio's teachers to ensure that poor and minority students are not being taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified and out-of-field teachers
    Supporting Elements and Sub-Strategies
    Element 1 Data and Reporting Systems
    Element 2 Teacher Preparation
    Element 3 Out-of-Field Teaching
    Element 4 Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
    Element 5 Professional Development
    Element 6 Specialized Knowledge and Skills
    Element 7 Working Conditions
    Element 8 New Compensation Systems
    Element 9 Policy Coherence

    PART IV:
    Ohio's Plan to Conduct Ongoing State-Level Monitoring of Teacher Distribution Patterns in Local Education Agencies References

    (Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan, pp. 2-3)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-a Ohio’s equity plan has gone beyond the highly qualified teacher goals to address the challenge of the issue of teacher effectiveness and the placement of effective teachers in the most challenging environments.

    (Peer Review, p.1)  

    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 Ohio researchers worked within the parameters established by the state's recently completed two-year partnership project with The Education Trust (see Appendix A). Over the course of the project, extensive district-level and school-level quantitative analyses of the distribution of teacher characteristics across different kinds of students were conducted, with a targeted focus on the distribution of teachers to the state's low-performing, high-need schools. The researchers examined several measures of teacher quality within every school: highly qualified status for all teachers, highly qualified status for mathematics and science teachers, inexperience and educational attainment. Teacher quality data were then compared to school demographic variables -- the percentage of low-income students and the percentage of minority students (Driscoll & Fleeter, 2005).

    Major findings from the district-level and school-level quantitative data analyses indicate that some inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers exists in Ohio as outlined below:

    Major Findings from Quantitative Analysis of District-Level Teacher, School and Student Characteristics

    • Major urban, high poverty districts have significantly fewer highly qualified teachers than the state average
    • Lower achieving districts employ fewer highly qualified teachers
    • Districts with larger percentages of minority students employ fewer highly qualified teachers
    • No significant differences were found at the district level with regard to "years of experience" of Ohio's teachers
    Major Findings from Quantitative Analysis of School-Level Teacher, School and Student Characteristics
    • A higher percentage of teachers who are not considered to be "Highly Qualified" is correlated with the following:
      1. Lower rating on School Report Card; particularly Academic Emergency schools
      2. Higher percentage of students in poverty in the school - particularly > 90%
      3. Lower percentage of students who are white or Asian - particularly < 20%
    • Analysis of patterns of teacher experience found little relationship to school variables
    • Contrary to conventional wisdom, the percentage of inexperienced teachers (3 years or less) does not appear to be correlated with school report card rating, percent poverty, or student racial composition. In some cases, the relationship is the opposite of what might be expected.
    • These patterns are apparent across Ohio's elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools

    Footnote:

    In schools with less than 10 percent of low-income students, only 1.5 percent of the teachers were not highly qualified as opposed to 11.9 percent in schools with 90-100 percent low-income students. The lowest performing high schools had more than six times as many teachers who were not highly qualified compared to the highest performing schools. In schools serving the lowest percentage of minority students, 2.1 percent of teachers were not highly qualified, compared to schools that had the highest number of minority students (90-100 percent) where six times as many (12.1 percent) of the teachers were not highly qualified.

    (Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan, pp. 9-10, 14) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-b Ohio should be commended for its equity plan’s focus on the distribution of effective teachers. This is found on page 14 of the equity plan.

    Also, on page 14 of Ohio’s equity plan, the data analysis findings identify several areas of inequity at both the district and school level.

    (Peer Review, p.8)  

    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 Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan is built upon two key strategies. These key strategies are (1) based on the major findings from Ohio's quantitative and qualitative data analyses, and (2) targeted on identifying, correcting and monitoring any inequitable distribution of the state's highly qualified, experienced teachers:

    Key Strategy 1:
    Increase the percentage of highly qualified teachers in Ohio to 100%

    Key Strategy 2:
    Continuously monitor the distribution patterns of Ohio's teachers to ensure that poor and minority students are not being taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified and out-of-field teachers

    Supporting Ohio's two key strategies is a comprehensive set of 68 sub-strategies, organized around nine supportive elements, that clearly demonstrate Ohio's good faith effort to ensure that poor and minority children are not being taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified and out-of-field teachers.

    Two key criteria guided the development of Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan:

    Criteria 1:
    Ensure that the 68 strategies are targeted on improving the distribution of effective teachers in Ohio's high-need schools, and

    Criteria 2:
    Ensure that the strategies are aligned with Ohio's long-term strategic education goals and policy environment.

    Element 3: Ohio's Out-of-Field Teaching Sub-Strategies
    To reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education & bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty, low-performing schools.

    3. 1
    End the temporary licensing of teachers in Ohio

    3. 2
    Publicly report up-to-date information on teacher certificates/licenses held and notify districts when teachers are not properly credentialed in the subjects they are assigned to teach

    3. 3
    Develop and implement a Revised HQT Plan that outlines state initiatives to ensure that 100% of Ohio's teachers will be highly qualified by the 2006-2007 school year; Provide a variety of professional development opportunities for teachers to become highly qualified

    3. 4
    Expand high-quality alternative routes into the profession to allow individuals with relevant expertise in hard-to-fill subjects to enter the profession; Ensure that all routes into teaching and the principalship are high quality and standards based

    3. 5
    Streamline licensing and certification procedures
    3. 6 Provide stipends to teachers for teaching mathematics, science or special education in schools that have been identified as hard-to-staff

    3. 7
    Provide funds to school districts to contract with institutions of higher education to provide instruction in mathematics, science and foreign language

    3. 8
    Develop and fund partnerships with institutions of higher education to train already licensed teachers to become certified in high-need subject areas

    3. 9
    Support the development of partnerships between institutions of higher education and high-need school districts to provide professional development for teachers in the hard-to-staff subject areas of mathematics and science

    3. 10
    Provide technical assistance to hard-to-staff school districts to help them fully utilize all of the features of the state's web-based recruitment system

    3. 11
    Promote partnerships that help districts recruit and hire qualified international teachers of hard-to-fill subjects and specializations

    3. 12
    Utilize a Credential Review Board to review the licensure applications of alternative route and out-of-state candidates

    Note: Although the peer review of Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan referred specifically to the strategies for dealing with out-of-field teaching in high poverty low performing schools on page 21, these sub-strategies under Element 3 are only one component of Ohio's comprehensive strategic plan. The other 8 elements' respective sub-strategies address various aspects of the overall goal "to ensure that poor and minority students are not being taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified and out-of-field teachers." Note: For complete list of Ohio's strategies addressing inequities in teacher assignment, including the 2 key strategies, 9 supportive elements and 68 sub-strategies, refer to Part III of Ohio's Equity Plan, pages 13-35. http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/ohep.doc

    (Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan, p.13, 20-22)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-c Ohio’s equity plan has gone beyond the highly qualified teacher goals to address the challenge of the issue of teacher effectiveness and the placement of effective teachers in the most challenging environments.

    On page 21 Ohio lists its strategies for dealing with out-of-field teaching in high poverty low performing schools.

    (Peer Review, p.1, 8)  

    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?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 6-d Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan is built upon two key strategies. These key strategies are (1) based on the major findings from Ohio's quantitative and qualitative data analyses, and (2) targeted on identifying, correcting and monitoring any inequitable distribution of the state's highly qualified, experienced teachers.

    Supporting Ohio's two key strategies is a comprehensive set of 68 sub-strategies, organized around nine supportive elements. The 68 sub-strategies are the result of findings from Ohio's district- and school-level quantitative data analyses, Schools of Promise case study research, the expertise of The Education Trust partnership project's working group and national research on teacher quality.

    Ohio took a targeted and careful approach in developing this comprehensive set of strategies. Recognizing that too often states develop strategies that aren't refined enough to meet the real staffing and teacher quality distribution issues of their school districts, two key criteria guided the development of Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan:

    Criteria 1:
    Ensure that the 68 strategies are targeted on improving the distribution of effective teachers in Ohio's high-need schools, and

    Criteria 2:
    Ensure that the strategies are aligned with Ohio's long-term strategic education goals and policy environment.

    Note: Beginning on page 15, Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan provides a breakdown of each of the nine supportive elements with corresponding sub-strategies. Each of these sections includes evidence for the probable success of the element's sub-strategies to achieve the element's overall goal (as stated in the textbox at the beginning of each element section). The beginning page number of each supporting element and evidence of its probable success is provided in the list below.

    It may be instructive to note the important components of Ohio's evidence for the probable success of each supporting element and corresponding sub-strategies, including:

    • Identifying general and specific needs to be addressed by strategy
    • Identifying specific goal(s) to be met through implementation of the strategy
    • Providing rationale for strategy chosen to address stated needs, including:
      • National and state research by various groups with pertinent data, analysis, and recommended policy accommodations that support the chosen strategy
      • Applicable federal requirements and nature of state policy alignment with those requirements
    • Providing current status of the issue within the state including existing problems and progress/successes made toward strategy goal(s)
    Evidence for the Probable Success of Supporting Elements and Sub-Strategies:

    Element 1: Data and Reporting Systems
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 1 sub-strategies to develop the teacher data and reporting systems needed to identify and correct any inequities in teacher distribution (p.15)

    Element 2: Teacher Preparation
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 2 sub-strategies to build a pipeline of prospective teachers for high-poverty, low-performing schools (p.17)

    Element 3: Out-of-Field Teaching
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 3 sub-strategies to reduce the incidence of out-of-field teaching (particularly in mathematics, science, special education & bilingual education/English as a Second Language) in high-poverty, low-performing schools (p.20)

    Element 4: Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 4 sub-strategies to build a mass of qualified experienced teachers willing to work in high-need schools (p.23)

    Element 5: Professional Development
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 5 sub-strategies to strengthen the skills, knowledge and qualifications of teachers already working in high-poverty, low-performing schools (p.26)

    Element 6: Specialized Knowledge and Skills Evidence for the probable success of Element 6 sub-strategies 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 (p.28)

    Element 7: Working Conditions
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 7 sub-strategies to improve the working conditions in high-need schools that contribute to excessively high rates of teacher turnover (particularly high quality leadership) (p.30)

    Element 8: New Compensation Systems
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 8 sub-strategies to develop and implement new compensations systems (p.33)

    Element 9: Policy Coherence
    Evidence for the probable success of Element 9 sub-strategies to improve internal processes or revise state policies that may inadvertently contribute to local staffing inequities (p.34)

    (Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan, p.13, 15-35)  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-d Not addressed.

    (Peer Review, p.8)  

    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 Ohio's strategies for monitoring teacher distribution patterns in local education agencies (LEAs) include
    • Collect and publicly report data on the distribution of teacher talent including the percentage of highly qualified teachers in each core subject area and the percentage of highly qualified teachers in schools not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
    • Collect data on teachers' certificates/licenses held; Enable educators, parents and other stakeholders to review up-to-date information on the credentials of their school's teachers and leaders and the achievement levels of various groups of students through a web-based data system
    • Collect and publicly report data that describes patterns of teacher turnover and mobility, specifically in high-need schools
    • Advocate for the development of a data system that reports the number of teachers changing schools within their district, changing positions within their district, moving to other districts or into administration, or leaving the profession
    • Monitor, on an ongoing basis, the specific staffing needs of Ohio's schools through the generation of data reports that identify subject and location area shortages
    • Utilize and continuously improve a web-based data recruitment system that matches districts' teaching vacancies with prospective educators
    • Require each school district to analyze Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) data in order to meet staffing and professional development needs
    Ohio's data and reporting systems collect information on a comprehensive set of data elements related to the characteristics of the state's teaching force, including the percentage of highly qualified teachers in every school. As a testament to the quality of this system, the U. S. Department of Education showcased Ohio's process for determining HQT status, and for gathering and reporting HQT data, at four national meetings over this past year.

    The state's Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP) requires each LEA to analyze HQT data in order to meet the staffing and professional development needs of Ohio's schools, especially those not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The CCIP District Agency Plan requires the LEA to include strategies that support goals and performance measures targeting ongoing training and professional development.

    The Ohio Department of Education HQT Monitoring and Notification Process

    The Ohio Department of Education notifies each district of its progress toward reaching the goal of 100 percent of teachers teaching within the school district being highly qualified. The federal No Child Left Behind Act calls for all teachers teaching in core academic subjects (English, reading or language arts, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography) to become highly qualified. Section 1119(a)(3) requires that every local educational agency (LEA) "develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching within the school district served by the local educational agency are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year."

    The Ohio Department of Education's procedure for monitoring whether LEAs attain 100% HQT is outlined below:

    Using the November 2004 data (from the 2003-2004 school year) on percent of courses taught by highly qualified teachers, ODE determined and notified districts of their district annual objectives for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that would reasonably ensure the district meets the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers by the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. ODE will then use data submitted in November 2005, 2006, and 2007 to determine if the measurable objects were met.

    Note: This text is an abbreviated version of Ohio's equity plan.

    (Ohio's Teacher Equity Plan, p.36-38) 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-e Ohio should be commended for its equity plan’s focus on the distribution of effective teachers.

    (Peer Review, p.8)  



    © 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